4 ms·

Why not call the flaws what they are? The diffusion of values seems to be a very slow process, if it works at all given the ever growing Muslim population. The

Why not call the flaws what they are? The diffusion of values seems to be a very slow process, if it works at all given the ever growing Muslim population. The percentage of third generation Muslims in Western countries who still don't really oppose ideas of violence and misogyny in the Quran and who would prefer to return to a social order of the lifetime of Muhammed is astonishingly high (~30%), and Muslim fanatics in the Middle East are also often highly educated. They know about Western values, but they don't value them. Why should they, given that our view is all wrong to them? It boils down to the simple question whether value diffusion is faster than they breed and escape possible upcoming droughts and whether there really is potential for a major cultural clash. Some people say it's obvious in one way or the other. I really don't know. I am also not convinced by anything I'm writing, I am just trying to get some confirmation or disconfirmation of these sort of ideas.

abalone 10y ago
And what would be the percentage of Christians in Western countries who don't really oppose ideas of violence[1] and misogyny[2] in the Bible and would prefer to return to a traditional social order? [1] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10635510/Women-bishops-We-Christians-need-to-face-up-to-facts-about-Bible.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10635510/Women-...
- hacker42 10y ago
  There is a difference in the percentages and arguably in the degree of accepted violence and actually lived misogyny. There is definitely a difference in the extremes (Islam is currently the only ideology to produce suicide bombers in such large quantities). There is also a difference in that the Bible is regarded to consist of interpretations of God's words, whereas the Quran is regarded to contain a direct transcript of Allah's words.
  - abalone 10y ago
    And what would be the degree of accepted violence by Christian extremists, historically?[1][2][3][4] Can we even begin to compare it? Subtly narrowing the definition of "violence" to "suicide bombers" alone serves a political agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
    - hacker42 10y ago
      Back then the inhibition level for violence was much lower than it is today, even in the Middle East. Also the Christian culture went through various changes, i.e. the French revolution and enlightenment, which have never occurred in Islamic cultures. Even the kind of enlightenment in the Golden Age were deeply motivated by religion and were hence inherently unstable and also limited. I am talking about the cultural difference today, not in the past, about aggression and harmful traditions occurring in reasonably stable and educated middle classes. Note, that I am not trying to whitewash the past of Christianity; both sets of beliefs are bad in that they have or had the potential to produce fundamentalism and badly informed decisions, but I am just arguing for a qualitative difference between Islam and Christianity (especially today's Christianity and Islam), i.e. one is much worse than the other. Today's Christianity does not produce anything as Islam does in other troubled regions such as African countries, even though these people would be in their 'right' to take vengeance for e.g. centuries of slavery, right?
      - abalone 10y ago
        Literally Christians have been the most violent people of the 20th century by orders of magnitude.
        hacker42 10y ago
        But motivated by greed and (geo)politics, rarely by religion. The last sentence in my previous comment was not very clear. What I meant to say is that there are many non-Muslim African countries which have suffered from Western exploitation, yet we don't witness the kind of religiously motivated violence as in Islamic countries with comparable histories. This is an indicator for different dispositions caused by different sets of cultural memes.

abalone 10y ago

And what would be the percentage of Christians in Western countries who don't really oppose ideas of violence[1] and misogyny[2] in the Bible and would prefer to return to a traditional social order? [1] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10635510/Women-bishops-We-Christians-need-to-face-up-to-facts-about-Bible.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10635510/Women-...

hacker42 10y ago
There is a difference in the percentages and arguably in the degree of accepted violence and actually lived misogyny. There is definitely a difference in the extremes (Islam is currently the only ideology to produce suicide bombers in such large quantities). There is also a difference in that the Bible is regarded to consist of interpretations of God's words, whereas the Quran is regarded to contain a direct transcript of Allah's words.
- abalone 10y ago
  And what would be the degree of accepted violence by Christian extremists, historically?[1][2][3][4] Can we even begin to compare it? Subtly narrowing the definition of "violence" to "suicide bombers" alone serves a political agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism
  - hacker42 10y ago
    Back then the inhibition level for violence was much lower than it is today, even in the Middle East. Also the Christian culture went through various changes, i.e. the French revolution and enlightenment, which have never occurred in Islamic cultures. Even the kind of enlightenment in the Golden Age were deeply motivated by religion and were hence inherently unstable and also limited. I am talking about the cultural difference today, not in the past, about aggression and harmful traditions occurring in reasonably stable and educated middle classes. Note, that I am not trying to whitewash the past of Christianity; both sets of beliefs are bad in that they have or had the potential to produce fundamentalism and badly informed decisions, but I am just arguing for a qualitative difference between Islam and Christianity (especially today's Christianity and Islam), i.e. one is much worse than the other. Today's Christianity does not produce anything as Islam does in other troubled regions such as African countries, even though these people would be in their 'right' to take vengeance for e.g. centuries of slavery, right?
    - abalone 10y ago
      Literally Christians have been the most violent people of the 20th century by orders of magnitude.
      - hacker42 10y ago
        But motivated by greed and (geo)politics, rarely by religion. The last sentence in my previous comment was not very clear. What I meant to say is that there are many non-Muslim African countries which have suffered from Western exploitation, yet we don't witness the kind of religiously motivated violence as in Islamic countries with comparable histories. This is an indicator for different dispositions caused by different sets of cultural memes.