Aileron Posted January 20, 2008 Report Posted January 20, 2008 Wow, that article single-handedly describes everything I hate about liberals. Good find.
WongKonPow Posted January 21, 2008 Report Posted January 21, 2008 that's the funny thing about very liberal thinking, it ends up being more close-minded than conservatives could ever be.
JDS Posted March 15, 2008 Report Posted March 15, 2008 Ironic, you anti liberals still voted to ban me cause you didn't like what i said and did.
Aileron Posted March 15, 2008 Report Posted March 15, 2008 It's actually quite worse than that actually. Islamic culture can't change to fit with a western culture because it would collapse if it bent that far. It would be like trying to jury-rig feudalism into being compatible to a modern three body federal republic. To be honest it can barely hold up to the pressures of modern science and technology. There was no Islamic equivalent to Thomas Aquinas. They don't have a concept of separation between church and state. Additionally, their religion has had no historical impetus to mature the same way most others have, and thus it hasn't taken steps to root out supers!@#$%^&*ion and promote charity. The result is a group of secular/religious/tribal leaders who have absolute authority over small groups of people by hereditary rights. Over history, larger leaders were simply tribal leaders who won the support of the other tribes, tribes that could on a whim change their allegiance. Thus, their history is full of 'empires' that could grow and fall as the result of a single battle, because many of the supporting tribes would change allegiance upon news of their leader's defeat. (These were considered religious leaders, so losing a battle was considered a sign of loss of Allah's support.) Their idea of democracy is an extension to how they have operated historically. The members of the tribes vote for whoever their leader tells them to, and whoever has the most tribal support wins. To be sure, the very concept of rigid nations with fixed borders is a Western one. Islamic empires grew as far as the caliph's supporters, and the edges of his empire would wax and wane with every daily event. This caused a great slowdown in their advancement. The foundation of European advancement started when kings started taking power away from the nobles. This was only possible because the nobles were bound to loyalty to their king, and thus a noble didn't have the authority to order his subordinates to oppose his king. In the first case the monarchs caused rapid advancement in the socioeconomic and scientific capacity of their nation directly, and after that they caused the possibility of national scale revolutionaries to eventually take over. However, with the more fluid Islamic feudalistic structure, the monarchs could not consolidate power without alienating their base of support. Without nationally consolidated power, all disagreements could only result in local tribal revolutions which could only replace one tribal leader with another. Thus any movement to advance socioeconomic status could not reach the critical m!@#$%^&* necessary to employ any changes on a large enough scale to make those changes permanent. If I had to do a root cause analysis on the problem, I'd say it was caused by Asia and the desert. There was simply too much inhabitable land to make the strict land ownership and feudal loyalty which occurred in Europe and east Asia possible. With modern technology and larger population levels, controlling the desert is now possible, leading to a slow collapse of the traditional Islamic hierarchy.
JDS Posted March 15, 2008 Report Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) This forum isn't a country. perhaps, but the people who make up the countries also make up this forum.. Also my two cents. I don't imagine that Islam could ever become 'westernized' .. In fact that word should not even exist. Why should we want to westernize them? This is more of a battle between Old Religion and New Religion.. (both bad religions) but.. it will never be a simple matter of converting old to new, or new to old.. This is classic black on white !@#$%^&*, so unless we agree to go to a more gray zone and ignore our deep roots in the old and new religions of the earth.. there will be war and killing and bickering Edited March 15, 2008 by JDS
Recommended Posts