The Thin White Line

[Wilber]

I look at it this way: western liberalism triumphed over feudalism. It outlasted the two most advanced and pervasive totalitarian ideologies of the 20th Century. So, I have to questiion the intestinal fortitude of those who think we're going to fold up our tents when confronted with a backwards and primitive ideology like radical Islam. For all the talk of the west's "self-hatred" it seems to me that those who proclaim the ludest about the danger of radical Islam are those who doubt our way of life. Oh, some might not go as far as D'Souza in blaming the west's excesses, but you'l find similar thoughts from people like Mark Steyn and David Horowitz.

I agree but I also think many people are wondering if our society is losing its cohesiveness and whether the will to unite strongly enough would be there in such a case. I don't know if this is so but the last time Canada was forced to unite in this manner was during WWII and Canada was a very different country. Even then there was resistance in Quebec. It's been so long and the country has changed so much, it is not surprising that many wonder if we could still pass such a test. The fact that we now have home grown terrorists who wish to kill as many of their fellow citizens as possible increases these doubts about our ability to unite against a repressive and ruthless enemy. I don't know if all this concern is valid but it sure is understandable.

[M.Dancer]

I look at it this way: western liberalism triumphed over feudalism.

I thought mercantilism triumphed over feudalism?

[Black Dog]

I agree but I also think many people are wondering if our society is losing its cohesiveness and whether the will to unite strongly enough would be there in such a case. I don't know if this is so but the last time Canada was forced to unite in this manner was during WWII and Canada was a very different country. Even then there was resistance in Quebec. It's been so long and the country has changed so much, it is not surprising that many wonder if we could still pass such a test. The fact that we now have home grown terrorists who wish to kill as many of their fellow citizens as possible increases these doubts about our ability to unite against a repressive and ruthless enemy. I don't know if all this concern is valid but it sure is understandable.

I understand such concerns. I don't know how this country would respond to a threat on the scale of the Nazis. However, I don't much see the point in creating a boogeymany out of Islamic terrorism just to test it.

[sharkman]

Yes, even if these sentiments are repeated around here againandagainandagain, the two fundamentalists are not the same. But go ahead, believe Christians are blowing themselves up to kill others and get virgins, but those who can see with objectivity will keep smiling up their sleeves.

I did not say "Christians are blowing themselves up to kill others and get virgins". I asked why MSM doesn't distinguish between Christians and radical Islam, and indeed on the difference between right and wrong.

Sharkman, why are you attacking me?

Oops, I forgot about this odd thread, and just noticed that jbg thought I was attacking him. Perhaps poor wording on my part, but I was actually agreeing with you jbg. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Black Dog]

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

Since when do fundamentalist Christians (stop using the offensive contraction, please) regularly blow themselves up to cause indiscriminate death. I am not Christian, but your comparison is vile.

So, the only difference between them is simply the means by which the two groups lobby for political and social change?

[M.Dancer]

Not entirely...extremist fundies are partial to bombs and sniper attacks

[Wilber]

So, the only difference between them is simply the means by which the two groups lobby for political and social change?

If you want to use "only'" to describe the difference between any group that tries to advance it's cause by peaceful, legal means and and one that tries to do it by murder and fear, I guess that would be true.

[Black Dog]

If you want to use "only'" to describe the difference between any group that tries to advance it's cause by peaceful, legal means and and one that tries to do it by murder and fear, I guess that would be true.

I used "only" because every time someone trots out a facile comparison between fundamentalist conservative Christianity and its Islamic counterpart, the response from outraged Xtians is invariably an invocation of suicide bombing and/or terrorism in general. From that, one can assume that the methods and degree of violence the respective groups favour is the key distinguishing feature between them, since it is the one that comes most readily to the lips of those who defend fundamentalist Christianity.

IOW, when I read that, it comes off as an admission that yeah, fundamentalist Christians would be happy with a society where young women are stoned to death for having sex, where gays are hung from cranes, and where absolute obediance to religious law as set down on some ancient scrap of papyrus is demanded. It's just that they are not about to blow themselves up to acheive their goals (apparently prefering to "advance (their) cause by peaceful, legal means.")

Now, I'm glad Christianity has mostly given up its old habits of putting non-belivers to the sword and is mostly working peacefully to acheive its ends. It's just that I find the ends some of its radical members are working towards and the ideas they esposue to be utterly repugnant.

[jbg]

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

Since when do fundamentalist Christians (stop using the offensive contraction, please) regularly blow themselves up to cause indiscriminate death. I am not Christian, but your comparison is vile.

My point is that one is barbaric, the other isn't.

So, the only difference between them is simply the means by which the two groups lobby for political and social change?

Even if that were, that's a very major difference. One's civilized. One isn't.

[Wilber]

It's just that they are not about to blow themselves up to acheive their goals (apparently prefering to "advance (their) cause by peaceful, legal means.")

I could care less if they blow themselves up, what's important is they don't try to blow you or me up.

[Black Dog]

Even if that were, that's a very major difference. One's civilized. One isn't.

See, I disagree. Civilization is about more than violence (and face it, our good Judeo Christian ethic seldoms shys away from violence: we're just way better at it than they are). It's about ideas and ideals. Christianity's murderous tendancies were mostly curbed by the rise of secular rationalism and the ideals of the Enlightenment: the very ideals loathed by radical Mulsims and fundamentalist Christians alike. The only reason there aren't more North American Christian fundies blowing up abortion clinics and bashing gays is that they are products of liberal western society and thus restrained by it. I've little doubt, though, that given the chance and the power, they'd use whatever force they could to ram their supersitisious beliefs down our throats. IOW, there's nothing inherently more civilized about fundamentalist interpretations of Christian dogma.

[M.Dancer]

Christianity's murderous tendancies were mostly curbed by the rise of secular rationalism and the ideals of the Enlightenment: the very ideals loathed by radical Mulsims and fundamentalist Christians alike.

I would say you got that backwards.....mankinds murderous tendancies are curbed by christianity...didn't rationalsim give us wonderful programmes like Stalin's farm collectivisation?

[Michael Hardner]

Even if that were, that's a very major difference. One's civilized. One isn't.

jbg,

Don't you think it's wrong to write off an entire group of people based on the actions of a few ? We haven't applied that to other religions or nations either.

[Black Dog]

I would say you got that backwards.....mankinds murderous tendancies are curbed by christianity.

Do you think it's coincidental that, as religion has declined in importance in western society, so has war and violence?

[M.Dancer]

When did that happen, exactly?

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think it's coincidental that, as religion has declined in importance in western society, so has war and violence?

To take two social trends and imply they are linked is pure supposition.

[M.Dancer]

Really, you think there's some trend there? Says who?

[Michael Hardner]

Really, you think there's some trend there? Says who?

Says Black Dog...

Decline of war and violence, decline of religion...

You can dispute the former trend if you like. I won't. It doesn't matter either way - you could associate the decline of religion to the decline of the hula hoop without evidence.

[M.Dancer]

I'm more interested in this supposed decline in war and violence. I'm all for a decline.....I just don't see it.

In my life time I have seen (looking at western nations fighting) vietnam, Ireland, Spain, Nicaruaga, Cuba, El Salvador, Colombia, Guatamala, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Falklands, Rhodesia, Algeria, South Africa, Mozanbique, Israel-egypt-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan-Lebanon-Saudi Arabia-yemen..., Iraq, Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, Iraq(2), Afghanistan, Afghanistan(2) Ivory Coast, Congo Somalia, libya, Cyprus, Grenada, Panama, Malaya.....

I'm sure I left a dozen out......

And that's the last 47 years of western fighting

[Black Dog]

To take two social trends and imply they are linked is pure supposition.

Let me clarify: religion is in decline for the same reasons war is: greater education, greater economic and material well being, better governance in the form of the spread of liberal democracy. That's the link.

[M.Dancer]

War may be in decline on Perlandra....but not on earth

[Michael Hardner]

Well, it's still not provable but it seems more reasonable now somehow...

[M.Dancer]

All that better education means is we can kill people more smartly. Better economy means we can have more chrome on our weapons and better governance mean fick all

[Black Dog]

I'm more interested in this supposed decline in war and violence. I'm all for a decline.....I just don't see it.

Take a look at your list again: the vast majority are conflicts involving developing countries. So that doesnt disprove my thesis that the tendancy to go to war decreases as a state embraces liberal democracy.

[M.Dancer]

I'm more interested in this supposed decline in war and violence. I'm all for a decline.....I just don't see it.

Take a look at your list again: the vast majority are conflicts involving developing countries. So that doesnt disprove my thesis that the tendancy to go to war decreases as a state embraces liberal democracy.

Look at that list again. everyone involved a western nation. In fact, some of the more bloodier deathtolls are at the hands of over developed nations.....