MDs, Islam, Medievalism & the Enlightenment

[Mad_Michael]

Thats true. Although Islam has had high points throughout its history this particular era doesn't happen to be one of them. I think the rigidly structured and repressive nature of Islam has held the Muslim people back and severely limited both their technological and cultural growth. After all due to the Qurans proclamations regarding women and their role in society, Islam has wasted the potential for advancement of a large segment of their population. That would be bound to retard progression to some evident degree.

The same could be said of the Christian Church in the medieval era of Europe. They too fought against any technological or cultural growth - seeking to 'hold people back' (including women).

European advancements in technology, trade and politics all came at the expense of the Christian Chruch. The Christian Church fought these things every step of the way with every weapon they had.

[AngusThermopyle]

That is certainly true, they did fight tooth and nail against scientific and social advancement. I think the main difference is that they did not succeed. With this lack of success came a rapid advancement of science, both technological and social. In Islams case this was never achieved. Religion is still the main determining factor for social policies in these countries and as such acts as an anchor on the sensibilities of their populations. It's pretty hard to advance new ideas when those very ideas are prohibited in many cases by the words of a conquering warlord 1500 years dead and severe sanctions, up to and including death, are the punishment for such heretical thoughts and activities.

As for the subject of "Divine Right". Nothing particularly new or even European here. Remember, the Egyptians amongst many others believed this (the Egyptians just happen to be the most prominent example I can recall at the moment). Unfortunately many Muslims believe to this day that Mohammed was directly endorsed by Allah and as such they act accordingly. What is interesting though is the fact that Mohammed kind of just made stuff up as he went along in order to excuse or legitimize his excesses and debauchery. One would think that this would be obvious and apparent to any who read his words.

[Riverwind]

You are apparently ignoring the (Christian) Byzantine Empire - which formerly ruled over the entirety of the Turkey and the Middle East and established the principle in the region.

The Byzantines were not the spirtual founders of Christianity. Muhammend is the equivalent of Jesus Christ in Islam.

And the 'divine right of kings' was a concept invented by the Christian Church in Europe, not by feudal lords.

The term divine right is not really used in Islam. I used to term illustrate the idea that there is a much stronger connection between the religious leadership and the political leadership in Islamic society.

[AngusThermopyle]

I don't think the term "Divine Right" has any real application in Islamic Society. When one considers that the entire judicial and societal fabric of Islamic society is intimately bound to their religious beliefs it would appear that "Divine Right" is more of an accepted given than something which must be specified.

All in all an extremely silly concept.

[Riverwind]

I don't think the term "Divine Right" has any real application in Islamic Society. When one considers that the entire judicial and societal fabric of Islamic society is intimately bound to their religious beliefs it would appear that "Divine Right" is more of an accepted given than something which must be specified.

That is what I said.

[AngusThermopyle]

Oh, sorry if I didn't catch that. In that case you're absolutely right. :-)

[ScottSA]

I beg to differ, I don't see any threat from Christians (medieval or otherwise) we have separation of church and state, constitutions, charters etc. There is no moral comparison between what the radical Islamists want (subservience and world wide sharia law) and any other religion.

However, when Christians start indiscriminately blowing up anyone they don't like and start strapping bombs onto their kids, let me know and I'll revise my thinking.

1. Canada does not have "separation of Church and State". Please supply a citation for this alleged 'separation' in Canadian law.

2. Christian terrorists murdering doctors in the USA obviously don't count. And they are a lot closer to me than the suicide bombers you speak of.

3. How about those good Christian boys out there in Wyoming that beat Matthew Sheppard to death for sport?

4. And how about that American McVie character? Or PETA fanatics? There's home-grown terrorists of a type that poses a major danger to my personal safety and security. Much more so than suicide bombers on the other side of the planet.

Plenty of superstitious violence lying around to choose from. I find Islam-bashing a bit too selective for my tastes.

This kind of moral equivalency is such utter nonsense I can't believe you say it with a straight face. Hundreds of people a day are killed by Muslims all over the world on every continent, and the murderers cheered on by significant portions of Islam all over the world including your own country, and you single out a couple Christian freaks and claim they are putting you in more danger? Is this a form of insanity that is sweeping across the west? A willfull blindness?

[AngusThermopyle]

It would appear to be so. I believe a lot of it is caused by fear, people just don't want to admit that there are threats to themselves in this world. Unfortunately there are, very present ones that cant be denied.

Western civilization is known for it apologetic guilty nature, it has been for quite some time now.

[jbg]

Muslims have tremendous issues with sex. It's the most obvious feature of life in the Middle East. I myself have started threads on this issue.

So, maybe ScottSA has a point. We're not dealing with medievalists. We're dealing with the sexually frustrated.

As usual, a well put-together, thoughtful thread. I am also disturbed that Marc Steyn left out the part about American Muslims. The point may be that a society that is genuinely open to their joining it has less to fear from the Muslims' superstitions/sexual frustraton/hatreds.

I don't know how good or bad Canada is on this score, but I think this is another pat on the back for the American "melting pot" model and a mark against multiculturalism.

[bush_cheney2004]

As usual, a well put-together, thoughtful thread. I am also disturbed that Marc Steyn left out the part about American Muslims. The point may be that a society that is genuinely open to their joining it has less to fear from the Muslims' superstitions/sexual frustraton/hatreds.

Agreed....America has a long and mostly peaceful domestic experience with Islam, including the Nation of Islam, founded in 1930. Long integrated into the African-American experience through the civil rights movement, anti-war movement (M. Ali), and mosques, American Muslims are now estimated at 5 to 8 million.

As a practical matter, Muslim immigrants to the USA (or Canada) are leaving what is often unstable political and economic conditions for a better future. As we know, Europe has done a far poorer job of integrating immigrant and native born Muslims into society.

[scribblet]

2. Christian terrorists murdering doctors in the USA obviously don't count. And they are a lot closer to me than the suicide bombers you speak of.

3. How about those good Christian boys out there in Wyoming that beat Matthew Sheppard to death for sport?

4. And how about that American McVie character? Or PETA fanatics? There's home-grown terrorists of a type that poses a major danger to my personal safety and security. Much more so than suicide bombers on the other side of the planet.

Plenty of superstitious violence lying around to choose from. I find Islam-bashing a bit too selective for my tastes.

None of which comes close to the extent of carnage committed in the name of Allah or Islam, and I don't think the cases you mentioned other than the anti abortionists were committed in the name of Christianity. The incidents you mention are few, neither do I read about using kids as human bombs or teaching kids that Muslims are 'apes and pigs'...there is absolutely no moral equivalence to what is happening today in the name of Islam.

Re: integration Europe - North America. Maybe the difference is in the numbers, I wonder if we had the same what would happen.

Today, Islamis the largest minority religious denomination in Europe. There are more Muslims than Catholics in the Protestant north, and more Muslims than Protestants in the predominantly Roman Catholic countries. There are about 15 million Muslims in Western Europe, but only about 25 have been elected to European parliaments. What happens when they achieve much larger political representation as for the most part they bring their political and religious agendas with them. Many of Europe's Islamic associations are nothing but a cover for banned Islamic orgs. in their home countries. Muslim political activism appears to be much higher in Europe than here - so far.

[ScottSA]

Muslims have tremendous issues with sex. It's the most obvious feature of life in the Middle East. I myself have started threads on this issue.

So, maybe ScottSA has a point. We're not dealing with medievalists. We're dealing with the sexually frustrated.

As usual, a well put-together, thoughtful thread. I am also disturbed that Marc Steyn left out the part about American Muslims. The point may be that a society that is genuinely open to their joining it has less to fear from the Muslims' superstitions/sexual frustraton/hatreds.

I don't know how good or bad Canada is on this score, but I think this is another pat on the back for the American "melting pot" model and a mark against multiculturalism.

I think there is more research you need to do on what is going on in America. Read up on Michigan. It's when Muslims get together in enough numbers to reach that critical mass that enabled exclusion that things start to get hairy. In theory, the melting pot atomises everyone, but in fact it doesn't really work that way, and even less so with visible minorities, and far less so with Musselmen.

[jbg]

Re: integration Europe - North America. Maybe the difference is in the numbers, I wonder if we had the same what would happen.

The same reasons that Catholics were unwelcome in Britain for much of the post-Reformation period, and Jews not really welcome until the 1830's (remember, Disraeli had to be raised Episcopalian in order to have certain privileges), the Hugenots were not welcome in France, and "fill in the blank" ethnic group was not welcome in Germany/Prussia, and the same reason these divisions and proscriptions didn't exist in the New World, is the same reason that Muslims are integrating in the US.

Italians and Jews came in large surges as well, and integrated quite nicely.

[Mad_Michael]

You are apparently ignoring the (Christian) Byzantine Empire - which formerly ruled over the entirety of the Turkey and the Middle East and established the principle in the region.

The Byzantines were not the spirtual founders of Christianity. Muhammend is the equivalent of Jesus Christ in Islam.

The point is that the Byzantines ruled over all of the Middle East. The political principle of the 'divine right of kings' was absolute throughout the Middle East region and people long before Islam came along.

And the 'divine right of kings' was a concept invented by the Christian Church in Europe, not by feudal lords.

The term divine right is not really used in Islam. I used to term illustrate the idea that there is a much stronger connection between the religious leadership and the political leadership in Islamic society.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of this.

It would be more clear to state that within the Islamic world, there is no recognition or acknowledgement of the principle of separation of Church and State. It just doesn't exist.

The application of the term 'divine right of kings' is completely inaccurate to apply to Islamic culture since it asserts that the King's own viewpoint would trump the word of the Koran and that is not so.

[Mad_Michael]

None of which comes close to the extent of carnage committed in the name of Allah or Islam, and I don't think the cases you mentioned other than the anti abortionists were committed in the name of Christianity.

The point was not to measure 'world-wide-total-threat-to-world-peace' assessment.

I was assessing the direct threat to me as a citizen of Canada. In this respect, those other types I mentioned pose an equal or likely greater likelihood of actual or potential danger to me than all the Islamic terrorists in the world.

Statististically speaking, the odds of an Islamic terrorist attack causing me harm is so close to zero as to be impossible to measure. However, there are 'abortion clinics' near where I live. Some whacko trying to blow one of those up (or take rifle shots at some doctors there) is a very real possibility of danger to me personally.

Just trying to keep some perspective here.

[KO2]

I have always wondered at people's need to have a complete story that they can grasp from begining to end in order to be reassured about what?

Why not be satisfied as "god" reveals something small that you can grasp, to you personally.

This personal relevelation might come to those who are able to receive it as a reward for truly seeking, not by following mindless belief.

By allowing no possibility of expression reflecting the real world of evolutionary change, only rote memory, every theology becomes a stagnant backwater of irrelevant answers written in beautiful, insightful (for its times) prose.

Is this world of religious violence and chaos really the result of a supreme being's careful plans?

I see only man's attempts at early political control in religion, instead of countries with borders, primitive societies were united behind a mental fence, all in order to apply, even in 2007, the concept of the "other."

Still today the sun never sets on The Holy Roman Empire, although it has no physical borders.

And still the believers who crave the simple, yet all inclusive, answers, rather than expend the energy to be on a personal openminded quest, rule the world.

When will this primitive madness ever end?

[jbg]

When will this primitive madness ever end?

I know you're trying to say something. Could you find a clearer way to express yourself? There are many tools for such expression in the English language.

[KO2]

jbq can you not understandstand what I meant?

When will this oppression of reason by religion ever end?

When will we see the end of ideological strife?

When will the human race ever climb from the caves of the holymen and declare, peace?

[Bonam]

When will this oppression of reason by religion ever end?

Generally, that has been decreasing slowly, at least in the West (discounting the resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity in the US). Will never completely end though.

When will we see the end of ideological strife?

Never, that much should be fairly obvious.

When will the human race ever climb from the caves of the holymen and declare, peace?

Wouldn't expect it to happen until we find ourselves in an interstellar war with an alien race that wants to whipe us all out ;p

Edited July 10, 2007 by Bonam

[Mad_Michael]

When will this oppression of reason by religion ever end?

Religion doesn't oppress reason. It may try, but it rarely succeeds.

When will we see the end of ideological strife?

You won't.

It is apparently part of human nature that we really like having diversity of opinions - especially in matters of faith. Such differences of opinion are generally irreconcilable.

When will the human race ever climb from the caves of the holymen and declare, peace?

Probably around the time we stop killing people in the name of peace.

[Mad_Michael]

I have always wondered at people's need to have a complete story that they can grasp from begining to end in order to be reassured about what?

I have always wondered at people's need to attack other people's need to have a complete story that they can grasp from beginning to end.

I don't presume to judge their reasonings or justifications for same.

I just observe that they do it.

When will this primitive madness ever end?

Are you referring to the need of some people to attack religion and/or religious faith?

If so, I'm pretty sure it will never end. Such crude boors seem to get off on it.

[KO2]

It will all come again, as soon as this cycle is over.

[ScottSA]

It will all come again, as soon as this cycle is over.

What's with all the sophomoric mysticism? How come you like to blurt out these meaningless and usually trite slogans?

[Bonam]

It's a quote from the popular fantasy series, the Wheel of Time ;p

[Mad_Michael]

It will all come again, as soon as this cycle is over.

What's with all the sophomoric mysticism? How come you like to blurt out these meaningless and usually trite slogans?

And they are different from your posts how?