Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Solatar on December 01, 2009, 06:12:19 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8388776.stm
European papers are dismayed by Switzerland's popular vote to ban the building of minarets. Some fear it will backfire, sending the wrong signal to the Muslim world and setting a precedent for other parts of Europe.
Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters. However, one popular Swiss tabloid defends the ban as a starting point for a debate on tolerance.
What do you guys think of the ban? Seems absurd to want to ban them from the country, but then again I think the majority population deserves to have their culture respected just as much as the minority.
-
I don't understand how building minarets is a threat to the dominant culture.
-
Honestly, I was just trying to give an "opening statement" encompassing both sides of the argument.
I really don't think it IS a threat to the culture.
-
Interesting thing is that there are currently only 4 minarets in Switzerland.
To me, at least, this is like a protest-vote, people have been worked up into an almost unnatural fear of Islam, partly by the Media, but notably with the more than willing participation of certain militant talking-heads.
The first two thoughts that come into the heads of most non-Islamic people when asked about Islam are either 'Terrorism' or 'Stoning', some people even think the entirety of Sharia law is about who can be stoned and when, and I hate to say it, but there are fair swathes of the Muslim community (admittedly, mostly the younger, male members) who relish the fear and apprehension that creates.
That said, this is almost certainly going to be overturned by the European courts, but it is an interesting result, and it does show that, just as the Christian church had to learn to talk to people instead of preach to them, Islam has a lot of work to do in order to undo the damage done by radicals.
-
I read that as Marionettes the first time, which is to bad since that would have been amusing.
-
Great, now I've visions of Amnesty International posters of Pinocchio...
-
I'd understand a "ban" like this if it were, say, building an over-the-top mosque in an historic village or something; but a country wide ban seems harsh.
-
That'll show those muslim extremists.
-
Exactly, it's a lot of scared people trying to get 'even' with extremism, oddly enough, by promoting it in a way...
-
but there are fair swathes of the Muslim community (admittedly, mostly the younger, male members) who relish the fear and apprehension that creates.
Does it occur to this segment of the Muslim community that making people afraid of them in a non-Muslim country creates the possiblity of riots, pogroms, and outright murders perpetrated by non-Muslims against them? If you go around encouraging people to be afraid of you, that fear will turn into hatred, which will eventually become violence. If they are encouraging this sort of mindset, they are setting themselves up to be discriminated against, harassed, threatened, attacked, and killed, which is bad for the Muslims themselves, bad for public order, bad for European society, bad for human rights, and bad in general.
I'm not saying they should be treated like animals (they absolutely should not), but there is a very significant danger of it happening.
-
Is there a real reason for this ban, or is it just the whim of a paranoid public?
I'd understand a "ban" like this if it were, say, building an over-the-top mosque in an historic village or something; but a country wide ban seems harsh.
Isn't that what zoning laws are for?
-
They banned the putting of onion shapes on top of spires? Those crazy Swiss bastards come up with the most absurd things. :lol:
-
but there are fair swathes of the Muslim community (admittedly, mostly the younger, male members) who relish the fear and apprehension that creates.
Does it occur to this segment of the Muslim community that making people afraid of them in a non-Muslim country creates the possiblity of riots, pogroms, and outright murders perpetrated by non-Muslims against them? If you go around encouraging people to be afraid of you, that fear will turn into hatred, which will eventually become violence. If they are encouraging this sort of mindset, they are setting themselves up to be discriminated against, harassed, threatened, attacked, and killed, which is bad for the Muslims themselves, bad for public order, bad for European society, bad for human rights, and bad in general.
I'm not saying they should be treated like animals (they absolutely should not), but there is a very significant danger of it happening.
Unfortunately, large groups of belligerant young men from just about any denomination are more interested in their own concerns than the knock-on effect of their actions, if a particular view of your religion gets you 'respect' (being the young male version of respect, not the genuine article) then, alas, people who thrive on their 'respect' levels will encourage that image.
-
Interesting thing is that there are currently only 4 minarets in Switzerland.
To me, at least, this is like a protest-vote, people have been worked up into an almost unnatural fear of Islam, partly by the Media, but notably with the more than willing participation of certain militant talking-heads.
The first two thoughts that come into the heads of most non-Islamic people when asked about Islam are either 'Terrorism' or 'Stoning', some people even think the entirety of Sharia law is about who can be stoned and when, and I hate to say it, but there are fair swathes of the Muslim community (admittedly, mostly the younger, male members) who relish the fear and apprehension that creates.
That said, this is almost certainly going to be overturned by the European courts, but it is an interesting result, and it does show that, just as the Christian church had to learn to talk to people instead of preach to them, Islam has a lot of work to do in order to undo the damage done by radicals.
It isn't just damage done by radicals, it is also damage done by holding onto values that frankly are centuries out of date. In terms of social development, by and large with few exceptions they are pretty far behind us. Most of the islamic societies around the world haven't changed in hundreds of years. Such an evolutionary dead end is not something really deserves any respect.
And yes, if our positions were reversed and our society was backwards by hundreds of years, I would say the same thing about us. Fortunately for us, we are not that way.
-
"They"
"us"
"evolutionary dead end"
These terms are dangerous and shouldn't be applied uncritically.
A few hundred years ago it was the Muslim societies that were hundreds of years ahead of us. Change will happen.
-
Once again though, the question is how much of that is representation, after all, if we judge Catholicism purely by the Vatican, we would get a very limited view of the religion as a whole.
It's difficult to untangle Islam the religion from Islam the culture, there are many accomplished scientists, artists and scholars who follow Islam as a religion, but are not so supportive of Islam the culture, only yesterday in the UK, a Muslim peer was pelted with eggs by a few other Muslims because she wore make-up and no veil and therefore 'wasn't a Muslim', kind of like how certain pro-lifers believe that a pro-choice person cannot be a real christian.
The concept a government based on a religion is a self-defeating cause in any situation, because society must change, holding it in place is not only unhealthy, I'm quite certain it is absolutely impossible to do, but Islam the religion is no more dangerous than any other religion.
That's my take on things, anyway :)
@GB: Oddly enough, several hundred years ago, Islam was far more tolerant of new thought and dissenting voices than it is now, in part it's a symbol of how the Religion seeping into the Culture has damaged both.
-
Multiculturalism IS racism/intolerance. You're singling out individuals and treating them differently. Optimally, everything you eat would have a list of the ingredients and what a person looks like or wears won't affect their treatment or perception. And beyond that, no uniforms outside of strictly enforced law enforcement and military would promote equality.
-
Multiculturalism IS racism/intolerance. You're singling out individuals and treating them differently. Optimally, everything you eat would have a list of the ingredients and what a person looks like or wears won't affect their treatment or perception. And beyond that, no uniforms outside of strictly enforced law enforcement and military would promote equality.
What? Uh, no.
I do not even understand how these statements cohere.
-
Multiculturalism is a meaningless word to be honest, it sounds great, like a United Colours of Benetton advert, but it really doesn't mean much, because who defines 'culture'?
In the US, there is Freedom of Speech, to take my earlier example, pro- and anti-abortion. They are, by and large, secular groups, those that attend rallies etc, would not go out for a drink with the 'opposite team' afterwards, they are ideologically opposed enough for it to define their entire relationship.
However, those who simply take the position as a belief, and don't try to make it part of their culture, can often be friends for years without the subject ever coming up, and can still function perfectly well and respectfully as friends afterwards.
The people who create the divides between the cultures are usually the loudest advocates when it comes to defining it, so multi-culturalism is pointless, because it depends on a few peope defining each culture instead of society amalgamating the two as it has done so succesfully countless times in the past in just about every country in the world.
-
"They"
"us"
"evolutionary dead end"
These terms are dangerous and shouldn't be applied uncritically.
A few hundred years ago it was the Muslim societies that were hundreds of years ahead of us. Change will happen.
I fully acknowledge that, but my point still stands. Frankly I don't see change happening, not with Saudia Arabia using its petrodollars to push radicalism and fundementalism. Based on what this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Hoodbhoy) has said (http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml), during the last 50 years the islamic world in general has actually taken a great many steps BACKWARD.
-
I'm seeing a very strange pattern here, and that is this:
muslim = arab
Do you know what the biggest Muslim nation on Earth is?
-
That pattern has to do with how
most many arab countries have a predominant, Islamic culture (and several of those actually enforce Islam as a state religion.) (examples: Iran, Syria, Jordan)
-
Iran is not an Arab country.
-
Hmmm, so it isn't. Then again, how many people do you know that know it isn't? (and it still has state-sponsored Islam)
-
Wow, the depth of misinformation here is staggering.
Most Muslims are not Arabs.
Iran is not an Arab nation and the ignorance of Americans does not change that.
In any case this:
That pattern has to do with how most many arab countries have a predominant, Islamic culture (and several of those actually enforce Islam as a state religion.) (examples: Iran, Syria, Jordan)
is psychologically valid (availability heuristic) but logically laughable; most presidents of the United States are Christian but that doesn't mean that we tend to think of most Christians as presidents of the United States.
-
I'm seeing a very strange pattern here, and that is this:
muslim = arab
Do you know what the biggest Muslim nation on Earth is?
Indonesia
also, it really is a shame what's happened to the muslim world
they were doing great with classical knowledge and learning and hygiene back when europe was having a real ****ty time with feudalism, 30 year lifespans, killing people because it's tuesday, and whatnot. just a shame that they went from being so far ahead to lagging behind like they are now.
-
I'm seeing a very strange pattern here, and that is this:
muslim = arab
Do you know what the biggest Muslim nation on Earth is?
Indonesia
also, it really is a shame what's happened to the muslim world
they were doing great with classical knowledge and learning and hygiene back when europe was having a real ****ty time with feudalism, 30 year lifespans, killing people because it's tuesday, and whatnot. just a shame that they went from being so far ahead to lagging behind like they are now.
As compared with your personal text, I find the above message hilarious. :p
-
I'm seeing a very strange pattern here, and that is this:
muslim = arab
Do you know what the biggest Muslim nation on Earth is?
Yeah, it's Indonesia, but Islamic culture is almost chiefly defined by the thousand plus years of Islam in the Middle East. No, Middle Eastern countries (read: not Arab; Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey would disagree with you) individually don't match up to Indonesia.
But Indonesia didn't invent calligraphy, develop classical Islamic architecture, or implement Sharia.
On a similar note though, Islamic society didn't start to decline in Indonesia either. That was a result of centuries of xenophobia, isolationism, and perversion of Islam occurring after the Middle East's clashes with Europe. So all in all, Kosh was accurate; I'm almost certain he knows Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country.
-
I'm seeing a very strange pattern here, and that is this:
muslim = arab
Do you know what the biggest Muslim nation on Earth is?
Not once did I ever say that, ever. The article that I linked to was partially talking about radicalization and fundementalization of Pakistan, which is also NOT arab. Again, my point still stands. Please read the articles I link to before you go off assuming I'm ignorant.
I stated Saudia Arabia as one of the main souces of all this, because it is. All these decades we've been sending them petrodollars to buy their oil, what do they do with it? Sponsor fundementalist madrasses all over the muslim world, often in NON ARAB nations like Pakistan. Result, combined with a couple of other factors it produces the fundementalism we see in those places.
EDIT: I'll also add that Turkey is one of the few muslim nations to actually make any real progress, particularly resisting this tide of fundementalism. And no, the turks are not arab either.
EDIT2: I'm almost certain he knows Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country.
Thanks for your vote of confidence, your trust is well placed. :)
-
I'm hardly addressing you exclusively. Don't go jumping at shadows.
-
Given that it was right after my last post and nothing was quoted from posts above mine, it is easy to believe it was aimed at me.
-
And now it's been clarified.
-
This is absurd. The purpose of constitutional rights in a society is to prevent the majority from trampling over the rights of a minority. Singling out a particular feature of a particular religion's cultural and architectural heritage is pure xenophobic spite. I am genuinely surprised that this would happen, in Switzerland of all places.
-
All this does is further the alienation and polarization between muslims/others.
I'm not sure which one is it, don't people think at all, or is it that they actually wish for conflicts?
-
I always foster bad relations on 4D strategy games, 'cuz war is the only fun bit to play.
-
Huh. Can't they just change the design? A minaret's just an archaic speaker system. You don't need a tower anymore.
Maybe you could make the tower look like a fortified castle, to make the whiners happy.
-
You think the whiners would be happy about Muslims building fortifications in their city? :p
-
They're Christian-designed fortifications. :pimp:
-
I don't think this really has anything to do with architecture, to be honest :)
-
You know what caught my eye in this news? Not the whole muslim thing but this:
Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.
I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives" are and especially with dealing with different cultures and a democracy where the actual people decide things is an awful thing to have.
-
Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.
Funny, people say the same thing about the initiative/proposition system that California and Washington have. Like it or not, the ability to short-circuit elected representatives exists in parts of the U.S. too...
As an aside, we need to be careful when trying to generalize across scores of nations, ethnicities, and cultures. Islam is no more monolithic in culture or belief than Christianity is.
-
You know what caught my eye in this news? Not the whole muslim thing but this:
Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.
I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives" are and especially with dealing with different cultures and a democracy where the actual people decide things is an awful thing to have.
It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win. Minority positions will always be overruled. Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed. Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.
-
Multiculturalism is a meaningless word to be honest, it sounds great, like a United Colours of Benetton advert, but it really doesn't mean much, because who defines 'culture'?
In the US, there is Freedom of Speech, to take my earlier example, pro- and anti-abortion. They are, by and large, secular groups, those that attend rallies etc, would not go out for a drink with the 'opposite team' afterwards, they are ideologically opposed enough for it to define their entire relationship.
However, those who simply take the position as a belief, and don't try to make it part of their culture, can often be friends for years without the subject ever coming up, and can still function perfectly well and respectfully as friends afterwards.
The people who create the divides between the cultures are usually the loudest advocates when it comes to defining it, so multi-culturalism is pointless, because it depends on a few peope defining each culture instead of society amalgamating the two as it has done so succesfully countless times in the past in just about every country in the world.
this is why I promote assimilation, if you are going to move to a country you should do so because you like the country and want to be part of it's culture, you should not move there and then proceed to try and set up your culture there. this attitude of people moving to a new country and not adapting, when it happens in mass is what causes this sort of paranoia, and I don't think it's entirely unwarranted. and I could be wrong but it seems as though a lot of the people who are condemning the swiss were the same people who were defending the Muslims who were rioting because of a cartoon, you need to examine your position and make sure you are not acting out of xenocentrism.
-
It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win. Minority positions will always be overruled. Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed. Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.
Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?
And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...
Just some food for thought. :)
-
It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win. Minority positions will always be overruled. Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed. Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.
Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?
And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...
Just some food for thought. :)
True, true, I probably should have put a disclaimer that I was responding directly to the question "I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives"[sic] rather then making a political statement in favor of either side. To be honest I'm personally on the fence. On one hand their are benefits to the government being able to step in and do the "right" thing even if it is unpopular. On the other that ability can easily be abused, though I suppose thats what checks and balances is meant to prevent.
In any case I think any democratic state owes itself to making sure its voting population is as well educated as possible and has access to non biased information sources. If only to make sure they make good judgments when electing their representatives, or making qualified decisions on matters they directly effect.
-
I was going to comment on the topic, but since this is already heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society in general... I pass.
-
heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society
:welcome:
-
It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win. Minority positions will always be overruled. Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed. Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.
Which is fine, but what happens when the "morality" is switched? What if it's the government forcing the immoral position, or the people overruling the government for the more moral option?
And whose morality are we talking about anyway? That question gets increasingly difficult in cultures with more diverse belief systems...
Just some food for thought. :)
True, true, I probably should have put a disclaimer that I was responding directly to the question "I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives"[sic] rather then making a political statement in favor of either side. To be honest I'm personally on the fence. On one hand their are benefits to the government being able to step in and do the "right" thing even if it is unpopular. On the other that ability can easily be abused, though I suppose thats what checks and balances is meant to prevent.
In any case I think any democratic state owes itself to making sure its voting population is as well educated as possible and has access to non biased information sources. If only to make sure they make good judgments when electing their representatives, or making qualified decisions on matters they directly effect.
Actually it benefits the rulers not to have well educated electorates because it makes them easier to manipulate.
-
Funny, people say the same thing about the initiative/proposition system that California and Washington have.
Where it has been disasterous.
As an aside, we need to be careful when trying to generalize across scores of nations, ethnicities, and cultures. Islam is no more monolithic in culture or belief than Christianity is.
The problem is that Islam was designed to be a monolithic in culture and belief religion and lacks the mechanisms that would allow it to exist properly in any other state. Islam is not a religion as we of the West understand the term.
-
Islam is not a religion as we of the West understand the term.
yeah it is, they even have catholics (they call them shi'ites). Same deal: worship the invisible man, follow the rules, be nice, go to heaven.
-
heading down the road of a 30-page-rant about politics/ethics/society
:welcome:
WIN.
-
yeah it is, they even have catholics (they call them shi'ites). Same deal: worship the invisible man, follow the rules, be nice, go to heaven.
No, not really, when so much of Islam is rooted in the mores and customs of Arabic tribesmen that you can't really seperate one from another. Indonesia may be the world's largest Islamic country, but Islam's practices have nothing to do with Indonesia. Christianity, for better or worse, adapted as it expanded, absorbing other people's holidays, customs, and practices. (Ask Nuke about it, he ranted on the subject as it relates to Christmas once.) Islam did no such thing.
If Christianity had insisted on practicing mass in its original langauge, Vatican 2 would have been to change the langauge from Aramic, not Latin. Nobody has argued about being unable to learn of the Bible in its original (or rather, not original but official) langauge in several hundred years, but many are the scholars of Islam who will claim the Koran can only be read in Arabic.
Just to top it off, the whole system was set up under the assumption of temporal as well as spiritual power, as Mohammed had both. This is not the case, and Islam has not handled this well, as it lacks mechanisms to police its orthodoxy without the use of the government.
-
No, not really, when so much of Islam is rooted in the mores and customs of Arabic tribesmen that you can't really seperate one from another. Indonesia may be the world's largest Islamic country, but Islam's practices have nothing to do with Indonesia. Christianity, for better or worse, adapted as it expanded, absorbing other people's holidays, customs, and practices. (Ask Nuke about it, he ranted on the subject as it relates to Christmas once.) Islam did no such thing.
Ehhhhhhh, having done some formal research on the aesthetics of performance traditions in Bali and Java, I would have to dispute this. Spiritual practices in Indonesia are actually, to a great extent, the product of a cultural fusion of Vedic religion and mystical Islam. And you can find analogous religious "cocktails" in the Indian subcontinent as well.
-
The claim that Islam did not adapt as it expanded is wrong.
-
Present your evidence please.
-
The vast amounts of Sharia law that came from Persia and other cultures.
-
Where it has been disasterous.
Yeah. I loves me some California, but the system for propositions is not so hot.
And let us not discuss the infamy of Proposition 8.
-
You know what caught my eye in this news? Not the whole muslim thing but this:
Several papers criticise the type of democracy practised in Switzerland, which allows ordinary people rather than elected representatives to decide on such matters.
I wonder why the Swiss are criticize over that since we all know how efficient "elected representatives" are and especially with dealing with different cultures and a democracy where the actual people decide things is an awful thing to have.
It probably has to do with the fact that a straight up vote by the populace means the majority position, whether it is right or wrong will always win. Minority positions will always be overruled. Take desegregation for example, if it was put to a popular vote back in the day it might not have passed. Instead the government was able to step in and make the morally correct call.
In short, Socrates. Maybe even the Puritans.
-
The vast amounts of Sharia law that came from Persia and other cultures.
Hey, we said cite sources, I'm not seeing a source here. I've got the Cambridge University Encyclopedia of Islam, and some other stuff. What have you been reading? :P
-
My high school class on Islam is the first thing that comes to mind. Second thing is a big screed somewhere on feminism in Islam and how things really changed for women once Persian traditions became assimilated into the spread of Islam.
-
I don't know if these challenges were at all directed at me, but if you have access to Academic Search Complete, there's a great article by Susan Pratt Walton entitled "Aesthetic and Spiritual Correlations in Javanese Gamelan Music," which highlights the convergence of the mystical aspects of Islam, Sanskrit traditions, and Sumarah in the context of (surprise!) gamelan.
Primarily, however, I would recommend reading Clifford Geertz-- particularly Islam Observed, in which he contrasts the development of Islam in Morocco and Indonesia. (This might be especially relevant because he deals with the problem of ideologization.)
-
The gamelan aka that creepy Cylon instrument....
-
My high school class on Islam is the first thing that comes to mind. Second thing is a big screed somewhere on feminism in Islam and how things really changed for women once Persian traditions became assimilated into the spread of Islam.
Cambridge University vs. high school, such a hard choice. :p
-
I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.
The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.
-
The gamelan aka that creepy Cylon instrument....
Technically a gamelan is an ensemble, but yeah, Bear McCreary did a kickass job with instrumentation.
-
I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.
The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.
The problem with history is that it is too easily spun around to fit whatever political agenda a certain group may have, which is why the reputation of the source matters. Most people would be inclined to go with what one of the top 5 universities in the world might say about, well, anything.
-
And where is your source for what they say? I must have missed it.
-
I cited historical fact. The means of transmission is irrelevant so long as it's reliable.
The claim that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded is wrong.
The problem with history is that it is too easily spun around to fit whatever political agenda a certain group may have, which is why the reputation of the source matters. Most people would be inclined to go with what one of the top 5 universities in the world might say about, well, anything.
None of the top 5 universities in the world say that Islam did not adapt or assimilate as it expanded. At least nobody who studies history does.
-
NGTM-1R said:
I've got the Cambridge University Encyclopedia of Islam
-
And it does not say that Islam remained static as it expanded.
Like Christianity, Islam assimilated local traditions.
-
I do hearby in shame recant my reading of it, having checked again.
...though it does bear out my point somewhat in that Christianity homogenized, and Islam...hasn't.
-
I think the homogeneity of Christianity would be an equally difficult point to argue. A theological discussion between an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and a Pentecostal minister would probably give the impression of being a dispute between two entirely different religions.
-
Yeah, if anything Islam seems slightly more homogeneous. The big divide is Sunni/Shia and the main rites and such are pretty similar.
-
Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I suppose it's difficult to quantify. Basically anywhere that Sufism has been exported has seen some notable degree of religious syncretism. One of the most fascinating aspects of religion, I think, is how much it can blend with its regional or local context and still be called the same thing.
-
I think the homogeneity of Christianity would be an equally difficult point to argue. A theological discussion between an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and a Pentecostal minister would probably give the impression of being a dispute between two entirely different religions.
Yes.
But on the other hand, when we discuss Christianity, what are the main divisions? Protestant and Catholic. As a practical accounting runs, it's more or less split 60-50% Catholic and then everybody else. The division is further cut down by the fact a number of prominent Protestant sects like the Lutherans no longer have significant distinctions in doctrine from Catholicism. In practical terms, one could present mass to 70% of Christianity at once and not upset somebody.
Islam can be divided into at least three major sects at the moment, of which two are directly inimical to each other, and their split is rather more even. So yes, I think it's safe to say Christianity has homogenized better.
-
i always got the impression that sunni was barebones islam and shiia was the catholicism of islam, where they started with the same thing and then piled on a bunch of unrelated cultural bull**** over the years.
i might be biased though, since i was raised sunni muslim :-P
-
Yes.
But on the other hand, when we discuss Christianity, what are the main divisions? Protestant and Catholic. As a practical accounting runs, it's more or less split 60-50% Catholic and then everybody else. The division is further cut down by the fact a number of prominent Protestant sects like the Lutherans no longer have significant distinctions in doctrine from Catholicism. In practical terms, one could present mass to 70% of Christianity at once and not upset somebody.
Islam can be divided into at least three major sects at the moment, of which two are directly inimical to each other, and their split is rather more even. So yes, I think it's safe to say Christianity has homogenized better.
I'd add Eastern Orthodox to that, so there are three biggies in Christianity. But even before we consider the ones that don't fall under any of those, these three are staggeringly fractured. Protestants range from Congregationalists, who are arguably one step away from Unitarian Universalists, to Lutheranism, which, as you mentioned, is as tightassed as Catholicism, and everything in between. Catholicism splits into the Eastern and Western rites, and additionally is subject to widely varying interpretation from region to region. (Catholicism in Latin America, for instance, makes its U.S. counterparts look downright progressive.)
And Eastern Orthodoxy, I mean... holy ****. First, you have the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church "proper" versus the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, plus within each of these groups you have autocephalous churches, autonomous churches, and churches not recognized by their respective communions.
Then, outside these three vague semblances of unified groups, you have the Anglicans, who also range from progressive to conservative, and the various Non-Trinitarian sects like Oneness Pentecostals, Jehova's Witnesses, "free" non-denominational Christians, etc., and the so-called Assyrian Church, which itself spawned an offshoot.
So yeah, it's a mess. My point is that although we can divide both these religions into broad categories, quite often those categories don't actually tell us very much.
-
It's hard to know the general reason behind the whole episode. I cannot find actual interviews of Swiss in the article, but several explanations are hinted. Racism and intolerance are first mentioned. I thought about it in different way:
Well, first of all I note they banned constructing minarets and not mosques. I'm not sure how Islam is spreading around Europe elsewhere, and if they are using loudspeakers in the same way as they do in Middle East. General population would never accept building minarets around here if that is the case and prayers would be blasted out around 8 o'clock every morning. I confess I would vote against that too!
For some reason I consider Lutheran church bells lot less annoying. At least churches don't play them for a long time and sometimes they are used to mark hours with a single sounding Bong.
-
if they are using loudspeakers in the same way as they do in Middle East.
Nope, that was already banned in Switzerland.
-
I'd add Eastern Orthodox to that, so there are three biggies in Christianity. But even before we consider the ones that don't fall under any of those, these three are staggeringly fractured.
Eastern Orthodox Catholic. It's an important distinction. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism regard each other as interchangeable and have for a long time. You can recieve communion at either, go to confession at either, and the other will regard it as perfectly valid. That's why they were lumped together as simply "Catholicism". Anglicanism has also been retroactively lumped into the same category by the Pope's olive branch to the Anglican community; they're being allowed to keep their own practices if they choose to change their allegiance which amounts to tacit approval of their practice, and the Patriarch or anyone else has not issued any modification of the approval of Roman Catholics to exclude the Anglicans who change allegiance but not practice so that is tacitly approved as well. The Lutherans fall into a somewhat grey area in that Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic will allow communion but not confession. That pretty much accounts for 70%+ of Christianity right there.
So as a practical matter, the majority of Christianity sees it in a much less complex light then you do. Two of what you would term "major factions" literally consider themselves brothers.
-
First off: as someone said, it's just minarets and not mosques, so i don't see a problem. Besides, show me a Muslim country in which you can build a church, or wear a crucifix on top of your clothes. (I'd say North Africa, though dunno really)
-
Iran?
Indonesia?
Egypt? Mostly kinda?
All that said, yes, it is hypocritical for anyone from, say, Saudi Arabia to get worked up over it. Stupid fatwas.
-
So, three countries out of, like, twenty?
Besides like it was stated minarets=/= mosques, so I don't see a real problem here.
-
Whoa, whoa, what the ****. :wtf:
I just named three random countries (though I'm not sure Egypt actually qualifies.) I did not delineate the status of church building all Muslim countries. In general I get the sense that this status is fairly grim and hardly fair. However, your original statement was factually incorrect and has now been rectified. Attempting to substitute a less absolute statement in its place is not wise (although it would probably be a correct statement; again, these countries are not particularly kind to church-builders.)
That was either a blatant attempt to put words in my mouth or a serious misinterpretation. Watch yourself.
Historically Islam was actually far more tolerant of Christianity than vice versa, though in recent times that's less true (largely because we've got something wonderful called secular humanistic democracy!)
-
Eastern Orthodox Catholic. It's an important distinction. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism regard each other as interchangeable and have for a long time. You can recieve communion at either, go to confession at either, and the other will regard it as perfectly valid. That's why they were lumped together as simply "Catholicism". Anglicanism has also been retroactively lumped into the same category by the Pope's olive branch to the Anglican community; they're being allowed to keep their own practices if they choose to change their allegiance which amounts to tacit approval of their practice, and the Patriarch or anyone else has not issued any modification of the approval of Roman Catholics to exclude the Anglicans who change allegiance but not practice so that is tacitly approved as well. The Lutherans fall into a somewhat grey area in that Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic will allow communion but not confession. That pretty much accounts for 70%+ of Christianity right there.
So as a practical matter, the majority of Christianity sees it in a much less complex light then you do. Two of what you would term "major factions" literally consider themselves brothers.
"Catholic" is an attribute claimed by any communion that believes itself to be representative of the ancient, undivided Christian church, and thus necessarily puts those organizations that use it at least somewhat at odds with one another, though they certainly do sometimes make good-faith efforts to broaden their common ground. The smooth interchangeability you refer to is between the Roman Catholic Church and the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in full communion with the Pope but often use Orthodox rites. These churches are distinct from what we commonly call the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refers to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church, and is most certainly not in full communion with the Pope. Attempts at reconciliation between Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church are relatively recent; if I'm not mistaken, John Paul II was the first bishop of Rome to visit Eastern Orthodox territories since the East-West Schism, and he was not always greeted warmly on his tour.
But I take your point that most Christians themselves probably do not see it as quite so complex. And as I was originally trying to get at, the question at the center of this discussion is not religion's tendency to fracture in abstract space, but rather its tendency to engage with local and regional cultures, resulting in fractures that do not necessarily coincide with official divisions. My original example of a discussion between an Ethiopian Orthodox priest and a Pentecostal minister was not meant to highlight the differences between catholic Christianity and Non-Trinitarianism, (vast though they may be), but to draw an analogy to Islam's regional heterogeneity. What I mean to say is, the greatest differences between Christians you will find are often geographically based. (And these geographical differences inform, and are informed by, denominational distinctions.) Islam in Indonesia is substantively different from Islam in Morocco, and Christianity in Ethiopia is substantively different from Christianity in the United States. That's all I was trying to say.
-
So, three countries out of, like, twenty?
Besides like it was stated minarets=/= mosques, so I don't see a real problem here.
It's not whether minarets are important or not (which they are, being the the vantage point from which the call to prayer is issued), it's the intolerance. The Swiss have a right to retain their culture, but this ban on minarets just reeks of Islamophobia.
Besides, show me a Muslim country in which you can build a church, or wear a crucifix on top of your clothes. (I'd say North Africa, though dunno really)
Yeah, because the Muslim world's intolerance of other religions justifies the West doing the same thing. :rolleyes:
-
I don't see the point of keeping minarets around if you aren't going to put loudspeakers on them anyway. Their functionality is lost.
-
The notion that we shouldn't hold ourselves to higher standards than the likes of Saudi Arabia is ludicrous.
-
The notion that we shouldn't hold ourselves to higher standards than the likes of Saudi Arabia is ludicrous.
while that is true it helps little that countries who wouldn't even know what freedom of religion* is if it hit them in the ass keep criticising those who do recognise that freedom. Do it enough and the countries of freedom are going to send a giant "****-you" towards the intolerant.
*There's 51 countries in the Organisation of Islamic Countries, afaik none of them has freedom of religion as it is enshrined in western society, and yet they moan and *****.
(And this morning in my newspaper: Spanish police arrests 9 Salafist moslims on suspicion of planning to carry out an illegal verdict by an illegal sharia-court. The court had condemned a woman to death for adultory. The arrested people had already kidnapped the woman and were now planning to get rid of her.
This is not going to convince people that the Swiss were wrong)
-
Besides, show me a Muslim country in which you can build a church, or wear a crucifix on top of your clothes. (I'd say North Africa, though dunno really)
Iran. There are some very old, very distingushed Christian churches in Iran. People from Europe make pilgrimages to them.
Sharia law dictates the rights and priviledges of non-Muslims who follow a Christian or Judaic persuasion as very similar to those of Muslims themselves. Their communities can govern themselves as they see fit but must submit to the wider Muslim community in matters of external affairs. They may not carry weapons. However it is also specifically enshrined they may also not be taxed more heavily than Muslims and must be granted the freedom to worship as they choose.
If you were born Christian or Jewish in Iran, you are protected by Islamic law. Roughly 5% of the country follows these religions, no less. You simply can't convert from Islam to them, because that's apostasy.
-
First off: as someone said, it's just minarets and not mosques, so i don't see a problem. Besides, show me a Muslim country in which you can build a church, or wear a crucifix on top of your clothes. (I'd say North Africa, though dunno really)
Tu quoque?
-
*There's 51 countries in the Organisation of Islamic Countries, afaik none of them has freedom of religion as it is enshrined in western society, and yet they moan and *****.
"Oh no! People not part of western society do not subscribe to relatively recent ideals of western societies! This is an outrage! We better show them the freedom of religion by trying to limit their expression of religion. That'll teach them."
Are you arguing for or against freedom of religion or is it applicable just to some points? I didn't know Swiss muslims were responsible for OIC's stances. I thought this great religious freedom you just happened to praise was applicable to anyone?
-
I'm not really sure what the ultimate goal of all this is. To be intolerant of Muslims?
-
maybe they're intolerant of being woke up at frakking 4:30 in the morning for the call to prayer.
it certainly didn't make me a happy camper when i was visiting my half million cousins in algeria :-P
-
I'm not really sure what the ultimate goal of all this is. To be intolerant of Muslims?
Got make sure they stay in good favor with the Vatican for when they reup their contract for Swiss Halberdiers. :P
-
I'm not really sure what the ultimate goal of all this is. To be intolerant of Muslims?
Yup. The reason is that the muslims (the Collective, apparently) are intolerant of something else. I usually get about that far before my brain shuts down.
-
Those people will still be Muslim after this, and they're going to be more upset, so good work fellas.
-
It really has bugger all to do with the noise.
Listen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/11/091107_minarets_nh_ht.shtml).
-
It really has bugger all to do with the noise.
Listen.
This is what the opposing political leaders say. I would be more interested in hearing the common people commenting on their decisions.