sass

There are plenty of Catholic countries which have only recently moved away from dictatorship (see most of South America for example),

The history of most of South America goes back to the conquistadors and their descendants. The direct descendants of the original Spanish invaders remained as elites, controlling the nations within which they lived unto today. (One study showed that 200 families, all direct descendants, controlled 90% of one country. If memory serves it was Nicarauga but I'm not sure.) The current state of South America owes much to the ability of these families to use the levers of government to extract power and wealth from the general population. Through that period, the catholic church was often an ally in oppossing efforts to democratize these nations. (So was the US government for that matter.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world ... d=all&_r=0

When priests began to preach "liberation theology" the Church begann to play a part on the other side, aiding the development of democratic institutions. Particularly in Brazil and Chile. But for the longest time, the Church in SA was on the side of the powerful elites.... and against the development of freedom and democracy.
Had the Church required the elites to bring in a blasphemy law, they could have.... They didn't need it.

So in other wpords, despite having the power and influence required, the church chose not to bring in stringent blasphemy laws.

The Catholic Chrch has been responsible for a great many evils, but they no longer burn heretics. The church has mellowed greatly over the years, a process which has seemingly yet to take place within Islam.

sass

So in other wpords, despite having the power and influence required, the church chose not to bring in stringent blasphemy laws.

In specific words, the bogie man that the South American dictators had was godless Communism . The Catholic church, especially the senior heirarchy were fully allied with them in fighting the godless communists. They didn't require "blasphemy laws" as part of their arsenal. So they didn't create them.
The dictators and monarchs in the Arab world require blasphemy laws because it focusses the common folk, mostly muslims, on "enemies" who aren't the dictators who exploit the wealth the populace create. Its useful having the distraction.
The focus is on the "insults" and cultural differences because if the people compare the material aspects of life in western democracies the dictators tend to come off as poor alternatives. If they get to the understanding of rights and liberties .... they tend to be awfully attractive too.
Being constantly insulted and outraged by slights on the religion is therefore a very useful focus...
The idiots who go out of their way to create these insults in the West, are actually aiding the rentention of power by the dictators, and the rentention of the fundamental Islamists.


sass

The Catholic Chrch has been responsible for a great many evils, but they no longer burn heretics. The church has mellowed greatly over the years, a process which has seemingly yet to take place within Islam.

The Church could not have burnt the heretics without the force of the kings who governed. It wasn't the Church that changed first, it was governance that changed. Mostly because of the rediscovery of the Greek ethos and the resulting enlightenment.(Actually the early Christian Church was very different from what the Catholic Church became. > I talking here about the Catholic Church of the Dark and Middle Ages and later.)
Once enlightened elites began to make public statements like, " The only rason we have not all confessed to being witches is because we have not all been tortured..."
Without the support of the kings, the Church mellowed...
Islamic preachers, held in check by governments that respect individual rights, will mellow too. One sees this in the pronouncements from western Muslims, and by many ( I think the majority) of Muslims imams in Libya Egypt and Tunisia...
It is the presence of totalitarian regimes that perverts Islam. Democracy and the respect of individual rights usually ends the use of the religion in the ways every religion has been used.
The history of every religion points to this phenomenon. Even early Judaism. (perhaps not the Bahai??)
But its not the religion. Its the authority of the govenrment, especially when the government is authoritarian .

Ricky, so how long do we have to wait for the Muslim world to change to something that we can more easily deal with? I don't have 100 years in me.

ray

Ricky, so how long do we have to wait for the Muslim world to change to something that we can more easily deal with? I don't have 100 years in me

I'm sure that the universe is evolving as it should, whatever your perception of its priorities and your needs.
But really, who knew when Tunisia erupted that within a brief period, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya would begin a transformation to democracy? So far a fairly rapid transformation... though certainly not as well developed as most of Europe or North America.
There's obviously a desire among many Arabs to throw off the authoritarian regimes . If not for UAE involvement I think Bahrain may have had a revolution as well as the above....
Who knew, when the Soviet regime fell that that was coming?
I suspect when change happens to the rest of the Arab world, it will happen fast..
Certainly with modern communications bringiong the rest of the worlds influences to most of the population, everything is happening with greater speed today, than in the past. It took an awfully long time for the US to evolve from its early form of democracy, until the language of its independence proclamation was almost reflected in society... Imagine how black men of USA in 1776 reading the proclamation would have felt about the speed of change to their circumstance...

The change coming in the Arab world is almost entirely about the Arabs.... The best the west can do is to try and treat the Arab world with respect, and to try and conduct their diplomatic and trade efforts in such a way as they support, rather than contradict, the principles of democracy and individual rights that our nations are built upon.
I think most have struck the right balance on the Libyan terrorism ....and on the reaction to the objectionable film ... An over reaction would simply provide the regimes fuel to maintain their positions.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, so how long do we have to wait for the Muslim world to change to something that we can more easily deal with? I don't have 100 years in me.

Interesting how Ricky instantly goes to "Arabs" rather than "Muslims." Was your question more religious, political, or both?

rickyp wrote:But really, who knew when Tunisia erupted that within a brief period, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya would begin a transformation to democracy? So far a fairly rapid transformation... though certainly not as well developed as most of Europe or North America.

Well, you could try blaming the neocons, since this was their theory . . .

On the other hand, we don't know that democracy is actually coming, do we? Did getting rid of the tsar result in Russian democracy? Did the fall of the Soviet Union result in Russian democracy?

The answer is: we don't know how these states will end, but it could easily be to a different form of tyranny.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, so how long do we have to wait for the Muslim world to change to something that we can more easily deal with? I don't have 100 years in me.

Interesting how Ricky instantly goes to "Arabs" rather than "Muslims." Was your question more religious, political, or both?

It seems to be a worthwhike question on both of those levels, but let's stick with the forum's theme of culture and society.

Sassenach wrote:The Pussy Riot thing was a little different though, in that the blasphemy charge was clearly just a pretext.

I saw today that a production of 'Jesus Christ Superstar' was closed down in the Russian city of Rostov after the Church complained that it was 'profanity', and protested against it.

Not sure what that was a 'pretext' for.

fate

Interesting how Ricky instantly goes to "Arabs" rather than "Muslims." Was your question more religious, political, or both?

First, all arabs aren't Muslim. In Egypt the Coptic Christian are a significant minority...
And all Muslims aren't the same either. There are Shiite, Sunni and Alawites...and some others..
Second: yes, if governments of elites use religion to help maintain their postion of power to extract more wealth and power, (and share with the religious elites) and history demonstrates this repeatedly, then you can't really seperate them... The Catholic Church could not have maintained its wealth through the dark and middle ages, without the cooperation of the kings . The Protestants under Cromwell were all about coopting government.
Islam was used by the Ottomans in the same fashion and the inheritors of their empire in the Middle East have maintained the relationship.
Has Islam ben unaffected by the constant confrontation with the western society through exposure to the West? Hell yes. Even in Saudi Arabia there is unrest amongst women looking fro greater freedoms. Freedoms tha may seem petty to westerners (driving....) but which indicate that even the most conservative societies face change.

Well, you could try blaming the neocons, since this was their theory .

. .
Except that their theory also included the failed notion that they could impose democracy on another nation through invasion and occupation... (Even then it sorta, kinds worked in Iraq. Just that the Iraq that has resulted is more of an Iranian democracy the American.)
However when George Bush said that democracy transforms nations, I have always agreed.

On the other hand, we don't know that democracy is actually coming, do we? Did getting rid of the tsar result in Russian democracy? Did the fall of the Soviet Union result in Russian democracy

There are no guarantees in the short term. In Russia an authoritarian has taken hold since the end of the Soviet.. He doesn't have quite the over whelming control of the nation that the Communist party enjoyed, but you are right to observe that the end of the Soviet didn't result in a full blown democracy. It doesn't usually happen that way... As I've mentioned before, even the US revolution didn't result in a full fledged democracy. (Although recent events in Libya, where the militias are handing in weapons and unilaterally disarming,, indicate that there are places where recent revolution has taken larger steps to democracy..)
And interestingly in LIbya, the Imams have been part of the public demand for the disarmament.

If Islam is, in itself, such a violent religion, how is it that in Libya the imams are part of the drive for peace and good governance?
Find me an established democracy, where the instittuions of democracy of taken root and the concept of individual liberty has been solidly established and you'll find that religion has largely lost its power to enrage and create violence. (Perhaps Northern Ireland challenges that notion, except that a peaceful lasting resolution appears to have been achieved despite everything the religious bigots attempted..)

By the way, is there some kind of double standard? Democracy and individual liberties have seldom been fully formed when born. And the relationship between state and whichever Church is dominant has evolved from symbiotic relationships to complete seperation only slowly. Even in those nations suppossedly founded upon the principle.
The pilgrims didn't come to America for religious freedom. They came in order to practice their religion freely and suppressed any other religion...(well, not Roger Williams and his colony...)
And that intolerance was felt for a long time in US laws.Following from Wkipedia

The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838 (a Massachusetts case: Commonwealth v. Kneeland).[5] The Kneeland case preceded the ratification (1868) of the 14th Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights and made it apply to the states and not just to the federal government. From 1925, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to all states.[6]

The last U.S. conviction for blasphemy—at least that of any significance—was of atheist activist Charles Lee Smith. In 1928 he rented a storefront in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: "Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost." For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore couldn't swear the court's religious oath to tell the truth, he wasn't permitted to testify in his own defense. The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature. Smith was convicted, fined $25, and served most of a twenty-six-day jail sentence. His high-profile fast while behind bars drew national media attention. Upon his release, he immediately resumed his atheist activities, was again charged with blasphemy, and this time the charge held. In his trial he was again denied the right to testify and was sentenced to ninety days in jail and a fine of $100. Released on $1,000 bail, Smith appealed the verdict. The case then dragged on for several years until it was finally dismissed.[7]

sure .. but we all live in the 21st century. We can't coexist with people with 16th to 19th century mores and 21st century technology.

ray

sure .. but we all live in the 21st century. We can't coexist with people with 16th to 19th century mores and 21st century technology.

You coexist with people who are under the thumb of dictatorships and monarchies...In the 2st century. You coexist with people who live in unstable countries with few democratic institutions, traditions and an uneducated poipulace like Pakistan.
Many of the dictators were supported for decades by American and other western nations..
The very same dictators made use of Islam when it served their purposes . And yet they never lost the support of the West. There being "other priorities" then the welfare of the people of the middle east.
Its likely that newly democratic nations like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt will adopt and grow Democratic instituions far more quickly than the nations that originally "reinvented" democracy. They have the advantage of the models of the West and they have the advantage of the modern communications... Women already have the vote in Libya, whilst it took 145 years for this to occur in the US after Independence...
In the meantime, the idea that Islam, the religion, represents a major existential threat or that there is anything about the practice of the religion, by itself that is inherently more violent than any other religion is unfounded. Without the cooperation of an authoritarian govenrment partner or a political player in a poorly functioning country like Pakistan, Islam is practiced by people who are quite at home in the West. And who don't resort to violence for the purpose of retribution to slurs any more than any other religious group.
And face it, in the US since 9/11 the American Islamic Community has had a lot to deal with that is unfair, and often provocative. And yet, the reaction has not been violent. If, as you contend, Islam is inherently violent this wouldn't be the case.

I haven't said that Islam is inherently violent, and I certainly do not have anything against people who practice Islam. Some people have shown remarkable restraint, on all sides.

I've made observations about Islamic society and culture. There have been a tremendous number of terroristic incidents by Islamic people, often in the name of Islam.

I cannot wait 100 years for the evolution of a culture if their current governments are intent on obtaining WMD. I can't patiently coexist with people who practice terrorism now, and believe it is okay when others practice it.

Ricky:

And who don't resort to violence for the purpose of retribution to slurs any more than any other religious group.

Have you done a statistical study on this?

ray

Have you done a statistical study on this?

On this board discussion many have refered to the violent history of Catholicism, and Protestant sects, Sikhs, Hindus and others...

ray

I cannot wait 100 years for the evolution of a culture if their current governments are intent on obtaining WMD. I can't patiently coexist with people who practice terrorism now, and believe it is okay when others practice it

Currently the nations of the US, Russia, China, Pakistan India and Israel have nuclear weapons... Pakistan is the only country with a muslim majority. They have yet to use their weapons. Does get one mark in the good for Muslims?

No one is asking for you to peacefully coexist with terrorists. I condone the violent end to terrorists...
But few Muslims are terrorists.
If much of the terror being committed is by Muslims at the moment, its because of political reasons .
That some of these terrorists dress their political reasons up in theology is no different then when Catholics and Protestant, Sikhs and Hindus dressed their terrors up in their religious cloaks.

So, you can't wait 100 years for the evolution of a culture? Whats your alternative? A violent end to that culture?