Dr. Fate:

It's positively prophetic what Senator Barack Obama said almost a year before being elected President about how his inauguration would smooth our relations with the Muslim world. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... -Will-Ease

And, it's good to know that the President had his finger on the pulse of the situation. He was so confident that he flew off to a Vegas fundraiser. Good for him! It's not like he could have done anything to prevent any of this. After all, it was spontaneous:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Inside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Slain ambassador returns Possible security leak in Libya
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

There is no reason to think it was planned:

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.

"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

Why, just looking at this map is a great reminder of the wisdom and insight of the Great Healer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... l?hp=l3_b4

My central thesis on this web page that what's going on here is not a function of US politics one way or the other. Whether it is GWB's agressive approach or BHO's softer stance is mostly irrelevent.
Whether the US and the other western countries support dictators, or try to overthrow them and unleash democracy doesn't seem to matter. The fundamental point -- as Purple has said very eloquently -- is that our values conflict with theirs. We do not seem to be able to accomodate their needs within our cultural framework.

We can argue around the margins whether Obama's approach or Romney's approach or Ron Paul's approach is better. I'm not sure any of them can work. Some problems are intractable.

Excellent posts by Purple (and Sass). I disagree with Ricky--radical Muslims can only operate when there is widespread anger among Muslims against the West. Yes, only a few will participate in actual attacks, but there are many who approve of such attacks. As RJ has indicated we are dealing with a different culture when we are talking about Arab Muslims in the Middle East and I don't know that we can expect it will change. We think our values are superior and they think their values are superior. Ricky thinks their religion will change, but Islamic societies have seemed strikingly resistant to Western values. And maybe we should not be surprised by that. Anyway, I just don't see the evidence that Islamic societies will change; we just have the notion that as societies evolve they will adopt our "superior" values (and I do think they are superior by the way), meaning democracy, freedom of speech and other individual rights, women's rights, separation of church and state, etc I think the idea that Islamic societies will change is based more on our feelings of cultural superiority, rather than evidence that they are changing.

So the question is, how do we co-exist with a culture that is very different than our own? I see no reason to needless antagnize Muslims, as Purple half-seriously suggested, because ultimately then we will talking about a "clash of civilizations" with untold costs. Remember, there already is a Muslim country with nuclear weapons--Pakistan. I am not religious but I think it is sort of rude to attack another person's religious beliefs (I have edited some posts here because I did not want to offend DF). At the same time, freedom of expression is maybe the most important value we have. The idea that you can say what you want and not worry that the police will come for you in the night is one of the more tangible benefits of living in a free society. Freedom of expression is a value that Western societies can be justifiably proud of. And it is a value that we will fight over. Another culture cannot threaten Americans with violence because they don't like what they say. If they do then we have to retaliate. So our government's position should be that, no, we don't condone attacks on the Muslim religion, but in our society people are free to say what we want and we will protect all American citizens from violence that is sought to be used against them merely of because they have said or written. Many of our ancestors gave their lives so that we would have that kind of society where people can say what they want without fear of punishment and we are not going to let another culture dictate otherwise

We don't need to be needlessly antagnostic and attack another culture's values and religion (that is for the most part none of our business); but we also should not back down in defense of our own values.

Ricky thinks their religion will change, but Islamic societies have seemed strikingly resistant to Western values. And maybe we should not be surprised by that. Anyway, I just don't see the evidence that Islamic societies will change; we just have the notion that as societies evolve they will adopt our "superior" values (and I do think they are superior by the way), meaning democracy, freedom of speech and other individual rights, women's rights, separation of church and state, etc I think the idea that Islamic societies will change is based more on our feelings of cultural superiority, rather than evidence that they are changing

There is abundant historical evidence that as societies become more inclusive, mainly through democratic institutions, they become increasingly inclusive. That is the history of every single democracy. The earliest democracies (US, England) weren't any where near as inclusive as the countries today. However the traditions and rights enshrined in the constituions were increasingly interpreted as including more and more of society and society became almost totally inclusive, allowing an equality that barely resembled the beginning of either democracy and is light years from the society of the middle ages..
And as more people become involved in soceity through democracy, they actualy gain power, and they gain economic satus. Most people in Muslim countries have lived in dictatorships. Essentially they exist the way Europeans did in the middle ages. Only a handful at the top enjoyed anything like the freedom modern western man does, and religion was used to help control the masses.
Religion loses its power to control as competing ideas are shard, and the enjoyment of increasing freedom and economic inclusiveness grow. And the relationship between Islam and the mass of people is not dis-similar to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the mass of European (western particularly) in the Middle Ages. The key difference being the Middle Eastern people tpoday have broader more immediate access to competing ideas, and the example of western nations to learn from.. (modern media)
The education of many of the Middle Eastern elite in the west will serve to accelerate the growth of ideas
So yeah. The middle east will inevitably change. At what speed, and with how many bumps on the way, one can't predict reliably. But the direction is undeniable. And as it changes, it will inevitably change religion. Can you honestly say that the religion practiced by most adherents of the main faiths in the west bear resemblance to that of people from the middle ages? Religion has evolved too.
By the way, the largest Muslim nation in the world is? And how does it fit your view of muslim nations?

ray

My central thesis on this web page that what's going on here is not a function of US politics one way or the other.

I violently agree with this.

rickyp wrote:There is abundant historical evidence that as societies become more inclusive, mainly through democratic institutions, they become increasingly inclusive.

Well said.

Er, what?

You have established your capacity to write repetitive, meaningless sentences. That's not easy, so my hat's off to you!

The key difference being the Middle Eastern people tpoday have broader more immediate access to competing ideas, and the example of western nations to learn from.. (modern media)

On the other hand, this process is a two way street. Mass immigration to Europe from the Islamic world means that there are now very large minorities within our societies which don't share our traditional values, and that's shaping our society every bit as much as our influence is shaping theirs. I'd say it's very much open to question whether our model will inevitably prevail. I'd like to think so, but we can't afford to just assume this will happen.

I meant exactly that Fate.
When the US constitution was written, it didn't include the franchise for everyone, and people of colour were certainly second class citizens.
But over time, the Constitution was both amended and interpreted to include more people within its scope of protection for rights....
In England the Glorious revolution expanded the power of parliament over the monarchy, but it took hundreds of years for the sdemocratic instituions of today to evolve, including the universal franchise and the limitations on the House of Lords...
Thats the history of democracy. Once one wall is knocked down, the inclusive nature of the movement forces the next wall to be addressed. And it eventually falls. (Its why Gay marriage is/was inevitable...)
By including more and more people within the system of power, democracy provides them the levers they need to help them shape society so that they also have the opportunity to gain economically. In England, after 1608, for example, it ended the monopolies and the charters in favour of true competitive markets...
I'll find the term used by historical scholars who have enunciated this theory.
But essentially, if the Arab Apring takes hold long enough that institutions of democracy, including centralized authority that respects property rights and individual rights, then there really is nothing to stop the natural course of events. Short of brutal violent repression, or a regression by an authoritarian like Putin... .... And sure that happens some times. But usually the direction is resumed at some point. In the end, no government or ruler can stay in place without either the acquiescence or the support of a broad level of the populace.

sass

On the other hand, this process is a two way street. Mass immigration to Europe from the Islamic world means that there are now very large minorities within our societies which don't share our traditional values, and that's shaping our society every bit as much as our influence is shaping theirs

really? Please provide some significant indications that the Muslim populace of germany or france has in some way modified the cultures of those countries....
Everything I've seen is that by the third generation, 40 years, the old culture is mostly replaced by the new encompassing culture. Sure, there are modifications, but nothing substantive to the democratic institutions or methods of commerce... Or the predominant media culture...
These are fever dreams by the same kind of people who beleive that anti-sharia laws are worth considering in the US.

Ricky, you don't live here and have no idea what you're talking about.

I mentioned earlier how Britain now has a number of hate speech laws that criminalise free speech to a degree that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. This is indicative of a culture which is increasingly favouring group rights over individual freedoms. This has come about, in my opinion, as a direct result of the embrace of multiculturalism by the political and cultural elites, with the consequence that cultural and religious identities are given greater reverence and everybody now sees themselves as part of an oppressed minority in need of legal protection (including, somewhat ironically, white people). This can't all be attributed to Islamic migration of course, but ultimately it's the Islamic communities that are most obviously being appeased because these are the communities who have engaged the least with the predominant cultures.

The hate speech laws are it?
Thats you're evidence that English culture is being turn upside down by Islamic immigrants? the development of hate speech laws to help quell abuse of media nad the internet by hate mongers.
Coulda used the hate laws to shut up Ian Paisley and others of his ilk. Powell?

There are a lot of reasons that hate Speech laws came into being that have nothing to do with Muslims. And if you think its a cultural clash occuring because of the recent wave of immigration from Islamic countries, you've forgotten similar dislocation and strife over immigration from former British colonies which were predominantly black, or Asian. Hell go back in time and the enmity and the discrimination and prejudice against the Irish and Scots was there. For a very long time. And perhaps even today.
I beleive the Scots are still forced to watch second rate football.

Sassenach wrote:Ricky, you don't live here and have no idea what you're talking about.

You haven't copyrighted that, have you? Even if you have, may I have permission to assign it to a hot key?

rickyp wrote:I meant exactly that Fate.

Sure. That's why it only took half a page to explain it.

The hate speech laws are it?
Thats you're evidence that English culture is being turn upside down by Islamic immigrants? the development of hate speech laws to help quell abuse of media nad the internet by hate mongers.
Coulda used the hate laws to shut up Ian Paisley and others of his ilk. Powell?

No of course it's not it, it's an example of how our own common law traditions are being subtly undermined by a change in the political culture which places emphasis on the avoidance of insult to self-defined groups over the protection of individual freedoms. I used it to illustrate that while the prevailing culture in the Arab world and elsewhere may be changing, so is ours. It isn't entirely down to Islamic immigration, I already said that, but it is largely down to a desire to appease self-defined minority groups, the most vocal and angry of which in our current society tend to be Islamic.

I think it's naive to assume that the mass importation of millions of people from backward parts of the world with totally different political cultures is not going to have an effect on our society. The effects have been wide-ranging and profound. Many of them have been positive (it's certainly revolutionised our cuisine) and most are relatively benign, but when you have a substantial and rapidly growing minority in your country who do not share the political priorities of the majority culture and who are actively encouraged to self-define as members of a religious community first and foremost, and when that community starts to mobilise, then you're going to see changes that a lot of us will feel uncomfortable with.

I beleive the Scots are still forced to watch second rate football.

Well nobody forces them to watch second rate football, they do that of their own volition. It's interesting that you raise that though. One of the many infringements of individual freedom that has recently been passed is the law in Scotland which bans sectarian chanting from football grounds. It's now a criminal offence in Scotland to sing rude songs about the Pope if you happen to be either in a football stadium, on the way to one, on the way back from one or if the police just happen to believe it may be football related. These powers are wide-ranging and intrusive. It's a natural extension of laws which were first brought in to try and quell more serious forms of hate speech and shows that once we open the door to curtailment of freedom of speech in the name of avoiding group insult then loads more groups will barge through and push it wider. I find this disturbing.

sass

The effects have been wide-ranging and profound

The you should have no trouble enumerating them... You havn't have you?

sass

I find this disturbing

Because you miss singing limericks about the Pope at the local pitch?
I'm not sure why you rile against laws that seek to eliminate behaviours which have no possible motivation other than to incite hate.
Ugly behaviour at the stadium almost ruined the English professional game, Without the hooligan laws, and the force of law to ban people who attend not to enjoy the beautiful game but to hurl invective and poison the atmosphere so that most parents won't take their children to the game.... football would be less than it is today.

fate

Sure. That's why it only took half a page to explain it

If you actually want to explore the idea, read "Why Nations Fail". Its a brilliant exploration of the nature of democracy, its superiority as a lasting institution, and the reasons why other systems of governance ultimately fail.
Its a whole book though... Can you handle focussing on an idea that long?