When the majority are ‘For it’ you have to believe that reform means better at killing.
It took more than a reformation in Europe; they also had the counter-reformation, renaissance, and enlightenment. Islam still has quite a ways to go.
I came across this article yesterday and, quite frankly, it scared me. The reform might be a whole scale religious war between Sunni and Shite Muslims. While some might welcome the idea of them bleeding each other dry, it’s unlikely the fighting could be confined to the Middle East.
I’ve seen Islamists as reactionaries to a more secular form of Islam, the Iranian revolution springs to mind.
For most greater wealth and better education is a driver towards less tyrannical religious doctrine, but to the old school such “decadence” is a motivator to push back.
“For most greater wealth and better education is a driver towards less tyrannical religious doctrine, ”
It is a mistake to think that what is happening is caused by poverty and a lack of education. It isn’t. There isn’t anything about education or wealth that precludes one from following a religion. That the West has seen a decline in religious affiliation has more to do with a concerted and intentional effort to make it that way. There is a reason why schools teach deconstruction and post modern ideology.
The 9/11 hijackers were all college educated and came from one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. A lot of the countries that populate these international Islamic militant groups are wealthy and educated. I don’t think that better jobs and education will end these groups but those things would certainly help their victims recover but first they have to be able to live in safety.
The world is less violent today than at anytime in the past.
The most violent parts of the world are also the poorest.
Most of the “foot soldiers” of the Islamisists are poorly educated.
Getting educated people into the US from the middle east is easier than getting in the uneducated.
I disagree that “the West has seen a decline in religious affiliation has more to do with a concerted and intentional effort to make it that way.”
I think it’s more to do with ancient religion being a poor fit to todays knowledge, and I’d emphasis that modern Christianity is very different to Christianity of only a few decades ago (women moving up in the church, tolerance of homosexuality), so religions evolve as societies change, they need not decline in the number of adherents.
“The most violent parts of the world are also the poorest.”
I suggest it is the violence, and associated culture, contributing to poverty.
How about chicken and egg?
Actually there are more refugees today than any time since the end of WW II.
The number of refugees isn’t a good measure of violence, people are more mobile (even refugees), and the neighboring countries usually more accommodating (especially with the activity of UN and other refugee agencies) than in the past.
The world is less violent today than at anytime in the past.
Nice bubble ya got there. There was a time when walking the streets was relatively safe. The St. Valentines day massacre was shocking. Now it happens daily and is generally not noticed.
The police used to be the good guys. In Phoenix you had better be able to sleep through gun fire.
There is less violence when there are less people but violence has found it’s way into small towns as well.
Schools that never were are now surrounded by fences and you can’t leave for lunch anymore.
Where is this less violence of yours?
Your first mistake is confusing the United States with the world.
When the majority are ‘For it’ you have to believe that reform means better at killing.
It took more than a reformation in Europe; they also had the counter-reformation, renaissance, and enlightenment. Islam still has quite a ways to go.
I came across this article yesterday and, quite frankly, it scared me. The reform might be a whole scale religious war between Sunni and Shite Muslims. While some might welcome the idea of them bleeding each other dry, it’s unlikely the fighting could be confined to the Middle East.
I’ve seen Islamists as reactionaries to a more secular form of Islam, the Iranian revolution springs to mind.
For most greater wealth and better education is a driver towards less tyrannical religious doctrine, but to the old school such “decadence” is a motivator to push back.
“For most greater wealth and better education is a driver towards less tyrannical religious doctrine, ”
It is a mistake to think that what is happening is caused by poverty and a lack of education. It isn’t. There isn’t anything about education or wealth that precludes one from following a religion. That the West has seen a decline in religious affiliation has more to do with a concerted and intentional effort to make it that way. There is a reason why schools teach deconstruction and post modern ideology.
The 9/11 hijackers were all college educated and came from one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. A lot of the countries that populate these international Islamic militant groups are wealthy and educated. I don’t think that better jobs and education will end these groups but those things would certainly help their victims recover but first they have to be able to live in safety.
The world is less violent today than at anytime in the past.
The most violent parts of the world are also the poorest.
Most of the “foot soldiers” of the Islamisists are poorly educated.
Getting educated people into the US from the middle east is easier than getting in the uneducated.
I disagree that “the West has seen a decline in religious affiliation has more to do with a concerted and intentional effort to make it that way.”
I think it’s more to do with ancient religion being a poor fit to todays knowledge, and I’d emphasis that modern Christianity is very different to Christianity of only a few decades ago (women moving up in the church, tolerance of homosexuality), so religions evolve as societies change, they need not decline in the number of adherents.
“The most violent parts of the world are also the poorest.”
I suggest it is the violence, and associated culture, contributing to poverty.
How about chicken and egg?
Actually there are more refugees today than any time since the end of WW II.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html
The number of refugees isn’t a good measure of violence, people are more mobile (even refugees), and the neighboring countries usually more accommodating (especially with the activity of UN and other refugee agencies) than in the past.
The world is less violent today than at anytime in the past.
Nice bubble ya got there. There was a time when walking the streets was relatively safe. The St. Valentines day massacre was shocking. Now it happens daily and is generally not noticed.
The police used to be the good guys. In Phoenix you had better be able to sleep through gun fire.
There is less violence when there are less people but violence has found it’s way into small towns as well.
Schools that never were are now surrounded by fences and you can’t leave for lunch anymore.
Where is this less violence of yours?
Your first mistake is confusing the United States with the world.