In a new and fascinating essay in Prospect Magazine called, “Breeding for God,” British political scientist Eric Kaufmann argues that demographic trends really are pushing secular Europe in a more religious and conservative direction. Even more than conversion, says Kaufmann, it was Christian fertility that delivered pagan Europe into the hands of Christianity. And now, says Kaufmann, Christian conquest by fertility is set to happen again.Kaufmann has developed a way of balancing off the likelihood of apostasy against fertility levels, and says the results show the momentum of European secularism slowing down, and even reversing, in the coming decades. Inevitably, Kaufmann’s model is an extrapolation from current fertility and apostasy rates. And unfortunately, that begs just about every important question. It’s unclear how current rates of religious adherence will hold up under the complex economic, demographic, and cultural pressures that Europe will soon be facing. (For more, see my “Demographics and the Culture Wars.”) Kaufmann also tends to lump all religions together, passing too quickly over the huge potential conflict between Christian and Muslim Europe. Nor am I entirely convinced by Kaufmann’s claim that even non-Church-going European Christians are sufficiently religious for their faith to matter in their daily lives.
Despite these uncertainties, however, Kaufmann outlines a Western and European future every bit as plausible as the familiar vision of progressive secularist triumph. In Kaufmann’s model, there will be, “a major reversal of the secularizing trends of the past 50 to 100 years....Europeans will become more ‘traditional’ on moral issues like abortion, family values, religious education and gay marriage....by the mid-21st century, the peak of secular European politics will be long past....Much will depend on whether conservative political parties opt for a multi-ethnic religious platform or instead mobilize a white nationalist majority across the secular/religious divide....Demographic currents are carrying Europe toward a more American model of modernity....Perhaps we are entering a new stage of history in which the demographic flaws in liberalism will become more apparent.”
You can read the Eric Kaufmann piece here.
The secular segment of the population tends to suffer from extremely low reproductive rates, whereas the religious segment tend to have higher than average rates. The only way the secular segment maintains their numbers is by "converting" people away from their religion. It tends to have a see-saw effect through the generations.
I'm confused - is this article suggesting that Europe is not suffering from cataclysmic low birth rates?
"Secularisation in Europe is now in decline, and Islam continues to grow. Europe will start to adopt a more American model of modernity"
Whassa? As Islam grows in Europe because of birth rates, Europe will become more like America? Huh?
Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!
What is Kaufmann smoking? I'd like some... This essay is unreadable.
His last para includes this gem: "Perhaps we are entering a new stage in history in which the demographic flaws in liberalism will become more apparent, paving the way for the return of a communitarian social model. This may still leave democracy, liberalism and mixed capitalism intact. But it will challenge modernism, that great secular movement of cultural individualism which swept high art and culture after 1880 and percolated down the social scale to liberalise attitudes in the 1960s."
Can someone tell me if that actually means anything? Communtarian social model? WTF?
Communitarian social model. On a continent being overrun by militant Islam. Sounds like Mayberry R.F.D. Except that it's a Mayberry where Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney blow the heads off hijabless girls while Floyd the Barber, with beards and long hair all the rage, now has no use for his razor except for hacking off apostates' heads.
It's an interesting, highly readable piece. I'm not sure that Kaufman's suggested birth-rate advantage for the religious can be extrapolated into the future, though. There are enormous forces working against religion in the prosperous western world. For one thing, to the extent that prosperity leads to greater physical mobility, and greater access to counterveiling arguments, and to more easy pleasures, it becomes a colossal force for the dissolution of traditional beliefs.
The traditional family, and the church, were like lifeboats in rough waters. Our prosperity, and the agency of state redistribution (a decidedly secular enterprise) has obviated the need for this drawing-together.
Another force against religious conservatism has to do with the fact that the prosperous western world is a chaotic, rapidly changing one without a decided common destination; there is a decided adaptational advantage ("opportunity") to being secular/unaligned, inasmuch this facilitates wider access to different agencies and ideas.
Religion is a comparatively careful construction, a foundation built piece by piece upon the wisdom of the ages, whereas the modern secular lifestyle is more of a falling-apart that is as easy as walking away from your home or church. The push towards dissolution is all around us; the question is, what would it take to stop this hurtling momentum towards prurience and self-pleasure from getting even more ridiculous? Kaufman addresses one of the more intriguing possibilities, one that incorporates the inevitability of multi-culturalism -- normally associated with the ideals of the left -- with social conservatism, when he foresees the likelihood that religious lobbyists across the board might ask why it is that the secular point of view is "the only one taught, aired, or respected."
Assuming moderation, respect for differing views, and common grace (quite a load, I know) there is a great deal of common ground between people of traditional faiths. I have known several Muslims -- admittedly atypical, and not at all fundamentalist in their faith -- who are far closer, by a factor of ten, in their basic, face to face values, and in their decency, to my Christian relatives than they are to the glib purveyors of urban libertinism who assume preeminance over state issues.
(For what it's worth, I'm an agnostic with Lutheran ancestors.)
The Islamic domination of European culture will not be pacific.
There will come a point at which secular Europe will not have the numbers to control the agenda without the support of either Christianity or Islam. Their political systems are rep by pop except for the Anglos. At this point changes are possible as they have to share some decisions with either of the religious parties and will hopefully choose the Christians.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaascinating. Westerners mistakenly believe that secularism is on the rise globally. It is not, see China, Russia, East bloc countries, etc.
Secularism was tried once, in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. It failed, and secularism has been in retreat ever since.
Qoute from Bob: "Secularism was tried once, in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. It failed, and secularism has been in retreat ever since.
That has got to be one of the most naive, disingenuous and/or self-serving statements I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot failed because they were secular?
So, maybe I'm not the only one who didn't "get" this article?
I'm one of the people convinced there won't be a Europe in 2050, and that what's there in lieu will be very, VERY non-secular.
Forget Kaufman, I want what Surly's smoking :-)
I'm reminded of Catholic blogger Mark Shea, repsonding to a San Francisco Gate columnist who hated "breeders":
"Sir, my three sons and I will bury you."
Anway:
"That has got to be one of the most naive, disingenuous and/or self-serving statements I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot failed because they were secular?"
Why is that naive, etc? You don't think it at least possible that their shaky secular (i.e., immoral, illogical) foundations doomed them from the start?
Religion is the root of all evil.
Secularism is the only path to a secure and fulfilling future for our children's children.
This is great news. The ultimate consequence of religion playing a greater role will be that folks over there will be more willing to share their stuff with one another than they are currently.
"Do you honestly believe that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot failed because they were secular?"
the failure probaly had some basis in their secularity, although each replaced god with a new statist entity to worship. However the main driver of the failure in these regimes was the inability of a centrally planned economy to put food on the table or consumer goods on the shelves.
“Religion is the root of all evil”
If that’s true then we must also know what the "root of all good” is .
Maybe we can be enlightened as to what the root of good is, then we can create a utopian society and live happily ever after.
"Religion is the root of all evil."
Wasn't that 'money?'
David Brown, the evangelical secularist is speaking in tongues.
This reminds me of the National Post article last spring, stating that the left are diminishing based on birth rates, and by the same token, conservative birth rates are increasing.
Seems they are the main victims of their own abortion policies.
Bob said that "Secularism was tried once, in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. It failed, and secularism has been in retreat ever since.'
And Keith said "That has got to be one of the most naive, disingenuous and/or self-serving statements I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot failed because they were secular?"
And Kathy asked whether " their shaky secular (i.e., immoral, illogical) foundations doomed them from the start?'
I agree with Keith. The communist regimes didn't fail because they were 'secular'. They weren't secular; the utopian ideology of communism replaced the theistic ideology of religion. The communist regimes failed, because, as Fred pointed out, a collectivist regime is econmically dysfunctional.
I'm also disturbed by Kathy's equation of secularism with 'immoral and illogical'. Secularism simply means a rejection of a religious ideology in one's life. It doesn't mean that one is therefore immoral and illogical. How can one logically connect the two modes of being - secular and morality?
I'm an atheist; that's a secularist. I totally reject any suggestion that I'm immoral or illogical. I don't need any 'ubermensche' from a metaphysical 'reality' telling me what is moral or logical. I am endowed, by virtue of my species, with reason. Reason. That means that I have the capacity to think logically. That means that I can reason-out how to behave to my fellow species members. Because of that, I don't act as someone without reason, requiring to be told how to behave and how to think. I therefore object to the constant refrain that I hear - where a secular person is defined as 'immoral'.
David Brown:
Religion is not the root of all evil. Stupidity is. You suffer it in spades...
Look at the worst mass murderers in history. None were religious. They were all socialists - of either the communist or fascist variety of socialism. They were Godless totalitarians. Even the Spanish Inquisition was small-time in comparison - and that had as much to do with the Habsburg dynasty's genetic deficiency (inbreeding left them a bit daft) as it did with religion. This is the same clan responsible for WWI and the fall of the feudal system in Europe.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot were all godless. Yes, Hitler tried to woo the Church but he wasn't religious - he just used them to consolidate power by pretending to respect religious Germans. If you look back further, you have the likes of Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible... None were religious nutters. Well, nutters yes, religious no.
Have bad things been done in the name of religion? Of course. But the cause was bad people using religion as an excuse. Even the Islam would be harmless if not for the evil of its followers.
Religions are just excuses for people to hate each other. If religion didn't exist, people would just substitute another excuse.
The cause of evil is humanity and its defects (and some, David, have more defects than others.)
I have a problem with the Kaufmann article. It is vague and general. He doesn't define his terms of religion and secularism. His over generalization means that he doesn't differentiate the religions. Islam for example, rejects the individual, rejects Reason, while Christianity focuses on both.
He focuses only on demographics, a vital and important variable, but without adding other variables such as the economy and the innovative capacity for technological change, etc, it is useless by itself.
His statement that 'cultural modernism has accompanied technological modernisation in the west while the non-western world has usually modernised its technology rather than its values' is demonstratably false. You can't change your technology without changing your social values.
China and Japan have modernised and most certainly have and are, changing their value system.
The ME has not modernised, in the sense that their use of modern technology is only as a consumer who purchases the goods created elsewhere rather than an inventor who innovates modern technology; the ME has not modernised and also not changed its value system.
He focuses on a return to a communitarian social model. Ahh - now he has a point, but this is what I would term a readjustment from a period of massive demographic shift in the world. All societies are and must have a communitarian social model; there must be some sense of a coherent shared identity. Otherwise you are, as a nation, merely a hotel - a criticism leveled against Canada, for good reasons.
Globalization, enabled by technology and driven by demographics, has in the last century shifted the global population around. It has moved people from their home bases of the last centuries to new bases.
This requires a period of 'social modeling' readjustment. Do you absorb the newcomers completely, transforming them - as happened in the beginning of the shift? Or do you change your own model to be like them - as the Islam world is demanding? Or does something new develop within the interactions of these diverse values? Does this 'something new' enable this new society to prosper economically? This is what is happening now - and it requires open discussion and thought.
The Islamic world refuses discussion; that's because their values reject Reason; the western world has also in a strange way refused discussion, because postmodernism also rejects Reason; you simply accept all values as equal. But we are now seeing in Europe and America, a gradual opening up of discussion, a re-emergence of the Right to Reason. Hopefully, this will become stronger, and the global shift will produce a viable mode of life.
A TRUE conservative recognizes that the Bible (and the Torah, and Koran, and the Suttras, the Dhamma, etc., and I suppose you can extend this to government, but that’s another story) have prevented more human suffering than they’ve caused.
A TRUE libertarian (in nearly all cases agnistic or atheist) mistakenly believes that the major religions (and government) have caused more suffering than they’ve prevented.
All thoughts appreciated.
p, I don't think you can substantiate such a simple linear claim.
Essentially, you are claiming that religions (R) (any religion) have prevented suffering.
The 'value' of suffering is defined as 'in comparison' to the 'value' of suffering they have caused. So 'good results of R > bad results of R'.
Wow. Prove it. Impossible.
Your second value judgment, added on to this linear causality, is to claim that a 'True conservative or Libertarian' believes in one or the other of these linear paths. That's a 'dangling value'. Prove it.
Another error is your assumption that a religion is equivalent to a government. No, it's not, the authoritarian origin of the rules of each, are completely different. The former has a metaphysical origin, the other has a human origin. Not the same.
I don't know what's definitively true or not.
I think that religion is irrelevant to the good/harm people do. Those that do good are good people regardless of religion. The reverse being true also.
Would Stalin have been a better person if he found religion? I doubt it. Would Mother Theresa have been a violent crack-whore if she didn't believe in God? I doubt it. You are who you are as a human being. There are good and bad religious people and good and bad atheists.
I personally am an atheist libertarian. I don't need religion to teach me right from wrong. I doubt anyone else does either.
"I think that religion is irrelevant to the good/harm people do."
Barring Islam.
Muslims are taught that Mohammad was the perfect role model for all humans to follow and that the Qu'ran is Allah's perfect word.
Those Muslims who follow in Mohammad's footsteps and who obey the commandments in the Qu'ran, perform evil actions by anybody's standards other than their own.
Even Islam would be harmless if human beings didn't respond to evil. An infallible, perfect human being could not be corrupted regardless of the ideology. Islam can't cause people to do bad things unless they're bad people.
Islam is their adherents excuse for doing the harm they want to do anyway. Do you think that Mother Theresa would be a head-hacking terrorist just because she grew up in a Muslim country instead of being Christian? I doubt it.
"Religion is the root of all evil"
That explains why the Amish and Jehovah's, two societies that place religion at the forefront of their culture, have such a high percentage of murderers, rapists, and thieves among them.
warwick, if Mother Theresa were raised as a Muslim, she wouldn't be helping the poor people of India. She'd be holding a sword to their throats and forcing them to convert to Islam or die. As the Koran teaches all Muslims to do.
"Islam can't cause people to do bad things unless they're bad people."
They are brainwashed people. They're indoctrinated from birth to believe that there's only one God and that's Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet. They are taught that Islam is the only true religion - and that the penalty for apostacy is death.
The brainwashing is reinforced by prayer five times a day and by carnal incentives, now and in the hereafter. Evil is repositioned as good in Allah's service.
Islam has nothing to do with infidel standards of right and wrong, good or evil. The pious and observant Muslim is always doing good, especially with infidel blood on his hands.
djb: "His last para includes this gem: "Perhaps we are entering a new stage in history in which the demographic flaws in liberalism will become more apparent, paving the way for the return of a communitarian social model. This may still leave democracy, liberalism and mixed capitalism intact. But it will challenge modernism, that great secular movement of cultural individualism which swept high art and culture after 1880 and percolated down the social scale to liberalise attitudes in the 1960s."
Yep, that's pretty opaque. It nearly matches my all-time favourite from Architectural Digest:
"It is conceptualistic innuendo, pyramided upon a spatial forebearance, that betokens a luminous, tactile cosmology."
Maybe David Brown could explain that for us.
Brown couldn't explain how he got where he was if he was in his living room.
KevinB and Warwick,
Maybe I don't know how I get to my own living room but I can explain Eric Kaufmann's essay.
Eric, sometime after his birth was dropped on his head. His mother fearful that Eric might grow up with an inferiority complex constantly praised him and told him how brilliant and scholarly he is. Eric somehow believed his mother and began his progression through life as an over-acheiver.
In university he began writing essays full of theories tied to empirical data that his professors could not understand. As they are professors they couldn't let on they didn't comprehend something a student had written. So they all proclaimed, Eric is brilliant.
Eric to this day still believes what his mother instilled him and continues to try to fool anyone gullible enough that reads his nonsense.
Pete,
Just because Amish are forgiving pacifists does not free them from perpetrating evil. Some might argue that their self-imposed isolation from modern society has evil conotations.
As for Jehovah's Witnesses, if you do your research you'll find out the evil that lurks within that group and don't be fooled by their outward rhetoric...dig deep.
"As for Jehovah's Witnesses, if you do your research you'll find out the evil that lurks within that group and don't be fooled by their outward rhetoric...dig deep."
That's funny, I have never had a JW threaten to lop off my head if I don't convert. Didn't see any bombs under those white dress shirts either.
BTW: Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men? The Shadow knows!
Texas (The Shadow) Canuck,
Lopping off heads and dropping bombs is not the only evil.
this just in from Vancouver -
"Even now as we speak they are burning dog poop in paper bags in Peter McKays riding"- Hot Cross Hedy Fry.
I can't think of any evil that lurks in the hearts of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some former Witnesses complain of being shunned for falling away, but most are happy not to have to endure constant nagging. The only other critique of Witnesses would be their refusal of blood products. After the age of consent this is not a problem. It is certainly problematic to society before the age of consent.
"A TRUE conservative recognizes that the Bible (and the Torah, and Koran, and the Suttras, the Dhamma, etc., and I suppose you can extend this to government, but that’s another story) have prevented more human suffering than they’ve caused."
Mohamed was a pedofile had a 6 year old wife at a time this was wrong, he did little boys too. killed and tortured his way to power and kept slaves. boiled Christians in oil, and commanded to kill anyone who do not to agree with him. Im tired of the lies this is only the "radicals" or its somehow the same as the Bible and the Torah.
I think this is similar to the theory that abortion supports decline with time because they are selfdestructive or spawn destructive anyway. so gradually they weed themselves out. similarly SSM is a genetic deadend, how could it not be?
....Some might argue that their self-imposed isolation from modern society has evil conotations.....As for Jehovah's Witnesses, if you do your research you'll find out the evil that lurks within that group....
Who besides other inhabitants on Planet David would see evil in the Amish lifestyle? And where else but on Planet David would a research paper uncover evil at the core of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Hint to David Brown: it's not working for you, buddy.
Here's a quick and dirty demonstration of how religious folks operate on a higher moral plane, I burn atheists frequently with this tactic:
Atheist: Screw you.
Bob: Screw you too.
Atheist: Whaaaa! That wasn't very Christian of you!
Bob: Thanks for admitting that Christians operate on a higher moral plane than atheists. You never hear anyone say "that wasn't very atheist of you", do you? Because it is understood that the atheist has no moral code. Would you like to play again?
Atheist: Sure. Have you donated to the Magenta Ribbon campaign?
Bob: What the hell is that?
Atheist: I have no idea, it's hard to keep track of all of the "Conspicuous Compassion" scams these days. Anyway, did you donate?
Bob: No.
Atheist: But I thought Christians were supposed to be charitable?
Bob: That's twice now that you've demonstrated how Christians operate on a higher moral plane. Atheism has no moral code, so nobody ever chides an atheist for being selfish, because it's pretty much what we expect from them. Would you like to play again?
Atheist: No. Thanks for enlightening me Bob, mighty Christian of you!
Bob: No prob.
ET:
"I'm an atheist; that's a secularist. I totally reject any suggestion that I'm immoral or illogical. I don't need any 'ubermensche' from a metaphysical 'reality' telling me what is moral or logical."
Well said.
ET,
I'm curious, if not religion what affords you your "moral compass?"
We all know bob as someone who refuses to answer any questions, who refuses accountability and simply posts irrational and unsubstantiated comments and then, peddles off on his three-wheeler, into the night.
Now, bob, your above post is meaningless. That's because of your ungrounded assumptions - first, that your interactions are both moral and religious. What's the definition of both terms, bob? Are you going to answer?
And a second assumption is that morality requires religion. Prove it.
And third, that an atheist is without morals. Prove it.
And fourth - your terms are invalid. You are assuming that the term 'Christian' also means 'moral; and the term 'atheist' does not also mean 'moral' or 'immoral'.
The two terms, atheist and Christian can't be set up in a comparison in the way you did, for they don't function, semantically, in the same way.
You are committing the fallacy of ambiguity.
Try again. But first, answer the questions.
Irwin Daisy:
"They are brainwashed people [Muslims]. They're indoctrinated from birth to believe that there's only one God and that's Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet. They are taught that Islam is the only true religion - and that the penalty for apostacy is death."
You seem fairly confident as a judge of "brainwashed people," first of all. Some might argue that your opinions look like the result of Judeo-Christian "brainwashing."
Categorically criticizing an entire religion is a bold move. Are all Muslims taught in this fundamentalist fashion?
Forain - what enables/affords me my 'moral compass'? Reason.
Reason is a basic quality of our species; it enables us to 'hypothesize' future actions and results. Reason includes a capacity for logic, which is also 'result focused' because it operates within an IF-THEN framework. 'If I hit that person, then he'd feel justified in hitting me.'
Religion is, after all, in my view, a human construct. I don't accept the concept of a non-material, metaphysical Agent. Therefore, the rules and guidelines of moral behaviour to each other, are logical and reasonable principles that enable a community to function.
The basic 'Golden Rule' is a logical construct. 'Treat others only as you consent to be treated in the same situation'.
See Harry Gensler's nice books on Ethics.
Might I suggest that you read a bit on Islam, including the Koran - and you'll see that it is a belief system that rejects Reason. It rejects individual thought, questions, dissent, analysis and insists on mindless obedience to the rules of its ideology - a social and political ideology developed within and suited only for a 6th century pastoral nomadic economy.
I appreciate your advocacy for reason. I wonder, however, if the "golden rule" is a natural result of logic. It seems to me that Aristotelian sylogisms, for example, don't necessarily lead to a form of "morality," if considered in isolation of pre-established moral systems, such as our own. What do you think?
I've had the opportunity to read the Qu'uran. I see what you are saying. However, I think there is a great danger of reducing the religion, a compilation of scripture, tradition, reason etc., to the "letter of the law." For example, there are several absolutely barbaric passages in the Bible, and yet I would never contend that the religion, en masse, is barbaric. No?
forain - the Koran, unlike the Bible, is meant to be accepted as ultimate, indisputable truth.
The Koran is understood as the exact direct word of god, while the Bible is understood as the writings of various prophets, etc, about god. Therefore, its content is open to interpretation. The contents of the Koran, as ultimate truth, are not open to interpretation. It is indeed reduced to 'the letter of the law' and is, as you say, therefore quite dangerous as an ideology.
As for a syllogism - I'm not sure what your point is. A syllogism is meant to operate within given axioms, the universal or major premise. You can't conclude anything if your premises are all about particular incidents; you must have a universal. So, the syllogistic form of logic doesn't deal with morality, because the major premise (the universal) is already 'given'; it is already accepted. eg. All men are wise.
Propositional and predicate logic, on the other hand, set up hypothetical rather than necessary scenarios, where Reason can simulate a possible event or situation and then, analyze its effects on the self and on others. So, in propositional logic, I can hypothesize:
IF I set fire to this subway, Then, lots of people will die.
If someone else sets fire to this subway when I am riding on it, Then, I will die.
Do I want this situation?
A psychologically healthy individual would not want this situation.
If I want this situation, then I have moved into a psychological state which is antithetical to life - that of others and my own. Now - what is moral or amoral about this?
The next step would be to take this simulation further, much further, and postulate what will be gained by everyone behaving in this manner. The result would be the end of life.
I must then ask myself - does life emerge on earth only to be extinguished by other forms of life? That's illogical.
So then, I must consider that my desire for the death of all, has something hostile to the basic reality (which is life) of this planet.
I would consider such a basic hostility irrational and unnatural. And therefore, amoral.
However, I think there is a great danger of reducing the religion, a compilation of scripture, tradition, reason etc., to the "letter of the law."
The barbaric passages existing in the Bible were never encoded into dogma. "Turn the other cheek" trumped living by the sword after the OT. Christianity understands the metaphorical better then Islam.
Sadly, the barbaric passages of the Koran live on in Sharia Law, those quaint things like stoning adulterers, amputations of petty thieves' extremities, the proper methods of beating a wife into submission, all well and alive in parts of the ME. Civil law is subordinate in many places to Sharia Law. It's what devout Muslims must not reject. Polygamy is legal. Jihad, fatwas, dhimmitude.......all Islamic dogma, all in play globally.
So how is it, Forain, that there is great danger in reducing Islam, the religious AND legal system, into anything but "the letter of the law"?
Why can't a religion be categorically criticised if its central tenets and practice have resulted in intolerance, ignorance, illogic, lack of a secular civil society and systemic human rights violations in how it treats half of the population?
Here's what I'm getting from your comments, Forain, that you've skimmed the Koran and completed a philosophy 101 course. That you aren't at a mature place yet where you can drop the postured virtucrat persona. That lefty multi-culti, pc groupthink is where you are still stuck.
ET, reason and logic are not interchangeable. Logic is a tool of reason. Reason is the ability to see things as they are. If you can't see things as they are you can deduce all you want and invent vast erroneous systems of thought, all quite unreasonable because they're untrue.
Penny,
You're wonderful!
It amazes me that relics like you have managed to survive through the centuries, utterly unchanged by social, religious, and cultural progression. Where to begin...
"The barbaric passages existing in the Bible were never encoded into dogma." Really! It seems to me that the insular culturally-inbred fundamentalists still cite the Bible as reason to abhore homosexuals. Stockwell Day, and likely more than a modest percentage of his caucus, believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, because it says so in the Bible. Your self-righteousness seems to fall flat.
I'm aware that you have no qualms about reducing an entire religion, the activity of millions of people, into a single tiny compartment for your own convenient accessability, but maybe others are more interested in empathy and understanding. The fact is, Islam, like Christianity, is subject to myriad interpretations. You can no more tell me that Islam is catagorically this or catagorically that than you can tell me that Christianity, en masse, understands metaphor. Stockwell Day can't spell metaphor.
You question my knowledge of Islam and then make flagrantly ignorant comments about it in the same sentence. For example, you cite Jihad as an example of "evil Islamic dogma." Jihad literally means "great struggle," despite what you may have heard in the media. This is why Muslim feminists often refer to their "gender Jihad." There are exceptional Muslim activists, scholars, and teachers as there are from Christian circles.
Here's what I get from your comments Penny: you have gone to Sunday school as a child and participated in some Bible readings where you and your buddies tell racist jokes and mock people with different beliefs that you can't comprehend.
coming late to this discussion but here is my two cents:
for the purpose of discussion I am defining "religion" as a world-view/ideology that basically explains why we are here and what is the meaning of life.
By this definition, secular humanism is a "religion": it explains that we are here due to a set of random events propelled by some sort of natural selection. There is no "meaning" to life except what each individual human gives it. What one person decides is morally correct may or may not be what another person decides is morally correct. There are no absolutes and it really doesn't matter what we do because we all become dust anyway.
This is what I have heard from self-proclaimed secular humanists.
The ironic thing is that, as Mark Steyn and other demographers have pointed out, secular humanists tend not to breed, and thus logically and rationally, from a Darwinian stand-point (survival of the fittest), their ideology is not viable and will be naturally selected out of existence.
Which society would you prefer to live in? One based on the ideology of Islam (death cult), secular humanism (leads to extinction), or a society based on Judeo-Christian values (choose life)?