Rueing the day they threw their lot in with the BushCo War on Terror, I’ll wager.
Oh wait, they didn’t. It came to them;
RAE POH, Thailand – The tea shop is abandoned. Rubber plantations stand untended. Soldiers constantly patrol the one-lane road leading into this Muslim village.
Rae Poh was once designated a “green zone” village, one of more than 1,600 such islands of peace amid the violence that has torn Thailand’s southern tip since a Muslim insurgency erupted four years ago. Then, on Jan. 14, insurgents ambushed an army patrol about two kilometres away, killing all eight soldiers and beheading one of them.
Now Rae Poh is a “red zone” – one of some 320 loosely designated by the authorities as insurgent hotbeds and under virtual military siege.
Their number is up from 215 at the end of 2004, the first year of the insurgency, a dramatic example of the failures of a government hearts-and-minds campaign to quell an uprising that has taken more than 2,900 lives.
The insurgency worsened as the government of Thaksin Shinawatra adopted an iron-fist policy. The military leaders that overthrew him in 2006 tried a conciliatory approach, apologizing for Thaksin’s crackdown. But since December the violence has escalated. Now Thailand again has an elected government, and the insurgency is its big challenge.
Conciliation, indeed.
“Finally, consider this: Muslims are angrily at war with Buddhists in East Asia. Muslims are enraged with Animists in Africa. Of course, none of this approaches the sheer hatred that Muslims bear towards Hindus in the South Asia peninsula. And this foaming hatred blanches compared to the white-hot fury Muslims feel for the Christian American Crusaders. And this fury is but a candle to the incandescent, boiling, supernova of murder they feel toward the Jews.
Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here? You know, my Dad told me once, “Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total assholes, then maybe it’s you.” – Bill Whittle, Strength
Oh by the way I believe the best examples of Tribalism can be found in the history of Liberia, Uganda and Rwanda. Such peaceful societies! Not! Kenya is currently suffering under the plague of tribalism!
ET
Once, in my youth, I thought much like you. Then I lived as an infidel in a variety of Muslim lands.
You are much too optimistic.
greg – I continue to disagree with you.
Make up your mind; which of the three definitions of ‘cult’ do you accept? The first is the only valid one with reference to a group and its beliefs and behaviour, and still, is inadequate.
The other two are so general as to be useless. After all, these two would mean that, as you believe, a religion is a cult. Why then, have a separate word? Why does the word ‘cult’ exist, when, to you, it means ‘religion’?
The two ‘definitions’ of ‘tribalism’ are not definitions. You can’t define something by referring to it (a tribe is a tribe).
As for the Roman Republic and its systems of laws, governance and economic infrastructure – I suggest you read Cicero. All societies of the time owned slaves. And ‘made sport’ of their enemies. No, they didn’t rule by fear. No society can last as long as Rome did, and expand as it did, by fear.
No, there’s no ‘best examples’ of tribalism. Tribalism was THE basic mode of societal organization in the non-industrial peasant agricultural world. You obviously don’t understand what tribalism means.
The states that you mention (Rwanda, etc) are dysfunctional states that disabled their old tribal mode without establishing a civic mode.
ex-liberal – I disagree with your conclusion. The Islamic states have no choice; they must move out of tribalism and into a civic mode. They are already doing it (as I’ve mentioned, see Dubai). It is not an easy task; it can’t be done in a day or a month. You don’t change the basic organizational mode that has existed for centuries like you do a light bulb.
JET – I understand what it’s like living in the Muslim lands – especially some years ago. But they have no choice; they cannot remain embedded in tribalism which is only functional in smaller populations, in rural populations, in non-industrial populations. Their populations are now too large; they have urbanized and their economy has industrialized. They have no choice; they must empower their citizens to operate as a middle class. Right now, they are fighting to retain tribalism, but it won’t last. Democracy and a civic mode aren’t choices.
Irwin Daisy, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I had to eat an amazingly indigestible dinner at Montana’s. Eew.
At any rate, your response to my question “What have you got?” was quite good. Reasoned. Well thought out.
Unfortunately it all boils down to: “Your beliefs are bad. You’re not allowed to believe that anymore. We’re prepared to insist.” I know what I’d say to the guy who came and told me that. It’d start with “Go pound salt” and head downhill from there. I see no reason to expect Muslims to be any different, do you?
I’m sure you are entirely correct in your reading of the Koran et al. You analysis seems quite complete and quite well supported. Frankly, I don’t think much of Islam myself. I don’t like how they treat their women, and they have a lot of stupid ideas about things.
But, and this is the rubber meeting the road now, ultimately what you and I think about Islam is absolutely irrelevant. In a free country, in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don’t have to care.
It is this freedom that is winning in Iraq, this equality, this justice. We win by being who we are, not by bashing other people into line.
Just something to cogitate upon.
ET
I was speaking of the ‘philosophy’ that lies beneath a veneer of hospitality. The veneer is becoming progressively thinner – especially where the priests can ‘defend’ their followers and their ‘philosophy’ by pleading victim hood as is done in North America and other lands undergoing invasion.
The problem lies in a priesthood that, quite characteristically, defends its privilege by any means and at any cost to others, including the faithful. A priesthood that can be entered by simple declaration of membership: Very attractive to the bully and the opportunist as opposed to the philosopher.
The needs of the followers are met only to the extent they continue to provide bodies for manipulation in the interests of the ‘cause’. There is little hope there will be any sort of accommodation of the economic or social needs of the people because it is not to the advantage of the manipulators. And as to moderates – individually there may be some – but the training begins at birth and is effectively uncurable.
Still you have not read Hoffer?
“Why then, have a separate word?” In a word legitimacy. We also have two words for killing someone. Murder and Homicide. The end result is the same.
“As for the Roman Republic and its systems of laws, governance and economic infrastructure – I suggest you read Cicero. All societies of the time owned slaves. And ‘made sport’ of their enemies. No, they didn’t rule by fear. No society can last as long as Rome did, and expand as it did, by fear.”
“And made sport of their enemies” Many did but the Romans turned it into a fine art, name one other society that imposed crucifiction as a punishment for treason?
Many societies, not all, of that period may have owned slaves but Rome was dependant on slavery for it’s very existance. Without slavery Romans would have had to stay at home.
Spartacus led an army of seventy thousand slaves. After his defeat of Spartacus, Crassus had six thousand crucified along the Appian Way. I know you must be familiar with this, yet you continue to insist that the Romans were peaceful rulers. They were barbarians, they ruled by fear both at home and in the territories they conquered!
“I suggest you read Cicero”
Cicero must have thanked the Greeks for his fine education.
ET: I agree with you 90% of the time. This time though, by brushing the issue off as “tribal” (again), I think you are showing your own “ignorance”. (let’s not forget you chided someone earlier for being ignorant)
The tribe is “ISLAM”. It is global. You seem stuck in an anthropological view that is valid in historic terms, but not nearly as much so in post-modern terms. There are many examples historically where dogma (religion) transcended the tribe in the past, and that is much more so today. I don’t believe that your views make for good prediction as much as they work for historic analysis.
Second, you have no appreciation for the psychological grip that religious belief can have on the individual. It takes the individual and makes him into a corporate being attached to a larger structure. The crusades, for example, weren’t staffed by only one tribe. The tribe was Christianity and it brought together many lesser “tribes” to fight side by side.
Islam is incredibly powerful in this way because it can transcend tribal culture and bind all Muslims to one global tribe based on faith. (actually 2)
You show no appreciation for this fact. Those like myself, who were once dogmatic in their religion, then became agnostic or atheist, have incredible respect, and fear, for the power of religion. I suggest you apply psychology to your analysis as well because it is as valid as any anthropological/economic analysis.
Here’s my view then: Islam is a religion with a barbaric doctrine. It is barbaric in every sense, especially in its foundational documents. Muslims, if they are secular or “soft” Muslims, are no threat because they don’t adhere to the foundational doctrine of Islam. But, if they hold fundamental beliefs, they become part of the global tribe of barbarians because they take Mohammad as their example, just like devout Christians take Jesus as their example. One though, was a pacifist; the other a mentally ill, murderous, hyper-chauvinist.
That’s why Muslims from every corner of the world are showing up in every Jihad. It’s global ET … it has moved far beyond local tribe. Sure, it exploits local tribal grievance, but the force behind it is global … it is global faith … it is the concept of Ummah that binds Muslim fascists.
I think your view, therefore, is “stuck” in a narrow conceptual framework. Your analysis of the Roman empire demonstrates this. A military historian would never agree with you … yet that historian is as knowledgeable as you. And, if you want to argue history, I’ll take you on any day as my knowledge stretches into hundreds of books read over a lifetime and that includes the Roman period.
I suggest that your view describes wonderfully the pressures, economics, and cultural realities that come to bare on a society, but your view fails in taking into account the individual characters, the military strategies/technology, the religions, and even fate, which all have enormous effects on history.
Change one queen, and a 100 years of history can be altered. Replace one Roman general, and Africa remains outside the empire. Put to sea one month sooner, and you change Japanese history forever. Replace a warrior cult with a pacifist revolution, and an entire continent is changed. Tribalism is not static ET and it is not everything.
My “knowledge” tells me that your views, although very accurate to a degree, are too narrow and don’t allow for other complexities and realities. In this case, you seem to have no appreciation for the power of religion over tribes and corporate mentality. You seem to have no appreciation for the power of faith to transcend tribalism and move millions of individuals into corporate behavior worldwide.
Religion changed Europe. It converted barbarians as fast as they could arrive wave after wave. It made them “voluntary” servants of Rome before they had any economic reasons for being so, and it transcended tribalism. That was long ago, imagine the power of such in the post-modern era.
Well put Paul2. In the past I have likened ET’s fixation on socio-economic tribalism as the driving force in Islam to CO2 being the driving force in “climate change”. Not to diminish socio-economic tribalism but rather to put in proper perspective. Tribalism is but one element of many and I hesitate to even imagine it as being the prime element. History is littered with tribal economies being changed by the underlying philosophy of the people. One people will flounder while another people will prosper in identical situations. What made the difference? The underlying philosophy.
Greg, you are wrong about Rome. Sure it had its cruel side but it lasted as long as it did, some 1,500 years not through violence but through its offering of Roman citizenship to conquered peoples. An empire does not develop the still amazing architecture, civil laws, engineering, baths, roads and consumer goods in a truly massive empire through constant internal warfare. The city of Rome had over a million citizens, imagine the logistics to maintain it. Though it was estimated 1 in 4 were slaves in the city of Rome this was normal for the times.
No one said Rome was a peaceful ruler but their rule of the carrot and stick made them one of the most powerful, prosperous and economically strong empires ever. Still had the best military ever seen for hundreds of years.
Yes Dave, I know it offered citizenship to those it conquered. The rest it enslaved.
It maintained a road system that had no equals, the better to maintain it’s control over it’s conquered territories.
Rome had millions of slaves. The great Horace maintained that even a gentleman of modest means must have at least ten slaves, the same number as Horace owned. Both you and ET subscibe to the same fallacy that because Rome lasted longer than most empires, that it must have been a benevolent society! You will both please note that the decline of the Roman Empire accelerated with the introduction of Christianity into Roman society. Although many in the Christian cult owned slaves, the concept was at odds with their beliefs and many Christian leaders discouraged the practice as it was at odds with the Christian psyche. Also the high cost of slaves and the decline of the Roman economy further encouraged Rome to find a more suitable method to maintain its society. In other words it was cheaper to pay a man a wage than it was to enslave him.
Slavery was replaced with feudalism in Europe, although this system was little different than slavery. A serf owed his loyalty to his lord. The lord was his master. A serf might work for his Lord his entire life with no chance or hope of improving his lot in life.
By the way your ratio of four to one is in error. It may have been correct for a static period of time, but the ratio fluctuated with the times and at times was a s great as one to one. As late as 70 B.C., there were only about 500,000 citizens and about the same number of slaves and freemen in Rome, according to the Roman census. Forty years later the number of Roman citizens increased to about four million. Most, it is thought, to be living in the provinces.
This is an interesting paper on slavery that you may care to brouse.
http://www.ditext.com/moral/slavery.html
By the way do you both not realize that Rome mastered the art of propaganda. History is most often written by the victors and what better way to excuse your own barbarity than to point to the barbarity of others and say “Look at their evil, ours is insignificant in comparison!”
“Now it’s time to drink! Time to smite the earth with happy, dancing feet and pile the gods’ tables high with Salian feasts, my friends! Until now, we weren’t allowed to bring out the good wine our ancestors had stored up – as long as that demented queen was plotting ruin and death for the Capitol and for the Empire, along with her sick flock of eunuchs, helplessly drunk but hoping for something positive. But she sobered up when she saw exactly one ship make it back from the fires; and Caesar gave her wine-logged brain a textbook lesson in terror…”
Now who do you suppose Horace was talking about here? The noble Mark Anthony traitor to Rome? or the barbarian Queen Cleopatra? Much better the rebellion of a foreign born Queen than the treachery of a son of Rome.
Did you know that Hadrian’s Wall was nothing more than a propaganda tool? The Romans didn’t fight from defensive positions. Their army was fluid and mobile. They marched.
You both point to the longevity of thee Roman empire as a sign of it’s morality. What muddled mush. Rome was in an almost constant state of war or rebellion throughout its entire history.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/romans.html
Now if you don’t mind it is after one my time. If you wish to carry on this discussion, please e-mail at ggrandy@telus.net. I trust it will not be abused. Goodnight Dave and ET
Actually Dave, Romes strong period was a lot less than 1500 years. The Gauls sacked Rome in 387BC and the visigoths in 410AD, the vandals in 455AD. In all Romes period of imperialism was more like six hundred years not the fifteen hundred you so erroneously claim. For most of it’s fifteen hundred year history Rome fought one enemy or another, many of these battles were fought on the Italian penninsula. In fact after the death of Constantine and it’s division by his sons into three parts, Rome was engaged in internal stuggle after internal struggle. So much for the great empire.
paul2 – No, I disagree with you. I don’t analyze historical events as due to ‘efficient causes’ which are the zone of individuals and ideology, but as due to material and formal causes – and final, which are the zone of deep economic, population size, environmental infrastructures.
There’s no need to count the number of books both you and I have read; I’m sure they are equal, and hardly the point.
I am aware of the psychological pull of an ideology, but, that ideology will lose its members as the deep infrastructure weakens.
Again, the deep infrastructure, which you ignore, consists of: population size, envt carrying capacity of that population to keep that population healthy, economic capacity to extract sustenance from that envt; technological capacity to carry out a successful economy; political capacity to enable the economy.
Without this basic infrastructure, no ideology can last – and the ideology itself is embedded within it.
Phantom,
“But, and this is the rubber meeting the road now, ultimately what you and I think about Islam is absolutely irrelevant. In a free country, in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don’t have to care.”
Thanks for your comments. I, unfortunately, agree with the above statement. How unfortunate that it takes so much tragedy, and will probably take more in order to come to a practical resolve about what to do.
I do stand by my opinion, in terms of what to do. Although it will probably evolve, it seems practical to me. Furthermore, I’d like to believe, regardless of foreign relations and what the world might think, a governments first priority is to enforce rule of law and protect its own citizens.
As for success in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion, because they are not dealing with the ideology at the education, justice and government levels, these countries will deteriorate into Islamofascism once they are on their own.
Check how the US dealt with Shintoiism after the fall of Japan.
ET,
It seems that most don’t agree with you on this topic. You accuse others of being “cloud dwellers” for their utopian ideas. In this case it seems that you are the one not dealing with reality. Your analysis, in my opinion, may be correct to a degree, but its secondary at best.
Your evidence in expounding upon the success of places like Dubai and the Emirates is not sound. Their endevours are simply making money for the elites. And once again, its just another method of establishing ideological supremacy – the tallest buildings, the most lavish hotels, etc. That’s all.
On the other hand, Ataturk’s reforms in Turkey are being turned back. Malaysia, once a so-called shining example that Islam can adjust, is becoming more Islamist. Buddhist countries like Thailand are at war with the Islamists to the south. And so on. These are far more important examples.
Your insistence that the problem is tribal rather than ideological, disregards Pakistan and India. Here you have exactly the same people, genetically, yet Pakistan is inferior in every way to India. In fact, the wealthiest person in India creates more revenue in a year than the entire GDP of Pakistan.
This cannot be blamed primarily on tribalism. The difference is that Pakistan is Islamic. It is the ideology which has frozen their culture, industry and economy in the stone age and savagery.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the ideology vis a vis your theory is the inherent fear it instills. In an Islamic country, no Muslim wants to be called a “bad” Muslim, or worse, a “hypocrite” (check Mohammad’s ‘revelations’ on hypocrites). Worse still, is to be accused of being an apostate, falsely or not, and having to face a physical death penalty, as well as a spiritual one.
It is much easier and safer to go along with the fanatics. They, after all, are emulating Mohammad and following the commands in the trilogy and shariah to a ‘t.’
You don’t seem to understand this and you provide no evidence or proof of your position. While myself and others have provided plenty of proof to the contrary.
I think Churchill’s observation is correct, “Islam is to man what hydrophobia is to dogs.”
Plenty of others have made similar observations throughout history.
The song, as they say, remains the same.
irwin daisy – we’ve been over this before. I profoundly disagree with you.
No ideology can exist ‘as itself’. Yet, your focus only on ideology assumes just that. No idea, no thought, no set of ideas, can exist as itself, without vanishing into thin air, unless those ideas are rooted in reality. Reality is economic – how does a people live from birth to death, from this to the next generation?
You refer to a statement: “in which everyone is equal before God and the law, nobody cares what we think. They are FREE, they don’t have to care.”
I disagree with this statement. We have to care about what we each think – but this is we have to HEAR them, and debate and discuss with them. Not agree with them. Why? Because we are a common humanity. Because our morality must be common.
Iraq and Afghanistan ARE dealing with the ideology, both within the educational, but more importantly, from the ground up. From the economic and political infrastructure, permitting the development of a more complete participation by the citizen in the economy and the political authority. That will change the ideology, which is always the last to change.
What the heck does it matter that ‘genetically’ the people of Pakistan and India are the same? Pakistan is organized tribally. I’ve said many times, that Islam is a TRIBAL social, economic and political mode of organization that was reified by calling that mode a religion. So? It will still have to change – from the bottom up. Economically.
Agreed, an ideology defined as a religion rules by fear. It was the same in the West, where anyone outside of the Catholic view was defined as a heretic. But, in disagreement with your view, my view is that an ideology cannot exist on its own – ie, only as a set of ideas. It must be rooted in a particular economic and political mode.
When this basic mode changes – those ideas must change. That will happen.
You ignore any and all evidence of change in the Islamic world – look how you are denigrating Dubai with its movement into the capitalist world economy.
You pnly recently began to acknowledge the movements for reform in Islam; before, you absolutely refused its possibility! These movements are real and growing.
The ME states are protected by oil, but even they are having to acknowledge that it won’t last; they have to change.
So, I totally disagree with you and your focus on the Evil Ideology. I maintain that the original ideology was developed as a nativist reaction to the expanding settlements of the Byzantine empire. Its militant expansion was halted by the West and it effectively went into quiescent for a few centuries. Then, with the WWars, the region, based in primitive sustenance agriculture, moved into industrialism. BUT, the organizational mode remained tribal. This led to fascism. This is what we are fighting – fascism.
The ideology of Islam, functional only in a tribal system, will have to change; it has no choice. You can’t be industrial AND tribal.
So- as usual, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
ET,
“No ideology can exist ‘as itself’. Yet, your focus only on ideology assumes just that. No idea, no thought, no set of ideas, can exist as itself, without vanishing into thin air, unless those ideas are rooted in reality. Reality is economic – how does a people live from birth to death, from this to the next generation?”
Your right. Islam has existed for 1350 years and is stronger now than it has been for the past 200 years.
“What the heck does it matter that ‘genetically’ the people of Pakistan and India are the same? Pakistan is organized tribally. I’ve said many times, that Islam is a TRIBAL social, economic and political mode of organization that was reified by calling that mode a religion. So?”
So? It is the ideology of Islam that keeps Pakistan frozen in a tribal, often savage and non-productive mode. Not vice-versa.
Are you so arrogant that you would disagree with this? Are you so condescending (and perhaps worse) that you would believe India is capable of great political, economic and social strides and Pakistan is not? India, afterall, is tribal as well. I’m shocked by your statement.
“It must be rooted in a particular economic and political mode.”
It is. Shariah covers both politics, justice and economics. What do you think the spread of Islamic banking is all about?
“You ignore any and all evidence of change in the Islamic world – look how you are denigrating Dubai with its movement into the capitalist world economy.”
Actually no. You are ignoring the greater contrary evidence that I presented. Dubai is hardly worth mentioning for the reasons stated and does not hold water as evidence supporting your POV versus mine.
“I maintain that the original ideology was developed as a nativist reaction to the expanding settlements of the Byzantine empire.”
This assertion has been proven rubbish. Once again, support your claim with evidence. There is no evidence of this claim in the Islamic trilogy, or any other historical account. There was no Byzantine incursion into Arabia. There were only Arab and Jewish tribes which Mohammad eliminated, or subjugated.
Besides, what would the Byzantines want with desert?
Yes, Islam was halted. It is a horrible ideology that suppresses, if not kills human life and endevour. It is a backward, bankrupt ideology. However, it is back again, supported by trillions of dollars in oil, immigration and western welfare.
Based on the Marrion Webster definition of fascism, the Islamic ideology meets and surpasses every point. From its inception.
ET: Like I stand by my point, that your analysis works for the most part, especially when long term trends are considered, but that very same analysis does not account for everything, nor does it predict accurately in every case … it is lacking. Yes, you can point out that barbarian invasions were most often a result of barbarians having outgrown their region … but that doesn’t work in each case, like the case of the Huns who invaded for fun … nothing more. When the fun was over, and their horses had eaten all the grass, they went back home.
As well, your analysis woefully ignores fate, individual characters, and the ideologies involved. Roman armies often invaded simply so that the general involved and sponsoring family could gain leverage and prestige back home … nothing more. Often invaded regions ended up being a drain economically, not a bonus. Nevertheless, many factors come together in complex combinations to create results completely apart from economy, or tribe, or agriculture, etc. Sometimes the simple personality of one character … say Napoleon, can cause sweeping events that temporarily halt most other more natural processes such as agriculture, economy, and tribe.
To clarify; I made the comment about my “books” simply as a response to suggesting someone else should do some reading before they comment. Of course, reading is important, but reading can also focus knowledge too narrowly if it isn’t broad enough. My reading tends to be narrow as a result, focused on armed conflict more than economics and agriculture, etc.
Cheers!
ps: I think that your analysis works over time, but it ignores elements that can effect populations over the shorter time period; anywhere from 1 to say 50 years. Economics and demographics will always push history in a specific direction … but don’t always effect the short term.
Does that make sense?
paul2 – I acknowledge and agree with your comments about fate/chance – which is valid, and also, the individual agendas etc. I think these can affect but not deeply affect the long term.
For example, Napoleon wouldn’t have been listened to or followed, as an individual, if what he was attempting to do, wasn’t a reorganization of the French political and economic infrastructure.
Ideology is never a ‘root cause’; it’s an articulation of a deeper process, and often, that articulation is not even an accurate representation of that deeper process.
Thanks for your comments – I do acknowledge them as valid causes, but I consider them ‘efficient’ rather than material/formal.
Without trying to get personal here I sometimes wonder it ET ever gets tired of the colour of the walls of the mental bax she has built for herself or if her arms ever get tired from being restrained in the mental straight jacket she has forced upon herself?
It would seem that she is fixated upon the idea that mankind is victim of his circumstance and never the cause of his circumstance. Her insistance that no ideology can exist beyond present circumstance seems odd coming from a person who deals in ideas.
From my observation circumstance is driven by ideology. If for no other reason that each ideology creates an environment in which it can exist. Protestant Christianity tends to produce democracy, Catholic Christianity tends to create feudalism. Islam tends to create petty dictatorships. Secular humanism tends to create tyrants. Why? Because each ideology is creating an environment in which it can exist and thrive.
If we were somehow able to bring about the changes that ET advocates in an Islamic society the changes would be very short lived. Islamic ideology would soon regain primacy and the petty dictatorships would return within the generation.
Joe says . . .
** Islam tends to create petty dictatorships. Secular humanism tends to create tyrants. Why? Because each ideology is creating an environment in which it can exist and thrive. * *
All humanity tends to do this. The OsamaIsamlists are the worst group today, but history is full of others who have done similar and fallen into the dusts of time.
Today on a smaller but similar model we have the Anglican Church splitting apart on the question of same sex marriage.
How mature is that? Not much hope for humanity if a church breaks apart on the gay question. Wiser leaders would never let it fester to that level.
Much better to tolerate the gays and agree to discourage the *gay-group-think*. Breaking off only creates Gay chapters of the Anglican Church.
Clearly stepping backwards. New divisions and new boundaries solve nothing. = TG
Joe,
Although I might challenge you on some of your definitions, an altogether great post.
ET believes in miracles more than any religious person I have known. And then there’s the built in condescension reserved for those with many letters following their name.
“I do acknowledge them as valid causes, but I consider them ‘efficient’ rather than material/formal.” – ET
Her arguments rely completely on historical materialism, disregarding the complexities of belief that have always driven mankind.
She also disregards factual history. Many post opinions supported by historical fact, while she makes assertions supported by her repetitive assertions.
You are quite right about Iraq and Afghanistan. The world might be wise to study the US dealings with Shintoiism after the fall of Japan.
Democratic Islamism is still Islamism. The next generation will still be taught to hate and kill. And shariah will still be their form of jurisprudence. Then, eventually, they won’t bother voting anymore.