http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30935
I'd like to know your commentys before I make a statement.
SHOULD THE POPE APOLOGIZE TO MUSLIMS
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
TPP,
While I see where you're going with your argument, there are some serious flaws stemming from your presentation of the Middle East as a secluded angry animal. The ME is the crossroads of the world and has never been secluded from foreign influence (let alone "any and all.") Whether through war, trade, or intellectual discourse, the ME has been an active world-player since recorded human history. The rise and domination of Islam in the area in no way means that the ME has been isolated. That's like saying that the recent rise of extreme Christian conservatism in America is because we've been excluded from any and all foreign influences.
I'm not really sure how you see the presence of Israel as encroaching on a perfectly ordered Muslim society. Certainly the formation of Israel as a Jewish nation has lead to war and societal strife in the ME, but it's incorrect to assume that the ME was a vast socially unified Islamic society before then. This past century is only the latest chapter in ME history.
Certainly, the revival of Islamist extremism is due in part to the "encroachment" of the West economically and politically- but this is not a new occurrence. Religious extremism, like many other aspects of human activity, comes and goes in cycles depending on a number of different variables. The invasion of Afghanistan has as much to do with the rise of Islamic extremism as anything Israel or "The West" has done before or since.
The Middle East has never stood alone as an Island. The analogy as such doesn't hold water with historical reality. While social change has come about there, it seems, quite slowly, it is by no means the banner carrier for oppression of its people. (Try looking at American history over the past 200 yrs.!!!) Further, Islam is not solely to blame for the social evils of ME society. Too often religion is used as a smoke screen to hide the economic and political ambitions of those in charge.
The violent reaction of some Muslims cannot be written off as excusable ignorance. They know exactly what they are doing- you're giving intelligent leaders too little credit for stirring up their own people. Many leaders in the ME are actively looking for any event which they can use to unify their people- to mobilize their support so as to effect changes which they deem necessary.
While the ME has always been culturally different to the west, one should never assume that a culture unique to its time, place and social conditions must inherently be so because of isolation from all foreign influence.
While I see where you're going with your argument, there are some serious flaws stemming from your presentation of the Middle East as a secluded angry animal. The ME is the crossroads of the world and has never been secluded from foreign influence (let alone "any and all.") Whether through war, trade, or intellectual discourse, the ME has been an active world-player since recorded human history. The rise and domination of Islam in the area in no way means that the ME has been isolated. That's like saying that the recent rise of extreme Christian conservatism in America is because we've been excluded from any and all foreign influences.
I'm not really sure how you see the presence of Israel as encroaching on a perfectly ordered Muslim society. Certainly the formation of Israel as a Jewish nation has lead to war and societal strife in the ME, but it's incorrect to assume that the ME was a vast socially unified Islamic society before then. This past century is only the latest chapter in ME history.
Certainly, the revival of Islamist extremism is due in part to the "encroachment" of the West economically and politically- but this is not a new occurrence. Religious extremism, like many other aspects of human activity, comes and goes in cycles depending on a number of different variables. The invasion of Afghanistan has as much to do with the rise of Islamic extremism as anything Israel or "The West" has done before or since.
The Middle East has never stood alone as an Island. The analogy as such doesn't hold water with historical reality. While social change has come about there, it seems, quite slowly, it is by no means the banner carrier for oppression of its people. (Try looking at American history over the past 200 yrs.!!!) Further, Islam is not solely to blame for the social evils of ME society. Too often religion is used as a smoke screen to hide the economic and political ambitions of those in charge.
The violent reaction of some Muslims cannot be written off as excusable ignorance. They know exactly what they are doing- you're giving intelligent leaders too little credit for stirring up their own people. Many leaders in the ME are actively looking for any event which they can use to unify their people- to mobilize their support so as to effect changes which they deem necessary.
While the ME has always been culturally different to the west, one should never assume that a culture unique to its time, place and social conditions must inherently be so because of isolation from all foreign influence.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #12
A society need not be geographically segregated in order to be culturally isolated.While I see where you're going with your argument, there are some serious flaws stemming from your presentation of the Middle East as a secluded angry animal. The ME is the crossroads of the world and has never been secluded from foreign influence (let alone "any and all.") Whether through war, trade, or intellectual discourse, the ME has been an active world-player since recorded human history. The rise and domination of Islam in the area in no way means that the ME has been isolated. That's like saying that the recent rise of extreme Christian conservatism in America is because we've been excluded from any and all foreign influences.
The politics of the region is the greatest factor contributing to Easterner's rabid conservatism. Effective totalitarian rule will bend a society to it's will. With only a few people leading a country, laws and policy are determined by a very limited scope of opinion. The less diversity in a nation's leader(s), the less diversity in it's constituents. Under these sorts of conditions, you will generally end up with a country whose citizens all look and think alike. Throw a kink in this limited social spectrum, and the "animal" will naturally lash out.
Compare the modern ME with Catholic Europe, for example. Niether are/were geographically segregated, but both are/were extremely xenophobic. The common denominator? Theocratic rule.
The only reason that Europe did not end up as a Christian version of the ME is because the government failed to stop the rise of factions. Martin Luther tore the entire system wide open, inviting what there had been none of before; dissention, diversity, outside influence. The Middle East is still waiting for it's Martin Luther.
Catholic Europe also brings to light many of the other issues currently plaqing the ME. The 'Dark Ages' are called so, of course, because of the utter lack of technological innovation, economic success, and artistic/intellectual/cultural achievements. The oppressive conservative government quelled any chance at these, just as is currently happening in the ME.
I'm not really sure how you see the presence of Israel as encroaching on a perfectly ordered Muslim society. Certainly the formation of Israel as a Jewish nation has lead to war and societal strife in the ME, but it's incorrect to assume that the ME was a vast socially unified Islamic society before then. This past century is only the latest chapter in ME history.
The ME has always been volatile precisely because of the factor Isreal has brought to the region in the past century; dissention.
Placing a predominately Jewish state right smack in the middle of a vast sea of fundamentalist Muslim theocracies- One of the worst ideas man has ever contrived.
It isn't?Certainly, the revival of Islamist extremism is due in part to the "encroachment" of the West economically and politically- but this is not a new occurrence.
Before the oil boom, the ME rarely even made it on to world maps. The West's primary foriegn interest for centuries was Africa and the Americas. It has only been in the last 50 years that the ME has really played any part in the global economy (that being a very liberal estimate).
I believe it is mostly to blame, if not solely.Further, Islam is not solely to blame for the social evils of ME society. Too often religion is used as a smoke screen to hide the economic and political ambitions of those in charge.
Religion has always been the most effective tool for the powerful- Islam esspecially. Oppressive ME tyrants would have likely fallen long ago without the strict Islamic dogma to feul and justify their agendas. "They are not my laws! It is the will of Allah!"
How many successful rulers can you think of who did not use religion in some form or another?
Post #13
The Catholiuc Church always separated church from state. Martin Luther brought about theocratic rule.
The state soon swallowed up the Protestant version of Christianity hence the churches were run by queens and kings.
All the cultural achievements of the West stem from the Catholic Church.
The state soon swallowed up the Protestant version of Christianity hence the churches were run by queens and kings.
All the cultural achievements of the West stem from the Catholic Church.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #14
The Catholic Church was essentially theocratic from the time of Constatine to the era of Luther. The concept of "separation of church and state" was not practiced as law until (if I'm not mistaken) George Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights.
In Western Europe during the time in question, Monarchs ruled by "divine right", and papal authority's claimed to wield God's earthly authority.
In East Europe, the emporer had supreme control over the Orthodox Catholic Church (which was, of course, the only church allowed).
The only way Catholic rule could be construed as allowing freedom of religion is during the earlier part of the Middle Ages, when the few people who actually practiced other religions were largely ignored. If they were baptised and attended church at least once a year, the papacy considered them Catholics, and left them well enough alone. However, the rise of literacy around AD 1100 led to a rise in deviant faiths, and the Church began to see these new ideas as signifigant threats to their rule. Thus began the Inquisitions.
Martin Luther finally spurred the formation of signifigant religious factions, and lead to the ultimate demise of unilateral Catholic rule in Europe. That the Protestants could not offer any better form of government, as you said, is unfortunate, but beside the point at hand.
Back to the original discussion, the bottom line is, The Middle East has yet to see any signifigant rise of factions as happened to Europe in the time of Luther. Until this happens, political reformation is unlikely.
The perpetual enemy of subjective thought and individual liberty during the greater part of the past 2,000 years has been the Catholic Church (and later the Protestants as well, as you said).
I would say that the achievements of Western society can be best traced back to the original Humanist movement during the time of the Renaissance, which emphasized science over dogma, and along with the advent of the printing press, spurred the proliferation of new ideas and knowledge.
In Western Europe during the time in question, Monarchs ruled by "divine right", and papal authority's claimed to wield God's earthly authority.
In East Europe, the emporer had supreme control over the Orthodox Catholic Church (which was, of course, the only church allowed).
The only way Catholic rule could be construed as allowing freedom of religion is during the earlier part of the Middle Ages, when the few people who actually practiced other religions were largely ignored. If they were baptised and attended church at least once a year, the papacy considered them Catholics, and left them well enough alone. However, the rise of literacy around AD 1100 led to a rise in deviant faiths, and the Church began to see these new ideas as signifigant threats to their rule. Thus began the Inquisitions.
Martin Luther finally spurred the formation of signifigant religious factions, and lead to the ultimate demise of unilateral Catholic rule in Europe. That the Protestants could not offer any better form of government, as you said, is unfortunate, but beside the point at hand.
Back to the original discussion, the bottom line is, The Middle East has yet to see any signifigant rise of factions as happened to Europe in the time of Luther. Until this happens, political reformation is unlikely.
You're going to have to elaborate.All the cultural achievements of the West stem from the Catholic Church.
The perpetual enemy of subjective thought and individual liberty during the greater part of the past 2,000 years has been the Catholic Church (and later the Protestants as well, as you said).
I would say that the achievements of Western society can be best traced back to the original Humanist movement during the time of the Renaissance, which emphasized science over dogma, and along with the advent of the printing press, spurred the proliferation of new ideas and knowledge.
Post #15
The seperation of church and state from Scripture "Let what is Ceaser's be Ceaser's" was the main reason why Christians were persecuted by Rome as they would not allow the assimilation of their beliefs by the state.
Constantine knew that Church and state were separate and remain apart from the Council of Nicea decisions.
Pope Gelasius in the fourth century laid the foundation of the separation and declared the church is the head of spiritual matters and the state temporal.
The only time in the Catholic Church's history when it came close to a theocracy is with Pope Innocence who still respected Church and state differences.
You need to read some history on Church and State.
Constantine knew that Church and state were separate and remain apart from the Council of Nicea decisions.
Pope Gelasius in the fourth century laid the foundation of the separation and declared the church is the head of spiritual matters and the state temporal.
The only time in the Catholic Church's history when it came close to a theocracy is with Pope Innocence who still respected Church and state differences.
You need to read some history on Church and State.
Post #16
Whether it is law, art or science and economics, the church has been the foundation of the building of Western Civilization.
The Church instituted all the learning centers.
Right up to the Protestant Revolution, the whole of Europe centered around the Church and that includes anything during the Renaissance and the priniting press which was invented by a Catholic.
The Church instituted all the learning centers.
Right up to the Protestant Revolution, the whole of Europe centered around the Church and that includes anything during the Renaissance and the priniting press which was invented by a Catholic.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #17
Are you serious? Constatine?Constantine knew that Church and state were separate and remain apart from the Council of Nicea decisions.
Constatine declared Christianity the official religion of his regime. By blatantly favoring Christians in civil affairs, he won the support of the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire, which enabled him to unite the two factions, guaranteeing more power for himself. His regime targeted the Jewish religion in particular, making it illegal for a Jew to convert a Christian.
Shortly after in 380 AD Emperor Flavius Theodosius declared Christianity the EXCLUSIVE religon of the Roman Empire. Practicing Paganism carried a punishment of death, and places of worship not deemed "Christian" enough were destroyed.
Theocracy continued throughout the final centuries of Roman rule. In 448 AD Emporer Theodosius II ordered all non-Christian books burned. In 529 AD Emperor Justinian ordered the Platonic Academy in Athens closed and its property confiscated. Scientific thought was essentially banned.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, the only authoritive institution left was the church. As could be expected, Christian leaders quickly assumed the roles of rulers over the scattered remains of the Roman people. Even members of the various independent Barbaric tribes eventually became subjected to Christian policy, as their kings began to realize the inherent power in assuming the role of religious leaders.
The church played a powerful role in the affairs of the state from the year 300 onward, eventually ending at the climax of the Renaissance. "Separation of Church and State" is a relatively new concept.
You are going to have to provide some evidence for these claims, as they directly contradict common historical knowledge.Whether it is law, art or science and economics, the church has been the foundation of the building of Western Civilization.
The Church instituted all the learning centers.
Right up to the Protestant Revolution, the whole of Europe centered around the Church and that includes anything during the Renaissance and the priniting press which was invented by a Catholic.
The church restricted the spread of independent literature during the Middle Ages (in many cases banning it all together). Illiteracy was the official church doctrine. Even the Bible was prohibited (forcing citizens to rely on the doctrines of the church hierarchy).
Needless to say, all science deemed incongruous to Church doctrine was smothered. We all know how the church dealed with Copernicus and Galileo...
All aspects of Western civilization (law, philosophy, and education, in particular) can be traced back to the humanist revolution.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #19
Right. Constantine legalized Christianity, and declared it the official religion of his regime.Constantine did not declare Christianity as the official religion. He simply legalized the practice of Christianity.
As I said, it was not until February 28, 380 AD that Christianity was declared the official religon (effectively banning all Pagan and Jewish faiths).
Europe was a Christian theocracy from the year 380 onward. There is absolutely no denying that historical fact.Okie dokie. I can see your warped take on history is unchangeble.
If my textbook view of history is so "warped", then it should not be too hard for you to prove it wrong. Why are you running away from the debate?
Show me some historical sources that depict widespread religious freedom in Middle Age European society. Perhaps my encyclopedias and history books have all been lying to me.
Post #20
The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Right. Constantine legalized Christianity, and declared it the official religion of his regime.Constantine did not declare Christianity as the official religion. He simply legalized the practice of Christianity.
As I said, it was not until February 28, 380 AD that Christianity was declared the official religon (effectively banning all Pagan and Jewish faiths).Europe was a Christian theocracy from the year 380 onward. There is absolutely no denying that historical fact.Okie dokie. I can see your warped take on history is unchangeble.
If my textbook view of history is so "warped", then it should not be too hard for you to prove it wrong. Why are you running away from the debate?
Show me some historical sources that depict widespread religious freedom in Middle Age European society. Perhaps my encyclopedias and history books have all been lying to me.
