[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Edit: sorry for the many typos due to my extreme speed-typing. but I'm tired, and lazy anyway (as always), and it is late over here, so I do not take a second read now. and if I would not type typos anymore, some people maybe even would wonder what is wrong with me.

Acceptable, of course.

No, I am not talking on human nature in this disucssion, and I refuse to do s, for in the context of this discussion'S topic it is not needed, therefore, I completely ignore it. I focus on: ideologies, not individuals, not human natures, ideologies are not all the same, some are more aggressively pushing than others, some ore more for the benefit of the many, some are more for the profit of the few, and some propagate more positive things, and others more negative things.

Perhaps, but you cannot ignore the role human nature plays in the creation and sustenance of ideologies. If you want to talk about science, let's do so in a format to which science is accustomed. You can't simply skip the human nature part of the equation and go straight to ideologies.

You tell me what I already know by saying that ideologies are different. Societies of lesser primates are also different depending upon their environment and the societies around them. My point is that they all work around the same basic principles. Every human society is formed by a collection of human minds, Sky, as are the ideologies they form. I think you're skipping a very important step in the understanding of human sociology; you can't fix a machine by knowing what it does, you must know how it works.

Again, there are differences. For example I have quoted in the past an essay by Bonhoeffer, who examined the nature of human stupidity in nthat text and mentioned that it is more a sociological (group) than psychological (individual) phenomenen and issue. He expresses the observation nthat in groups people tend to be more vulnerable to fall for the tendency the crowd is heading at, while isolated individuals seem to be more likely to withstand stupid mass phenomenons. I would say, no, I am convinced that it is the same with ideologies (as well as popular media culture).

I see no difference between Bonhoeffer's observations and studies of social primates by the likes of Goodall, Hrdy, and Short. You yourself have mentioned on many occassions where we disputed economics and social structure that "no man is an island" while I was defending individualism. So what is this, now? I don't understand what you intend to prove by this argument.

Ouh, let's leave this dangerous simplification of what a scientific evidence is out of here. The scientific working standard is a bit more strictly, and i also must point out that eye-witness reports of random chance witnesses or professional observers never have the status of a scientific theory, necessarily.

It's not a simplification, it's just observation by scientific minds. For every one source you can produce that says humans don't behave in a way similar to their primate ancestors, I'll give you five more credible sources with complete citations that support each other. In fact, I'll bet I can do that using only ten books.

I don't think you're looking deeply enough into the issue Sky, if you don't mind my saying so.

No? Why is that, when it is a bigger threat to mnakind than any other ideology we know of, and when it claims global domination and extinction or subjugation of everything else as it's oltimate goal? BTW, extenrination is a word that I have NEVER used in any of these debates. I want to bring its spreading to a halt in hour home societies, and push it back. where it stays, it needs to be replaced, for I rule out the possibility that this ideology can be "modernised", "reformed", "tamed" or whatever.

Now you make my case for me. You may not use the word "extermination" and i did not accuse you of doing so (though I see where it was implied, sorry), but look at the words you use; "halt", "replaced", "rule out the possibility that it can be modernized". What you are saying is that you believe Islam, and the people who follow it, cannot be redeemed other than conversion to a different set of beliefs. Do I need to tell you how much that sounds like a fundamentalist Islamic perspective?

When they support Islam as islam defines itself by its own scripture and self-understanding, than I do single them out for sure, and hold them respnsible for their belief, becasue thanks to the presence of every single individual, Islam is one head stronger in our home societies, and has one voice more to claim its goals.

I bet Mohammed would approve, if only you were a Muslim. Do you not see what you are saying?

The same is true for fake-Muslims or apostates who just are to afraid to realsie that theay ar4e apostates, both groups may not be in active support of real islam, but nevertheless they help its cause by talking it nice and not standing up against it and giving it a big silent anonymous background that serves as a retreat area for the radical islamic claims. In German we call such people "Mitläufer", I am not sure I know the exact translation for that, I think my earli8er attempts were wrong, so I leave it to the german word. Mitlöufer are respnsible as well, becasue their passivity and silent support creates the space and opporutnity where the active idea can unfold. for example, only a minority of Germans were active Nazis, but very many were Mitläufer. Without these mitläufer, the Nazis would not have been able to rise.

Mitlaufer means someone who is a follower or a hanger-on in English. I think it literally means "with loafers", or in English: silent consenters or somesuch. In any case, it means someone who does not form their own opinions.

Even so, I see a flaw in your logic. Most Christians, even Catholics, would not support the hegemony of the Pope. Most Muslims in developed countries would not support Islamic theocracy, either. They are not willing to go back to that life. That is why they have fled thei home nations.

Furthermore, there is little comparison between post-WW1 Germans and the Nazis. The Germans that fled the Nazi regime didn't go back. We should welcome the refugees of Islam. You're exacerbating the difficulty of assimilating them by attacking them. I see the Mitlaufer in Germany as being roughly analagous to the citizens of Iran or Syria today, they have nowhere else to go because they are poor and other countries refuse them.

Wrong. Islam pretty much saw itself as the climax oh human civilisation - until Napoleon löanded in Egyp and all that scientific and civilisational and military superirioty of the Europeans was revealed to the Muhammeddan world.

Strange they didn't realize that when the Macedonians and Romans conquered them.

Since then it tends to claim special rights for itself and wants to claim that the Wetsern acchievements in science and technoloy and so forth owe it to the muslim world to be given them for free, although the Muslim world did little, and often: nothing to gain and deserve them them, and it thinks the West owes it to them for the offence of being so superior that it has to submit to islam - so that Islam'S claim to be the peak of civilisational evolution would be correct again. but societies must be ready for technolgical and scientific modernisations, they must be ripe, or they get crushed or paralysed by the new.

I think you're making a big leap in logic, my friend, and if I may say so, a huge error in strategic thinking. Most of Islam does want to have what we have, that much is true, but you are willfully ignoring the human factor in the equation, not to mention the economic factor.

In fundamentalist Islam, the general rule has been that Sheiks and Caliphs control most of the wealth and have huge harems. That's human nature. That's what happens in primitive totalitarian societies. Need I cite examples?
The only reason the common people go along with this is because they know nothing else; but if we introduce the fruits of Western civilization to them, they will begin to leave the hardcore tenets of their faith, which is based entirely upon the baser elements of human nature. That much I will agree with you upon.

Persecuting them is not the answer. That will only generate more violence and more discord. We have better ways to undermine totalitarian ideologies. Use your head.

In case of islam, you have a medieval, primtive mind-world, depending on superstititon and submissive, fatalistic obedience, colliding head-on with the modern West and all the items and qualities that brings. even more, they got hit by a seocnd desaster, they found out that they had oil. It served as a wonderful excuse why they would not have to chnage and adapt to the nodern time at all. why should they, if they could become rich and simply buy all the wonderful foreign items, and the operators could be leased? for the muslim world, oil is as much a curse as it is for us. for us it is, because they have it but not us, for them it is, becasue it has prevented the realisation that the reason for their medieval, stagnating, porimtive society is not a conspiracy by the West, but islams own anti-intellectual nature, its inherent stagnation that seeks not creative modenrisation and developement, but a fundamentlaist, totalitarian fixiation on a far away past that dictates rules and habits that are no longer adequate for the creative flexibility of the modern world. the clash of civilisation - in reality is more a clash of times, more than anything else. Reason for it is the islamic ideology and the way it has educated the thinking patterns and cultural developement and social role-modelling islam is handicapped by so much - and terrorises peopole with nevertheless, especially women, and infidels. but of course it psychologically castrates muslim males as well. relations between family fathers and sons are a very critical conflict in the West, giving birth to more and more social explosives. Social workers ofteh describe family structures as "crippled", seriously ill, and "pathologic". In Germany we have two turkish female Islam critics, who time and again bring it to the formula that more than anything else the uslim world needa a global sexual revolution. Both women are right, an they get plenty of fire for that. And the Germans themselves? Have nothing better to do for attacking them as well, becaseu especially Frau Kelec is a very detemrined defender of Wetsern values and the western underatabding of freedom. Germans ask instead why this freedom could be claimed to be so precious, and that it remindsa of the Nazis claimed superiority to defend this freedom. when hearing such sick comments, I realise in what a hopeless mental asylum i am already living.

Longest. Paragraph. Ever.

Good economic analysis in the first part. You are quite right about oil being as much of a curse to Islam as it is to us, but oil is only as good as what it can buy, and the non-muslim world has goods of every type imaginable in great abundance.

You take the argument to a new level by mentioning social workers. Yes, social workers often describe problems as being more severe than they really are, and they often prescribe social entitlements as the remedy, but then again, what would you expect them to do? They're social workers; like any workers, their entire livliehood depends upon identifying and solving problems to an acceptable degree within a society. What would you expect them to do? Do you realize that you're doing the exact same thing? You see a problem where there isn't one. You prescribe medications for the symptomns without recognizing the disease.

That is naivety resulting from total lack of understanding islam. You also seem to make the big, big mistake to think that what has worked in America necessarily works in all other cultures as well. You should know that better - you have seen your share of the mess created by this flawed assumption.

I make no mistake. I've seen economic freedom (as they jokingly call what Iraq has now) work first-hand. Even in that limited context, it works. It works brilliantly. Have you seen the lines of Shiite and Sunni Muslims and even Kurds who are willing to put aside their differences to make an honest dollar doing even menial work? I have. These people have been oppressed and impoverished and have lived under Islam all their lives, but they cooperated to provide for their families and themselves. I worked alongside them. I talked with them. They listened to my stories about the Bible and I listened to their stories about the Koran. I helped their children and they thanked me for it. We even fought together. There is a deeper meaning to human nature than simple ideology as you define it, Sky.

I'm sorry to say, but you will leanr better by painful experience. the question is not if, but when. Until then I only can recommend you get half a dozen of books on islamic scritpure (academic anaylsis, else you are lost), and history. for the world it will probably not make a difference. But maybe for yourself.

I've had my share of painful experience, and I believe these people are worth the effort.

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare. I have compained so oftenm now why that is so, and i am in very good acadmeic comnpany with that opinion, that I will not do it once again, since it would be a waste of time anyway. Just realsie one thing, at least. you talked of self-defence of Christinaity (while it could be argued that in the past oit was very much in the offence, and today doesnot dare to defend itself, but that just as a side remark).

Not a side remark, but the mark of a religion that has evolved.

Islam's understanding does not know a peace of mutual coexistence as you outlined it....

Sorry for cutting your response short, but my point still stands in the face of it. Islam is a religion of people, and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by assuming it to be otherwise.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll continue after work and a quick check f the boards.