You fail to discuss what is happening in Europe where new births are mostly from mothers who are adherents of Islam. In Europe, Muslim births are 3.5, Christian births are 1.2.

Wrong: Women with more than 3 kids are called Muslims, others are called Christians.
My point is that muslims who adopted a lifestyle 100% european (and there are a lot) are not muslim anymore in the sens we are discussing here. But for the stats, they still are.

and while Salafism doesn't have the same tradition of scholarship as the Roman Church, it has shown itself to be susceptible to the same Ozimandian forces as any other dogma
and all it will ultimately be able to do is 'wrinkle its lip and sneer' as the sandy tide overwhelms it too

to mix metaphors really badly: in the short term it may sound like a fit of sanguine Panglossian optimism to say that the Moonlit redoubts of Wahabism can be breached, but frontal religious seiges won't have the nearly the corrosive effect as the contradictions provided by Moore's Law

better ways become self evident, and this latest storm surge of Fundamentalism is a reactionary response to a process that is already well underway

in an attempt to get back on track....

jackattacks wrote:

Based on current demographic research-the population accepting Islam will grow faster than any people professing any other belief. What percentage of Islamic countries are democratic? What percentage of Islamic countries promote gender and religious equality?  Immigrants who practice Islam are forming an ever increasing percentage of the population of all countries in the world. By the 21st Century citizens who practice Islam will control the majority of Governments in the world. What will become of our secular educational system? What will become of our freedom to write, read and say what we please? This will largely depend on the hoped for evolution that Islam will be obliged to undergo.

the old One Ring thing, huh?

while it may work to great effect in a Tolkein mythos, in real life it's what Objectivists like to call a "Frozen Abstraction" ie, holding something (Islamic or Christian demographics) as fixed while one projects it into a highly fluid future

all the evidence points in the direction that there can never be 'one religion to bind them' because dogma apparently has to fracture once it gets to critical mass

besides, the age of dogmatic faiths has passed here in Middle Earth - there's just too much information out there that works to ever go back to the way things were

the Enlightenment rages on, and the conflicts will be too much for even the most backward to cling to memes that just can't be resolved in the face of something better

(and no, i'm not an Objectivist)

Maybe not but you're right. The focus is on Islam, but the people within Islam causing "problems" are the uneducated and poor. Islam/religion is just what they fall back on, what they put their faith into, mostly because they've never seen another option. People who are practicing Muslims, but also college professors, teachers, surgeons, scientists, etc. these people may be practicing, they may be religious, but no matter if they realize it or not they've seen the "true light" of reason and as you say there's no going back. People who practice Sharia law do so because they have no understanding of anything else, any alternative.

There are the exceptions but they only underline the rule. There are the lost - I'm speaking mostly of Western W.A.S.P.'s who drop their religion (since it's mostly inert anyways) and jump on Islam and all of a sudden you have an 'educated' person proving my statements above as 'wrong'. However these people always exist. In the sixties it was Jim Jones, in the seventies it was the 'born-agains' -- the hippies who washed ashore after the good ship Leary sank. There are always the lost who so intensely need to be 'found'.

What you say about predicting a fluid future while predicting that one phenomenon will remain unchanged is true: it's an easy conclusion to fall into but it's very unlikely. Just as the Church -- the "Earth is flat" church, adjusted itself in order to survive in a changing world, so too will Islam as it's followers find real 'truth'. So long as you're a ditch digger far removed from the population the easier it is to believe in more simplistic and uncompromising beliefs because your life is more simplistic, void of any necessary reasons to compromise.

The wave will crash as it always does. The tide will ebb. The great rules that were written in stone will reveal themselves to have been written in sand all along and as the tide recedes they will blur and we will have to re-write them again.

I think you might want to read the whole thread. This issue has been dealt with.

maybe...i can't tell...

but i know it hasn't been covered with near as much steeze as i gave it

in an attempt to get back on track....

jackattacks wrote:

Based on current demographic research-the population accepting Islam will grow faster than any people professing any other belief. What percentage of Islamic countries are democratic? What percentage of Islamic countries promote gender and religious equality?  Immigrants who practice Islam are forming an ever increasing percentage of the population of all countries in the world. By the 21st Century citizens who practice Islam will control the majority of Governments in the world. What will become of our secular educational system? What will become of our freedom to write, read and say what we please? This will largely depend on the hoped for evolution that Islam will be obliged to undergo.

the old One Ring thing, huh?

while it may work to great effect in a Tolkein mythos, in real life it's what Objectivists like to call a "Frozen Abstraction" ie, holding something (Islamic or Christian demographics) as fixed while one projects it into a highly fluid future

all the evidence points in the direction that there can never be 'one religion to bind them' because dogma apparently has to fracture once it gets to critical mass

besides, the age of dogmatic faiths has passed here in Middle Earth - there's just too much information out there that works to ever go back to the way things were

the Enlightenment rages on, and the conflicts will be too much for even the most backward to cling to memes that just can't be resolved in the face of something better

(and no, i'm not an Objectivist)

I think you might want to read the whole thread. This issue has been dealt with.

the old One Ring thing, huh?

while it may work to great effect in a Tolkein mythos, in real life it's what Objectivists like to call a "Frozen Abstraction" ie, holding something (Islamic or Christian demographics) as fixed while one projects it into a highly fluid future

all the evidence points in the direction that there can never be 'one religion to bind them' because dogma apparently has to fracture once it gets to critical mass

besides, the age of dogmatic faiths has passed here in Middle Earth - there's just too much information out there that works to ever go back to the way things were

the Enlightenment rages on, and the conflicts will be too much for even the most backward to cling to memes that just can't be resolved in the face of something better

(and no, i'm not an Objectivist)

IamMe wrote:

I was going to weigh into this thread, but I noticed it got quite nasty about halfway down, so I stopped reading.

I agree with you. I started this thread imbued with nastiness. I admitted my error earlier. All negative emotions defeat our ability to think matters out clearly. Do not ever lose your moral conviction.

How did this turn into a preachy thread about hatred? Moral conviction is more than platitudes about hatred lowering the IQ, it involves a passion for what is right and wrong and willingness to be aggressive in the face of those who understand no other language. There is no moral equivalency between religious nuts/fascists and the people who argue and fight strongly against them, regardless of peace platitudes.

I was going to weigh into this thread, but I noticed it got quite nasty about halfway down, so I stopped reading.

I agree with you. I started this thread imbued with nastiness. I admitted my error earlier. All negative emotions defeat our ability to think matters out clearly. Do not ever lose your moral conviction.

realityman wrote:

the reality is that the "peaceful", more "tolerant" Muslims are allowing those with a more radical ideology to hijack their religion

Perhaps it is true that radical Muslims are overrepresented in Middle Eastern politics and public affairs. It is also possible however that their influence is over-exaggerated, because their aggressive and powerful rhetoric causes them to be more visible than moderates.

cybert wrote:

If we would leave them the hell alone, they would turn on each other and work their crap out, but our extremists, people like you who cover themselves with excuses from a position of power keep threatening them, which leads their extremists to be able to say, "see how they act?"

Surely it is not only foreign or "imperialist" forces that inspire extremism. Many radical or nationalist movements in the Middle East are the product of domestic issues and divisions. Hezbollah, for example, was created partly in response to corruption in the Lebanese government, as well as a general sense of Shiite frustration and exclusion.

You are correct. As school children we can recall the presence of at least one bully from memory. He held sway over the rest of us. He got his self esteem by lowering it in others. Adult bullies are very much the same. In a democracy their influence is minimized. In a sectarian state they will dominate and cause us to call the entire state a terrorist one. If they could stop hating they would become very dangerous. As I have posted before, hatred lowers the hater's I.Q.

realityman wrote:

the reality is that the "peaceful", more "tolerant" Muslims are allowing those with a more radical ideology to hijack their religion

Perhaps it is true that radical Muslims are overrepresented in Middle Eastern politics and public affairs. It is also possible however that their influence is over-exaggerated, because their aggressive and powerful rhetoric causes them to be more visible than moderates.

cybert wrote:

If we would leave them the hell alone, they would turn on each other and work their crap out, but our extremists, people like you who cover themselves with excuses from a position of power keep threatening them, which leads their extremists to be able to say, "see how they act?"

Surely it is not only foreign or "imperialist" forces that inspire extremism. Many radical or nationalist movements in the Middle East are the product of domestic issues and divisions. Hezbollah, for example, was created partly in response to corruption in the Lebanese government, as well as a general sense of Shiite frustration and exclusion.

Nobody said "imperialist" or "forces". If you read my earlier posts, you would see I originally explained things exactly as "all politics being local." If we would quit interfering, they would work their problems out themselves.

A good example is Iran:The wingnuts went stomping around the room, criticizing Obama for being so low key when the Green Movement against Amedinejad began, but he was being very smart. Our extremists were too ignorant and partisan to understand that American support is the kiss of death for moderation in Iran. Amedinejad had only one argument against them and repeatedly accused and arrested them on the basis of "foreign influence." Which explains this:

Prominent Green Movement politicians and intellectuals have emphasized that the sovereignty and independence of both the Green Movement and Iran is an absolute priority. One prominent politician with ties to both Mir Hossein Moussavi and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, namely Ataollah Mohajerani, has stated in an interview (Farsi language) with newspaper RaheSabz that, if pressured or attacked, the nation would temporarily set aside the domestic crisis to fight against any invaders. Moussavi has taken pains to distance himself from Western governments or ideals as well, saying in his latest address: “We are neither affiliated with Americans nor British. We have neither sent greeting cards for the leaders of any powerful countries nor are hoping for their assistance.”

LEAVE THEM ALONE and let them work it out. Our extremists can't stand that idea.

the reality is that the "peaceful", more "tolerant" Muslims are allowing those with a more radical ideology to hijack their religion

Perhaps it is true that radical Muslims are overrepresented in Middle Eastern politics and public affairs. It is also possible however that their influence is over-exaggerated, because their aggressive and powerful rhetoric causes them to be more visible than moderates.

Surely it is not only foreign or "imperialist" forces that inspire extremism. Many radical or nationalist movements in the Middle East are the product of domestic issues and divisions. Hezbollah, for example, was created partly in response to corruption in the Lebanese government, as well as a general sense of Shiite frustration and exclusion.

Hatred lower the hater's I.Q. Understanding and not judging elevates it. Extremism in all matters is bad for intelligence. We all should strive to understand rather than judge our opponent's point of view. In this way we avoid being labeled as extremist.

I hate the haters. Have it as you will.

cybert wrote:

.... that's what happens when you get the chance to vote for a group that will actually fight for you...

Equals= EXCUSE, but who would have guessed...

Were my previous words not... ""Muslim extremists" are a far larger percentage of the Muslim population clearly represented by the actions and wills of those populations"...

So here you are cybert excusing the FACT that the Palestinians elected a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION to lead them 

You call it excusing, i call it telling it like it is. People in extreme shit elect those who will promise to fight for them by whatever means necessary. Iraelis do it, so do Americans, with their extremist toture-boy Bush.

Well, in the case of Lebanon, you do know that Hezbollah is a part of a coalition government and by definition NOT representing a majority, right. Oh, pesky details. A majority here did vote for extremists Bush and Cheney. Shall we count the Isreali extremist governments?

Realityman hates reality, calls it excuses. Did they ask for help. Help from Israel? The invaders. What country can be expected to ask help from invaders? Would we? It remains, it is a problem they have to live with. If we would just leave them alone, Hezbollah will eventually undermine itself.

Once again, reality denied as an excuse. When we left them alone, things were improving, but extremists like you ran things and screwed them up. Did you notice how when Bush was out and the war in Iraq winding down, suddenly Amadenajad was finally seriously challenged?

For years moderates have been saying, Please America, STOP HELPING US. Every time our extremists interfere, we help their extremists. That's reality, stop helping them. 

Your snotty bluster is irrelevant. You and your ilk are not peaceful, you are radicals who think guns and bombs can solve everything. Terrorists feed off fear of foreign interference. That's reality. Deal with it, extremist.

You have demonstrated no concept of reality or logic at all. I say firmly, I hate extremists. The only difference between you and Muslim terrorists is, you sit on your ass and expect our military to execute your radicalism, while they pick up guns and bombs and do it themselves. You both suck.

I need say no more, your irrational extremism speaks for itself.