San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses
(Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81)

Rankandfile: Interesting choice of Roman authors (Juvenal) from an interesting time in Rome's history (lamenting the move from Republic to Autocracy).

Coincidence, or were you also drawing a parallel to modern America?

It certainly seems as though we have abdicated our rights as an informed, involved citizenry and have devolved into a narcissistic, ignorant and easily led rabble.

My sentiments exactly.

Kudos, then.

Excellent choice of authors, by the way. You don't see much in the way of Classics anymore, especially the Roman authors.

I was discussing the movie "300" with someone recently, and they were fervently convinced it was fiction. I mentioned Herodotus and Thucycidides, in the context of the Greeks fighting the Persians and the modern example of Western democracy fighting militant Islam and had the sense of how we've lost that part of our history. Which is truly unfortunate, both for the lessons it offers and the richness of the experience.

I had a teacher of mine, a Jesuit priest, tell me that all of life's lessons could be found in "The Pelopponesian Wars" by Thucyidides. I make a point of reading it every year and, as I get older, the more I believe he was right.

I quoted Polybius ("Those who don't learn from the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them") on an earlier post, and it seems that simplest axioms are the hardest to remember and the easiest to forget.

I concur. Although the Persians weren't Muslim so I don't really see the parallel. The Greeks were certainly closer, in terms of affinity, to the Near East and the Black Sea than to Europe. The Ancient Greeks were never (and would never have been) Christians.

I also like Chinese philosophy. It explains everyday life very well also.

PerryChase,

It had less to do with Christianity and Islam, and more to do with the clash of cultures inherent to the Greco-Persian conflicts.

From a Western Civ perspective, we owe much to the Hellenistic values (especially the democratic ideals of individual voice, the right of franchise and the freedom to live one's life without undue interference or fear).

The Persians represented the worse sort of autocracy and, like militant Islam, believed in obligation through subjugation.

I don't see the present day conflict as being between Judeo-Christian values versus Islamic values. Rather, it is between the right to have individual freedoms versus submitting to some medieval autocratic ideal.

"I don't see the present day conflict as being between Judeo-Christian values versus Islamic values. Rather, it is between the right to have individual freedoms versus submitting to some medieval autocratic ideal."

I guess it is a real intellectuals war then. That does surprise me. I do agree that the conflict is not over Christian values from our point of view,although a little chauvinistic motivation never hurts, perhaps the other side feels a little more righteous indignation over interference to their freedom of religion and autodetermination(for better or for worse). Beyond that my uneducated guess is that it is about power, economies and resources(fossil fuels this time).
In my opinion our president has superceeded all other autocrats quite effectively(with help of course). As for ideals I just don't see us taking any exceptional ideals to the forefront of this occupation. Does the mere envolvement of our superior(western) culture suffice as a reason for the continuation of decades or even centuries of oppression and death? By comparision Japan , Germany and Russia would have ruled us outright in various recent times .Look at the treatment given them. We are simply not giving Justice to the Middle East.

Less cravings for "bread and circuses" and we might realize that.

Rustico: Where to begin? I guess by saying that the rulers of the Middle East have done a far better job of oppressing their people (and for a far longer time) than the Western powers ever have.

As far as America being an autocracy: That is opinion oft advanced, but with no basis in fact.

Islam has been always been a religion of war, and has been spread by the sword since it's inception. It is a religion that demands either subjugation, or death. The idea that there is any moral equivalence between the prevailing religion/philosophy of the Middle East and Western democratic states beggars description.

As far as centuries of oppression and death, please give examples. As the various posters here are fond of saying: Please provide data.

As regards our (Western democracies) exploitation of their mineral resources: Explain then how Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiti, Qatar, UAE, etc, are all cash rich states. That region is awash in petrodollars, all paid by the self same Western democracies that are so egregiously exploiting them. An interesting paradox, no?

To be fair to both or us Allan ,expressing our points of view would require a book. Neither of us can make a quality presentation on this blog. I have a feeling your book will be written with a Christain American Patriot bias and mine with what I believe to be a more holistic approach.I am white of european ancestry, born on the fourth of July, baptised catholic, so I wouldn't be bringing forth any Islamic, ethnocentric or nationalist chauvinism to my side of the argument. I simply refuse to condone this war by use of any rationale. That said I will respond to a few items in your post.

1) "Where to begin? I guess by saying that the rulers of the Middle East have done a far better job of oppressing their people (and for a far longer time) than the Western powers ever have."

Your argument/defense constitutes a logical fallacy. It is called "two wrongs make us right". Your assumption that they have done a poor job is very undefined as compared to what?
See now the burden of proof is on you. It also assumes that this region does not have the right of autodetermination. It also assumes that it is our right to intervene.

2)As far as America being an autocracy: That is opinion oft advanced, but with no basis in fact.

You misunderstood my reference to "Autocracy". In my view George Bush takes on the appearance of "Autocrat Supreme".My view actually is that he is a puppet of other influencial people but he comes off as an Autocrat regarding the Invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The fact that the "war" was planned before he was elected.That he lied about WMD. That he unreasonalby linked Saddam Hussien and Al Qaeda. That I believe it is safe to assume that the invasion and occupancy are about power, oil and economies and not terrorism.Never in my life have I called the USA an autocracy.

As and aside: I don't think there exists a greek or otherwise classical reference to describe what our nation is. Renaming our system would be a fine topic of a political science dissertation. It is something like a marriage between a ruling class,domestic and transnational corporations,influential institutions like the Vatican and other religious coalitions,universities, unions ect.

3)Islam has been always been a religion of war, and has been spread by the sword since it's inception. It is a religion that demands either subjugation, or death. The idea that there is any moral equivalence between the prevailing religion/philosophy of the Middle East and Western democratic states beggars description.

You are exaggerating and ommiting here. Islam has coexisted quite peacefully for vast periods of time with Christianity, Hinduism and Buddism. The Koran is open to interpretation the same as the Bible. There are many examples of attrocities and intolerance committed by Christians historically as well. The inquisition, crusades,Witch hunts,conquests of native peoples, slavery ect.

4)As far as centuries of oppression and death, please give examples. As the various posters here are fond of saying: Please provide data.

Here the logical fallacy is to put the "burden of proof on me" as opposed to questioning your own stance. You are the better historian by far. That is, I believe you have assimilated more of the events and timeframes of movements on the world stage.Maybe you don't know as much as I credit your for? However, I also believe that whatever I present has already been rationalized in your mind to a view that is not favorable to Muslims. Here are a few examples of what I see as oppressive that you will undoubtedly see as fair play and as favors to Islamic society. Invasions and occupations, colonizations(french and british),Establishment and armament of Israel in Palistine which I see as a standing army for western civilization, an invasion and occupation,establishment of puppet governments and Kingdoms,Embargos, sanctions restriction on sea transport. Disequal opportunity to build military power including nukes.Proxy wars.

5)As regards our (Western democracies) exploitation of their mineral resources: Explain then how Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiti, Qatar, UAE, etc, are all cash rich states. That region is awash in petrodollars, all paid by the self same Western democracies that are so egregiously exploiting them. An interesting paradox, no?

The use of selective examples justifies and proves nothing with regard to the invasion and occupancy. The examples you posit may be proof to the extent which divide and conquer has succeeded to date. The fact that compensation exists doe not prove regional autodetermiantion and a free market for fossil fuels. Do you believe that these states could refuse to sell to the U.S without consequences? The threat that the influence on the oil is vulnerable is what is really at issue.
It occurs to me that Israel's threat presence could no longer maintain US dominance over the power oil and economies of the Middle East. Also there was the threat of other powerful nations and/or the european union, usurping our influence if not militarily, then by a shift in realtive global economic significance.
Because of the benefits aligned to such influence the Invasions and occupations were launched.

Allan I am sure I have made a few mistakes. To go on with this to this extent,and it really merits more depth, would take way too much time. You may have the last word or alternatively we just agree to disagree.
Best wishes.

Rustico, it'll let you debate this topic.

I don't have much interest in convincing the ideologues.

Rustico/PerryChase: I am not ideologue. Far from it. I did not vote for Bush in either election (nor did I vote for either Gore or Kerry). I am Catholic by birth, baptism and education, but Jesuit Catholic. While conservative politically, I think the Republican party has lost its way, especially as regards its core principles. The Democrats, on the other side of the aisle have ideologically sold out to a morally bankrupt and morally infantile left wing element that had its heyday during the Vietnam War.

I do not condone the various depredations visited on the world by Western powers, nor do I conclude that we are completely responsible for the state of the world as well.

If I were to pick an ancient (Greek or Roman) model for the US, I would choose Athens right befoe and during the Pelopponesian War. A power that had grown decadent, arrogant and incorrect in its stance about its neighbors and its place in the world.

I also do not have a chauvinistic view of Islam. Rather, my views on Islam are solely a product of reading up on history. When you cite the example of the Crusades, do you believe that this was an example of exploitation, or that there was genuine justification in the defense of Christendom? I believe that the Christians had as much claim (during that time) as the Jews and Moslems to Jerusalem. The fact is that Europeans were fighting as late as 1683 to eject Islam from Vienna. It is not a matter of "interpretation" either. People cite the "peaceful" examples of the Qu'ran and say that we (Christians and Jews) have been co-existing peacefully. Sadly, this is untrue. True Islams demands complete subjugation to the will of Allah as either a convert or a controlled unbeliever (subject to taxes, punishments, etc) or death.

If Islam was not a religion spread by the sword, how did Islam wind up in Spain, the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe? And, if it was a religion that peacefully coexisted with its Christian and Jewish, why did Europe resist so strongly (i.e. the Spanish Reconquista) against it for so many years?

I do respect your opinion as regards your own worldview. It is yours after all. However, history (true history composed only of facts and figures and not revisionism) is history. And, while certainly no fan of Israel, it is the only country in the region that is a democracy and supports the rule of law.

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but apparently the UK is wrestling with a problem of female circumcision. More like female mutilation, but ahh what do we care, it's just part of their culture. To denigrate this practice would suggest that I think western culture is superior which is simply not the case.

So hack away with those sharpened stones, Muzzies!!

All Praise be to Allah

Gender Mutilation

I typed you a long response Allan but I goofed it up. Thanks for being reponsible in the presention of your views.
I appreciate that you are not blindly patriotic and nationalistic.
I am just going to address a few of your points from your last post.
I never said Muslims were never agressive,that would be stupid.

Certainly you can find as many examples of Muslims coexisting with other religions over vast periods of time in northern Africa,the Middle East and Asia? What about the sword and subjugation in those situations?What about the tolerance of secularism at various times. Islam is not a trained pitbull with no other recourse but vicious brutal actions in it's bag of tricks. This is delusional thinking.It sounds like buying into the vilify the enemy propaganda.

You ask:
"If Islam was not a religion spread by the sword, how did Islam wind up in Spain, the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe? And, if it was a religion that peacefully coexisted with its Christian and Jewish, why did Europe resist so strongly (i.e. the Spanish Reconquista) against it for so many years?"

You can find equally malevolent deeds by Christendom.I question the influence of your heritage and upbringing on your objectivity. Christendom has used much more disastrous weaponry for invasions and conquests including against obvious innocents or those who simply protest a dogma and subjugation! Now we feel it is our right to hold exclusively,if it were possible the most abominable weapons ever available which were BTW brought into existence not in response to Islam. But have been held over all nations by Christendom.

Above all I hope you do not feel these occupations are justified by the shortcomings of a religion as expressed over time or even currently.You drew me into this conversation with a statement that seemed to reflect a position like that. Those families in Iraq and Afghanistan, being blown to pieces, had nothing to do with that.We are not giving Justice to the Middle East.

I think we should not start to go in so many circles from here. The peanut gallery is starting ot chirp in. If recent history repeats itself digression looms.
If I understand teh guidelines promulgated by the blogmaster correctly, my post, for being located below Baseball Guys rediculous post might get deleted. Best wishes.

Rustico: I agree, and I appreciate your reasoned response. I mention my Jesuitical education for a reason: Anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? I absolutely agree that as Christians we have some fairly significant skeletons in our closets.

However, it is interesting to note the decided lack of "moderate" Moslems when it comes to confronting Al Qaeda on their home turf. While I agree about the poor citizens in both Iraq and Afghanistan being killed in a war that was not of their choosing, would I also not be remiss in remarking upon the fact that the majority of the casualties being inflicted upon those people are from fellow Moslems? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point when Sunnis and Shia are killing each other with reckless abandon all in the name of Allah.

Lastly, I am of German descent on both sides of my family. Given the Teutonic predisposition for aggressive behavior, I am probably the last one to throw stones. However, Germany is now a peaceful and productive member of the world, proving that you can rehabilitate instransigent nations over time. But it requires a strong commitment and a lot of time.

While I fear that the cause is lost in Iraq, I don't disagree with the underlying rationale. I think nation building is worthwhile and I agree that justice is all important.

I am not a saber rattling nationalist, but I do think America has been a force for good far more often than she has not. I think we need to find our way back to those ideals that made us great and assert a sense of decent leadership again.

Since I am the least qualified to comment or pretend to comprehend w/out a bias religion in general, I think I will recommend some insightfull reading by Mircea Eliade. He's one of the first authors in the world to do a comparative historic review of religions in a book & publish it.

"The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion"
by Mircea Eliade

He was translated into many languages, and I know he's published many more books along the same subject. My father, a retired journalist now, has been pushing me to read his work for the longest time. However, I am behind on my dad's recommended reading list, so I am working on "Never Eat Alone" by Keith Ferrazi.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custome...

While you're at it, check out Karen Armstrongs books. She was a Catholic nun and is now a prolific author on the history and origins of world religions. In particular to this discussion, see her book on Mohammad and Islam:

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Biography...

I'm athiestic but think calling Islam a "religion of the sword" is a naive to say the least, especially in comparison to the violence commited in cultures which are dominantly Christian or Catholic. The real crime is that our media only reports from certain perspectives which tend to bias one's judgement. Forget the media, people! Read some history, travel, get a global perspective (yes I've done this including traveling all up over the middle east).

Allan, With Jesuit "soldiers of christ" and Teutonic ,an order of knights influences how could not be fiesty?

Please don't think I am picking on you. I appreciate the chance to voice my ideas and you are giving me the opportunity to do that on a subject I feel is very important.

For my cognitive faculties, you are drawing way too many conclusions of the nature of Islam and muslims from examples that in my opinion belong to the correlation does not mean causation species of logical fallacies.

This is the paragraph in question from your post.
"However, it is interesting to note the decided lack of "moderate" Moslems when it comes to confronting Al Qaeda on their home turf. While I agree about the poor citizens in both Iraq and Afghanistan being killed in a war that was not of their choosing, would I also not be remiss in remarking upon the fact that the majority of the casualties being inflicted upon those people are from fellow Moslems? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point when Sunnis and Shia are killing each other with reckless abandon all in the name of Allah."

I think it is natural for some Iraqis and Afghanis and others to see Al Qaeda as a natural ally, Does "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" seem applicable as much as some inherent defect in Islam? I think you might be giving religion way to much play in all of this. Perhaps because much of your reality is based in it from your Jesuit education and upbringing? In From my secular view point mostly I see Religious contexts as secondary and mostly mostivational in nature.
Primarily I see the fighting between the Shiites and Sunni to be political, the result of a occupation, a quasi- proxy war and a civil war all at the same time. Groups that happen to be divided along sectarian lines and christians(us)are all taking part. The sects which happen to also coincide with political divisions are greedily grasping for power as a result of a void created by the toppling of the dictatorship and the installation of an American puppet government. They are not fighting each other over interpretations of the Quran. If this is not true why didn't they have an unrelenting "holy war" before we got there?

If we want to use a similiar example from Christendom let's look at Ireland. Does the constant fighting between protestants and Catholics prove a tremendous flaw in the validity of Christianity or do you see beyond the religious issues to a battle for control betwen Irish nationals and the interests of the British? I see the later. The religious soldiers are pawns.

I don't dislike or mistrust you because you are affiliated with a religion that has "Skeletons in the closet". I do hope that the parent of that religion, Christendom does not pack the closet further with bones. I hope that you would ease up on your opinion of a people that happen to have a religious history in Islam and some skeletons in the closet.
I think the confusion detracts from what you have to contribute to your hopes to "find our way back to those ideals that made us great and assert a sense of decent leadership again."

Then you said:
While I fear that the cause is lost in Iraq, I don't disagree with the underlying rationale. I think nation building is worthwhile and I agree that justice is all important.

I hope somehow we can have a decent ending to this situation. Imagine the new wounds it has caused that will cause people to be vunerable to extremism. We will reap what we have sown probably.I am not greatful that my children will grow up to that rotten fruit but I will tell them we are in great part responsable.

I simply don't agree that Nation building for any higher purpose was on the table. Besides there were lots of parties or coalitions that might have liked to have done the nation building given the oil and the strategic importance of influencing the region . Maybe they would have been more diplomatic and had less brutal results. Perhaps Iraq would have had an eventual solution on their own just might not have been so much in our interests and I don't think we had grave concerns over Iraqi quality of life issues. I think there are problems in the world we could have easily influenced for the better that we have let go to the ruin of many more lives, mainly in Africa. greed maybe even desperation took over our leadership.

You will probably continue to have a hard time putting your finger on your mistrust of Muslims. I think we have an deeply conditioned fear and hatred of Muslims and especially Arabs. It probably has roots in the fact that they were one of the last non-european expansionistsa dn the target of there expansion was Christendom . I do believe there has been a a propaganda campaign during my entire 45 years on this planet and can only imagine that people raised under Christian traditions are even more conditioned.
Spastic hateful commentary on this blog from devout Christians and my observations of George Bush plying his constituents seem to confirm this belief. For the record. I am not intolerant.

Rustico: I certainly don't think you are picking on me, and the point of discourse is to be able to articulate differing viewpoints in a friendly environment.

I mentioned both the Germans and the Jesuits for the very reason you picked up on. Yup, there is a lot of stuff in both histories that is cringe making, but that is also the nature of history.

I also do not for a second believe that if oil weren't present in Iraq, we would be there. "Trade follows the flag" is a truism now, was during the days of the British Empire and the Roman Empire as well. We are an empire, in name if not deed, but a fairly enlightened one to a certain extent. Of course, if history truly judges us, we are also a pretty brutal bunch in our own way.

That being said, I also think a fair reading of history will condemn Christians and Moslems alike. Islam is not a religion of peace and the "religion of the sword" comment is derived from Sura 9:5 in the Qu'ran ("The Sword Verse") that makes it explicitly clear how Islam is to be spread to the non-believers.

While there are undoubtedly political motivations and machinations inherent to the fighting between the Sunnis and Shia, the larger issue is one of Quranic interpretation and this has inspired internecine warfare between the two sects for a lot longer than we have been in Iraq.

I really don't have any ingrained dislike of Moslems or Islam, any more than I have a natural dislike of Buddhism, Shintoism or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Belief in God and religiosity/spirituality are intensely personal decisions and not subject to my judgments as to whether or not they are correct. However, as with Nazism, Communism or the New York Yankees, some things are intrinsically wrong.

From a religious standpoint, any religion that actively seeks the subjugation of non-believers and does so in the name of God is a problem. If that is fundamentalist Christianity or fundamentalist Islam makes no difference to me. Last time I checked though, we didn't have a group of priests or rabbis flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers. That they did so at the behest of their religion speaks volumes.

I hear what you are saying about the responsibility of America and reaping what we have sown, but what then is the answer for that part of the world? Self-government? Along the lines of what? Iran? Libya? Syria? Lebanon? Give the people in those countries the right to choose and I would support their choice. I have no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would do well in elections. So be it. If it is the choice and voice of the people, than that is what counts.

As far as the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, look to the British. Home Rule has been an asbolutely unmitigated disaster for the Crown. Give Northern Ireland the same rights as Southern Ireland as far as franchise and self rule and most, if not all, of the problems would go away.

Allan,
Thanks for your time today. I particularly enjoyed your last post.
Best wishes

Rustico: Thanks for your time as well. I appreciate both the consideration and the opportunity to engage in what was a very fun dialogue for me.

Of course, you need to remember to watch the Germans (and the Jesuits for that matter). Turn your back on us, and the next thing you know we're in Poland!

Regards

I quoted Polybius ("Those who don't learn from the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them")

I think this quote is normally attributed to George Santayana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of...

PG chirping in here and sorry for putting up that post on mutilation (though it does boil my blood).

My question is for Rustico (or anyone really) and mostly it is because my understanding of the Sunni/Shia conflict is fairly minimal. However my reading of your rant is that you downplay this conflict as being political in nature. My limited interpretation suggests this divide is much more serious than say the Irish/English protestant/Catholic divide. Or, am I am misunderstanding you?

My thoughts on why Sadaam was so brutal was precisely to quell or keep the factions from killing one another, using whatever means necessary. Isn't there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?

I believe that in Iraq specifically, the Shia/Sunni divide is also regional and in effect, like an "ethnic" issue in Iraq.

The motivations of the groups against each other are not religious---that's just a marker for 'my people' versus 'your people'. Saddam favored "his people", and the "other people" want payback.

The religious motivations are, by contrast, very important in the other more important war---the religious versus the secular.

There the Shia were the anti-seculars, and have no compunction murdering doctors and university professors (the economic and secular rational elite were also generally Sunni and Christian).

And of course fundamentalist al-Qaeda et al agree with them on that.

Sunni versus Shia, so far it's 3-2 Shia. Murderous fundamentalists versus seculars? 10-0.

I think I can end your debate pretty easily on whether or not Islam is an inherently violent religion and whether or not Christianity is an inherently peaceful religion.

Just look at the lives of the founders of these religions. Jesus harmed no one and preached to love your neighbor. Mohammed on the other hand, was extremely brutal. He regularly raided caravans, ordered assinations of his foes, married a 9 yr old girl, had a harem of slave women, raised an army and conquered Arabia, and if you ever wonder why the Islamist like to chop off heads, well ol' Mo was famous for that as well. In fact, he had all the men of an entire Jewish tribe put to death. Swell guy huh? If he were alive today, he would be in the same rank as an Idi Amin and Sadaam Hussein.

Now, this doesn't mean the followers of Christ have done no evil but the foundations of Christianity and Islam are at opposite extremes. So in fact, it's pretty easy to see which of these religions is inherently peaceful and which is inherently violent.

Cardiff,

I only brought up the Protestant/ Catholic divide because I felt Allan used the fact that there is sectarian infighting in Iraq, within a major religion, during an invasion/occupation a proxy war and under a puppet government to prove the religion is fundamentally flawed compared to his. I could have gone further back in history to find examples of more continuos conflict between Christian cultures and sects which I don't believe he would consider should engender the same devaluation of his own religion.

The fact of the matter is the world has been fighting forever yet it appears we use any example of Musliom agression to promote our own relgious superiority/moral authority which in turn is used to justify our own agression which is really undertaken for greedy purposes or to stabilize a region that we are to a large part responsable for destabilizing.

"Isn't there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?"

Probably. I think there is a "camp" for everything.

Now you can apologize for calling my participation here yesterday a rant....Just kidding :).

I respect Allan very much. In the end I found many things that weren't on the table initially that surprised me about him ,in a good way. I also still don't agree with him too much on the main points of the discussion. I think he is taking the "spread by the sword thing too far". There are similiar issues of interpretation of the bible where violent references are concerned. Christendom has found tremendous support for violence from within it's doctrines and from the holy men, authorities and politicians who are apparently closer to God.
I have no doubt that at times violent passages or religion derived righteousness are used to motivate men to battle including Al Qaida and the U.S marines. That doesn't mean on a daily basis the majority of Muslims throughout the world are chomping at the bit to spread Islam by the sword, at least not anymore than we are. It is very much fear based and irresponsible and destructive , to propagandize this way.

Like you, I am learning about Islam and the Middle East and how our national agenda and Christian heritage plays into it.

A fascinating read on the differences between rival sects in Islam (and the simliarities between it, Christianity and Judaism) - "No God but God" by Reza Aslan.

Amazon linky:
http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-Evo...

Being relatively clueless about most religions myself, I found it very interesting.

I think I can end your debate...

That's a pretty appropriate introduction for someone with the name Omega Point.

Rustico: Thanks again for the kind words.

I would like to raise one point that I did not in earlier posts regarding the Christian versus Islam debate, and that is the issue of modernity.

If you look at world history solely from the Renaissance forward, and you were to graph the progress of the Western (or so-called "Christian") world on one line and the Middle East and Near East (comprised of Turkey, down through the Levant, across the Saudi peninsula and into/including Afghanistan)on another line, you see an interesting (albeit simple) graph emerge. The Middle Eastern world has remained stagnant economically, socially and politically and the Western world (especially America, England and Central Europe) have made tremendous strides in terms of economic, social, scientific, political and religious progress.

I say this not to offer some scathing indictment of Islam and the Middle/Near East, but to ask the question: What factor or factors contribute(d) to the progress on one hand and the stagnation on the other?

CardiffBaseball made an admittedly ham handed reference to Islam and the issue of genital mutiliation, but his point was valid. I also agree with the idea that this made his blood boil. It should.

Rustico, you said that the West has been propangandized when it came to the subject of Islam and Mid East. I agree, but to the extent that we have been told to turn a blind eye to the depredations of a culture that espouses a chauvinistic, misogynistic, and xenophobic world view.

Martyrs for Islam claim a heavenly reward of 72 virgins. Is it just me, or does that strike anyone else here as remarkably childish and infantile? You are part of a religious and social culture that is so sexually repressed and backward that any hope you have of true and unfettered sexual fulfillment has to come with your martyrdom in the cause of Islam and for Allah? Huh?

I mention the Renaissance for another reason. The Roman Catholic Church has been castigated for its transgressions in the period leading to the Protestant Schism (and in point of fact, this was the reason behind the Schism) and justifiably so. As Rustico pointed out, Catholicism was a faith that converted at sword point as well. However, and this is key: Catholicism and Christianity have moved forward and by tremendous leaps and bounds since that time. Islam, arguably, has not. Has not to the point that Osama bin Laden and his ilk wish fervently for a return to this medieval type faith and a world ruled by a unified Islamic caliphate subject to and bound by Islamic law (Shar'ia).

If my choice is between modern Catholicism (which still has a ways to go in modernizing) or modern Islam (which has not modernized in any sense), I think I'll stay Catholic.

Allan,Just a reminder. I am not supporting Islam over Christianity because for my purposes religion would be better kept a non-state issue. Now, that topic gets some individuals really angry, so for the sake of civil debate I have avoided it. I think since you seem to give Catholicism some credit for the advancement of western civilization in the last 1/2 millenia the topic may be necessary again. I think the Catholic church unfortunately carries political weight in the world and that maybe it is good for some individuals but I would like to see where it has actually contributed to the advancement of western civilization or for peace, by efforts free of motive for fortification of its power.It is better by virtue of having been rendered less powerful and less oppressive. I thought is was the marginalization of religion in favor of other forms of creativity free of dogma that gave the Renaissance and western civilization wings. Now, if you want to argue that the near and middle east might benefit by having more freedom from religion that is a different topic. However I don't think the U.S would be treating the region any better at this time if it were entirely secular and it continued to possess and threaten to politicize resources that satisfy our interest as Iraq and Iran have done. Again my issue is that we are using Islam as an excuse to vilify an enemy that we have to a large part created and to justify our nefarious foriegn policy towards .It is not which religion is better. It is about wether or not we are justified,or behaving in a christian manner if you wish, in man handling the governments ,seas, oil and economies and in killing innocent people while doing so. I will respond to your post later. It looks like there is a little possibility to philosophize a bit.

THANKS to all the book link posters. Honestly they won't all get read by your's truly but I "surfed" each and everyone out and that in itself was relevant and edifying.

Rustico: I did not mean to infer that you were supporting Islam over Christianity, nor was I holding up the Catholic Church as some paragon of virtue. Nope. I was making the point, however, that whatever the various misdeeds of the Catholic Church (and Christianity for that matter) in the period immediately before and following the Renaissance, far more progress has been made in the Western world than in the Middle and Near East.

The Church's suppression of knowledge and persecution of folks like Galileo, stands in counterpoint to support of thinkers like Aquinas and artists like Da Vinci. What is inarguable is that, however misguided, the Church and the various state institutions advanced Western civilization at a rapid clip. Yes, it was mainly about the accretion of power, influence and real estate and there were some really nasty instances of bad behavior in there (Cortes, the Spanish Inquisition, pretty much everything having to do with settling The New World, etc), but all of history is replete with similar tales and regardless of geography and culture.

My main point is that we have moved forward and there is NO comparison between the Europe of the Middle Ages and the Europe of today. Individual freedoms, decentralized state and political power, the rule of law have all advanced to a point where the modern states of Germany, Italy, France and England are completely unrecognizable from their older counterparts.

I would also point out that there were more wars (of greater destructiveness) during than Age of Reason than nearly any other point in European history (save WWI/WWII obviously).