MonwarH Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Was reading through the Afghanistan post here. It quoted the recent Islamic demographic data... 23% of the world population being Muslim and all that. That kind of stirred me. I read about it in the news too and found it... of little use. I am 26 and come from a Muslim-majority country (Bangladesh). I live in the capital (Dhaka), in a pretty conservative, Islamic family. I myself am an agnostic... in the sense that I am not sure what to 'believe', but am pretty well acquainted with Islamic culture. Most of what the Taleban does, is thoroughly abhorrent to my family. Let me give you an example. My sister is preparing to marry her boyfriend... who comes from a richer business family (religious-minded... but... umm, how to explain this... the women cover themselves, but have very high social mobility)... and there was talk about my sister not having to work. My parents kind of had an outburst at that... how the hell come an educated woman not work?! That was pretty impressive... I mean the absolute standards my parents hold on that matter... these are religious and conservative Muslims... my parents, and keep in mind that they never forced my sister to take up the hijab (the 'head-scarf', LOL). Now, you can pick the above 'story' apart in seconds... it is just one stance among many. Conservative Salafis will consider my family 'deviant', ultra-liberal Westerners might as well snigger at that story ('heh'!). But that's not the point I am trying to make. What I am trying to tell... wondering around with my words as I tend to do... is that what my family is arguing for is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to the Taleban. I should know. My cousin (when she was in London) married an Afghan refugee family's son whose home is in Peshawar. They didn't allow the marriage ceremony to be filmed (the most conservative streams of Islam, in this case, Deobandism, take literally the injunction against painting, hence the complete refusal to allow themselves to be photographed). That is an extreme oddity in Bangladesh, and most disappointing for my uncle's family. So now, the point becomes pretty obvious, and I am saying nothing new - there are millions of shades even within Islam. My father, say, is simultaneously an orthodox Sunni Islam and a Sufi (of the Qadiriyah Tarika, most probably). He is non-violent to the extent of not killing the mosquitoes that bite him at winter! I was reading Andrew Sullivan's 'The Daily Dish' the other day, and there was one post where he pointed out that the struggle now taking place in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia... these are 'their' struggle. I kind of have a same view. It is a 'working out' process. Let me give you another example. Bangladesh was named 'East Pakistan' till 1971, and then it got fed up with the West Pakistanis and had a Liberation War. I was watching a video... a docu-video, about the situation before the Liberation War. It struck me how many woman in Dhaka wore the hijab in those days... from the random footage. ZERO. Now-a-days, the percentage has gone up to ~30%. Indeed, there is increased religious observance (Egypt also comes to mind). This is a critical point in a nation's juncture. I have a pet theory that as education levels improve, religious observance tends to increase. This, with other 'externalities', can make a nation go Pakistan's way, or, say Malaysia's way. Bangladesh is closer to the Malaysian model. Of couse the country has its share of extreme followers of Islam. But they tend not to be able to exert an impact on wider society. They do try violent tactics, but as the whole of society is very strongly opposed to such disruptions, including, criticially, the vast, religious Muslim segment... it FAILS, miserably. Even the most fanatic among them learns that lesson (and then some act on it, and some don't... just like Herodotus said). I find some of the Western opinions to be incredibly generalizing (and I am sure we 'Easterners' make similar outrageous generalizations). That said, I find some opinions to be well-informed. Of course I can not totally blame the West (and I hate that generalizing term) for not being able to grasp the complexities of the broadly Eastern and narrowly Islamic societies as a whole. I myself have great difficulty doing that... and wonderment... and amazement. There are unique variables in every society... every 'civilization', every species (Jared Diamonds' books come to mind). What seems fundamental differences between Western civlization is the snowballing of trivial differences (from 'courtly love' to the 'sexual revolution'). Even within these respective categories, there are HUGE differences between Western and Eastern societies. Enough of me rambling. What's the conclusion to be reached here? LOL. Not much. I just felt like presenting a perspective. That said, I prefer a more sympathetic view of geopolitics and broad human trends. Even with everything happening, not much has shifted... I am sure I am indecipherable here. Don't try to decipher... just consider most of these, broadly, to be 'salts of the earth'! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Enough of me rambling. What's the conclusion to be reached here? LOL. Not much. I just felt like presenting a perspective. That said, I prefer a more sympathetic view of geopolitics and broad human trends. Even with everything happening, not much has shifted... I am sure I am indecipherable here. Don't try to decipher... just consider most of these, broadly, to be 'salts of the earth'! I think it should be "silt" of the earth, not salt; Shakespeare got it wrong. Most people here are tolerant of others' POV and not at all inclined to believe that they alone hold the wisdom of the ages. I think that rather than your lead indicator for religiosity being the level of education of a society, it should be the level of media saturation maintainable by a political (or pseudo-religious) movement. Technology requires a level of education to maintain - the use it's put to doesn't. In a developed society, where the leadership is not bound by a set of rules 800 or more years old, it is generally recognised that a free populace doesn't make trouble for itself but works for its own betterment. Also, that change is necessarily a risk, but not necessarily a poor or unmanageble risk. Thus the reform of the Roman Catholic Church and the development of Protestant economies, the quantifiable (and of an order of magnitude) differences in levels of wealth generated by the different national populations. If your political system allows for the efficient exploitation of your human resource, you will lead the rest of the world in wealth generation, even if your natural resource base is weak. If it doesn't you'll either have to change or be pushed under. As I see it, the Muslim world is well aware of the need for good leadership (which societies aren't? well, those that can but don't vote) - and is well enough educated to subject the advertising coming out of the West to critical analysis. (The West has held the monopoly on mass media content for many decades.) Pity we in the West aren't as capable - either of performing the analysis or rejecting the parts of the message that are quite obviously perfumed turds. There are lots of things the west does well - but anyone living in the West will tell you that over the last two decades their freedoms (and wealth) have been eroded. Partly this has been a trade-off as leisure time is valued more and so people are less inclined to work hard for their wealth, mostly it has been due to a failure in trust and communication as the message turned out to be untruthful advertising. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Welcome MonwarH. Always nice to hear another perpective 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Welcome MonwarH. I truly hope that you will become a permanent and active member of this community. It's a pleasure to read your thoughtful post. I have a pet theory that as education levels improve, religious observance tends to increase. That may well be a part of the picture, but I suspect there are other parts too. For instance, I think one may observe that as a universal world culture has begun evolving since at least—let us just say somewhat arbitrarily—sixty years ago, and many nations and peoples are emerging into it, that individual humans seek to identify more strongly with the ethnic and traditional values that make them unique. I have observed that trend here in the USA for over forty years, for instance. On the one hand I view that as a positive influence as many of those traditional values have useful content. But there is a negative side to the phenomenon in that people lose sight of the fact that they are also members of a larger whole. This produces a fragmentation of society and friction between identity groups. It seems to me that the solution to that problem involves not the abandonment of identity groups, but a means of justly resolving conflicts between them that all members have confidence in. This would entail if not perfect satisfaction, at least an equitable distribution of dissatisfaction among all parties. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonwarH Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 costard, Well put. You'd probably agree with me that the majority of the Muslim World want to have better material standards of living. That said, 1) they can't follow the exact path the West did (many time and variable shifts, let's not digress and 2) (which is a corollary to 1) Islamic 'peculiarities' (not in a derogatory sense). I have a suspicion that the Islamic religion, at least in its current from, broadly, might affect that evolution dramatically. I can be more specific, but I'm afraid I will be inaccurate and don't want to derail the discussion. However, this much I can say - a comparative analysis of the Islamic and Christian ('Western Christian') faiths would show clear differences between the evolution of the two faiths. The divergence is pretty clear from the second half of the millenium. More exploration on this later. But for now, thanks! Michael, I am actually an older member, so old that I have forgotten my password and probably do not use that old email address any more even. I see that you remain as prolific as you were. Oh, and sorry for my numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. Tend to care less... fact. Your solution reminds of... corporate restructurings, of all things. I work in one pretty large one, and they kind of follow your reasoning. From my humble perspective, the biggest challenge is to get people to forget their past grudges... removing the points of disparity. How do you pull that off without removing the more useful aspects of the past? Is a bit of nihilism required? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Is a bit of nihilism required? If you mean that in the usual sense that it is taken, then I would say no. But Buddhism has something that superficially might look like nihilism, but isn't. It might be a difficult state of mind for most people to absorb at the present time, but to my eye it looks like a better way forward. Not suggesting that we all become Buddhists, but that we find that same state within our own ethnic/religious roots. I think that can be done. Yoga, Suffism, Christian Mysticism, Taoism, they all have it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Oh, and then welcome back. Would you care to reveal what name you used on the forum previously, assuming it was different? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonwarH Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 Michael, hmm... monwar or monwar1982. I am not sure, really... LOL, though I have some great memories of discussing with the likes of JasonC, Andreas, Scott, Matt, Dandelion... I have even forgotten most of the names. I was mostly a lurker though! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Very interesting, MonwarH. Welcome back, and always good to hear others' perspectives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 ...though I have some great memories of discussing with the likes of JasonC, Andreas, Scott, Matt, Dandelion... Ah yes, what a great lineup that was! JasonC is still around but the rest seem to have gone into hiding. Speaking of which, where is Dandelion? And does he know that WW II is back up on the block? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildhack Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Originally Posted by MonwarH I have a pet theory that as education levels improve, religious observance tends to increase. I know I'm out of my depth with a lot of the people on this forum, but I read something interesting recently which may relate to this. The piece claimed that the most stable, happiest countries in the world tended to be the most secular. Perhaps greater religiosity may be more a function a people trying to cope with difficulties and forces in their lives over which they feel they have little control, rather than education levels? But in any case, I think I disagree with your idea on an instinctual basis. If the education you are speaking of is a madrasa or a seminary, maybe. But if we are talking about modern colleges of science, I doubt it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The piece claimed that the most stable, happiest countries in the world tended to be the most secular. Well, I guess the USSR really was a workers' paradise! I wonder why it didn't last, with all of that stability. Seriously, does the author of that piece have any valid examples to support that claim? He or she might be conflating "pluralistic" and "secular," I suspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I know I'm out of my depth with a lot of the people on this forum, but I read something interesting recently which may relate to this. The piece claimed that the most stable, happiest countries in the world tended to be the most secular. Perhaps greater religiosity may be more a function a people trying to cope with difficulties and forces in their lives over which they feel they have little control, rather than education levels? But in any case, I think I disagree with your idea on an instinctual basis. If the education you are speaking of is a madrasa or a seminary, maybe. But if we are talking about modern colleges of science, I doubt it. I understand the citizenry of Israel to be higly observant of religion, but aso highly educated. I also understand that it isn't a particularly happy or stable place to live. If the meaning of God (as a construct of the human mind) is to explain the inexplicable (hence "inneffable", or "intelligent designer" as a descriptor) then I'd say Wildhack has a very pertinent point. Someone claiming to have inside knowledge of the workings of the universe has a much better time of harnessing the support of a populace than someone who just says "F***** if I know why, but doing things this way seems to work." Unless that populace is well enough educated to understand that the first person is most probably telling lies in a deliberate attempt to subvert the political system, in which case his motives, being obscure, are likely suspect (cf. the US recent history.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well, I guess the USSR really was a workers' paradise! I wonder why it didn't last, with all of that stability. Seriously, does the author of that piece have any valid examples to support that claim? He or she might be conflating "pluralistic" and "secular," I suspect. The USSR fell because the limits placed on dissemination of information were such that it couldn't compete economically. i.e., the security apparatus couldn't trust the populace with computers. Iran is looking at a similar problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well, I guess the USSR really was a workers' paradise! I wonder why it didn't last, with all of that stability. And because all Greeks are human beings, we must all be Greeks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 And because all Greeks are human beings, we must all be Greeks! Huh? I said nothing of the sort. Somebody asserted that secular countries are happier and more stable than non-secular countries. I provided a counterexample to challenge the assertion. The USSR fell because the limits placed on dissemination of information were such that it couldn't compete economically. i.e., the security apparatus couldn't trust the populace with computers. Iran is looking at a similar problem. Ok, one was secular, the other is theocratic, but both are unhappy and/or unstable. So that goes to show that correlation is not causation, or sumfink. So... about those examples that demonstrate that secular countries are stable and happy, and religious countries are unstable and unhappy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Huh? I said nothing of the sort. Somebody asserted that secular countries are happier and more stable than non-secular countries. I provided a counterexample to challenge the assertion. What actually was postulated by Wildhack is that "stable, happy countries are secular." But that does not equal with "secular countries are stable and happy." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 What actually was postulated by Wildhack is that "stable, happy countries are secular." But that does not equal with "secular countries are stable and happy." OK, I see where you're coming from. Let's revisit the original statement. The exact quote is, "The piece claimed that the most stable, happiest countries in the world tended to be the most secular." A phrase like "tended to be" indicates correlation. To that, I say bollocks. I provided a counterexample. That's the best that can be done in trying to proving a negative, other than to ask for proof of the assertion, which I also did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It's not very useful to discuss a one-line description of some unknown paper, so yes, more information is needed. But in my mind the better counter point would be to point out stable, happy countries that are not secular. But how do you measure secularity? Is USA very secular, for instance? Church and state are separated there, but everyone is extremely interested in the religious backgrounds of politicians (because, obviously, if you're Catholic, Muslim, Presbyterian etc. then you are advancing that church's secret agenda and nothing else). And it's not like any nation is homogenous in this respect. Upper and lower classes display different kinds of religiousness, both in first and third world countries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 But how do you measure secularity? Is USA very secular, for instance? Church and state are separated there, but everyone is extremely interested in the religious backgrounds of politicians (because, obviously, if you're Catholic, Muslim, Presbyterian etc. then you are advancing that church's secret agenda and nothing else). And it's not like any nation is homogenous in this respect. Upper and lower classes display different kinds of religiousness, both in first and third world countries. I guess it depends on how you define the role of gummint: if the role of gummint is to provide for the leadership of the nation's populace, then a gummint composed of members of the clerical caste isn't secular. If the role of gummint is to collect taxes - demand money with menaces - and spend the loot, then the secularity of the gummint will depend on the overarching culture of the people doing the menacing (the military) and the spending (mostly the military in this case - having gone to the trouble of collecting the money, I can't see them being too happy about giving it up). If you see the role of gummint as determining the laws by which the populace is encouraged to abide, then the secularity of the gummint will rely upon the extent to which the laws of the nation are taken from a religious text. Mostly, I think, it's about the division of loyalties - between loyalty to [a god] and loyalty to a people. I like the distinction between the classes by the way - the taxer and the taxee for the most part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 By bitchen frizzy Well, I guess the USSR really was a workers' paradise! I wonder why it didn't last, with all of that stability. The non-secular west seduced the people with the opium for the masses. Which in this particular case was money and external wealth. Seriously, does the author of that piece have any valid examples to support that claim? He or she might be conflating "pluralistic" and "secular," I suspect. IMO the most happy and stable societies are culturally homogenous (be it secular or religious). Ie. multi-cultural societies are more susceptible to tensions and conflicts which cause instability and unhappiness. Mind you stability and happiness are in turn relative and not necessarily measurable homogenously between different societies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I would imagine then that Canada could be considered something of an anomaly. In Toronto, for an example, we have something to the tune of around 200 different cultures but yet the city is labeled by the world community as one of the best places to live. Personally, I have found exposure on such a scale accompanied by the intermingling of various ethnic groups has brought forth a strong stance by the community against intolerance. What's truly ironic however, is that we also have a legitimate separatist party consisting of Francophones who are striving for independence for the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Well, I guess the USSR really was a workers' paradise! I wonder why it didn't last, with all of that stability. Seriously, does the author of that piece have any valid examples to support that claim? He or she might be conflating "pluralistic" and "secular," I suspect. the USSR replaced mythical belief with worship of the party - it wasn't secular! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildhack Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm almost sure that article I read was in Newsweek, but I couldn't find it using Google. Anyway, I did come across one study that seemed to support the idea that the most successful democracies also tend to be more secular. I'm sure a few people could find fault with the data gathering methods used or such, but someone asked for a link and here is one. This is a long scientific- looking at least - paper, but I sure didn't read the whole thing. Below are a few paraphrases from the conclusions. Take them for what you will. (One note - anyone who says that sexual dysfunction is low in Japan must be on drugs. I've seen some samples of their very large porn cartoon industry (Hentai), and it is so bizarre it is almost beyond belief. Combine that with school girls commonly selling their used underwear to businessmen, etc., and you get the idea. So I'm a little skeptical of this study myself for this one reason alone.) Edit - reading this again, I'd probably also take issue with the definition of "successful". The U.S. has certainly contributed vastly more to the sciences, arts, and the alleviation of human suffering than any piss ant Scandinavian country ever has. There might also be something needing to be said for inventiveness and dynamism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly... No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional... Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Or you could read what it is the study says they are successful at - "low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion" I don't see any mention of sciences, arts in there......and if the study is right then it looks like everyone else is more successful at applying developments in the alleviation of human suffering than the US has been....wherever those developments may have taken place 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.