The socialist mind-set, for some reason, wasn't sufficiently crushed when it should have been.

Somewhere along the line we became more obsessed with solving the symptoms rather than addressing the mind-set that caused them.

We're still not addressing that. Too busy chasing our tails running toward our own individual tomorrows, all sides making this IoT we've created become all of our new replacements for a true higher purpose as a species.

I dunno... I think there might be a third option.

[americamagazine.org]

Not sure what they're up to with all this. They were talking about something back there by themselves. Might be something to follow.

I think if secularism gets rid of the undesirable aspects of inter-religious rivalries, then it can probably only do so with some serious collateral damage. I think, on the whole, secularism erodes the moral fabric of society--bear with me. I am not saying secularists cannot be moral people; they certainly can. I just think that being a moral secularist requires a lot more mental energy than your average Joe is willing to exert. I think it is easier to be a moral religious person. It seems to me that religion offers a better incentive for doing the right thing than secularism. Anyways, I think that if secularism gets rid of rivalries, it will be because it has gotten rid of religion. I think when we lose religion, we will see a downward spiral in the morality of the people as a whole. Secularism just doesn't provide the incentive that most (not all) people need. I might be wrong--it is a complex issue and I am not sure I have the right answer yet.

Jordan Peterson had an awesome youtube video up of something along these lines.

When one belief system, held by enough people, slams against another strongly held belief, there's conflict of varying degrees. Personally, I think the insane amount of conflicts we see on a daily basis are subtle versions of this happening between thousands of different ideas, all backed up with one study or another and certain it's correct.

Bro the 2nd Commandment of the Bible and Torah says "thou shalt honor no God before me", which clearly establishes exclusive monotheism. So that brings the list of intolerant religions to at least3, not 1 as you've claimed. I'd even be curious if there are any extant monotheistic belief systems outside of the Abrahamic religions. Anyone else know of any?

@kingtet , yes you are right about the exclusivity of the religion, I can't deny that. But is there a place in the bible or the Torah that asking your believers to destroys/kill other believers from other religions?

@LinuxWiz That's a good question. I'm not sure, for I've never read through the whole Bible nor the Quran. Did you ever read "the year of living biblically"? It highlights the impossibility of adhering to every word in the Bible in a world whose social mores did not evolve in lockstep with Christianity. No Christian can say they agree with every command in the Bible, or they'd be throwing stones at non-believers. As such, no Muslims can abide every word of their holy book.

Technically, in the book of Malaki (Which was removed) There's a ton of violent things happening. I won't spoil it for you, but you should check it out.

I'm not sure why the positive elements of the faith aren't overwhelmingly obvious to all of Christianity's believers, but actions speak louder than words and few actually can lead by example outside their circles. Mostly because it's becoming less and less "popular" to hold any kind of belief in anything but the newest information as discovered by scientist X or scientist Y in nation Z.

Your own bias matches that you attribute to the writer. The Crusades, for example, were a reaction to 300-400 years of Islamic aggressive incursions , not ,as you portray it, an assault on a long established multicultural area in Spain. The Moors invaded, period. They forcibly imposed Islam at the point of a sword. Nor is your statement about the Old Testament correct. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New in the blood of Christ. No such phenomenon occurs in Islam, whose Koranic injunctions to kill non Muslims are still in force.

@Okami The context of the Crusades is important. I'm regurgitating fading memories of my world history classes here, but I'll try my best. You have to analyze the context of any event in order to derive meaningful conclusions from it. Calling it Islam vs. Christianity makes it seem like it was two sides united against each other. That simplistic analysis neglects the ethnic clashes of the Umyyads vs the Seljuk Turks that occurred within the Middle East and the schism between Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire. Indeed, many of the Crusades were sanctioned by the Catholic Church in order to reunify the two Christianities after the schism in the 1000s. Furthermore, though "securing the holy land" was the casus belli propagated to motivate the canaille, the only reason so much manpower was spent in the region was to secure the economic interests of the warring factionos. [ancient.eu]

Quit talking about the Crusades! Spain was invaded by Muslims! They retook thier own land and threw out a group of religious invaders! When was the last time a Christian army invaded a country or performed a terrorist act.

@MADcHATTER
Well, except that most of those things shown about Christianity were actually already true about Islam and had been for some 400+ years by the time Christians got around to that sort of thing. Then, Christians went a bit over-zealous for about 700+ years and then “moderated” themselves but ...
Islam has NEVER “moderated”... they have been “on the attack” every year since Mohammad told them that it was “good” that it was “required” right up to this day.

Yes, History is FULL of Irony ...

@MADcHATTER You also might cite St. Bernard of Clairvaux "Libre ad milites templi de laude novae militiae" in your adress of " Just War". Although it was a millenia after the ascetics.

@MADcHATTER 600 ... The last Druids were still operating in Ireland. Possibly elsewhere but hidden. Shows how Christianity was not the great medieval monolith it became later. The development of Christian culture was not a foregone conclusion. It was a close run thing

@MADcHATTER ... The failure to understand the cultural "substratum" of six to eight thousand years of Druidic influence is a major fail in the West.
The concept of "Universal Justice" is a Druidic concept. In those societies all were governed by the law. The common law. Even kings and queens were legally accountable. This is the basis of our system.

Reformers get killed. Reform as Westerners define the word is against Islamic teaching because Islam forbids innovation, what we call reform.
Reform for Islam means going back to the pure original Islam of Mohammed and his followers.
Witness the regression that has taken place in the Muslim world since the 60's when Muslim women wore mini skirts, had no hijab etc.
Reform of Islam is not going to happen. We have o stop giving in to Islam's demands and deny that it is a religion. Islam is at most a cult but in truth it is a political and legal system of genocide, murder, and Arab supremacy.
Unlike with other religions Muslims cannot be Muslims unless everyone else conforms with Islam.
Islam is an intolerant ideology that must be exorcised from humanity.

Due to their theology, I don't think it's possible for Islam to reform from within. I think it is far more likely that they will have a "mass revolt" where many people living in an Islamic country simultaneously reject Islam, and the country turns secular.

Look at the turmoil that comes up in Iran every so often. There are definitely people living under Islamic regimes who reject Islam privately but accept it publicly under threat of their governments.

This is an older discussion but Hitchens captures the idea here: (Start at 29:36)

@CautiousDreamer Love The Hitch. But what you mention already happened in 2011 in Egypt, Tunisia, Sryria et al and in most cases the popular movement created a temporary power vacuum which was then filled by the very extremists the populus was fighting

@Papanuts Yes, but I feel like, eventually a time will come when the extremists are unable to fill the power vacuum. Any reformation in Islam will come from such a "French Revolution" as it were, executing or exiling their "Divine Right" monarchs, bringing on chaos. Each revolution proceeds with the memory of the previous one, until one is finally successful.

I must admit I haven't extensively studied the area, however; this is just my speculation.