Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 20th, 2010, 08:17 AM   #11
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,956
Blog Entries: 2
Re: Does phobia empower Church also empower Islamism?

Originally Posted by DiaitaDoc View Post
When Immigrants settle into a new country, they often adopt one of two mindsets: the "old world" mindset (owm) or the "new world" mindset (nwm).

owms bring their cultures, mores and traditions with them and cling to them tenaciously, no matter what.

nwms embrace their new home and new ways. They are pleased as punch to be members of this new society and want to fit in.

Both mindsets demonstrate the potential for phobic behavior: the owm is afraid of losing its heritage and the nwm is afraid of not fitting in.

Influential and highly traditionalist owms can play on other owms fears by expressing their views in absolutes and glittering generalities. They speak of "purity," "tradition," "truth" and "faithfulness," warning that change (subtext: change which threatens their influence) will result in a loss of all of these.

Influential nwms generally do not play directly to the fears of other nwms; rather, they play to their desires (which are connected to fear.) They also speak of "truth," but also "change," "progress," "growth" and "unity," claiming that they are for the "greater good." (subtext: their version of change, progress, growth, etc, and for their greater good.)

These two mindsets seem to apply to any group or anyone, so I guess they could apply to Christianity and Islam... the whole moderate vs. orthodox thing, for instance.
Excellent explanation! However, it is the nature of religion to be owms. To be nwms requires an understanding of democracy.

Quakers are also known as the Friends. They were also highly literate people, when literate meant literate in Greek and Roman classics.

Alexander the Great spread Hellenism with the sword, and colonist followed. But he was also open to accepting the customs of those he conquered, and took some criticism for this. Hellenist would tend to be more open minded, as they focused on more practical matters, than religious people. They have been criticized for not establishing an empire, such as the Roman empire, but they did establish colonies and their culture in a far reaching region connecting east and west.

Also Lawrence of Arabia succeeded in leading Arabs in war against the Turks, by adopting the customs of Arabs. Conquers can do this, but not missionaries, and religious groups, whose life purpose is to promote something written in a book long ago. And capitalist also fail because they are intent on imposing their self serving ideology on others. now that they have the strength of military force used for economic purpose, to back them up. In the past, fur traders working in native American regions, had to get along with the native Americans, they couldn't call for bombers, and neither should the capitalist of the US be able to call for bombers.

It is all a matter of good manners. People who don't have good manners cause trouble.
athena is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 20th, 2010, 08:21 AM   #12
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,956
Blog Entries: 2
Re: Does phobia empower Church also empower Islamism?

One more thought, in general, war is good for religion and religion is good for war.
athena is offline  
Old June 21st, 2010, 06:47 AM   #13

Efendi's Avatar
KayıkÁı Efe
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Anatolia
Posts: 12,418
Re: Does phobia empower Church also empower Islamism?

Originally Posted by athena View Post
Hey, tit for tat is proven to be very effective. I think you have made an excellent suggestion. And if Muslims complain about the persecution, agree and refer the complainer to the Muslim country that started the act of persecution. Make it very clear, any persecution of Muslims is a tit for tat action.

However, coming from the Founding Fathers thread and the discussion of English Protestants persecuting Catholics and French Catholics persecuting Protestants, I jumped to the conclusion that this thread was about Sunni fighting Shia fighting each other. We are told, in Iraq we are trying to keep these guys from killing each other. They are behavior as the Catholics and Protestants behaved.

Perhaps, world peace is best promoted with history, and therefore, knowledge of human behavior. This division and fighting is what humans do. It can be because of nationality, religion, color; heck, in LA gangs identify each other with red bandannas verses blue bandannas. In school districts trying to prevent gang behavior, it is forbidden to wear the bandannas. Doesn't classifying the behavior as human behavior, rather than religious disputes, take the power out of the justification for this unacceptable behavior? That is what democracy does. It ends these petty, but tragic, conflicts with reason. A standing army will get resistance. Good reasoning, resolves the conflict.
People are politic power, they provide you charity funds, vote you. so that you have power, politic career, money..etc.

If we see people as capital in this immoral sense, political champion is capital owner. They want more people who would support them with charity funds, money, help, vote for election..etc.

If your sectory is people(say Group A) who tend to discriminate some other people( group B). you would like to promote your sector to more people. giving message like join A, B hate you, you must be in A to feel safer. while these things happening on the other politcal market, there are some other politic group, who market Group B in the same sector, join B, A hate you. I am sure you understand it, but my point is,

There are institutions to lead people, these institution are leaded by need for power. They deceive and convince people. It is tit and tat game mainly between these institution rather than people who don't like each others.

These politic institutions are not necessarly have moral values. They are too powerfull. They have money to invest on promotion, on press.

If we reagard democracy as group of mass people who can think together, like a software. These problematic guys eliminate peoples thinking abilities just like a viruses, once the society infected, they lost their capability to find solution to their own problems.

Increasing rightist movement in EU. Can they really find solution to their problems, especially social problems, migrations, cultural conflicts etc? On the other words can they think?

They hit people's mind on some where they are weak they can't argue or criticize. such as religion, racism. Those enslave people by limiting their mental abilities.

Last edited by Efendi; June 21st, 2010 at 07:23 AM.
Efendi is offline  

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

church, empower, islamism, phobia

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was the Church really religious? historyleech Medieval and Byzantine History 5 May 23rd, 2009 05:04 AM
Church reforms Raelynn Medieval and Byzantine History 4 February 28th, 2009 04:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.