The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

I am quite certain that i have often pointed out the presence of moral relativism. In fact, in another post on this thread i did exactly that.

If I recall correctly, you merely claimed that the other person was guilty of moral relativism, presumably for no more reason than you disagreed with their position.As far as this thread goes, I haven't paid particular close attention to it.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I know, and I am not disagreeing with your sentiment on how the times changes. But too often people forget that colonies like Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, as a direct result of Christian Anabaptist theology, did generalize the concepts of religious freedom for everyone, even the non-Christians. This was the natural outgrowth of centuries-old theology. In fact, the term "separation of Church and State" is very old and was a slogan so to speak among the Anabaptists, and dates as far back to the 4th century and the Donatists.So there was this tremendous centuries long effort to advocate religious freedom (not the modernist concept of separation which involves hostility towards religion), and all during those centuries the establishment thinkers rejected totally the more radical Christian theology.The idea was that not everyone was Christian by virtue of being baptized or just living in a geographic area, but only those born-again and following Christ were Christians. So there was no need for the State to enforce religious law on people since many were really not Christians, and moreover it was against the whole volunteer nature of the gospel to compel people by force of the State to follow Christ.But what I would call the more secular thinkers back then thought this was crazy and believed an accomadation with religion and the State was vital for a unified society. Even as late as when William Penn announced his intentions to allow total freedom of religion, even for the Indians, he was laughed at in England and mocked.But he proved the ideas worked. So did Rhode Island which adopted freedom of religion from the Baptists.So the people that formed the Enlightenment had solid examples and centuries of people telling them this would work, plus the gospels, and so the more secular establishment thinkers realized, hey, we don't need State religion for society to work. It was a radical conversion, but in truth, the secularists and establishment Christians that formed the Enlightenment were just picking up on very old ideas and doing so, I might add, when it didn't cost them their lives and their childrens' and wives' lives as it did for the Christians that advocated such things.That's one reason I bring it up so often. It is offensive to the memory of these brave Christian martyrs whom the West owes their concepts of liberty of to pretend that secularism originated the concepts, and that Christians were against it. These "Christians" paid for it with their blood. That's why the West enjoys the freedoms that we do. The Evangelicals that believed people must only volunteer to serve Christ are the people most responsible for the long effort to establish individual liberty of conscience.

far more than most, I provide reason for my postions rather than assertions. In fact, it is often those baseless assertions, like that Christian fundamentalists and Islamists are one and the same, that i chalk up to moral relativism.

That's very interesting, and something I did not at all know. Thanks.Steve

Actually, the people who made that claim did back them up with historical examples and examples from current events. Those examples may have been related inaccurately, those examples may have been interpreted incorrectly, other explanations may be possible for those examples, but that is very, very different saying those claims were baseless.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

What are we to disagree on? Whether or not that the individuals who compared fundamentalist Christians with Islamists explained why they felt the comparisons were valid? People can check those previous threads to verify that they did so.Or are we to disagree that by providing the reasons for their comparisons, their claims were therefore not baseless? Checking the dictionary for the definition of "baseless" will resolve that one.Honestly, sometimes I feel that you use the phrase "agree to disagree" to mean that you realize that you have lost a point but cannot admit it.Or does the fact that you are misusing the term "baseless" mean that I am the one that is a moral relativist and incapable of rational argument?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This is a bald-faced lie when one considers the contents of this thread. You made the accusation of "moral relativism" (which I am not sure is a bad thing in any case) in reference to certain posters, paraphrasing them to say that "Christian fundamentalists and Islamists are one and the same..."You have given no defense. You have made an unsupported assertion and acted offended when people didn't accept it. This is the act of a petulant child, not a defense.I don't care to see a defense, having read your nonsense before, I just wanted to let you know that it is easy to see through your ham-handed equivocations. Jar is right to disregard you, as I am going to go back to doing.

We simply will not agree. Rather, any conversation on this will go on and on, proving nothing, satisfying no one. We'll just have to make our points where relevant, and disagree at those times.

I'm glad you recognize some benefit in affirmative action.I would not suggest any cap on the time. Experience in the US suggests that resentment toward affirmative action programs will increase over time, so that programs will tend to be self-limiting.

Sounds like you're rather defensive about challenges to your orthodoxy.

It's not a good thing on principle, but to correct a prior injustice or perceived injustice, that idea has merit. Making it permanent just creates another injustice, imo.

Again I agree. But we must also consider economics and politics.I don't think the Muslim world has ever experienced the economic/social upheaval of the type spurred forward by the colonial days. The vast European empires that sprung up over the spice/gold/tobacco/slave trade provided a great environment for materialists to trump theology I honestly don't think religion has very much to do with it.Predominantly Islamic countries like Turkey among others, are relatively stable and democratic. I'm willing to bet that a countries level of poverty (and by that I mean the people not their rulers) is probably directly correlated with their religiosity, fanaticism, and quality of life.

Capitalist democracies produce, easily, the most wealth.The stability of Turkey's democracy has been questioned, with an underlying Islamist movement always looking for opportunities to undermine it. It will be all the more secured by other Islamic nations going democratic. Iraq is almost there. Other may well follow. Ironically, if that happens, then Islamist minded western Muslims will see their numbers and influence thin. What's more, democracy in the homelands will, probably entice some to return. If Capitalism is adopted, as is somewhat inevitable with democracy, then as wealth is generated, even more will return.