No he was not. But make no mistake: Compared to US he was a religious conservative (not that this always means a bad thing)
But the funny thing is how he integrated mathematical science with belief in a god. The things he could not explain fully (what is the source of gravity exactly?) he attributed to god and happily concentrated on explaining how gravity works.
And you even more interestingly hook into the really important part of it: Power and religion. My answer to your question? religion is - largely - manifested in a power-structure. Especially in Islam but also in Christianity. YOu have some of the same elements in Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact no contemporary world-religion is free of it. It starts with god as creator and then some sort of commandment or order to conquer non-believers. God is often depicted as a king and so is an elevated boss of the believer.
With these grounding you can then create power-structures in the real world. Many have mused that Jesus Christ never wanted something like a catholic church. But the problem is already there in his teachings and parables where masters and servants and fathers and children and Punisher and Punished play their roles. It is so easily abusable. And it is abused.
Now let´s think of something different: We do not imagine God as a King or a Boss. He is our FRIEND. A friend doesn´t order you around. You cannot bomb someone and say: my FRIEND ordered me to do it! Doesn´t feel right, does it? Let´s get further. Imagine God as your spiritual relationship partner like a wife or a husband. A wife doesn´t order you around. A husband neither (i hope!) Let´s do it even more extreme: Imagine God as a child. A child YOUR child is not going to order you around i hope? It is your child. But you have a special responsibility to it and have to care for it and yes the child gives you something important back: Love and a kind of immortality (!)
The problem is NOT religion but the way we imagine God. The problem is NOT believing in God but making him our boss. The problem is that we cannot seperate spirituality (that we need!) and power over us. It´s a human problem and we all suffer because of it.
Okay, but why then was NEWTON so successful in science him being a devout christian? There were others of course. Why are there people who are religious and then they are successful in science? There must be something other that is really the problem here. It is the same with this Richard Dawkins Guy. He believes religion to be the cause of all evils. But what if it is something other? Maybe it is some kind of power structure that is limiting free thinking. Copernicus and Gallileo were not really hindered by religious people but by religious people who were using their power to hinder.
Everything in the Islamic World is highly authoritarian. There is no concept of egality here. Men rule Men and Men rule women and children. The military rules everybody. And the military is ruled by generals. It´s everywhere in the arab region. How the heck are you going to invent Facebook or the next iphone in a country where the soldier is the best job anybody could get, period?!
Hmm...you know there was a kind of civil war in the west 70 years ago. The west was split between those who thought the future of the west would lay in warlike ambition and racism versus the others that thought it would lay more in economic development and tolerance. The economic development and tolerance westerners won.
What is modernization at its core? Maybe it is NOT the realization that GOd is dead (Friedrich Nietzsche) but moreover that the warrior is dead. That the soldier is dead. It may be the realization that building your country on the foundation of militarism (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) is just wrong and harmful to your people. Turkey has now an islamistic government that has hobbled the military command - and now it has huge economic surge and is considered a regional power and hope for the future.
It´s difficult because i think Islam is not going to allow that. Maybe that isn´t the problem though. In the middle ages arab doctors were VASTLY superior to European doctors (german, french, english) because they had no qualms about using the wisdom of the ancient greeks and surpassing them even. But besides that they were highly religious. So...what if the real problem is something different? Maybe a kind of diligence or creativity or self discipline or ambition that may have been there a few countries ago but is not here anymore?
Our science was built upon the shoulders of religious fanatics that had very strange notions of humanity: Newton, Aristotele and the like. But they also built the cornerstones of all we have in the west. Why wasn´t that so in the islamic countries in the last 200 years?
Good question. What is modernizing exactly? What really makes us good in the west? Shit there was some documentary i have not downloaded yet lol. There was one Guy who won awards for this documentary. He analyzed it. It had something to do with self discipline and other factors. NOW: These stardards do not have to do much with the west at all. They could be valid for all peoples and regions.
Historians say one of the major developments in the west was the rise of the protestant citizen. Hardworking and disciplined but also kinda very business-like and freedom loving he was one of the pillars of the rise of the west. And these virtues spread to other people who may have worked alongside them or with them. It is only a theory. But discipline and hardworking and business-like and freedom-loving seem to be one of the key mixtures. Maybe there are other i wish i had seen the documentary. For one should not forget an important part too: This hardworking protestant citizen was also a religious fanatic and burned women on the spike as witches.
Another quick thought: Were is the competition in the islamic world? Everywhere you go in the west there is competition in some regard and only the best are getting higher. Where is the competition in Islam or in an islamic world? I do not know any islamic scholar or scientist or artist who is putting him or herself into some sort of competition-like contest to get a job. But in the west even pizza-deliverers are measured against other deliverers!
Yea you may be right!
I even believe if the U.S. had not stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War it would not have made one iota difference. I agree with you that the real problems between the west and them runs much deeper. One Austrian once mused that it was a mental problem of radical Islamists who cannot understand and forgive why a culture that was so successful in the middle ages and even later in science and War just got so behind the west in the last 200 years. But that is surely not the only problem. There seem to be even more complex differences behind that are not easily understood.
Maybe it has more to do how we regard humanity and human beings. For Al quaeda and the radical muslims human being are essentially slaves of God. They have no real purpose for themselves. And even here there is an important distinction: Human beings are only male. Women are some kind of inferior human beings. The most fascinating bit is that one can see the same with Nazis and White Supremacists. The ones that spammed anti-semitic pictures here did include very often notions of "The White Man" and so on. NOT "The White Woman"
So White Supremacists regard women too as inferior beings like the radical muslims do.
We in the mainstream west have evolved in that regard and define us not as some sort of slaves of a higher being but as responsible beings in their own right and that includes 100% woman as an integral part of the human species. Even our religious do understand and accept that. That is what makes us unique i think.
That´s what they SAID. When someone cuts off the legs of your dog and paints your veranda with the blood of the dying animal and then says to you he hears voices and the voices have commanded him to do that are you going to take his reason for real?
Not really. Gang raping is far more difficult to just blow up people. And the afro americans didn´t win anything. Just look what most of them have. Nah. Smart people know violence brings misery especially in the modern age. Just look at the germans. They so wanted to believe that violence would be THE KEY to the 20th century. And so they waged two world wars. In the first they lost only military and were humilated and handed the keys to western europe to the Americans. With the second war they not only lost military but also large portions of their country and what is even more important: Their good standing in the west. Of all the nations in western europe it was THEM who actually turned Europe into a concentration camp and east-europe into a charnel house. They lost EVERYTHING in good standing.
And now? Look at the germans. Oh sometimes they send a few troops to Afghanistan but not to Iraq, no. And even in Afghanistan they learned fast there was nothing for them to win there (Kundus-Affair) Now in Libya they didn´t even bother. Will it have negative consequences for them? I bet it won´t. Even if Britan and France believe otherwise. Violence is for idiots. War is for losers. Gang-raping is for imbeciles and assholes.
Okay okay okay. Point taken. Mea culpa. I will try to be brief in the future. *mini novel*= LOL ;)
Good question. I am against the death sentence. But okay i am bleeding european liberal. Concerning imprisonment: There is a long ongoing debate about it but as i have understood it is the lesser evil. Why are people imprisoned? So they do not harm others especially if they are dangerous murderers or rapists. And of course rape in the prison is also a crime even if it is a child molester. The child molester is sick. Maybe he can get healed but obviously he needs to be imprisoned to not keep harming children anymore.
Perhaps i am not fluent in Islamic law. But in western countries it is a crime. We in the west think ourselves better than most other regions and cultures. Well. Then we should act accordingly. For me law must be rooted in democratic discussion and negotiations not in a holy text. That is MY view and most western countries if not all follow that view.
No they do not. I will tell you why: It is the coward`s or lazy man`s answer. It is like this feminist that thundered to the egyptian lawyer: The west is inventing all these things and we debate about a woman´s modesty and if she deserved to be raped or not! Egyptian lawyer: Let them invent what they want...that does not mean that there is anything wrong with us.
Yes it does mean that there is much wrong with you i would answer to the lawyer. Don´t be envious of the U.S. when you treat your own like shit and don´t ever dare justifying the rape of a tourist (ancient custom of hospitality broken!) with some lame argument about not having as much as the west. That is just retarded. Go to the Chinese. ASK them. They were humiliated like egypt in the 19th and now they work with discipline and diligence to accumlate wealth and power: Like the west!
You know what i think? It was a deliberate attack. It wasn´t a "dangerous element" in the crowd. It was a deliberate attack by members of the military police/secret service who employed thugs and freed criminals to assist them so it LOOKS like some crowd just went amok.
And i think there will be a reckoning of some sorts even in the arab or asiatic countries. Because men-women relations are deeply rooted in the psyche. You can not suppress one part of "man"kind without disastrous consequences. We see that in crowds consisting of men only: They behave like wild animals. Mixed crowds behave much more differently. Why is that so? It has to do with psychological balances that are really important for us. The question is not why don´t we see that women are as good as men in every way. The question should be: Why are we not shuddering in Angst at the prospect what the suppression of one sex/gender is doing to us as a species? That can´t be healthy in any way.
In ancient times a full member of the community was always also a warrior/soldier. Only he who could protect the community with force of arms was a full "real" member of the community. The problem is that in ancient times and in medieval times the armies were so structured that a soldier hat to carry around much weight: Shield/Pike or Armor/Mace/broadsword. Due to muscle mass and overall body structure women couldn´t really take part in it. It must be noted that in cultures where the weapons were much lighter (Skythian horsepeople and the celts) women warriors were much more common and therefore women were also much more powerful in society. Now with weapons that are getting more and more lighter and more usable women are filling ranks as battle hardened soldiers. That means one of the common counter-arguments against women ware not viable anymore: She is doing her duty to protect the community. Besides we have already entered a phase in the west when we have already learned that economy and science play a greater role in determining the victor in a conflict. And here women can easily prove their worth. So the future looks rather bright overall.
Furthermore there is a pyramid of crimes that rank from simple offenses or minor misdemeanours up to capital crimes. Rape for example in a marriage relationship was considered up very recently as a simple minor misdemeanour that needed not be punished by society. But Rape conducted by strangers was essentially like forever considered a very serious crime. Why? Because in a strict patriarchal society strangers were considered as a direct threat to the power of the husband/wife´s family. So from that very ancient viewpoint that is BTW already anachronistic it is clear that the reporter example you brought up would have been considered as rape even in ancient times.
If someone deserves it is not the basis for laws and the estimation if something is a crime. Look, you can have a rich bank manager who is an asshole and he is kidnapped and sexually abused and his relatives blackmailed and then he is killed and i don´t know fed to the goats. He may have "deserved" all of that somehow but still in the eyes of the justice system and the lawmaking body it was a very serious crime that must be punished.
That´s why all this discussion if Lara Logan deserved to be raped or not misses the point. It doesn´t matter at all. She was arguably raped and that is a crime. I mean even in egypt it is. But in the U.S. and in Europe it is even a rape when she was dressed incorrectly. I mean come on, when a muslim walks around with his long beard and his weird clothing and someone kills him we all would still say: Doesn´t matter if he was weird looking it IS a crime and must be seen like that or we are accepting total chaos: Every man and woman for themselves and that would be the end of organized state altogether (like it is in some parts of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somalia/Kongo and so on) And that is not going to happen because YOU and I have too much interest invested in this form of state and organization.
From an ethical standpoint or even from simply thinking things through you may ask yourself: Is sexual abuse or forcing degrading for YOURSELF? If you think that it´s a crime if someone kicks your teeth in and forces you to oral penetration than you have already answered your question. To beat THAT argument you have to somehow make women less-human. IF you for instance say: Women are NOT human beings at least fully they have no souls and are somehow imperfect then you could argument that what YOU feel as a man is not transmittable to women because they are not men. In the medieval age in Europe many scholars saw it like that. But if you are living in the west and you are accepting that women are essentially human like men are and not one iota less then you have to concede that Rape is a crime because if you do think raping YOU is a crime than raping a woman must be a crime too.