The Hazards of Belief

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Progress is most assuredly a relative term

I wasn't talking about Islam, not even whether it's 'an ethic thing'. I was talking about your attitude to other societies; ethnocentricity is the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture, or a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. A belief and tendency you tend to display fairly frequently.

I dispute that, I accept that economic and social development is not even also look up ethnic group , it refers to individual peoples like Irish , French etc . I don't believe that Irish people or culture is superior.

As for progress being relative , some is some isn't. Looking at culture from a market perspective there are definite patterns based on how people vote with their feet. North Korea versus south Korea say, by any standard south Korea has better ideas than the north. To say nobody can rate these 2 countries against each other is absurd.

You paint yourself into the odd position of being paralised from making any judgements when its absolutely appropriate if discussing things like a legal system or education

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, clearly the fault of western imperialism.

MrP

But nobody said it was, so what are you on about?

JPNelsforearm wrote:

Maybe in theory, (...............)ement.

Memri TV - free "translations". Winner of the Bigots choice awards on multiple occasions.

jpnelsforearm wrote:

Im not "loling" at those cultures, as I said, I dont care so long as they
stay in their place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRr2kf84V2M

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I dispute that, I accept that economic and social development is not even also look up ethnic group , it refers to individual peoples like Irish , French etc . I don't believe that Irish people or culture is superior.

Well, the definition is one's own ethnic group or culture; and you've been strident in your opinion of the superiority of western culture, have you not?

silverharp wrote: »

As for progress being relative , some is some isn't. Looking at culture from a market perspective there are definite patterns based on how people vote with their feet. North Korea versus south Korea say, by any standard south Korea has better ideas than the north. To say nobody can rate these 2 countries against each other is absurd.

And yet there are North Koreans who would vigourously dispute such a claim (and probably a few others who'd dispute you've presented anything from 'a market perspective'); which demonstrates the subjectivity of your claim.

silverharp wrote: »

You paint yourself into the odd position of being paralised from making any judgements when its absolutely appropriate if discussing things like a legal system or education

Why, exactly? Legal and education systems exist and operate quite comfortably without demeaning other cultures.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the definition is one's own ethnic group or culture; and you've been strident in your opinion of the superiority of western culture, have you not?

Well use the term western culture if you want to talk about it and not the less correct term of ethnocentric.

Saying western culture is superior to all other cultures is not a claim I have made , in 50 years time western culture may feel its been surpassed by east Asian culture, who knows. However certain systems like north Korea based on a man God like family can certainly be dismissed as wanting and unlikely to be good enough in terms of human development and the advancement of mankind.

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing lack of resources, wealth and infrastructure for a lack of I hestitate to guess what. The US has won 357 noble prizes, of which 28 occur before 1946. The whole of Western Europe has won (roughly) 294 in the same period despite being more populous. One can look at Spain (5) Greece (2) and then see Ireland (9). Are we to presume that the Spanish are somehow deficient in mental capacity?

OK, not sure why we are focusing on Nobel Prizes for evidence of attainment, I didn't mention them, but I will say this, do you not find it ironic that a girl won a Nobel prize for standing up to one of the things I did actually mention?

I appreciate that it is difficult to compare one country to another and I understand that in some markers that one might use available resources might play a part. But are you trying to argue that not educating half the population, whilst it would clearly save money, and allowing child marriage is a result of a lack of resources?

I think what we in the west call "basic human rights" is a fairly good marker for comparing societies. I think if you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you have a set of right that I genuinely believe can be considered to be objectively correct. If a country or religion or culture does not give it citizens these rights, at a minimum, then I think we can objectively say there is something wrong with that country or religion or culture is worse than a country or religion or culture that does.

As an example, let take certain states in the good old US of A. These states have an obsession with putting people to death, even when it looks like they didn't do the crime. For me these states, and by extension the whole country is undermining, some or all of articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12. Other states, as far as I am concerned breach some of the same articles and some other articles in relation to LBGT people or people of the wrong religion. I can sit here in my country, which I also believe breaches certain articles in certain circumstances and say the I genuinely believe this behaviour to be objective wrong.

I can look at Saudi Arabia and I can say that in they behave in same circumstances in ways that are objective wrong, and the same for Pakistan and the same for every other country, culture or religion that says things like "you can be put to death for leaving your religion", "you can be put to death for drawing pictures of some historical figure", you can marry a child and start having sex with her once she has had her first period", "you can throw gay people off tall building" or any other of the countless breaches of peoples basic human rights that are carried out in the name of the rule of a country, a religious belief or a culture.

Not only can we say this behaviour is objective wrong, we need to say it. It isn't good enough to say "ah well, you know, they genuinely believe the gays should be chucked off tall building, who are we to tell them it's wrong." Fcuking cop on. Some behaviour is just wrong and you know it. Is it racist? Am I racist because I think Americans have the death penalty wrong and in that particular area of their society they are backwards and barbaric and objective wrong? Am I racist because I believe Italy is wrong to allow adults to have sex with 14 year olds?

Nodin wrote: »

A wonderful fusion of religious bigotry with pseudo scientific racism. Well done Sir.

That wasn't my post.

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, not sure why we are focusing on Nobel Prizes for evidence of attainment, I didn't mention them, but I will say this, do you not find it ironic that a girl won a Nobel prize for standing up to one of the things I did actually mention?

I appreciate that it is difficult to compare one country to another and I understand that in some markers that one might use available resources might play a part. But are you trying to argue that not educating half the population, whilst it would clearly save money, and allowing child marriage is a result of a lack of resources?

Lack of development is synonymous with great gender inequality, or does the experience of latin America and Christian majority parts of Africa not count?

MrPudding wrote: »

That wasn't my post.

MrP

My apologies. I manually add quote tags and didn't insert the name. I've edited the post to clarify.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Lack of development is synonymous with great gender inequality, or does the experience of latin America and Christian majority parts of Africa not count?

Except that it's a vicious circle : keeping women in ignorance and servitude has been proven to be a powerful brake to development, including at the level of individual families (children of educated mothers do better than those of uneducated ones, and the effect is noticeably greater than the father's level of education).

And when you have a religion which specifies that one gender is worth half (or is it a quarter?) of the other, and that objecting to anything that religion teaches is apostasy and deserving of death, it's obvious that development is not encouraged. In fact it's hard to see how any but the most determined and somewhat reckless, activists, can even make an attempt at improving things.

And sure enough, that's exactly what we see in any of the Muslim majority countries I have any experience of, including the richest ones. Qatar, Saudi etc are kept functioning by foreign workers, while their own citizens mostly either party or study the Quran, depending. Sometimes both. Which sort of disproves your claim that it's about having the financial wherewithal to develop a society. Saudi Arabia has gone backwards since the 50s and 60s, when it was quite a relaxed place. They have lots more money though.

And finally, it's not coincidence that other places you mention as unequal are also traditionally religious. Christianity can be very anti-women too. South America is a good example. It's just that Christians no longer automatically sentence heretics to death, so it's safer to make public objections there!

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

Lack of development is synonymous with great gender inequality, or does the experience of latin America and Christian majority parts of Africa not count?

but when it comes to it, Christianity isnt as prescriptive as Islam so wherever a country is on a development scale, whether its islamic or not will have an effect and mostly not in a good way. Take Nigeria, where is child marriage going to be a bigger problem, the Islamic north or the christian south. It will be the Islamic areas

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

Yep, that's pretty much ethnocentrism right there

What exactly is that the objective standard of?
If you like your art sculpture more than you like theirs, they're inferior barbarians?
Do we all have to make scientific progress, or are you going to select champions, 7th century style?
If they live longer healthier lives than you, will than make you inferior?

Hyperbolically, if one restricts their art to hacking at a lump of granite with a blunt instrument vs fine carving... Yeah, its idiotic to not make a judgement on the progress of any form of culture within society, art, literature, whatever. Saying that, things can also regress, a culture can promote and go on the wrong direction, see; Idiocracy. The issue with Islam is its standing still, its dead.


If your religion promotes inbreeding that results in a rise of genetic defects, in effect dysgenics, or a promotion of a lack of fitness, well then yeah, that does make you inferior, you are engaging in deliberate genetic sabotage.

And yet there are scholars and art experts who feel The Dome of the Rock, the Taj Mahal, the Alhambra, the Khamsa of Nizami,and the Ardabil Carpet number amongst the countless Islamic artworks unrivalled by Western artists, and clearly superior to all others. For a topic to demostrate objectivity, it's odd you choose one so utterly subjective.

No one is denying those things are beautiful in their own way.
Im pointing out the restrictions, a restriction is not subjective. If you call a halt to your cultural and artistic development by religious decree that is a backward step, no matter how you dress it up. Take that attitude to any industry, say the car industry, if you are still restricted to a 93 Ford escort platform whilst the rest of the world has free reign to engineer what they like, no matter how much you dress it up, you are stagnating.

Really? You don't even comprehend that your notion that they are "clearly failed and regressive cultures" is ridiculously subjective? Nor am I claiming any cultures are equal; I'm saying that holding one culture up to the standards of another is simply an exercise in prejudice.

I only hold that opinion when that culture and all it entails, is being imported to Europe in the name of multiculturalism, diversity of culture is great, not every single place in the world has to follow some linear development path, the Middle East can do what they want, thats great, diversity is good.

You did not; you compared the civilisation, art, science, law and philosophy of the last 3000 years of the West to what you imagine is some 6th century barbarism masquerading as religion, or random African tribalism; completely dismissing the civilisation, art, science, law and philosophy produced in the East in the last 3000 years.

Quote me exactly, at no point did I dismiss anything of what you said. I gave two specific examples. "6th century barbarism masquerading as religion", aka Islam, and "random african tribalism" by which I mean sub saharan africa, which has produced nothing of note.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

.........no, it couldn't have. There needed to be a conjunction of events and circumstances to allow the technology to prosper but which didn't exist there. Likewise China, Africa and so on. Simplistic "but its Islam" nonsense just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. There are perfectly legitmate criticisms of the religion to be made, but this is not one of them.

So what is this 'conjunction of events and circumstances' you are referring to ?

Not a Reformation ,a Renaissance , an Enlightenment perhaps ?

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

but when it comes to it, Christianity isnt as prescriptive as Islam so wherever a country is on a development scale, whether its islamic or not will have an effect and mostly not in a good way. ..........

...it may have some effect, but it is far from unique, in that religious practices generally may retard some progress in some areas. One can look at reproductive health services and some branches of Christianity in the Americas and Africas for instance. As society develops these things gradually change.

volchitsa wrote:

And when you have a religion which specifies that one gender is worth half
(or is it a quarter?) of the other, and that objecting to anything
that religion teaches is apostasy and deserving of death, it's obvious that
development is not encouraged. In fact it's hard to see how any but the most determined and somewhat reckless, activists, can even make an attempt at
improving things

Europe progressed, theres no reason to presume the rest of the world won't do similarily sooner or later. I remember what footage from China used look like from Bejing - virtually no high buildings and nothing but pushbikes on the roads. Rather different now and I'm not yet 50.

volchitsa wrote:

And sure enough, that's exactly what we see in any of the Muslim majority countries I have any experience of, including the richest ones. Qatar, Saudi etc are kept functioning by foreign workers, while their own citizens mostly either party or study the Quran, depending. Sometimes both. Which sort of disproves your claim that it's about having the financial wherewithal to develop a society. Saudi Arabia has gone backwards since the 50s and 60s, when it was quite a relaxed place.

Saudi only became a big player in the early 1970's and there was a coup at the top. As its a very young state its still only developing, despite the vast amount of wealth to hand. Why they still import workers has always mystified me, as its a generally xenophobic state.

Saudi, being a monarchy, is generally as relaxed as the monarch feels it should be. The last two didn't feel it should be, essentially. That being said its the usual Saudi hypocrisy as the rules don't apply to the house of saud itself.

volchitsa wrote:

And finally, it's not coincidence that other places you mention as unequal are
also traditionally religious. Christianity can be very anti-women too. South
America is a good example. It's just that Christians no longer automatically
sentence heretics to death, so it's safer to make public objections there!

True enough.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

So what is this 'conjunction of events and circumstances' you are referring to ?

Not a Reformation ,a Renaissance , an Enlightenment perhaps ?

All of those, the availability of coal, sufficient water, crop surplus, population levels and so on. If intellectual achievement and technological development could catch on regardless of socio-economic & enviromental factors, we'd all be speaking classical greek or its descendants.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

All of those, the availability of coal, sufficient water, crop surplus, population levels and so on. If intellectual achievement and technological development could catch on regardless of socio-economic & enviromental factors, we'd all be speaking classical greek or its descendants.

Are you seriously contending that religion had nothing to do with it ?

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

Are you seriously contending that religion had nothing to do with it ?

I'll hazard a guess he has never heard of Savonarola

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Are you seriously contending that religion had nothing to do with it ?

....to do with what specifically?

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

All of those, the availability of coal, sufficient water, crop surplus, population levels and so on. If intellectual achievement and technological development could catch on regardless of socio-economic & enviromental factors, we'd all be speaking classical greek or its descendants.

Forget intellectual and technological achievement for a moment. What about basic human rights? What does the availability of coal have to do with whether or not a person gets put to death for saying "actually, I have done some thinking and I don't actually believe this religion anymore"? What does the availability of coal have to do with whether or not it is acceptable to have sex with a child?

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

Forget intellectual and technological achievement for a moment. What about basic human rights? What does the availability of coal have to do with whether or not a person gets put to death for saying "actually, I have done some thinking and I don't actually believe this religion anymore"? What does the availability of coal have to do with whether or not it is acceptable to have sex with a child?

MrP

...occasionally I think I'm the victim of a giant wind up here.

Their societies have progressed less because they have not developed economically. They have not done so because of - amongst a great many other factors - a lack of resources. As societies progress the kind of thing you refer to dies off/becomes socially inacceptable.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

...it may have some effect, but it is far from unique, in that religious practices generally may retard some progress in some areas. One can look at reproductive health services and some branches of Christianity in the Americas and Africas for instance. As society develops these things gradually change.

The most positive take on this is that it is passively aspirational. And more passive than aspirational. But TBF it is content-free fluff, really.

Nodin wrote: »

.Europe progressed, theres no reason to presume the rest of the world won't do similarily sooner or later. I remember what footage from China used look like from Bejing - virtually no high buildings and nothing but pushbikes on the roads. Rather different now and I'm not yet 50.

Right, and that only began to change when they dumped the ideology that was actively holding them back.

Which contradicts the concept of relativism. Some societies, some political structures see change and innovation as a potential threat to the status quo. Others positively encourage it. Guess which description better fits a country run according to a religion where a death sentence can result from merely questioning whether everything one could ever need to know could really have been set out by one man in a single book over a thousand years ago?

Nodin wrote: »

Saudi only became a big player in the early 1970's and there was a coup at the top. As its a very young state its still only developing, despite the vast amount of wealth to hand. Why they still import workers has always mystified me, as its a generally xenophobic state.

That's easy. They've used their riches to set up religious universities where they mostly train their young men in religious studies rather than anything useful, thereby creating a permanent deficit in people able to actually work as mechanics, engineers etc (as opposed to being overseers of foreign engineers).

Nodin wrote: »

Saudi, being a monarchy, is generally as relaxed as the monarch feels it should be. The last two didn't feel it should be, essentially.

You obviously don't know much about the history of Saudi Arabia" you probably need to look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

The Saudi royal family tightened the rules on Sharia only when forced to out of fear of insurrection. So they went backwards, while the Chinese moved forwards.

More evidence that it's naive and foolish to assume that progress always goes in the right direction provided there's the money for it - not true when the official doctrine is a regressive one. Even when the rulers only pay lip service to that doctrine.

(That's also why the royal family don't obey the rules themselves, whenever they can get away with not obeying - for them it's all for show anyway.

It's only the population and the clergy that takes all that nonsense seriously. That's enough to block the country's development all the same. Despite the country's wealth.)

JPNelsforearm

Loath as I am to cite wikipedia..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%E2%80%98ah

In Islam, Bid‘ah (Arabic: بدعة‎, lit. "innovation"[1]) refers to heretical innovation in religious matters.[1] Linguistically the term means "innovation, novelty, heretical doctrine, heresy".[2] In contrast to the English term "innovation", the word bid'ah in Arabic generally carries a negative connotation. One tradition holds that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, told a companion to "avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error”.[3][4] Another more dire hadith holds, “Every bid’ah is a going astray and every going astray is in Hell-fire

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

....to do with what specifically?

With the failure of the Middle east to build on the massive lead they had on development over Europe .

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

...occasionally I think I'm the victim of a giant wind up here.

Their societies have progressed less because they have not developed economically. They have not done so because of - amongst a great many other factors - a lack of resources. As societies progress the kind of thing you refer to dies off/becomes socially inacceptable.

You claim to think you're the victim of a wind-up yet you're the one posting laughably - or lamentably - inaccurate nonsense like the above!

So when Brunei introduced Sharia law in May 2014 was that progress then?

Or are you going to claim that Brunei is desperately poor and getting poorer? Even though they have oil revenues that most European countries can only dream of?

Or is the reality that you have no issue with the status of women under Sharia, and you don't see that as a regressive move at all?

(My vote goes to number three.)

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

With the failure of the Middle east to build on the massive lead they had on development over Europe .

....I don't think religion played any great part in it, no. Russia, for instance, was a Christian state in Europe but had to be occasionally dragged kicking and screaming forward.

volchitsa wrote:

So when Brunei introduced Sharia law in May 2014 was that progress
then?

You seem to be getting angry, for some reason, as I thought we were having a civil discussion.

Brunei is run by the Sultan. If a state is controlled by one individual that kind of thing is going to happen. You seem to be under the impression that progress is supposed to be a straight line forward with no sideways or reverses. A look at the history of Greece, Portugal and Spain post wwii shows otherwise.

Volchitsa wrote:

Right, and that only began to change when they dumped the ideology that was actively holding them back.

You'll find that they did not "dump the ideology" but it dissipated gradually in the face of increasing modernity and the flow of ideas.

volchitsa wrote:

Some societies, some political structures see change and innovation as a
potential threat to the status quo

This is true.

More evidence that it's naive and foolish to assume that progress always goes in the right direction provided there's the money for it - not true when the official doctrine is a regressive one. Even when the rulers only pay lip service to that doctrine.

I've been constantly stressing the way multiple factors affect events.....

Saudi will change eventually - possibly not peacefully, easily or quickly, but change it will.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

....I don't think religion played any great part in it, no. Russia, for instance, was a Christian state in Europe but had to be occasionally dragged kicking and screaming forward.

You are avoiding my question Nodin , for example in 1000 AD the Middle East was thriving civilisation compared to Europe , what changed ?

And it wasn't resources , if it was they wouldn't have developed such a massive lead in the first place .

Of course religion played a huge part in it. Europe confronted the power of the Church ,the Middle East didn't .

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

....I don't think religion played any great part in it, no. Russia, for instance, was a Christian state in Europe but had to be occasionally dragged kicking and screaming forward.



You seem to be getting angry, for some reason, as I thought we were having a civil discussion.

Brunei is run by the Sultan. If a state is controlled by one individual that kind of thing is going to happen. You seem to be under the impression that progress is supposed to be a straight line forward with no sideways or reverses. A look at the history of Greece, Portugal and Spain post wwii shows otherwise.

You'll find that they did not "dump the ideology" but it dissipated gradually in the face of increasing modernity and the flow of ideas

This is true.

I've been constantly stressing the way multiple factors affect events.....

Saudi will change eventually - possibly not peacefully, easily or quickly, but change it will.

You're all over the place on this, moving goalposts and avoiding the real issues in favour of pointless asides and newly discovered criteria and restrictions on what you've said. No-one has said that Saudi is immutable, we're saying that Islam is one of the most powerful factors acting against progress. Nothing you have said disproves that in the slightest. Earlier you claimed that financial stability etc would lead inevitably to progress, now you're claiming it's not that simple and this all depends on the type of government in place etc. But that is exactly the point that others have been making all along.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

You are avoiding my question Nodin , for example in 1000 AD the Middle East was thriving civilisation compared to Europe , what changed ?

And it wasn't resources , if it was they wouldn't have developed such a massive lead in the first place .

Of course religion played a huge part in it. Europe confronted the power of the Church ,the Middle East didn't .

Nothing changed in the middle east - Europe pulled ahead eventually and the main power centre there - the ottoman empire declined. They developed a lead because they used what they had effectively, but after that a host of factors stopped them progressing.

For one thing, there is no Islamic church and again, the move from religious considerations being foremost was very slow and gradual and far from uniform. It's rather odd I have to explain this on an Irish forum, tbh.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

You're all over the place on this, moving goalposts and avoiding the real issues in favour of pointless asides and newly discovered criteria and restrictions on what you've said. No-one has said that Saudi is immutable, we're saying that Islam is one of the most powerful factors acting against progress. Nothing you have said disproves that in the slightest. Earlier you claimed that financial stability etc would lead inevitably to progress, now you're claiming it's not that simple and this all depends on the type of government in place etc. But that is exactly the point that others have been making all along.

A bald assertion that presumes a monolithic Islam which is a nonsense.

You might point out to me where I spoke of "financial stability". I have stated from the beginning that multiple factors are involved. If you wish to attack me over what I've said, please do so, but in future use quotes from my posts, if you would.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

Saudi only became a big player in the early 1970's and there was a coup at the top. As its a very young state its still only developing, despite the vast amount of wealth to hand. Why they still import workers has always mystified me, as its a generally xenophobic state.

They are too lazy to do the work themselves. Its the same reason rich Californians employ poor Mexicans, despite not being being big fans of Mexican culture.

Nodin wrote: »

All of those, the availability of coal, sufficient water, crop surplus, population levels and so on. If intellectual achievement and technological development could catch on regardless of socio-economic & enviromental factors, we'd all be speaking classical greek or its descendants.

Its a bit much to blame the weather or lack of natural resources for holding back the Islamic countries. The countries with less coal, oil, iron (eg Ireland and Japan) have to rely on their people for prosperity, and therefore the people are reasonably well treated by the state. In Saudi and Nigeria, oil provides prosperity directly to the rulers, so they can ignore the wishes of the people.
Israel is a much higher achiever than its arab neighbours, despite less resources and a similar climate. Its because their culture is broadly an import from the west.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing changed in the middle east - Europe pulled ahead eventually and the main power centre there - the ottoman empire declined. They developed a lead because they used what they had effectively, but after that a host of factors stopped them progressing.

For one thing, there is no Islamic church and again, the move from religious considerations being foremost was very slow and gradual and far from uniform. It's rather odd I have to explain this on an Irish forum, tbh.

This is the whole point !! Why did Europe pull ahead ?

And it is not because of natural resources , it is because they fought and long and never-ending to put the forces of reaction in their place !

The Middle East went the other way .

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

This is the whole point !! Why did Europe pull ahead ?

And it is not because of natural resources , it is because they fought and long and never-ending to put the forces of reaction in their place !

The Middle East went the other way .

Partly it was, yes. The "forces of reaction" are many and varied, and to simplify European history (or anywhere else's) into a simplistic Religion vs progress conflict is absurd.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Partly it was, yes. The "forces of reaction" are many and varied, and to simplify European history (or anywhere else's) into a simplistic Religion vs progress conflict is absurd.

No one is simplifying anything Nodin , but to not accept the powerful brake that religion has had on progress is unrealistic .

We see it everywhere , from the centuries long struggle in Europe from the Reformation and Enlightenment through to our own battles here in Ireland with the RCC .

And we still have to fight that battle with the likes of the religious right in the USA etc , so I am not saying we are perfect .

But to not see that Islam still acts as such a brake is unreasonable (imho)