Will the Middle East secularise like the west?

Freiheit

In time?. Just after listening to interviews with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypyt and goals varied hugely. Still amazing though how people would still aspire to building society around 1500 year old knowledge. Is this due to the lack of freedom as was the case in Ireland? Hard to believe we are only 20 years shot of church rule. Will the Middle East go the same way in time?. If their freedom increases and they access contemporary knowledge, will they leave their religion behind?.

I suppose the same could apply to the other regions and religions too, will they let go of religion as information circulates?.

Shenshen

I would hope so, but something tells me it's a long way yet.
After all, even in Western countries, separation of church and state hasn't been fully realised yet, and some of them have been working at it for well over 2 centuries now.

Denerick

Probably a long way off yet.

There is a secular tradition in the Arab and Muslim world, which is distinctly based on nationalism as opposed to the enlightenment of western Christendom. Think of Iran before the revolution or even Syria today. It is debatable the extent to which ordinary people feel any affinity for a secularist system, but most of the educated middle class in countries like Egypt and Tunisia are horrified by the thought of an Islamist political system. This is where the money is; if played right, and with a devoted military, a Turkish style compromise mightn't be far off (ie, officially secular but which accomodates explicitly religious governing parties)

Zillah

The internet will win.

I'm not joking. If Islam is not reeling from secular opposition in the Middle East two decades from now I will eat my hat. Just quote this post and get in touch and I will send a holographic recording of me eating my space-hat.

Denerick

Zillah wrote: »

The internet will win.

I'm not joking. If Islam is not reeling from secular opposition in the Middle East two decades from now I will eat my hat. Just quote this post and get in touch and I will send a holographic recording of me eating my space-hat.

The internet can be used by extremists and religious fanatics just as easily; you are assuming that secularism is predestined to win in the marketplace of ideas because it is more rational and humane. The stark reality is that most people, particularly uneducated people, react better to black and white ideas of good and evil. They respond better to emotionalism because it requires less reason, hence the relative success of fundamentalists on the internet.

Zillah

Nope, I disagree. Fundamentalism requires ignorance, fear and the suppression of dissent. The internet allows people to communicate discretely, and they suddenly start to realise that many many people share their dissenting views, and gain confidence because of that.

Denerick

Zillah wrote: »

Nope, I disagree. Fundamentalism requires ignorance, fear and the suppression of dissent. The internet allows people to communicate discretely, and they suddenly start to realise that many many people share their dissenting views, and gain confidence because of that.

I agree that the internet is a useful outlet for people who hold covert dissident views, but for every one of these there are ten people who cling stubbornly to ultra conservative views. You are wrong about fundamentalism requiring any of those things; fundamentalism is thriving in many inner cities of Europe even though these countries have the freest media in the world and civil liberties are enshrined and defended by law.

Fundamentalism is like a bacteria, it multiplies in heat. The greater the emotionalism the easier the simple minded will latch on.

Think of it like this. Englightenment ideas never penetrated the proletariat, they only won over the ruling classes, the middle classes and some of the aristocracy. What really mattered is that the people who made decisions bought into enlightenment ideas, which are the bedrock of the things we take for granted in the west; secularism, liberty, and all that jazz. In a rawer form of democracy, where institution building is in its infancy, and where the wisdom/unwisdom of crowds is at its most influential, who do you think is going to win in the battle for ideas? The calm and moderate academic or the fire breathing preacher man?

Zillah

Denerick wrote: »

I agree that the internet is a useful outlet for people who hold covert dissident views, but for every one of these there are ten people who cling stubbornly to ultra conservative views. You are wrong about fundamentalism requiring any of those things; fundamentalism is thriving in many inner cities of Europe even though these countries have the freest media in the world and civil liberties are enshrined and defended by law.

I don't know to what fundamentalism you're refering here, but you show me a developed nation that has a conservative theocracy ruling with an iron fist and maybe you'd have a point.

Fundamentalism is like a bacteria, it multiplies in heat. The greater the emotionalism the easier the simple minded will latch on.

Think of it like this. Englightenment ideas never penetrated the proletariat, they only won over the ruling classes, the middle classes and some of the aristocracy. What really mattered is that the people who made decisions bought into enlightenment ideas, which are the bedrock of the things we take for granted in the west; secularism, liberty, and all that jazz. In a rawer form of democracy, where institution building is in its infancy, and where the wisdom/unwisdom of crowds is at its most influential, who do you think is going to win in the battle for ideas? The calm and moderate academic or the fire breathing preacher man?

Uh huh. And what about all those popular democratic uprisings taking place in the Middle East right now? Or the French revolution, or the American revolution...or basically any number of popular uprisings that resulted in oppressive regimes being thrown down?

Extreme emotion tends to fuel change in regime, but it doesn't lead inevitably towards fundamentalism.

philologos

There was the right of freedom of expression and belief in Ireland even during this time. It was due to social convention that people were so devoutly supportive of the RCC for so long.

Zillah

I didn't say anything about free speech. The important factor is the ability to to find like-minded people and to discuss topics in relative anonymity that would be difficult in real life.

Unless you're proposing there were secret meetings where people got together to discuss female orgasms and the like.

recedite

Zillah wrote: »

I don't know to what fundamentalism you're refering here, but you show me a developed nation that has a conservative theocracy ruling with an iron fist and maybe you'd have a point.

Iran

paky

hopefully it will otherwise the world is doomed if these countries ever become too powerful.

philologos

You'll need to define what you mean when you say "secularise". Do you mean merely on a Governmental level, or a societal level?

CerebralCortex

paky wrote: »

hopefully it will otherwise the world is doomed if these countries ever become too powerful.

As long as they keep listening to the Imams there is no fear of that.