I see what you're saying, but I don't think I've confused the two. In any Muslim country, no matter what other culture is present, Islam will be the dominant influence, since the only culture that is permitted is that which does not contravene Islam - this obviously greatly limits the possibilities for cultureal influence.
To a point. Islamic states do not preclude the existence of other cultures or religions. People of other faiths are allowed to practice their religion, but as you said, in a way that does not contravene Islam. It does not really suppress other cultures - a practicing Sikh for example would be permitted to roam the streets of Saudi Arabia without fear of persecution.
These two could amount to the same thing, no?
Not really. One can
learn about other cultures, but not
indulge in them if they are considered sinful.
You're absolutely right - those three were theists. Saying spritituality is a fantasy is my opinion, and it was the opinion of the others I've mentioned. I don't think it would be fair to call it a passing fad, because it hasn't passed yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, I can't say. However, the point I was making was an attempt to explain this reduction of the spiritual side that unquestionably happened in the West in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What's happened since then is another story.
It is indeed unquestionable that the spiritual side has been reduced in the West by the present time, but it has not ceased to exist altogether.
Although it is what I believe, I would never make the assertion that it was fact.
If only there were more people with your attitude.
Well, it's true to say that most cultures have at least one deity. Buddhists don't have any, though.
No? I'm pretty sure Sidharta, when sitting under the tree before achieving enlightenment, had to resist the temptations of demons the polar opposite of deities. Budhism is also an offshoot of Hinduism which obviously is a polytheistic faith. In any case, whether or not Buddhists do believe in deities is not the subject of this discussion.
I'm not saying any religion should justify itself by reference to another, simply that any appeal to any kind of objective truth at all would make any religion more convincing to outsiders.
I see. I've always seen Islam as, if not offering
objective truth, it at least offers
universal truth.
As soon as you bring people into the equation, the can of worms is opened...
Ain't that the truth. Witness Bush's recent claims he's commanded by God to do the things he's done. Contrast it with Bin Laden's perversions and you have the stage set for the most mucked-up 'holy' war in history.
Rambo is a nice piece of historical revisionism, courtesy of those kind people in Hollywood.
Rambo 3, where he goes to Afghanistan, is cracking in today's geopolitical climate! Our all-American hero even commends the Afghanis for 'not taking any crap' from their Russian agressors.
Would anyone know anything about history if it weren't for the movies?
Heh. U571 was a really bad history lesson though. I'd like to find whoever it was that thought it'd be good to turn the cast of characters from British to American, and hit them with a big paddle. Even Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is more educational. And, crucially, more fun!
kay: