Why were only traditional Catholic and protestant countries hit by secularization, while Muslims and Orthodox weren't?

[livingwordunity]

Because secularization is the fruit of Protestantism. And Protestantism was in protest to the Catholic Church.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If we look at the West, it is almost completely secularized. Traditional Catholic and Protestant countries are mostly secular and while most of the population still indentifies themselfs as Christians they are mostly unpractising. If we look at traditional muslim or orthodox countries(except for former communist one) they are mostly religious. Why is that? I think that that happened because of the RCC mitigation of some strict rules after Second Vatican council. There need to be strict rules, because that literally forces people to follow other teahings of the Church. When the most strict rules go, that is the time when people start ignoring others as well. What do you think?

-The secularization of the West was already well underway prior to Vatican 2.
-Most “traditional Muslim countries” were very secularized for most of the 20th Century. Partly due to the heavy influence of Western powers in or on the country and partly due as a response for the failure of said countries to maintain their international status (Islam was seen as holding them back)
-The resurgence of Islam in these countries is the logical after effect of the failures of their secular (and often repressive) governments and the blaming (to a degree justly) of the non-Islamic West for their failures.
-I personally found enough porn, alcohol, and various other “no faithful Muslim should have anything to do with” items in Iraqi houses to disagree with the idea that every Muslim is traditional or faithful to the teachings of their faith.
-I would wager that the perception that Muslim countries are full of faithful traditional Muslims has to do with a)Islam also being a political system b)social/cultural/legal pressures to identify oneself as a faithful Muslim even if one is not c)the conservative nature of the cultures and societies in Islamic countries.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s an idea Why don’t Christians teat Muslims like Muslims treat them. Cut off their heads if they don’t convert. Declare a Christian Fatwa of Shria Law against all Muslims.

Linsu2nd

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Here’s an idea Why don’t Christians teat Muslims like Muslims treat them. Cut off their heads if they don’t convert. Declare a Christian Fatwa of Shria Law against all Muslims.

Linsu2nd

killing dhimmi for failing to convert is against Islamic beliefs.

 

[manualman]

It’s simply a cultural difference. Most cultural strengths create a corresponding cultural weakness.

The western world has for many generations cherished freedom as a foundational principle of our civilization. That truly was and is a good thing when the populace is generally well formed in conscience and self-discipline. But it creates an opening for rationalizing license and gluttony under the disguise of freedom.

Islamic culture does NOT cherish or hold up freedom. The very word “Islam” means “submission.” The reality of life in Islamic countries is that there are at least as many people who don’t give a rip about their nominal faith as there are in the west, but because Islam does not uphold freedom as a value, the lukewarm are not able to exploit that principle as a vehicle to outright vices contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Islam’s insistence of submission gives it the strength of resistance to secularization, but at the cost of severely cramping the intellectual, scientific and technological potential of its people. Islamic society was once CENTURIES ahead of European culture and science due to the legacies of the peoples Islam conquered. But it all stagnated and they got left behind in those areas because their culture affirms blind obedience over comprehension.

Given the choice, the strength of Christianity’s endorsement of freedom is worth the cost. Like ancient Israel, we’ll probably be living through some hard times in the future as a result of abusing freedom, but it’s still better than living under the boot heel of Islam.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Here’s an idea Why don’t Christians teat Muslims like Muslims treat them. Cut off their heads if they don’t convert. Declare a Christian Fatwa of Shria Law against all Muslims.

Linsu2nd

So do you want to talk about how your comment runs against Church teachings or your rather shallow generalization of all Muslims based on the actions of a very few?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

killing dhimmi for failing to convert is against Islamic beliefs.

Friend where have you been. They have been killing Christians all over the Muslim world since forever and it has really heated up since 9/11. Where do you get your news, are you living under a rock somewhere?

Lins2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So do you want to talk about how your comment runs against Church teachings or your rather shallow generalization of all Muslims based on the actions of a very few?

So it is a bad joke. I’m illustrating the irony of the situation. But never fear, not long from now, depending on where you live, you will get the chance to put your " broader and more charitable view " into concrete practice. Oh BTW, I don’t advise taking any contract jobs in the Muslim world or do any traveling there. Now, is that better?

Gee, I love to here liberals talk. It’s the nearest thing to fantisy as you can get in real life.

Linus2nd

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Why are you discounting communism? What is it about the countries that became communist that lead them to that?

It was a case of a violent overthrow of the monarchy (Russia) and suppression of religion by a minority. Atheism was imposed on Russia from above. The same in other communist countries later on.

While this happened in France after the revolution, there was only a small number of cases of forced secularisation in Western Europe that could compare (again, communists trying to take over). The rest of the western world experienced something else: secularisation was a bottom up process.

 

[djames99]

Secularism is exterior to the Catholic condition. Secularism is a degree of imperfection. Catholicism is our suit of armor so to speak. We proceed from Catholicism. This is because secularism is like all else that attempts to prevail against it. All other religions have a defect of some degree, and some are more noble than others in this respect, but only has a class within themselves. As Catholics we metamorph to a perfect state, and leave the old husk behind.

We are able to discern secularism more clearly because through our exercised principles has Catholics, we are bestowed by God a unique grace of exterior perspective or worldview which would otherwise be nebulous. (The basket is held higher so the candle is brighter). Generally speaking, empirically, the other religion is so distant to true beliefs, that the powers of this world is content in leaving them in religious exile as long as it suits a practice of a life of chaos and distraction. However, within this group and despite horrible conditions, there are those who make a genuine effort to put into practice our Lord’s principles. These will be numbered among the elect for their perseverance, and as a consequence are more receptive to the Word and the Holy Spirit.

We are responsive to this possibility and view all our brethren has precious to our Lord and worthy of salvation through the Word.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So it is a bad joke. I’m illustrating the irony of the situation. But never fear, not long from now, depending on where you live, you will get the chance to put your " broader and more charitable view " into concrete practice. Oh BTW, I don’t advise taking any contract jobs in the Muslim world or do any traveling there. Now, is that better?

Gee, I love to here liberals talk. It’s the nearest thing to fantisy as you can get in real life.

Linus2nd

-The government gave me two paid “vacations” to a Muslim country so I’ve already had the chance to view Muslim culture up close and actually get to know Muslims. Hence my informed opinion on Muslims that doesn’t rely on what I hear on TV, find on some random internet site, or what I read in some poorly researched book. Well that and the fact I based my studies in grad school partly on the notion that Uncle Sam would pay for some of my future “vacations” to more arid climates.
-If my comment was liberal, that would mean that conservatives a) don’t support the teachings of the Church and b) rely on shallow stereotypes to form their opinions rather than actually learning about something prior to forming their opinions.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Friend where have you been. They have been killing Christians all over the Muslim world since forever and it has really heated up since 9/11. Where do you get your news, are you living under a rock somewhere?

Lins2nd

That some Muslims do it no more means it is in accordance with Islamic beliefs than the fact that some abortionist are Catholic means Catholicism approves of abortion.

 

[manualman]

That some Muslims do it no more means it is in accordance with Islamic beliefs than the fact that some abortionist are Catholic means Catholicism approves of abortion.

Excellent point. The fact that a majority of Christians have historically been hurtfully dismissive of homosexuals as PERSONS (not actions) doesn’t prove that Christianity teaches people to “hate gays.” Rather, too many Christians in the past have failed in their duty to love the sinner while hating the sin.

In Islam, however, I’m not sure the reasoning applies. Actual Islamic teaching DOES instruct the muslim to offer Jews and Christians a certain mercy denied to other stubborn infidels (Hindus, Buddhists and animists are to be treated under “convert or die” conditions when Islam is militarily triumphant, according to the Koran). However, that “mercy” officially comes with some ugly strings. Jews and Christians are NOT treated as people of equal dignity and value in society under Muhammed’s teachings. Rather they are officially classified as “dhimmi” a sort of distant second class citizen.

That’s not judging a religion by the average behavior of its members, it’s judging the actual principles that make up that religion. Muslims are human beings created good in God’s image, though fallen like the rest of us. It’s to be expected that they should display lots of evidence of that remaining original goodness like that in people everywhere. But that’s not the question, really. The question is whether the teachings of Muhammed (for that is what Islam IS) tend to make people BETTER than they would be in utter ignorance of God, or worse. My inclination is to say better, but not by much. And much worse in a few critical areas.