But not exclusively. All these things interact, so we cannot trace any specific cause-and-effect. For example, that American democracy took hold, and the form it took, were the result of prior conditions. Similarly, the effects of American democracy will be a function of all the things that are going on at any one time.
I do not use words like 'evil'. My contention is that the west, (like the east and the north and the south), are all humans and - under certain pressures - will act in similar ways.Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
But that is not a unique experience. The same happened in Europe when the multinational empires fell apart. If you replace them with 'self determination', the natural question is 'Who are we?' Europe suffered exactly the same things; the states you see today are the result of a bloody period of 'ethinic cleansing'.In a democracy however, the majority rules and the situation for religious and ethnic minorities has deteriorated, particular rapidly in the '65 to '66 genocide and again in the period of chaos in 1988.
I am a resident of a small island that a one time possessed 24% of the world's land surface and 23% of its population.Any account of Islamic history could only be interpreted in terms of "always inclined to attack other communities". Islamic civilization is the history of its pillaging and looting as I have described in my narrative,
Well, I have pointed out that Jews and Christians lived in Islamic countries for over a thousand years. If the Muslim objective was to convert them they were taking their time.No. The reason why the Near-East is Muslim today is because non-Muslims lived under persecution and by attrition eventually converted rather than continuing to live under oppression, or else fled.
You wrote that earlier. Once again, I have never said any such thing. To point out that at some periods of history Muslims have been tolerant and Christians intollerant - and at other times it has been the other way round - is not to 'Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are'Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
That is the third time you have copy/pasted that remark in your post!Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
But just look at what you have written! If a quarter support it, then three-quarters do not! So it cannot be the case that 'being Muslim' makes you think it is right to stone adulterers.Me: If the argument is that Islam is intolerant by its nature it would have to be the case that (a) it is always intolerant and (b) it is more intolerant than the norm. Neither is the case, so it cannot be that when Muslims are intolerant the cause is 'being Muslim'.
It is the case. As the Pew survey on attitudes (2013) shows, about a quarter of Indonesian Muslims support stoning of adulterers and death for those who convert out of Islam...
If we weren't discussing Muslims, I'm sure you would see this. Some blue-eyed people voted for Donald Trump. Did they vote for Donald Trump because they had blue eyes? No. How do we know that? Because (a) not all blue-eyed people voted for Donald Trump and (b) people without blue eyes also voted for Donald Trump. So, it must be some other factor than eye-colour that makes people vote for Donald Trump.
And who are 'those'? If I come across somebody who wants to behead me and sell my loved ones into slavery I will indeed contact the police, but that is very unusual.We don't extend tolerance to those who won't reciprocate it unless we want to be beheaded and have our loved ones sold into slavery. This is sometimes called "the paradox of tolerance", being tolerant doesn't include tolerating intolerance.
In other cases, I will assume a position of tolerance as the default, since what is the alternative? If we treat all members of other communities as if they were hostile, then that is a certain way of making them exactly that.
You applaud western civilisation, but western civilisation is founded on the notion of individual rights; treating other people according to what they do as individuals, not as members of a group. Yes, that will sometimes involve extending tolerance to those who would abuse it, but that is the price we pay.