This post may just turn into a discussion with myself…
One thing that always strikes me, is that just about every state has some kind of relationship with religion, though that relationship varies greatly. In some states, they use religion as a means of control (say, the religious theocracies of the middle-east), in other cases, the state tries to become the religion (the West)… trying to block out religious institutions as much as possible, and to take over their roles in controlling family and community issues.
The thing that is on my mind is… why the divide? Is it simply that people in the ME are more religious, so it’s a more effective means of control? I mean, that can’t have always been the case… but religious influence in the West has greatly diminished in recent decades… perhaps because of the intervention of the state.
Why has the West taken this route? More control being the religion, than relying on religion? If that’s the case… why haven’t the (primarily) Muslim states also taken this route? They just weren’t as successful? Or was the Muslim religion more sufficient for control than the Christain ones? Do Christain theocracies still exist? Maybe in Africa, I guess.
I differentiate between indigenous/folk religion and imperialistic/proselytic religion. The former are generally tied to geographic locations and/or ethnic groups. The latter may have a base of operations but extend their influence into any territory and any ethnic group they can penetrate.
The “power” of religion lies in its folk origins. Religion is just a part of culture, nothing more or less. In different cultures it serves more or less roles but there is a small set of roles that religion plays in every culture: instruction by the elders and regulation of family functions (coming-of-age, courting/marriage, etc.) The imperialistic religions are invariably in a symbiotic relationship with the “secular powers” - that is, the taxing authorities - and assist them in hijacking and disrupting the social roles of religion in providing instruction by elders and regulation of family functions. This assists the State in weakening the subject populace and making them easier to rule; divide et impera.
This formula is the same in the West, the East and the ME. The distinctions often made in terms of the relative overt influence of religion and the State are merely cosmetic. In every region where the influence of imperialistic religion is felt and folk religion has been suppressed and the religious community subjugated, the power of the State is enlarged.
This is why it is my view that step 1 in overthrowing the State is religious originalism. We need to rebuild our families and our religious communities from the ashes. These communities were the “ideological castle walls” that defended us from the expropriatory parasitism of the imperial religion-State complex. By allowing them to be taken down whether by “secularism” or by “ecumenism”, we allowed the monoculture to sanitize our communities of their unique identities, their unique aptitudes and geniuses. Instead, we became just another fiefdom, just another numbered entry in the ledger of tribute-payers to the imperial religionists/Statists. The pyramid grew another step taller.
As for why Christianity and Islam look different in these particular ways, I think it goes back to a basic difference in the imperial strategy utilized by each. Islam in the modern era is using the strategy of female oppression and the West in the modern era is using the strategy of male oppression. By copiously favoring one particular sex at the expense of the other, the State builds a rock-solid 50% base of support for itself which can be extended at the margins (certain women, in the ME - or certain men, in the West) to ensure it has a solid majority of support in the populace.
You can also think about how this creates a highly predictable demand for migration from one region to another as women seek to move to male-oppressed regions and men seek to move to female-oppressed regions. Ask yourself who controls the flow of individuals from one region to another.
Men are oppressed under modern Christian culture. Ever heard of feminism? I will grant that a single male who has never been entangled in a relationship can pretty much be a free variable and not be particularly oppressed. But the moment you entangle yourself in a relationship with a woman, you are subject to a mind-bending set of rules that you’ve never even heard of, unless you are a domestic relations lawyer. And if you should be foolish enough to actually produce children with a woman, then they’ve got you by the balls and you will conform to the cultural expectations of the standard, emasculated suburbanite male (the female fantasy of the ideal man) or you will be emotionally, financially and legally destroyed in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.
Note that women weren’t particularly oppressed under Islam in its golden age, either. In fact, by comparison to Christian women who were liable in many parts of Europe to superstitious and unsubstantiated accusations of “witchery”, and other garbage, women in Islam were treated very well.
Religion plays a critical role in culture, and therefore it is important for the state to snake their way into it to win the support of the people in that particular religion. A brilliant example of how government can corrupt even the most peace-promoting religion is portrayed in the book “Zen at War.”
EDIT
As far as Islam goes, well I think that for the most part all of those laws were implemented in the Middle East because of Western interference. Just look at Iran. Tehran used to be known as the place where you could find a skirt shorter than in Paris. But it was Western intervention that allowed the promotion of ultra-reactionary fundamentals to take place.
The less varied a religion is the more power it can have. All the pre-Christian Roman interaction did not change the Northern Europeans worldview or customs much greatly, might switch out a god here and there, the functions remained the same, the tribes were very independent from one another as far as legislation goes. Once Christianity made it’s way up north everything changed, especially when the lawmakers took on the new religion, it then became the state religion and the native religion was to be dismissed or integrated into the new one.
I also do believe that there would have been different relations between Europeans and Native Americans if the Europeans retained their native religion instead of Christianity.
I recall reading an article a while back discussing the “alliance” between secular and religious feminists, each taking a different route to the same goal. Can’t find it now (sorry!). I think that the most feministic Christian churches are the Pentecostals (pre-millenialists, generally) and some of the more liberal denominations of the mainline Protestant churches (Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) The Catholic Church itself is surprisingly anti-feminist but only “deeply Catholic” families are immune to the effects of feminism in the wider culture. IOW, attending Easter mass won’t turn your butch wife into a believer in patriarchy.
The Progressive movement itself originated in the Christian churches with the “temperance movement” and it was a powerfully emasculating influence. Wives were empowered by God to “teach” their husbands sobriety by refusing to give them physical affection (“Lips that touch this [bottle] won’t touch ours”) and by publicly denouncing them as drunkards, and so on. The logic of religious feminism spread from here into all areas of life. This is when the narrative of men as less faithful than women and more fundamentally promiscuous than women came into the fore. Traditionally, it was women who were regarded as the sneaks in a marriage relationship, requiring careful watch to prevent infidelity. Modern Christianity was crucial in turning this on its head.
I’m a Catholic. I was unaware the Protestants had it so bad. You sure you don’t all want to rejoin the Catholic church?
I can see the point about athiesm and more liberal protestantism being coorelated with the rise of modern (versus traditional) feminism. It really seems as if the entire family unit has been under attack in the past few decades. It is becoming the norm to come from a single parent household or, if you are lucky, from a mixed family. It doesn’t seem as if this is the best method of bringing up children.
The Progressive movement itself originated in the Christian churches with the “temperance movement” and it was a powerfully emasculating influence. Wives were empowered by God to “teach” their husbands sobriety by refusing to give them physical affection (“Lips that touch this [bottle] won’t touch ours”) and by publicly denouncing them as drunkards, and so on.
he says it was emasculating
he said wives were empowered to refuse their husbands physical affection when the wives did not want physical touch from the husband.
OMG, are you people retarded? READ what I wrote. They were taught that they were empowered by God to withhold affection in retaliation for consuming alcohol in order to teach him sobriety. Now, if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband for whatever reason, of course that’s her decision. (Why am I having to explain this???) But if a woman is being taught by what she believes is God’s spokesman (the Pastor) that she ought to do so in order to “teach” her husband sobriety, that’s an entirely separate matter altogether. Is she her husband’s mother? Is it her job to punish him for disobeying God? And since when did God give the Pastor the authority to invade the homes of his congregation through encouraging people within the home to emotionally manipulate one another??
Anyway, I’m sure you guys won’t understand a word of that last paragraph if what I wrote earlier so completely escaped your comprehension as to think I was approving marital rape. Good god.