Arab Spring : Were the end results the same crap just a different day?

[Makarov]

^ You think that Russia and Columbia (for example) have effective democracies? I certainly don't.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Makarov

... and almost all of sub-saharan Africa, Russia, parts of Latin and South America. This leads me to believe that the causal link between Christianity and democracy is not very strong (if it exists at all.)

Of course there isn't a link. There is FAR more to it than religion but understanding that is beyond the grasp of those who see the world through a simple lens.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

^ You think that Russia and Columbia (for example) have effective democracies? I certainly don't.

Sorry... misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about Christianity. You are correct about the democracy part.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Sorry... misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about Christianity.

Understood. No problem.

[Rerun]

^^^^^^^ Russia is obviously the big throbbing exception here but prior to Putin they were on the road to democracy and I think that they will return there. Opposition to him is growing stronger.

But this is just my opinion based on limited sources. I suppose you would know better.

[Itse]

There's more to the Arab Spring than Egypt.

It's really far too early to call how it all will end, as all countries have different things going on and many are in rather different situations. It's worth noting however that the typical Arab leader had ruled 20+ years before the Arab Spring. From that perspective changing four of them (Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen) in basicly one sweep is a lot of change relatively speaking.

There are countries where pretty much nothing changed. (Bahrain I think being the saddest example, as the peaceful uprising was put down with brutality with the western media mostly being silent.)

Then there are places where I think it's safe to say that things will change for the better. Jordan I think is the best example of that. I recommend checking out King Abdullah II visiting the Daily Show.

He might not be the mr. nice guy he likes to appear as, but he is not a tyrant either. http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended...9252012/419424 I'm thinking "at least some change for the better" is safe to say in this case. He is an interesting guy who seems to speak honestly and knows what he is talking about (I think).

But more generally, I think it's naïve to say that nothing has changed. Simply the amount of new free discussion in the Arab world is a huge change and will certainly change things over time.

Also, the civil uprisings are not the only thing happening there, and trying to see everything through that lense will result in a distorted view. As always there are multiple forces at work, economical issues being some of the most important.

We can now also see more of what's really going on in those countries, which easily leads to the perception of things being worse, when actually it's more about us seeing problems that have already been developing.

But there will certainly be a lot of violence still. It's typical for revolutions.

[Thor]

I think the dominance and faster evolution of the west is more to do with Guns, Germ and steel.

Great doc, highly recommend it!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So are you pretty much saying that the middle east is doomed to be ruled by despots and religious zealots, in the foreseeable future?

Well that applies to vast chunks of the world islamic or not, that said I think Islamic countries, even without the massive polarisation Israel and the wests attitude to Israel brings, would struggle to create a non secular democracy akin to the UK.
They were, in the 60's, turning away from Islam and creating socialist states of varying degrees of freedom through the Baathist movement and Nassar. We screwed that through our support of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the mujahadian, bringing down Saddam was an inane thing to do as well that has virtually given the middle east to the hardliners.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by blankall

Christianity was started as a political movement within Jerusalem. After that, it really didn't gain headway until the Roman Empire converted. Christianity was very much linked with the state for many many centuries. The old and new testament also contain far more rules about many things, including economics, than you are letting on.

It's totally possible to take a more secular view towards Islam, just as it is any other religion.

Although christianity has always been heavily involved in the state its theology is basically of the individual therefore it was fairly easy for the seperation of church and state without any disruption to an individuals worship, the koran is different, sharia law is difficult to fit into a seperated church and state due to its essentially fixed nature.
Ultimatly in a modern multi faith society a muslim has to be prepared to sacrifice elements of their faith that proscibe taxation, divorce, child custody etc.