Opposes it per se, or just excludes it from a role in the state?
If yopu say EXCLUDE then Turkey would exemplify your point.
From: Tom Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Very very OT Re: The Unnameable /Re: The fundamentalism Problem
--- Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Francis Gavin wrote:
> > As for the current nonsense you cite, it is rooted
> in nationalist fervor,
> > not religion. Like I said, it's been tried before.
> It just never lasts.
> Yes. It can't be emphasized too much that from the
> very beginning (early
> 20th century) fundamentalism has always been more of
> a social than a
> religious movement. Moreover, the growth of Islamic
> fundamentalism has
> always been fueled by nationalist reaction to
> western imperialism.
I think that you ahve to be careful here. Islamic
fundamentalism may have been aided by the lack of a
secular or nationalist opposition. This does not mean
that Islamic fundamentalists are closet nationalists.
I live in the province of Quebec which has a strong
nationalist bent. A strong aspect of this nationalist
is anti-clericalism. For example, Good Friday is not a
public holiday and one sees religious processions
being cut off by traffic on busy streets. This
anti-clericalism came from the long history of the
Catholic church resisting economic development. The
church feared that that development would cause people
to lose their faith and traditions. Education was seen
as a danger to the foundations of society.
The similarity in the behavior and social beliefs of
the Catholic church in Quebec and that of the Islamic
fundamentalists is clear. It is also clear that these
are not based on nationalism. Nationalism in Quebec
strongly opposes religion just as nationalism in
Islamic states would be as well.
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.