Is not the "clash of civilisations" now between rationalism and superstition/religion?

Question

The West had the Enlightenment and it's still fighting for breath. Others were not so fortunate and are fighting each other and the West. But with Iraq dominating the headlines, and the mutual demonisation between Islamic and American fundamentalism - and climate change - are we asking the wrong questions, focussed on side issues?

Answer 1

The term "clash of civilizations" was popularized by Bernard Lewis, and also by Zbignew Brzezinski. (sorry -- no spellcheck on that one!)

The idea was, that in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, certain interests amongst the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy wanted to maintain an "enemy image". They wanted a unipolar world.

Islam was chosen, more or less arbitrarily, as that "enemy image", and the notion was circulated, that there are fundamental differences, between Christianity and Islam, that would lead to a "clash of civilizations".

This is yet another operation cooked up by British Intelligence (notorious for their influence in the region of Southwest Asia) to promote more wars, and to finally destroy the United States. The war against Iraq, was designed to discredit the U.S., and destroy its military, particularly the Army and Marines.

Ironically, American Fundamentalists apparently want to foster war between the U.S. and Iran, thinking that this will accelerate the Second Coming of Christ, and Armageddon.

Although there have been "radicals" in all three of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), historically, they have lived side by side in peace at various times. Look, for example, at the Yiddish Renaissance in Europe, around the 1700's. All human beings, regardless of faith, have access to Reason.

I hope this sheds some light on your question.

Answer 2

And that is different from the past, how? ;-)