Eastern vs. Western society

[JustinW]

My question here is whether the Western and Eastern way of thinking really so much different? Do we hold different opinions and ideology on ethical matters such as death, war, disease, population control, the use of natural resourses, and consequences of preventing such things? Are our societies ultimately evolving to include eachothers ways of thought and feelings on these matters? And is it right to have a certain amount of prejudice towards another society if our thoughts are different because of a general difference in the experiences of a society? I know that generally everyone has a certain amount of prejudice towards one thing or another. But are we as world coming closer to a point where these prejudices are no longer valid? I couldn't form my thoughts to anything specific on this topic, so I wanted to get the forums opinion on some of these things.

Edited January 11, 2012 by JustinW

[jeskill]

Don't know about the issues you've listed, but to me, it seems the main difference is that in the West, individual rights trump collective rights while in the East collective rights (i.e. of the family, community or state) trump individual rights.

[JustinW]

Don't know about the issues you've listed, but to me, it seems the main difference is that in the West, individual rights trump collective rights while in the East collective rights (i.e. of the family, community or state) trump individual rights.

You might have to explain a little more on your meaning. In the west our individual rights are the same collectively. Is it different in the east? What exactly are collective rights that differ from individual rights? Does a community have different rights as an individual? Or state have rights that do not apply to an individual? I'm probably not thinking about this the same way as you are. Explain and I'll try to understand your meaning better.

[jeskill]

I was thinking in terms of how people view their own rights, as opposed to how the law sets up rights. It seems that in the east, the will of the collective, whether it be the family, or the community, has more power than the will of the individual.

[JustinW]

I'm not so sure. I would have to hear a couple of examples to get your point. Here in the west we've had arguements and trials over individual rights, but we've also done those things on subjects that deal with people that are affected collectively. I don't think we have given special rights to an individual where those collectively didn't share the same rights. I dunno, I'll have to think on it.

[qsa]

As a person who lived on both sides I would say funamentally there is no difference, we all act like humans. We are just colored by our governments by their propaganda in the interest of the elites and the national geopolitics needs which is about economy(money) in the end. Most differences in each society comes from the experiences of ones enviroment, like education in all of its forms, small town big town, travel experience and so on. and these influences have different strengths in each area and country.

[immortal]

When God gave the Ten commandments to Moses it was only for the people who were jews and for people who will go on to inhabit a land mass called as Israel and form a nation. These laws should be strictly applied only in Isreal and a jew should follow this law even if he is inhabiting in a different part of the world and we should be secular enough to allow a jew to worship(not idol worship) his god and practice his religion and not oppose his views. Similarly this applies to other religions, I come from a nation where there are people who speak 18 official languages and follow seven major religions, we have hindu temples, muslim mosques and church cathedrals which are raised beside each other and people have co-existed happily for a generations of life time. So yes a certain amount of prejudice is justifyable but thoughts of extremism should not be entertained as everyone have the right to follow their own religion and their own views where ever they might be situated in the world.

[JustinW]

Most differences in each society comes from the experiences of ones enviroment, like education in all of its forms, small town big town, travel experience and so on. and these influences have different strengths in each area and country.

 

So you're saying that at a fundamental level people in the world are not much different from eachother? I think I can see your point there, but the differences from experience can be on a level throughout a region. Is it possible that the differences, brought by experiences, make us feel differently about certain ethical subjects? The reason I ask is that I've recently heard someone say that westerners were callus when it comes to death. I thought about the brutallity of others around the world at first before realizing that the person probably meant the thought of death and not the act. If he was right, I wondered why. (not that I necessarily think he's right) But I wondered if it had anything to do with experience of westerners as whole. One way we could differ more than European countries is the way our population is spread out. We generally have more rural areas. Wich means more hunting. At least in my own personal experience. Everyone I grew up around, we all grew up killing things since we were little. I wondered if maybe that is one of the reasons why our nation might come across as callus towards death. Just a thought.

 

So yes a certain amount of prejudice is justifyable but thoughts of extremism should not be entertained as everyone have the right to follow their own religion and their own views where ever they might be situated in the world.

Well spoken Immortal. I also believe this is the way it should be, and also believe the majority of the world believes this also.

[Dekan]

The OP refers to "Eastern" and "Western" society. As if compass direction, or longitude, makes societies behave differently. But that can't be true. China and Australia lie at similar longitudes. They're both in the "Far East". Yet Chinese and Australian societies are markedly different.

 

Doesn't the reason for this difference, lie more in the nature of the countries' inhabitants. The Chinese, are quite homogenous in their physical appearance. For example, they nearly all have black hair. Whereas, European-descended Australians have hair which varies in colour. Black, or Brown, or Blond, or Redhead. These varying colours, may inculcate a sense of individual difference in Australians of European descent. A sense of individual identity. And hence - of individual rights.

 

Whereas, the unvarying hair colour of the Chinese, may foster a sense of commonality. A feeling that "We're all the same" - so that community rights, should be the most important.

 

So it might be more sensible, to look at the issue, not in terms of differences between "Eastern" and "Western" societies. But rather by considering the differing (body-based) mind-sets of Asians and Causasians. Is that being too frightfully racist though?

[JustinW]

I wasn't really referring to race. I was leaning more towards American vs European, or American vs Middle Eastern, or something to that affect. I didn't want to get too specific because the question in my mind wasn't a specific one. That is why I used a massive generallity, which has been pointed out to me before as being a hinder to logical conversation. But it is what it is I guess.

 

I don't think we agree on the rights issue. Hair color or the feeling that "We are all the same" doesn't differentiate how individual rights are different than collective. Where I'm from they are both the same. I haven't heard about being different in any other countries. If it is I would like to hear some examples.

 

 

 

The topic was more about how societies are different around the world and if a certain amount of prejudice is ethically justifiable because of those differences.

[jeskill]

The topic was more about how societies are different around the world and if a certain amount of prejudice is ethically justifiable because of those differences.

 

 

Why would societal differences "ethically justify" prejudice?

[JustinW]

Why would societal differences "ethically justify" prejudice?

 

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant because of these differences, two different societies may think about an ethical question differently. Because the two may look at an ethical question in different lights, is it fair to judge them harshly for it? Or does there need to be a certain amount of understanding and leaveway when such arguments arise? For those that judge a matter at face value and express a certain amount of prejudice towards a whole society or group of people, are they somewhat justified in expressing that prejudice? Even though the matter may be a difference in experiences that cause the two to differ in opinion? I don't know....I probably should have thought this topic out more before I posted it. It's hard for me to find the right words to express the way I'm thinking about it.

[jeskill]

I'm going to try to re-phrase your question. Are you asking the question: when should we accept cultural differences and when should we try to change a cultural practice (or judge it) because we think it's ethically wrong?

[ewmon]

My question here is whether the Western and Eastern way of thinking [are] really so much different?

in the West, individual rights trump collective rights while in the East collective rights (i.e. of the family, community or state) trump individual rights.

I've seen it described more as what cultures consider as the "social unit". Eastern cultures seem skewed toward families, while western cultures seem skewed toward individuals.

 

For example, compared to Americans, Chinese tend to practice ancestor worship, show more personal obligation toward family, care for elderly parents (and show disgust toward "shipping" the elderly off to nursing homes), perceive more shame for the family due to personal behavior (so feelings of shame are multiplied several times over, sometimes to the point of suicide), tend to drive toward the desired profession of ancestors (eg, a (grand)father wanted to be a doctor, so his (grand)son feels obligated to become one), etc.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, these tendencies evolved due to abundance/scarcity of resources. Mutual support within families increases survival rates during times/situations/lifestyles involving scarcity. In the West, particularly in America, natural and man-made resources are plentiful (so much so that we are an obese nation), and thus, mutual support within families is not so necessary for survival. (Probably Jared Diamond's work helped me to think this way. See him at TED and YouTube.)

 

This may have a trickle down effect beyond social units. As Peter Parker's (Spiderman's) Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility." When individuals realize they are responsible for their behavior and only their behavior, it affects their morality, their views of rewards and punishments, and their acceptance/rejection of religious beliefs. Chinese have a hard time accepting Christianity because it's an individual-based religion, and they still perceive shame and punishment in what relatives do, they feel betrayal toward ancestors if they break away from family religious traditions, etc.

 

I've found Asians to feel shame to an extreme degree. A co-worker, an older Chinese lady, fainted at work one day, but soon recovered. She sat on the floor, curled up against a cubicle wall, her face buried in shame, yet seemingly okay. Everyone gathered around, people kept asking her if she was okay, she remained silent throughout, and an ambulance was called. After several minutes of this "standoff", I knelt down next to her and began having a conversation of sorts where she only nodded her head yes or no. She wanted everyone to just go away. I told her they wanted her to go to the hospital. Finally, I told her that they wouldn't go away until she went to the hospital, and she eventually allowed the EMTs to take her.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ewmon

[JustinW]

I've seen it described more as what cultures consider as the "social unit". Eastern cultures seem skewed toward families, while western cultures seem skewed toward individuals.

 

I think I understand a little better now. I think it was the word rights that were throwing me off. Said like this it makes more sense. And you really illustrated some fundamental differences between cultures. I think that on a religious and traditional point of view that a certain amount of prejudice towards western society may be understandable. It seems like that would be a perfectly understandable feeling to have under that sort of premis. Where as here in the west people think mostly of personal freedoms that cause a disconnect from a family orientation. Some food for thought.

 

 

I'm going to try to re-phrase your question. Are you asking the question: when should we accept cultural differences and when should we try to change a cultural practice (or judge it) because we think it's ethically wrong?

Why not both? The topic was pretty general so the conversation could go anywhere on this subject. I think ewmon layed out a pretty good reason to think about accepting an eastern way of family orientation from a westerners stand point. But I bet someone could just as easily make a case in the opposite direction. I think I posted this topic more on a basis of understanding fundamental differences and what people thought of those differences, rather than which society is wrong or right, better or worse. Tell me what you think.

[qsa]

I think the case today is mostly Urban vs nonUrban. I travel a lot everywhere and I have seen that. As the population move into the urban areas( the economy becoming service based) you will see the typical libral atitude given certain amount of time. it is the same in the ME. even in the old day people of the city where different ,you could see that in their poems ,stories ,arts ... But now ME is highly urbanised and culture slowly changing. my brother lives in the upper floor and we go to the same family business but I hardly ever see him. In both cultures all kind of groups exist from fanatics to the librals to gays to hardworking to the lazy to racist to the humanist to the consevatives to the Promiscuous to .. and there is no general rule as to who has more or less of each at any cetain time local. Although, society always plays the coverup.

Edited January 14, 2012 by qsa

[ewmon]

I think the case today is mostly Urban vs nonUrban.

I'll piggyback on this, but I meant to mention this anyway.

 

Eastern cultures tend to be more male-oriented, and western cultures tend to be more female-oriented.

 

I see the rise of "modern" technology in the west as the cause of this dichotomy. Prior to the western industrial revolutions, Dad might have been trudging behind a plow, or messily butchering hogs, but he was there on the family farm, never far from his family. Even the far side of the "north 40 [acres]", if square, was only ¼ mile — or a 5-minute walk — away. Bit by bit, the industrial revolutions fueled by technologies that harnessed wind power (sailing ships), water power (mills), steam power (factories) etc gradually stole Dad away from his family for most of the day.

 

Moms became increasingly more important in the daily management of the family, while Dad's role diminished to killing spiders, taking out the trash, disciplining children (Wait till your father gets home) etc while he increasingly complained to a family that knew him less and less about work that slowly entombed him from the rest of the world, first in mills and factories, then in offices and laboratories.

 

Gone are the days where under a spreading chestnut tree, the village smithy stands, a mighty man is he, with large and sinewy hands ... and children coming home from school, look in at the open door, and love to see the flaming forge, and hear the bellows roar. (With apologies to Longfellow.) But now western Moms have joined the Dads in the Rat Race, and they feel as little appreciated as the Dads do.

 

And for all the slavery and disenfranchisement that Dad endures in his "modern" western world (that is, if Mom decides to keep him around because she has such power, and he has so little), the most respect he gets (according to Chris Rock's "Bigger and Blacker" standup routine) is the big piece of chicken. ... Like most comedy, it isn't very far from the truth.

[jeskill]

It's hard to have this discussion because while there does seem to be cultural differences, culture is so diverse and ever-changing, it's hard to say with certainty "this is how it is in this country" without over-generalizing and pigeon-holing.

 

With regards to the issue of female/male dynamics, I do think that there is a major difference in the way women are perceived and treated in different cultures, and I do wonder if the difference is, in part, affected by how much importance is put on individuality vis-a-vis the family unit.

 

The reason I asked the question in my previous post, JustinW, is because as a feminist, I had a difficult time understanding women's role in society when I lived in Istanbul, Turkey. Of course, this is a place with a huge diversity of women anyways -- I interacted with both "modern" turkish women and "traditional" turkish women. I understood the "modern" turkish women more, obviously, although I did have some odd conversations that tweaked my sense of values. For example, one of my single friends who was an independent working woman told me that she wouldn't respect her boyfriend if he didn't cheat on her. I HOPE she was just an anomaly, but it did seem that cheating was considered much more acceptable there than in, say, Canada. And then there was the traditional religious turkish women -- I lived in an apartment block with very conservative families and our interactions were mostly pleasant. On one hand, the traditional turkish women seemed to have such strong ties to their family, and this seemed lovely. On the other hand, there is such mistreatment of women --- physical abuse, limitations on their freedom far beyond what I could handle, etc. etc. As a foreigner, to some extent, I am beholden to the rules of the land. But if the rules of the land go against my ethics and values, am I allowed to speak out and judge? That line was really hard for me.

 

So, I guess I the conundrum of when to judge and when not to judge is something that I have wrestled with. On one hand, it's important to respect another person's culture, in part because if you want them to respect yours, then you have to respect theirs. On the other hand, is it ethical to stand by and not say or act when something you believe is unethical occurs just because you're a foreigner and your values are not their values? Where is that line?

[JustinW]

So, I guess I the conundrum of when to judge and when not to judge is something that I have wrestled with. On one hand, it's important to respect another person's culture, in part because if you want them to respect yours, then you have to respect theirs. On the other hand, is it ethical to stand by and not say or act when something you believe is unethical occurs just because you're a foreigner and your values are not their values? Where is that line?

I think you pretty well touched on the reason for the topic and articulated it better than I could have. I think ultimately it comes down to personal feeling. Everyone is going to feel differently about different things. Personally I feel that these levels of judgement are natural and acceptable. So I don't believe there is a line when we are speaking about a group of people. And when speaking of an individual it can also be tricky to draw a line because everyone will have different thoughts on any issue. I think a better question to ask would be where should somebody draw the line when it comes to speaking out against someones values that seam unethical. For example when you were living in Turkey and if you came across someone abusing their wife, would you be justified in speaking out against them? It is part of their values and custom to act in such ways. Would it be justifiable to show prejudice against such customs? From our view point in the west the answer is a definite yes, but with the othersides view point it would probably be "mind your own business" or "this is the way it is supposed to be". I know as nation we speak out against such things that we feel to be unethical (sometimes). And I've always had this nagging feeling that pulls me in two different directions. I feel, on one hand, that we shouldn't have spoken out because that is just the way it is in that part of the world and who are we to tell them how to live. On the other hand though, I feel that we should speak out more often because if no one were to speakout ever, then nothing will ever change.

[charles brough]

My question here is whether the Western and Eastern way of thinking really so much different? Do we hold different opinions and ideology on ethical matters such as death, war, disease, population control, the use of natural resourses, and consequences of preventing such things? Are our societies ultimately evolving to include eachothers ways of thought and feelings on these matters? And is it right to have a certain amount of prejudice towards another society if our thoughts are different because of a general difference in the experiences of a society? I know that generally everyone has a certain amount of prejudice towards one thing or another. But are we as world coming closer to a point where these prejudices are no longer valid? I couldn't form my thoughts to anything specific on this topic, so I wanted to get the forums opinion on some of these things.

 

Prejudices? Its normal for people to prefer their own religion and ideology! After all, we evolved through millions of years as small group primates. We feel a sense of community mostly when our group is threatened by another group. The "praising of diversity" is one of our secular ideology's most recent doctrines and it defies human nature. No wonder it isn't working! The world is becoming more divided and its mainstream religion-based societies are becoming more hositile towards each other. That's why the West is becoming less and less able to solve growing world problems. Its all simple matter of cause and effect.

 

 

brough,

http://civilization-overview.com

[JustinW]

brough,

http://civilization-overview.com

A little thought provoking. I know that every major civilization has had it's down fall, but to happen to one as advanced as ours would essentially take total destruction. It's hard to imagine that a difference in ideology and personal prejudice could lead to the distruction of the majority of the world. Do you see that happening or could our civilizations downfall be more subtle?

 

And another question, after reading that is; was there ever, throughout history, an advanced civilization that would have been considered a secular one? I don't ever recall hearing of one that didn't have some sort of religious ideology.

 

Also I believe you're correct about a certain amount of prejudice. It's a normal human attribute. A good one too, looked at from a certain point of view. Our prejudices may help us in certain ways in interacting with others that would be harmful had we not had the ability to think that way. So I can see the points from the good and bad sides of prejudices. Something to think about.

[charles brough]

A little thought provoking. I know that every major civilization has had it's down fall, but to happen to one as advanced as ours would essentially take total destruction. It's hard to imagine that a difference in ideology and personal prejudice could lead to the distruction of the majority of the world. Do you see that happening or could our civilizations downfall be more subtle?

 

And another question, after reading that is; was there ever, throughout history, an advanced civilization that would have been considered a secular one? I don't ever recall hearing of one that didn't have some sort of religious ideology.

 

Also I believe you're correct about a certain amount of prejudice. It's a normal human attribute. A good one too, looked at from a certain point of view. Our prejudices may help us in certain ways in interacting with others that would be harmful had we not had the ability to think that way. So I can see the points from the good and bad sides of prejudices. Something to think about.

What is unique about social evolution is that societies do have life cycles, but when one dies, the people that belonged to it still live. They just converted to a better religion and a new life cycle began, one belonging to their new society, the one their new ideology bound them into. As you can imagine, I am concerned that as stress builds in the decades to come, that there might be a protracted nuclear war or cyber attacks that destroy the world's power and electronic systems. Also, there is the ever-present threat of pestulance, like the plague that reduced our numbers by a third in the Middle Ages.

 

Names change but the process stays the same. All civilizations have had secular ages, we just call them something else. The one existing in Roman times is called Hellenism. The Potolemic dynasty in Egypt was Hellenist, for exampe. It tied Egypt into the rest of the Roman world. In the great Hindu civilization, it was the teachings of the Buddha which later degenerated into a denomination of Hinduism. Even Islam had a relative secular age in about the 12th century. Secular leadership in China began when Buddhism spread there and lasted more than a thousand years.

 

About prejudice, I firmly believe in treating every individual with consideration no matter what I feel about either their race or religion. I do not approve of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, for example, but I would not treat any believer of it impolitely even though they teach the take-over of most of the Near East ("their Promised Land"), the tearing down of the mosque on the Temple Mount and replacing it with their Temple, or keeping their women back and in shrouds like reactionary Muslims do. Is that a "prejudice?" I know you agree it is not . . .

[Moontanman]

When God gave the Ten commandments to Moses it was only for the people who were jews and for people who will go on to inhabit a land mass called as Israel and form a nation. These laws should be strictly applied only in Isreal and a jew should follow this law even if he is inhabiting in a different part of the world and we should be secular enough to allow a jew to worship(not idol worship) his god and practice his religion and not oppose his views. Similarly this applies to other religions, I come from a nation where there are people who speak 18 official languages and follow seven major religions, we have hindu temples, muslim mosques and church cathedrals which are raised beside each other and people have co-existed happily for a generations of life time. So yes a certain amount of prejudice is justifyable but thoughts of extremism should not be entertained as everyone have the right to follow their own religion and their own views where ever they might be situated in the world.

 

While I applaud what you are saying sadly it doesn't work that way, extremists, much like a squeaky wheel, seem to be getting the attention of the world. This is not just because they make more noise but because they are more than willing to apply violence to get that attention. We can sit back and say how tolerant our societies are right up until the bomb goes off.

 

If and when our civilization falls it will be due to religion, not a lack of religion, many religions not only believe that god is coming to destroy all the unbelievers a great many people are doing more than praying for this to happen, in the USA fundamentalist religions are actively trying to bring about what they call Armageddon. They want it to to happen and actually allow this belief to guide their political agenda. From my point of view, living in the middle of these... people... it's very scary and real... and they gain power every day, if a republican wins the White House they will see it as a sign from god they are succeeding... all of the republican candidates profess to be creationists and fundamentalists... so yeah, i feel prejudice but not toward east or west but toward those who would bring down our first world civilization...

Edited January 21, 2012 by Moontanman

[immortal]

While I applaud what you are saying sadly it doesn't work that way, extremists, much like a squeaky wheel, seem to be getting the attention of the world. This is not just because they make more noise but because they are more than willing to apply violence to get that attention. We can sit back and say how tolerant our societies are right up until the bomb goes off.

 

Yeah its really sad, before we used to think that such a problem was something which existed only in the middle east but I think now every country is facing such a problem, extremists are everywhere and they can come from any religious foundation. Its disappointing to hear that occasionally a bomb had blew off in other states and while you think that some terrorist organisation outside the country is responsible for such a brutal act you'll shocked to hear that it would be done by some extremist religious organisation with in the country and the enemy lies with in the country. This is the reason why I don't associate myself with any religion or any other fundamental views, I don't claim that I am religious, I don't pray daily and I don't follow any religious practices however I take all the good wisdom which God gives us through religion and conduct myself properly.

 

If and when our civilization falls it will be due to religion, not a lack of religion, many religions not only believe that god is coming to destroy all the unbelievers a great many people are doing more than praying for this to happen, in the USA fundamentalist religions are actively trying to bring about what they call Armageddon. They want it to to happen and actually allow this belief to guide their political agenda. From my point of view, living in the middle of these... people... it's very scary and real... and they gain power every day, if a republican wins the White House they will see it as a sign from god they are succeeding... all of the republican candidates profess to be creationists and fundamentalists... so yeah, i feel prejudice but not toward east or west but toward those who would bring down our first world civilization...

 

I am very much aware of what's happening in the USA though I don't update myself enough with politics but you're not the only one, this is a problem in our country too, they are few extremist groups who have thrown stones on churches and the government stays absolutely mum on such attacks and it doesn't even show any will to arrest those individuals because if they arrest them then they'll lose their vote banks because most of the politicians win their elections only based on their background religious profile and as long as we don't educate our society and make our younger generations aware of this at a very young age this won't change and it might bring the fall down of a super economic powerful country.

 

The problem doesn't lie in religion, the problem lies with ignorant people who don't have any knowledge about religion and join extremist groups which are supported and funded by political parties to win their own battles and therefore our education system has to change and we need to educate students at a very young age about the philosophy behind those religions of the world if not I'll not be surprised to see our nations with my own eyes turning into nations like Iran and Afghanistan and who wouldn't get scared to live in such nations, so I think we need to act now and as long as the political parties like democrats are in power you can consider yourself to be safe.

 

I will not be surprised if those extremist people force their own religion to be introduced in the school curriculum and make students to study only their religion, so before they do such a thing its important that we introduce all religions and philosophy into the minds of students at a very young age and educate the society so that such extremist groups don't creep up quite often gaining human resource and money power.

[Moontanman]

Yeah its really sad, before we used to think that such a problem was something which existed only in the middle east but I think now every country is facing such a problem, extremists are everywhere and they can come from any religious foundation. Its disappointing to hear that occasionally a bomb had blew off in other states and while you think that some terrorist organisation outside the country is responsible for such a brutal act you'll shocked to hear that it would be done by some extremist religious organisation with in the country and the enemy lies with in the country. This is the reason why I don't associate myself with any religion or any other fundamental views, I don't claim that I am religious, I don't pray daily and I don't follow any religious practices however I take all the good wisdom which God gives us through religion and conduct myself properly.

 

Proper conduct by who's standards?

 

 

I am very much aware of what's happening in the USA though I don't update myself enough with politics but you're not the only one, this is a problem in our country too, they are few extremist groups who have thrown stones on churches and the government stays absolutely mum on such attacks and it doesn't even show any will to arrest those individuals because if they arrest them then they'll lose their vote banks because most of the politicians win their elections only based on their background religious profile and as long as we don't educate our society and make our younger generations aware of this at a very young age this won't change and it might bring the fall down of a super economic powerful country.

 

I agree, education is the key

 

The problem doesn't lie in religion, the problem lies with ignorant people who don't have any knowledge about religion and join extremist groups which are supported and funded by political parties to win their own battles and therefore our education system has to change and we need to educate students at a very young age about the philosophy behind those religions of the world if not I'll not be surprised to see our nations with my own eyes turning into nations like Iran and Afghanistan and who wouldn't get scared to live in such nations, so I think we need to act now and as long as the political parties like democrats are in power you can consider yourself to be safe.

 

No the problem resides with religion, it has far too much power over people, you won't find atheists bombing people because they feel slighted because some one is disrespectful to their lack of belief in god or what ever...

 

I will not be surprised if those extremist people force their own religion to be introduced in the school curriculum and make students to study only their religion, so before they do such a thing its important that we introduce all religions and philosophy into the minds of students at a very young age and educate the society so that such extremist groups don't creep up quite often gaining human resource and money power.

 

They are doing that, but they only want their religion taught, no others can be tolerated, you seem relatively naive about this, the religious fundamentalists who are causing the problems will not tolerate anything but their own religion being taught, it's the basis of what they believe, they believe they are correct and everyone else is deluded by the devil or what ever. They want only their religion taught as reality and then they will go about fighting among themselves to show who is doing their religion correctly. It's a never end process of evil in the human race...