It could be good news. Until you think about the Christian reformation. Took an awful lot of wars and 150-odd years for Europe to find a modus vivendi.

two points.

Laban: quite - it's the Enlightenment they're looking for, not the reformation.

S2,
Generally, this is very much on a par with the way politics in USSR was reported as it was on its way to collapse: the more hardline communists also used to be classified as "conservatives".

C

Hey, Laban.

Had a busy and sleep-free week, or I'd have responded sooner.

I don't mind if the Islamic world goes through the same crap the Christian world did. In Utopia, it'd be lovely if great leaps forward could be achieved with zero violence. Historical examples, however, indicate that that's not an effective way for humans to make these changes. I think people make this mistake all the time, especially when it comes to introducing democracy to some country that's never had it before: they think that, if there's violence, it's going wrong. But our ancestors went through absurd amounts of violence to give us democracy; why suppose that people in other countries won't need the same process, just because we tell them it'd be nice?

And there's a certain selfishness involved, too. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for us. I for one am grateful. Why try to deny other people the right to make sacrifices for their descendants? Surely they should be entitled to make the same decisions our ancestors did, if they wish. Who the hell are we to tell them they're wrong to do so, while we laze around enjoying the achievements that resulted from those sacrifices?

So bring on the Islamic counterreformation. It'd be great if it could be bloodshed-free, it really would, but, if it can't be, that's no reason to oppose it.