morolf: Totally nonsensical statement...once a Muslim/Christian always one? That's bizarre, of course people can change/leave religions (at least if their co-religionists let them, something that seems to be an issue with quite a few Muslims) in the modern West. And given that Christianity and Islam have universal aspirations and ultimately want everyone to conform to their norms, your distinction between religion/politicised religion is very dubious...this only works to some degree even in Europe and the US; it's totally besides the point in much of the Muslim world where politics and religion have never been separate.
jamyskis: Again, you're confusing politicised religion with personal faith. People can't pick and choose what they believe in. They don't sit and believe in the Abrahamic God, Buddha's teachings or any number of the Siku or Hindu gods because they brushed through a catalogue and said "I want that religion". Sure, they might lose faith and switch to another religion, but this happens astonishingly rarely. Others convert (which is basically feigning belief) to marry.
More often than not, people just lapse into non-practising adherents.
Neither Christianity nor Islam have "universal aspirations" beyond proselytising. Some denominations or religious schools, however, may aspire to more violent conquest, but that's not something that can be attributed to an entire religion. The religion is basically just the prophetic legacy - it's through exegesis that the problems arise.
It's generally poverty and poor education that breed the kinds of religious fundamentalism that you refer to. We see this not only in the Middle East, as you say, with some Islamist states, but also in Africa with Christian fundamentalism - the most extreme example being the LRA. In the few countries where living standards and education are somewhat more advanced, so too are the problems with these kinds of religious fundamentalism less pronounced.
morolf: Maybe AfD can create something viable, but they've got a lot of idiots as well and are demonized by the media and the entire establishment.
jamyskis: The AfD stopped being viable when Bernd Lucke was effectively ousted. The signs of the party basically turning full Nazi were there when Gauland started raising his profile. Since then, all the other right-wing extremists have followed suit. The media coverage is very much accurate and to the point - no unjust demonisation there. Or are we to believe that the catchphrases "Islam doesn't belong in Germany" and talking about shooting migrants at the border were misquoted?
There's one AfD politician I have a modicum of respect for, even though I disagree with many of his positions - Jörg Meuthen - and quite frankly, I have no idea what he's still doing in the AfD. He himself doesn't seem to have recognised that the party has changed beyond all recognition. He's respectful, both of minorities in their own right and of the constitution and refrains from the kinds of hyperbolic rhetoric you otherwise often hear in the AfD, whereas the bulk of the party members and its electorate are vile, vicious animals who only differentiate themselves from Nazis by deliberately avoiding the use of the swastika and deflecting criticism by accusing everyone else of being dictators.
morolf: I'm afraid it's a real possibility...the Christian Democrats have created some weird personality cult about Merkel...and there's no one left in the party who could possibly replace her.
jamyskis: Personality cults tend to develop around any electorally successful party candidate, regardless of political orientation: Thatcher, Blair, Schröder, Kohl, Clinton, Bush, Obama. They know that a character - not policies - wins elections, so they focus on character traits and centre everything around that candidate.
And the far-right is worst for creating cults of personality around its candidates: look at how carefully Nigel Farage's image is maintained and pruned in the UK. The only exception is Germany, where the far right parties have traditionally avoided centering publicity around any one candidate. Note how the AfD consistently and strategically bounces the spotlight back and forth between Petry, Gauland, Meuthen and Höcke - the gender minority, the old man, the moderate and the extremist.
I totally disagree with you, as is to be expected:
You have a view of religion that may be valid for Christianity in late 20th century Western Europe...that is in societies which already were largely secular and where Christianity had been successfully defanged after many centuries of conflict. In that setting you might indeed pretend "Oh, it's just some metaphysical beliefs people have, nothing to see here, all harmless". This isn't what Christianity has historically been like, or how Islam in most majority Islamic countries still is (yes I know, there are Islamic countries where people are rather relaxed about their faith, like the Balkans or parts of Central Asia...but that's easily offset by the absolutely deplorable conditions in many Arab countries, Pakistan/Afghanistan). Both Christianity and Islam have as their end goal the adoption of the "true" faith by the entire world, both have traditionally (and often still today) have had the goal of shaping all of society according to their norms, and both have advanced a highly negative view of "unbelievers", which has often led to violence and in the case of Islam still regularly does. Sorry, I'm all against attacking individual Muslims (or Christians), but if you hold to such beliefs, you must live with severe criticism, there can be no special protection for religious sensibilities.
As for the AfD: Of course they were already demonized when Lucke was in charge, there was vast media outcry when Lucke spoke of "Entartung", and Lucke himself was expelled from a train by leftist soccer fans (which was lauded by some SPD politician on Twitter), and archbishop Zollitzsch said good Catholics shouldn't vote AfD because they're against "Europe" and the Euro (!). Lucke has only been retconned as the "good moderate" now that he's politically no longer a threat to the establishment.
The whole bit about "shooting migrants at the border" was totally made up by the media, as any look at the original interview will confirm.
As for you calling AfD supporters "vile, vicious animals"...that says more about YOU than about them.
timppu: To me it appears many Germans are far more open to the idea that common people should be "protected" from bad information that might make them neo-nazis or islamists or something. Maybe it is due to Germany's past then, a whole nation turning into something sinister. Also here the legislation against "hate speech" seems to stem from the idea that it keeps people calmer when there are less arguments etc., maintaining peace or something.
To me though that is dangerously close to what Turkey, China, The Galactic Empire etc. are doing, curbing the freedom of speech on the pretext that it maintains peace, as the dissident voices will only cause unrest and arguments in the nation. North Korea is pretty peaceful...
Germans on the whole are totally authoritarian, they have no concept of freedom as a value in itself, and have blind faith in authorities. In some ways they haven't changed much from how it was in imperial Germany, Nazi Germany or the GDR...only the orthodoxies have changed (from nationalism, ultraracism, socialism to some weird neoliberal immigration and diversity ideology).
Germans have a lot of qualities, but politically they're among the most stupid and conformist people on earth.
