HighResTomato
Member
He has spoken.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama: Religion is not responsible for terrorism
- Thread starter Maninthemirror
- Start date
- Status
Hilarious career ending gaffes by otherwise dangerous politicians?
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Pretty much.
Obama is saying what he has to say, what any responsible president likely would. Pure pragmatic PR, and the right thing to say publicly.
In private conversation, I don't think it's an insult to a reasonable human being to open discussion that something they believe is being utilized by others to inspire and justify murder and worse. I would think it extremely relevant and important to discuss why two people have such different interpretations of the same thing. Pretending there's nothing in common whatsoever - that somehow religion is irrelevant when comparing two followers who claim ownership of the same faith - has no practical effect beyond enabling ignorance and apologists.
soul creator
Member
Agreed. We definitely have to keep this in mind when people talk about how their religion has helped changed their life, has given them a sense of peace, and how religious people have contributed so much to humanity, and how people routinely talk about how their faith and god guides them to love their fellow human being
After all, religions can never have an effect on anyone!
This is true. If you go in with a certain attitude, religion (or a gun) can be very dangerous.
A paranoid individual with a gun is dangerous. A very hateful person with religion is dangerous.
But like you said: you can't outright blame the tool....but yes, they are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Dreams-Visions
Member
this.
you're wrong this time, Mr. President. The religious texts themselves are what's being twisted to make traps for fools...but if the texts were not giving the opportunity to be twisted with its harsh punishments and often cruel outlook, they couldn't be used. Such is true of all of the major religions as they all to some degree or another use fear to control people and the maintain order they desired to establish. Because fear is better at controlling than love is.
"I'd rather be feared than loved because the fear lasts longer."
soul creator
Member
What were these guys thinking anyway, we all know that it's just gonna be abused the exact same way as a religion, because all ideologies are equally twistable!
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Yea, people are responsible for terrorism, it just happens that these people's core belief system is based around killing everyone who doesn't believe what they believe. After all, correlation doesn't equal causation, right?
Edit: to be more clear, I get what he's saying, but the problem can be based on religion even if it's not an entire religion to blame. Its called religious extremism, Obama.
Edit: to be more clear, I get what he's saying, but the problem can be based on religion even if it's not an entire religion to blame. Its called religious extremism, Obama.
I'm not sure why we can't criticize the impact religion has on people. We criticize the Catholic Church for pedophilia, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and more recently their support of Nazism.
Why can't we blame religion for the impact it has on these actions? It's not the only thing that causes these events and actions. There are usually other extenuating circumstances like the power of institutions/greed, but I don't think anyone should feel like they can't be turned off by the Catholic Church for those things.
They can shun it too if they wish. Most Catholics had nothing to do with those things, but we can still condemn the actions and the ideology that justified despicable acts and alliances. The way that religion serves as a unifying, otherworldly justification to be cruel to others. We can do these things while still recognizing the other side of humanity and faith that is good.
Why can't we blame religion for the impact it has on these actions? It's not the only thing that causes these events and actions. There are usually other extenuating circumstances like the power of institutions/greed, but I don't think anyone should feel like they can't be turned off by the Catholic Church for those things.
They can shun it too if they wish. Most Catholics had nothing to do with those things, but we can still condemn the actions and the ideology that justified despicable acts and alliances. The way that religion serves as a unifying, otherworldly justification to be cruel to others. We can do these things while still recognizing the other side of humanity and faith that is good.
SSPssp
Member
Sure atheism isn't a religious belief, but the atheist murderer of those 3 muslim students seemed to be attracted to some militant atheist ideas. Obviously, ANY belief can play a role in violence.
HiredN00bs
Member
We cannot hold religions responsible merely for the actions of their followers.
We can hold religions responsible for the wicked ideas they promote.
When we can draw a straight line from horrendous idea to horrendous behavior, we can condemn both.
We can hold religions responsible for the wicked ideas they promote.
When we can draw a straight line from horrendous idea to horrendous behavior, we can condemn both.
It's all semantics anyway. Someone can say:
"Their views aren't Islamic, mine are."
"He's not really a Christian, I am!"
"That's not Scientology, this is."
It doesn't matter, theology is playing a role. You have hundreds of different religions interpreted thousands of different ways. People can fight all day about what they name it but it changes nothing. To say there is a complete separation between religious indoctrination and terrorism is completely disingenuous. It's fighting based on a system of beliefs that can't be proven and based on interpretation. This causes irrationality.
"Their views aren't Islamic, mine are."
"He's not really a Christian, I am!"
"That's not Scientology, this is."
It doesn't matter, theology is playing a role. You have hundreds of different religions interpreted thousands of different ways. People can fight all day about what they name it but it changes nothing. To say there is a complete separation between religious indoctrination and terrorism is completely disingenuous. It's fighting based on a system of beliefs that can't be proven and based on interpretation. This causes irrationality.
This is basically all that needs to be said. Yeah, one can argue that some beliefs may predispose people more than others, but someone can use any belief as justification for their actions. It's what happens when you twist and manipulate.
That said, the entirety if his speech was pretty good, and I agree with him.
People should really listen to the whole speech. It was good.
And we are done here. Amazing.
"killing infidels" is not a religion. Islam is.
I suppose I could have added "or lack thereof" to my sentence but that doesn't really change my point?
i.e. Atheists like to think they're more morally enlightened than theists but that simply isn't the case because morality and religion are two separate things.
Maninthemirror
Banned
This is true if you view a specific religion or set of religions as having the mechanism and instructions to kill innocent people whereby the followers follow the word of their faith word by word and it says Kill the innocents if you must.
This is the view of Daesh, not the view of moderate Muslims.
Daesh sees its view of faith as a gun to kill people, Moderate Muslims view faith as a means to prevent people from even thinking of buying a gun.
This is again where the instructions of Morality kicks in. its an inverse relationship to kill innocents and then be moral by respecting all societies and people. one is evil and not in sync with text and one is good and in sync with text.
If a Tea Party congressman says he is a patriot, then removes food stamps for people in winter so people can starve because he says they should earn that food, then in his twisted view he is a patriot but not in the minds of the common man despite him saying he is a lover and follower of the constitution of the US
superseohyun
Member
atheism simply means not believe a god. Nothing else. Anti-theist can lead to violence? Sure. But you are saying not believing in god can play a role in violence? How about not believing in unicorn? surely some non unicorn believer have killed somebody too.
HiredN00bs
Member
That's ridiculous. What the hell is militant atheism? Did you just make it up?
Maninthemirror
Banned
An Athiest is the polar opposite of a muslim believer in God. both believe or not believe and live their lives
An Anti-Thiest is the polar opposite of a fundamentalist muslim, both impose their beliefs/lack of on others
A militant Anti-Thiest/Atheist is the polar opposite of a radicalized Muslim. both act on imposing their belief/lack of on others
thats how i view it
Byakuya769
Member
I mean, asshole atheists usually just call theirselves atheist. I think he was trying to make a distinction so as not to be unfair to people who have nothing to do with dehumanizing others.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Just like a radicalized muslim distorts their faith, a Militant atheist distorts the humanistic view of society.
Byakuya769
Member
Works the other way around, also.
That would lead you directly to Obama's conclusion.
HiredN00bs
Member
But unless you can draw a real line linking the philosophy and the behavior, this type of equivacation is completely fallacious.
You don't have to twist Judaism to say it condemns homosexuality. You don't have to distort Christianity to find ideas that justify oppressing women. You don't have to be fringe to interpret that Islam advocates execution of apostates. To the contrary, lavish explanations are required to excuse these ignorant, wicked ideas.
gutter_trash
Banned
Three people make up a religious ideology?
Agreed there.
HiredN00bs
Member
Except that we have direct evidence...literal, absolute direct evidence...that playing video games in no way increases an individual's likelihood of committing violence. If there is evidence to show that irreligious people are no less likely to commit atrocities, I'd sure love to see it.
This does ignore more nuanced arguments of correlation and causation, of course, but I fail to see how fervently and with every fiber of your being believing in a book that, taken literally, tells you to murder all non-believers is a somehow completely innocent act that has no causal effect on anyone at all.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Attributing terrorist actions to religion takes ignoring all history, all culture, and all hardships that lead to organizations like Isis come into being. You could probably write a full book about the conditions that lead to the creation of Isis, and barely even touch religion.
I know it's appealing to boil a problem down into a simple explanation, be it religion or insanity, but the world isn't a simple place.
I know it's appealing to boil a problem down into a simple explanation, be it religion or insanity, but the world isn't a simple place.
Arguing religion is not responsible in any way is ignoring all history and culture as well. Religions influence in subjugation of women and murder is well documented. To deny it is denying reason.
HiredN00bs
Member
The false equivalency going on in defense of religion is astounding, though not unexpected.
Athiest simply means no supernatural God . That's it .
Tesseract
Banned
yeah man, ultimately we're all just a bunch of jiggling oxygen atoms
Unknown One
Member
I do believe religion is a catalyst for a lot of the violence. I think Obama is being tactical with this approach. You don't want to offend people and create more enemies.
Exactly.
Sati - burning of women in the funeral pyre of their husband - not religion just people
Untouchability class in India was not a result of religion but people
Subjugation of women in the middle east not a result of religion but only people
These people's motives were not driven by religion apparently.
It is so hilarious and sad at the same time.
While I don't support publishers backing down in fear, I think Obama is very merited in taking such a stance. It does make me wonder why say anything though.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Personally I believe modern day Hinduism is a far cry from when Krishna who is viewed by some as a Messenger and Prophet delivered the message which in its entirely was peaceful. Most hindus even when not following that hinduism are still peaceful and followers of their faith
I do think it's fair to say that however "corrupted" certain practices may seem. They are still done in faith, or for faith. It is this sort of blind faith, that your practice is someone related to your spirituality and a connection with the divine. This sort of faith thinking is how people justify in suspension of reason. How they find value in a causal effect behind the natural world where they are convinced things don't matter. But instead influence a supernatural world where everything matters. Or from which all that matters is derived.
Religion and faith based practices are essentially one in the same for people. You want to say something is not a religion because it does not have noble origins. Yet things are practiced by people on faith. You burn your wife in your funeral to bring her with you. That is an understanding of the world that requires a faith claim. A religion in essence.
I think people can do many good things in faith. But faith is a double edge sword and it can get people to draw many false equivalences. People fundamentally disagree on what is good. If they do something in faith thinking it is good, they can very much bring great harm unto people.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
if you say so. Ted Cruz is still in office and probably will be for many terms to come.
hydragonwarrior
Member
I guess it truly depends on the person. It's certainly true of animals (i.e. a pupply who has a fear of kids from a traumatizing event will still have that fear growing into an adult dog)
A person's fear can certainly linger, because fear is tied to the reptilian part of our brain for fight or flight. Totally separate from where love resides, which is the emotional part.
So not to say the terrorist leader's are psychological genius's, but they know what works in terms of influencing another. Hell, I can see them filling up young recruits with the obvious paranoia and fear of the US while filling their mind with emotional thoughts of love tied to religion rather than to their fellow man (if they never had a chance to experience love to begin with) in order to persuade them.
So peaceful that he was happy to initiate the Mahabharat and put young children on the battlefield knowing full well they are going to die. This is why no one should not take these stories as literal truths or source for your morality. They are entertaining and extremely well written books but that is about it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked