Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

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.

Except religion is pretty much the only thing anyone ever focuses on regarding terrorism.

Maybe religion is part of the equation, but at some point we need to look at the other parts that make up the equation too.

Of course speaking in absolutes is wrong, and I don't think most people on either side of this discussion are trying to do that, but I would personally argue that there is far too much focus on religion in general.

People aren't radicalised because they happened to make a error reading the Quran. They're radicalized because they're interpreting what they want the Quran to say. Non-radicalized christians interpret what they want the bible to say too, focusing on positive messages everyone could agree with. There are plenty of people arguing that the bible is either neutral or for gay marriage.

It's not just religion either. I mean look at how people interpret the constitution, and what the founding fathers wanted out of it. Everyone has their own interpretations, which are mostly based on their personal ideology from their own life experiences.

Maybe religion does amplify it in particularly bad ways, by virtue of it being portrayed as above all things, but that doesn't remove the conditions there from the start which are making people want to interpret those texts in such terrible ways.

It's those conditions outside of religion that need to be explored in more detail, but that doesn't happen because of things like this, where Obama simply saying terrorists don't represent a religion faces backlash.

 

[cackhyena]

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.

? Because there is the very real danger out there more and more for Muslims. Even if what he's saying isn't entirely correct, it's saying something in the face of hatred towards others.

 

[injurai]

? Because there is the very real danger out there more and more for Muslims. Even if what he's saying isn't entirely correct, it's saying something in the face of hatred towards others.

That's not what I meant. I agree with his message in support of muslim communities and nations. That we are not at war with Islam. But why say "no religion is responsible for terrorism" then? Off the cuff I guess I can't be too critical but if it was a prepared speech than It just seems too strong of a statement. Like I said, I think he is merited taking that stance and saying what he said when he did.

 

[ramuh]

Well he is dead wrong. Religion can be the only driving force for some acts of terrorism. Not all terrorism is from religion but it sure as hell can be solely from religious beliefs.

 

[ibyea]

I half disagree. Some religion, like the one ISIS believe, are responsible for terrorism, some religion are not. Although I understand Obama's point in trying to prevent bigotry against Muslims.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I guess cartoonists and synagogues can stop hiring guards now. What are the odds of another random attack happening against them ?

 

[SSPssp]

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

Krishna's advice to Arjun was very much focused on War and especially the necessity of duty. (Frankly, I consider it more Fascist than Fascism.) As already hinted at here, the Mahabharata is very much for the warrior caste. Speaking of that, there's no way that the caste system can be separated from Hinduism. While Hindus can rightfully point out that there is no definitive text for Hinduism, the caste system is supported by several Hindu texts, and in wide practice of course.

As a Hindu, I think things have gotten a lot better actually with the faith becoming more tolerant of lower castes, and trying to eliminate the caste system. But if you mean the Hindu Nationalist movement, I understand your concerns. Their views on the Muslim minority in India are terrible.

However, even they have become more tolerant when it comes to caste and religions such as Jainism, Buddhism, etc. Not that it matters to minorities they do not consider Hindu such as Christianity and Islam. (They have been attacking both.)

 

[btrboyev]

Disagreed. Religion is part of the problem.

Truth. Religion is problem period. Doesn't matter which religion, there are extremist on all sides doing horrible things in the name of God.

 

[Game4life]

Except religion is pretty much the only thing anyone ever focuses on regarding terrorism.

Maybe religion is part of the equation, but at some point we need to look at the other parts that make up the equation too.

Of course speaking in absolutes is wrong, and I don't think most people on either side of this discussion are trying to do that, but I would personally argue that there is far too much focus on religion in general.

People aren't radicalised because they happened to make a error reading the Quran. They're radicalized because they're interpreting what they want the Quran to say. Non-radicalized christians interpret what they want the bible to say too, focusing on positive messages everyone could agree with. There are plenty of people arguing that the bible is either neutral or for gay marriage.

It's not just religion either. I mean look at how people interpret the constitution, and what the founding fathers wanted out of it. Everyone has their own interpretations, which are mostly based on their personal ideology from their own life experiences.

Maybe religion does amplify it in particularly bad ways, by virtue of it being portrayed as above all things, but that doesn't remove the conditions there from the start which are making people want to interpret those texts in such terrible ways.

It's those conditions outside of religion that need to be explored in more detail, but that doesn't happen because of things like this, where Obama simply saying terrorists don't represent a religion faces backlash.

Misrepresentation of the constitution does not drive organized groups to kill people and subjugate women like religion does. We have already heard hundreds of other excuses for terrorism - poverty, war , lack of education etc.. Except we have hundreds of instances of educated ,rich people killing in the name of religion as well. We have a group killing women for not wearing a burkha in their own countries and doing this to their own women and not to someone from some other country. You want to argue that this is actually not due to religion but due to other reasons you are free to do so but I do not buy it for one bit.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I disagree with Obama, and Fox News has the right to call him out on this. Any sensible human knows only a small % of Muslims are terrorists, even "conservative nutjobs" in the US. Less than 10% of Muslims in the World would classify themselves as "extremists".

But we can't pretend that ISIS is not religion fueled. Using religion to justify their cause, sure, but they have still found a way to piggy back on their interpretation of the Quran, and its convincing enough for ISIS to recruit other Muslims to fight for their cause.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I disagree with Obama, and Fox News has the right to call him out on this. Any sensible human knows only a small % of Muslims are terrorists, even "conservative nutjobs" in the US. Less than 10% of Muslims in the World would classify themselves as "extremists".

But we can't pretend that ISIS is not religion fueled. Using religion to justify their cause, sure, but they have still found a way to piggy back on their interpretation of the Quran, and its convincing enough for ISIS to recruit other Muslims to fight for their cause.

Yep, it is damned irresponsible to say that religion is not responsible for terrorism. It just isn't historically accurate. Guess the crusades had nothing at all to do with religion, nope, it wasn't responsible.

The problem with religion is that it allows open interpretation, you have one sect saying they have the truth and another saying that they have the truth. I really couldn't give a shit if you want to practice your faith. But how far are you going to go? Do you not need Jesus to reclaim the holy land? Doesn't that influence how you treat people?

The same is true for Islam. What he is trying to do is make it known that we aren't engaging in a religious war. That is wonderful, but ISIS is, and we have to accept that.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Pretty patronizing. We seem to have no problem accepting that insane christian extremists do not represent the entirety of Christianity, I'm not sure why we must tiptoe around Muslim extremists and say it has nothing to do with religion.

I think to admit religion could be used to entice people to commit horrific acts would pull the viel back a little to far for comfort, to say terrorist use religion as a tool to control people and you might get people wondering if they are being controlled.

 

[The Silver]

Obama speaking truths. Too bad people will keep on blaming muslims just because terrorists claim they're simply following the koran

Biden the best hype man in the world

 

[SkyOdin]

Well he is dead wrong. Religion can be the only driving force for some acts of terrorism. Not all terrorism is from religion but it sure as hell can be solely from religious beliefs.

Then why are only some Muslims participating in terrorist acts, and not all Muslims? What is different about Muslims living in Syria than Muslims living in Indonesia? If you want to know, the difference is their circumstances and living environment. People living in a war-torn environment where they have no prospects of a stable and safe future are thousands of times more likely to engage in violence or extremism than people living in countries where they can go to work and raise a family in peace.

Even if there was no religion, the people in some of these devastated countries would still have no prospects waiting for them if they tried to live a peaceful life. If you take this pre-existing mass of desperate people with no real hope who are already familiar with violence on a daily basis, and then mix in ambitious and ruthless demagogues who see an opportunity to grab power for themselves, it becomes a volatile concoction that starts to do real harm.

Despair, poverty, base greed, the desire for power, mistrust, resentment at distant powers that one feels are responsible for their lot in life. These are the ingredients of political violence. They are as old as human civilization, and have been true for every place on earth and every people. Islamic fundamentalism is just a convenient flag for these forces to rally around, but that flag could have been replaced by anything.

Groups like ISIS are just the most modern incarnation of an ancient socio-politcial force called warlordism. In times of chaos, those who are the most brutal rule. You can look at any point of history and find examples, from around the world. The things these groups are terrifying, but they are not unfamiliar or strange. And the forces that motivate these atrocities are clear: poverty and chaos.

If you want religious people to stop killing others in the name or their religion, you just need to give them stability, safety, and a chance to make a decent living. Once people have peace, they won't want to risk losing it by engaging in violence.

 

[ramuh]

Yep, it is damned irresponsible to say that religion is not responsible for terrorism. It just isn't historically accurate. Guess the crusades had nothing at all to do with religion, nope, it wasn't responsible.

The same is true for Islam. What he is trying to do is make it known that we aren't engaging in a religious war. That is wonderful, but ISIS is, and we have to accept that.

The Crusades probably happened only because of Youth UnEmployment and Government Corruption.

 

[Game4life]

Then why are only some Muslims participating in terrorist acts, and not all Muslims? What is different about Muslims living in Syria than Muslims living in Indonesia? If you want to know, the difference is their circumstances and living environment. People living in a war-torn environment where they have no prospects of a stable and safe future are thousands of times more likely to engage in violence or extremism than people living in countries where they can go to work and raise a family in peace.

Even if there was no religion, the people in some of these devastated countries would still have no prospects waiting for them if they tried to live a peaceful life. If you take this pre-existing mass of desperate people with no real hope who are already familiar with violence on a daily basis, and then mix in ambitious and ruthless demagogues who see an opportunity to grab power for themselves, it becomes a volatile concoction that starts to do real harm.

Despair, poverty, base greed, the desire for power, mistrust, resentment at distant powers that one feels are responsible for their lot in life. These are the ingredients of political violence. They are as old as human civilization, and have been true for every place on earth and every people. Islamic fundamentalism is just a convenient flag for these forces to rally around, but that flag could have been replaced by anything.

Groups like ISIS are just the most modern incarnation of an ancient socio-politcial force called warlordism. In times of chaos, those who are the most brutal rule. You can look at any point of history and find examples, from around the world. The things these groups are terrifying, but they are not unfamiliar or strange. And the forces that motivate these atrocities are clear: poverty and chaos.

If you want religious people to stop killing others in the name or their religion, you just need to give them stability, safety, and a chance to make a decent living. Once people have peace, they won't want to risk losing it my engaging in violence.

What a bunch of apologist shit.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

If you want to stop violence etc they just need stability etc, really is that why you have western individuals living in western society turning to terrorism?

Surely the wouldn't risk all the peace that they have... Oh wait some are.

 

[B-Dubs]

Then why are only some Muslims participating in terrorist acts, and not all Muslims? What is different about Muslims living in Syria than Muslims living in Indonesia? If you want to know, the difference is their circumstances and living environment. People living in a war-torn environment where they have no prospects of a stable and safe future are thousands of times more likely to engage in violence or extremism than people living in countries where they can go to work and raise a family in peace.

Even if there was no religion, the people in some of these devastated countries would still have no prospects waiting for them if they tried to live a peaceful life. If you take this pre-existing mass of desperate people with no real hope who are already familiar with violence on a daily basis, and then mix in ambitious and ruthless demagogues who see an opportunity to grab power for themselves, it becomes a volatile concoction that starts to do real harm.

Despair, poverty, base greed, the desire for power, mistrust, resentment at distant powers that one feels are responsible for their lot in life. These are the ingredients of political violence. They are as old as human civilization, and have been true for every place on earth and every people. Islamic fundamentalism is just a convenient flag for these forces to rally around, but that flag could have been replaced by anything.

Groups like ISIS are just the most modern incarnation of an ancient socio-politcial force called warlordism. In times of chaos, those who are the most brutal rule. You can look at any point of history and find examples, from around the world. The things these groups are terrifying, but they are not unfamiliar or strange. And the forces that motivate these atrocities are clear: poverty and chaos.

If you want religious people to stop killing others in the name or their religion, you just need to give them stability, safety, and a chance to make a decent living. Once people have peace, they won't want to risk losing it my engaging in violence.

And there you go, you hit the nail on the head. I spent the last terrorism thread trying to explain this, only for it to fall on deaf ears.

Sadly, nobody will listen to this because, you know, "ISLAM!@!11!" and "RELIGION IS BAD MM'KAY!!" The fact is that religion has always just been a justification, acting as an appeal to authority to make people feel like whatever sick shit their doing is needed or necessary or whatever. These people would do this with or without religion, they'd just need to think up another way of excusing what they are doing.

If you want to stop violence etc they just need stability etc, really is that why you have western individuals living in western society turning to terrorism?

Surely the wouldn't risk all the peace that they have... Oh wait some are.

There's always going to be mentally unstable individuals or true believers, but there's a damn good reason these people are few and far between in stabilized and prosperous countries. Outliers don't necessarily disprove a set of data, there's always going to be data points that don't fit in a set.

 

[Joni]

Islamic State has a right to their religion, just as much as everyone else. They clearly believe they're following the word of god. Even their opponents - the guys on our side - seem to justify violence against them using that same religion. So why should we assume religion plays no part in it? Both sides seem to agree religion plays a major part in it. And it will always will if they don't change their education and politics. If you allow religion to enter those from the start, you're only fueling extremism. Which is something the US is not better at.

 

[injurai]

The Crusades probably happened only because of Youth UnEmployment and Government Corruption.

They happened because Christians were banished from Jerusalem. Apropos to the topic, it's not like good relations didn't exist between christians and muslims during that time. Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid had been good friends in their life before the crusades. This continues with Richard the Lionheart and Salah ad-Din during the 3rd crusade.

 

[SSPssp]

They happened because Christians were banished from Jerusalem. Apropos to the topic, it's not like good relations didn't exist between christians and muslims during that time. Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid had been good friends in their life before the crusades. This continues with Richard the Lionheart and Salah ad-Din during the 3rd crusade.

That's really interesting. I guess not everything and everyone align just based on creed.

 

[y2dvd]

Religion is the moral compass for a vast number of individuals. To say radical extremists aren't terrorizing in the name of religion is sweeping things under the rug. How hard is it to say, 'Hey, in order to reform, we have to acknowledge that the cause of action contains some things unacceptable in today's society, and we should do away with that while keeping the good stuff in.'

How else are you supposed to improve anything without acknowledging what's at fault?

 

[SkyOdin]

What a bunch of apologist shit.

Mind making an actual argument? Can you say anything is particularly wrong? What am I even supposed to be "apologizing" for?

I studied history in college. It's what my degree is in. When you look at history, you see a lot of the same things happen over and over again. History and human action is shaped by certain forces. The desire for individual leaders, big and small, to maintain their own power, for example. The instability that arises when common man loses their prospects for making a living. The rise of Naziism in Germany was due to similar forces that caused peasant rebellions in Yuan dynasty China. Eventually the poor and downtrodden hit a breaking point, and they turn to violence.

Looking at only individual motivational factors such as ideology ignores the fact that you can't describe the actions of entire populaces in individual terms. One man out of millions may be driven to extreme acts for purely ideological reasons, but a million people act as the result of larger socio-economic forces.

That doesn't make terrorism right of course. It is self-defeating and self-destructive in the long term. This kind of violence and warlordism that we see in the modern Middle East is only making peace harder and harder to obtain. But that is the most insidious part of this vast human tragedy: it is a cycle that self-perpetuates and worsens. However, condemning their religion doesn't do anything whatsoever to solve the core problems. If you want to obtain peace in the Middle East, we need to start coming up with actual solutions to their problems, rather than just continue to drop hate on them from afar.

 

[stonesak]

Mind making an actual argument? Can you say anything is particularly wrong? What am I even supposed to be "apologizing" for?

I studied history in college. It's what my degree is in. When you look at history, you see a lot of the same things happen over and over again. History and human action is shaped by certain forces. The desire for individual leaders, big and small, to maintain their own power, for example. The instability that arises when common man loses their prospects for making a living. The rise of Naziism in Germany was due to similar forces that caused peasant rebellions in Yuan dynasty China. Eventually the poor and downtrodden hit a breaking point, and they turn to violence.

Looking at only individual motivational factors such as ideology ignores the fact that you can't describe the actions of entire populaces in individual terms. One man out of millions may be driven to extreme acts for purely ideological reasons, but a million people act as the result of larger socio-economic forces.

That doesn't make terrorism right of course. It is self-defeating and self-destructive in the long term. This kind of violence and warlordism that we see in the modern Middle East is only making peace harder and harder to obtain. But that is the most insidious part of this vast human tragedy: it is a cycle that self-perpetuates and worsens. However, condemning their religion doesn't do anything whatsoever to solve the core problems. If you want to obtain peace in the Middle East, we need to start coming up with actual solutions to their problems, rather than just continue to drop hate on them from afar.

I understand your point, but that's eerily close to "White Man's Burden".

 

[m_shortpants]

Just gonna quote this from Crab:

Man, Islam is just so clearly to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East. I don't understand why we don't just try and eliminate Islam entirely. I mean, take a look at these verses:



This is absolutely horrific, and we should... oops, slight mistake, these are all from the Bible. Hmm. Right. Uh, that pesky Islam, where was I?

Yes, well, it's clearly only Islam that motivates people to terrorism. If you just take a look at the motivations of pretty much every terrorist movement of the modern era, you'll see they're all Muslims.

- The Naxalites insurgency in India has been responsible for 193 deaths in India last year alone, over half the death toll attributable to terrorism.
- And look at the Rhakine insurgency movement, busy perpetrating a massacre of the ethnic Rohingya people in Burma.
- Plus there's Allah's Resistance Army, which has been responsible for using child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war, massacres, abductions, mutilations, and forced religious comversions.

That alone should be enough evidence that... oh. You mean that those groups are explicitly Communist, Buddhist, and Christian respectively? Well, uh. That doesn't undermine my case, it is definitely still Islam's fault. Even if Islam is comparatively no worse in scripture than other major religions and not the only ideological motivation for terrorism, it still has to be the problem because why else would people become terrorists? It isn't like you see it happen in upstanding Christian countries that uphold Western values - excluding the IRA of course, and the ETA, and Baader-Meinhof, and all those other ones.

I mean, there can't possibly be any other causal factors. The problem is definitely that people take certain elements of Islamic scripts in certain ways, with absolutely no other reason to do so despite the vast flexibility provided by most hadiths. After all:

- Middle Eastern countries don't feature particular oppressed ethnic or religious minority groups, after all they're perfect nation-states, not poorly stitched together cock-ups by the British, French and American powers toward the end of the colonial era. These people have had hundreds of years to ge their act together!
- And there's absolutely no ruthless dictators propped up by Western military donations that use a vast and oppressive security apparatus, right? All the leaders of these countries are clearly consensually established with a broad legitimacy and really are definitely chosen by the people as an act of self-determination and not American puppets.
- There's not any endemic poverty, either, that means that unemployment rates are crippingly high even in areas which are part of the ethnic or religious elite. There's definitely no long-standing class divide dating back to the British and French deliberately trying to create socio-economic gaps between the shayks and the tribesmen to secure their rule. No, people are well-provided for and have little incentive to turn to terrorism.

So, really, Islam must be the key motivator and not just a post hoc justification because no other factors exist, and... oh. You're saying that all of these things are true? Well, uh. I mean. Hmm. Okay, but, one last argument, right, because I'm definitely still right about this "let's focus on Islam" thing.

Most of the factors that apparently exist are endemic and structural, right? They're not easy to fix. Islam, though, we can definitely fix that up. Focusing all of our disgust at Islam will have several postitive effects:

- People have no previously established reason to dislike the West, because the West has never interfered with the area and overthrown popular, elected governments, so why would they dislike us? We're clearly close friends to them and they've value our opinion when we focus all our media attempts on how shitty Islam is.
- People don't really have that much attachment to Islam, either. I mean, it's barely been in the region that long, it's not like there is a 1,500 year legacy of Islam being a presence in the Arabic way of life in an area which tends to conservatism due to the lack of educational opportunities. Definitely, of all the things to focus on, Islam is the easiest to fix because changing a belief system which has motivated people for 1,500 years is easier than attempting aid and development packages.
- People really like it when you insult things which are a close part of their moral system and the way they identify you, so logically if we keep calling out Islam, then people will never become terrorists because they feel their way of life is under threat.

So, really, QED, it's all Islam's fault and Islam is clearly the thing we need to be hating on. They're absolutely barbaric, and kill innocent people in absolutely inhumane ways, so really, we should bomb that shit out of everyone with nukes, because they definitely hide out in areas where there are no innocent communities trapped near by.

What's that you say?

...etc.

 

[BowieZ]

Without the belief in higher powers and a paradise afterlife, I tend to think wars and terrorism would have almost no willing participants...

 

[SkyOdin]

I understand your point, but that's eerily close to "White Man's Burden".

Not necessarily. A perfectly legitimate starting point might be to just distance ourselves from the Middle East and let them sort it all out for themselves. Powerful countries like the US trying to "solve" all of the world's problems might be one of the causes for this.

No matter what though, the pain and suffering in the Middle East isn't something that will be ending anytime soon. There are no quick fixes. There are no magical cures. Peace and stability isn't an easy thing to build, and there are no clear roads to achieving it. There is also the fundamental problem that a one country's goals are always going to be different than another's. Nation-states are not designed to act in a perfectly humanitarian way; they will always want to exert their influence and maintain their power.

I wish I could offer up meaningful answers, but I can't. This isn't a simple problem.

 

[injurai]

It's should be pretty clear by now that religion does insight and drive people to terrorism. This just came out yesterday, and it shows how fundamentalism drives people to purify themselves in belief. Whether or not you agree it speaks of what true Islam would insight, it's without a doubt an individual's own attempt to surrender himself to what see's to be god's will.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000003517767/fit-for-isis.html
Three Friends, One Jihadi

 

[SkyOdin]

Without the belief in higher powers and a paradise afterlife, I tend to think wars and terrorism would have almost no willing participants...

No, you don't need religion to motivate people to go to war, just give them the idea that their actions will benefit their families. People have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to die if they think it will make others they care for better off. That is just human nature. Financial motivation paid to their families has historically been a significant tool for recruiting suicide bombers.

 

[B-Dubs]

No, you don't need religion to motivate people to go to war, just give them the idea that their actions will benefit their families. People have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to die if they think it will make others they care for better off. That is just human nature. Financial motivation paid to their families has historically been a significant tool for recruiting suicide bombers.

Yep. A lot of these guys are poor as shit, in wartorn areas with little to no opportunity, and get offered not only a lot of money (to them) but a promise that the money will keep coming (to their families) after they die.

 

[sindbadthesailor]

Common sense. But that doesn't sell nearly as well as fear.

 

[ntropy]

if only

 

[thepotatoman]

Misrepresentation of the constitution does not drive organized groups to kill people and subjugate women like religion does. We have already heard hundreds of other excuses for terrorism - poverty, war , lack of education etc.. Except we have hundreds of instances of educated ,rich people killing in the name of religion as well. We have a group killing women for not wearing a burkha in their own countries and doing this to their own women and not to someone from some other country. You want to argue that this is actually not due to religion but due to other reasons you are free to do so but I do not buy it for one bit.

Look at the civil war, and the south pointing to the 10th amendment. The war was clearly about the south wanting slaves and no tariffs, and the north disagreeing, but that still didn't stop a lot of them using things like the 10th amendment to justify their spot in that war.

If it's not being used to kill people today, it's because those ulterior motivations aren't strong enough anymore, like when the civil war was starting.

 

[GobFather]

Definitely agree. Extremism and terrorism will exist, if religion didn't exist, they'll find a different justification and will just find a way to blame the other party.

.

 

[soul creator]

This discussion seems to come down to what you think there are more of:

1) people saying religion is not a factor at all, and plays no role in the way some people have acted, and the evil people doing those evil things are not actually members of the religion, they're just lying.

2) people saying religion is the sole responsible factor for everything, and is the dominant thing that drives someone's actions, and that every member of that religion is automatically the same.

Personally, it feels like I see more of #1 than #2, but I'm obviously biased because I'm a nonbeliever discussing this issue on message boards, with no special desire to defend religion, and living in a country where dominant religions always get the benefit of the doubt no matter what, and where "finding someway to remove religion as a justification for anything bad, while always giving credit to it when something good happens, because religion is totally always awesome and great you guys" seems to be the norm. And while I tend to think that my view would be confirmed by polling data, and other sociological observations, I'm willing to consider I could be wrong on that account.

A lot of other people see more of #2, probably because they're likely thinking of racist right-wingers, the history of Western foreign policy, and other factors like that...which, to say the least, hasn't been very "nuanced" over the years. And if you are actually a member of a religion which is considered a minority in the region you're from, it would definitely seem like there's way more of #2, from that perspective. So any criticism automatically seems like it's in category #2, even if the person making the criticism is actually just responding to #1.

I'd argue that both are right, and I think this is one of those issues where the "middle ground" is actually accurate: yes some people go to extremes in blaming a singular factor for social ills, and sometimes that obsession with finding "the one cause" can be a bit over the top, but it's also silly to deny that some people are actually true believers, and religion does play a strong influence in how they behave, and it's not just because they're "insane" in the mental illness sense, or somehow not actually a member of their stated religion. Progressive religious people love to tell mean old atheists that they shouldn't try to define religion for them, and that religion is totally personal and open to multiple interpretations, but they sure do suddenly get strict about religious identity as soon as someone negative starts doing their own "interpreting".

If religion didn't have some influence on people's behavior, it wouldn't be as popular as it is! Positive people can't say on one hand that god/religion/etc. played a massive role in changing their life or community for the better, and then pretend like if someone has their life changed in a more negative way that suddenly religion had zero effect.

Religions are not these pure, divine, holy, untouched sets of ideas, norms, and texts that could never possibly steer someone wrong. Approaching religions (or any other set of ideas) in that way is the exact type of thing that allows people to do terrible things with it. Religions are messy, human created ideas and practices that are flawed, mistaken, beautiful, poetic, barbaric, powerful, and emotionally stirring. That's why they have persisted in human culture for so long. And that's why their influence on human beings has been...varied.

Yes, poverty, American aggression, contested borders, etc. play a big role, and those should never be ignored, but the specific expression of the type of violence that ends up occurring is still religiously motivated. People are not flying in from Australia to join ISIS because of poverty, for example. Highly educated, middle class folks are not becoming terrorists solely because of government corruption. Hell, as a black male living in the US, I'm well aware of poisonous ideologies and irrational norms having negative influences people. Cops are not going around shooting my people because they're all mustache twirling evil villains. White people weren't having lynching parties because white people in the South were all mentally ill and insane, and suddenly stopped becoming mentally ill and insane in the latter part of the 20th century. They were influenced by white supremacy, the blue shield, and other related beliefs and norms.

Ideologies, beliefs, and social norms matter. History has shown this time and time again. To act like they don't (or to pretend like every ideology is exactly equal and human beings will equally abuse all of them in the exact same ways) seems incredibly shortsighted.

 

[Coolwhip]

Religion IS causing it. Its a form of brain washing.

 

[Trey]

Religion IS causing it. Its a form of brain washing.

Society itself is indoctrination.

 

[thepotatoman]

This discussion seems to come down to what you think there are more of:

1) people saying religion is not a factor at all, and plays no role in the way some people have acted, and the evil people doing those evil things are not actually members of the religion, they're just lying.

2) people saying religion is the sole responsible factor for everything, and is the dominant thing that drives someone's actions, and that every member of that religion is automatically the same.

Personally, it feels like I see more of #1 than #2, but I'm obviously biased because I'm a nonbeliever discussing this issue on message boards, with no special desire to defend religion, and living in a country where dominant religions always get the benefit of the doubt no matter what, and where "finding someway to remove religion as a justification for anything bad, while always giving credit to it when something good happens, because religion is totally always awesome and great you guys" seems to be the norm. And while I tend to think that my view would be confirmed by polling data, and other sociological observations, I'm willing to consider I could be wrong on that account.

A lot of other people see more of #2, probably because they're likely thinking of racist right-wingers, the history of Western foreign policy, and other factors like that...which, to say the least, hasn't been very "nuanced" over the years. And if you are actually a member of a religion which is considered a minority in the region you're from, it would definitely seem like there's way more of #2, from that perspective. So any criticism automatically seems like it's in category #2, even if the person making the criticism is actually just responding to #1.

I'd argue that both are right, and I think this is one of those issues where the "middle ground" is actually accurate: yes some people go to extremes in blaming a singular factor for social ills, and sometimes that obsession with finding "the one cause" can be a bit over the top, but it's also silly to deny that some people are actually true believers, and religion does play a strong influence in how they behave, and it's not just because they're "insane" in the mental illness sense, or somehow not actually a member of their stated religion. Progressive religious people love to tell mean old atheists that they shouldn't try to define religion for them, and that religion is totally personal and open to multiple interpretations, but they sure do suddenly get strict about religious identity as soon as someone negative starts doing their own "interpreting".

If religion didn't have some influence on people's behavior, it wouldn't be as popular as it is! Positive people can't say on one hand that god/religion/etc. played a massive role in changing their life or community for the better, and then pretend like if someone has their life changed in a more negative way that suddenly religion had zero effect.

Religions are not these pure, divine, holy, untouched sets of ideas, norms, and texts that could never possibly steer someone wrong. Approaching religions (or any other set of ideas) in that way is the exact type of thing that allows people to do terrible things with it. Religions are messy, human created ideas and practices that are flawed, mistaken, beautiful, poetic, barbaric, powerful, and emotionally stirring. That's why they have persisted in human culture for so long. And that's why their influence on human beings has been...varied.

Yes, poverty, American aggression, contested borders, etc. play a big role, and those should never be ignored, but the specific expression of the type of violence that ends up occurring is still religiously motivated. People are not flying in from Australia to join ISIS because of poverty, for example. Highly educated, middle class folks are not becoming terrorists solely because of government corruption. Hell, as a black male living in the US, I'm well aware of poisonous ideologies and irrational norms having negative influences people. Cops are not going around shooting my people because they're all mustache twirling evil villains. White people weren't having lynching parties because white people in the South were all mentally ill and insane, and suddenly stopped becoming mentally ill and insane in the latter part of the 20th century. They were influenced by white supremacy, the blue shield, and other related beliefs and norms.

Ideologies, beliefs, and social norms matter. History has shown this time and time again. To act like they don't seems incredibly shortsighted.

What if I put it like this:

ISIS may or may not exist if religion didn't exist.

ISIS definitely would not exist without people in the middle east suffering from poverty and power struggles.

Is that an agreeable statement, or not? If not, maybe that's where people are really disagreeing.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Are people really so dense that they cant understand just what Obama is doing here?

Even IF religion is 100% responsible for middlebeastern terrorism and not just because those people are murdering assholes, accepting it is a religious problem WILL NOT HELP.

Starting a worldwide debate with news channels drudging up negative texts and passages within the quran in some kind of way to say "see, your religion is wrong and unacceptable".....thats not going to fucking help a single soul on this planet.

All ot will do is strengthen ISISs ability to show the western world as a cancer eorking against them that needs to be exterminated. More recruits, more support.

So, if religion is ISISs strength, why the hell would you want to legitimise thwir strength?

If their goal is to convert people to their cause, why would you actively seek to link this small set of people to the billion other non violent muslims in the world?

Does that really make sense?

Why not STRIP and DEPRIVE them of that strength by announcing on a worldwide stage that YOU are the one who supports the billion innocent muslims instead of sweeping then into the same bin as a group of fucking murderers?

How can people not see this?

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

No, but it's what makes good intending people find a morale ground in terrorism. Plenty of warlords know exactly what they are doing and couldn't care less. Civil instability is what creates the conditions for terrorism to exist. But it's religious fundamentalism that incorrectly labels the problem and finds justification for it's heinous crimes.

It's a nuance of different combinations of degraded culture and stability, mixed with suspension of reason for mystical supposition creates a warped perception of reality. Religion (essentially codified faith in supernatural dynamics) can very much compel people to do good, even if it's foundation is merely conjecture.

Religion certainly doesn't get a free pass, because it very much is at times justification. It's how people wholeheartedly commit themselves to these causes.

Noooooo...

Basically people are always raised to believe certain arbitrary things, ranging from moral rules to superstitions even, and they latch onto the person who delivers those things if they feel like the world they currently live in is wrong and broken somehow. This can lead people to support violent dictators and sometimes these oppressive governments tout themselves as a religious authority and sometimes they don't (from ISIS to Nazis).

Religion is one way to spread fucked up dogma but it's not the only way, I was raised as a devout Muslim but stopped believing in my teens but only because I did not like the actual beliefs, my first step was questioning why I should hate a person who is gay, not what the empirical evidence is for God having talked to Mohammad. Stopping people from taking on fundamentalist views starts with letting them understand other cultures and in my case I was lucky enough to grow up in the US and be exposed to certain things that I was told is wrong. That's why Muslims correctly state that not all of them are like these ISIS people because even though there are only subtle differences in the religious scriptures/scholars they follow, that is because they expand from that to the moral rules they believe in. There's only a small minority of Muslims that will jump from wearing headscarves and being anti-gay marriage to wearing burqas and beheading Christians.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that you should make people more cultured to get rid of religion. Just that anyone who does meet more different people will just be a better/more tolerant person. Learning more about other cultures and religions is easier than ever with how connected you can be to random people who live thousands of miles away.

 

[Drifters]

The US aren't the only one in the fight to end extremist terrorists who happen to claim a branch of Islam such as ISIS. However, the people who are committing the violent acts themselves who may be religiously motivated, would themselves call themselves radicals of their particular sect.

While I get what he is trying to do in terms of separating Islam from extremism and extremist Islamist from the word "terrorist" it just doesn't work on a macro scale like he's trying to accomplish.

 

[y2dvd]

Are people really so dense that they cant understand just what Obama is doing here?

Even IF religion is 100% responsible for middlebeastern terrorism and not just because those people are murdering assholes, accepting it is a religious problem WILL NOT HELP.

Starting a worldwide debate with news channels drudging up negative texts and passages within the quran in some kind of way to say "see, your religion is wrong and unacceptable".....thats not going to fucking help a single soul on this planet.

All ot will do is strengthen ISISs ability to show the western world as a cancer eorking against them that needs to be exterminated. More recruits, more support.

So, if religion is ISISs strength, why the hell would you want to legitimise thwir strength?

If their goal is to convert people to their cause, why would you actively seek to link this small set of people to the billion other non violent muslims in the world?

Does that really make sense?

Why not STRIP and DEPRIVE them of that strength by announcing on a worldwide stage that YOU are the one who supports the billion innocent muslims instead of sweeping then into the same bin as a group of fucking murderers?

How can people not see this?

How do you solve a problem? Ignoring it or acknowledging what it is and then tackling it? When did acknowledge = supporting?

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The US aren't the only one in the fight to end extremist terrorists who happen to claim a branch of Islam such as ISIS. However, the people who are committing the violent acts themselves who may be religiously motivated, would themselves call themselves radicals of their particular sect.

While I get what he is trying to do in terms of separating Islam from extremism and extremist Islamist from the word "terrorist" it just doesn't work on a macro scale like he's trying to accomplish.

Youre failing to grasp the fact that ISIS works through propaganda.

Publicly denouncing parts of the quran a terrorist group is using as an excuse for murder will create more propaganda sources for ISIS. It EMPOWERS ISIS when you link them with a billion other people who have nothing to do with them.

Powerful world figures publicly denouncing ISIS as a religious movement seperates them from the billion innocent people. Telling the muslim world you refuse to fight,single out and persecute the religion and only wish to deal with the murderers is an effort to assure whos side you are on.


Regardless of the effectiveness of Obamas statement, its 100x better than getting religion involved at all.

How do you solve a problem? Ignoring it or acknowledging what it is and then tackling it? When did acknowledge = supporting?

Exactly. The problem is that ISIS are using a religion as an excuse for murder.

They use propaganda to gain support and brainwash their populace.

How do you solve that problem? By starting a worldwide debate about the negatives of Islam? Geetting the most distinguished figure head of the west to start denouncing and criticising x,y and z parts of islam?

No.

You make sure you let the world know that scum has no religion. You attempt to thwart and separate the scum from their source of power.

If you want to start calling out people's religions as a a "problem" that needs to be "dealt with", thats actually a completely different problem and one that is certainly not better dealt with right now.

 

[Prine]

Well he is dead wrong. Religion can be the only driving force for some acts of terrorism. Not all terrorism is from religion but it sure as hell can be solely from religious beliefs.

Its war scared members, the rallying of others with grievances about these wars (grievances is shared by most Muslims) then manipulation of people through religion, not the religion itself which is responsible. They didnt wake up, follow tgeir faith and said theyll start bombing and killing, its what has been left oger from a messy war. That predisposition is motivation so even if religion isnt there and replaced with another world view a justification will forced out of whatever is followed.

Daesh have broken fundamental rules of Islam, Muslims reject them so they can't and will never been seen as Islamic by muslims, no matter how much those outside the religion want them to, its not a state for Islam .


High five Obama. Droping truth bombs

 

[ChristianTW]

I don't believe you need to distort Islam to find wicked ideals within it.

For instance, the advocation of rape:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam

I was scrolling through this thread when I saw this. At first I thought, "Wow, that isn't good." Then I remembered this from my religious days: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:28-29

Also someone said something along the lines of: "Well in WWII we said we were at war with Germans..." that is not a very good comparison. We were at war with the country. Saying we were at war with Germans wouldn't be offensive to the people helping us fight the Germans. Saying we are at war with Muslims would be offensive to our Muslim allies.

 

[googleplex]

What a bunch of apologist shit.

If you don't have the brains or balls to respond to his post the you should back the fuck away from your keyboard and the discussion.

 

[soul creator]

What if I put it like this:

ISIS may or may not exist if religion didn't exist.

ISIS definitely would not exist without people in the middle east suffering from poverty and power struggles.

Is that an agreeable statement, or not? If not, maybe that's where people are really disagreeing.

Partially. I'd actually say that ISIS wouldn't exist if religion didn't exist.

Of course, this isn't me saying that no terroristic organizations would ever exist if religion didn't exist, but I would say that this manifestation and type of terroism would not exist without religion. And if we do want to stop this manifestation and type of terrorism, we should understand the role religion plays in it alongside all those factors you mentioned. And "understanding the role that religion plays" doesn't have to mean the same thing as turning into a right-wing fox news pundit and assuming every person who follows Islam is a secret terrorist.

There have been people throughout history (and right now, in America no less) that have also gone through poverty, power struggles, and so on, and haven't resorted to quoting ancient texts, trying to establish an "Islamic state", and glorifying God while committing these types of violent acts. So while poor, downtrodden people may very well be more likely to turn to violence due to their circumstances, the scale and justifcation of that violence is not always expressed in the exact same way. Again, this is not saying "no one would be violent without religion!", but I am saying that this type of violence (and the motivating of others to seemingly blindly follow along and do the same, and this includes plenty of people who aren't downtrodden or in poverty) doesn't exist on this scale without an extra sociological and psychological factor such as religious influence (or without something approximating it).

Granted, to go back on topic, I understand the political ramifications of Obama talking about things publicly in this way, and trying to balance between accurately describing extremists, while not associating them in the public consiciousness with the average citizen. That doesn't mean that us as individuals can't question and discuss that. Just like how I sometimes like to point out that Obama and the military he's currently in charge of droning the fuck out of various countries would also be considered "violent extremism" by a lot of victims of his seemingly blind worship at the altar of American exceptionalism.

But by pointing that out, that obviously means I think all Americans are violent extremists, and painting them with the same brush. Oh yeah, and I clearly must hate the troops.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Then why are only some Muslims participating in terrorist acts, and not all Muslims?

If all muslims took part the rest of the world would be pretty much exterminated in days. It's also an absurd thing to pose as a counter argument. If 49,9% of all muslims (a force 10 times larger then all the armies of the world combined) took part the majority of muslims would still be peaceful but the world would be still fucked.

What is different about Muslims living in Syria than Muslims living in Indonesia?

Lots of things. No large shia population is a major one.

If you want to know, the difference is their circumstances and living environment. People living in a war-torn environment where they have no prospects of a stable and safe future are thousands of times more likely to engage in violence or extremism than people living in countries where they can go to work and raise a family in peace.

Tunisia has had no war for generations and still has the largest number of foreign fighters in ISIS. Thousands of muslims from Europe fight with ISIS.

Even if there was no religion, the people in some of these devastated countries would still have no prospects waiting for them if they tried to live a peaceful life. If you take this pre-existing mass of desperate people with no real hope who are already familiar with violence on a daily basis, and then mix in ambitious and ruthless demagogues who see an opportunity to grab power for themselves, it becomes a volatile concoction that starts to do real harm.

Many countries have gone through terrible wars and did not do on to kill each other over 1400 year old theological differences in the ruins.

Despair, poverty, base greed, the desire for power, mistrust, resentment at distant powers that one feels are responsible for their lot in life. These are the ingredients of political violence.

And religious violence. A religion that puts its followers firmly into power and justifies any violence to achieve that goal draws people to it. How many Christians have gone to join the LRA ?

They are as old as human civilization, and have been true for every place on earth and every people. Islamic fundamentalism is just a convenient flag for these forces to rally around, but that flag could have been replaced by anything.

Anything ? A jainist ISIS or a Buddhist global caliphate movement could just as easy come into being ?

Groups like ISIS are just the most modern incarnation of an ancient socio-politcial force called warlordism. In times of chaos, those who are the most brutal rule. You can look at any point of history and find examples, from around the world. The things these groups are terrifying, but they are not unfamiliar or strange. And the forces that motivate these atrocities are clear: poverty and chaos.

Once again this fails to explain the support (donating money or joining to fight) for ISIS from people who never had a day of hunger in their lives.

If you want religious people to stop killing others in the name or their religion, you just need to give them stability, safety, and a chance to make a decent living. Once people have peace, they won't want to risk losing it by engaging in violence.

Lofty goals. So how do you plan to bring stability and create 50 million jobs in the Middle East ? Keep in mind that any muslim you kill, terrorist or not creates 10 new terrorists.

 

[ChristianTW]

To all of you saying these are Muslims and we need to recognize that they are by saying we are fighting Muslims: I can say I am a republican. My views are almost completely Democratic, but I can still run for office and say I am a republican. Republicans will almost always say, "He isn't truly a republican!" And people would agree. It is the same thing in this case. They claim to be Muslim. Doesn't mean they really are.

Also, this is a quote from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Yet we never said we were at war with Christianity.

 

[neorej]

To all of you saying these are Muslims and we need to recognize that they are by saying we are fighting Muslims: I can say I am a republican. My views are almost completely Democratic, but I can still run for office and say I am a republican. Republicans will almost always say, "He isn't truly a republican!" And people would agree. It is the same thing in this case. They claim to be Muslim. Doesn't mean they really are.

Also, this is a quote from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Yet we never said we were at war with Christianity.

What makes a muslim a muslim? Because IS are claiming they are muslims, and do so by citing the Qu'ran, and Al-Quaida are claiming they are muslim and doing so by citing the Qu'ran, and pacifist and moderate muslims are claiming they are muslims and do so by citing the Qu'ran.
IMHO they're all muslims, they just handle the literature differently. Just like there are all kinds of Christians over the world who each interpret the Bible differently.