Get over it-here's motive for you!

[rwguinn]

Twoofers and far-left/far-right (I think they actually beet in the middle of the backside) have long refused to believe that there is an issue with the Muslim religion and no connection with terrorism.
This is obviously a wrong-headed position--as Pakistan' (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2105740,00.html)s government proves.

Justification for suicide bombings against women and children? Now, there's a truly manly, brave religion...

[Unsecured Coins]

It doesn't matter. anything that happens will be proven otherwise that it didn't. Does Rushdie even exist anymore??

[rwguinn]

It doesn't matter. anything that happens will be proven otherwise that it didn't. Does Rushdie even exist anymore??
Hey, like, that's deep, man.
What did you saY:D

[Slayhamlet]

"The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

:boggled:

[gumboot]

I love how Islamic Dictators and Terrorists perpetually lament the west's meddling in their affairs, and yet they do not hesitate to attempt to dictate how we should run our affairs. What is sad is the number of people in the west who swallow their garbage.

-Gumboot

[tsig]

I love how Islamic Dictators and Terrorists perpetually lament the west's meddling in their affairs, and yet they do not hesitate to attempt to dictate how we should run our affairs. What is sad is the number of people in the west who swallow their garbage.

-Gumboot

We are supposed to respect them or they will kill us.

Seems fair, no?

[gumboot]

We are supposed to respect them or they will kill us.

Seems fair, no?



I assume by "respect" you mean "obey".

-Gumboot

[brodski]

It doesn't matter. anything that happens will be proven otherwise that it didn't. Does Rushdie even exist anymore??

That's Sir Rushdie now- he was Knighted last week.
Iran lodged an official diplomatic complaint, we ignored it.

[JimBenArm]

That's Sir Rushdie now- he was Knighted last week.
Iran lodged an official diplomatic complaint, we ignored it.
Boy, you're some cheeky bastards now, aren't you?:D

[Unsecured Coins]

Hey, like, that's deep, man.
What did you saY:D

Simple! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction that will attempt to explain to you why what you just saw is something that you didn't really see in the first place.

ooooh... chemtrails!!

[tsig]

I assume by "respect" you mean "obey".

-Gumboot

And pay the tax.

Or you can say "There is no god but alla and mo is his mouthpiece"

'course if you say that you can't go back.

[Unsecured Coins]

Or you can say "There is no god but alla and mo is his mouthpiece"


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/2136.gif

[rwguinn]

I assume by "respect" you mean "obey".

-Gumboot
I''ll give them the respect I give other religions, m'kay?

Simple! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction that will attempt to explain to you why what you just saw is something that you didn't really see in the first place.

ooooh... chemtrails!!

half the stuff many of us saw back in the 60's/70-'s (1960's and 70's, not 1760's) didn't exist at all, anyway

And pay the tax.

Or you can say "There is no god but alla and mo is his mouthpiece"

'course if you say that you can't go back.
And forget about beer!

[The Pig]

Does every supermarket have an effigy department?

[petra10]

Quote from masked kidnapper of Alan Johnston "if they do not meet our demands there will be no release of this prisoner.But if things get worse,we will get closer to god by killing this journalist"
says it all doesn't it

[tsig]

I''ll give them the respect I give other religions, m'kay?



half the stuff many of us saw back in the 60's/70-'s (1960's and 70's, not 1760's) didn't exist at all, anyway


And forget about beer!

And the ham

Sorry Pig

ABE
You're not claiming to remember the the 1760's are you?

[rwguinn]

And the ham

Sorry Pig

ABE
You're not claiming to remember the the 1760's are you?

no--I slept through most of that era--you know--nothing happening at all--just a bunch of Brits arguing with each other...:D

Most of the kids think I was raised with dinosaurs, anyway:D

[Civilized Worm]

Rushdie deserved to be knighted for his outstanding contributions towards the pissing off of religious nutters.

[Thunder]

CT/Muslem extremist says:
Cleary this "Pakistani MP" is either clinically insane, is a traitor, or is a CIA/Mossad plant. No real Muslem would ever advocate terrorism..therefore he can not be a true Muslem. And if by some crazy 1 in a million chance he is indeed a Muslem, he must have been traumatized by the constant scenes of his fellow Muslems being slaughtered by the Crusader/Zionists.

[tsig]

no--I slept through most of that era--you know--nothing happening at all--just a bunch of Brits arguing with each other...:D

Most of the kids think I was raised with dinosaurs, anyway:D

We should get together and reminise about the Cambrian.

[rwguinn]

We should get together and reminise about the Cambrian.
They really knew how to do Sunsets in them days, they did!

[tsig]

Rushdie deserved to be knighted for his outstanding contributions towards the pissing off of religious nutters.

Funny thing is all he did was write a book. He did not commit mass murder or ask others to do so.

Just writing words.

Just as we are doing here.

[tsig]

They really knew how to do Sunsets in them days, they did!

And with that we best let the sun set on this derail.

Lisa is lurking in the Pre-Cambian

Thanks

[Undesired Walrus]

Justification for suicide bombings against women and children? Now, there's a truly manly, brave religion...

Congratulations for completly confusing an ancient, peaceful religion with a perverted offspring created by 60 year-old European-influenced thought. Were the crusades an accurate representation of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

[tsig]

Congratulations for completly confusing an ancient, peaceful religion with a perverted offspring created by 60 year-old European-influenced thought. Were the crusades an accurate representation of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

The old "you-too" fallacy.

Sorry I'm an atheist so what believers do to each other ok by me.

Peaceful?

How did the moors get part of Spain?

Just how did islam spread so fast?

[Civilized Worm]

Funny thing is all he did was write a book. He did not commit mass murder or ask others to do so.

Just writing words.

Just as we are doing here.


Sometimes the pen really is mightier.

[Undesired Walrus]

Peaceful?


Considering the prophet believed killing one man kills the entire of humanity, warned against extremism ("As it has destroyed those who came before you"), wanted women to be seen in the same status as men, argued that women, children, priests and non-combatants should never be killed in war, and diverted an entire army from their chosen path because of a puppy giving birth infront of them, yea, I'd say the teachings of Muhammed are peaceful.

The Koran is granted, not the pacifists guidebook, but it is an alien in comparison these current Hegel-Islamists.

[rwguinn]

Considering the prophet believed killing one man kills the entire of humanity, warned against extremism ("As it has destroyed those who came before you"), wanted women to be seen in the same status as men, argued that women, children, priests and non-combatants should never be killed in war, and diverted an entire army from their chosen path because of a puppy giving birth infront of them, yea, I'd say the teachings of Muhammed are peaceful.

The Koran is granted, not the pacifists guidebook, but it is an alien in comparison these current Hegel-Islamists.

and Jesus had to be convinced by his disciples to help gentiles in need.
Probably a big part of what got him nailed to a tree.

[tsig]

Considering the prophet believed killing one man kills the entire of humanity, warned against extremism ("As it has destroyed those who came before you"), wanted women to be seen in the same status as men, argued that women, children, priests and non-combatants should never be killed in war, and diverted an entire army from their chosen path because of a puppy giving birth infront of them, yea, I'd say the teachings of Muhammed are peaceful.

The Koran is granted, not the pacifists guidebook, but it is an alien in comparison these current Hegel-Islamists.


Why is this peaceful prophet leading an army?
ABE
If the Koran is not a pacifists guidebook, where does the teaching of peace come from?

[Undesired Walrus]

Why is this peaceful prophet leading an army?
ABE

After 13 years of persecution, torture and imprisoment.

If the Koran is not a pacifists guidebook, where does the teaching of peace come from?

Ghandi was a racist and slept naked with young girls. Does that cancel out his peace?

[tsig]

double post

[tsig]

After 13 years of persecution, torture and imprisoment.



Ghandi was a racist and slept naked with young girls. Does that cancel out his peace?

So because he was wronged he could abandon peace?

What do I care what Ghandi did?

You said "The Koran is not exactly a pacificts handbook" so were does this teaching of peace originate?

[WildCat]

After 13 years of persecution, torture and imprisoment.
Are you claiming that Mohammed and his general, Khalid bin Walid, only fought against those who imprisoned him? Because I doubt that he was imprisoned by so many different tribes and peoples... and the primary purpose of those wars was to convert the infidels, or kill them if they refused. Islam spread through forced conversions, it's hardly debatable.

[JimBenArm]

Just a reminder - there's a whole other forum just for this.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

[Lisa Simpson]

This thread really has more to do with religion than CTs and as such, has been moved.

[tsig]

This thread really has more to do with religion than CTs and as such, has been moved.

Thanks I expected that.

[Undesired Walrus]

You said "The Koran is not exactly a pacificts handbook" so were does this teaching of peace originate?

The Koran is not exactly the pacificts handbook, Muhammed goes on Jihad against the Pegan's of Mecca. But this is an part of the Koran that is consistently used as justification for modern day Jihad against innocents in Allah's name. It doesn't change the fact that Muhammed was against the killing of women, children, priests and noncombatants. It also doesn't change the fact that Muhammed warned his followers of extremism, nor his call for women to be equal. And nor his secular calling for tolerating those of other religions.

It is uncontestable that the Islamist following is a political movement first, religion second. In the middle-east the death and mutilation of children and other appeals to emotion are shown on TV on a regular basis. Bin Laden can tap into this emotion, and exploit it to follow his Qutb inspired crusade against the kaffir.

Remember, if the Islamic state was so vital to Allah, why is there not even one chapter in a classical text devoted to this 'vital' ideal until Qutb and Mawdudi of the recent day?
There was a reason to why Qutb introduced his ideals, and that was because of a modernist, secular Islam that was emerging. A more radical and indiscriminate Reagan if you wish.

Question: If the 19 Hijackers were really inspired by the teachings of the prophet, why did they wear red bandanas on the flights, a testemant to Egyptian, and thus Qutb Jihad?

I'd be willing to accept the argument that Islam has been changed and radicalised in recent decades, but I'll be damned if the original teachings are the blame of this current mess.

[tsig]

The Koran is not exactly the pacificts handbook, Muhammed goes on Jihad against the Pegan's of Mecca. But this is an part of the Koran that is consistently used as justification for modern day Jihad against innocents in Allah's name. It doesn't change the fact that Muhammed was against the killing of women, children, priests and noncombatants. It also doesn't change the fact that Muhammed warned his followers of extremism, nor his call for women to be equal. And nor his secular calling for tolerating those of other religions.

It is uncontestable that the Islamist following is a political movement first, religion second. In the middle-east the death and mutilation of children and other appeals to emotion are shown on a regular basis. Bin Laden can tap into this emotion, and exploit it to follow his Qutb inspired crusade against the kaffir.

Remember, if the Islamic state was so vital to Allah, why is there not even one chapter in a classical text devoted to this vital ideal until Qutb and Mawdudi of the recent day?
There was a reason to why Qutb introduced his ideals, and that was because of a modernist, secular Islam that was emerging. A more radical and indiscriminate Reagan if you wish.

Question: If the 19 Hijackers were really inspired by the teachings of the prophet, why did they wear red bandanas on the flights, a testemant to Egyptian, and thus Qutb Jihad?

I'd be willing to accept the argument that Islam has been changed and radicalised in recent decades, but I'll be damned if the original teachings are the blame of this current mess.

So it is ok to go to war against pagans?

How did mohammed treat the male prisoners?

How are women equal when their husbands can beat them?

Under what circumstances are other religions tolerated?

I could care less about the state of your soul, it's what you are saying we are talking about.

[Undesired Walrus]

I will gladly attempt to answer those questions, but until you stop ignoring all my questions at will with your own questions that are simply amenable to the state of the current arab world, I see no point.

[tsig]

I will gladly attempt to answer those questions, but until you stop ignoring all my questions at will with your own questions that are simply amenable to the state of the current arab world, I see no point.

Well i figured that at some point you'd give up on answering how a peacefull prophet could be at war.

Everything else is beside the point.

[bpesta22]

rushdie does exist!

http://a875.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/24/l_f26b5c8abe5ff5305c49cba1fe99b6fa.jpg

[arthwollipot]

It doesn't change the fact that Muhammed was against the killing of women, children, priests and noncombatants. It also doesn't change the fact that Muhammed warned his followers of extremism, nor his call for women to be equal. And nor his secular calling for tolerating those of other religions.

And Hitler liked dogs. Your point?

[Marquis de Carabas]

No religion which consigns unbelievers to Hell has any just claim to be deemed peaceful.

[tsig]

No religion which consigns unbelievers to Hell has any just claim to be deemed peaceful.


But I thought the Dark Lord wanted souls.

Are you and god having a soul-off?

[tsig]

And Hitler liked dogs. Your point?

Top or bottom?

[arthwollipot]

Top or bottom?

Not quite sure what you're asking here...

[rwguinn]

Thanks I expected that.

So did I, after I posted originally...
Sometimes you eats bear meat, and sometimes...

[gumboot]

Frankly what "The Prophet" did or didn't believe is totally irrelevant. I couldn't care less if Mohammed taught that all infidels should be given large baskets of pink marshmellows and half a dozen fluffy kittens.

All that matters is how followers of the religion practice it. There's a good chunk of followers of Islam that have a violent, aggressive, and intolerant attitude. And I'm not just talking terrorists here. The Muslims who riot over a frikken cartoon are not all terrorists. The Muslims who voice support or sympathy for terrorists are not all terrorists.

I've heard a theory that during the Crusades all of the moderate peaceful Muslims were killed, leaving only the hard and nasty ones. That might be. Lord knows Christianity of the middle ages was much like Islam of today.

However this idea that this intolerant and violent aspect of Islam (and it is most evident, not against the west, but against their own people in their own societies) is a recent byproduct of western imperialism is total garbage. Are the thousands of honour killings every year a result of western imperialism? Are the mutilation of females a result of western civilisation? Are the beatings? The denial of education to women? These things are a clear indicator that the violence and aggression we see against the west from Radicals are not a byproduct of Western Imperialism, but a byproduct of the culture from which they originate.

Radical Islamic Terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg. The greatest victims of Islamic terror are Muslims themselves. Particularly their women.

-Gumboot

[tsig]

Frankly what "The Prophet" did or didn't believe is totally irrelevant. I couldn't care less if Mohammed taught that all infidels should be given large baskets of pink marshmellows and half a dozen fluffy kittens.

All that matters is how followers of the religion practice it. There's a good chunk of followers of Islam that have a violent, aggressive, and intolerant attitude. And I'm not just talking terrorists here. The Muslims who riot over a frikken cartoon are not all terrorists. The Muslims who voice support or sympathy for terrorists are not all terrorists.

I've heard a theory that during the Crusades all of the moderate peaceful Muslims were killed, leaving only the hard and nasty ones. That might be. Lord knows Christianity of the middle ages was much like Islam of today.

However this idea that this intolerant and violent aspect of Islam (and it is most evident, not against the west, but against their own people in their own societies) is a recent byproduct of western imperialism is total garbage. Are the thousands of honour killings every year a result of western imperialism? Are the mutilation of females a result of western civilisation? Are the beatings? The denial of education to women? These things are a clear indicator that the violence and aggression we see against the west from Radicals are not a byproduct of Western Imperialism, but a byproduct of the culture from which they originate.

Radical Islamic Terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg. The greatest victims of Islamic terror are Muslims themselves. Particularly their women.

-Gumboot

Yes!

You got an amen here.

[athon]

Religious arguments never go anywhere. There's nothing objective in it; one can't make blanket statements as it's about as personal and subjective as a poem. Is a religion a complete set of all the words in its scripture? Is it the way one interprets it? Is it the practice of its interpretation by all? Is it the average or the extremes which describe it? Is it the society which it is found within, or the politics which result?

Talking about religion being wrong is like when people say 'humans are inherently evil'. It's a nonsensical debate which has definitions too wide to be of any use.

In my experience, most of the common folk I've met in my travels through the middle east were extremely peace loving. The problems that arose from the citizen's point of view were to do with social values of collectivism - harm done to your brother should be repaid on those responsible. Hence there comes a tit-for-tat reprisal, where more and more citizens are involved as their relatives become personally involved. This might be justified according to their spiritual beliefs, but it is a social system which goes beyond pure religion.

How do you separate politics, culture and religion from one another? Blaming solely the religion in a system where the cultural and political systems are indistinguishable from their religion creates a biased picture. Where Islam is not tied in with the culture and the politics, one often finds it is indeed peaceful and tolerant.

Finding an easy blame of a single factor, a single variant, makes many feel better. 'Well, if there was no Islam, there'd be no terrorism'. I fail to see how people can isolate single factors and not see where they fit into the greater schemes of culture and history.

Worse yet, when anybody dares to challenge their simplistic views, they rise up and cry apologist, further reducing the complexity of the matter to villify anybody who deems their view too narrow.

If thinking you have a firm grasp on the situation by demonising an overly simplistic notion of a religion helps you sleep at night, go for it. But don't for a second think you have a well rounded understanding of something far more complicated than you're insinuating.

Athon

[sesshin]

Twoofers and far-left/far-right (I think they actually beet in the middle of the backside) have long refused to believe that there is an issue with the Muslim religion and no connection with terrorism.
This is obviously a wrong-headed position--as Pakistan' (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2105740,00.html)s government proves.

Justification for suicide bombings against women and children? Now, there's a truly manly, brave religion...


No, I don't think you are fully thinking like a truther here.

The Pakistani government is just a front for the CIA (obviously). All acts of terrorism are really just ruses orchestrated by the US Government to try and make patriotic, sheeple Americans fear Muslims. That way they'll blindly support a war in the Middle East. Or something like that. I don't know. Regardless, it all fits into the Master Plan.

[Hokulele]

Frankly what "The Prophet" did or didn't believe is totally irrelevant. I couldn't care less if Mohammed taught that all infidels should be given large baskets of pink marshmellows and half a dozen fluffy kittens.

All that matters is how followers of the religion practice it. There's a good chunk of followers of Islam that have a violent, aggressive, and intolerant attitude. And I'm not just talking terrorists here. The Muslims who riot over a frikken cartoon are not all terrorists. The Muslims who voice support or sympathy for terrorists are not all terrorists.

I've heard a theory that during the Crusades all of the moderate peaceful Muslims were killed, leaving only the hard and nasty ones. That might be. Lord knows Christianity of the middle ages was much like Islam of today.

However this idea that this intolerant and violent aspect of Islam (and it is most evident, not against the west, but against their own people in their own societies) is a recent byproduct of western imperialism is total garbage. Are the thousands of honour killings every year a result of western imperialism? Are the mutilation of females a result of western civilisation? Are the beatings? The denial of education to women? These things are a clear indicator that the violence and aggression we see against the west from Radicals are not a byproduct of Western Imperialism, but a byproduct of the culture from which they originate.

Radical Islamic Terrorism is only the tip of the iceberg. The greatest victims of Islamic terror are Muslims themselves. Particularly their women.

-Gumboot


Careful, this is not true of all muslim societies. There are many S.E. Asian countries that are muslim, where this type of misogyny is not condoned, nor are the more violent aspects of fundamentalism. I have spent time in both Malaysia and Singapore with no feelings of discomfort or mistreatment. Although finding "feminine hygiene" products in Kuala Lumpur was, um, interesting.

[Orphia Nay]

Religious arguments never go anywhere. There's nothing objective in it; one can't make blanket statements as it's about as personal and subjective as a poem. Is a religion a complete set of all the words in its scripture? Is it the way one interprets it? Is it the practice of its interpretation by all? Is it the average or the extremes which describe it? Is it the society which it is found within, or the politics which result?

Talking about religion being wrong is like when people say 'humans are inherently evil'. It's a nonsensical debate which has definitions too wide to be of any use.

In my experience, most of the common folk I've met in my travels through the middle east were extremely peace loving. The problems that arose from the citizen's point of view were to do with social values of collectivism - harm done to your brother should be repaid on those responsible. Hence there comes a tit-for-tat reprisal, where more and more citizens are involved as their relatives become personally involved. This might be justified according to their spiritual beliefs, but it is a social system which goes beyond pure religion.

How do you separate politics, culture and religion from one another? Blaming solely the religion in a system where the cultural and political systems are indistinguishable from their religion creates a biased picture. Where Islam is not tied in with the culture and the politics, one often finds it is indeed peaceful and tolerant.

Finding an easy blame of a single factor, a single variant, makes many feel better. 'Well, if there was no Islam, there'd be no terrorism'. I fail to see how people can isolate single factors and not see where they fit into the greater schemes of culture and history.

Worse yet, when anybody dares to challenge their simplistic views, they rise up and cry apologist, further reducing the complexity of the matter to villify anybody who deems their view too narrow.

If thinking you have a firm grasp on the situation by demonising an overly simplistic notion of a religion helps you sleep at night, go for it. But don't for a second think you have a well rounded understanding of something far more complicated than you're insinuating.

Athon

Good post, Athon. :)

Blaming religion for terrorism is a bit like terrorists blaming America for the world's evils and trying to cut off "the head of the snake".

Sure, I have my John Lennon moments, imagining no religion, but I'll always remember a great post Wolfman wrote at his forum a few years ago in which he basically concluded that people will always find reasons to hate each other, religion or no religion.

[Undesired Walrus]

However this idea that this intolerant and violent aspect of Islam (and it is most evident, not against the west, but against their own people in their own societies) is a recent byproduct of western imperialism is total garbage.


This is a theory that is put out a lot in the far-left, usually the result of people like George Galloway and others. When people say the July 7th bombings were a direct result of the war in Iraq, I'm always tempted to cry garbage.

Bin Laden and his followers, and Islamists in general are not who they are because of Western Imperialism. America is not responsible for 9/11. It so happens they were the target at the time, and often the belief that this was a revenge attack and "We were bombing Iraq for 10 years so it was our fault" is insane. Bin Laden became a radical Islamist and desired to push the kaffir out of his lands, it so happened to be the US. If this is your general argument, then sure, I agree.

But there is also an element of truth. You have to look at the political genius of Bin Laden. A man who gave away all his wealth and now pledges as a man of the people to drive out the bloodshed that is on a consistent loop on televisions across the middle east. This is uncontestable. Can you honestly guarantee Gumboot, that if you were born there you would not even feel a slight feeling of respect for Bin Laden, however much you disagreed with his methods? Bin Laden is a modern day Che Geuvara, a resistance fighter who uses appeals to emotion to push his islamist crusade. Without a doubt he is popular because of his politics, not his religion.

Muhammed was a soldier, no doubt about it. And this fact may give benefit to Jihad in the modern age. It does not change the fact that there is not one classical text that advocates a Islamic state. If this was so important to the founders, why didnt they mention it? Why did the hijackers wear bandanas evoking the Jihad of Qutb?

You think Muslims are inherintly Women oppressors? Take a look at Nizar Qabbani, one of the greatest inspirations for feminists all over the world.

At the moment, you seem to make the argument the people of the Middle East are monotonous and inherintly backward. A very dangerous remark, and one I will not stand for.

[Wolfman]

I'm gonna' jump in here a little...Orph mentioned that I've talked about this topic before, and it is in fact one that is fairly important to me. The almost bigoted attitude that some people have about "religion" and "theism", based on incorrect assumptions that A) religion leads to violence/schisms/etc., and B) that the removal/absence of religion would decrease or get rid of these same problems.

Inevitably, such arguments tend to be based on an analysis not only of only a few religions (typically Christianity, Islam, or a few others), but also of a limited number of examples within those religions (ie. focus on abuses that result from following that religion, ignore any positive benefits; focus on individuals within those religions who use their religion as a justification for violence, ignore individuals within those religions who use their religion as a justification for peace). So allow me to define terms here.

First, "religion" does not implicitly mean Christianity or Islam. It means any belief system that incorporates the belief in and worship of one or more gods (or supernatural entities, such as ancestor worship). Thus, any claim that you wish to make about "religion" must be true across the board of all religions, not just of a small subset of religions.

Does every religion require that you follow your god unquestioningly? No, absolutely not. In fact, a number of religions, particularly polytheistic ones, consider gods to be imperfect and fallible, and will have stories of humans not only questioning their gods, but of besting their gods.

Does every religion have an "infallible scripture", which is claimed to be written by god, and must be accepted unquestioningly? Again, no. As a simple example, I work with a minority group in China called the Mosuo, who have their own religion called "Daba"; the Mosuo do not even have a written language, and therefore by default do not have any written scriptures that can be considered infallible. In fact, if you take different Daba priests, and talk to them about the beliefs/practices, you'll find wide divergences and differences between all of them. It is, instead, a religion that evolves and changes organically.

Consider that it would be perfectly feasible to have a religion that believed in a god that started the universe (ie. initiated the big bang), but then essentially left everything alone...which would be able to fully accept/embrace all scientific findings and theories without any conflict (there are, in fact, many "religious" people in our world today who would embrace just such an idea, or a similar form thereof).

I could go on and on and on like this, addressing every such objection about "religion". If any of you can posit a negative claim about religion that is true across the board for all religions, and without which it would be impossible to have religious beliefs, feel free to do so.

Now, if you want to address the issue of specific religions, such as Christianity and Islam, you may have the basis for an argument. At least in this case there are specific claims that can be made fairly consistently across the board, since both religions have essentially the same origins, and very similar theologies. Certainly, people have carried out terrible abuses, both past and present, in the name of these religions.

The question is, are these religions a cause of such abuses? Or are they a justification? In order to be considered a primary cause, one must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the absence of that religion, the stated abuses would not have taken place.

So, lets take some of the more common examples used to support this argument, such as the Crusades. I agree 100% that the atrocities committed during the Crusades were unacceptable; and that those atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity. But, if there had been no religion at all, does that mean that something similar would not have happened? I'd argue that anyone who takes such a position has a hopelessly naive understanding of both history and of human nature.

During the period of time in question, you had phenomenal political conflict taking place. Countries were routinely attacked/conquered by other countries. Countries such as France and Spain, that had previously been under the control of various Western leaders, were now being conquered or threatened by Arabians. The primary motivation for such expansion and fighting was to gain political control of land and resources. Religion was often an excuse to justify it, but it was not a cause.

To give a modern-day parallel, think of the U.S. and Iraq. While not everyone here will agree with this assessment, I think that most people would agree that the primary reason for U.S. attacks were political -- to try to gain strategic influence and control over a country that is in the middle of a politically sensitive region of the world (and, arguably, a second reason would be to ensure control of important resources in that region). Terms such as "democracy" and "weapons of mass destruction" were excuses to justify this action, but were not the true causes.

Or, consider the spread of Communism, and the resulting actions from the West. The political conflict between Communism and Capitalism/Democracy (however you wanna' look at it) resulted in quite a number of conflicts, and terrible abuses...yet religion was not involved. In the case of Communism, they simply replaced religious justifications with political justifications.

So, to get back to my point -- if there had been no religion whatsoever at the time of the Crusades, no Christianity, no Islam, no Judaism, etc., these battles and abuses would still have been pretty much inevitable. There would still have been power-hungry leaders, eager to conquer new countries to expand their own power and wealth. There would still have been numerous conflicts based on things such as different skin colors, different cultures, etc. The only thing that would have changed was the excuse or justification that was used for those actions.

Now, I will concede that there is a fairly legitimate argument to be made that a religion that requires one to follow religious leaders unquestioningly, which does not allow criticism or questioning, and which believes it is superior to all others and/or is destined to rule the rest of the world -- that specific form of religion does most certainly present a threat, and as an atheist and a Humanist, I have significant problems with such beliefs.

But even if we were able to magically get rid of all such beliefs tomorrow, we'd just find new excuses to fight, new ways to divide the world into "us" and "them". We'd have conflicts between different political systems. We'd divide people by race. Or by culture. Or by language. Or by any other convenient excuse that we could use to rationalize and justify what we wanted to do.

I think this argument is important not only in the sense that I think it is unfair to "religion" in general; but because I think it is even more dangerous to assume that "atheists" are somehow immune to or less inclined towards exactly the same abuses. Try looking at modern history, and see how many atrocities have been committed by atheists -- Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc. Atheism was, of course, not the cause of these abuses...but in the absence of any religious beliefs, these people were still perfectly capable of committing terrible abuses, and of justifying those abuses and gaining other people's unquestioning obedience.

The best way to avoid the repetition of such abuses is to be aware of our own potential to commit such abuses!!! And so long as we sit around pointing fingers at others ("It's all religion's fault", "We'd never do something like that"), we leave ourselves open and susceptible to committing exactly the same abuses. Atheism, in and of itself, is no more an 'answer' or 'solution' than anything else, and atheists are no less inclined towards abuse and violence than anyone else. We are all human, we all share the same weaknesses, the same motivations, the same desires.

Yes, certainly we should oppose violence and abuse that is carried out in the name of religion. Just as we should oppose violence and abuse that are carried out in the name of race. Or nationality. Or politics. Or any of the other million excuses that humans are so good at coming up with to justify what are ultimately selfish goals.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, certainly we should oppose violence and abuse that is carried out in the name of religion. Just as we should oppose violence and abuse that are carried out in the name of race. Or nationality. Or politics. Or any of the other million excuses that humans are so good at coming up with to justify what are ultimately selfish goals.
Or, to play Devil's Advocate, quit whinging about violence as a method and do what one can to be on the winning side, justification and philosophy be damned.

Anyone heard of contemporary Carthaginian poetry or music lately? :p

DR

[Wolfman]

Or, to play Devil's Advocate, quit whinging about violence as a method and do what one can to be on the winning side, justification and philosophy be damned.
Actually, I think that you have just summarized the primary motivation of the majority of humanity. Some individuals and leaders may concern themselves with such issues, but for the majority of humanity, it is simply a question of "what gives me the greatest personal benefit?".

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, I think that you have just summarized the primary motivation of the majority of humanity. Some individuals and leaders may concern themselves with such issues, but for the majority of humanity, it is simply a question of "what gives me the greatest personal benefit?".
Aye. Given the variety of philosophies across the globe, I suppose one could be happy to find one point upon which most people across the globe agree. I take no solace in that point being the core agreement.

Maybe we can't "all get along." :(

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm often reminded of the d**ks, p****s and a**sholes speech in Team America in discussions like this.

The question Darth, is not "Maybe we all can't 'get along'" but "Maybe we can't admit we are all as s**t as each other":)

[Marquis de Carabas]

The question is, are these religions a cause of such abuses? Or are they a justification? In order to be considered a primary cause, one must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the absence of that religion, the stated abuses would not have taken place.
This makes no sense.

There is a man being severely beaten with baseball bats by several others. I grab a baseball bat and crush the man's skull. Undoubtedly, without my participation, the same or similar result would have obtained. That fact does not at all mitigate my responsibility.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for human beings to go around being total dicks to each other. Certainly we should not single out religion and blame it for all human misery, but we should be unashamed to say that religion* has been responsible for its share.

Religion does not stand alone as the mother of evil, but neither does racism. I oppose the latter. Why should I oppose the former with any less fervency?

*Religion of the dehumanising type, that is.

[Orphia Nay]

Good posts, Wolfman, Darth Rotor, UW, and MdeC.

We can't blame Religion as the sole or majorcause of evil in the world, but it certainly does bolster hatred and/or inhumanity to others, and is also used as a justification for hatred and inhumanity.

[Wolfman]

This makes no sense.

There is a man being severely beaten with baseball bats by several others. I grab a baseball bat and crush the man's skull. Undoubtedly, without my participation, the same or similar result would have obtained. That fact does not at all mitigate my responsibility.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for human beings to go around being total dicks to each other. Certainly we should not single out religion and blame it for all human misery, but we should be unashamed to say that religion* has been responsible for its share.

Religion does not stand alone as the mother of evil, but neither does racism. I oppose the latter. Why should I oppose the former with any less fervency?

*Religion of the dehumanising type, that is.
MdC,

I'd agree 100% that one should oppose abuse of any kind, regardless of its label. In my opinion -- and I suspect in yours -- racism is by its nature abusive. There isn't "good racism", there would be no need for you to qualify your statement about racism in the same way that you had to qualify your statement about religion ("Religion of the dehumanising type, that is").

But religions are not, intrinsically, abusive. In fact, a great number of the charities for orphans, homeless, etc., are run by religious groups. I fail to see how it is "logical" or "consistent" to argue that "religions do bad things, therefore religions are bad", since by that argument one would necessarily have to take the contrary and paradoxical position that, "religions do good things, therefore religions are good".

I oppose abuse or oppression of all kinds, regardless of its origin or justification. I don't oppose it because it is religious people doing it; I oppose it because its wrong.

Again, I take you back to my main point -- in order to demonstrate that something is a cause, you must demonstrate that in the absence of that cause, the effect would not take place. I think that you and I would both agree that, if we removed all religious beliefs from the world today, people would simply find other excuses, and we'd find the same old ***** taking place, just with different excuses.

[Wolfman]

Good posts, Wolfman, Darth Rotor, UW, and MdeC.

We can't blame Religion as the sole or majorcause of evil in the world, but it certainly does bolster hatred and/or inhumanity to others, and is also used as a justification for hatred and inhumanity.
I'd take issue with that -- some religions may bolster hatred and/or inhumanity, but I'd have real difficulties with the assertion that all religions do so, or that it is an inseparable feature of religion.

As a simple example, take the Baha'i religion. It is a religion that basically believes that all religions hold a part of the truth, and that all religions can lead to the truth. You can be Baha'i, and still be a member of any other religion. They are quite open to scientific findings, and believe that science and religion can be reconciled, not by twisting science to make it fit theology, but rather by reexamining and reinterpreting theology to keep it consistent with science.

I do not know of any situation of Baha'i followers teaching intolerance towards others, or of advocating violence towards others. Baha'i followers are, in addition, very active in international peace movements.

Now, I do not personally believe that any of their religious beliefs are correct; but nor do I see any of the "evils of religion" that so many people seem to feel are inevitable and inseparable from being "religious". And even within religions that can be validly accused of "bolstering hatred and inhumanity in others", that is true of certain groups within those religions, but not of all followers or groups.

Again, I am not trying to deny or justify the actual abuses that have taken place in the name of religion. No moreso than I would seek to deny or justify the actual abuses that have been committed in the names of politics, race, gender, nationality, or any other such reason.

[Orphia Nay]

Good posts, Wolfman, Darth Rotor, UW, and MdeC.

We can't blame Religion as the sole or majorcause of evil in the world, but it certainly does bolster hatred and/or inhumanity to others, and is also used as a justification for hatred and inhumanity.

I'd take issue with that -- some religions may bolster hatred and/or inhumanity, but I'd have real difficulties with the assertion that all religions do so, or that it is an inseparable feature of religion.

...

I agree on the whole, Wolfman, although it's precarious dealing with generalisations.

I'm not saying that all religion bolsters hatred. You make good points, but I probably wouldn't even say some religions bolster hatred, for there are moderates in all religions.

We might find that we are committing the No True Scotsman (No True Baha'i etc) fallacy in saying no Baha'i followers have committed any inhumanities.

There are the teachings, and then there are the followers.

Actually, I think I've got myself into a mess here, by not seeing that point earlier, and you may be right that some religions bolster hatred.

Although it may even be argued that Islam does not teach hatred, but some of its sects do. What is Religion?

My brain hurts. :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

MdC,

I'd agree 100% that one should oppose abuse of any kind, regardless of its label. In my opinion -- and I suspect in yours -- racism is by its nature abusive. There isn't "good racism", there would be no need for you to qualify your statement about racism in the same way that you had to qualify your statement about religion ("Religion of the dehumanising type, that is").
The reason I felt the need to qualify my statement was that the conversation had drifted somewhat. It had previously been almost exclusively about Islam. I had interjected a quick bit about religions which believe in the concept of Hell, and then you broadened the scope to religion in general. I agree that religion as a category is neither good nor bad, but I feel specific religions can be, although dangerous may be a better choice of word than bad.

As to the universal abusiveness of racism, it depends a lot on how one defines abusive. I have met racists who would never dream of raising a hand to a black person (or hispanic, or asian, or what have you), so racism does not lead one inexorably to violent abuse, at the very least. Neither, I agree, does religion. As in my estimation of certain religions, though, racism is always dangerous.

Violence is a part of human nature. We would certainly be violent in the absence of religion. History would be filled with at least a comparable number of wars and atrocities without it. My beef with, as I call them, dehumanising religions is that they are particularly well-suited to exploiting human nature toward violent ends. (Whether they are so well-suited by chance or design is an interesting question in itself, but for another thread, perhaps.)

Any religion divides humanity into two groups--the faithful and the rest. Anytime you have two groups, the potential for conflict exists (often, even one group will do, actually). Obviously, such conflicts are not inevitable, nor must they always be violent when they do occur. If you would like to bring about violent conflict between your group and the outgroup, however, the first step is dehumanisation, as any good would-be genocidalist will tell you.

Christianity and Islam have holy books which could be used as textbooks for dehumanising the enemy. God hates the non-believer. God mocks the non-believer. God will crush the infidel. God casts the unsaved into the pits of Hell.

At the risk of Godwinning myself, Hitler managed to get quite a lot of ordinary folks to go along with his genocidal scheme, to play their small roles, by convincing them of the inferiority and the vileness of the Jews. How much more effective is that tactic when it is done not by any mortal, but by the most powerful being in the universe? If one truly believe in God or Allah, and believes the Bible of the Quran to be their words (as those texts encourage one to do), how can one escape the belief that the non-believer is inferior and vile?*

What is worse is the missionary aspect of the two religions. On the face, it seems perhaps more charitable to offer one's religion to the non-believer rather than running them through on the spot, but it can actually lead to further disdain. If one is racist, they can at least accept the fact that there is nothing one could have done about their race. Indeed, I have known people whose reaction to other races was one of pity, not scorn. But once the non-believer has been given a choice, and still does not believe, he has sinned. It is no accident of birth that he is inferior. He has just snubbed God. Proselytising is an invitation to offend.

These religions clearly have conflict programmed into their very structures. Not everyone who follows one will be violent, but it is near certainty that with enough followers, significant numbers of them will be. Throw a few ideas about war into the holy books themselves--the Bible has its share, and the Quran is littered with them--and it is no surprise at all the religions have historically tended toward violence.

Finally, once a conflict has begun, the most pernicious of all beliefs enters the fray--that of an eternity in paradise for the faithful. As Darth and yourself cynically noted above, often humans act in blind self-interest. This is actually to one's advantage in a war. The idea is to get your opponent to accept that the benefit of giving in outweighs the cost of continuing to fight. When you can rely on your foe's cost-benefit analysis to be in earthly terms, you get a good idea of what you need to do to win (execution is another matter).

If one believes they are fighting for God, however, and will be rewarded eternally for so doing, what cost is too high to pay? What benefit could possibly outweigh it? The only hope is to shake their faith--notoriously difficult--or crush them. There is little hope of a reprieve from the fight.

Christianity and Islam and any religion with similar features lay a blueprint for bloody conflict. That conflict is not always realised. When it is realised, however, when it plays out as the texts dictate, why should one refrain from saying so?

Again, I take you back to my main point -- in order to demonstrate that something is a cause, you must demonstrate that in the absence of that cause, the effect would not take place. I think that you and I would both agree that, if we removed all religious beliefs from the world today, people would simply find other excuses, and we'd find the same old ***** taking place, just with different excuses.
And I disagree whole-heartedly with this point. Your first statement about cause and effect is true in the specific. You then attempt to make a more genralised statement. The result is that you end up saying that since other reasons for conflict exist, religion is not one of them.

ETA: I'm not really happy with this last paragraph, as I'm not sure my point is clear. I shall attempt an analogy to clarify.

I ate a steak last night. This caused me not to be hungry any longer. If we removed all cows from the world, I would have found something else to eat. That fact does not mean that the steak was not the cause of the particular cessation of hunger I experienced last night.

[Jon.]

Again, I take you back to my main point -- in order to demonstrate that something is a cause, you must demonstrate that in the absence of that cause, the effect would not take place.

You are talking about a cause sine qua non; there is another type of cause known as "effective cause" (I think the Latin is causa causans but I could be wrong). This is where the cause in question is one of several contributing factors. To take an example, a person with terminal cancer who is run over by a bus. What is the cause of death? What if, instead of being run over by a bus, they are given an overdose of pain medication? In each case, the immediate cause of death is obvious, but the person would have died even without that cause, so it is not a cause sine qua non.

Here, religion is not necessarily a cause sine qua non of violence, but it is a cause nonetheless. There would be violence even without religion, but that does not excuse religion from it contribution to the violence.

[korenyx]

Actually Jesus had to tell his followers to help people and even when some of them did help he told them it wasn't enough.

Kore

[arthwollipot]

Jesus also preached a number of other things, like giving all your money and possessions away, that people seem to ignore these days.