__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It is the evanescence of our Christian heritage. That is, Christianity divorced violent sectarianism from politics as a matter of course. As secularists, we seem to treat religion as one large psycho-sociological issue, and forget that the real heart of human diversity lies within the private sphere of distinct faiths.
But if it has nothing to do with religion, why don't we see terrorists organizations sprouting from other regions of the world that have dysfunctional political systems, poverty, and post-colonial meddling, like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia?
It takes a bad political climate and religious extremism to foster terrorism on this scale. And the two are connected - Muslims in the Middle East are trying to cope with the agonizing failure of their societies to reconcile their faith the modern world. Their political systems do not work. Their educational systems do not work (there have been almost no patents filed in the Arab world in the last 40 years). It's a culture in trauma. But that trauma won't be salved by killing Americans, Israelis, and French. The culture has to adapt, the way southeast Asia adapted and become prosperous, despite being mired in poverty 50 years ago. Some Muslims are adapting. Others (mainly in the Arab world) are not.
I didn't say it has nothing to do with religion, just that it isn't just simply religion. Religion is the rallying call, but the cause is more rooted in political and socio-economic factors. It's a dangerous combination of 2 things.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
But if it has nothing to do with religion, why don't we see terrorists organizations sprouting from other regions of the world that have dysfunctional political systems, poverty, and post-colonial meddling, like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia?
It takes a bad political climate and religious extremism to foster terrorism on this scale. And the two are connected - Muslims in the Middle East are trying to cope with the agonizing failure of their societies to reconcile their faith the modern world. Their political systems do not work. Their educational systems do not work (there have been almost no patents filed in the Arab world in the last 40 years). It's a culture in trauma. But that trauma won't be salved by killing Americans, Israelis, and French. The culture has to adapt, the way southeast Asia adapted and become prosperous, despite being mired in poverty 50 years ago. Some Muslims are adapting. Others (mainly in the Arab world) are not.
Separatist terrorism in Europe has been significant over the last 100 years or so. Or you can look at Air India. Now you can argue if these are politically motivated or politically and religiously motivated but I think most of these are driven by persecution of a minority and the minority group striking back regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Canada has had more deaths from separatist terrorism then religiously inspired terrorism.
The above article is interesting in that Religiously driven terrorism is relatively new compared to other forces driving terrorism.
Religiosity and Standard of Living generally are inversely correlated. I know many like to argue that religion is the Causal force but I would strongly argue that poverty and lack of hope in the current life drives an acceptance of Religion which is essentially someone to blame for the problems of now and promises of hope for better lives in the future(this life or next)
If this actually starts happening en masse, I wonder what that sort of movement may do to even further radicalize, or cement ideology for potential jihadi's.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Separatist terrorism in Europe has been significant over the last 100 years or so. Or you can look at Air India. Now you can argue if these are politically motivated or politically and religiously motivated but I think most of these are driven by persecution of a minority and the minority group striking back regardless of whether or not religion is involved. Canada has had more deaths from separatist terrorism then religiously inspired terrorism.
The above article is interesting in that Religiously driven terrorism is relatively new compared to other forces driving terrorism.
Religiosity and Standard of Living generally are inversely correlated. I know many like to argue that religion is the Causal force but I would strongly argue that poverty and lack of hope in the current life drives an acceptance of Religion which is essentially someone to blame for the problems of now and promises of hope for better lives in the future(this life or next)
I'd argue it's more of a downward spiral with religion and poverty than a one causes the other phenomenon. People may turn to religion due to poverty, but when your religion forbids women from working or actively discourages you from learning about science, you're going to end up poor.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I didn't say it has nothing to do with religion, just that it isn't just simply religion. Religion is the rallying call, but the cause is more rooted in political and socio-economic factors. It's a dangerous combination of 2 things.
I didn't say it has nothing to do with religion, just that it isn't just simply religion. Religion is the rallying call, but the cause is more rooted in political and socio-economic factors. It's a dangerous combination of 2 things.
If a man kills his wife because he says she cheated on him, we say it's because she cheated on him. If a man throws a homosexual off a building because he says that's what Mohammad would do for Allah, we say it's socioeconomic reasons.
While there's always socioeconomic factors at work in conflict, why are we trying so damn hard to excuse Islam? Again, the Muslim world is multifaceted and shouldn't be painted with any one brush, but why are you excusing the religion here?
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
That right there is the very reason people shouldn't be afraid to discuss the ideas in Islam (or any religion for that matter). People's lives are deeply affected by those ideas.
I think the hesitation from liberal people in the west is that they don't want to foster the bigotry that can often latch on to these types of discussions. So while Sam Harris can be completely right (and probably is in most cases), and done his research, and presented a rational, scholarly analysis of the religion -- some idiot bigot will most certainly use that discussion as further fuel to his hate filled agenda.
I think the discussion around the religion does need to happen, and there needs to be constant reminders to bigots that, no, this is in no way aligning with your ignorant agenda.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Will 1.6 billion people suddenly lose their faith overnight and apostasize? Is this a serious question?
Japan is a good example, but it's the only one and it's 70+ years old now. The USA did not target civilians in Iraq. Civilians died, many of them, but there was never a US mission aimed at killing civilians. They had other goals, and in the process of pursuing those, civilians died. In admittedly simplistic terms, from the American perspective, evaluating whether a military operation went well involves three questions: was the objective achieved, how many casualties were suffered, and how few civilians were harmed. The Paris attacks demonstrate that for Jihadists, the success of an operation is determined by how many civilians were harmed. There's just no comparison.
There are plenty of documented cases in Iraq of civilians being targeted, but ok let's say I accept your premise that no civilians were intentionally targeted. If a country goes to war totally unprovoked and the result is thousands of innocent lives lost, why is this deemed as acceptable or not that bad? If you have time please read this article and then tell me why this should be shrugged off. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-2034065.html
As a global community, we have to realize that we cannot simply "move on" when civilians are killed in something other than terrorist acts. Just in the past few weeks, MSF hospitals have been hit by the US in Afghanistan, Russia in Syria, and Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Even if you think that somehow this is a coincidence, we cannot just be outraged at terrorist acts and let countries off the hook.
I didn't say it has nothing to do with religion, just that it isn't just simply religion. Religion is the rallying call, but the cause is more rooted in political and socio-economic factors. It's a dangerous combination of 2 things.
Agree completely. Religion definitely plays a role, but I'd argue geo-politics is more of a factor. I think I mentioned this earlier, but China has over a billion non-Muslims, how many groups are threatening it? India has close to a billion non-Muslims AND is involved in a fight in a Muslim area (Kashmir), but because they are not involved in the mid-east militarily they don't get many threats by the Mid-east based groups-heck Canada gets more threats and its population is under 40 million and is an ocean away.
Agree completely. Religion definitely plays a role, but I'd argue geo-politics is more of a factor. I think I mentioned this earlier, but China has over a billion non-Muslims, how many groups are threatening it? India has close to a billion non-Muslims AND is involved in a fight in a Muslim area (Kashmir), but because they are not involved in the mid-east militarily they don't get many threats by the Mid-east based groups-heck Canada gets more threats and its population is under 40 million and is an ocean away.
I think ISIS has a real tiff with Western Culture and history. They view TODAY'S west as Christian Crusaders from the middle ages. Chinese and Indian cultures didn't bother with that area of the world back then so that's why ISIS leaves them alone now.
ISIS wants to recreate the glorious middle ages of battle between good (islam) and evil (the crusaders).
What they don't apparently know is the crusaders have drones, icbms, jets and carriers. ISIS have Kalashnikovs basically and RPGs.
Agree completely. Religion definitely plays a role, but I'd argue geo-politics is more of a factor. I think I mentioned this earlier, but China has over a billion non-Muslims, how many groups are threatening it? India has close to a billion non-Muslims AND is involved in a fight in a Muslim area (Kashmir), but because they are not involved in the mid-east militarily they don't get many threats by the Mid-east based groups-heck Canada gets more threats and its population is under 40 million and is an ocean away.
India gets lots of threats and attacks, and not just in Kashmir:
If a man kills his wife because he says she cheated on him, we say it's because she cheated on him. If a man throws a homosexual off a building because he says that's what Mohammad would do for Allah, we say it's socioeconomic reasons.
While there's always socioeconomic factors at work in conflict, why are we trying so damn hard to excuse Islam? Again, the Muslim world is multifaceted and shouldn't be painted with any one brush, but why are you excusing the religion here?
I think the bolded is a pretty bad case of victim blaming.
I think if a Man kills his wife you should look at the underlying causes of previous abuse, socioeconomic factors, mental illness, etc. The end result of him losing control after finding out about infidelity is likely not the cause. I think the same can be applied in the second case.
That's very true, but like I said how many Mid-East based groups threaten India, isis talks more about Canada than it does about India. Look at that list, some attacks are by Sikh Nationalists, some are by Muslim Kashmir sympathizers, some are attacks by both Muslims and Hindus on each other, and some are by the the many independence movements within India. No either all these groups hate Hindus, or there are other, more significant political issues at play.
Of course it has to do with a particular religion. Of course. How could anyone honestly try to state otherwise?
I'm only hearing this line of reasoning from other religious people (not all, of course). Islamic beliefs, writings and teachings should be under the microscope not just because of the terror being committed explicitly in its name, but because it should trigger a criticism of all religions, and I don't think many religious people necessarily want that.
It's the nature of religion that is the larger problem, and if we're going to be progressive as a species, we need to rid ourselves of all religion. Bush invaded Iraq because he was on "a mission from God". Something like 174,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2013 in the conflict there. Islam isn't the only problem here.
Religion as a whole is not only divisive and dangerous, it is also outdated and unnecessary.
In my opinion, the best way to begin battling the problems we now have is for the West to embrace areligious values even more than we do now. We need to elect non-religious leaders. We need to quit humouring religions and religious ideas as anything other than preposterous fairy tales.
A good first step toward that is to eliminate the tax-free status churches never should have had in the first place. It's one of few concrete steps we can take to firmly show that we will not take stupidity seriously. A second step would be to refute religious claims with facts, science and other forms of evidence as part of the school curriculum. This needs to be taught in K-12 along with critical thinking skills so our kids have something tangible with which to counter the indoctrination that many face growing up in religious households.
These are generational issues we have. Things will get better over many decades, not in a month-long bombing campaign. We need to strengthen what is good about our culture (education, critical thinking, rationality), shed what is not (religion), and GTFO of the middle east. Quit poking the hornets nest. I do think we need to maintain an active intelligence/counter-intelligence role there to keep our eye on nukes, chemical weapons, foil attacks, etc.
There's going to be fallout from the West's meddling for a couple of generations with actions by terrorists I believe we have helped to create. More Parises to come, unfortunately. Let's pull our troops from the ME and see what happens, though. Bombing them isn't working - that much is clear. You can't pick a side because this isn't a battle of good versus evil. There's no right and wrong here. I'm not sure that it is even our fight, but whether it is or not - and I know there are people over there that will continue to suffer - we just aren't equipped to help, and we're not wanted, anyway.
Where we can help in the now is to welcome the Syrian refugees. Get them into our school system. Get them assimilated into our way of life.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I think the bolded is a pretty bad case of victim blaming.
I think if a Man kills his wife you should look at the underlying causes of previous abuse, socioeconomic factors, mental illness, etc. The end result of him losing control after finding out about infidelity is likely not the cause. I think the same can be applied in the second case.
That's not victim blaming. He's just saying the motive behind the murder was clearly X. It's certinaly not justified, but the motive is clear.
He's saying if an islamist threw a homosexual off a roof, instead of saying the motive was islam, many people say it's something else. In this case, socioeconomic reasons. What SP is saying, is there is a clear motive but people are scared to admit it so they don't appear bigoted to the hyper liberal.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
That right there is the very reason people shouldn't be afraid to discuss the ideas in Islam (or any religion for that matter). People's lives are deeply affected by those ideas.
I think the hesitation from liberal people in the west is that they don't want to foster the bigotry that can often latch on to these types of discussions. So while Sam Harris can be completely right (and probably is in most cases), and done his research, and presented a rational, scholarly analysis of the religion -- some idiot bigot will most certainly use that discussion as further fuel to his hate filled agenda.
I think this is absolutely right. The fear of causing offense or promulgating sentiments that someone might mistake for bigotry is incredibly petty and selfish. There is an awful lot of suffering going on around the world that is not being recognized for this reason, and people who engage in this sort of reasoning are really abandoning the people they should be most concerned about from the standpoint of championing liberal principles. As that article notes,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Rizvi
Being part of Muslim families and communities, ex-Muslims not only receive the same bigoted treatment as other Muslims, but are also persecuted (often severely) by Muslims who consider them heretics and apostates.
These are the people who are in between a rock and a hard place. Many live under threat of torture or execution if found out. They shouldn't be left out to dry because we're afraid of being insensitive.
I've posted a number of links and videos over the past number of pages, but I think this one might actually be the single most essential watch on this topic.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I'm only hearing this line of reasoning from other religious people (not all, of course). Islamic beliefs, writings and teachings should be under the microscope not just because of the terror being committed explicitly in its name, but because it should trigger a criticism of all religions, and I don't think many religious people necessarily want that.
It's the nature of religion that is the larger problem, and if we're going to be progressive as a species, we need to rid ourselves of all religion. Bush invaded Iraq because he was on "a mission from God". Something like 174,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2013 in the conflict there. Islam isn't the only problem here.
Religion as a whole is not only divisive and dangerous, it is also outdated and unnecessary.
In my opinion, the best way to begin battling the problems we now have is for the West to embrace areligious values even more than we do now. We need to elect non-religious leaders. We need to quit humouring religions and religious ideas as anything other than preposterous fairy tales.
A good first step toward that is to eliminate the tax-free status churches never should have had in the first place. It's one of few concrete steps we can take to firmly show that we will not take stupidity seriously. A second step would be to refute religious claims with facts, science and other forms of evidence as part of the school curriculum. This needs to be taught in K-12 along with critical thinking skills so our kids have something tangible with which to counter the indoctrination that many face growing up in religious households.
These are generational issues we have. Things will get better over many decades, not in a month-long bombing campaign. We need to strengthen what is good about our culture (education, critical thinking, rationality), shed what is not (religion), and GTFO of the middle east. Quit poking the hornets nest. I do think we need to maintain an active intelligence/counter-intelligence role there to keep our eye on nukes, chemical weapons, foil attacks, etc.
There's going to be fallout from the West's meddling for a couple of generations with actions by terrorists I believe we have helped to create. More Parises to come, unfortunately. Let's pull our troops from the ME and see what happens, though. Bombing them isn't working - that much is clear. You can't pick a side because this isn't a battle of good versus evil. There's no right and wrong here. I'm not sure that it is even our fight, but whether it is or not - and I know there are people over there that will continue to suffer - we just aren't equipped to help, and we're not wanted, anyway.
Where we can help in the now is to welcome the Syrian refugees. Get them into our school system. Get them assimilated into our way of life.
I found this to be funny. Are you an expert on what is necessary and unnecessary in my life, as well as the lives of every other human being? Pretty lofty statement.
