Is Islam really at fault?

[Stravo]

I put some thought into this the other day while trying to get my computer to fucking WORK. Ahem. People from a wide spectrum have all looked at Islam as one of the root causes of the current trend of Radical Islamic Terrorists (conveniently ignoring US Support of Israel and general policies towards the ME and if you bring that up you're some kind of traitor) Many point to Islam's inherently violent prosthelitizing and severe nature. Its demand for absolute obdeience and the whole concept of Jihad as providing grist for the radicals and their madastras.

Does Islam get twisted like this because of outside influences like rampant poverty and dictatorships? Afterall the Golden Age of Islam happened when there was not rampant poverty and other social ills in the ME. In fact Islam flourished at a time when the Arabs were the most learned and cultured in the region.

But I wonder is it REALLY Islam's fault? Can we not look at Christianity and its fundamentalist followers who believe that assassinating abortion doctors and bombing clinics proves that life is sacred? How about Judiasm and the way the settlers and Israelis in general can use 3,000 yo texts to justify one of the most divisive land grabs in history and dovetails into the current rash of terrorism against the West?

Can we not say that Religion in general has always been a ready made source for wanton slaughter of innocents and Islam is merely the cause celeb of this century?

What are your thoughts on this matter?

[Darth Wong]

All religion is at fault. Religion does not necessarily cause prejudice (although it can, despite bullshit to the contrary from knee-jerk apologists), but its primary damage mechanism is to magnify whatever prejudices and hatreds already exist, by giving them divine assent.

[General Zod]

I wouldn't so much say that it's at fault per se, as rather it gives fanatics a convenient justification for their actions. Much how the Salem witch trials weren't so much about routing out witches and heretics, but rather land and real estate take overs. The charges of being a witch were simply a convenient excuse, as one example.

[sparrowtm]

Can we not say that Religion in general has always been a ready made source for wanton slaughter of innocents and Islam is merely the cause celeb of this century?

All ideologies, may they be religious or not, attract not only the modest but the extremist. Communism, democracy, christianity, Islam, humanism and imperialism - whatever the concept is, there will always be bitchnecks who will distort their meaning to fit their twisted minds.

Religion of course, which does not require one to actually think of consequences of their doings because of concepts like sin, eternal afterlife and of course unlimited virgins makes it even easier for shitheads like Al Quaida to commit their suicide bombings.

So yes, religion is guilty - the same way communism is guilty for Stalin.

[Darth Wong]

All ideologies, may they be religious or not, attract not only the modest but the extremist. Communism, democracy, christianity, Islam, humanism and imperialism - whatever the concept is, there will always be bitchnecks who will distort their meaning to fit their twisted minds.

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

[Stravo]

All ideologies, may they be religious or not, attract not only the modest but the extremist. Communism, democracy, christianity, Islam, humanism and imperialism - whatever the concept is, there will always be bitchnecks who will distort their meaning to fit their twisted minds.

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

[The Spartan]

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

Not for several centuries to my knowledge. And then they were only a threat to the government of whichever country they were in or were perceived as such.

[General Zod]

All ideologies, may they be religious or not, attract not only the modest but the extremist. Communism, democracy, christianity, Islam, humanism and imperialism - whatever the concept is, there will always be bitchnecks who will distort their meaning to fit their twisted minds.

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

I certainly can't recall any ultraviolent Wiccans or Neo Pagans either off hand. (Whether or not they're sane is completely separate from whether or not they're violent, mind)

[sparrowtm]

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

Violence against innocents is not the only way of distorting a well-meant concept. I know self-proclaimed humanists who would at the same time declare it is okay to take a thousand chicken, give them 10 square metres to live a miserable life and then be slaughtered - all because man is superior and as a conclusion has all rights to do so. While that is not humanist at all, they claim it is - and as such serves as an example of such individuals.

[General Zod]

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

Violence against innocents is not the only way of distorting a well-meant concept. I know self-proclaimed humanists who would at the same time declare it is okay to take a thousand chicken, give them 10 square metres to live a miserable life and then be slaughtered - all because man is superior and as a conclusion has all rights to do so. While that is not humanist at all, they claim it is - and as such serves as an example of such individuals.

You're confusing an extremist with a general moron. Extremists take one or two specific points in a philosophy and focus on that while excluding everything else. What you've described is hardly that.

[wolveraptor]

What does humanism have to do with animal rights? As I recall, it only deals with human rights. It says nothing about how you should treat chickens.

Furthermore, one guy who says such and such doesn't exactly qualify as a radical extremist group.

[sparrowtm]

You're confusing an extremist with a general moron. Extremists take one or two specific points in a philosophy and focus on that while excluding everything else. What you've described is hardly that.

Hrmm .. well, you're right. I take back the humanist example.

[Chmee]

Religion is only the organizing force that gives a structure to dispossessed, disenfranchised, angry people. Would there still be terrorism without it? Sure, as long as there are occupying armies (or armies perceived as occupying), as long as there are people in poverty, people who feel wronged, people who feel no hope, they'll find an organizing structure to give their anger an outlet. Could be religion, could be political parties, could be nationalist organizations.

[Quadlok]

Religion can give a helping hand, but its humanity itself that is really at fault. We're assholes, and most of us aren't too bright to boot. Buddhism preaches nonviolence, but that hasn't stopped many Buddhists from engaging in warfare over the centuries. Religion is a convenient excuse and orginizational tool, but even if we all woke up tomorrow athiests, we'd still find reasons to slaughter each other.

[General Zod]

Religion can give a helping hand, but its humanity itself that is really at fault. We're assholes, and most of us aren't too bright to boot. Buddhism preaches nonviolence, but that hasn't stopped many Buddhists from engaging in warfare over the centuries. Religion is a convenient excuse and orginizational tool, but even if we all woke up tomorrow athiests, we'd still find reasons to slaughter each other.

What does not following a religion's tenets have to do with being an extremist? A Buddhist openly engaging in warfare doesn't make them an extremist, just a poor Buddhist.

[Peregrin Toker]

All ideologies, may they be religious or not, attract not only the modest but the extremist. Communism, democracy, christianity, Islam, humanism and imperialism - whatever the concept is, there will always be bitchnecks who will distort their meaning to fit their twisted minds.

I am not aware of any violent extremist humanist groups out there.

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

Does Imperial Japan during WW2 count?

[Imperial Overlord]

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

Not at the moment, although Tibet's history is full of violent struggle between different Buddhist groups.

[Quadlok]

Religion can give a helping hand, but its humanity itself that is really at fault. We're assholes, and most of us aren't too bright to boot. Buddhism preaches nonviolence, but that hasn't stopped many Buddhists from engaging in warfare over the centuries. Religion is a convenient excuse and orginizational tool, but even if we all woke up tomorrow athiests, we'd still find reasons to slaughter each other.

What does not following a religion's tenets have to do with being an extremist? A Buddhist openly engaging in warfare doesn't make them an extremist, just a poor Buddhist.

My point is that ones religion does not always influence ones stance on violence and its acceptability, even when that religion has strict tenets on the subject.

[General Zod]

Religion can give a helping hand, but its humanity itself that is really at fault. We're assholes, and most of us aren't too bright to boot. Buddhism preaches nonviolence, but that hasn't stopped many Buddhists from engaging in warfare over the centuries. Religion is a convenient excuse and orginizational tool, but even if we all woke up tomorrow athiests, we'd still find reasons to slaughter each other.

What does not following a religion's tenets have to do with being an extremist? A Buddhist openly engaging in warfare doesn't make them an extremist, just a poor Buddhist.

My point is that ones religion does not always influence ones stance on violence and its acceptability, even when that religion has strict tenets on the subject.

Errr, so what? You did actually read the thread right? What's that got to do with what anyone's been saying?

[The Dark]

Have we ever had to worry about Radical Buddhists or Shinto groups?

Depends on what "we" you mean. A radical buddhist assassinated the first Prime Minister of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and religious differences between Buddhists are responsible for terrorism there. Shinto by its very nature is a nationalistic religion, largely responsible for the racism of pre-world war II Japan. I've never run into a violent fundmentalist neo-pagan, but I have encountered a few whose definition of what it means to be neo-pagan is as narrow as a Free Baptist's definition of Christianity.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

I wouldn't so much say that it's at fault per se, as rather it gives fanatics a convenient justification for their actions. Much how the Salem witch trials weren't so much about routing out witches and heretics, but rather land and real estate take overs. The charges of being a witch were simply a convenient excuse, as one example.

And Also for getting Back at people who (for one reason or another) have pissed them off. Wacky Puritans!

[Darth Wong]

Religion is only the organizing force that gives a structure to dispossessed, disenfranchised, angry people. Would there still be terrorism without it? Sure, as long as there are occupying armies (or armies perceived as occupying), as long as there are people in poverty, people who feel wronged, people who feel no hope, they'll find an organizing structure to give their anger an outlet. Could be religion, could be political parties, could be nationalist organizations.

But without religion, they would not be convinced that they can blow themselves up and live forever in Heaven afterwards.

[Quadlok]

What does not following a religion's tenets have to do with being an extremist? A Buddhist openly engaging in warfare doesn't make them an extremist, just a poor Buddhist.

My point is that ones religion does not always influence ones stance on violence and its acceptability, even when that religion has strict tenets on the subject.

Errr, so what? You did actually read the thread right? What's that got to do with what anyone's been saying?

I'm saying that even if Islam never existed, we'd still have problems with middle eastern terrorist groups due to other circumstances.

[Quadlok]

Religion is only the organizing force that gives a structure to dispossessed, disenfranchised, angry people. Would there still be terrorism without it? Sure, as long as there are occupying armies (or armies perceived as occupying), as long as there are people in poverty, people who feel wronged, people who feel no hope, they'll find an organizing structure to give their anger an outlet. Could be religion, could be political parties, could be nationalist organizations.

But without religion, they would not be convinced that they can blow themselves up and live forever in Heaven afterwards.

So another motivation would take its place. Kamikazes didn't need twenty virgins to convince them to blow themselves up, only the promise that they were saving their civilization from the evil west. Their are plenty of young men in the world who are crazy enough to commit suicide, especially if it takes their enemies with them.

[General Zod]

So another motivation would take its place. Kamikazes didn't need twenty virgins to convince them to blow themselves up, only the promise that they were saving their civilization from the evil west. Their are plenty of young men in the world who are crazy enough to commit suicide, especially if it takes their enemies with them.

Kamikazi bombers in WW2, iirc, were motivated through a combination of Shinto religious propaganda and anti-American propaganda. Without the guarantees of a posh afterlife, commiting suicide to take out an enemy for any cause is much, much less appealing.