Yes, and I made this exact point. I would agree that religions are ideologies, which is why it's plenty o.k. to criticize and revile a religion, just as it is fine to criticize and revile ideologies. You are exactly right, where someone says they are an adherent to Nazism, and that they killed a Jewish group because of their ideology, then I would not look beyond that and say that we can't know his real reason for acting out, because not all Nazis have the sack to do the same thing, or because some percentage of Nazis are non-murderous despite harboring the notion that it's "good" for the subhumans to be murdered, etc.Brian Peacock wrote: Indeed, and let's not forget that religion is just a subset of ideology....
- To say, for example, that white-supremacism has nothing to do with Nazi ideology is absurd. All that means is that white-supremacism has nothing to do with some other peoples' conception of Nazism. However, white-supremacists say they are motivated by that ideology. They quote the books they are following. They follow their Nazi ideology. Therefore, their ideology is to blame.
I never said it was.Brian Peacock wrote: My point is that religion isn't a special or particular case,
Oh, yes, it is. Nazism a special and particular case, even though plenty of other ideologies are loathsome, too. The problem of Islam is the problem of Islam. The fact that other ideologies are loathsome doesn't make Islam less so. And, there are degrees to everything. Today, Islam is a big problem.Brian Peacock wrote: nor a special or particular issue or problem -
I agree 100%. And, religions are a terrific engine for producing people who will do evil things because the religion says so. Like the quote goes, good people will do good things, and evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion. The quote ignores the fact that good people can be sold on the goodness of Nazism too, but the point remains.Brian Peacock wrote: even if it is a particular concern at present. For me, the problem lies in the human inclination to outsource our morals and ethics to external authorities, and particularly to (predominantly self-declared) authorities who are able to trigger us emotionally - such that we might say: That authority is right because they (say they are, and) are right, and I am right (and therefore) justified) because I endorse and/or accept what 'they' say about the world and what I should think, say, do, and be. The self-reinforcing feedback loop between acolyte and authority should not be ignored here either - rampant ideologues need followers, and those seeking to be led need something and someone to follow.
Indeed. The fact remains, Islam causes some amount of violence because of its ideology - and the people who claim they are doing their deeds because of Islam do, in fact, have something to do with Islam. The fact that most people who follow the religion don't murder apostates does not mean that the people who murder apostates aren't doing so because of their religion.Brian Peacock wrote:
The other, complimentary problem of course is humans' capacity for violence, particularly in social and ethical settings where (invariably male) capacities and expressions of violence are identified as a socially-elevating personal virtue. Ideologies like religion may seek to ennoble violence - generally through a combination of an ends-justifies-the-means excuse tied to the convenient, self-serving absolution that the victims of violence somehow warrant their own mistreatment - but really, ideological violence (religious or otherwise) is merely gangsterism in fancy trousers.
Other ideologies can do the same thing as religions. Juche in North Korea, Nazism in Germany, Communism, etc., "fundamentalists" in these ideologies will act out in furtherance of what amounts to ideological cults.
