Mini-skirts in Saudi - Shock horror!

[Hermit]

Religion is to blame because the people committing the terrorist acts SAY they are doing it based on their religion.

For the fourth time, your assertion cannot explain why the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or why terrorism is not equally prevalent in time and location. For all practical intents and purposes that failure makes it a rather useless one.

[Forty Two]

Religion is to blame because the people committing the terrorist acts SAY they are doing it based on their religion.

For the fourth time, your assertion cannot explain why the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or why terrorism is not equally prevalent in time and location. For all practical intents and purposes that failure makes it a rather useless one.

Once again, why do I need to explain why the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or why terrorism is not equally prevalent in time and location?

That doesn't change the fact that religions influence behavior. That's because people tend to act in accordance with their deeply held beliefs. When people adhere to a fundamentalist religion which preaches that it is good to kill people who are apostate or who are infidel, or that they should go on violent jihad in order to enter Paradise, then there is some percentage of people who will act out on that. It's not going to be all people in a given religion because (a) not all adherents to the religion are of the same sect and not all sects have the same fundamentalist or extreme views, but there are some sects of the religion that do, in fact, have those extreme views, and (b) even among sects that have those extreme views, not everyone has the sack to act violently, even when the sect provides divine warrant or divine imperative for it.

As for time and location - religions and sects vary in power and nature over time and in different locations. If a person is raised in ISIS-land and is steeped in their brand of Islam, then that person will likely have a different view on things than a person raised in a secular, non-observant family in Massachusetts. The peer group may be different. The principles and interpretation of principles may be different. Etc.

This doesn't change the fact that some sects in other places and locales do harbor the extremist/fundamentalist views, and that some folks in those groups will act out accordingly.

It's like a Christian who takes seriously the admonition "never suffer a witch to live." If that person goes out and kills a neighbor, and says, "hey, I'm a Christian, and my religion tells me not to suffer a witch to live." I wouldn't have much doubt as to what motivated his actions. He just told us that he thought the neighbor was a witch and his God gave him divine warrant to do the deed. So, he was motivated by Christianity, and that's one of the key dangers of religion. In any case, you'll have good people do good things, and evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion. A man can be motivated to kill a witch because of religion.

Now, I don't have to explain why EVERY Christian doesn't go out and kill witches in order for it to be worthwhile to know that SOME Christian versions advocate the killing of witches, some take that literally, and some people accept that divine warrant as true, and some percentage of those will be able to overcome their resistance to murder, and society's laws against it, and do the deed.

I am not prevented from knowing why the guy killed his neighbor, just because I can't explain why every Christian or every person who reads the Bible doesn't go running out and hunt witches.

[Hermit]

That doesn't change the fact that religions influence behavior.

Ah, now you're downgrading the role of religion from "is to blame" to "influence". Fine. Now for the fifth time: Why is it that religion motivates (or influences, as you now prefer) more of its followers to commit acts of terrorism at one time, in one place and fewer in another? The Qur'an is much the same as it was 30 years ago. Muslims were taught to read it and learn it by heart much the same then as they are now.

[mistermack]

Actually, the current violence from islamists is very like the mini-skirt.
It's fashionable.

Fashions come and go, and for a while, it seems to be everywhere you look, then it disappears. They are contagious, and are taken very seriously at the time, and keenly followed, and then die off for no apparent reason.

Jihad and martyrdom are in at the moment. Not with everybody. They are a bit like goths. Most of them will grow out of it, but for a while, they are replaced by new ones. Then eventually, it dies off.

[Alan B]

Yeah. Bur with Christianity it took a couple of hundred years and in some remote pocket of the religion there are still a few nutters who 'long for the old ways'...

[Forty Two]

That doesn't change the fact that religions influence behavior.

Ah, now you're downgrading the role of religion from "is to blame" to "influence". Fine. Now for the fifth time: Why is it that religion motivates (or influences, as you now prefer) more of its followers to commit acts of terrorism at one time, in one place and fewer in another? The Qur'an is much the same as it was 30 years ago. Muslims were taught to read it and learn it by heart much the same then as they are now.

No, I've been very clear on what point I was making. When someone says they are acting because of their religion, then their religion is to blame.

Why is it that religion motivates AND influences - this is not a change in the position -- more at one time and place and less in another? I've answered that question. Because the religion changes, and people's reaction to the religion is not uniform Why WOULD the influence or causative nature of Christianity be different in Alabama than in Hollywood? Doesn't the answer seem obvious? Because the evangelical snake-handlers in Alabama are following a fundamentalist, more extreme form of Christianity than the general Christian population in Hollywood California, so it motivates people to do different things.

Where a person follows a religion or sect of a religion that tells them to go fly planes into buildings, and then they go fly planes into buildings, and there are writings leading up to the events that show they are acting in what THEY BELIEVE to be the will of their Allah, etc., and they scream "AllahuAkhbar!" as they ram into the buildings, then one can surmised fairly easily that they are acting that way because of their religion.

The Qu'ran is not the sum total of Islam anymore than the Bible is the sum total of Christianity. Reformation did not rewrite the Bible. It rewrote the religion. That's why you don't have Christians around now who think that Christianity calls for marching off to war to reclaim Holy Lands and kill infidels, but 800 years ago you'd find plenty of people who did believe that Christianity called for exactly that and they acted in conformity with that belief.

[NineBerry]

Should make an interesting court case.

Mr 42, we sentence you to life in prison for incitement to murder as the witness Mr. NineBerry here says you told him to kill someone.

[Hermit]

I've been very clear on what point I was making. When someone says they are acting because of their religion, then their religion is to blame.

As long as you cannot explain why their religion, or any religion for that matter, does not affect everyone equally at all times and in the same way, your "point" remains an assertion bereft of any evidence to support it.

[Forty Two]

I've been very clear on what point I was making. When someone says they are acting because of their religion, then their religion is to blame.

As long as you cannot explain why their religion, or any religion for that matter, does not affect everyone equally at all times and in the same way, your "point" remains an assertion bereft of any evidence to support it.

That's absurd, Hermit. I mean, if you ask me why I robbed the bank, and I tell you it's because I needed the money, you'd not ask me to explain why everyone who needs money doesn't rob banks. You'd accept that my reason for my actions was monetary need. However, if I say I robbed the bank because I belong to a sect which commands us as a sacrament to deprive worldly society of money and give it to the temple, wouldn't you accept my reason? I'm telling you what I'm doing and why. Are you going to say that my reason is bereft of evidence because I can't explain why everyone who belongs to my sect doesn't rob banks?

Some people murder people out of jealousy or because they've been cuckolded. However,not all jealous or cuckolded people murder others. That doesn't mean we can't know that some significant portion of a population isn't motivated by the motivating force. Religion is a motivating force.

Abortion doctor murders. Generally, the people who murder abortion doctors are often motivated by their religion. How do we know? They say so. They say that they are acting in defense of the innocent and trying to have defenseless children saved from murder, which is what they say is commanded by God. Are we to say that we cannot know that some portion of Christians are motivated by their religion to murder, simply because not all Christians and not all folks of the same denomination as an abortion doctor murderer are acting in the same way?

Basically, it's that all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

[laklak]

My answer to right to lifers is "my God is Moloch".

[Forty Two]

But, Lak, Freedom of Religion clearly just means the freedom to be whatever kind of Christian you like.

[Hermit]

I've been very clear on what point I was making. When someone says they are acting because of their religion, then their religion is to blame.

As long as you cannot explain why their religion, or any religion for that matter, does not affect everyone equally at all times and in the same way, your "point" remains an assertion bereft of any evidence to support it.

That's absurd, Hermit. I mean, if you ask me why I robbed the bank, and I tell you it's because I needed the money, you'd not ask me to explain why everyone who needs money doesn't rob banks. You'd accept that my reason for my actions was monetary need. However, if I say I robbed the bank because I belong to a sect which commands us as a sacrament to deprive worldly society of money and give it to the temple, wouldn't you accept my reason? I'm telling you what I'm doing and why. Are you going to say that my reason is bereft of evidence because I can't explain why everyone who belongs to my sect doesn't rob banks?

No. I'll ask why not everyone who belongs to a sect which commands us as a sacrament to deprive worldly society of money and give it to the temple robs banks. As it stands, a minuscule percentage of Muslims even support the terrorism perpetrated by an even much smaller percentage of Muslims who say they do so in the name of Allah. The absurdity lies in saying that their religion is to blame for terrorism when that religion has no such effect on 99.9 or so percent of its adherents.

[Forty Two]

One, it's not as if the religion has no effect on 99.9% of its adherents, but if it has an effect on 0.1% of adherents than it - the religion - has that effect.

The point is not to say that all sects and portions of Islam or all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism. The point is that Islam - of whatever stripe a person holds - is often a deeply held belief which causes adherents to behave in certain ways. That's the whole point of a religion. To make people behave in certain ways that are holy or godly or not sinful, or to refrain from acting in certain ways (refraining from sinful behavior). Nobody would seriously argue that religion does not help guide people or cause people to do things the religion defines as holy or godly or right, and nobody would seriously argue that religion does not guide people or cause people to refrain from doing things that are defined thereby as sinful. When someone says "I don't fuck my secretary because it would be adultery in my religion and I don't want to sin," then nobody would argue that we can't possibly know what his motivation for keeping it in his pants is, even though plenty of religious people fuck their secretaries. Also, if a person goes out and gives to charity because his religion says to give alms to the poor or whatever, then nobody would argue that the person is not motivated to give to charity, even if most religious people are selfish and don't give to charity. By the same token, if a person says they think apostates should be killed because they are apostates to Islam, then nobody would argue that that belief is un-Islamic (it's a common principle in Islamic sects). That doesn't mean Muslims by and large will ignore secular law and their own inhibitions (other forces effecting behavior) and go out and kill apostates. But, SOME PERCENTAGE will, and their reason stated is that it is an offense to their god and their religion defines the punishment. Just because not all or even not most will act out on it, doesn't mean the religion is not causing it. The religion is causing it. The people doing it are saying that's why their doing it. Do you disbelieve them?

Were the Charlie Hebdo and Danish Cartoonist killers not motivated by their religion? They SAID they were. Why don't you believe them? Wasn't Islam to blame, even if not all Muslims are killers of satirists and cartoonists?

[Hermit]

One, it's not as if the religion has no effect on 99.9% of its adherents, but if it has an effect on 0.1% of adherents than it - the religion - has that effect.

No. If only 0.01% of a religion's adherents perpetrate acts of terrorism it makes no sense to lay the blame for those acts on that religion. Causality is not that selective. I thought you knew that.

[Forty Two]

Causality is individual. If one person says and acts as if they are motivated by a religion, cult or denomination, then that's what motivates him or her.

What makes no sense is to say that (even though Joe Blow believes his religion teaches X, and even though Joe Blow acts in conformity with X, and even though Joe Blow says and writes that he's acting in conformity with his religious believes) that he's doing X for reasons other than what he says and believes.

In the case of religions, it's not just one person, of course, but it's a number of persons believing X, and a number of persons acting out in conformity with X belief. With respect to those persons, the religion is a cause of their behavior.

Your argument is like saying that we can't say that Naziism caused the holocaust. Most Nazis in WW2 were not keen on killing people. There were millions of Nazis in Ww2, and if they all acted in conformity with the Final Solution, there would have been zero Jews in short order, and we'd likely not know much about it. However, even though the ideology taught and preached that certain folks were less than human and needed to be eliminated, it was certainly true that most German Nazis were not going to be part of firing squads or dump poison gas on helpless people. Most people were supporting ideologues, and a small percentage of people were acting out. Even some Nazis who saluted the Fuhrer and fought for the Reich were only killing Jews in the camps because they were soldiers who had no real choice, unless they themselves wanted to be jailed or killed. But, we have to ascribe causation of the holocaust to Nazi ideology - why? Because the people acting out and committing the acts of murder in conformity with the ideology were doing so in furtherance of the ideology - they said so. They themselves believed so. It doesn't matter that not all, or not most, were willing to put bullets in people.