Mini-skirts in Saudi - Shock horror!

[mistermack]

If one mosquito in a hundred thousand gave a fatal bite, that would be good enough reason to take precautions against mosquitoes, and try to avoid the nasty little fuckers.

There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. A small proportion are a deadly problem.
We need to spray them. Maybe we can develop something that stops them breeding?

[JimC]

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.

I disagree. How the effects of religion vary certainly remains an interesting and valid area to explore, but that does not undermine 42's point. When jihadists commit acts of terror, and explicitly and strongly state that they are doing so in the name of Islam, no amount of hand-waving gets Islam itself off the hook - at the very least, it is a religion with a dangerous and corrupt segment within it. If the rest of Islam choose not to surgically excise it, they are contributing to the harm it does, and so must accept at least part of the blame.

[pErvinalia]

If one mosquito in a hundred thousand gave a fatal bite, that would be good enough reason to take precautions against mosquitoes, and try to avoid the nasty little fuckers.

There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. A small proportion are a deadly problem.
We need to spray them. Maybe we can develop something that stops them breeding?

My proposal for a vaccine that would fix conservatives like you would also fix them. Although, it will require science to create this vaccine, and we all know that science is a conspiracy..

[Hermit]

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.

Yeah. Right. So next time someone says "The devil made me do it" I should take them by their word. Not gonna happen.

Here's a well known fact, Forty Two. Well known to many, but evidently not to you: People often do things for reasons other than they think they do them for. Especially when the thing they do is to lash out at someone or something else.

[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.

I disagree. How the effects of religion vary certainly remains an interesting and valid area to explore, but that does not undermine 42's point. When jihadists commit acts of terror, and explicitly and strongly state that they are doing so in the name of Islam, no amount of hand-waving gets Islam itself off the hook - at the very least, it is a religion with a dangerous and corrupt segment within it. If the rest of Islam choose not to surgically excise it, they are contributing to the harm it does, and so must accept at least part of the blame.

Jim, you are under the impression that I deny the influence of religious or any other doctrines on people. That's probably because I never addressed that side of the issue. So, let me comment on this now: Religions, doctrines, ideologies and what have you do influence everybody. They are not primary causes. If they were, their appeal would not keep waxing and waning over time, nor would they be so effective so selectively.

[Hermit]

If one mosquito in a hundred thousand gave a fatal bite, that would be good enough reason to take precautions against mosquitoes, and try to avoid the nasty little fuckers.

There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. A small proportion are a deadly problem.
We need to spray them. Maybe we can develop something that stops them breeding?

If one car driver in a hundred thousand caused a fatal traffic accident...

[JimC]

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.

I disagree. How the effects of religion vary certainly remains an interesting and valid area to explore, but that does not undermine 42's point. When jihadists commit acts of terror, and explicitly and strongly state that they are doing so in the name of Islam, no amount of hand-waving gets Islam itself off the hook - at the very least, it is a religion with a dangerous and corrupt segment within it. If the rest of Islam choose not to surgically excise it, they are contributing to the harm it does, and so must accept at least part of the blame.

Jim, you are under the impression that I deny the influence of religious or any other doctrines on people. That's probably because I never addressed that side of the issue. So, let me comment on this now: Religions, doctrines, ideologies and what have you do influence everybody. They are not primary causes. If they were, their appeal would not keep waxing and waning over time, nor would they be so effective so selectively.

I never assumed you thought that religion has no influence. The argument, I suppose, is about the extent of that influence, and whether the religion per se should be assigned at least some of the blame for terrorist acts committed in its name. I suppose by "blame" I mean a mixture of (partial) causal effect, and moral culpability. In the case of terrorist acts perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists (mostly on fellow muslims with the wrong shading of belief) in the name of Islam, I would argue that a definite share of the blame falls on Islam as a whole.

[Hermit]

The argument, I suppose, is about the extent of that influence, and whether the religion per se should be assigned at least some of the blame for terrorist acts committed in its name. I suppose by "blame" I mean a mixture of (partial) causal effect, and moral culpability.

The extent varies in place and time. I hope we can agree on that. I have no problem with agreeing to the claim that religions influence actions, but I do have a problem with categorical statements, such as Forty Two's "the religion is to blame". Both Islamic and Christian texts are riddled with contradictions and both Muslims and Christians cherry pick from them to suit the circumstances pertaining at the time. So, no, I disagree with the statement that religion per se should be assigned at least some of the blame for terrorist acts committed in its name even while those texts do exercise some influence.

[Svartalf]

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.

I disagree. How the effects of religion vary certainly remains an interesting and valid area to explore, but that does not undermine 42's point. When jihadists commit acts of terror, and explicitly and strongly state that they are doing so in the name of Islam, no amount of hand-waving gets Islam itself off the hook - at the very least, it is a religion with a dangerous and corrupt segment within it. If the rest of Islam choose not to surgically excise it, they are contributing to the harm it does, and so must accept at least part of the blame.

You know that to 'sugically excise' the dangerous and corrupt segment of chretinity would require a major war, right, there's a bajillion of those in the USA alone.

[JimC]

The fundamentalist segment of christianity is not nearly as dangerous as the jihadists.

[Svartalf]

go tell that to the alt-right fundie militias in the US...

[JimC]

How many people have they blown up in the past 20 years?

Certainly, the hard core amongst them would love to, no question, but it is a clear fact that they simply do not do nearly as much carnage as the jihadists...

[pErvinalia]

If we are talking about the Western world, and if you take out the fluke that was the 9/11 death toll, I don't know that the difference would be that much, if anything.

[JimC]

Seriously?

Deaths caused by christian terrorists vs deaths (including fellow muslims) caused by Islamic terrorists?

Even leaving out 9/11, there is a huge disparity...

[pErvinalia]

Do you see reporting of Christian terrorists? Do you think you will see white (christian) man mass murder called "terrorism" as easily as Islamic mass murder? And what do you reckon the death toll is, excluding 9/11? It can't be much more than a few hundred.