This is a boring and largely useless distinction as it applies to everything. We have few if any qualms about attributing one or a few major factors as the cause of things, why is religion special here?
Religion isn't special. Sole causes just aren't a thing. Everything humanity does is based on a massive cloud of influences which affect one another. Religion reflects a culture and is reflected by a culture. Events, individuals, ideas, and a wide variety of pressures all add their influence and are influenced in turn. Trying to narrow it down to this is because X just leads to a litany of exceptions. People who are aware of the complexity of reality are naturally going to resist attempts to simplify it in such a manner. Religion definately contributes to what's going on in the world. But what is going on in the world shapes that religion.
Again, this fails to address my complaint. We have few qualms about narrowing causes down to one or a few major factors, in general. We can reduce a murder down to jealousy or rage or racial enmity for a motive, we can say that a bank robber did his thing because he needed money and he got a thrill in the execution of a plan. In all of these things, there are near infinite factors and complex causal chains, but we don't have a problem, generally, of ignoring the problematic complexity and narrowing down the factors to the prime movers.
Religion seems special though, as people seem exceptionally want to see nothing but complexity whenever religion becomes involved. This isn't to say that complexity isn't involved, as again, complexity is always present, that's how the world works. It is to say that it seems like a lot of needless complexity when people say they're pissed about a holy book being burned, they have legitimate theological reasons to be pissed about a holy book being burned, they pen articles describing the anguish they feel at the prospect of Korans being burned... this all adds up to religion being kind of the big thing that we can implicate here. If you care to be more particular, we could say it's the theology or whatever.
It's pretty clearly religion that causes people anguish, that causes them to protest and riot when their holy books are being burned.
But people seem to want to add unnecessary complexity, to even deny that religion is relevant to the causal chain behind peoples' actions.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
But you still need something. In the context of a revolution for independence, you typically wouldn't be seeking to explain the actions of the actors involved such that the revolution was just a cover for something else unless there was some extenuating circumstances that made you doubt the veracity of the claims made.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
But you still need something. In the context of a revolution for independence, you typically wouldn't be seeking to explain the actions of the actors involved such that the revolution was just a cover for something else unless there was some extenuating circumstances that made you doubt the veracity of the claims made.
I won't argue you don't need an ideology, its true you do, its how you keep a group cohesive. The mistake is in combating or blaming the ideology instead of going after the root causes.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
But you still need something. In the context of a revolution for independence, you typically wouldn't be seeking to explain the actions of the actors involved such that the revolution was just a cover for something else unless there was some extenuating circumstances that made you doubt the veracity of the claims made.
I won't argue you don't need an ideology, its true you do, its how you keep a group cohesive. The mistake is in combating or blaming the ideology instead of going after the root causes.
In what way is that a problem though? There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
In what way is that a problem though? There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
And this differs from Christianity how?
Edit: Islam is just another pro-power religion. It doesn't have any special properties that the others don't have except the specific history and daily reality of the people who practice it.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
But you still need something. In the context of a revolution for independence, you typically wouldn't be seeking to explain the actions of the actors involved such that the revolution was just a cover for something else unless there was some extenuating circumstances that made you doubt the veracity of the claims made.
I won't argue you don't need an ideology, its true you do, its how you keep a group cohesive. The mistake is in combating or blaming the ideology instead of going after the root causes.
In what way is that a problem though? There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
You stop when you've reached a point where the radicalization would be resolved. We know pretty clearly that a stable economy and a safe populace cuts off radicalization solidly.
Combating the ideology itself (in this case Islam) just makes things worse because it feeds into the ideologies belief that it is being persecuted. We make damn sure the Middle East doesn't view our war on terror as a war on Islam because that would just spread the radicalization.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
You're asking for an example of extremism sans-religion?
Regarding the Iranian Revolution, part of the reason that it had an Islamic character was everyone else was in prison or dead. It was easy enough to get rid of the guy saying that the king is a tyrant who is oppressing the working class. It is harder to shut up cleric giving a sermon with a wink and a nudge that the Dajjal/Antichrist might maybe be among us, especially in a place like Iran.
There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
You stop when you've reached a point where the radicalization would be resolved. We know pretty clearly that a stable economy and a safe populace cuts off radicalization solidly.
Combating the ideology itself (in this case Islam) just makes things worse because it feeds into the ideologies belief that it is being persecuted. We make damn sure the Middle East doesn't view our war on terror as a war on Islam because that would just spread the radicalization.
I'm not sure what "radicalization" means in the context that you're giving me. Is that "violence" with extra syllables?
Regardless, you seem to be making an assumption: That people are just as religious when there is a safe populace and a stable economy, simply less "radicalized". An alternative hypothesis is that a stable economy and a safe populace makes people less religious.
There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
You stop when you've reached a point where the radicalization would be resolved. We know pretty clearly that a stable economy and a safe populace cuts off radicalization solidly.
Combating the ideology itself (in this case Islam) just makes things worse because it feeds into the ideologies belief that it is being persecuted. We make damn sure the Middle East doesn't view our war on terror as a war on Islam because that would just spread the radicalization.
I'm not sure what "radicalization" means in the context that you're giving me. Is that "violence" with extra syllables?
Regardless, you seem to be making an assumption: That people are just as religious when there is a safe populace and a stable economy, simply less "radicalized". An alternative hypothesis is that a stable economy and a safe populace makes people less religious.
Well it's hard to develop some sort of "Religion Meter" to determine who is as religious as who, but if you go to a predominately Mormon community I would say yes you can find very religious societies with safe populaces and stable economies. Or how about Italy, parts of Poland, etc.
A Western society makes people less religious, not a stable economy or safe population.
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
You're asking for an example of extremism sans-religion?
That would apply to this specific example "Someone burnt my favorite Book, X"
Does that exist outside the realm of religious zealots? If no, this is the realm of a religious only response. Whether the person themselves is secular is not up for debate, without the book, without the religious imagery there is no response.
Would we find a similar reaction if someone procured a copy of the bill of rights and burnt it in Iran? Or, do people riot and kill people in the US for it, would we even? I posit no, we wouldn't. Where am I going with this? Well, we'll do it for a sale on Black Friday, but fuck religion.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
You're asking for an example of extremism sans-religion?
That would apply to this specific example "Someone burnt my favorite Book, X"
Does that exist outside the realm of religious zealots? If no, this is the realm of a religious only response. Whether the person themselves is secular is not up for debate, without the book, without the religious imagery there is no response.
Would we find a similar reaction if someone procured a copy of the bill of rights and burnt it in Iran? Or, do people riot and kill people in the US for it, would we even? I posit no, we wouldn't. Where am I going with this? Well, we'll do it for a sale on Black Friday, but fuck religion.
You're using an extremely narrow example. Of course riots over books are going to be related primarily to religion, that's the nature of it, but that's a more narrow scope than we've been discussing.
Well, I wouldn't say more narrow, just in that specific example it applies primarily to religion. But that's also a lot of property damage and a few people that'd still be alive.
But I'm also not sure where I'm going with this, so, derp.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Fundamentally, yes, but would Terrorist A still blow up Americans if there was nothing he could interpret? Maybe. But probably far less likely. I posit the problem is religion and it's interpretation for a moral compass.
I can justify doing things without a book, but people get more motivated because of a powerful image. Allah, the American Flag, etc. You take those things away, you remove the meanings behind them, suddenly people become lethargic.
The religion can be replaced by any ideology. A workers revolution, a revolution for independence, lots of things.
Extremism occurs outside of religion all the time.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
You're asking for an example of extremism sans-religion?
That would apply to this specific example "Someone burnt my favorite Book, X"
Does that exist outside the realm of religious zealots? If no, this is the realm of a religious only response. Whether the person themselves is secular is not up for debate, without the book, without the religious imagery there is no response.
Would we find a similar reaction if someone procured a copy of the bill of rights and burnt it in Iran? Or, do people riot and kill people in the US for it, would we even? I posit no, we wouldn't. Where am I going with this? Well, we'll do it for a sale on Black Friday, but fuck religion.
Is that so? Shortly after 9.11. people publicly burnt american flags in Iraq. And the response was... ?
Its symbolism. It CAN have religious implications, but is not neccesarily required to.
By the way, the protesters are still fussing. Taliban dudes blended into the crowds and nearby buildings and started taking shots at the riot police. Police fired back. 1 Afghan protester dead.
There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
You stop when you've reached a point where the radicalization would be resolved. We know pretty clearly that a stable economy and a safe populace cuts off radicalization solidly.
Combating the ideology itself (in this case Islam) just makes things worse because it feeds into the ideologies belief that it is being persecuted. We make damn sure the Middle East doesn't view our war on terror as a war on Islam because that would just spread the radicalization.
I'm not sure what "radicalization" means in the context that you're giving me. Is that "violence" with extra syllables?
Regardless, you seem to be making an assumption: That people are just as religious when there is a safe populace and a stable economy, simply less "radicalized". An alternative hypothesis is that a stable economy and a safe populace makes people less religious.
Well it's hard to develop some sort of "Religion Meter" to determine who is as religious as who, but if you go to a predominately Mormon community I would say yes you can find very religious societies with safe populaces and stable economies. Or how about Italy, parts of Poland, etc.
A Western society makes people less religious, not a stable economy or safe population.
Again, I need you to define "radicalized".
South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong would seem to put the lie to the notion that "a western society makes people less religious", not to mention your own examples of supposedly "very religious societies" which exist in western countries.
By "less religious" I mean how much importance does the current faith in a locale put on the tenets of an earlier time. For example, Catholics in America are at present far less religious than earlier times, and far less religious than the priests and the official Catholic hierarchy. There is such a thing as a "nominally religious person", which Italy has in spades.
A phenomenon being difficult to measure does not mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist, anyways.
Does that exist outside the realm of religious zealots? If no, this is the realm of a religious only response. Whether the person themselves is secular is not up for debate, without the book, without the religious imagery there is no response.
Would we find a similar reaction if someone procured a copy of the bill of rights and burnt it in Iran? Or, do people riot and kill people in the US for it, would we even? I posit no, we wouldn't. Where am I going with this? Well, we'll do it for a sale on Black Friday, but fuck religion.
You're using an extremely narrow example. Of course riots over books are going to be related primarily to religion, that's the nature of it, but that's a more narrow scope than we've been discussing.
I think that's all we really need to talk about. This is clearly a religious phenomenon, which is and has been my point.
So your solution to extremism in the middle east is to combat Islam itself?
Your use of the word "combat" here is really prejudicial and hopefully inaccurate, except in the loosest metaphorical sense. I mean, clearly some ideology must combat extremism, and I think you and Loren only really differ on whether the ideal candidate is moderate Islam or flat-out secular humanism. The way your post is phrased makes Loren sound like the qu'ran-burning fucksticks from Florida who imagine themselves to be on the front lines of a war against all Muslims.
So your solution to extremism in the middle east is to combat Islam itself?
Your use of the word "combat" here is really prejudicial and hopefully inaccurate, except in the loosest metaphorical sense. I mean, clearly some ideology must combat extremism, and I think you and Loren only really differ on whether the ideal candidate is moderate Islam or flat-out secular humanism. The way your post is phrased makes Loren sound like the qu'ran-burning fucksticks from Florida who imagine themselves to be on the front lines of a war against all Muslims.
Decidedly not my intention, if that's the way it comes across, sorry.
So I'll ask differently, how do you solve the problem of extremism in the Middle East Loren? Is it by trying to change(or insert noninflammatory word for combat here) Islam?
You're confusing the stated reasons with the root cause. Terrorist A says he's blowing up Americans for Allah, but that doesn't mean religion is the reason he ever got there in the first place. He had a grievance with America and found a interpretation of his religion that gave him a morally clean slate to engage in violence.
This is fundamentally the strategy we're running with in Afghanistan right now, securing population areas and trying to get an economy up and running so that support for extremism will evaporate. Why blow yourself up when you have a decent job and your kids are going to get killed by a landmine?
I could link you a handful of interviews of Afghan civilians who were caught laying out IEDs on roads traveled by American convoys. Their reasons are similar - the Taliban paid them $30 to do it and they can't make money otherwise. Of course, killing their fellow Afghans is out of the question but, if they're desperate, an out-of-work livestock farmer could eventually conclude that murdering invading non-Muslims is alright ... unless those non-Muslims pay better, of course.
Sorry, but having been there and talked to Afghan civilians, fighters, and a few of the hardcore zealots, you are conflating and confusing what actually happens.
Yes, there are a large proportion of insurgents - a clear majority - who fight for reasons other than religion. Yes, plenty of them fight because they get good money for it, or because they don't like the local police chief, or because ISAF bombed the wrong place, or equally they help us because the Taliban killed the wrong person. That is why we use a counter-insurgency strategy, because yes, the bulk of the insurgency are not motivated by religion. But then, your average Afghan has an odd relationship with Islam anyway, though they are definitely Muslims and think of themselves as such, they are first and foremost Pashtun, Afghan, farmers and other identities. Afghan ethnicities have still pertinent cultures which stretch back way before Islam - to a certain extent, in the minds of many Afghans, Islam was as much as an invader as anyone else has been into the country, and they do not wear their religion openly.
However, there are a hardcore, both in the Taliban and the foreign fighters who come from Pakistan, Chechnya, Iran, and Arab states, who are motivated by religion. Yes, they hate America and the West, but that hatred came from their inculcation in madrassas in Pakistan, the Iranian state mullahs or Wahabi-esque clerics. Islam came first. They hate America because their mullah told them to - they did not seek out Islam because they hate America.
To argue that because many people at a low-level are driven by poverty and practical concerns that everyone is driven by poverty and practical concerns is patently false. The drivers for the Afghan insurgency, the drivers for serious terrorism, and the kind of zealots who will act as suicide bombers or fly planes into skyscrapers do it for their religion. When they do so, they cry "God is great", not "Fuck America". Unless you have seen this up close, it can be quite hard to grasp.
It was asked page or so ago, but the thing about religion that makes it a poor motivator compared to economics or politics is how abstract it is, Loren.
To be honest, I can barely imagine the kind of bubble you would have to live in - particularly in the United States - to think that religion isn't a massively important motivator for many people.
I thought about this a bit more, and realised I was wrong. It's actually pretty obvious why someone could believe that politics and economics are more of a motivator than religion for people: because you may live in a place where religion has ceded to apathy and agnosticism, and politics and economics are more of a motivator for the people around you.
The problem with that is that it fails to appreciate the rest of the world. If you go to places which are properly, very very poor - such as parts of the mid-East, Pakistan, Afghanistan - you will find that the poorest people, though money is always a concern, are not motivated by money. How can they be - they never have any. Similarly, since such bad economic conditions rarely mean effective governance, politics is seen as an irrelevance.
Instead, people in those conditions find something else to latch onto. Some have great pride in their culture, or the little they do have - most all of the villages I went to in Afghan were populated by people who were a hundred times more houseproud than the fussiest design-junkie Londoner or New Yorker. Religion is one of the most common things to cling to across the poorest parts of the world. It has such pervasive importance that far from disliking Christians in poor Muslim countries (or vica versa in parts of Africa), what they really can't stand is atheists or agnosticism. If you come from the east coast of the US or the more secular parts of Europe, until you have seen these places, it is very hard to grasp just how religion guides every part of their life in these countries. We used to understand it hundreds of years ago when we had the same circumstances in parts of society, but have lost it in the past century. It's why I'm not, after thinking about it, remotely surprised that people treading a very urbanised, educated, liberal academic view of the rest of the world don't actually seem to understand it that well.
But if you can't look outside of your own experience and acknowledge that things are different elsewhere, you are going to get it badly wrong. I'd suggest getting out and seeing some of these people and places, and see if you feel the same afterwards. Hell, you don't even have to leave the states. Do a red state roadtrip, you'll find it there.
Alta, you're not understanding what I'm saying about religions place in extremism in the middle east. I'm not saying it has no part at all, but that it only has that effect there because of more basic factors like poverty and violence.
Remove those problems and the religious problems will lose sway pretty quickly.
Its worth pointing out I have acknowledged the core group at the heart of any extremist group is going to be more ideologically pure, in the case of radical Islam, motivated most heavily by their interpretation of Islam.
Alta, you're not understanding what I'm saying about religions place in extremism in the middle east. I'm not saying it has no part at all, but that it only has that effect there because of more basic factors like poverty and violence.
Remove those problems and the religious problems will lose sway pretty quickly.
Its worth pointing out I have acknowledged the core group at the heart of any extremist group is going to be more ideologically pure, in the case of radical Islam, motivated most heavily by their interpretation of Islam.
You said that religion was a poor motivator compared to politics and economics. It is a fantastic motivator compared to politics and economics. It's just that rich people who get their way tend to be less religious. You seem to have adjusted / clarified the argument to say that religion is simply more prevalent where people are poor and disenfranchised. That is certainly true, but so general as to be useless.
It still doesn't address the fact that a huge section of Islamists who turn to violence and terrorism today, whether in their own countries or elsewhere, are motivated by religion. Yes, to solve the problems of the mid-East and Africa over a century, address the underlying economic and political problems. But if you want to solve the problems of today, you have to accept that religion is a driving force. If you don't, you are being both intellectually limited and, worse, implicitly perpetuating the problem: this isn't a static issue, or one that is limited to the mid-East. Particularly in Britain, it has been for a long time a local issue. For far too long we let obvious extremism thrive in the UK and elsewhere in Europe under the banner of not wanting to criticise Islam, and we have seen the results.
It is possible to criticise religious extremism without criticising all religion: Islamists are not the same as Islam. But refusing to accept that religion has any functional part to play at all is to be in denial.
Criticize whoever you want, I'm interested in the practical results, and I see none in doing anything about Islam in the Middle East. If we can solve the problem there without removing Islam, then how is Islam the source?
Criticize whoever you want, I'm interested in the practical results, and I see none in doing anything about Islam in the Middle East. If we can solve the problem there without removing Islam, then how is Islam the source?
Sorry, but anyone who can't understand the idea of multiple or complex causality after it has been explained to him over two pages by several people probably isn't going to get it.
Good for you for being interested in practical results, but you aren't going to see any long-term results of economic and political development without addressing the fundamental problem of radical Islam, because it will burn and consume that development long before it has a chance to take hold. Luckily for us, interest in practical results doesn't equal influence over practice.
I'm not entirely convinced "religious extremism" is actually beholden to any part of a religion, though. I think it's usually the most convenient cudgel to galvanize a majority to whatever goal you have. Trying to address some sort of inherent issue with any given religion seems silly when most, if not all, of them can and have been used to get people ready to commit genocide.
And beyond that, what exactly is the proposal to address 'Sometimes religions cause violence in some of their members'? Send a letter to 6.5 billion people asking them kindly to consider becoming humanists?
Also Loren: Define "Define" "your" and "terms" please. And "3x:".
So I'll ask differently, how do you solve the problem of extremism in the Middle East Loren?
3x: Define your terms.
Loren, this entire thread needs to have defined terms.
What defines a religious person? What defines a religious nation? What defines a free nation? What defines freedom? Who has final say over what is and isn't a core belief of Islam? Are Christians or Muslims required to hate homosexuality? If you're a pro-choice, GLBT-friendly believer, can you still count as a member of any specific religion?
This argument can't go anywhere when it centers around so many nebulous and undefined concepts.
My advice would be: stop interfering, retreat all troops. Because interfering and sending troops there exploded the situation in the first place (the Saudi-Iraq war, cold war era interference and even the situation after WW2). Of course, with the structures established there that will turn into a nasty bloodbath. Hands down: it IS already a nasty bloodbath. Because they should never have interfered there in the first place. That is the dilemma. You can't force western ideology upon those people. This will not work. So stop trying it.
So I'll ask differently, how do you solve the problem of extremism in the Middle East Loren?
3x: Define your terms.
I need to define extremism in the context of the middle east?
Yes.
Terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism, how's that?
An academic complaint:
Earlier you said: "Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence."
This indicates to me that your usage is at least somewhat inconsistent, given that "removing religion" (clearly a thought experiment, not anything practical) would clearly get rid of Islamic fundamentalism.
A less pedantic complaint:
I've been talking about the riots that ensued after the book burnings. Riots, unless there are pretty specific intentions behind them, are not terrorism. There is, I'm sure, a component of Islamic fundamentalism... But again, take away the religion (thought experiment again), and you wouldn't have the riots. They're pretty clearly religiously motivated, which was, again, my point. It's not a front for something else, it's people pissed off for religiously motivated reasons.
But again, take away the religion (thought experiment again), and you wouldn't have the riots.
This is silly, its completely impossible to argue for or against this as its not only entirely hypothetical, but not realistically achievable under any scenario.
You could very well just write "take away irrational and destructive behavior and you wouldn't have the riots." In fact, at least that statement would be silly but true, we don't know that these riots wouldn't occur in the absence of religion (would nationalism or racism simply take religion's place?) but, logically, if the riots are irrational and destructive and we remove that type of behavior they can't happen.
You know what? We wouldn't need to argue about any of this if humanity was completely immortal and resources were unlimited! If we're going to go with thought exercises that have no basis in reality, we might as well go for the gusto and solve all the world's problems at once.
So I'll ask differently, how do you solve the problem of extremism in the Middle East Loren?
3x: Define your terms.
Loren, this entire thread needs to have defined terms.
I'm happy to assume we're all on the same page until I notice a problem, until I'm not sure what someone's talking about. There's always a degree of uncertainty about what people are talking about, so it obviously isn't practical to get into definitional tangents on every little thing. I'm happy to clarify when I can (but I think another thread would be needed to get into what exactly religion consists of).
Posts
Again, this fails to address my complaint. We have few qualms about narrowing causes down to one or a few major factors, in general. We can reduce a murder down to jealousy or rage or racial enmity for a motive, we can say that a bank robber did his thing because he needed money and he got a thrill in the execution of a plan. In all of these things, there are near infinite factors and complex causal chains, but we don't have a problem, generally, of ignoring the problematic complexity and narrowing down the factors to the prime movers.
Religion seems special though, as people seem exceptionally want to see nothing but complexity whenever religion becomes involved. This isn't to say that complexity isn't involved, as again, complexity is always present, that's how the world works. It is to say that it seems like a lot of needless complexity when people say they're pissed about a holy book being burned, they have legitimate theological reasons to be pissed about a holy book being burned, they pen articles describing the anguish they feel at the prospect of Korans being burned... this all adds up to religion being kind of the big thing that we can implicate here. If you care to be more particular, we could say it's the theology or whatever.
It's pretty clearly religion that causes people anguish, that causes them to protest and riot when their holy books are being burned.
But people seem to want to add unnecessary complexity, to even deny that religion is relevant to the causal chain behind peoples' actions.
See: the tea party movement. There's a religious element there, sure, but it's mostly a bunch of astroturf getting people riled up about taxes that wouldn't affect them, and government largesse that actually helps the same people who're demonstrating against it.
But you still need something. In the context of a revolution for independence, you typically wouldn't be seeking to explain the actions of the actors involved such that the revolution was just a cover for something else unless there was some extenuating circumstances that made you doubt the veracity of the claims made.
I won't argue you don't need an ideology, its true you do, its how you keep a group cohesive. The mistake is in combating or blaming the ideology instead of going after the root causes.
In what way is that a problem though? There are root causes to root causes. Where do you stop and why is the cutoff never "religion"? If the theology of Islam didn't place such a premium on their holy books (or not insulting God), none of this would have happened.
And this differs from Christianity how?
Edit: Islam is just another pro-power religion. It doesn't have any special properties that the others don't have except the specific history and daily reality of the people who practice it.
You stop when you've reached a point where the radicalization would be resolved. We know pretty clearly that a stable economy and a safe populace cuts off radicalization solidly.
Combating the ideology itself (in this case Islam) just makes things worse because it feeds into the ideologies belief that it is being persecuted. We make damn sure the Middle East doesn't view our war on terror as a war on Islam because that would just spread the radicalization.
Can you plausibly bring up something that could work in this situation? What other "I want to riot and kill people" reasons besides "someone burned my religious doctrine" is usable in the context of some no-one burning a book a couple thousand miles away?
As far as I see it, it was just religious fundamentals on both sides acting like retarded religious fundamentals. There was nothing else behind it. Take out religion, sure you're going to have fundamentals, but they won't riot over my burning of the next fucking VC Andrews book. Maybe they'll riot over something worthwhile.
You're asking for an example of extremism sans-religion?
I'm not sure what "radicalization" means in the context that you're giving me. Is that "violence" with extra syllables?
Regardless, you seem to be making an assumption: That people are just as religious when there is a safe populace and a stable economy, simply less "radicalized". An alternative hypothesis is that a stable economy and a safe populace makes people less religious.
A Western society makes people less religious, not a stable economy or safe population.
That would apply to this specific example "Someone burnt my favorite Book, X"
Does that exist outside the realm of religious zealots? If no, this is the realm of a religious only response. Whether the person themselves is secular is not up for debate, without the book, without the religious imagery there is no response.
Would we find a similar reaction if someone procured a copy of the bill of rights and burnt it in Iran? Or, do people riot and kill people in the US for it, would we even? I posit no, we wouldn't. Where am I going with this? Well, we'll do it for a sale on Black Friday, but fuck religion.
You're using an extremely narrow example. Of course riots over books are going to be related primarily to religion, that's the nature of it, but that's a more narrow scope than we've been discussing.
But I'm also not sure where I'm going with this, so, derp.
Is that so? Shortly after 9.11. people publicly burnt american flags in Iraq. And the response was... ?
Its symbolism. It CAN have religious implications, but is not neccesarily required to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091502108.html
Again, I need you to define "radicalized".
South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong would seem to put the lie to the notion that "a western society makes people less religious", not to mention your own examples of supposedly "very religious societies" which exist in western countries.
By "less religious" I mean how much importance does the current faith in a locale put on the tenets of an earlier time. For example, Catholics in America are at present far less religious than earlier times, and far less religious than the priests and the official Catholic hierarchy. There is such a thing as a "nominally religious person", which Italy has in spades.
A phenomenon being difficult to measure does not mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist, anyways.
I think that's all we really need to talk about. This is clearly a religious phenomenon, which is and has been my point.
Your use of the word "combat" here is really prejudicial and hopefully inaccurate, except in the loosest metaphorical sense. I mean, clearly some ideology must combat extremism, and I think you and Loren only really differ on whether the ideal candidate is moderate Islam or flat-out secular humanism. The way your post is phrased makes Loren sound like the qu'ran-burning fucksticks from Florida who imagine themselves to be on the front lines of a war against all Muslims.
Decidedly not my intention, if that's the way it comes across, sorry.
So I'll ask differently, how do you solve the problem of extremism in the Middle East Loren? Is it by trying to change(or insert noninflammatory word for combat here) Islam?
Sorry, but having been there and talked to Afghan civilians, fighters, and a few of the hardcore zealots, you are conflating and confusing what actually happens.
Yes, there are a large proportion of insurgents - a clear majority - who fight for reasons other than religion. Yes, plenty of them fight because they get good money for it, or because they don't like the local police chief, or because ISAF bombed the wrong place, or equally they help us because the Taliban killed the wrong person. That is why we use a counter-insurgency strategy, because yes, the bulk of the insurgency are not motivated by religion. But then, your average Afghan has an odd relationship with Islam anyway, though they are definitely Muslims and think of themselves as such, they are first and foremost Pashtun, Afghan, farmers and other identities. Afghan ethnicities have still pertinent cultures which stretch back way before Islam - to a certain extent, in the minds of many Afghans, Islam was as much as an invader as anyone else has been into the country, and they do not wear their religion openly.
However, there are a hardcore, both in the Taliban and the foreign fighters who come from Pakistan, Chechnya, Iran, and Arab states, who are motivated by religion. Yes, they hate America and the West, but that hatred came from their inculcation in madrassas in Pakistan, the Iranian state mullahs or Wahabi-esque clerics. Islam came first. They hate America because their mullah told them to - they did not seek out Islam because they hate America.
To argue that because many people at a low-level are driven by poverty and practical concerns that everyone is driven by poverty and practical concerns is patently false. The drivers for the Afghan insurgency, the drivers for serious terrorism, and the kind of zealots who will act as suicide bombers or fly planes into skyscrapers do it for their religion. When they do so, they cry "God is great", not "Fuck America". Unless you have seen this up close, it can be quite hard to grasp.
I thought about this a bit more, and realised I was wrong. It's actually pretty obvious why someone could believe that politics and economics are more of a motivator than religion for people: because you may live in a place where religion has ceded to apathy and agnosticism, and politics and economics are more of a motivator for the people around you.
The problem with that is that it fails to appreciate the rest of the world. If you go to places which are properly, very very poor - such as parts of the mid-East, Pakistan, Afghanistan - you will find that the poorest people, though money is always a concern, are not motivated by money. How can they be - they never have any. Similarly, since such bad economic conditions rarely mean effective governance, politics is seen as an irrelevance.
Instead, people in those conditions find something else to latch onto. Some have great pride in their culture, or the little they do have - most all of the villages I went to in Afghan were populated by people who were a hundred times more houseproud than the fussiest design-junkie Londoner or New Yorker. Religion is one of the most common things to cling to across the poorest parts of the world. It has such pervasive importance that far from disliking Christians in poor Muslim countries (or vica versa in parts of Africa), what they really can't stand is atheists or agnosticism. If you come from the east coast of the US or the more secular parts of Europe, until you have seen these places, it is very hard to grasp just how religion guides every part of their life in these countries. We used to understand it hundreds of years ago when we had the same circumstances in parts of society, but have lost it in the past century. It's why I'm not, after thinking about it, remotely surprised that people treading a very urbanised, educated, liberal academic view of the rest of the world don't actually seem to understand it that well.
But if you can't look outside of your own experience and acknowledge that things are different elsewhere, you are going to get it badly wrong. I'd suggest getting out and seeing some of these people and places, and see if you feel the same afterwards. Hell, you don't even have to leave the states. Do a red state roadtrip, you'll find it there.
Remove those problems and the religious problems will lose sway pretty quickly.
Its worth pointing out I have acknowledged the core group at the heart of any extremist group is going to be more ideologically pure, in the case of radical Islam, motivated most heavily by their interpretation of Islam.
3x: Define your terms.
I need to define extremism in the context of the middle east?
You said that religion was a poor motivator compared to politics and economics. It is a fantastic motivator compared to politics and economics. It's just that rich people who get their way tend to be less religious. You seem to have adjusted / clarified the argument to say that religion is simply more prevalent where people are poor and disenfranchised. That is certainly true, but so general as to be useless.
It still doesn't address the fact that a huge section of Islamists who turn to violence and terrorism today, whether in their own countries or elsewhere, are motivated by religion. Yes, to solve the problems of the mid-East and Africa over a century, address the underlying economic and political problems. But if you want to solve the problems of today, you have to accept that religion is a driving force. If you don't, you are being both intellectually limited and, worse, implicitly perpetuating the problem: this isn't a static issue, or one that is limited to the mid-East. Particularly in Britain, it has been for a long time a local issue. For far too long we let obvious extremism thrive in the UK and elsewhere in Europe under the banner of not wanting to criticise Islam, and we have seen the results.
It is possible to criticise religious extremism without criticising all religion: Islamists are not the same as Islam. But refusing to accept that religion has any functional part to play at all is to be in denial.
Yes.
Terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalism, how's that?
Sorry, but anyone who can't understand the idea of multiple or complex causality after it has been explained to him over two pages by several people probably isn't going to get it.
Good for you for being interested in practical results, but you aren't going to see any long-term results of economic and political development without addressing the fundamental problem of radical Islam, because it will burn and consume that development long before it has a chance to take hold. Luckily for us, interest in practical results doesn't equal influence over practice.
And beyond that, what exactly is the proposal to address 'Sometimes religions cause violence in some of their members'? Send a letter to 6.5 billion people asking them kindly to consider becoming humanists?
Also Loren: Define "Define" "your" and "terms" please. And "3x:".
Loren, this entire thread needs to have defined terms.
What defines a religious person? What defines a religious nation? What defines a free nation? What defines freedom? Who has final say over what is and isn't a core belief of Islam? Are Christians or Muslims required to hate homosexuality? If you're a pro-choice, GLBT-friendly believer, can you still count as a member of any specific religion?
This argument can't go anywhere when it centers around so many nebulous and undefined concepts.
An academic complaint:
Earlier you said: "Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence."
This indicates to me that your usage is at least somewhat inconsistent, given that "removing religion" (clearly a thought experiment, not anything practical) would clearly get rid of Islamic fundamentalism.
A less pedantic complaint:
I've been talking about the riots that ensued after the book burnings. Riots, unless there are pretty specific intentions behind them, are not terrorism. There is, I'm sure, a component of Islamic fundamentalism... But again, take away the religion (thought experiment again), and you wouldn't have the riots. They're pretty clearly religiously motivated, which was, again, my point. It's not a front for something else, it's people pissed off for religiously motivated reasons.
This is silly, its completely impossible to argue for or against this as its not only entirely hypothetical, but not realistically achievable under any scenario.
You could very well just write "take away irrational and destructive behavior and you wouldn't have the riots." In fact, at least that statement would be silly but true, we don't know that these riots wouldn't occur in the absence of religion (would nationalism or racism simply take religion's place?) but, logically, if the riots are irrational and destructive and we remove that type of behavior they can't happen.
You know what? We wouldn't need to argue about any of this if humanity was completely immortal and resources were unlimited! If we're going to go with thought exercises that have no basis in reality, we might as well go for the gusto and solve all the world's problems at once.
I'm happy to assume we're all on the same page until I notice a problem, until I'm not sure what someone's talking about. There's always a degree of uncertainty about what people are talking about, so it obviously isn't practical to get into definitional tangents on every little thing. I'm happy to clarify when I can (but I think another thread would be needed to get into what exactly religion consists of).
It's a thought experiment. It's not supposed to be practical, don't act like it is.
EDIT: I'm not even the person who brought the concept up. Fuck off.