Assuming Religion's NOT to Blame

[felix_dakat]

@d0rkyd00d

@Felix

That said, religion has been used to justify aggression motivated by nationalism, or ethnocenticism or for that matter egotism. When that happens religion is complcit in the evils committed in its name.

So are you arguing that some people commit atrocities in the name of religion, but are conscious of the fact that it’s actually due to nationalism? Or are you saying they are unwittingly committing these acts due to nationalism, but think it’s because of their religious belief?

Consciousness varies with them as it does for us. Let’s take the example that the leading atheist exponents Harris and Hitchens have attributed to religious motives, i.e. Al Qaeda’s 911 attack. Had the U.S. not tampered in middle eastern affairs for years, Al Qaeda would never have attacked the U.S. What motivated the attack? Retribution for U.S. tampering in middle eastern affairs is the sufficient cause. The extremity of their sucidal/homicidal methods was proportionate to their rage and their relative powerlessness compared to the U.S. Religion’s role in the thing was secondary: the sacralization of national and ethnocentric values.

We would understand this motivation if we imagined any nation messing with us the way the U.S. has in the middle east for decades. Need I list examples?

[d0rkyd00d]

Hi Felix,

@Felix

Had the U.S. not tampered in middle eastern affairs for years, Al Qaeda would never have attacked the U.S.

You can’t possibly know that to be true, but I’m not disagreeing with your point. Even the CIA mentioned that blowback was one of the primary causes of 9/11.

And as for those who orchestrated the attacks (at the top level), part of it very well might have to do with the U.S. meddling. But how much of that meddling was interpreted by Al Queda through the veil of religion? In other words, would their reaction have been as severe if they didn’t have their religious convictions?

Also, the beliefs at the top eschelon don’t necessarily equate to those at the bottom. Suicide bombers might be pissed off at the U.S. enough to blow themselves up, or they might not. But throw in 72 virgins, the promise of everlasting life in bliss for them and their family, etc…

When asked, how many suicide bombers say they do it primarily because they’re upset with U.S. meddling?

[felix_dakat]

@d0rkyd00d

Hi Felix,

@Felix

Had the U.S. not tampered in middle eastern affairs for years, Al Qaeda would never have attacked the U.S.

You can’t possibly know that to be true, but I’m not disagreeing with your point. Even the CIA mentioned that blowback was one of the primary causes of 9/11.

And as for those who orchestrated the attacks (at the top level), part of it very well might have to do with the U.S. meddling. But how much of that meddling was interpreted by Al Queda through the veil of religion? In other words, would their reaction have been as severe if they didn’t have their religious convictions?

Also, the beliefs at the top eschelon don’t necessarily equate to those at the bottom. Suicide bombers might be pissed off at the U.S. enough to blow themselves up, or they might not. But throw in 72 virgins, the promise of everlasting life in bliss for them and their family, etc…

When asked, how many suicide bombers say they do it primarily because they’re upset with U.S. meddling?

Well let’s start with what we do know. Osama bin Laden himself was not anti-American until about 1991, when he changed, for several reasons. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia refused to allow him to carry out a jihad against Saddam Hussein. He wanted to lead an attack against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. The Saudis and the U.S. didn’t want him to. He was irritated at that. But the main reason for Al Qaeda terrorism were the U.S. is occupation of Saudi Arabia. We put armed forces in a couple Saudi cities to protect the Saudi royal family. So, he and like-minded arabs became anti-American, as they had been anti-Russian when Russia occupied Afghanistan.

Now imagine that Saudi Arabian or Sudani, or Pakistani forces occupy a couple of cities in the United States. Would you need religious motivation or justification to see that as an affront? to resist? to defend? to attack? When the American colonies were occupied by British troops was it primarily religion that motivated them to resist and ultimately rebel and declare independence? The primary motivation is not religion. It’s a feeling I would think you could understand.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Felix

Well let’s start with what we do know. Osama bin Laden himself was not anti-American until about 1991, when he changed, for several reasons. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia refused to allow him to carry out a jihad against Saddam Hussein. He wanted to lead an attack against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. The Saudis and the U.S. didn’t want him to. He was irritated at that. But the main reason for Al Qaeda terrorism were the U.S. is occupation of Saudi Arabia. We put armed forces in a couple Saudi cities to protect the Saudi royal family. So, he and like-minded arabs became anti-American, as they had been anti-Russian when Russia occupied Afghanistan.

I’m not arguing with any of this. As I mentioned in my previous post, the CIA lists blowback as one of the primary reasons we were attacked.

@Felix

Now imagine that Saudi Arabian or Sudani, or Pakistani forces occupy a couple of cities in the United States. Would you need religious motivation or justification to see that as an affront? to resist? to defend? to attack?

No…but I wouldn’t blow myself up in a crowd in a U.S. city, either. Additionally, if asked why I attacked, I wouldn’t say it was for the will of God…I would say it’s because another country is invading ours.

@Felix

When the American colonies were occupied by British troops was it primarily religion that motivated them to resist and ultimately rebel and declare independence?

Not that I know of. Did most of them say it was because of their religious beliefs that they rebeled?

And on a side note, Felix, do you believe religious belief has absolutely no influence on peoples’ actions, that there are always other underlying motives?

[felix_dakat]

No…but I wouldn’t blow myself up in a crowd in a U.S. city, either. Additionally, if asked why I attacked, I wouldn’t say it was for the will of God…I would say it’s because another country is invading ours.

You perhaps are exceptional. But oppressed people thoughout history have done what they felt they had to do to oppose disproportionate force. I don’t know if you are aware of this but violent resistance did not begin with the Islamists. The slaughter of civilians was used enthusiastically by the U.S. during most of 20th century.

Not that I know of. Did most of them say it was because of their religious beliefs that they rebeled?

No they listed their greivances much as Bin Laden did in 2002:

The US, Israel and Western Allies support Israel and persecute Palestinians
 The US violates the sanctity of Muslim Holy Lands by placing troops in Saudi Arabia
 The US undermines Islam by supporting secular regimes
 The US undermines Islam by exporting Western values
 The US obstructs establishment of Shariah (Islamic law)
 The US, Israel and Western allies plunder the Middle East oil at paltry prices
 The US and its allies are killing Muslims with impunity
 The US and UN sanctions and bombing starved Iraqi children
 The US has attacked us [Muslims] in Somalia, and supported the Russians in Chechnya, the Indian oppression in Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon
 The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons, but takes no action against Israel for developing nuclear weapons, missiles and submarines.

And on a side note, Felix, do you believe religious belief has absolutely no influence on peoples’ actions, that there are always other underlying motives?

No, I think religion is part of the whole kit of being human. Most of what people do is motivated by what they perceive to be in their own interest. Next they act on behalf of their kin. Beyond that they may act on behalf of a group of which they are a part be the group a gang, a political party, an ethnic group, a nation or a church. At the group level motivation is usually mixed rather than pure and simple as you would have it.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Felix

You perhaps are exceptional.

I’m exceptional because I wouldn’t blow myself up in a crowded U.S. city as a result of another country building military bases in ours?

@Felix

But oppressed people thoughout history have done what they felt they had to do to oppose disproportionate force. I don’t know if you are aware of this but violent resistance did not begin with the Islamists. The slaughter of civilians was used enthusiastically by the U.S. during most of 20th century.

I have no disagreements with this.

@Felix

The US, Israel and Western Allies support Israel and persecute Palestinians
 The US violates the sanctity of Muslim Holy Lands by placing troops in Saudi Arabia
 The US undermines Islam by supporting secular regimes
 The US undermines Islam by exporting Western values
 The US obstructs establishment of Shariah (Islamic law)
 The US, Israel and Western allies plunder the Middle East oil at paltry prices
 The US and its allies are killing Muslims with impunity
 The US and UN sanctions and bombing starved Iraqi children
 The US has attacked us [Muslims] in Somalia, and supported the Russians in Chechnya, the Indian oppression in Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon
 The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons, but takes no action against Israel for developing nuclear weapons, missiles and submarines.

Fair enough, a good mix of social, national, and religious grievances. I am not as willing to separate religion completely from the mix as you are.

@Felix

No, I think religion is part of the whole kit of being human. Most of what people do is motivated by what they perceive to be in their own interest. Next they act on behalf of their kin. Beyond that they may act on behalf of a group of which they are a part be the group a gang, a political party, an ethnic group, a nation or a church. At the group level motivation is usually mixed rather than pure and simple as you would have it.

What people perceive to be in their own interest I think is often quite obviously influenced by their religious belief, as in a direct correlation. My evidence is their first hand account, their word.

[Xunzian]

Dorky,

Given that suicide attacks began during the Soviet-Afghan War and the nature of that war was territorial, I don’t see how suicide attacks can be viewed as a religious instrument. Especially since the Vietnamese used the same sort of tactics during America’s war there. It just so happens that we are dealing with the afterbirth of that conflict, as you already agreed. It is the same tactics, merely writ large. What I am trying to say is, the conflict is nationalist in nature. It wouldn’t be swapping a bomb-maker for a neighbor-beater, it would be swapping a bomb maker for a bomb maker. Religion is inert in this case. If suicide bombers are blowing them selves up for religious reasons, why on Earth would there be secular suicide bombers in Communist areas and why would so many religions lead to such an end?

Also, I think you are overlooking many of the elements that lead to one opting to become a suicide bomber. You’ll note that Osama Bin Laden didn’t strap dynamite to himself and take out a crowded mall. That’s because he, and others like him, can afford to pay others to do it for them. Which brings us back to the issue of poverty. When someone can’t provide for their family, two things happen very quickly 1) a scapegoat is found and 2) alternative means of employment become attractive. Mercenary work, marauding and prostitution are both very common expressions of this phenomenon. If you cannot provide for your family, you are worthless. And you are worthless because of someone. Suicide bombing creates a solution to the second problem, since their families are compensated and they allow the bomber to strike back at those whom they perceive to have caused the situation. Everyone’s interests dovetail nicely. This is particularly common in Palestine. Another tactic used by radical Madrassas is to take in disaffected, relatively isolated youth. At that point, it becomes like any other programing center, a total social environment that gears its students towards the end of blowing themselves up.

I also think that you are making suicide bombing out to be more than it is. It has become, as I have been saying, a very standard tool used in asymmetrical warfare.

MMP,

As usual, I think our views on this matter are closer than they may occasionally appear in the polemic of discussion. I do think religion does have a macro effect on some things, abortion in the US as well as the fallout there with respect to things like embryonic stem cell research. Likewise, I think religion does have a drastic influence on the various metanarratives that any given person is likely to be engaged in. It just so happens that I think religion is the incorrect metanarrative to appeal to in the case of war and many other mass-movements within society. Even the abortion debate in America (or Ireland, for that matter) ought be framed that way. Within a broader nation, there are ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ groups. Progress isn’t symmetrically applied to a country. Ironically, those areas left behind by progress are more likely to perceive themselves as ‘authentic’ and the beneficiaries of progress as ‘inauthentic’. The beneficiaries of progress, on the other hand, tend not to think in those terms because they have other metanarratives to attend to (progress being one of them! The authentic/inauthentic divide doesn’t work very well within that paradigm).

In America, there have been successive waves of this process, so there are many groups that have been ‘left behind’. During the 80s, some conservatives noted that many of these groups had a common bond of Christian belief. So that belief, and others like it (the so-called ‘wedge issues’) were exploited to further conservative aims. Don’t believe me? Which has the American Republican Party done more while in power (executive, legislative, judicial, or some combination of the three including all three!) satisfy those wedge issues (such as making abortion illegal or legally classifying affirmative action as discrimination, making English the official language of the US, effective policies to curb illegal immigration, and so on) or pursue a rather radical economic agenda? Which you’ll note is the same economic agenda they wanted to pursue before their fusion with the Religious Right.

It is the same deal with anti-colonialism, nationalism, and retributionism with respect to Islam.

[felix_dakat]

Xunxian-- excellent points.

No doubt the militant Muslim Arabs and Persians have demonized us–the Great Satan. Are we any different when we demonize them rather than try to understand them as human beings like ourselves? The suicide bombings are no doubt designed to incite fear. But what about “shock and awe”? Is high tech secular killing in any way better than low tech up close and personal killing? We have killed far more Muslims indiscriminately in Iraq than they have killed us. Will you blame it on religion if they try to even the score? A sense of fairness is after all instinctive whether one attributes it to Allah or natural selection.

[d0rkyd00d]

Don’t make me take this to the Chamber of Debate…my gloves are hanging on the wall, ready to be used for the first time.

@Xunzian

Given that suicide attacks began during the Soviet-Afghan War and the nature of that war was territorial, I don’t see how suicide attacks can be viewed as a religious instrument. Especially since the Vietnamese used the same sort of tactics during America’s war there. It just so happens that we are dealing with the afterbirth of that conflict, as you already agreed. It is the same tactics, merely writ large. What I am trying to say is, the conflict is nationalist in nature. It wouldn’t be swapping a bomb-maker for a neighbor-beater, it would be swapping a bomb maker for a bomb maker. Religion is inert in this case. If suicide bombers are blowing them selves up for religious reasons, why on Earth would there be secular suicide bombers in Communist areas and why would so many religions lead to such an end?

I’m not claiming that religion has the monopoly on suicidial destruction, just as I’m not claiming guns are a religious instrument because a fundamentalist Christian kills an abortion doctor with one…essentially, there is more than one reason somebody can blow themselves up. You seem just fine saying somebody with some nationalist belief system will blow themselves up for nationalist reasons, and yet you won’t admit somebody with a religious belief system is capable of the same. BOTH kinds of beliefs can lead to deadly actions.

@Xunzian

Another tactic used by radical Madrassas is to take in disaffected, relatively isolated youth. At that point, it becomes like any other programing center, a total social environment that gears its students towards the end of blowing themselves up.

Really, I guess, I’d need to know a few things. I’d need to know what kind of programming they teach these people. Is the majority of it religious? Political? Social? Even then, we’d be speculating as to the underlying reasons that they do what they do. If they say, “I kill the infidels for Allah,” but the underlying reason is really political, as I was asking Felix, is this just unbeknownst to them? Are religious beliefs more deeply imbedded than nationalist beliefs?

@Xunzian

I also think that you are making suicide bombing out to be more than it is. It has become, as I have been saying, a very standard tool used in asymmetrical warfare.

There are lots of tools used for violence. I’m talking about the underlying beliefs that cause people to employ these tools. I’m not sure we’re on the same page.

[felix_dakat]

If they say, “I kill the infidels for Allah,” but the underlying reason is really political, as I was asking Felix, is this just unbeknownst to them? Are religious beliefs more deeply imbedded than nationalist beliefs?

I don’t have any special source of information about suicide bombers say that you don’t have access to Dorky. I have never heard one quoted as saying, “Allah told me to blow myself up but I have no idea why he wants me to do it.” The ones I have heard of are always connected to organizations like Al Qaeda or Hamas that clearly have political grievances. They have been Arab Muslim rather than Muslims of other ethnicities. So I think it is safe to say that the motivation is not purely religious as Harris and Hitchens want to portray it in their effort to blame religion.

[Mad_Man_P]

Something you might want to bring up at this point is that islam actually IS a political system. Unlike christianity it dosn’t stop at morality, it dictates policy and government too…

just like christianity spells out how abortion or contraception is a sin, so does islam preach what political system we ought to have according to God. And just like some christians ignore those texts about stoning gays or choose to have abortions anyway, so too do some muslims ignore the political system suggested by Allah… But it’s there in the holy book just the same and their political issues with the west are very much colored by their RELIGION… not just their personal opinions.

[felix_dakat]

@Mad Man P

Something you might want to bring up at this point is that islam actually IS a political system. Unlike christianity it dosn’t stop at morality, it dictates policy and government too…

just like christianity spells out how abortion or contraception is a sin, so does islam preach what political system we ought to have according to God. And just like some christians ignore those texts about stoning gays or choose to have abortions anyway, so too do some muslims ignore the political system suggested by Allah… But it’s there in the holy book just the same and their political issues with the west are very much colored by their RELIGION… not just their personal opinions.

Well yes. If islam is not merely a religion but also a political sytem, then the matter is already more complicated then the anti-religions would have us believe. I am not saying that religion is not a factor. I’m saying religion is not the only factor and not the primary one.

Another atheist, Karl Marx, said religion is the opiate of the masses. If so, then the function of religion in world affairs is not primary. The primary motives are economic and political. Religion is used by the agents of power to cover the real factors that are “to blame.”

Religion is not the best word here because religion in this sense is a subcategory of ideology. Ideology covers the secular quasi-religions such as soviet-communism as well as the more traditional religions. According to a Marxist analysis Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology that uses religion to drug the people in order to prevent them from recognizing the real power factors that are “to blame.”

The masterminds of Al Qaeda and the like have been so effective that they have fooled anti-religionist “brights” Harris and Hitchens into believing that religion is the primary cause for their terrorist activities instead of a drug to anesthetise people to their true motives.

[Mad_Man_P]

I’m trying to imagine a speach involving how western secular/democratic culture is being spread like poison in that it takes away from the powers of the clergy, without using religion… I can’t quite think of anything that would sit very well with the muslim population.

“You ought to hate the west because they give their children secular education, allow people to be atheists, vote and enjoy strip shows… and they would like for us to have those options too, which is bad because we (your leaders) won’t be in power, but rather you the people will be.”… hmm… no… not quite worth blowing yourself up over… Say that within a religios context and suddenly that seems like a horrid crime on the part of the west…

“You ought to hate the west because they don’t teach their children about Allah, do nothing to prevent them from becoming heathans, their government is ultimately determined by the whims of godless men and they sell sin as a product… And now they are trying to force us to live as they do! and if they succeed it is at the cost of our children’s souls”… hmm… that sounds a wee bit more motivating… no?

It’s very hard to recruit people to do much of anything short of appealing to something they personally hold dear. I agree religion is not the only form of blinding ideology, but alas two wrongs don’t make a right… So It is hardly any kind of excuse to bring up the fact that there are other “isms” just as bad or worse…

[moresillystuff]

@Mad Man P

It’s very hard to recruit people to do much of anything short of appealing to something they personally hold dear. I agree religion is not the only form of blinding ideology, but alas two wrongs don’t make a right… So It is hardly any kind of excuse to bring up the fact that there are other “isms” just as bad or worse…

valid reasons for bringing up other isms is to 1) remind people that the isms may not be the root of the problem and 2)if the believers of one ideology are committing crimes that equal those they are blaming the other ism of. I think this can be seen more clearly if neo-conservatism is used rather than secular humanism.

[Mad_Man_P]

@moresillystuff

1. remind people that the isms may not be the root of the problem

Well no… human nature is the root of the problem… but seeing as how we are capable of being rational and supress our instinctive drives towards tribalism and violence I’d say evaluating the “isms” is a good place to start.

2)if the believers of one ideology are committing crimes that equal those they are blaming the other ism of.

Hardly a defense, then they both need to go… try to remember that atheism isn’t strictly speaking an “ism” it’s a non-ism… A-THEISM, NON-THEISM… theism is the only “ism” in A-theism…

[moresillystuff]

@Mad Man P

Well no… human nature is the root of the problem… but seeing as how we are capable of being rational and supress our instinctive drives towards tribalism and violence I’d say evaluating the “isms” is a good place to start.

I would say that violence is primarily cultural in humans. And mass murder has to have a high component of reasoning involved. You have to make a case that a category needs killing. Instincts can cause hot blooded violence. But you need to make a case to kill millions. You need to coldly go about developing an argument and convince people. You need words and deductive reaonsing - however fallacious.

Hardly a defense, then they both need to go… try to remember that atheism isn’t strictly speaking an “ism” it’s a non-ism… A-THEISM, NON-THEISM… theism is the only “ism” in A-theism…

I know that atheism is not an ism in the same sense - in most cases. However that wasn’t my point. I would love to see a more general skepticism about isms by atheists, and I do not see this. What I see is a recognition of the cruder isms and their negative effects, but a generalized blindness to (slightly) more subtle forms of ism. For example the primary ones running the business world, which are, in turn, running the world.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Felix

There are many problems with religion, but religion is not the problem.

@Felix

That said, religion has been used to justify aggression motivated by nationalism, or ethnocenticism or for that matter egotism. When that happens religion is complcit in the evils committed in its name.

@Felix

I am not saying that religion is not a factor. I’m saying religion is not the only factor and not the primary one.

Well, we’re making progress.

MadMan, we’re pretty much in agreement.

I’d like to argue that religious belief is THE primary problem. Maybe xunzian or felix will take my up on the challenge in the debate forum…otherwise, I’d be happy to finish it out here.

[felix_dakat]

@d0rkyd00d

@Felix

There are many problems with religion, but religion is not the problem.

@Felix

That said, religion has been used to justify aggression motivated by nationalism, or ethnocenticism or for that matter egotism. When that happens religion is complcit in the evils committed in its name.

@Felix

I am not saying that religion is not a factor. I’m saying religion is not the only factor and not the primary one.

Well, we’re making progress.

MadMan, we’re pretty much in agreement.

I’d like to argue that religious belief is THE primary problem. Maybe xunzian or felix will take my up on the challenge in the debate forum…otherwise, I’d be happy to finish it out here.

Dorky --If “we’re making progress” means that you think you have advanced the argument you made in the OP then no we are not making progress. In the OP you wondered “maybe I’m being simplistic” and you got that right. Your thesis suffers from the black and white thinking that characterized George Bush’s “War on Terror” from the get-go. It’s no coincidence that that reactionary period launched the popularity of new atheists Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Whatever is “THE primary problem” must include the whatever it is that motivates those dudes on their divisive crusade.

[d0rkyd00d]

Would that “black and white thinking,” for example, be when I conceded that the underlying motive of violence, generally speaking, is poverty, NOT religion?

I hadn’t seen you mention before that religion is one of the problems…until now. I’d consider that progress.

I agree that I was being simplistic in my opening post by attributing violence in the Middle East solely to religion, but I think it’s equally simplistic to state the main problem is nationalism, or social issues, or poverty.

I’ll go into more detail if somebody takes me up in the Chamber of Debate; otherwise, I’ll go into more detail here.

[felix_dakat]

Dorky–

How you can concede that the problem is primarily poverty on one hand and primarily religion on the other? As I see it the problem with humans is human nature. Everything that emanates from human nature including religion is marked by that estrangement from the ground of our being which Christians call “sin”. Utopian idealism whether it is Christian, Islamic or atheist which locates the problem in the other and attempts to solve it by persuasion, adjustment, or eradication of that other is a manifestation of THE problem not a prescription that will cure it.

I applaud any progress we may have made toward better understanding. I’m not really interested in a more formal debate since my “better angels” participate in this forum to exchange ideas and not to win in a zero/sum competition.