Obama: No Religion is Responsible for Terrorism

I say Obama is very ignorant of what Islam really is.
Islam is not wholly a religion per se.
Islam is closer as a fascist ideological way of life comprising an element of a very dogmatic religion amongst other inclusive elements of life, i.e. politics, economics, cultural, social, etc.
Islam is comparable to other negative ideologies like Nazism, Communism, Italian fascism and the likes.

The basic element of religion within Islam is its soteriological purpose, i.e. assurance of eternal life in heaven. But this assurance is conditioned upon the other various aspects of its way of life which condemns and calling for the oppression of non-Muslims towards world domination and kill them if necessary.

Such commands and examples are dictated in its holy books, the Quran and other associated texts.
Therefore for many Muslims, if they do not follow the dictates and examples of Muhammad, they are doomed to hell. This is the main reason why there are so much terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims around the world in the past, currently and will be in the future.

IMO, Islam is in part malignant and responsible for terrorism committed in the name of Islam, Allah and Muhammad.

The many Muslims who are moderates are in fact diluting the original pure Islam by imputing modern human values. These moderates [better human beings] are lesser Muslims than the genuine fundamentalist Muslims [the regressive humans].

Do you think Obama is aware of this real truth about Islam or is he such an ignorant person or is he trying to be political correct so as not to offend the Saudis and others re the oil factor?

Here is the original real Islam which is active amongst many Muslims. Note even at 30% were talking of 450 !! million Muslims.



So every Atheist criminal is a criminal because of his anti-God belief, his Secularism Religion?

Very few atheists will claim that they are moral BECAUSE of atheism. Ecmandu is the only one I’ve ever met, but to be frank, and no offense Ecmandu, but he has expressed a number of other silly ideas as well. For most atheists atheism has nothing to do with their morality. How could it? How could one claim to act good or bad BECAUSE they DON’T believe in God? Atheism doesn’t contain a moral dimension, it has nothing to do, good or bad, with the morality of the individual. It’s merely a rejection of the exclusively theistic types of morality. If there was only one functional type of morality, and it was a theistic one, then yeah, atheism would by definition make a person immoral.

Theism on the other hand can put forward God as the source of heterogeneous morality to which theists adhere to. That’s why if a person derives their morality from their belief in God, certain good AND evil actions can be attributed to that specific belief in God.

Atheists avidly complain that believing in God CAUSES bad behavior. So it is reasonable to accept that NOT believing in God merely causes different bad behavior. Which behavior is worse would be a very, very complex subject, which doesn’t mean that they are even.

It does NOT call for oppression of non-Muslims.

You are ignoring all the statements and actions of Mohammed which demanded peace and respect for non-Muslims.

That doesn’t follow.

I’ve already explained the difference, but I’ll do it again:

Theists sometimes claim they derive their morality from God, who is then the source of morality and a belief in such a being can cause moral and immoral behavior and that’s why theism can be held accountable for moral behavior (good or bad).
Atheists almost never make such claims and state that atheism has nothing to do with their morality, for how could it? They usually use empathy, reason, societal norms, intuition etc. for grounds for morality, in other words, a person’s atheism has nothing to do with their morality other from the fact that it excludes the possibility of their morality being theistic in nature.

I think we need to understand exactly what the islam religion is…and Obama makes a good point about most muslims are not anymore interested in terrorism than most Christians…I don’t think most people have studied islam or Christianity…

As a atheist I realise that my moral views are free of the idea of a god, and so must be generated by common sense, decency and filtered through an understanding of toleration and free thinking.
Atheism itself is contentless. There is nothing in it that necessitates any particular view, belief or ideology.

It empowers the truth of the matter; that morals are human inventions, not exhorted by divine power.
But atheism makes no suggestions and carries with it no rules or dogma.

The dangerous ones are the ones that actually read those bloody books thinking they are the word of god. This seems to give them licence to tell people what to do, and to act in draconian ways.

Obama is trying to keep the lid down on Islamophobia, by spreading the myth that Islam is a religion of peace. This might work on the dull minded.

gods people can be a problem…

I think you really need a little punctuation here.

Gods!! People can be a problem.

God’s people can be a problem.

Gods’ people can be a problem.

I need your help lev…I am a dummy

People can be a problem and people can be a solution to a problem.

Either everyone is God’s people or no one is.

Obama is pointing out common sense. The fact is out of the one billion members of Islam,
what number are actually “terrorist”? Less then ten thousand and I think that number is over stated.
So out of one billion people you have less then 10 thousand being “terrorist”. Ok, that is less than
.01 percent of all Muslims. Now to accuse a religion of being an accessory to terrorism and
having less than .01% of that religion actually being “terrorist”, I think that would pretty much
decide the matter. The issue is the fact that the vast majority of Muslims don’t publically
reject “terrorism” that is the issue. You have a vast “silent” majority who don’t reject the violence.
Until you get that, “terrorism” will continue to be a problem. If Islam is actually about peace, then
violence should be condemned by the members of Islam. I don’t hear that condemnation. It should
be worldwide and publically otherwise the religion of Islam has “terrorist” speaking for it, the .01%
of Islam and not the 99% of peaceful member of that religion. We in the west condemn actions done
by religious fanatics, actions that are done in our name. Members of the Islamic religion will continue
to be criticize by the west until the people of the Islamic religion criticize violence done in their name.


Atheism at it’s core is the principle of non-contradiction of motive, which will always be the perfect north star to perfect ethics. Religion cannot claim this. In fact even atheists are holier than religious people. because the go through the pains of existential anguish without the belief that wrongs will be righted or life is even fair, so when they are good it is a PURE goodness, and when they sacrifice, it is a PURE sacrifice. No religion can claim this.

By the way, I think Obama was wrong to say this.

I think he was trying to say certain persons encourage terrorism…it is unwise to attack religions because you are also attacking the good parts of religion…you are being too black or white…

What good parts? I just gave you the proof that atheism is better at formulating ethics and the people of atheism are purer than theists when they are good people. He flat out lied.

I know what you said…I do not like when someone says they are SUPERIOR to me…

Obama is paid, and therefore he says such a nonsense. It is a self-evidence for all islamic terrorists (fundamentalists, ideologs), a matter of course, that they speak for all islamic people, that they speak for the islam, thus not for “islamism” ( :laughing: ). “Islamism” is an Occidental invention as much as every “ism” is an Occidental invention. No “ism” is invented by others than Occidental humans.

There are three kinds of so called “revolutions” which threatens the modern Occident:

  1. One “revolution”: the “Occidental revolution”.
  2. Two “revolutions”: the “Occidental revolution” and the “White revolution”.
  3. Three “revolutions”: the “Occidental revolution”, the “White revolution”, and the “Colored revolution”.

The islam as islamism (Occidental spoken) belongs to the “Colored revolution” in the Occident.

Islamic people do not call their islam “islamism”, although the Occidental people do it, if they speak about the extreme or funfamenatistic islam. That’s the point.

The “Colored revoultion” in the Occident - islam/ism and other religions / ideologies (i.e. voodoo/ism) included - will only end, when the Occidental modernity will end.

Before the modern times of the Occident there was merely one real foreign threat for the Occidental culture: the islam!