What to call terrorists?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
T2
“DELUSIONAL MINDS OF GOD BELIEVERS”

IRT:
"I see no rub. Just a joke about the delusional minds of god believers.

"I didn't call any God believers small minded. I called another atheist small minded. Get some reading glasses?"

ANS:
Really? Got my glasses and it still reads the same. Maybe its you who need the glasses.

DITLD,

I'm shocked to hear you equate standard suicide with suicide bombers. I don't think they are related at all. I'm also shocked to hear you call terrorism just meanness and spitefulness. I am ever shocked that you do not listen to the terrorists telling us why they are doing it. They often make long winded videos before they blow themselves up explaining in great detail why they are dong it. And there you sit in America playing armchair psychiatrist telling us that these suicide bombers don't really know why their doing it but you think that you do?

Why do yo not take them at their word? Have you ever seen one of these videos? They go on and on about the glory of God and how happy they are to give their life for his cause. Why do you deny these heartfelt and honest confessions? Why do you look for some other reason?

I know there are plenty of muslims who are not terrorists and I stand by my analogy that there were plenty of people who believed in witchcraft who did not burn witches, it doesn't mean that belief in the supernatural was not the problem. It was the problem then and it still is.

Persiflage,

Thanks for the heads up. It does seem a little out of character for Susan but perhaps if it's not her she will speak up again and make note.

In her article, she made the classic mistake of saying "if I were a believing Catholic I would take the logical position of X" not realizing that if she were a believing Catholic she would not be thinking logically on church matters. It does seem a little out of character for her to take such exception to being mildly called out on that as to respond with such venom. If it is really her, I must have touched a nerve, and I think you pegged what nerve that would be.

Hey Timmy. I'm following the current Jacoby thread, and I have to tell you that I have some doubts about the poster that is using the Susan Jacoby handle. This is not a new doubt. I just don't see the real Susan Jacoby intellect in these posts.

I could be wrong here, but the posts coming from this individual do not seem at all up to the standard that our 'beloved' columnist is capable of.

For example, I doubt that she would single you out as a prime example of a 'fundamentalist atheist'. I don't see you that way, and as for myself, I'm likely to be seen as opposing the Catholic Church on every issue - and I do this from a position of knowledge and experience at every opportunity.

I haven't added to Jacoby's late entry thread on this topic, because I'm already bored with the topic of Vatican stupidity, Papal cupidity, the denegration of women, and so forth. Objections to this clerical medievalism can only be expressed in the strongest terms - and you have not even remotely approached 'strong' on that thread.

Now of course Susan is a former Catholic, and could be harboring secret sympathies - but I really doubt it.

So again, I couldn't agree with you more, and I wonder if you've actually engaged the real Susan Jacoby.

Navin

I understand what you mean. And i go along with it. I do not disagree with your sincerity and good intent.

But morality and eithics, on a sincer level, a level of good faith, is a parlor game that very people are in on.

In the world outside the parlor window, people do what they must do. Someone throws a bomb, and you throw one back. And then you go to church and pray, and say, "Thankyou God for loving someone as good as me."

And this contingent improvisaiton is what gets people through their days and through their nights.

PSolus

"The government is the ultimate authority. ... It is an authoity above parental authority, but below God."

I do not know if anyone is still reading or not. I was not confused when I made that statement; I just did not say it the way I meant it.

I am aware that people who do not believe in God do not appeal to the authority of God. I was make the point about government, that it is a high authority that rules over our lives, in a way that is similar to the way it is supposed by some people that God rules over our lives. But I just said it quick off the top fo my head.

Timmy

I am just going from my own experiences of my brother who killed himself May 21. He was a problem for my family for a very long time, before he did that one final thing. And although we do not know just why he did it, I think there was a little meaness and spite involved. He probably had what he thought was a very good reason, but to me, he was just very mixed up.

I think that every suicde bomber, with no exceptions could probably be described the same way. I have met a lot of Muslim people who did not seem to love death more than life; that seems like a political slogan or a cliche.

People make up their minds to do what they are going to do, for personal and psychological reasons, snd then they invent some reason to justify it, so it will all seem to make sense, even though it does not.

The slogan is "we love death more than you love life." But notice that Bin Laden ran like a bunny. That is just his lure, for the mentally disturbed, but he does not actually believe it himself.

I consider the leaders of Islamic terrorism to be cool, sneaky operators, of a psycopathic type, and I consider the foot soilders to be disturbed people who need medical care, rather than expolited as human fodder.

Daniel-
"And if you try to analyze the totality of what a person is, or what a nation is, it does not make alot of sense."

unless we accept that human beings are complex, multidimensional entities that don't have to make linear sense - that we are made up of conflicts. Then, the fact that we have complexes is no longer the problem, the problem becomes which complexes we have and why. To me, there is biological foundation to who we are and a social foundation - these are givens. But we also have the choice of what ideology we choose to believe in - We choose who we want to be - our highest good, our version of a good truth. In that choice we act on free will. We may fail at actualizing it, we it is what guides our own choices, what we should take full responsibility for - not givens but true moral agency.

hariaum

Each of us has to consent to the government. We may not consent fully, but we consent enough to stay and pay taxes.

Each of us has a disagreement with our own government and likely with other governments. We have opinions of how the world is and should be.

So it is reasonable to ask each other, in what way do we agree or disagree with the governments to which we consent and to those to which we do not consent.

Likewise, it is reasonable to consent, partially or wholly, to a set of doctrines and to ask each other what parts of those doctrines we regard how.

Now we can argue the similarity between fear imposed by government or paramilitary or ideological hate groups. But that is not the question, really. Since we know all governments engage in the use of force, the use of force or coercion to impart social systems is not in debate.

The question is, how do we separate the terrorist from the non-terrorist. If terrorism is as legitimate as war, then Israel should carpet bomb Gaza, the US should nuke Iran, nuke the major cities in Saudi Arabia and take over the oil fields, develop genetic, India should carpet bomb Pakistan, etc and the normal "good" state is a state of constant war.

The idea then becomes a question of what personal ethics we hold for ourselves. When are we willing to say another person has the right to kill us. Note that this is different than the idea that we have the right to kill someone else. The last is a personal ethic, the first is a universal ethic. If we can define when a person has the right to be a terrorist, then we can argue if one is legitimate or not as a personal question of morality and, for those with a spiritual bent, spirituality.

I do not believe Israel, India, the US, Denmark, China, or even the Sufi worshiping Pakistanis will ever win the hearts and minds of radical islamists. If these groups can not win the hearts and minds of their enemies, sworn to destroy them, then we must use government to oppress and destroy them.

General principle: If I am not willing to let you live your life, then you are justified in attempting to kill me.

- if you can not accept polyideological systems of beliefs, then those systems of beliefs have the right to defend themselves.

if you have the right to use terrorism, then so does your enemy.

I don't buy that. I believe there is a higher moral. But the sad fact is, that if Jihadist and others can not see the difference between blowing up a night club or volley ball game v blowing up a military-industrial complex, then their morality is not morality at all but simply pretense of such.

hariaum

Is meanness and spitefulness the same thing as mental instability? Are these two separate reasons for suicide bombers or part of the same reason. Mental instability causes meanness and spitefulness?

Just trying to clarify, is terrorism just meanness and spitefulness as DITLD says or is it just mental instability as DITLD says? Which one of DITLD's reason behind terrorism is the real reason?

Pending further evidence I'm sticking with the answer that comes straight from the horse's mouth. For the Glory of the one true God.

"The government is the ultimate authority. ... It is an authoity above parental authority, but below God."

Someone appears to be confused.

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Welcome back. I was being facetious about mental illness in light of a post positing that believing in God is a mental illness of the delusional sort.

No doubt, the terrorists may be deluded into thinking they can overthrow countries and systems, or to win hot wars. Terrorist leaders, unfortunately, are not idiots even if they are crazy enough to go against the tide of mainstream thinking and laws. They know how to couch their cause in language they think will appeal to their target group. They have organisational, fund-raising, recruitment and networking abilities.

A perception is that suicide bombers resorted to such tactics either due personal convictions of the "cause", or due to demeaning personal experiences and hopelesness. However, there was a study done on Palestinian suicide bombers by two American academics. I wish I could remember their findings on suicide bombers, including who and why, as well as the academics' names.

As for what you stated, i.e. suicide bombers having a history of mental instability, if checked, yes, there is one clear case of a female suicide bomber in Iraq. She was determined to be mentally unstable, yet released from hospital, the terrorists strapped her with bombs, let her out in the street and caused a lot of deaths.

Looking at the cases of terrorists apprehended in Indonesia and charged in court for the Bali bombings and the Jakarta bombings, it is apparent the foot soldiers are mentally off. Their leaders, including Azahari and Noordin M Top, were killed trying to fight off and avoid being captured. Azahari was chilling in even preparing a paper on the impact and effect of the Bali bombings, including deaths of civilians, before it was executed by their foot soldiers.

The terrorist leaders seem to have "clarity" of mind, obsessiveness and persistence in pursuing their objective. I don't know what is the appropriate medical term for these cold blooded maniacs who have no compunction, no remorse in persuading or using, and sending suicide bombers to commit murders on their behalf in targeted areas.

I am not too happy my government use the Internal Security Act as preventive measures for those they identified as terrorists. This act is controversial in allowing detention without trial. If terrorists are charged in court, we can really see how mentally warped they are on what they say they want to do, or have done and to be meted out punishments under the law for their crime of mass murder.

Wow, I am in awe of this WaPo software.

I type up my comment, and then I edited it.

Then the second version which was more correct got posted first, and the first version which is the rough draft, got posted second.

I think it has something to do with the "refresh" function,but it seems a little weird.

"I do believe that all of them would have a history of mental instability, if people checked"

If people checked???? You think that people just haven't checked???? Wow. Anything to deflect the blame away from religion. This is political correctness to the extreme. Well people have "checked" Danielson. Studies have been done and you have either missed them or ignored them for some strange reason. I have done quite a bit of reading on suicide terrorists and their mental states, particularly the 911 terrorists. Not a single one of the 911 terrorists showed any signs of mental instability according to doctors who studied then cases of their lives leading up to 911.

I'll throw your own logic back at you on this one. But Daniel, what about all of those mentally unstable people who do not strap bombs to themselves and blow things up in the name of God? There are millions of mentally unstable people who do not go around blowing themselves up along with women and children. So clearly mental instability is not the culprit. Right? Isn't that how the old religious apologist line goes for religion?

It's so pathetic the stretch people are willing to make to be politically correct and try to divert the blame away from childhood cult indoctrination. DId I say pathetic? I meant to add irresponsible. Why do we not listen to the terrorists themselves? They have told us straight up time and time again why they do it. For the glory of God. You have a confession and you won't listen to it for some strange reason. I Just don't get it.

So tell me Daniel, since there are more suicide terrorists coming from the culture of Islam than any other these days, what you are saying is that Islam is turning out more mentally unstable people than any other culture, are you not? I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn if one is so assured that mental instability is what causes terrorists to blow themselves up.

Either way, Islam seems to be the culprit, does it not?

For Jihaidst and Navin and the all the gang

The government is the ultimate authority. Its ultimate authority comes from force, which is reserves to itself, alone. It is an authoity above parental authority, but below God. But the way in which people regard these these succeeding authorities is similar. We look up to and appeal to a "higher" authority, which may take care of us, and help us, or may abuse us and hurt us, whom we may love, or whom we may fear and hate.

What we make of our own personal experiences, and what we make of national events are all improvised; we encounter a flow of succeeding experiences, and after the experiences, we say what they mean. We try to give logical meaning to the different modes of government, and we try to get everything to line up and agree in our minds, the government, the laws, how we feel about life, the religions that we practice, our cultural heritage. We try to say that we a Bible-belieivng Christians, and we also glory in our history born of violent revolution, and we look at the problems of the Indians, and the problem of slavery, and we try to think of all kinds of ways to justify all of the events of history, even to say that those people back then wer not as good as we people are now.

But it is all improvised and made up as we go. We take a look at Ghandi, and India, and Satyagraha, and we wonder that this does not even seem possible, and we stick it in our memory under a certain category of "something pretty good," but we continue on, in our improvisation of life and of history, and of improvised justification.

In the West and in N. America, we pride ouselves that we live under the rule of law. By this, we acknowledge that laws can operate over every aspect of life, and we are obligated to comply with them. But there is not any piece of paper or document, no Constituion that causes this rule of law; it is just our cultural heritage, that we are raised from birth to think of this as the way we live, and we go by it, and swear by it, even though a lot of us drive over the speed limit, or avoid taxes, or smoke marijuana, or hire illegal aliens to trim our shrubs.

In principle and in general, we believe in the rule of law, but we improvise our way around this also, when there is something urgent that is more important.

Nations improvise their way in life too. We appeal to the UN for assistance when someone else is doing something wrong. But we condemn the UN as a meddlesome beaurocracy when we are doing something wrong.

Thou shalt not kill is what we learn in church. But we improvise our way around this, if a war is just, or for some important national interest, because God supports our country, and does not support our enemies. It is all improvised on the fly, and then justified for some good purpose, later.

That is how it is for every nation, and for every religion, even for every person. Our philosopy and outlook on life is designed around all the things that we ahve already done, that have defined ourslves.

For Jihaidst and Navin and the all the gang

The government is the ultimate authority. Its ultimate authority comes from force, which is reserves to itself, alone. It is an authoity above parental authority, but below God. But the way in which people regard these these succeeding authorities is similar. We look up to and appeal to a "higher" authority, which may take care of us, and help us, or may abuse us and hurt us, whom we may love, or whom we may fear and hate.

What we make of our own personal experiences, and what we make of national events are all improvised; we encounter a flow of succeeding experiences, and after the experiences, we say what they mean. We try to give logical meaning to the different modes of government, and we try to get everything to line up and agree in our minds, the government, the laws, how we feel about life, the religions that we practice, our cultural heritage. We try to say that we are Christians, and we also glory in our history born of violent revolution, and we look at the problems of the Indians, and the problem of slavery, and we try to think of all kinds of ways to justify all of the events of history, even to say that those people back then wer not as good as we people are now.

But it is all improvised and made up as we go. We take a look at Ghandi, and India, and Satyagraha, and we wonder that this does not even seem possible, and we stick it in our memory under a certain category of "something pretty good," but we continue on, in our improvisation of life and of history, and of improvised justification.

In the West and in N. America, we pride ouselves that we live under the rule of law. By this, we acknowledge that laws can operate over every aspect of life, and we are obligated to comply with them. But there is not any piece of paper or document, no Constituion that causes this rule of law; it is just our cultural heritage, that we are raised from birth to think of this as the way we live, and we go by it, and swear by it, even though a lot of us drive over the speed limit, or avoid taxes, or smoke marijuana, or hire illegal aliens to trim our shrubs.

In principle and in general, we believe in the rule of law, but we improvise our way around this also, when there is something urgent that is more important.

Nations improvise their way in life too. We appeal to the UN for assistance when someone else is doing something wrong. But we condemn the UN as a meddlesome beaurocracy when we are doing something wrong.

Thou shalt not kill is what we learn in church. But we improvise our way around this, if a war is just, or for some important national interest, because God supports our country, and does not support our enemies. It is all improvised on the fly, and then justified for some good purpose, later.

That is how it is for every nation, and for every religion, even for every person. Our philosopy and outlook on life is designed around all the things that we ahve already done, that have defined ourslves. And if you try to analyze the totality of what a person is, or what a nation is, it does not make alot of sense.

Dear Jihadist

I have been away for a few days, so I am trying to catch up. I read some of your posts. I would like to reply, in a complimentary way to some of them, but I am trying to collect my thoughts, so that I can be brief.

But on one particular thing, you referred to mental illness, as a cause of terrorism.

I do not believe that suicide bombers kill themselves for political or religiou purposes. That is just a script that they use, that other people have given to them.

I do believe that all of them would have a history of mental instability, if people checkecd. I believe that all them have been a difficulut problem for their families, and friends, and killing themselves for "Islam" is merely the culmination of their mental troubles, as many mentally ill or depressed people end up that way, for supposed reasons.

The terrorists are the ones who seek out these people, who are already sick, and lure them into their twisted view of religious heroism, and make them think that killing themselves is really better than living.

MONO1.

"islamic theology and ideology established internal and internationnal justice and peace coexistance for more than 1400 years,
open your mind as well as your heart and read the islamic theology and ideology at least do your self a favor and read some history,since global ignorance is much dangerious than global terrorism."

We Americans -- and Canadians -- learn history from movies and TV shows. Until recently, we have been entertained and amused by Islamic characters -- Auda abu Tayi, in "Lawrence of Arabia," and impressed with their wisdom and stoicism -- Sherif Ali, same film. There is also Ali Baba, Sinbad the Sailor, Aladdin, and, of course, Scheherazade.

In movies and cartoon TV shows, we see no suicide bombers or sexual mutilation of females. Are these new activities the Islamics just started to do, or were these activities merely left out of the movies and cartoons?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
T2
“CLOSED MINDS ARE SMALL MINDS”

IRT:
[There is no delusion in believing in God; nearly the whole world does]

“Nearly the whole world used to believe that it was flat”

ANS:
Yes, but they got over it after they saw the truth. Some people never get over it even when the see the truth, because they are afflicted by its starkness. God's existence has been known since man began, from the Resurrection of Christ, and is still growing in the face of the Jewish hierarchy who murdered its Founder and persecuted His followers. Nothing ever made by man has ever lasted as long and remained unchanged in Her teachings and belief than the Catholic Church. That alone is testimony to Her divine origin.

Though Church suffered through the many oppressive persecutions by Jews, Romans, and the daughters spawned by the Atheists, a.k.a. Communism, Fascism, Shintoism, and Animalism. She has grown stronger, and the remnants of Atheism's facetiousness are strewn along the highway of life in confusion and despondent disconsolateness. In the entire Atheists' efforts to suppress the Church, She still persist; Her teachings remain unchanged since Jesus instituted Her, and She is stronger than ever.

G.K. Chesterton writes, “We are living through a time of clarification in which the moral and spiritual vision of Catholicism is increasingly distinct from, and therefore, increasingly a challenge to, the advance of secularism. The choice is evident. The result more unified and dedicated to the extent that She lives Her calling faithfully, how can She help being an attractive alternative to Her sterile competitors?"

Chesterton remarked that there was a special pleasure "to be had in sailing through a violent storm of Her oppressors when you know that the ship cannot sink. The winds may blow and the waves may pound, but the tempest never lasts, or the wind changes direction so often that it can never seriously threaten to overturn the vessel."

IRT:
[It’s said the worst moment for an atheist is when he’s really thankful and has no one to thank]

“It keeps me up at night, I'll tell ya.”

ANS:
That speaks volumes to the existence of God. Thomas Dillon had that same problem in the “Hound of Heaven.” Try denying your pride by going to Church and praying to see the Truth and you may be able to get some sleep.

IRT:
[Of course, to be an Atheist, it takes a lot of deluding one's self into believing that there is no God, that the world formed itself and created all the natural laws that govern it]

“I don't have to believe that the world formed itself to disbelieve in your God. This is the flaw in your argument. I can disbelieve your God theory based on its own merits without needing to have an alternate theory for how the universe began, if it began at all.”

ANS:
The beginning of things led to Aristotle’s demonstration of the necessity of God. That is one of the conduits of reality that lead to God’s existence. That is an obstacle to your belief that you can’t explain, and so you ignore it as you ignore all the logical proofs of God’s existence. That’s the ploy of Atheist sophistry; they ignore what they can’t answer and hyperbolize the half truths their unsubstantiated beliefs are based on.

Consequently, you incredulously ignore the Natural Law (NL). Of course, if the NL matters, you have to believe that order presupposes a Supernatural Intelligence. Thus, you ignore it. If you deny all the things that God manifest Himself in, then you must deny all of reality, and that's what Atheists witlessly do.

Of course, no one could believe in God who blindly denies reality. But who can be so dimwittedly dismissive as to deny the nemesis of their own haunting conscience, centuries of recorded history, the order of the Universe, and unquestionable evidence of miracles but an Atheist?

Who, but an Atheist, can be witness to a system of moral principles and beliefs that when denied by the twisted daughters of Atheism (Communism, Fascism, Materialism, Animalism, and Shintoism) are devastated in the wake of Her everlasting truths? History is witness to their profligate legacies strewn on the way sides of the highway of life, their people devastated in the wake of Her everlasting truths.

Who could contradict reason, deny their own conscience, and dismiss the universal concepts of Morality and Social Justice but an Atheist? The Atheists, while denying the efficacy of these moral exigencies so critical to man and so elegantly defended by the Church, ironically must depend on them to proclaim their professed denials of truth?

"Atheism as a negative which relies upon the positive it. It is the supreme example of a simple faith. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement by which the atheist lives, is an atmosphere of thrilled and shuttering theism, and not of atheism at all; it is an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. If there were not God, there would be no atheists” (G.K. Chesterton).

If you say so.

how islamic world responded to global terrorism?

islamic theology and ideology established internal and internationnal justice and peace coexistance for more than 1400 years,
open your mind as well as your heart and read the islamic theology and ideology at least do your self a favor and read some history,since global ignorance is much dangerious than global terrorism.

the islamic world responded as this,
1-more islamic knoweldge,
to the islamic world as well as the non islamic world,
nothing control global terrorism beter than spreading the correct islamic knowldge,in the short and long run.

how juchristian world responded to global injustice and terrorism?

they sent saint georgio di democraz carrying hi,st weapons of mass destruction not only to iraq and AF but all the way to the black sea???

what theology and ideology juchristian world is ready with to control global injustice and terrorism ???

what ideology secular none religion world is ready with to control global injustice and terrorism???

good ideology always beat bad ideology .
bring yours if you so truthfull.

Yes, both. Still, I get it.

Not sure if that one was a whimper or snit fit. I think it was both.

"We do? Speak for yourself. I laud no such people."

This is news?

Mommy, I didn't do it. I didn't do anything. He did it. She did it, They did it. I never do anything, have never done anything. Everybody else did it, I didn't do it. I promise.

I get it.

Jihadist

"Interesting, is it not, we laud those who seek to unite people who are of the same ethnic and/or religious groups by conquest and expansions"

We do? Speak for yourself. I laud no such people.

- "For a thousand years Hindus had tried to overthrow the yoke of Islamic then Anglican colonialism."

- "Gandhi realized that good people don't want to kill their enemies. We just want them to go live their life and let us live ours. Because of this, most good people don't want to pull up a gun and kill someone."

Navin1/Hariaum

*******************************************

Interesting, is it not, we laud those who seek to unite people who are of the same ethnic and/or religious groups by conquest and expansions - from the Maura kingdom in India to the Majapahit kingdom in the Malay archipelago. But we won't stand for it, can't stand it, if another ethnic or religious group seek to conquer and unify us and call them colonialists, imperialists, expansionists, hegemonists and what have you.

India is not only the biggest democracies in the world, but one of the most vibrant and continuous democracy since it independence from the British among the so-called developing countries/emerging markets.

And yet, there are more sectarian and ideological violence and deaths in India than in totalitarian, mono-lingual, mono-ethnic states such as China or Vietnam. We can tolerate sectarian violence in democracies, but not in totalitarian states because those folks resorting to violence in totalitarian states are fighting against a good and just cause against their totalitarian governments? And those folks fighting against their governments in democracies are terrorising, violent criminals?

Government by consensus, by consent of the community, democratic governance is the best form of government of course, warts and all in developing countries/emerging markets especially the multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religous ones.

"I'm convinced. Accordingly"

I care.

Jihadist

"More probable the people you know and love be killed by diseases and road accidents than terrorists"

And so we ought just let the terrorists be?

Murder rates are always lower in totalitarian states.

People fear terrorist because terrorists are successful in creating terror - someone might kill you and the people you love just because you went to a night club.

Navin1/Hariaum

*******************************************

Yes. Murder rates are "lower" in totalitarian states. There's only dissappearences and no bodies found, thefore no proof of murder. There's only deaths due to forced displacements of populations. There's only deaths by sickness in camps. There's only deaths due to cultural revolution. There's only deaths due to re-education etc.

Perhaps people also fear terrorists because of state induced fear by their measures including colour-coded level of alerts; enacted preventive laws; the terrorists are threats to ways of life; terrorists will cause the end of civilisation as we know it?

In authoritarian states, opposing groups designated as terrorists, or are termed as terrorist by their acts of violence is Godsend for these states to enable them to maintain, sustain, or increase authoritarian measures for peace and security.

Anyone who believe terrorist groups will succeed in becoming the new global hegemonic global hyperpower need to seriously consider his/her level of fear of terrorists on the "fight on terror" scale.

More probable the people you know and love be killed by diseases and road accidents than terrorists. Countries where there are armed conflicts, where the government is the target, where the government did not manage sectarian differences well and justly need to have better intelligence, enhanced understanding of gripes and to increase security measures. These are the blinding flash of the obvious.

"Every statement you make reveals how little you know about me."

OK, right -- making the same statement twice, I'm convinced. Accordingly, I retract. "I think I was still believing in your beliefs."

MONO

"both fools are disgrace and insult to the allmighty creator god"

How can an almighty creator god be disgraced? You mean if the other gods got a look at our god's creation (us) our god would be ridiculed in god circles?

And how can an Almighty creator god create a disgrace? Doesn't sound very almighty to me. Unless he did it on purpose. And that would be a rather jerky thing to do.

So many things that just don't make sense about this almighty creator god theory.

"Every statement you make says that you believe in yourself, and nothing but yourself"

Every statement you make reveals how little you know about me.

nothing fail nations like human halluicination.

fool 1 said ,
there is no god

fool 2 said there is god and god has to come down and set things straight?

what is the common denomination between the above 2 world typical fool uncommonsenser?

fool 1 deny god at all

fool 2 deny the attributes and charactteristic of the allmighty god who doesnot need to come down and put on human flesh and eat food and take toilet to set things straight,

what is funny people beat the hell out of the god who came down to earth and nailed god on the cross and his blood is all over the necks of the world?
what a delusional drama,typical divino comedia of the delusionism of greco/romanism.

both fools are disgrace and insult to the allmighty creator god.

what is more funny ,
the above two bloody fools are pointing their bloody fingers at the other people theology and ideology.

For the next 30 years, I believed as you believe.

"You should stop saying that. In all of your comments it is quite clear that you haven't a clue what I believe."

Oh, but I do know what you believe. Every statement you make says that you believe in yourself, and nothing but yourself -- unless you've been lying, or are schizophrenic.

By the way, "you shoulds" went out a long time ago. Where ya been?

All who contribute here should very much enjoy Family Guy episode "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"

Hilarious.

religous extemists is a mild term for a person who blows up innocent people believing in some sort of holy martydom. I call that one face of the war like drug cartel and genocide and famine corruption call it pure evil.It crawls into many belief systems that misled but he has one master

Twisty,

"There is no delusion in believing in God; nearly the whole world does"

Nearly the whole world used to believe that it was flat

"It’s said the worst moment for an atheist is when he’s really thankful and has no one to thank"

It keeps me up at night, I'll tell ya.

"Of course, to be an atheist, it takes a lot of deluding one's self into believing that there is no God, that the world formed itself and created all the natural laws that govern it"

I don't have to believe that the world formed itself to disbelieve in your God. This is the flaw in your argument. I can disbelieve your God theory based on it's own merits without needing to have an alternate theory for how the universe began, if it began at all.

"that there are no universal moral laws, and that the world was formed by sheer mindlessness"

Again, I do not have to believe any of these things to disbelieve your God posit.

"Moral subjectivity is another obstacle for atheists"

Not at all.

"Little minds believe the Universe created itself, which is anything but common sense"

I don't know anyone who believes this. But I know many people who disbelieve in your God.

“Men do not have to persuade themselves that "there is a God," they have to convince himself that "there is no God."

I do neither. I leave it an open question with all God theories laid out so far having been discredited. But I'm still listening.

"He further degrades himself even more by leaving his inalienable rights to the capricious disposal of man"

I trust my fellow man. They are the ones who actually wrote the words of the fictional character, Jesus.

"The Atheist incredulously must believe that his rights are a matter of chance"

Not a matter of chance. A matter of the collective will of the people.

"If morality is subjective, it becomes meaningless"

Not in a society it doesn't. The individuals that make up a society have their own set of morals, and the society has an amalgamation of the most common morals. Morals are meaningful to all of our lives if we live in a society.

"So until the Atheist can solve all the problems that he's created by his assault on “common sense,” he cannot go around claiming people who believe in God are small minded"

I didn't call any God believers small minded. I called another atheist small minded. Get some reading glasses.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TIMMY 2
“COMMONSENSE”

IRT:
"I see no rub. Just a joke about the delusional minds of god believers. I'm trying to do something about the small minds but you just won't listen to common sense."

ANS:
That’s kind of ironic for an atheist to say they (those who believe in God) won’t listen to common sense that eludes them.

The little minds are those out of sync with the world; that are trapped in their own world of disbelief. There is no delusion in believing in God; nearly the whole world does; the delusion is believing there is no God and acting on such belief.

It’s said the worst moment for an atheist is when he’s really thankful and has no one to thank. Of course, to be an atheist, it takes a lot of deluding one's self into believing that there is no God, that the world formed itself and created all the natural laws that govern it, that there are no universal moral laws, and that the world was formed by sheer mindlessness. Further, one must believe that there is no such thing as “inalienable rights” and that morality is subjective.

Moral subjectivity is another obstacle for atheists; viz. morality must be left up to God. Every time a despot starts making his own moral laws, he has some uninvited guests visiting him, namely, the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War and Death. That points to the disorder in the Middle East. The wrong ideology destroys the social order. The reason is; Morality is God's domain.

The Muslim is testimony that without a True God, man is helpless in governing himself. Every time man attempts to do so on his own, discord and distraught ensue. Hence, it is written, “With God all things are possible; with man nothing is possible.”

The Muslim religion as do all human religions, betray the exigencies of human nature. If there is any success of man made religions, it’s in direct proportion to its accord with Christianity.

Because Mohammad's religion was determined by man, it has the inevitable failures that are intuitive to man. Because of the frailty of man's reasoning, God had to come down and set things strait.

Moreover, God had to make sure that His laws would not be confused by the vicissitudes of faulty reason. Because God's Church was governed by man, God guards it from error in its universal teachings. Thus, any religion other than Christianity suffers from the fragile vitiations of "commonsense" and the vulnerabilities of human reason.

Little minds believe the Universe created itself, which is anything but common sense. Again, the universal judgment of man that there is a God can no more be wrong than the sense of an unconscious child knows he must breathe and eat.

Only the closed mind of the Atheist can see the order of the Universe and believe mindless compressed matter caused the natural laws that order it although the Atheist has never experienced such irrationality of chaos causing order in his entire life.

Our "commonsense" tells the simplest of men that the stamp of God's handiwork is clearly impressed upon Creation, and, above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe that the only explainable reason for such handiwork is that there is a God and those who deny His Existence are basket cases.

“Men do not have to persuade themselves that "there is a God," they have to convince himself that "there is no God." Only those who managed to disengage from reality and evince their gullibility are capable of doing so. Men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.” Hence, if there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

Further, our sense of Justice, our ability to know right and wrong inscribed on our conscience, didn’t come from compressed matter; it was God telling man why He created him. Nor are the concepts of love, kindness, and mercy products of chemical and mechanical reactions as the Atheist contends; its man's soul made by God to love and be loved.

The Atheist betrays his reason and denies his immortality. He further degrades himself even more by leaving his inalienable rights to the capricious disposal of man. The Atheist incredulously must believe that his rights are a matter of chance.

If anything is in contradiction to common sense it is to believe morality is subjective, but that is what an Atheist does. If morality is subjective, it becomes meaningless.

So until the Atheist can solve all the problems that he's created by his assault on “common sense,” he cannot go around claiming people who believe in God are small minded. The mind is small that seeks what is eternal happiness in a world that has nothing eternal, a world that is marginalized by its finitude. Hence, the small mind marginalizes and deludes itself into believing "what isn’t, is," and "what is, isn’t."

Labia mutilation rates are much higher in muslim states, this I know. And I'm pretty sure that honor killings are not reported as murders.

NAVIN

"But this last step, the egolessness and renunciation, do not really allow moral outrage for one realizes in one's own fallibility"

No renunciation necessary, no egolessness necessary. I have renounced nothing of my self or ego and I have no moral outrage or hatred towards any people. Logic and reason tell me that everyone is a product of both nature and nurture. I can look at history and see how today's religious people came to be that way through no fault of their own. And I can be pragmatic, as I am, about the problem and it the best way to overcome it.

Murderers and rapists are playing the hands they have been dealt. I have no moral outrage or hatred towards them. And I had to renounce nothing to achieve this. I am emotionless and pragmatic in my views and criticisms of religion.

There's no "letting go of the self" necessary. Logic and reason work better than anything in helping to avoid hatred. Don't anyone buy that snake oil salesman's garbage about renouncing your ego. Islam means surrender. It's the same concept. It's meant to get you to sell your soul to a particular religion. Don't do it. It's a scam. The Hindu scam may be more harmless than some of the others, but it's a scam none the less. Keep your self and your ego. You rock. And don't let any Hindu tell you otherwise.

"Murder rates are always lower in totalitarian states."

More likely, it's impossible to know what murder rates are in totalitarian states; officially, they are whatever the states say they are.

Murder rates are always lower in totalitarian states.

People fear terrorist because terrorists are successful in creating terror - someone might kill you and the people you love just because you went to a night club.

hariaum

As to the idea of outcomes, the world is well aware now of democracy. This has been growing for more than two hundred years. At some point the people of a state must take responsibility of why their state is not a democracy. Why are kingships, dynasties, sustained. A military Junta may come and go, that has to do with local power. But strong men die (Suharto) and their place is a vaccum that allows change - democracy. When Bin Laden goes out and supports Taliban in Afghanistan, why has he not supported a violent uprising in Saudi Arabia? It is because he believes in the right of his family to rule. He does not believe in democracy. When the muslim world supports him and his like to attack outside interests, they choose to blame the other for their problems rather than their own antiquated mindset of governance. Indeed, they support the idea that there should be dynastic islamic government. If muslim's want to effect change in their political world,it will not come by blowing up US interests or israel. It will come when they perform a sit in at Mecca that demands a democratic, equal rights, free religious expression, free press Saudi Arabia. Morhamed started at Mecca (and yes Medina too). He began his reform at his homeland. The modern muslim will have to begin there as well. But if Mecca can not be a beacon of equality, tolerance, open heartedness, when Mecca is the self proclaimed center of Islam, then the center of islam can never be a beacon of equality, tolerance, and open heartedness. The other solution would be that muslims themselves become the center of islam and the koran, mohamed, and spatial sites of worship disappear. This is the direction ofthe Sufis and this is why they were killed off by the serious islamists.

Nature has killed more people than anything man kind can devise. Resorting to the idea that nature is more violent than the islamic nations is nonsense. We do not demand of nature moral free agency. We do demand it of each other.

The comparison to war on drugs and war of terror as be somehow equivalent to the bombing of kids playing volleyball is incredibly empty. The mafia, the drug trade, and terrorists are legitimate targets of attack by a state opposed to these. A state, with legislative authority, and the people who support that state, have an interest in how the state runs and who has influence. It is supposed to kill those that would destabliize the state. No question the state will never reach 0 "collateral damage". But the state is meaningless if attacks on the state are left unanswered. When a terrorist attacks a few kids playing volley ball because they belong to the wrong group of sub-islamic culture, or a hotel because it does business with non-muslims, or a disco because it shows behavior that their moral outrage can not tolerate (not to mention that it proves people can be happy without their god), - this not the same thing.

A person acting to develop a political structure to increase human freedom needs to participate in bringing down extra - state operators, within state problems (institutional or individual). The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. If you are not willing to pay the price, you do not keep the gain.

If extra-state groups can not gain sufficient support to overthrow the state or to press their ideas in a free and open society, then they need to leave the free and open society, not blow up the Twin Towers. Further, they need to confront why their message is not garnering sufficient support, perhaps their message is wrong.

This was the real genius of Gandhi. For a thousand years Hindus had tried to overthrow the yoke of Islamic then Anglican colonialism. Gandhi realized that good people don't want to kill their enemies. We just want them to go live their life and let us live ours. Because of this, most good people don't want to pull up a gun and kill someone. The method of satyagraha is a political tool that good people can use and continue to see themselves as being good. I don't know, but I doubt there is a large incidence of PTSD in Satyagrahic fighters. And this method, that supports good people, allows them to in action disavow the hatred of the other and be avowed to the love of the totality of creation. Satyagraha reflects what is good in being a good person.

We give up the need for vigilante justice for stability and progression. Vigilante justice creates chaos and thus injustice.

I am not a believer in state for the state's sake, don't get me wrong. But we need systems of reproducible justice that allows us to address injustices done to us. Terrorism does not support that. Revolution can support that by creating "better" governance structures. But terrorism never does. For now, government is the best method to establish justice and a more perfect union. (and yes the capitalist are wrong about the invisible hand)

hariaum

God, if there were more of me, I'ld have to kill myself.

I have sat with people who largely agree with my ideas, we're a boring bunch. Get a few together with that ability to enjoy heated debated with humor and knowledge, now that's fun!

The "natural" tendency to hurt is different than the natural tendency to hate. We can hurt someone justly or unjustly. It is difficult to hate someone justly, without an ideology that promotes hatred. The fundamental need for hate is moral outrage. Moral outrage requires a moral system of beliefs that demands that there is a wrong way to do things.

Now this wrong way can be identified as what the book says or what a guru says (authority). Or this wrong way can be identified by apparent results of actions (teleologically or via utility). Or this wrong way can be identified by established principles (contract theory, constitutions, etc). Or this wrong way can be established by an appeal to universal principles (Human rights, Rawls, etc). But the individuals validation of moral outrage must come ultimately from the ego.

So moral outrage is ultimately the responsibility of so called free agents. Though the recognition of the qualifiers of free agency, ignorance about what is really going on, modifies culpability in my mind. As such, the intellectual (buddhi) based assumption of moral free agency takes full responsibility for one's actions and attempts to acquire sufficient knowledge (ved) to make such actions freely. But humility demands (if you choose to be humble) that one does not have full Veda. So the ultimate results, success or failure, is not really in the moral agent's hands. These two elements, egolessness and renunciation, form the moral system of the Gita, and later Rawles, etc.

But this last step, the egolessness and renunciation, do not really allow moral outrage for one realizes in one's own fallibility, the other's fallibility and limited Ved and thus limited buddhi and thus limited moksha (spiritual freedom). As on an infinitie scale, moving from 1 to 2 is a doubling but still not anywhere close to the infinite, the fact that I may know more or less than you on how to be free is meaningless when we worship the infinite of Truth and Love etc.

Remember, hate v hurt.

Now if your authority says it hates the infidel, it hates the idolator, it hates the heathen, it hates the other... then jsut as a government can be held responsible for its supporters hating and terrorizing the other, your authority can be held to be terrorizing. So one can say that the US is supporting war and economic exploitation and therefore doing hateful harm. But then one must also point out that the Koran supports war and economic exploitation and thus supports hateful harm. If some in the US don't support exploitation of the developing world, that does not excuse those that do. Likewise, if some in Islam don't support the belief that god hates the idolator, that does not excuse those that do. (and the biblical god hates the heathen....)

This is why I prefer the term mono-ideological over the term religion. It may well be that certain religions and religious elements promote hatred. But this is not unique to religions. It is prevalent even without a religion - communism, French secularism of the revolutions, whatever N. Korea is... and in my own thinking, though I try to control it with my wimpy buddhi.

I believe, it takes an ideology to teach hate. I am certainly not alone in this. I am sure bin laden believes that my Hindu ideology has made me hate him and that's why I don't respect his use of millions of inherited dollars to kill Hindus (to liberate future muslims of course). And, as such, I believe all ideologies have a potential to create hate. Until the ideology disavows hate - where god says god loves the totality of creation and that is why you must as well.

Clearly this idea is also present in most of the world's scriptures. But if the god is two faced and wants to kill the innocent first born of Egypt, or the Canaanites, or the infidels, or the heathen, (and later condemn them to eternal damnation) ... this god does not love the totality of his creation. This is the mark of a demigod, even a demon.

hariaum

In case none of the 142 other responders to this question have suggested this title, I recommend that we lable all terrorists EVIL PEOPLE.

Any act of terrorism is wrong. No exception. This is one of my ETERNAL TRUTHS. Violence is wrong. Hurting people is wrong.

Self-defense to prevent harm to self or others is justified, provided there is a real threat of harm. Even the use of violence in self-defense is justified if it is the only way to be protected.

Terrorist stretch this self defense argument to an absurd extent, arguing that their violent action on innocent people is an act of self defense against a government or religious group, or a different ethnic group that is trying to harm them, their families, nation, etc. Such logic is utter nonsense.

Do our past sins, and I'm sure we have some, justify terrorist acts, large or small? Absolutely not. There is no justification for terrorism. It is always an atrocity. It is always evil and wrong. May all perpetrators of terrorism suffer deaths more horrible than those they caused.

What can be done to prevent terrorism from happenin in the future, not only in the USA, but all over the world? The answer is not very much, particularly in countries with any degree of freedom and democracy. There will always be someone with an inclination toward terrorism, and there can never be enough police to control all of the behavior of all of the people. The potential for terrorism will always be a part of human society.

Love, forgiveness, and compassion have a vital role to play in the war on terrorism. These virtues need to be promoted and practiced by individuals and nations in every possible way, for these are the only preventive measures that will ever make this world safer and better.

Realistically however, until all people reject the use of violence, it behooves us good guys to love, forgive, and show compassion from a position of strength.

How does God fit into the terrorism puzzle? I think not very well. If there is a God, I think He/She/It must have no power to stop or fix the horrible things humans do, and I think such God must be sad most of the time because of our behavior.

In case none ofn the 142 other responders to this question have suggested this title, I recommend that we lable all terrorists EVIL PEOPLE.

Any act of terrorism is wrong. No exception. This is one of my ETERNAL TRUTHS. Violence is wrong. Hurting people is wrong.

Self-defense to prevent harm to self or others is justified, provided there is a real threat of harm. Even the use of violence in self-defense is justified if it is the only way to be protected.

Terrorist stretch this self defense argument to an absurd extent, arguing that their violent action on innocent people is an act of self defense against a government or religious group, or a different ethnic group that is trying to harm them, their families, nation, etc. Such logic is utter nonsense.

Do our past sins, and I'm sure we have some, justify terrorist acts, large or small? Absolutely not. There is no justification for terrorism. It is always an atrocity. It is always evil and wrong. May all perpetrators of terrorism suffer deaths more horrible than those they caused.

What can be done to prevent terrorism from happenin in the future, not only in the USA, but all over the world? The answer is not very much, particularly in countries with any degree of freedom and democracy. There will always be someone with an inclination toward terrorism, and there can never be enough police to control all of the behavior of all of the people. The potential for terrorism will always be a part of human society.

Love, forgiveness, and compassion have a vital role to play in the war on terrorism. These virtues need to be promoted and practiced by individuals and nations in every possible way, for these are the only preventive measures that will ever make this world safer and better.

Realistically however, until all people reject the use of violence, it behooves us good guys to love, forgive, and show compassion from a position of strength.

How does God fit into the terrorism puzzle? I think not very well. If there is a God, I think He/She/It must have no power to stop or fix the horrible things humans do, and I think such God must be sad most of the time because of our behavior.

Cold to say so...

Between the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror":

- more Americans are killed by drugs and drugs related crime than terrorists in the "war on drugs"; and

- more foreign civilians' rights are violated or died in the "war on terror" than terrorists.

Some fear terrorists because of what they said and stand for? Or, terrorists are feared by somne because of their acts of terrorism?

And which native speaker of English thought up the phrases "war on drugs" and "war on terror" instead of "war against drug producers, traffickers and abusers" and "war against terrorists"?

Quite a bit of discussion here about violence being "inherent" in Islam and Muslims and the Qur'an is a source for the violence among Muslims.

So it is posited regardless of the fact murder, suicide and crime rates in Muslim majority states are lower than non-Muslim majority states.

Muslim murderers seem to be mostly terrorists. And there's murder of civilians caught in the crossfire of opposing forces in conflict areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

More folks died due to drugs and drugs-related violence than to terrorism every year. And to road accidents.

Should we be afraid of terrorists hunted down everywhere? Not at all in this "war on terror", including being in a state of terror of terrorists.

More Muslims died of natural disasters than from terrorists acts, regardless of the spectular numbers in a terrorists act. Regardless of how the terrorists tried to cripple countries and governments, including the Bali bombings, the Jakarta bombings, the Mumbai bombings, terrorists failed to take over countries. Or to deter investments in countries investors regard as hot emerging markets, including Indonesia.

And so, for the other faiths which are said not to saction violence, and their their Holy Texts are said to be "peaceful", one has to find out why the adherents of those faith groups still commit violence and acts of terrorism. Must be due to their mental chemical or DNA quirks inducing them to commit violence and terrorism.

Oh, all the wondering about why Muslims won't "condemn" and "deplore" terrorists in "their midst"? You can't hear those in the din and preference of reports of terrorists pronouncements and bits about them dying for "72 virgins" in heaven.

And for Muslims trying to eke out a life to be above poverty line, living under authoritarian regimes caught between the devil (the murderous terrorists) and the deep blue sea (goverments violating rights); between a rock (the excitable and evangelical sorts harping on modernisation, liberalisation, democracy and freedoms) and a hard place (the excitable and evangelical sorts harping on the evils of western culture, greed and decadence), the terrorists are not quite No. 1 priority in obsession and concern. Only that the goverment hunt them down without abusing, without violating rights and laws.

"Read the Koran."

Ummm... No.

"For the next 30 years, I believed as you believe"

You should stop saying that. In all of your comments it is quite clear that you haven't a clue what I believe.

Does Islam breed terrorism? Can we make a connection between a man blowing himself up and taking innocent civilians with him and Islam? Should such a man not be considered a terrorist?

Read the Koran. Within that book, which I believe is as clear a totalitarian blueprint as any which has come to us, we have a clear message that Islam should be established no matter the price, no matter the suffering caused. Either one converts to Islam or one is the enemy. And the enemy must be made to feel the force of God himself, hence terrorized,--ideally destroyed by supernatural force, hence the desire of terrorists for stronger and still stronger bombs.

It is a constant reproach to Islam that any entity other than itself possesses power, let alone power to rival the Gods, such as the power of nuclear weapons. The greater the power opposed to Islam the more such a power must be considered enemy because only Islam must possess great power, the greatest power. We have within the Koran a statement of--the belief in--absolute correctness of position, that one is infallible, and the greater the statement of absoluteness by Islam the less tolerable it is that any entity other than Islam should possess power.

Here we have an idea gripping man to the point that even power to the point of the total destruction of the human race is tolerable provided the right side exercises this power. Islam can destroy the enemy to the point of the destruction of everything, including Islam itself, because it, Islam, is doing the destruction. For the enemy to exercise power only to the point of destroying Islam is a curse worse than the destruction of the whole human race from the point of view of Islam. So the task of all those concerned about Islam--that it fosters the most incorrect and dangerous of ideas--seems to be to inculcate the most correct and wisest of ideas in man before man becomes possessed by some mad idea.

But is it true that man just needs to have correct ideas instilled, that for example morality is something pretty much solved, that man is largely a moral creature, will behave properly, and must have correct ideas instilled only? If such is the case we have only to plant the right ideas in people's minds. But has man improved morally with the rise of his intelligence? Do we have a correlation between intelligence and morality? Once man was an apelike creature, six million years ago that was, but has he become a creature of infinitely greater morality since then? Has he even gained an iota of morality? It seems upon reflection a fool's game to believe that just changing a man's ideas will make him more of a moral being, that for example we take a child born in Saudi Arabia and raise him in America and he will be a better person.

Morality is not necessarily improved by having the correct ideas it seems. In fact it can be said that the Roman Empire prior to the rise of Christianity and consequent destruction of Empire had the right ideas in comparison to Christianity, that it was far more close to what we call reason than Christianity, but for all its reason it was a primal force, capable of great barbarity if not putting barbarians at bay by its truly extraordinary military organization. Christianity "improved" the Roman Empire, but at the price of its reason and clear will to dominance over all other peoples. Consequently, terminus of Empire. But today we have the strange notion that the correct ideas--reason itself--goes hand in hand with morality. Now this is not to say that an entity such as Islam with its incorrect ideas is morally equivalent let alone morally superior to, say, Western Civilization, but that we should not assume morality is automatically improved by right ideas let alone that man is fundamentally, or rather easily, moral.

That said, it should be noted that although correct ideas have not been correlated with improved morality we can hardly expect incorrect ideas to be our guiding force morally. Or that we should somehow dispense with our reason and become as animals to improve ourselves morally. It seems really we have no choice but to seek correct ideas and have morality deal with these correct ideas as they arise. And obviously by stating "have morality deal with these ideas as they arise" I am speaking loosely and not stating that morality is something set in stone and which we all know and which has only to deal with ideas as they arise. In actuality correct ideas alter moral outlook and there is really no telling what morality will become by the inculcation of correct ideas. The good news is that correct ideas can hardly be expected to endorse the bombing of innocent men, women and children.

But enough with the intellectual sophistication. Time to tap out the pipe. The tobacco is finished. The Koran--and not only the Koran among Islamic books--is a nightmare read. A book seemingly written by an adolescent. Repeatedly I have been struck when reading the Koran or Golden age of Islam books of the sheer childishness of presentation. For example I read Al-Ghazali's "Niche of lights" and we have passages where he says things such as "I could state more, but such would be beyond you, so be satisfied with what you have received". Constant mystification, vanity, high-handedness, pique, doublespeak games of taking the opposite viewpoint "just because" and so on. To a hard-headed Westerner such as myself constantly used to telling himself "tough sh*t, life sucks, go cry in a beer or get your ass off the ground" such writing is sheer poison. It seems to flatter the worst of impulses, in fact to magnify them to the point that the most petty of resentments are allowed to be satisfied by God.

To a less than average Westerner such as myself(financially below average, no woman in my life and so on) such books are a great danger. Specifically the Koran. Any book really which flatters weakness, encourages indulgence is a danger. But the Koran is in a league of its own. I have to wonder about the genetic composition of the Middle Eastern man. I have to ask if the constant warfare in that part of the world over the centuries has not resulted in a petty, quick to offense type of man looking to disguise every type of self-aggrandizement under the lights of a most superior type of being called God. This is not to say things are hopeless for Middle Eastern man, for after all the ancient Greeks achieved reason despite the constant warfare between city states, but still…Yes, there are men blowing themselves and others up in the name of Islam and they are terrorists. And yes, there are millions of Islamic people crying out about their own, personal innocence but doing absolutely nothing about the extremists in their midst.

Terrorists by name to the point of Islam, a religion of terrorism.

Well, Timmy, a most reasonable reponse. I always had a belief you could do it.

"I'm trying to do something about the small minds but you just won't listen to common sense."

Yes, Timmy, I was four years old, in 1942. At that time, I began to become aware of human doings. My father, a cripple (polio as a child, exempting him from the military), had maps on all of our livingroom walls, denoting the slaughter of millions and millions of human beings. He was working 12 hours a day, six days a week, installing the final refinements on tanks.

After those years, being aware of 50 million, or so, slaughtered, my next ten years were spent becoming aware of the 50 million Mao was slaughtering. A bunch of others were slaughtering, too, and they are still at it.

Yes, I entered adulthood being a bit of a skeptic, you might say. Then, I found it was easier to get girls, by adopting many of their views, which are mostly the same as yours. I was the first West Coast Hollywood person to become aware of the musical, "Hair," and became an avid promoter of same.

For the next 30 years, I believed as you believe. Then, having become $successful enough to work less and read more, I began a study that became, "How human beings got to be the way they are." I am not only a skeptic, again, I am a full, 100% atheist, I believe in nothing presented to me by mankind, except for the comforts I have gained -- mostly by staying under the radar.

Sir Winston Churchill, and many others, predicted I would have the world view I have, today.

Well, it's not all bad. The daughter I raised is a fully realized Buddhist, a disciple of B. Alan Wallace -- probably the most peaceful, and accomplished, American Buddhist/scientist alive.

My daughter was raised without hearing one word about a god or any religion -- yet, there she is. I think I was still believing in your beliefs, as my spouse and I raised this wonderful person. You would like her, a lot. And I love her, so there.

Still, in a democracy, there is room for all kinds, I hope. I've been lucky enough to be able to always hold up my end, working for peace, and by paying taxes in support of the military, and all the other things my government tries to do. Stumbling around, the USA is still the last best hope for all mankind -- regardless of my non-belief, I believe.

"Aye, there's the rub, ain't it, mate"

I see no rub. Just a joke about the delusional minds of god believers.

"It would be great if the populations were all you, and Navin, plus many others, here. It's not, by the evidence"

Because of everything I have been talking about. Childhood indoctrination into archaic cults. That's why I criticize it. one day we will stop doing it. And things will be better. Not utopia. Just better. Just like things are better now that we do not believe in witches. It's far from utopia, but it's a hell of a lot better than before.

"Might makes right -- join your army, today"

Old news, grandpa. But you are inconsequential now, thank God.

"The truth is that with our big brains..." (and small minds)"

I'm trying to do something about the small minds but you just won't listen to common sense.

"I'm so mad at God about this I don't believe in him anymore."

Aye, there's the rub, ain't it, mate.

All your reminder that life lives by killing "other" life -- aye, the scientific laws of the universe -- as humans know it.

It would be great if the populations were all you, and Navin, plus many others, here. It's not, by the evidence. Might makes right -- join your army, today.

"The truth is that with our big brains..." (and small minds).

As for all of this babble about the root cause of human violence, this also falls under the "well duh" category.

All one has to do is watch any wildlife documentary to see how violent life is for all living things. Ever see a polar bear kill a cute and cuddly beluga whale? What a horrific sight. The other night I was on my back deck and heard the blood curdling sound of a pack of coyotes killing a dear. I could hear the dear screaming in pain and the coyotes ripped into it's flesh. This is the real world. Violent violent and more violence. Why? Life must consume other life to survive. What a crappy set up. I'm so mad at God about this I don't believe in him anymore. As well as consuming other life, Life must also compete with other life for survival, whether it is your own species or not.

We are the first creature to evolve to a state where our brains have allowed us to create a situation for ourselves where we have won the survival game, for now. While we still must consume other life to survive, we actually do not even need to consume other mammals or be violent to anything other than plant life to survive, and who knows, one day we may not even need to be violent towards plant life to survive.

The truth is that with our big brains we have now developed enough technology and human wealth such that we do not even need to be violent towards each other at all. But our political state has not caught up to this reality yet. And so our animal instincts are still in "kill to survive" mode when the truth is, this instinct is no longer needed.

We are violent for one reason and one reason only. Survival. Personal survival and survival of our way of life, which to us is survival. Even if it doesn't look like a survival situation, our brains think that it is in the big picture.

But we have the capability to outsmart that lingering useless and now harmful instinct by looking around at the accomplishments of the human mind and seeing that in fact we no longer need to kill for survival but we can actually think our way towards a more peaceful existence.

All human violence these days is nothing more than our now misguided survival instinct. Don't listen to the misanthropes who tell you that greed and violence is anything other than an unnecessary survival instinct from the past that we can think our way around.

But how can we think our way around anything when most of the world is still praying to ancient Gods like a bunch of zombies and cult members, or bowing before the God that is their nation country.

It's not their fault. They were indoctrinated as babies before their skulls were even solid to believe in such things But we have to break this chain of ancient cult indoctrination of our children. And the only way to do that is to speak up, and criticize ridiculously primitive ancient superstitious god belief.

Religious apologists are asking us to come to terms with human delusion. How short sighted and irresponsible.

Kert1

As I said, I don't believe that it is possible for muslims to separate themselves from the ideologies of the Islamic terrorists unless they are willing to change many of the words and phrases in their holy book. Why won't they? Because of a poisonous idea. The idea the words in that book are sacred because they are the infallible words of the one true God.

I have read the Koran and it supports the terrorists actions in black and white. From what I have read, today's moderate muslims are angering God and practically living as apostates. They are the ones not living as true muslims. Unless of course, you change some of the words in the book. Why wont they? This is the root of poison that is religion. The sacred.

When you read the book, Islam is only a religion of peace when the entire world is finally islamic. Until then, it's holy war. Of course this was supposed to have occurred by now, after all they have God on their side. But it has not so most have given up on this dream and have tried to mold this archaic religion into something more compatible with co-existing with the rest of the world. But they won't change one word in the book, allowing any groups who want to go by the letter of the law of the book,as the book instructs, to have their deluded justification for any terrorist acts that they see as a blow for their God.

The poison idea is that it is somehow virtuous and noble to believe in something greater than yourself, invisible, but talks to special people here on earth or sometimes even takes their form for a while.

The poison idea is worshipping the invisible as described to you by the seers. It should not be considered virtuous and noble to be fooled by frauds. That's how religious zombie foot soldiers are created.

But this all falls under the "welll duh" category IMHO.

But you also pointed out the legislated assent. I am sure you know that there was legislated assent for great atrocities as colonialism, the genocide of the American natives, that of the Jews,etc. So I don't take that literally. But this creates a problem. If the state, with inferred legislative assent, acts in ways to sustain terror it is different than a small group without legislative assent that acts in ways to sustain terror.

- Navin1/Hariaum

*******************************************************************************************

Let us now widen legislated assent for violence into state legislated violations and state facilitated violations of rights and violence against specific groups, including laws pertaining gender, race and religion by their enacted rules, regulations and laws.

Legislated assent for violence would naturally include wars, both formally declared or otherwise, including on drugs, terror or countries. War against countries is clear, though the reasons given as “just war” are sometimes dubious.

As for state legislated violations of rights against specific groups, an example would be the ban on headscarves in Turkey, and the ban of burqas in France. That may or may not cause more problems, including violence against the group wearing headscarves or burqas.

As we have seen, Pakistan legislated, in banning the Ahmaddiyas. There have been not only discriminations and violation of rights of the Ahmaddiyas, but violence commited against Ahmaddiyas, including bombings of them and their mosques. Just these examples are enough to persuade one not to welcome states getting into matters of faith, be it for or against, even on seemingly innocuous matters like what to wear or otherwise, and to keep church and state separated.

States, including secular ones, never stop in determining and enforcing by law are obvious crimes such as murder, rape, robbery etc. They want to legislate and enforce what to think, what to wear, what to eat for better or for worse, be it on health grounds, on public morality and values ground, on secular grounds, on religious grounds and what have you other justifications given.

We may reach a stage when secular states are as bad as theocratic and authoritarian states on this sort of legislated "what" to think, do, wear, eat, see, speak, hear.

"Violence, in itself, is “successful” if there is popular and/or legislated assent that violence is necessary to contain violence, or violence is an acceptable means to attain an objective."

And so in the past armies could march against armies and one or the other would be victorious. When violence is supported by but a few, then they can not get armies to fight for their cause and they resort to small attacks. If they attack civilians I would call that terrorism in the hope of a military gain. If they attack military then it is just a fools war.
- Navin1/Hariaum
******************************************************************************************

Robbery is a violation. Rape is a violation. Murder is a violation. Various forms of violations and measured, determined by the courts in terms of violence in meting out punishments. Even in the taking of a human life, there are differences made for involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder.

Extremist organizations are premeditated in words and actions. They are organized on their cause. They have targets. They have objectives. They justify, they rationalize their violence with their cause. Just as terrorists justify their violence to their cause, so do states. Just as terrorists call their war “just”, so do states in calling their state legislated violence, or more correctly, state approved war, as a “just war”. In their war, by design or as collateral damage, both extremists and states kill civilians, wreak infrastructures, lay waste the environment.

Any casual observer can see that armies caused more wreckage. The Mumbai bombings did not wreck India. The Bali bombings, the Jakarta bombings did not destroy Indonesia. This as long as investors shrug these extremist violence off regard countries affected as emerging markets and the governments seen as actively pursuing and purging extremists. Even Pakistan, designated as a “failed state” by some, did go to pieces, break into pieces from the constant acts of violence by extremists within Pakistan. If it does, it will not be due to these extremists. It would be due to Pakistanis having had enough of their government ‘s management of the state, handling of its economy as well as border and internal security of Pakistan.

An imploding state is one ripe for change. If people knows that and has had enough, then revolutions for regime change can happen. But no guarantees of a better life and governing system after the revolution which depends on the ideologies of the leaders of the revolution and the post-revolution leadership in steering the country.

So when is revolution legitimate to you? When is it right to kill another for one's own benefit? And under what principles do we say violence is just v unjust? Does group membership or label of group count as a valid moral system?

- Navin1

*******************************************

Should there be a revolution for regime change if one has had enough of violations committed by the government/state? Violations which includes non-elected governments, tyrannically governments, mismanagement, corruption etc? If an unelected, oppressive, suppressive, tyrannical, unjust governments would not, could not tolerate the rights of its people, and is more than willing to suppress the fundamental freedoms of its people by various measures, do one live under or remove tyrannical governance, unjust and unfair governance in politics, economics, legal and social rights? Can one stand that, live with that, and for future generations?

The cliche goes, one has to fight for one's rights and to remove those who do not respect one’s rights, who deprive one of fundamental rights. No one has to live in terror of terrorising groups or governments by their actions. No one has to live under tyrannical governments. No one has to tolerate, accommodate, accept them if they would not tolerate, accept; accommodate others of different views, faiths and ethnicities from them. There is a choice of whether one wants to, one can live under such regimes, or one can’t do anything about such regimes. In authoritarian states, is there a choice to live and die under such regime or to live and die for a better governance and state?

Revolutions of the last century for regime change has less deaths if undertaken by the people of a specific country themselves than if attempted or undertaken by a foreign country. Unlike wars which can blanket whole countries in death and destruction, revolutionary mobs are mostly focused in capital cities or key cities and mostly armed with banners at best and Molotov cocktails at worst in violent encounters with government police or troops. There’s also ugly rampaging, looting, raping and murders, but not to the extent happening during full scale wars where stealing is a desperate act of survival and rapes used as an instrument of war for subjugation and demeaning of the enemy.

Navin1: "so, as I look at history, the cause of violence is ideology etc..."

******************************************

Right...let us give one another and ourself, 1 to 5 aspirins headaches then.. :)

Yes, it would seem that revolutions in the last century are all against the ruling elites, the establishment by the masses. In revolutions, there are violence by both sides obviously – one to maintain the status quo, the other to change it completely.

Arjuna and Krishna has their dialogue in the Bhagavad Gita on violence and war among others. Till today, the cause, nature and need or otherwise for violence and war is still debated. Violence is the most extreme form of violations committed by humans towards other humans. Violence in war is the most extensive. And then, there is violence committed towards other living creatures and the environment. War kills or scarred man, animals and the earth.

In the last century, there are many removal of governments and system of governance – from the Bolshevik Revolution leading to Marxist form of government and creation of the Soviet Union characterised as revolutions. Including revolutions named for various colours in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe. These are characterised as political revolutions, not mental, social, economic, cultural, scientific, technological and what have you. But as you well know, political revolutions are seeded or hastened by these other so-termed revolutions.

As you are certainly aware, some revolutions for the removal of specific governments may not be a system of governance where life under it is better, and violations on fundamental rights, including violence, continue. The Iranian Revolution is one such case. The Indonesian experience seem like an instance of spontaneous rebellion, a revolt against the Suharto’s regime on, among other things, subsidies, during 1997/98 Asian Economic Crisis. His removal led to a revolution in the form of governance for Indonesia. Some called it an evolution into full-fledged democracy, media freedom, free speech etc in the last decade. Some posited that after almost three decades of the so-called “guided democracy”, public frustrations and anger over corruption, mismanagement, military heavy-handed are among factors given for change in Indonesia.

As for the Red Shirt rebellion in Thailand. the supporters of the so-called “populist” Thaksin, there still seem to be a mental, political and economic revolution in the making and is still being played out. When one reads and hear of Thanksin being called a “populist”, are those who termed this Thai billionaire capitalist “elitist” as opposed to populist”? In the “populist” vs “elitist” political dispute is being “elitist” better than being “populist”? The dispute is also muddied by perceptions of selfish, indifferent Thai political-economic-military establishment being revolted by what they possibly see as revolting peasants who don’t know nor understand democracy and democratic representations.

Hello Navin1,

You raised many pertinent and interesting points in your two posts to me. I have no idea how long a post's content, length limit is acceptable in On Faith. I will break them up in my response to your posts.

@Timmy,

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I'm not that knowledgeable of Islam or the Koran. Besides, I find it a little unwise to tell other non-violent people that their religion is inherently violent. I have had people tell me that Muslim's have accomplished way more with peaceful tactics than with war.

The real point of my post was to say that say that they need to completely disassociate with terorists, explain why they are wrong, and work to stop them if they want the term to die. I honestly don't know if it is possible but they should have the chance.

Honestly I think "terorist" is a fine word to use for someone who uses terror (by threat or action) to make public statements and influence people.

It is a nice cross culture, cross religion word. It descriobes the natue of the acts, not the specific religion or message behind them.

NAVIN1

"Statistically there are three things to worry about:

1) bias
2) finding a correlation when there is no connection
3) not finding a correlation when there is a connection"

Most people here seem to be guilty of #3

But hey, look at all of those people who believed in witches who didn't burn witches? Perhaps belief in witchcraft is not the problem. Perhaps humans just innately like to burn people out of spite and meanness.

KERT1

"They need to show the world that these terrorists are not following Muslim law or doctrine and are in disobedience"

That is impossible because these terrorists ARE following muslim law according their holy book. It's the moderate muslims who are not following that faith as it is written. This of course is the whole problem with Islam. The book says what it says.

Like all religions, their refusal to alter their book because it is the "sacred word of God" is their main flaw.

Statistically there are three things to worry about:

1) bias
2) finding a correlation when there is no connection
3) not finding a correlation when there is a connection

To do this your data must include sufficient power to look at differences across groups and similarities within.

Though only a minority of muslims may support terrorism, if that minority is larger than the minority of buddhists that supports terrorism then a correlation of islamic terrorism is a fair assertion. If a majority of muslims denounce the koranic hate, while the majority of christians do not denounce biblical hate, then that supports correlation of christian terroism.

If a majority of atheists, self proclaimed ie communists, believe that they have the right to ban religious thinking, then that would support a correlation of atheist terrorism.

If the correlations are neutral, ie mormons don't have lower divorce rates than the rest of America, then there is no correlation or statistical support to the idea that mormons are different in their "family values."

So the idea that religions are different or responsible for the behavior of their subgroups can be empirically answered and then a claim of islamic terrorism or otherwise can be made.

Of course, if one is a black and white thinker, ergo not very modern in their thinking (and that may be the way they want to be), then the fact that one member of another group commits a crime is evidence that that group is evil while the fact that a member of one's own group commits a crime must be justified due to circumstances or that person is not really a member of the group.

hariaum

I think the term is "Islamic Terrorist" is, for the most part, factually correct. These are people who follow Islam and there is no doubting their terrorist tendencies. While this is true, I can also understand followers of Islam being offended or annoyed by the term. But it they want the term retired, I believe they have some work to do.

My understanding is that the radical Islamists who perform the terrorist acts, generally make up around 5-10% of Muslims. If the other 90% plus of Muslims don’t want to be associated with them, then that is understandable, but they need to disassociate with them. They need to show the world that these terrorists are not following Muslim law or doctrine and are in disobedience. They should be offended that such people should use their God’s name. They should also be actively working to stop the terrorists and protect innocent victims.

Unfortunately, the response from the Islamic world is tepid at best. There are some who condemn but many simply stand by and watch. It’s are to know if they are complacent or they are secretly approving of the activities. Either way, this simply allows the terrorists to largely define what Islam is, at least to outsiders. Silence and passivity is not an option.

I think we had a recent example of something here in the US. You probably remember the “Christian Militia” (I think that is what they called themselves) that was recently broken up in Michigan. These people were clearly terrorists or had these ambitions, but were they called Christian Terrorists. I don’t know everything but I never heard about it.

So why not? I think the answer is that they didn’t represent anything that most Christian groups stand for. One can easily see that Christian Churches don’t believe in taking over the government or violent acts against innocent people. Besides this, many of the people who foiled this group were likely Christians. There has been no doubt how the majority of Christians feel about this group. They may have hijacked the name but they are not obeying doctrine.

If Muslims follow this pattern, they will be able to disassociate Terrorists as well.

I'm not a big rap fan but I like this tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAYVY2eLMck&feature=player_embedded

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TIMMY 2
“THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM”

IRT:
I know. Because God does not even exist.
I said that BELIEF in God is responsible for Islamic terrorism.

Belief in God is not the cause of terrorism; actually it’s the disbelief in God that is the cause of Terrorism.

The terrorist thinks what he believes is God. If they believed in God they would not be terrorist. The Terrorists believes in what is definitely not God.

The god the Terrorists believe in is a pseudo false god that doesn’t exists. Contrary to your belief God does exist, and there are multiple proofs from reason, irrespective of the history and Scriptures who validate God’s existence.

Firstly, evil is really the negation or privation of good, and if there is evil in the world, there is also much good which can be accounted for only by the existence of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

The proofs of reason have never been able to refuted with The first is from causality. The universe, limited in all its details, could not be its own cause. It could no more come together with all its regulating laws than the Golden Gate Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clockmaker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute His existence

A second indication is drawn from the universal reasoning, or if you wish, intuition of men. The universal judgment of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God's handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and, above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe that there is a God. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temporary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.

The sense of moral obligation confirms these reasons. In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts. And as God alone could do this, it is certain that He exists.

Finally, justice demands that there be a God. The very sense of justice among men, resulting in courts of law, supposes a just God. We did not give ourselves our sense of justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.

Almost all religions have in some respect or another have been associated with terrorism. However I don't believe that any religion per se is a cause of terrorism. Religion often is a vehicle for terrorism, used to harness powerful emotions in people. The cause is usually leaders who wish to garner power for themselves. Religion is how they find suckers to do their dirty work.

ATHEISM IS A RELIGION:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/RELIGION?o=100074

Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

Those who deny Atheism is a religion say that if one doesn’t believe in the supernatural they are not religious. However, Buddhist and Hindus do not believe in the supernatural are they not religions? Some Pagans believe in the Sun as a God, Some believed in Nature as a god. These gods aren't a belief in the Supernatural. Atheists are a body of persons adhering to a particular belief and devoutly follow that belief. Buddhist and Hindus have gods that are not supernatural but natural.

Second, the dictionary, as one definition of religion says something one believes in and follows devotedly a point or matter of ethics or conscience. Atheists do that.
.
http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html

"In the dictionary, the most common definition of religion is something like, “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.” By this definition, Atheism is clearly not a religion. HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT ATHEISM WARRANTS THE SAME PROTECTION AS ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, AND HAS SPOKEN OF “RELIGIONS BASED ON A BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD [AND] RELIGIONS FOUNDED ON DIFFERENT BELIEFS." THIS, OBVIOUSLY, CONTRADICTS THE MAIN DICTIONARY DEFINITION.

Of course one can say "look at all of those people who believe in God but who are not terrorists? Aha! See? God belief is not the main problem. It must be something else."

And of course one could point to all of those people way back when who believed in witches but did not burn any witches and say "Aha! See? Belief in Witchcraft is not the main problem. It must be something else. Burning people at the stake must be a natural human urge. It mist just be spite or plain old meanness that's causing all of this witch burning.

Sigh.

Oh Twisted one,

"Sorry my friend, but God is not responsible for Terrorism"

I know. Because God does not even exist.

I said that BELIEF in God is responsible for Islamic terrorism.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TIMMY2
“BLAMING GOD?”

“Trying to deflect the blame for Islamic terrorism away from god belief is like trying to deflect the blame for the Salem Witch trials away from belief in witchcraft. “

ANS:
Isn’t this a little asinine logic or logic in reverse? Do we blame the Courts who sentence bank robbers for causing bank robbers? Do we blame the lawmakers for creating murders because they made it a crime to murder people? Do we blame auto makers, because they make cars, for causing car thieves? Neither can we blame God for evil because he created man.

Do not terrorists have free wills? Are terrorists robots, or androids, incapable of thinking for them selves? Are they no different than any other criminal, murderer or thief? To the contrary, neither does God cause Terrorism because he created man. Moreover, why would God destroy what He created good, unless it became Evil?

Have you not read the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses for man. The Fifth Commandment reads, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” That means man has an inalienable "Right to Life." It means God is the giver of Life not man. It means no man has the moral authority to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. It means, as our Founding Fathers wrote that man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.

Now God is Omnipotent. Because He is Perfect, a being of Pure Act, without Potency, who lacks nothing, God is Truth itself. Therefore, God cannot contradict Himself, because Truth cannot contradict Truth.

Inalienable rights are not given by man but by God. Ironically, the ignoramuses who deny there is a God, unconsciously deny they have inalienable rights. Namely, they believe rights are not given by God but by man. Hence, what man gives, man can take away. Thus, the amoral disaffects have given issue to the ignominious aspersion that is a penchant of the empty minded, viz. "Might Makes Right."

Consequently, what ever the State deems are your rights, that's what they will be. "Might Makes Right" is what N. Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba believe, and it’s what the Secularist unwittingly are advocating in their profound ignorance. Thus, the Court denied the "Right to Life" to the unborn, and we've already murdered over 52 million unborn. Worldwide, man, not God, is murdering 43 million unborn per year.

Moreover, Elena Kagan, Obama's Court nominee, was asked if she supported the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal and endowed by God with certain inalienable rights," Kagan, refused to acknowledge the Declaration. In adumbration, she replied, “As a Justice, I will only be concerned with the Constitution.”

However, her concern only for the Constitution was a delusory deception, for she was advising Clinton how to make a new right, Partial Birth Abortion (PBA). She distorted an American Medical Society advisory that read Partial Birth Abortion was found to never be necessary.

Abortion, let alone PBA, is a right not in the Constitution, but found in a Penumbra that was unknown even to the Founding Fathers. Kagan was attempting to create a right outside of the Constitution and a direct repudiation of the Fourth Amendment, that a “person be secured in their own person.”

Unfortunately, she will be approved because the cretins in the Dem Party opaquely believe you have man made rights. Consequently, Obama and Michelle, as Kagan, are pro-PBA. Obama voted three times to allow an Abortionist who botched his Abortion to strangle the child after it survived the murderer’s first attempt to murder her. Now Obama is looking out for you.

Sorry my friend, but God is not responsible for Terrorism or much more for any Evil. Moral evil is understood to be a deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. However, God is the author of Moral Order. Consequently, God does not cause Evil He permits it because Man, given a free will, chose to be Evil, and because of Adam’s Sin, Evil entered the World and we have to live with it.

Sub-head asked: What to call terrorists?

__________________________________________

Christians know the answer to this one:
Brothers.

Trying to deflect the blame for Islamic terrorism away from god belief is like trying to deflect the blame for the Salem Witch trials away from belief in witchcraft.

I wonder if there were people back then arguing against criticism of belief in witches by saying that humans are naturally violent towards each other and if they didn't believe in witchcraft then they would just find some other reason to burn people at the stake. It's in our nature they would say. It's not the delusional belief in witchcraft. Humans are just nasty creatures.

I imagine there were a lot of people back then who believed in witches but did not ever get involved in the burning of witches and maybe they didn't even go to see them. I wonder if the witchcraft believer apologists pointed to these people who believed in witchcraft but did not burn any witches as examples of how the belief in witchcraft must not be the problem. Because of all of these people who believe in witches but do not burn them. "See? Some humans are just nasty. Belief in witches has nothing to do with it."

Sigh.

TWISTED:

We can determine what religion is right by its fruits. Can we be blind to the fruits of atheism, agnosticism, or Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions; can we not see the contrast between the fruits of Christianity in contrast to mundane religions of the world.

Twisted, it does not matter how many times you say it, atheism is not a religion.

That you cannot see the difference says EVERYTHING about you that one needs to know when reading any opinion you generated.

that's why most of us don't bother. I suppose that doesn't matter to you, that nobody pays much attention to you, but then -- so what? You don't matter either.

Jihadist

"Violence, in itself, is “successful” if there is popular and/or legislated assent that violence is necessary to contain violence, or violence is an acceptable means to attain an objective."

And so in the past armies could march against armies and one or the other would be victorius. When violence is supported by but a few, then they can not get armies to fight for their cause and they resort to small attacks. If they attack civilians I would call that terrorism in the hope of a military gain. If they attack military then it is just a fools war.

But you also pointed out the legislated assent. I am sure you know that there was legislated assent for great atrocities as colonialism, the genocide of the American natives, that of the Jews,etc. So I don't take that literally. But this creates a problem. If the state, with inferred legislative assent, acts in ways to sustain terror it is different than a small group without legislative assent that acts in ways to sustain terror.

One can redress a state, through revolution (economicall by strikes, politically by education and votes, or by militia if the popular support is sufficient). But a society can not redress a small group that keeps membership and stated goals changing. Thus there is a, if not the, distinction between the legitimacy of state sponsored terrorism v substate, or superstate sponsored terrorism.

Musharef et al suggest that these are trans state sponsors of terrorism as al qaeda, etc. What is the role of Koranic ideology in the support of cross-state terrorism for these diverse yet united groups getting financial and material support from all over the world? What other ideology do they hold in common - if they do/did not use the Koran to hold together their ideology, what does hold together their ideology? And how does one opposed to them or their methods redress harms or injustices caused by them? How do I, an infidel, idolator, and heathen, win the hearts and minds of those wanting to kill me and my kind off? For a state, I can use diplomacy (or war) to debate me equality to theirs. How do I affect trans state terrorists based on the Koran/bible/race/...

hariaum

Hamas wants Israel to never be secure. Their terrorist campaign has achieved that goal since it's beginning and will continue to achieve that goal for god knows how long;) I certainly see no end in site of Hamas continuing to achieving that goal.

DITLD

"I said, or AT LEAST, I meant to say, that terrorism does not have any MILITARY value and does not advance any military goal"

Actually what you said that I was originally reacting to was that terrorism is nothing more than spite and meanness.

"I did not say that terrorism does not have ANY effects on anything"

You also will not admit that it has achieved many a political goal. Why won't you admit this?

"In Israel, suicide bombings on buses has been used as a military weapon. Has it worked? There are more checkpoints, more settlements, and a wall So, nope! it has not worked"

And Israel is still not secure in it's existence so yup, it has worked. And Israel has had to pull back on some settlements that they didn't want to so yup, it has worked. And billions of people around the world watch Israel's every move so yup, it has worked. And Israeli tourism is way way sown, so yup, it has worked. And these little desert people have meetings with the top world leaders almost any time they choose so yup, it has worked. And Hamas, a terrorist organization, is now leader of a territory that most of the world is hoping becomes it's own state, so yup, it has worked.

Check points shmeck points.

I said, or AT LEAST, I meant to say, that terrorism does not have any MILITARY value and does not advance any military goal.

I did not say that terrorism does not have ANY effects on anything.

In Israel, suicide bombings on buses has been used as a military weapon. Has it worked? There are more checkpoints, more settlements, and a wall.

So, nope! it has not worked.

And, on top that, the Palenstinians are now politically split between the Gazans and the West-Bankians.

Militarily, the suicide bombing campaign has had no effect. Culturally, I am sure there is more daily angst, worry, despair, on all sides, more tranqulizers sold, more pepto bismal swallowed; more nail-biting, more sweat, more stink and wretchedness at being alive on the earth, but otherwise, no change at all.

Timmy

Hamas has won power?

I think my county government has more power than Hamas.

Call a terrorist a terrorist. If more specificity is needed then be specific. It is ludicrous to think that redefining a problem ameliorates it. If a skunk is attacking you, calling it a Persian cat will not save you or garner favor from his ilk. Who cares if a terrorist or those closely associated with him are offended. It is your head that is being severed.

DITLD

Would Hamas be in power without their long drawn out campaign of terror? Would they be in power now if they were a peaceful organization?

Just one of many many examples. If you are going to try and continue arguing that terrorists actions never achieve their intended goals, you should really examine why you even want to make such an argument. It's not an honest assessment.

"I do not think that the United States reacton to the 9/11 attack was what Al-Qaeda was expecting"

Fool that you are.

ED

"It worked for Stalin, no gods necessary in the ideology"

Ha. This always kills me when people get this one so wrong. There was most certainly a god necessary for what stalin did, his name was Stalin. Stalin was the God. The similarities are endless. The dictator, the unquestionable, greater than thou, all powerful, punishing, but loving, omnipotent, to be worshiped unquestioningly.

You see the Russian population were already predisposed to having ultimate faith in something greater than themselves and believed with faith that this something could take the form of a man on earth.

And it was virtuous, not delusional, to believe such things.

When it is embarrassing instead of virtuous and noble to believe in such delusional things, then we will have fewer tyrants and terrorists taking advantage of all of this delusion.

IMHO this all falls under the "well duh" category.

Timmy

I do not think that the United States reacton to the 9/11 attack was what Al-Qaeda was expecting.

Hello Navin1/Hariaum,

Sorry. Missed your "success of violence?" post.

As you well know, violence and wars are not just between inter-faith and inter-etnic groups. Indian/Hindu states were warring one another for various reasons and into expansionism of territory by conquest of other Indian/Hindu kingdoms before fighting against Islamic colonialist, and then British colonialist. Likewise in other Asian, African, European, the Americas' states.

Iraq under Saddam invaded Kuwait. Indonesia has a Konfrontasi with Malaysia in the sixties. Indonesia has a civil war with the secessionist Gerakaan Aceh Merdeka (Free Aceh Movement). This, just to give a few examples of people of the same ethnic and/or religious group having wars with one another. All for rights on resources and territories.

For violence as a means to an end to be successful, be it for states or terrorists, they have to be persistent and consistent in "message", they have to have support from the populace, they have to have manpower, the financial and material resources to sustain their objective.

No country really won a war if its own people objected to the war, or are not clear on the objective of the war, or are wearied by the war, be it conducted within or outside the borders.

For or against violence, and war for that matter, the most important and ultimate war is for the hearts and minds of the populace on what is right and what is wrong.

Violence, in itself, is “successful” if there is popular and/or legislated assent that violence is necessary to contain violence, or violence is an acceptable means to attain an objective.

NAVIN

"you keep forgetting that phrase - in your opinion"

No I don't. You keep forgetting that it is implied. I do not need to put IMHO after every statement of my beliefs. Unless I add the words "with absolute certainty" I am always just stating my opinion.

"that is, in your belief system of things you can not verify"

I do not have a belief system. My beliefs are all individual and malleable with new information. I am not a fan of "belief systems" which is another name for "religion" to me. I have no system for forming my beliefs. I form each and every one on an individual basis.

DITLD

"All it does is cause terror, and earn enmity"

Actually it has achieved many goals for many a terrorist group. For example. Al-Qaeda wanted the US to come to Afghanistan and to go into Iraq. But this is just one of many goals achieved by many terrorist groups.

Terrorism is, by definition, intended to achieve political gain whether is succeeds or not. But the foot soldiers of terrorist organizations are not necessarily out to achieve that goal.

Jihadist was correct in pointing out two distinct factions of terrorism. With Islamic terrorism, there are the leaders who make the decisions, and then there are the foot soldiers. Often the leaders of these organizations are intelligent and educated, but can still have their reasoning corrupted by their religious upbringing. But their goals are definitely political gain.

The foot soldiers however are often too uneducated to have political motivations but their upbringing in Wahabist madrases combined with a lack of education make them vulnerable to becoming pawns to these terror organizations. So when the suicide bomber sets of his explosive, he is neither doing so for political gain, nor for spite and meanness. He is doing it for God.

The common denominator to all terrorism it seems is delusion. And delusion happens more often in a society that sees religious faith as virtuous. We have made pretending to know God virtuous and noble instead of something that should be repugnant to all intelligent beings.

Of course people are willing to die and kill in the name of God. Even in western society we have made ultimate faith to God a noble virtue instead of what it really is. Delusion.

Satyagraha worked so well in India because of the presence of the person and the personality of Ghandi. Such a movement is not just somethng that automatically happens, without the guidance of a subtly intelligent, wise, and humane leader. Such a person does not appear often on the human stage, and these qualities cannot be merely summoned at will by just anybody.

Timmy,

you keep forgetting that phrase - in your opinion, that is, in your belief system of things you can not verify.

hariaum

Jihadist

so, as I look at history, the cause of violence is ideology.

The marxist felt it was poor people's response to autocratic monarchy and aristocracy.

So when is revolution legitimate to you? When is it right to kill another for one's own benefit? And under what principles do we say violence is just v unjust? Does group membership or label of group count as a valid moral system?

I ask this as many of your posts seem to suggest that we can not be certain who is a terrorist and who is not. How do we distinguish, morally and practically, between a group that kills Nazis and the civilians living next to them v the group that kills volleyball players?

hariaum

Hello Navin1/Hariaum,

I agree with you Martin Luther King, Aung Sang Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela etc are truly remarkable persons with regard to to moral leadership in the world. They are certainly not 100% pacifists in their fighting words and/or actions to right a wrong. Nelson Mandela was called and jailed as a terrorist by the South African apartheid regime.

Yes, killing civilians to cause terror to achieve political ends is unacceptable - be it by substate actors, or by states. It should be a bother that armies, set up expressly to defend citizens of any given country, are used to turn on their fellow citizens in pursuit of designated domestic enemies of the people and state instead of the police.

We should look deeper into states which policed its citizens too much on what they do, what they think, and to act with impunity in the name of internal security creating either a fearful and dociled citizenship, or militantated some to have no regard for and value of life. Disrespect begets disrespect. Violence begets violence.

Oh yes, anyone who held that poverty is the, or a root cause of terrorism is not quite doing his homework. The terrorist leaders are educated. Their foot soldiers a motley group from myriad backgrounds.

The leadership of terrorist groups positioning themselves as Islamic and for Islam, seems to have a high proportion of those with science or professional field educational background. Not too many with a background in the arts or the social sciences. I wonder why that is.

"Warfare is purely a human characteristic, that our inelligence enables"

You do have a point there and warfare is one of the few possible explanations for the outsize growth of the human brain which takes about a quarter of our caloric intake to maintain, a huge cost for a species that has to be paid somehow. Devising novel strategies of war would do it.

"Animals are not at war with each other"

That statement is belied by observations of chimpanzees. To be sure, humans have taken it to a great extent but claiming exclusivity to Homo sapiens simply is not a tenable position any longer.

I do not think that warfare is the urge to kill another, and I do not think that people, in general, have an urge to kill, and I do not think that warfare is our Darwinian legacy.

Animals are not at war with each, other; they kill for food, without armies; they don't make weapons; they don't work out grand strategies; they don't hold grudges.

Warfare is purely a human characteristic, that our inelligence enables, like art, and music, and poetry.

Yes, but a lot of people know what God knows and are not terrorists.

I think it is more like in the movie "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe," it just all goes SNAP, and then is't over.

Religious fundamentalism, is by nature, rigid and brittle; a little bumpy ride along the way, a woman's bare shoulder, a whiff of perfume, a cartoon of Mohammed ... and it all goes "SNAP;"

... down the nihilistic worm-hole; exit to Heaven; exit to Paradise; and on the way out, a good kick in the teeth to all who are left behind ...

Rule by terror, when used by state leadership to enforce their will on their population has been shown to be fairly effective. It worked for Stalin, no gods necessary in the ideology.

"The Catholic Church is the guardian of the inalienable rights of man."

Does the catholic church protect the inalienable rights of couples to use contraception?

Terrorism may be the tactic of the weak, but it is also a weak tactic, because it never works to advance any military purpose. All it does is cause terror, and earn enmity. It all boils down to spite, just mean spitefulness.

"It (terrorism) all boils down to spite, just mean spitefulness"

It all boils sown to people believing that they know what God wants.

NAVIN

"But the question is how do we know that Truth"

No, the question is what makes you think you know anything about that truth? I am agnostic on this one and you are mono-ideological about it.

"Some, most, prefer revealed truth"

Many, such as myself, prefer verifiable evidence. In it's absence we remain agnostic.

"This is through some authority figure, either a priest, a teacher, or a guy wearing a white coat"

Your attempts to compare priests to men in white coats is laughable like your religion. The priests are scammers where as the men in white coats are honest seekers.

"Few pursue Truth beyond what the authority figure says until that dichotomy becomes apparent"

This is a lie. All non religious people pursue truth beyond what the authority figure says, that's what separates them from the religious.

"Some even deny there is a truth (and thus make a truth statement as to the nature of truth but they forget that)"

Here you attempt to talk about me and miss the boat as usual. I do not deny that there is a truth and I make no truth statements. I make statements of my beliefs only. Your hang up is to call other people's statements of belief "truth statements" because your religion has you obsessed with the absolute truth which you know nothing about.

"Some deny that we can know truth (yet again making a statement of the truth of the know-ability of truth)"

Hey, wrong again, what a surprise. I do not deny that we can know truth, I simply disbelieve that you know anything about the truth.

"Some don't care what the "truth" is and just want to "get on with it" and thus choose to see the truth of "it" that they want to see"

Wrong again (of course assuming this is referring to me) I care so much about what the truth actually is that I find your claim to know it without evidence to be repugnant.

"Once one claims to know Truth, then one claims a right to say so (or not)"

Wrong again. One has the "right" to say they know the truth whether they know it or not. It's called free speech. That's why we have to listen to your delusions. Because you have the right to express them even though you have no credible verification.

"Another is that truth and what we see are connected but we may not be certain of it"

Well duh.

"So the mono-idelogies propose that there is only one way to see the truth and they have it"

Sounds like everything I've ever read or heard about Hinduism.

"With mono-ideology there is no tolerance for alternative"

Right. Just like you have no tolerance for mono-ideology. This makes you a mono-ideologist. You motto is Polyideology or the highway.

"With polyideology one must tolerate alternatives for others"

Except mono-ideology. This must never be accepted. It must be pointed out as THE problem.

"(btw, I have not looked up poly-ideology of mono-ideology in the dictionary)"

They are in the dictionary of NAVIN. I get what they mean. But if you think that you are not a mono-ideologist, then you need to look up your own word in your own dictionary.

"The Ramayana, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas offer their vision with no compulsion"

As do atheist agnostics.

"The lack of compulsion (no eternal damnation or a hateful god) is polyideological"

Yes, agnosticism is poly-ideological.

"The Gita says that god accepts worship regardless of name - polyideological"

The atheist does not believe this but says, "you go girl". -polyideological.

"if someone doesn't want to walk the path of the Buddha then he should be free to not walk that path.)"

This is just like secularism.

"God does not hate the enemy of god - polyideological"

But NAVIN says that mono-ideology is THE problem. Mono-ideological.

"The polyideologist would have a mono-ideological construct of reality but does not fell that should be compelled""

Like secularism.

"It is the mono-ideologist that demands that x is certainly a myth, that this is certainly false, that is certainly a delusion, s/he is certainly a liar."

Why do you insert the word "certain" into other people's statements of their beliefs. Are people allowed to have beliefs without being certain? Are they not allowed to express their beliefs with confidence unless they have absolute certainty of the truth? Why do you put upon others your own obsession with truth statements? I believe the Gita is a myth and so I state as much. This makes me mono-ideological?

".. And of course, most polyideologists listen and brush it off"

This long winded attempt to justify your own mono-ideology is you "brushing it off?" lol

Terrorism may be the tactic of the weak, but it is also a weak tactic, because it never works to advance any military purpose. All it does is cause terror, and earn enmity. It all boils down to spite, just mean spitefulness.

INREPLY TO (IRT)
PSOLUS :
“RELIGION AND TERRORISM”?

IRT::
[Terrorism is anything that threatens the inviolable rights of man.]

“By your definition, religion is terrorism.”

ANS:
Some religions are terrorism. I’ve shown you what is written in the Qur’an. Selling of women and children, copulation with captured woman and making them property of the conqueror, cutting of the victims’ heads if they don’t convert or burdening them with exorbitant taxes. Yes, that is terrorism.

The Catholic Church is the guardian of the inalienable rights of man. No religion defends the dignity and sanctity of humanity that is comparable to the Church. Mother Teresa is the iconic exemplar of the Church’s statement on the value of human life. The Church’s Catholic Charities are the largest NGO in the world. Her "Dream Program" in Africa for HIV and AIDS victims is renowned.

“Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced.

"Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom: but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks.

"Only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.

"I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly”—Albert Einstein.

Does this sound like the Church allows for the violation of man’s rights?

Pope John Paul II "Evangelium Vitae"
“Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, and attempts to coerce the will itself is a form of Terrorism.

“Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.

They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator"—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life.

There voice of the Catholic Church is adamantly against all violence that unjustly violates the inviolable rights of man or his judicious use of his free will. As the Church spoke out for the Jews, she speaks out the sacred dignity for every human including the unborn.

Warfare, the urge to kill the other, is a Darwinian legacy of human beings. Terrorism is a tactic of the weak in this game since it can never control territory, merely spoil the prize of ownership or make the adversaries give up in frustration.

Almost any ideology can be used to solidify the unity of the tribe in war. Religion just has to be a particularly powerful one because some can use their gray cells with this ideology to reinforce urges that come from deeper in the brain. Plus it gives hope to those who sacrifice themselves on the battlefield that their gift of life will be rewarded in some mystic afterlife.

Muslim texts and ideology happens to be used for this purpose frequently in today's world. It is a good fit.

Was that a whimper I heard? I'm pretty sure I heard a whimper.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

"Terrorism is anything that threatens the inviolable rights of man."

???

What about the sulfur and fumes? The gaseous emmisions? the booming noise? the flames? the rubble? for the love of God ... what about the headless corpses?

Let me apologize the original post was as follows:

But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

That is mythology at it's best. It didn't really happen.

evidence of monoideological thinking - all or nothing.

Sorry, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking...

but should have been:

Timmy:
"But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

That is mythology at it's best. It didn't really happen."
------
evidence of monoideological thinking - all or nothing.

Sorry, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking...

As to words in the dictionary.

common use is acceptable to follow common definitions. But once a controversy is apparent, there is a clear problem with the common use of the word. For example God, Truth, Being, Non-Being, Terrorism, War, .... Now, one has to drill down to the meaning. Even if we can not agree with the ultimate meaning, we can clarify our thoughts to each other in discussing that meaning. If then we resort to attacks on words rather than on meaning, we are stuck in sophistry; which is ok.

As to the monoideology of polyideology

I do believe there is a singular Truth. But the question is how do we know that Truth. Some, most, prefer revealed truth. This is through some authority figure, either a priest, a teacher, or a guy wearing a white coat. Few pursue Truth beyond what the authority figure says until that dichotomy becomes apparent. A few demand the realization of truth. Some even deny there is a truth (and thus make a truth statement as to the nature of truth but they forget that). Some deny that we can know truth (yet again making a statement of the truth of the know-ability of truth). Some don't care what the "truth" is and just want to "get on with it" and thus choose to see the truth of "it" that they want to see. I suppose there are more possibilities that Timmy will instruct us in.

Once one claims to know Truth, then one claims a right to say so (or not). Then how does one know if the claim to knowing truth is correct? Of course the first person is already convinced. The second and third person must either agree, disagree, or qualify their agreement. These are the logical possibilities.

So one version of Truth is that it is as it is seen. There is no separation between phenoma and noema. Another is that truth and what we see are connected but we may not be certain of it, phenom reflects noem. Another is that truth and what we see are unconnected, what we see is false but the only data we have, noem may or may not exist but our truth is phenom. Timmy can tell us of other possibilities.

But we must ultimately base our actions on what we see as truth, for even as we believe about the Truth as it is, that too is a phenoma not a noema (until and if you validate mysticism).

So the mono-idelogies propose that there is only one way to see the truth and they have it. The poly-ideologies propose that there are many ways to see the truth and they may or may not have it. With mono-ideology there is no tolerance for alternative ("this must certainly be true" or "that is a myth at best"). With polyideology one must tolerate alternatives for others, though one may not tolerate alternatives for oneself - one can be monoideological for oneself but not, legitimately, for others.

(btw, I have not looked up poly-ideology of mono-ideology in the dictionary)

As I look at the history of the post Roman empire world, intolerance begins with the idea that one group has the one right way and thus has the moral right to destroy another group / ideology. Add a military industrial complex and you get enslavement, colonialism, war, and genocide. Muslims look at world history and feel that there natural progress of conversion is inhibited by infidels. Christians look at world history and feel that their natural conversion of the world is inhibited by heathens. They don't understand why their colonialism is bad (though they certainly would not want the heathens and infidels colonizing the Vatican or Mecca). But that is not how I look at history. I could well be wrong.

The Ramayana, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas offer their vision with no compulsion. The lack of compulsion (no eternal damnation or a hateful god) is polyideological. The Gita says that god accepts worship regardless of name - polyideological. It says one needs to get beyond the Vedas to be spiritually free - polyideological. The Ramayana says that the followers of Raavana (the prototypical bad guy) are the loved ones of Rama (the prototypical good guy) and should not be harmed. (The Buddha says if someone doesn't want to walk the path of the Buddha then he should be free to not walk that path.) Raavana, in the Ramayana is there to act out his karma, but is then spiritually liberated at death - God does not hate the enemy of god - polyideological.

Now in a twist, the mono-ideologist demands that the polyideologist agree with the mono-ideologist in order to prove the polyideological construct. This is again sophistry. The polyideologist would have a mono-ideological construct of reality but does not fell that should be compelled. It is the mono-ideologist that demands that x is certainly a myth, that this is certainly false, that is certainly a delusion, s/he is certainly a liar... And of course, most polyideologists listen and brush it off.

Some crazy polyideologist says, bull. Shoot me, I am sure some christians and muslims would already be of that opinion.

btw I am glad TTY is reading about Hinduism, hopefully s/he can actually come to read and quote some horrific scriptures - perhaps the Gita or the Ramayana, or the Vedas, or the Upanishads. You don't have to look far in the OT or the Apocolypse to see how hateful the christian god is, not the Koran to see how hateful the islamic god is. But I would certainly be most interested in finding a passage where the Hindu Gods hate. Seems like a personality trait of a demigod or even a demon (asura) to hate so much.

hariaum

"IN REPLY TO:
What is a Terrorist?

ANS:
Terrorism is anything that threatens the inviolable rights of man."

By your definition, religion is terrorism.

IN REPLY TO:
What is a Terrorist?

ANS:
Terrorism is anything that threatens the inviolable rights of man. Christianity is the guardian of these rights. Anyone who impugns these rights are in discord with Christianity, and if they claim to be Christians they are frauds.

Man by his very nature possesses these rights to life, a right to own property, to freedom of speech, and that these rights are demanded by strict justice. They are the same rights that our Constitution demands recognition of, viz. that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by God" with certain "inalienable rights.” What the Secularist Left fears is not Christianity, but the Constitution itself.

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself.

Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator"—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life.

Terrorism on the Muslim side is somewhat explicit and contradictory in its text on Jihad or Holy War.

http: ://answeringislam.org/Nehls/Ask/war.html //answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/war.html

"Jihad is one of the chief meritorious acts in the eye of Islam, and it is the best source of earnings, but it shall be undertaken with the intention of self-defense."—Mishkat" II, page 340 On the other hand one could also call it robbery in self-defense, if there is such a thing.

The Holy Quran strictly prohibited conversion by force, saying: '”There is no compulsion in religion'—(Sura 2:256)"

Muslims emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War, was only a means of defense and was never used as an offensive act: "Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims..” This is underlined in the explanatory notes of the Sahih Muslim However, it is contradicted in the following verses.

"When an infidel's country is conquered (in self-defense?) by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

1.The reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state;
2. The payment of a poll-tax (Jazyah) by which unbelievers in Islam obtained "protection" and become Zimmis, provided they were not idolaters (of Arabia);
3. Death by the sword to those who would not pay the poll-tax. ("Dictionary of Islam", page 243).

"Kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush...."(Sura 9:5).

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them...."(Sura 47:4).

"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not what Allah and His Apostle have forbidden....until they pay tribute..." (Sura 9:29).

"Say to the infidels: If they desist, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's." (Sura 8:39).

"Proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith." (Sura 9:3).

Dear Navin

It is extremely difficult to read all of the posts and to keep up with all of the nuances of each person's intended meaning. When I am behind and busy with other things, I sometimes try to scan briefly what others may have said. Sometimes if I reply, it may not be exactly appropriate to what may have been said.

So, in going back and scanning one of your posts, a word jumped out at me: "satyagraha"

I know that word; I recognize that word, but I have long forgotten what it means. When I was 18, I read a book by Ghandi called "My Experiments With Truth." It meant a lot to me at the time, but I have long forgotten it. You are reminding me of that, now.

I looked up pillage. It means to rob or desspoil in war. So, I was not quite right, about that one.

BRAHMINISM
All religions are not alike. Even Hindu and Brahminism are different.

Is Brahminism monotheistic? In the period that saw the production of the Brahmanas and the Upanishads, the Vedic religion underwent a twofold change. On the practical side there was an exuberant growth of religious rites and of social restrictions and duties, while on the theoretical side, Vedic belief in the efficacy of personal deities was subordinated to a pantheistic scheme of salvation. Thus the earlier religion developed on the one hand into popular, exoteric Brahminism, and on the other hand into priestly, esoteric Brahminism. The former is reflected in the Brahmanas and the Sutras; the latter in the Upanishads.

This doctrine gave rise to restrictive rules of conduct that bordered on the absurd. Insects, however repulsive and noxious, might not be killed; water might not be drunk till it was first strained, lest minute forms of life be destroyed; carpentry, basket-making, working in leather, and other similar occupations were held in disrepute, because they could not be carried on without a certain loss of animal and plant life. Some zealots went so far as to question the blamelessness of tilling the ground on account of the unavoidable injury done to worms and insects.

But on the other hand, the Brahmin ethical teaching in the legitimate sphere of right conduct is remarkably high. Truthfulness, obedience to parents and superiors, temperance, chastity, and almsgiving were strongly inculcated. Though allowing, like other religions of antiquity, polygamy and divorce, it strongly forbade adultery and all forms of unchastity. It also reprobated suicide, abortion, perjury, slander, drunkenness, gambling, oppressive usury, and wanton cruelty to animals.

Its Christianlike aim to soften the hard side of human nature is seen in its many lessons of mildness, charity towards the sick, feeble, and aged, and in its insistence on the duty of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil. Nor did this high standard of right conduct apply simply to external acts. The threefold division of good and bad acts into thought, words, and deeds finds frequent expression in Brahmánic teaching.

Intimately bound up in the religious teaching of Brahminism was the division of society into rigidly defined castes. In the earlier, Vedic period there had been class distinctions according to which the warrior class (Kshatriyas, or Rajanas) stood first in dignity and importance, next the priestly class (Brahmins), then the farmer class (Vaisyas), and last of all, the servile class of conquered natives (Sudras).

With the development of Brahminism, these four divisions of society became stereotyped into exclusive castes, the highest place of dignity being usurped by the Brahmins. As teachers of the sacred Vedas, and as priests of the all-important sacrifices, they professed to be the very representatives of the gods and the peerage of the human race.

No honor was too great for them, and to lay hands on them was a sacrilege. One of their chief sources of power and influence lay in their exclusive privilege to teach the youth of the three upper castes, for education then consisted largely in the acquisition of Vedic lore, which only priests could teach.

Thus the three upper castes alone had the right to know the Vedas and to take part in the sacrifices, and Brahminism, far from being a religion open to all, was exclusively a privilege of birth, from which the despised caste of Sudras was excluded.

This doctrine gave rise to restrictive rules of conduct that bordered on the absurd. Insects, however repulsive and noxious, might not be killed; water might not be drunk till it was first strained, lest minute forms of life be destroyed; carpentry, basket-making, working in leather, and other similar occupations were held in disrepute, because they could not be carried on without a certain loss of animal and plant life.

Some zealots went so far as to question the blamelessness of tilling the ground on account of the unavoidable injury done to worms and insects. But on the other hand, the Brahmin ethical teaching in the legitimate sphere of right conduct is remarkably high. Truthfulness, obedience to parents and superiors, temperance, chastity, and almsgiving were strongly inculcated.

Though allowing, like other religions of antiquity, polygamy and divorce, it strongly forbade adultery and all forms of unchastity. It also reprobated suicide, abortion, perjury, slander, drunkenness, gambling, oppressive usury, and wanton cruelty to animals.

Its Christianlike aim to soften the hard side of human nature is seen in its many lessons of mildness, charity towards the sick, feeble, and aged, and in its insistence on the duty of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil. Nor did this high standard of right conduct apply simply to external acts. The threefold division of good and bad acts into thought, words, and deeds finds frequent expression in Brahmánic teaching.

I agree with Timmy agreeing with me, somewhat, except, mostly, I know automatically what words mean, without a dictionary. I almost never use a dictionary to see what a word means, only just now and then.

Without a dictionary, I know that terrorism is detonating a bomb or releasing poison gas in a public place. Warfare is armies of soldiers fighting to establish political control. Rape is a man forcing sex on another. Kidknapping is holding someone against their will. Piracy is attacking a ship or boat on the high seas. Murder is simply killing a person. Vandalism is breaking or defacing things. Cursing is saying the bad words. Genocide is organized killing of a specific group.

I probably would need to look up pillaging and mayhem. Pillaging might mean knocking things over, and mayhem might mean bloody violence.

For political reasons, Obama might not want to say the words "Islamic Terrorism," but practically speaking, that is a word people use to mean when a devout Muslim detonates a bomb in a public place in the name of Allah and in the name of Islam.

Perhaps this is not mainstream Islam. But it happens alot, enough so that it has become a flamboyant and sensational feature of modern Islam, and it is not credible to suppose that people would not notice much less react with extreme revulsion.

I wish that Islamic people would try and see it that way. It is a problem for us all. It is a problem for Islam because it is the reputation that is being tagged to Islam, whether it is justified or not, and once a reputation is ruined, it is very hard to get it back. Islam NEEDS to earn its reputation back, or else just learn to live in a world where people are afraid of Islam, and are afraid to have Muslims standing or sitting near them.

Well, Newsweek/Washington Post can't handle the truth, and have refused to print the words we called our enemies, during WWII, and the word we now use for our enemy, that is based on their funny head-dresses.

Other than that, I see some people believe in dictionaries, some people believe in other things, and some people believe in both.

Yes, it is difficult to write clearly enough to express exactly what we mean. Timmy's writing is clear, especially for a know-it-all. But then, one has to believe he knows it all, to believe his writing is clear.

Well, I wasn't clear in exactly what I mean, about that. I'd have to dig out many of the statements Timmy writes, to do that. But then, anyone reading Timmy, will quickly be clear that he knows everything, and be in wonder -- the first human to have all the knowledge of everything and everybody in the world.

But then, Timmy knows everything while understanding very little -- denoting a large brain and a small mind.

HINDUISM:

"In the pantheistic all-god Brahma, the whole world of deities, spirits, and other objects of worship is contained, so that Hinduism adapts itself to every form of religion, from the lofty monotheism of the cultivated Brahmin to the degraded nature-worship of the ignorant, half savage peasant.

Hinduism, to quote Monier Williams, "has something to offer which is suited to all minds. Its very strength lies in its infinite adaptability to the infinite diversity of human characters and human tendencies.

It has its highly spiritual and abstract side suited to the metaphysical philosopher — its practical and concrete side suited to the man of affairs and the man of the world—its esthetic and ceremonial side suited to the man of poetic feeling and imagination—its quiescent and contemplative side suited to the man of peace and lover of seclusion.

"Nay, it holds out the right hand of brotherhood to nature-worshippers, demon-worshippers, animal-worshippers, tree-worshippers, fetish-worshippers. It does not scruple to permit the most grotesque forms of idolatry, and the most degrading varieties of superstition. And it is to this latter fact that yet another remarkable peculiarity of Hinduism is mainly due—namely, that in no other system in the world is the chasm more vast which separates the religion of the higher, cultured, and thoughtful classes from that of the lower, uncultured, and unthinking masses" (Brahmanism and Hinduism, 1891, p. 11)

Daniel is correct. We lose our ability to communicate if we use words incorrectly. Dictionaries are not there to tell us what things are. They are there to tell us what we mean by certain words, namely all of them. The dictionary tells us what the word means, not what the thing is.

Navin is trying to sell us this ridiculous notion that people are letting the dictionary tell them what things are. Navin doesn't like words or dictionaries. You can read all about Navin's dislike for words and dictionaries in the Hindu book of Hinduism. But Hinduism is not a mono-ideology if that's what you think. Yes they worship the absolute truth/god who you can read about in the Gita, but it is not a mono-ideology. It is a poly-ideology that excludes mono-ideologists. Huh?

Navin you are a walking talking mono-ideologist. Your motto is Poly-ideology or the highway.

Terrorism is not warfare. And neither of them is piracy. And neither are any of them genocide.

Each word has a meaining. If we used the word "terrorism" interchangeably for all manner of raping and pillaging, and murder, and, mayhem, and war, and kidknapping, and child-molesting, and name-calling, and cursing, and, and bullying, yada, yada, yada, we would lose our human ability to comminicate.

(Without making light of the subject), wouldn't we?

BTW, one of the links in the upper inset box is:

HuffPo Religion: Spiritual implications of dimentia

What's "dimentia"? The belief in space-time?

Jihadist

As the success of violence,

The Hindus militarily fought the Islamic colonialist for 1000 years. They fought the British for 150 years. The African tribes fought the european nations for hundreds of years, the American Indians fought the european americans for 300 years, the latin american indians fought the spanish and frech for 300 years, the pagans fought the christians for 1000 years, the arabs fought mohamed for 100-200 years, the christians fought the christians for 500 years. Yet the wars still have not ended.

How are we to know which strategy will yield the victory and if the victory is worth winning if not by a construct like satyagraha?

hariaum

Ongoing counseling for timmy:

The idea that I believe things and that you believe things reflects that humans believe things. The idea that there is only one way to see reality that is the right way is mono-ideology (not in the dictionary). The idea that I see myself a certain way does not mean that everyone else should see me that way. The idea that there is a single set of beliefs to which all hindus ascribe is one based on convenient ignorance. The idea that you ancestors created myths to explain things means everyone did, is over generalization let alone failing to recognize that some of the things our ancestors stated turned out to be true and others not so. The idea that you can make an absolute statement then, when caught in the recognition that that was an absolute statement, means you are choosing to be a sophist, care more about drama than anything else, or simply have nothing better to do than misstate your position then restate it for your convenience...You have actually missed a discussion below about the difficulty in defining who is a terrorist and who is not. If you can't grasp the problem, that SHOULD be something you SHOULD try to grasp. Of course you have no foundation for should or truth though you are happy telling me what I should do and see as truth (hmmm like the christians that I know).

So do laugh on. Your sense of humor is probably doing you well as it is your friends. A deep education (and yes this is where you realize the dictionary is only a beginning of grasping meaning) is something you might want to pursue after you get done laughing.

hariaum

NAVIN

"That is mythology at it's best. It didn't really happen"

The dictionary didn't really happen? Words were not given definitions so that we could communicate?

"evidence of monoideological thinking - all or nothing"

So if someone were to make the statement that "mono-ideology is THE problem" this would be an example of mono-ideological thinking? Do i have this correct? I think I do.

"You're assertion, as a certain truth is a monoideological assertion."

What assertion as a certain truth? I made no such assertion.

"If the dictionary definition was so clear, then there would be no debate. There is debate (even in very educated legal forums), ergo the dictionary definition is inadequate"

I was talking about the specific debate here. And I said that there SHOULD be no confusion and I stand by that. I think that the dictionary definition of the word "terrorist" is just fine. The debate is not over the definition of the word but whether or not certain people or groups match that definition, and that all depends on your perspective.

The only one who seems to be confused here is Jihadist. It seems as though she wants the use of that word discontinued or something. I'm not sure what she's babbling about to tell you the truth. She seems to think that everyone is arguing with her and I don't think that anyone is.

"If you don't believe the Gita was historical, unless you have proof that it did not happen, then your assertion is a belief system and nothing more"

It's not a belief system it's just a belief. And it is based on the evidence that our primitive ancestors invented all kinds of myths just like the GIta. There is every good reason to believe that it was made up just like all of the others.

"The statement, "It didn't really happen" indicates you are certain of what has happened in history"

Nope. It indicates that I am confident in my belief. I am not ever certain of anything. That's your gig and your hang-up.

"If you want to qualify your mono-ideological rant, go for it"

If you want to ever quote such a thing, go for it. Here's an example of 2 mono-ideological statements.

1. I am a Hindu
2. Mono-ideology is THE problem.

Here is an example of a non mono-ideological statement.

I am an atheist.

The difference should be clear. "Atheist" is a label put upon me by the dictionary. I meet the definition and that is all that makes me an atheist.

To call yourself Hindu, however, is a choice of your own. It is not a label that only speaks to one particular thing that you do not believe, it is the name of the religion that you belong to by your positive choice. It represents a set of ideas and doctrines that you follow and believe in. It has written scriptures that all Hindus follow. It is a mono-ideology.

The word "atheist" does not speak anything to what I believe. It only speaks to one particular thing that I do not believe. Agnostic speaks more loudly to what I believe. I believe that we don't know. And my evidence for this belief is that all who claim to know, seem to be equally full of crap.

I hope you realize your quote of me was actually a quote of Timmy

hariaum

Jihadist,

not at all disagreeing with you.

MLK, Aang San Kyui, Neslon Mandela etc are truly remarkable persons as to moral leadership in the world. I am not at all a pacifist. I also believe that satyagraha works better and faster when there is a ready threat of violence if the oppressors don't join with the pacifist. The US revolution was over in a few years, Satyagraha takes a long time. But it is an alternative to violence.

But if one engages in killing civilians to cause terror to achieve political ends then one has a hard time saying how terrible the government is for doing the same thing. The fact that one is on the losing side of a war does not then justify their struggle. So when the American's tarred and feathered the torries, this was an act of terror. When the great debates around the revolution started up, one important point was that a revolution to replace one tyrant with another is not much of a revolution.

Just as persons in the islamic world feel that secular victory can not be gained by military means alone, neither can the removal of oppression be gained by killing one's enemies.

Ultimately, satyagraha is an outward expression of the individual's choice of not hating nor choosing to harm one's enemy. In that way, even when satyagraha fails to bring about rapid replacement of the oppressing regime, it succeeds in bringing about the individuals growth and alignment for who they want to be.

Naturally, if one wants to condone violence as an appropriate means for achieving political ends regardless of state, juris prudence, or the other's right to life, then one condones terrorism as a legitimate state of social structure - kill or be killed. In that setting, there can be no reasonable call for avoiding violence. If Israel wants to terrorize Gaza with agent orange, Israel can and even, as this is a moral claim or right to use violence, SHOULD exterminate the palestinians.

So then, how would you explain the root causes of terrorism and the just response - that in the setting of no universal principles? Poverty is not a reasonable cause as most people feel poor. Do we now have the right to blow up BP installations as they have destroyed our environment? Do women have the right to kill their husband's brothers to convince their husbands that hitting them is wrong? Do children have the right to kill policeman to demonstrate to their parents that they want equal rights as the parents? Who has the right to kill and torture? Is the government under the same moral laws as individuals?

I do believe ahimsa validates police and military action in many cases - we as a group surrender our power for a higher good to establish legal rights, norms, and justice, and to defend ourselves from those that would take those from us. Terrorism is different than war. During war, terrorism occurs. No doubt. But how does one evil come to justify another? How do you distinguish between the war to defeat Hitler and the bombing of volleyball players in Pakistan?

hariaum

But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

- Navin1

*******************************************

:)

I know. And dictionaries do include new words and new definations of old words all the time.

There is now also cyber-terrorism used as a term. One is just waiting for definations of cyber violence and cyber assaults by scholars and lawyers.

And, should we call pirates, maritime terrorists? Or just plain terrorists? Or just bandits, robbers, criminals?

But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

- Navin1

*******************************************

:)

I know. And dictionaries do include new words and new definations of old words all the time.

There is now also cyber-terrorism used as a term. One is just waiting for definations of cyber violence and cyber assaults by scholars and lawyers.

And, should we call pirates, maritime terrorists? Or just plain terrorists? Or just bandits, robbers, criminals?

Hello Navin,

There was quite a number of bloggers in On Faith who pointed out the example of Gandhi and India as a alternative to violence before. I let those pass then.

India, under the British, has had less British administrators in proportion to population than in Malaya. A large number of British troops were Indians. The British don't quite want to give independence to the Indians, India being the jewel of the crown in spite of of some historians positing that more wealth was added to British coffers from Malaya and Hong Kong pre World War II than from India.

During the quest for India's independence, Churchill reportedly said India is getting its independence sooner than it expects. Needless to say, the sectoral/religous violence of India's independence (including the partition of Pakistan, and then Bangladesh from British India) still exists today in India.

And of course, the British themselves then thought their own government was being unjust in India and towards Indians. The Amritsar Massacre revulsed them among others. Not tenable for the British to continue fighting for and retaining a country with a population and land mass bigger than theirs. And with WW II to contend with before, during and after in terms of priorities and cost.

As for British Malaya, there was no violence against the British for independence, but from the Malayan Communist Party (MCP. There was collaboration with the British to contain communist insurgency and terrorism, called the "Emergency" pre and post Malaysian independence. As for the French in Indochina and the Dutch in Indonesia, the Vietnamese and the Indonesians has had to resort to violence for their independence. It is interesting reading as to who, why and how.

As for the effectiveness of passive resistance or non-violence, we will have to ask the Burmese under the Burmese junta too. It is obvious that under that principle, the "oppressors", be it the South African apartheid regime, or the British in India, will have to come to their senses on their own, be repentent for what they have done in beating up and being unjust towards their oppressed ones, and to cease on their own. It may take weeks, it may take years, it may take decades.

The Burmese passive resistance and non-violence towards the Burmese junta is working well? Or they have passively accepted that regime? God knows when the Burmese junta will come to their senses, be repentent and remorseful for what they have done towards their own people.

Each and every country and people are different. Using "universal principles" to apply to situations which are particular and peculiar to to countries and people in time and in place is convenient but is to ignore, dismiss, deflect and would not acknowledge nor address what some called the "root causes" of terrorism - whatever they may be for a certain people or a certain country.

TO JON MEACHAM:

You guys act like you are doing your journalistic duty by publishing different opinions about Islam and terrorism, BUT IN YOU SHAMELESS COWARDICE AND DISHONESTY, NEITHER NEWSWEEK, NOR THE WASHINGTON POST, NOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, NOR TIME MAGAZINE, NOR CNN, NOR ANY OTHER MAJOR PUBLICATION HAS EVER PUBLISHED A POINT BY POINT DEBATE BASED UPON SCRIPTURES AND HISTORICAL FACTS between somebody with integrity like Wafa Sultan or Robert Spencer and any pack of Islamic apologists that you can put together.

YOU KNOW THAT ALL YOU APOLOGISTS FOR ISLAM WILL LOSE.

Terrorism?

I think it is when someone sets off a bomb in a Safeway, or in a butcher shop, or in a subway, or in hospital, or in a daycare center.

War may be a terrible thing, but it is not the same as terrorism. To assume that war and terrorism are the same is to be deliberately obtuse.

Terrorism is just killing people, usually with high explosives. Suicide bombing is a kind of terrorism, in which the terrorist has become so completely disconnected from the world that exit from the world, with a big bang of destruction, is seen as the only good thing that can be done.

I believe that in suicide bombing, there is often some sort of coercion involved, if not exploitation of people who may be suffering from mental illness as expressed in religious mania or bipolar disorder, and I believe that behind the scenes of most suicide terror attacks, there are fat, ghoulish, old men, giggling their heads off, about how clever they are to have pulled off another one.

But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

That is mythology at it's best. It didn't really happen.

evidence of monoideological thinking - all or nothing.

Sorry, lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. You're assertion, as a certain truth is a monoideological assertion. If the dictionary definition was so clear, then there would be no debate. There is debate (even in very educated legal forums), ergo the dictionary definition is inadequate.

If you don't believe the Gita was historical, unless you have proof that it did not happen, then your assertion is a belief system and nothing more. The statement, "It didn't really happen" indicates you are certain of what has happened in history and has not in the entirety of history (and as to our previous discussions - that you know what is real and what is not with certainty). Such enlightenment does not seem to flow from your words. If you want to qualify your mono-ideological rant, go for it.

hariaum

NAVINRANT

"oh, btw, Timmyrant, timmyrant (mono-ideological t(imm)yrant)"

In what way am I mono-ideological? Because I think your religion is laughable? So is your statement that I am mono-ideological.

"Step outside of your rear end and think"

Spoken like a true enlightened one.

"So you may not believe Socrates was skeptical but what is written down as coming from him was certainly skeptical. Hello"

Socrates was a real person, not a mythical character. Hello.

The comments I am seeing around the Internet indicate that the educated members of the general public are learning the truth about Islam, and are rejecting the lies promulgated by all you spineless socially prominent position-holders collecting large paychecks by telling lies.

PRETTY SOON, EVERY TIME YOU START LYING ABOUT ISLAM, YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM, AS IN THE STORY OF THE EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES.

YOU ARE STINKING SHAMELESS IN YOUR DISHONESTY.

I can understand if Muslims are dishonest about Islam; they are under a lot of family and social pressure. BUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ALL YOU NON-MUSLIM LIARS. IF YOU ARE COWARDS AND AFRAID OF THREATS FROM DEVOUT MUSLIMS, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF KEEPING YOUR MOUTHS SHUT ABOUT ISLAM IN PUBLIC. That would convey something.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR YOUR SHAMELESS LIES THAT I CAN SEE.

Islam is the biggest threat to the civilized world for the next century or more, and your lies are only adding to the world's risk.

TTY

I am glad you are ready to use history to judge prophets. You and I can disagree, but to me the christian history is one of oppression, hatred, and genocide. That pretty well sums up the rightness of jesus - he wasn't. (or perhaps you will use history to judge the other but not the church, after all the church is innocent and its followers that made the mistakes, islam can be blamed for its followers but not your church that innocent beacon and all...)

oh, btw, Timmyrant, timmyrant (mono-ideological t(imm)yrant). Step outside of your rear end and think. Even if you don't believe the Gita is written by god, it was written, as the evidence suggests. It is skeptical as to why anyone would believe someone's statement as to the idea that they are god, and it does demand proof even in the face of god, and the proof is not subjection but actual experience -quite EVIDENT in the plot. So you may not believe Socrates was skeptical but what is written down as coming from him was certainly skeptical. Hello.

hariaum

TO JON MEACHAM:

I am glad that Newsweek is a dying magazine. I was a longtime subscriber (15-20 years), but in recent years, YOUR MAGAZINE BECAME A SHAMELESS PUBLICATION WHITEWASHING ISLAM, with people like Fareed Zakaria (who is otherwise intelligent and perceptive) and Lorraine Ali.

ISLAM IS THE ONE CREATION OF THE HUMAN MIND THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO TURN ALMOST EVERY SOCIALLY PROMINENT PERSON INTO A LIAR.

The definition of terrorist is in the dictionary. I'm not sure what all the confusion and fuss is about.

There are Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists and atheist terrorists and state terrorists. The word terrorist goes quite well with adjectives. There is no reason for us to ever generalize and just say terrorist. It is always helpful to add a descriptor that helps illuminate the motives behind the terrorists actions.

Thus, Islamic terrorist works just fine when the terrorist is terrorizing in the name of Islam. And State terrorist works just fine if one feels that a particular state meets the dictionary definition of terrorist with it's actions.

But seriously, "terrorist" is in the dictionary. There should be no confusion.

NAVIN

"For those that believed it happened, it supports skepticism"

lol. For those who whole heartedly believe the ancient myth without evidence, it supports skepticism. Do you not see the oxymoronishness here?

"As far as I know, it is the only "scripture" that does so (without god getting mad about it)"

Awesome. As long as you believe without question the myth that supports it, you can see that skepticism is built right into our religious doctrines. And now presto, watch me pull this rabbit out of a hat!

"You can believe all religions deny skepticism's value but I will continue to believe the evidence says you are incorrect"

The evidence from the myth that Hindus believe is true? Like I said, so long as it is just laughable and not dangerous, you go girl!

Jihadi

If you read a bit further, I point out the use of terror by governments. I certainly, though certainly not entirely, am aware of governments oppressing peoples. And, yes, war is hell and should be avoided.

But historically, wars happen. Terrorism happens. Since Gandhi the use of terror has had an alternative. Of course Gandhi did not invent peaceful process but he was a major contributor to the modern understanding of it.

On the other hand, a nation state does have some, if limited legitimacy. Any group can collect a set of persons willing to use power to acquire more power. Power, in itself, does not create legitimacy (except for those that believe so). I, as an individual faced with a choice, must decide when I believe my actions are legitimate. If I base it on my ideas of myself being oppressed, that makes me no different than the next goon. If I base my ideas on an attempt at universals, then, at least in attempt, I am trying to achieve a moral action. And universals recognize, it seems to me, the right of the other to exist (not be killed for my benefit).

hariaum

Whether it happened or not is a matter of belief.

But the idea that it supports skepticism is the point. For those that believed it happened, it supports skepticism even in the face of god. As far as I know, it is the only "scripture" that does so (without god getting mad about it).

You can believe all religions deny skepticism's value but I will continue to believe the evidence says you are incorrect.

hariaum

"Arjuna does not accept what Krishna says about godhead and that he is god. Repeatedly Arjuna asks for proof. Only when he personally sees the supreme form does he accept it. That is skepticism at its best"

And, when little Miss Muffet, sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey, along came a spider(!), who sat down beside her(!), and scared poor little Miss Muffet away!

Oh, the misogyny!

Hello Navin1,

In Asia, the term "terrorist" is now rather over-used by some governments who opposed them and/or the state.

No doubt those opposing a certain government or the state in Asia use violence leading to murder to create mayhem. Including those black shirted fellows during Red Shirt demonstrations in Thailand leading to deaths on both the Red Shirters and government troops. A creative deflection from the real flaws in governance and legality of government by the current Thai government in calling them "terrorists" and then putting repressive measures in place to contain "terrorism" and terrorist".

As for definations of terrorist and terrorism in legal and academic circles as set forth by you here:

Terrorist: "One who attempts to instill fear, terror, in persons and groups of persons" leaves out governments doing likewise to their people.

"A terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hope of achieving military targets" leaves out governments doing likewise doing the same.

"A terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hope of achieving political targets" also leaves out governments doing the same.

"A terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hopes of achieving social targets" also leaves out governments doing the same.

Terrorists attacking civilians as the target hopes to drag governments into worst reactions and thus destroy the credibility of the government and turn the people against the government.

"A terrorist that attacks military targets in the hopes of achieving military targets" is just that to weaken and/or compromise the military somewhat in that armed conflict. Armies have a tendency to do "carpet bombing" in pursuit of terrorists affecting civilians rather than "smart targeting" of terrorists, who, of course, are armed civilians, making combing for them among the civilian populations difficult, and hence the recourse of "carpet bombing".

"A terrorist that attacks infrastructure to achieve ends" are attempts to cripple the effectiveness of governments in pursuit of them as per logistics and communications.

In the "war on terror" or "war against terrorists" like all wars, civilians are casualties of war in terms of lives lost, property damaged, hardship brought on by infrastructures, homes, properties lands properties destroyed; economies going down the drain; social cohesion destroyed but for hatred for the terrorists, or for the government, or for both.

NAVIN

"Arjuna does not accept what Krishna says about godhead and that he is god. Repeatedly Arjuna asks for proof. Only when he personally sees the supreme form does he accept it. That is skepticism at its best"

That is mythology at it's best. It didn't really happen. But you keep on believing that mythology is real. And I will keep believing that it is all made up by people who think they know something about God.

"I have asked several times, as have others, why the opposition to gay rights in African American churches is not addressed"

It is addressed every time Gay rights and Christianity is addressed. No reason to single out blacks. It's the Christian bible that is the problem. Skin color has nothing to do with it.

"I cannot fathom why OnFaith refuses to take up the issue"

Because unlike you, they see no need to single out blacks, since the trouble causing dogma is Christian, not black Christian.

"It is all the more alarming that OnFaith does take up the issue of white church discrimination against gays, suggesting that gay black people either do not exist or do not count"

This statement remains unsubstantiated.

"Word to OnFaith: GAy black people exist, ARE human beings with the same rights as gay whites, straight people, and everyone else"

Then why are you trying to single them out as something different and special from standard Christian bias against gays?

Timmy

If you get around to reading the Bhagvad Gita, you will find that Arjuna does not accept what Krishna says about godhead and that he is god. Repeatedly Arjuna asks for proof. Only when he personally sees the supreme form does he accept it. That is skepticism at its best.

The control of ego is not passive dissolution of mind. The control of ego is to accept the primacy of method (yoga) to understand Being without the colorings of our own biases. Mysticism does, I believe, lead to dissolution of ego. This is the dissolution of I as separate from Reality. But skepticism is at the heart of mysticism - show me.

Hindus can certainly be guilty of mono-ideology (and thus persecute those that are different). When they do this, I think they are just as wrong as anyone else.

hariaum

Farnaz,

I agree whole heartedly

1) the black churches were some of the leaders that attacked Californian Gays from equal recognition under the law. Odd, isn't it, that a group of people that were told they can be raped by white men but not marry them suddenly don't see the connection because of the blinding effect of their ideology - for whom the bell tolls all over again.

2) Caste, as you know, in principle I believe makes sense. But in practice in modern democracies is wholly untenable. I believe people are different and should be treated differently, but we know these differences by their actions, not by presumptions based on genetics and social background (even if those are large determinants of their group behavior).

hariaum

originally posted June 9:

Though this is debated in legal and academic circles, let me try as well.
Terrorist:
One who attempts to instill fear, terror, in persons and groups of persons.
And just as killers can be of different kinds:
1) a terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hope of achieving military targets.
2) a terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hope of achieving political targets.
3) a terrorist that attacks a civilian population in the hopes of achieving social targets.
Regardless of the name you put on it, attacking civilians as the target hoping for a secondary gain is terrorism.
Now suppose we extend this to non-civilian targets.
4)a terrorist that attacks military targets in the hopes of achieving military targets That, to me, is what war is all about.
5)a terrorist that attacks infrastructure to achieve ends. Again, what war is all about.

I suppose there are other forms of terrorism.
Note that this is not bullying as that is an attack on an individual to get that individual to change behavior.
This is not defined by self defense. Self defense may or may not use terror. Once civilians are targeted, the claim to self defense is empty.
This is not the same thing as assassination where an individual is killed for a specific political purpose.
This is a discussion of intent. The death of civilians as collateral damage is morally different than the death of civilians as the target. When the target holds civilians hostage, the target causes the collateral damage. When the target operates so that civilians will be more likely to be injured on an attack on the target, the target is the cause of the civilian damage. When the civilians give material aid to the target, they are no longer civilians.
So, an attack on an Indian military outpost can be terrorist but not the same level of moral depravity as an attack on an Indian hotel. Likewise, a bomb droned into a family hiding a target is less morally depraved than a bomb blowing up kids playing volleyball. The dropping of one atomic bomb may be strategic. The dropping of the second an act of terrorism deserving greater moral outrage. Another factor that seems to get thrown in that I have seen in Middle eastern media is that kids throwing stones at a building is not the same level of terrorism as persons launching rockets into a neighborhood of civilians.
You may note, that the military, in this definition, can be a terrorist. But the sanction of a state, duly representing its citizens, validates their use of terror to defeat a perceived enemy. In that case, though, the countering state also has legitimate right to use terror to respond. This becomes a war and victory will go to he powerful. In such a situation, restraint (say the Israelis not wiping out Gaza's population or Palestinians that refuse to cooperate with attacking Israeli civilians) is an act of good faith that a non-terror based solution can be reached.
That is one way to think about it. I don't see a bias in those definitions, but certainly an interesting question.

hariaum

Pardon this digression from the matter of protocol for describing terrorists.

Last week, I posted a quasi digression arising from news that a gay black student has been the victim of anti-gay violence. Yesterday, I went to see him.

This former student of mine suffered several bone fractures and will need weeks to recover. Two of the thugs who brutalized him involved have been arrested.
The police are still looking for the third.

I have asked several times, as have others, why the opposition to gay rights in African American churches is not addressed.

Some large well-to-do African American Churches, anti gay rights, actually post outside their buildings hateful "pictures" of the "real men don't" type, depicting what the artists' apparently think of as gay white men. And these churches do worse.

Having seen the effects of this Church sponsored hatred, which include almost unspeakable violence against gay black men and women, I cannot fathom why OnFaith refuses to take up the issue.

It is all the more alarming that OnFaith does take up the issue of white church discrimination against gays, suggesting that gay black people either do not exist or do not count.

Word to OnFaith: GAy black people exist, ARE human beings with the same rights as gay whites, straight people, and everyone else.

When does OnFaith plan to address this issue, David Waters?

What to call terrorists? Let me see....

There was the "Troubles" Northern Ireland. So, the IRA were troublists.

There was the Gerakan Aceh Merdeka - GAM (Aceh Freedom Movement) in Indonesia who wanted to seceded and have their own state. So, the GAM were secessionists.

There was Robin Hood and his Merry Men whom the Sherriff of Nottingham called bandits. So Robin and his Merry Men were banditists.

There is Mandela, formerly designated terrorists by the apartheid regime of South Africa. Now released from prison and having eschewed violence, into forgiving and forgetting and moving on, is called a great humanitarian, and got the Nobel Peace Prize too.

Those who failed in their fight for their cause against states are also called terrorists. Those who succeeded are called freedom fighters.

Make one wants to blanch sometimes hearing the cliche, "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorists". But still true.

Is the fight agaist "terror" limited to sub-state, non-state fellows angry about this and that, the angrists causing much murder and as mayhem as murderists and mayhemists?

Or, the "war on terror" does not apply to states and goverments reigning with "terror" on their own citizens?

Perhaps we should define or redefine what is a "terrorist state" too?

David Waters,

This post by Aseem Shukla, concerning caste, appears to have been removed not only from the Under God blog, but from the web. I became aware of the problem this morning, when a friend to whom I had recommended it emailed me to say that it appears to have been removed.

Kindly explain why this was done, and please restore the article. It should be on the Main Page.

Under God: Murder in the Name of Honor and Caste - Aseem Shukla

Jul 12, 2010 ... A story of ill fated love has been playing out in the Indian media and interest has now been sparked here as well. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt ...
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../undergod/.../murder_in_the_name_of_honor_and_caste.html

David Waters has posted on the anti-gay bias in white Christian fundamentalist churches on the Under God blog many times.

A few simple clicks of the mouse should do the trick. Just go to Under God, and click.

"When WaPo takes up the issue of Christian anti-gay discrimination, it does so in the context of extreme right-wing fundamentalist decidedly white churches"

But where is your evidence for this? I don't buy it.

"There is considerably more diversity on the issue of gay rights within white American Christian churches than there is among black"

And where is your evidence for this? I could find you all white churches in the south where not a single parishioner is for gay rights. And I can find you black churches in the north where every parishioner is in favor of gay rights.

"The damage done by these churches is incalculable"

Same goes for many white Christian churches. The common denominator is the bible. Christianity is the problem, not blacks.

"Time to address the anti-gay bias in many black churches, OnFaith. Long, long overdue"

There is no reason to single out blacks. The bible and Christianity are the problem. Skin color has nothing to do with it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
NAVIN 1
RIGHT PATHS?

IRT:
“Thus, one looks at the dogma of each and each propagates an idea of one right path. Other ideologies, that do not propagate the idea of one right path, seem, in my view of history, not to be as likely to be genocidal. Thus the dogma of mono-ideology is, to me, the cause of genocidal behavior.

ANS:
How can their be one right path and it be genocidal behavior, and those who do not have the one right path seem to be less genocidal? On the contrary, what is true, is right.

Either the path is right, and I am assuming by path you mean religion, or it isn’t. A religion that is genocidal is not a right religion. A religion that is not right may be genocidal, namely, it is genocidal in that it can causes the death of the soul.

We can determine what religion is right by its fruits. Can we be blind to the fruits of atheism, agnosticism, or Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions; can we not see the contrast between the fruits of Christianity in contrast to mundane religions of the world.

The legacy of these contrasted religions are strife, pain, suffering, famine, pestilence, war death, despotism and totalitarianism. A simpleton can tell when he is being ideologically oppressed, but apparently the elitists are indisposed to these injudicious maladies and their consequences.

A Muslim woman feared for her life as she spoke of the cultural horrors that she experience living in the Middle East under the Muslim culture.

In America, she still believes her life is threatened for exposing the atrocious beheadings, amputations, honor killings, clitorectomies, rapes, and wife beatings judicable under Sharia Law.

Women are tried, at times, in a language foreign to them, without legal representation, and condemned to death by a legal system that is archaic and barbaric. An adulterous woman can be buried up to her neck, (in one case, some 50 men) and stoned to death. A woman may even be condemned to death if she is raped.

This bespeaks of an adumbrated if not an obvious invidious ingrained culture of terrorism. It is a dogmatic religion that isn’t the right path to anything but opprobrious terror.

Simply because a religion is dogmatic, and monotheistic is not a standard for claiming it is invidiously oppressive and genocidal. Nor can there be multiple contrary right religions. Subsequently if follows, there can only be one correct religion.

If 1+1=2 is always right, there cannot be contradictory equations to it. Consequently, contradictions to the true religion cannot be said to also be true.

Hence, because Truth cannot contradict Truth, and that is what multiple religions do, there can only be one true religion. God, because He is infinite, is Truth itself. Since God is Omniscient, and Perfect, he cannot contradict Himself, and therefore, His religion cannot be contradictory.

The True Religion respects the dignity and sacredness of humanity. Because man is made in the image and likeness of God, he has a direct relationship with God who is the purpose and destiny of all men. All men are directed by human nature to seek what is Good. But, God is all that is Good; He lacks no perfection. Therefore man, by his very nature, seeks God.

Further, man, unconsciously or consciously, has an innate unsatiable desire to seek what is Good. Unconsciously, man seeks what is an apparent good even though it may be morally evil. Here, Evil is that which contradicts the nature of man and is an obstacle to his eternal destination.

Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights that are beyond the authority of all governments who are morally bound to recognize that these rights are inviolate. These rights are prerequisites of human nature in order that man may accomplish his purpose in life.

Consequently, any ideology, belief, or practice that impugns these inviolable rights is in effect a terrorist ideology. Any ideology that demeans the value of human life is anti-social, and is a path to social suicide.

Let me see. I live in a developing country. Like most developing countries in Asia and Africa which has seen it's nation independence in the last century, our ancestors are called "terrorists" by the colonising power for fighting against them. Now our history books called these sorts "freedom fighters" for our country, and "founding fathers" of our nation.

Our governments can be more terrifying in oppressive and suppresive governance, in their interpretion and enforcement of the rule of law, in administration of justice as they see fit. Our governments can be more terrorising in in curtailing personal freedoms, in public freedoms. More damage is done by our elected and non-elected governments against their country and people by their acts.

Should I be frightened of those designated as terrorists by the state, which has all the resources, the army, the police, the laws to contain designated terrorists? Or, should I be more frigtened of states terrorising me with the law, the army, the police on their side and used anytime they want, even for peaceful assembly and freedom of speech in criticising them and their policies?

Who knows, some would again, be called terrorists for fighting against the very goverment who is oppressive and suppressive. Of course, passive resistance is laudable and desirable, but armed conflicts is reprehensible leading to murders by both states and designated terrorists.

Each and every designated terrorist group have their "root causes", their reason for existing and being. It varies from state to state. They certainly cannot win and are criminals by their acts and by law. Nor do they receive mass support from the populations of states they operated in. Or they would have already removed the very government they are against.

The state and it security apparatus (the army and police) sometimes do get off "lighter" for their excessess in containing, suppressing, eliminating the designated terrorists. They are not charged under civil law. Their murders, rapes, torture are sometimes "justified" as "necessary" by the state.

Sub-state, non-state designated terrorists are mosquitos which can be swatted by the state apparatus. States that act like terrorists are really heavy and oppressive elephants. And the question not asked by states and governments honestly is what cause their citizens to take up arms against them and for alternative forms of governance.

It is also disturbing that Aseem Shukla's essay condemning caste in Asia, the first such essay to appear on OnFaith, was not only removed from the blog, but from the web.
Please restore it, David Waters.

When WaPo takes up the issue of Christian anti-gay discrimination, it does so in the context of extreme right-wing fundamentalist decidedly white churches. There is considerably more diversity on the issue of gay rights within white American Christian churches than there is among black.

This anti-gay bias is manifested in ways that are absolutely mind-blowing, such as the posting of white, "effeminate" men outside black churches with various warnings about appropriate male behavior: eg., "Real men don't stalk women."

The damage done by these churches is incalculable. I have seen brutality at a level I cannot believe, met young, religious people who turned to drugs to run from the facts of being gay.

If there is an issue of political correctness here, it resides within these black churches, which are incorrect.

OnFaith has addressed in initiative by black churches to assist black male students--that would be black male students as distinct and separate from white male students. There is such a thing as cultural specificity.

Time to address the anti-gay bias in many black churches, OnFaith. Long, long overdue.

"It is all the more alarming that OnFaith does take up the issue of white church discrimination"

I have seen the issue of church and religious discrimination against gays here but I do not recall it ever being singled out as "white" churches" or "white religion".

When WAPO takes up the issue of gay rights and the church, which they have done many times, why do you think that they are excluding black churches? Christianity is Christianity. I see no reason to single out black Christian churches as being anything different than the Christian church in general. The hatred towards gays all comes from the same book. And it happens in both the black and white Christian community. One story for both will suffice. No reason to single out black congregations.

Again, show me a WAPO article on gay rights discrimination that is focussed on white churches only. I've never seen such a thing.

Ed

"Is invoking fear that you will spend eternity in torment unless you believe as I do a form of terrorism?"

No, just delusion.

David Waters,

This post by Aseem Shukla, concerning caste, appears to have been removed not only from the Under God blog, but from the web. I became aware of the problem this morning, when a friend to whom I had recommended it emailed me to say that it appears to have been removed.

Kindly explain why this was done, and please restore the article. It should be on the Main Page.

Under God: Murder in the Name of Honor and Caste - Aseem Shukla

Jul 12, 2010 ... A story of ill fated love has been playing out in the Indian media and interest has now been sparked here as well. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt ...
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../undergod/.../murder_in_the_name_of_honor_and_caste.html

Pardon this digression from the matter of protocol for describing terrorists.

Last week, I posted a quasi digression arising from news that a gay black student has been the victim of anti-gay violence. Yesterday, I went to see him.

This former student of mine suffered several bone fractures and will need weeks to recover. Two of the thugs who brutalized him involved have been arrested.
The police are still looking for the third.

I have asked several times, as have others, why the opposition to gay rights in African American churches is not addressed.

Some large well-to-do African American Churches, anti gay rights, actually post outside their buildings hateful "pictures" of the "real men don't" type, depicting what the artists' apparently think of as gay white men. And these churches do worse.

Having seen the effects of this Church sponsored hatred, which include almost unspeakable violence against gay black men and women, I cannot fathom why OnFaith refuses to take up the issue.

It is all the more alarming that OnFaith does take up the issue of white church discrimination against gays, suggesting that gay black people either do not exist or do not count.

Word to OnFaith: GAy black people exist, ARE human beings with the same rights as gay whites, straight people, and everyone else.

When does OnFaith plan to address this issue, David Waters?

The question is what label the Obama administration recommends. If we know the group responsible, we can call it by its name, eg., Al Quaeda terrorists, Islamic Jihad (the group's name), etc.

OR we could say something like Al Quaeda claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. A Muslim extremist group (Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc.) appeared to be responsible for the attack. Etc.

The fact is the international threat, at present, does appear to come from Al Quaeda related and other groups.

Again, what does the Administration suggest?

Is invoking fear that you will spend eternity in torment unless you believe as I do a form of terrorism?

I don't care what they are called. Islamic, religious, terrorist, christian, whatever. I don't care if they kill each other obsessively. All I care about is these people are coming into our neighborhoods, our airplanes and buses, our civilization, and killing us.

Why? It might matter enough to know why if it helps to prevent it. Otherwise I do not care what they think feel or how miserable their lives are.

Kill them, before they kill us. What a terrible thing to have to say, but there is no solution which will prevent these people from doing it.

I regard all of you academics, ministers, trustees, politicians, and editors who are opposed to using terms such as Islamic terrorism to be LACKING INTEGRITY AND MORAL COURAGE.

Obama has proven himself to be a spineless dishonest politician in his Cairo speech.

THE PROBLEM WITH ALL OF YOU IS THAT YOU ADAMANTLY AND DEFIANTLY REFUSE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY PRINTED IN THE ISLAMIC SCRIPTURES (the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah Rasul Allah). Your arguments are worthless unless you are willing look directly at what is written there, and what the facts of Islamic history are.

Very few people have the courage to speak honestly about Islam. One who does is Wafa Sultan (watch her video interview in the Netherlands prior to her testimony in the Geert Wilders trial, and her other videos on YouTube). Another is Robert Spencer (see his website JihadWatch).

Wafa Sultan is one extraordinarily courageous woman who is truly helping Muslims come out of their mental prisons. All of you Muslim appeasers are hurting both the U.S. and Muslims. (Nazi appeasers did not help Germans.)

DISHONESTY IS NEVER, EVER THE BEST POLICY, except in warfare and espionage.

The only argument you guys made with any validity is that if we tell lies about Islam, there will be fewer people mad at us in the short run.

THERE WILL BE NO GLORIOUS RISE OF PEACEFUL, TOLERANT ISLAM EVER; WHAT WILL OCCUR IN A FEW HUNDRED YEARS IS AN ALMOST TOTAL WORLDWIDE ABANDONMENT OF ISLAM, just like Aztec human sacrifice and Christian burnings at the stake have been abandoned.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

(By the way, I happen to be extremely liberal on virtually every issue. I regard Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, etc. to be nutcases. BUT I REFUSE TO BE DISHONEST, LIKE NEARLY ALL OF YOU PROMINENT POSITION-HOLDERS. I probably have more Ivy league and professional credentials than most of your panel put together.)

DITLD

"Islamic conquest of an empire was garden variety imperialism, a pattern that repeats over and over through history."

I strongly disagree. It can only be compared to religious imperialism. And the muslim warrior in particular loved death in the name of his God more than life. Dying with the glory of fighting for their God is the highest honor any muslim could achieve. This has been in the book since the beginning.

"Suicide bombing is nihilistic self-destruction and destruction of anything else, at random, for no particular reason, but for the purpose of random destruction, alone

You have got to be kidding me. "but for the purpose of random destruction, alone" ??? In the mind of the terrorist, it is for the glory of his God. It is his glorious contribution to the eventual conquering of all the earth in the name of the one true God, Allah. Then, and only then, the world will be at peace, under the shadow of the mighty sword of Islam.

The only thing that's new about suicide bombing is suicide bombs. Had they been available to the original muslim warriors, they would have been used in spades.

"I believe that this is a new and modern feature of Islam, and I believe that it is appropriate to call it Islamic terrorism"

I strongly disagree with the first half of that sentence and completely agree with the second half.

Islamic conquest of an empire was garden variety imperialism, a pattern that repeats over and over through history.

Suicide bombing is nihilistic self-destruction and destruction of anything else, at random, for no particular reason, but for the purpose of random destruction, alone. That is different than imperial conquest.

I believe that this is a new and modern feature of Islam, and I believe that it is appropriate to call it Islamic terrorism.

Navin

I agree with almost everything you said in your posts but not the conclusion that you draw. None of these terrorists were born with the personality of a mono-ideologist. They were all made to be susceptable to mono-ideologies by the religion of their parents. They were all taught to have ultimate faith, to believe without evidence, and to worship invisible entities greater than themselves with absolutely no evidence that such entities exist. In fact they are taught that asking for evidence or showing skepticism is a lack of faith that will separate them from God/Truth. They are taught that skepticism is the devil. All of this combined with the words in their holy books is a chemical stew that produces a zombie who is victimized into being a soldier for the powerful seeking more power.

In your religion exists a similar call to let go of one's own thoughts (ego) and have faith and worship without evidence, to forgo skepticism etc. Fortunately your holy books contain no words that make up the other half of that chemical concoction that produces jihadists and killers of abortion doctors.

Mono-ideologies are certainly not good. But the real problem here is the most corrupt idea ever conceived. This idea that God/Truth will be without evidence. That only some can see or talk to God/Truth. And that God/Truth is unattainable any other way but through absolute faith. This is the idea that creates zombies to be pawns for evil intentioned men.

Fortunately your own claim to know God/Truth is only laughable and not dangerous.

If I identify myself as X and because of X I do things, then at least my concept of X is responsible for my behavior. If my behavior and its justification on X is a recurrent theme in the history of X then X should be examined as a source not just of my unique behavior but of the recurrence of that behavior across persons and time.

If X is found to support that behavior then a causal link can be made but may have a non-stochastic strength to that correlation.

If X exists as a subset of alternative to X then X can be compared as to the probability that persons identifying themselves as X will perform a certain behavior and the probability that those not belonging to X will perform a certain behavior, and the probability of an intermediate state can be known. With these three logical possibilities X causation of a certain behavior can be found.

I don't know of good data to evaluate the question of islamic and christian and buddhist and secular terrorism. We certainly have our prejudices. But historical data suggests that christians, muslims, and communists have been consistently terrorists and genocidal. Certainly others have been so, but the scale is profoundly different.

Thus one looks at the dogma of each and each propagates an idea of one right path. Other ideologies, that do not propagate the idea of one right path, seem, in my view of history, not to be as likely to be genocidal. Thus the dogma of mono-ideology is, to me, the cause of genocidal behavior.

Not all scriptures support a hateful god, most don't. The scriptures of the christo-islamists are really the only ones that do.

So yes, we can call a male terrorist, female terrorist, islamic terrorist, christian terrorist.... But more important than the label is the underlying doctrines / belief systems that make the terrorist justified in their own mind. And we do need to identify that precisely.

hariaum

The reasons politicians do things is political. Surprise. The radical islamist doesn't care what we call it. The radical christian doesn't care what we call it. The moderate is already a moderate. The radical liberal doesn't care what we call it.

Then who is the audience? Constatine figured it out. If your enemies troops are christian and you march on them with a christian symbol on the end of your sword, the enemies troops will have mixed allegiance and fight less well. You win more easily. So if we say some politically correct version (alQaeda, not muslims) and win the war easier, then that is politically expedient. If by claiming all muslims are terrorists we confuse the allegiance of those muslims that happen to support the US and they fight less well for us.

But, the reduction of church power in Europe and the US came with explicit exclusion of their doctrines and church control - leading to modern states with good and bad elements. That exclusion is needed so that there is no confusion (and yet there is) that this or that nation and its people have chosen a secular path. If we are not clear in our secularism, if we are not clear in what we stand for, we may or may not lose the war, but we certainly lose ourselves.

The war on terror is so empty of meaning, so empty of conclusion, that it creates problems. The war on al qaeda and the taliban has largely already been won. They may come back to power as the Germans did after WWI, but they are already defeated. Now we are fighting to stabilize Afghanistan as a favor to the Afghanis that did not support the Taliban for we did not make war on Afghanistan, just the Taliban. And, just in case you don't buy it, remember, the US could have just bombed Afghani cities and never sent troops in but for the coverts looking for Bin Laden. That could well have been the end of the war. It is because we tried to discriminate between our enemies and those neutral that makes American troops die. We are sacrificing for our principle of justice. (note that the Taliban is also killing for their principle of justice - they can't hurt America so they pick a more convenient target, kids in Pakistan playing volleyball.)

hariaum

DITLD

"as far as I know, there has been no nihilistic aspect to Islam in the past"

During the early days of Islam's spreading by the sword, messages were sent out in advance to the kings and leaders of lands in the distance. The message was to lay down your arms. Islam is coming. And resistance against the islamic warrior is futile, because we value death more than life.

It is for the mainstream of Islam to assert itself independently of nihilism and of a moderation and accomodation to a culturally diverse world"

Pointless and futile. Trying to make apple juice from rotten apples. The original Islam values death for Allah over life. It's in the book. The only thing any of these religions can do to modernize is to change their books which they will not do for reasons of the sacred. So they are doomed to antiquity.

Islam and modernity will ever mesh so long as every word in the Koran is considered the sacred word of God. And don't hold your breath waiting for that to change any time soon.

By Islamic nihilism, I mean the belief that life in a non-Islamic world is not worth living and that a world that is non-Islamic should be destroyed.

That is the inference, if not the direct intention, of suicide bombing in the name of Islam. It goes far beyond mere warfare or mere terror. And it goes far beyond the normal politics of control and domination. It is a hyper-Fundamentalist reaction to the real world of cultural diversity and secularism.

I call it an innovation because, as far as I know, there has been no nihilistic aspect to Islam in the past. But like all things, Islam is not merely traditional Islam, but modern Islam, as well, and nihillism is a distinct new feature in the Islamic religion and in Islamic thought.

It is for the mainstream of Islam to assert itself independently of nihilism and of a moderation and accomodation to a culturally diverse world, in defiance of Islamic nihilism; or to allow Islamic nihilism to grow and become the dominant, discredited feature of Islam.

An important aspect of the never ending “war on terrorism” is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the Middle East. This was the main reason for President Obama’s speech in Cairo. But should the administration attempt to ignore the religious motivation for terrorism in order to please the Muslim community?

While there are no doubt liberal and moderate Muslims who will claim that the terrorist attacks on the western world by deeply religious people from the Islamic faith have absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim religion, the fact is that the majority of the terrorists and the majority of the members of terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not only deeply religious, but claim to be taking the violent actions that they take directly because they believe that it is what their religion instructs them to do.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d13-On-Faith-Labels-and-motivations-for-terrorism

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

"I think Islamic nihilism is an modern innovation"

I don't know what you mean by "Islamic nihilism" but if you read the Koran, the Wahabists and the Taliban are the only one's still following it as it is written and originally intended to be followed.

The Christians made God way less metaphorical than Yahweh and then the Muslims came along and used their swords to wipe out any metaphorical aspect of God that may have been left. This literalist religion is not compatible with any form of sanity. Attempts to modernize it are asinine and futile.

DAvid6

"Islam is perfectly capable of accomodating itself to societies in which it is not the established religion"

Only by becoming something different than Islam but still using the same name. The misogyny in Islam is incompatible with US law and western culture. It is only compatible with Sharia law.

"Don't make excuses for the most vile and disgusting people of a group and claim that they represent what that group has to be like"

I'm not talking about terrorists. I'm talking about women's rights. and even the most mild forms of Islam violate them.

DAVIS

I'll skip over all of your opening unsupported ad hominem attacks and jump right to the meat.

"Freedom of religion is not the issue when it comes to selecting a site on which to build a temple"

You were suggesting that it should not be allowed to happen which is most certainly a freedom of religion issue.

"Furthermore, by your unreasoning and ill-thought out logic, all people following the Islamic faith are terroists"

An unsupported accusation that is flat wrong. 99.99999% of people following the islamic faith are not terrorists.

By extension, since Christianity has spawned acts of terror, all Christians are terrorists"

Wrong. 99.999999999999999999% of Christians are not terrorists.

And then of course I will ignore your final salvo of unsupported ad hominem attacks.

Good day sir.

Timmy2, no one is more pig-headed and self-absorbed as you, nor as ignorant of the constitution as you. Your brand of emotionally justified logic is unsupported and inane at best. Go blog with the rest of the teeny-boppers. Freedom of religion is not the issue when it comes to selecting a site on which to build a temple. A temple is a monument to God or Allah or Buddah or Gaia or what-have-you, not a structure sanctified or imbued with any special gift of harmony granted by liberal non-thought. Furthermore, by your unreasoning and ill-thought out logic, all people following the Islamic faith are terroists. By extension, since Christianity has spawned acts of terror, all Christians are terrorists. Go back to school, boy. Get your GED then get some knowledge. It'll help you argue better.

"Islam is not compatible with America or any free society for that matter. Islam is only compatible with Sharia law."

Islam is perfectly capable of accomodating itself to societies in which it is not the established religion. Don't make excuses for the most vile and disgusting people of a group and claim that they represent what that group has to be like.

Let's call them terrorists. Why not?

They may call themselves Islamic jihadists and others may call them committed religites. Or even, soldiers of god. Or just medieval ignorants who never learned to think for themselves. Or are too terrified to develop sense and critical thinking.

They have shackled themselves to arbitrary religion-mongers to whom they have given power. They can't have it both ways.

They are either terrorists or they are slaves. Maybe it is the same thing. I don't know.

I have been schooled in different ideology(ies). I like to think - I like to apply my thinking to available evidence. I don't ever accept someone else's view/opinion/whatever of anything unless I can evaluate it.

So let's just call them terrorists. Because that's what they are

I think Islamic nihilism is an modern innovation.

The city of New York is not trying to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Towers; Muslims are. But don't worry; it will never happen.

DITLD

"This is a new innovation in Islamic thought"

No it is not. It is the original, making a comeback.

TDAVIS11

"the very thought of allowing an Islamic place of worship to be erected at the 9/11 site is more than abhorent"

Almost as abhorent as not allowing it. But not quite.

"It would be akin to erecting a shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest on the Martin Luther King family estate"

No it would not. 1. private property 2. this is not a freedom of religion issue.

"or asking Japan to build a monument to the Manhatten Project in Nagasaki"

Not even close. None of your examples relate to freedom of religion.

"Whose idea of forgive-and-forget liberal pin-headed nonsense of political correctness is this?"

The founding fathers. It's in the constitution.

No one is more critical of Islam than I. And no one is more critical of Christianity than I. And no one is more protective of religious freedom than I. It is a must. We can not ever disallow a place of worship to be built on private property anywhere.

Terrorists are criminals. Their stated reasons for committing acts of terror are not germane and religious fervor certainly does nothing to mitigate the crimes. Terrorism, whether exemplified by suicide bombers or in the guise of Inquisitors, is an act of barbarism and cruelty and does not suit civilized people. Terrorists are not civilized and should not be treated according to civil standards. On a related issue, the very thought of allowing an Islamic place of worship to be erected at the 9/11 site is more than abhorent. It would be akin to erecting a shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest on the Martin Luther King family estate or asking Japan to build a monument to the Manhatten Project in Nagasaki. Whose idea of forgive-and-forget liberal pin-headed nonsense of political correctness is this? Or does New York just really need the money so badly that Bloomberg is willing to prostitute himself and his city, state and country for this barbaric trophy to the emergence of Islamic values?

Suicide bombing is more than just intimidation. It is a statement about the world and about life, that a world tht is not Islamic should not exist, and that a life lived in a non-Islamic world is not worth living.

This is a new innovation in Islamic thought, which is real and persistent; it is one faction of Modern Islam, an answer to Modern Secularism.

The problem is for Islam to reform into a more moderate, tolerant, and assimilated world culture, co-existing in a culturally diverse world, or to be consumed, and vaporized into utter nothingness, by this new and threatening nihilism.

Terrorism is a method of intimidation. Saying merely that someone is a terrorist doesn't help us understand what their goals are or why they are willing to kill innocent civilians.

Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh are terrorists, but it does no good to lump them in with Mohammed Atta and Anwar al-Awlaki. Their methods may be the same, but their goals are radically different.

There is no excuse for any member of any religion to stand silently as the most radical members of their own sect attack others. Just because the vast majority of those religions wouldn't attack someone themselves, that does not mean that they should feel that they are being unfairly lumped in with the criminals who engage in their criminal activity in the name of their religion.

If Christians refuse to condemn terrorism done in the name of Christianity or Moslems won't condemn terrorism done in the name of Islam, they should expect others to think that they are supporting the terror attacks. By being silent they encourage evil.

I think that Islamic terrorism, especially in the form of suicide bombing, is a post-Modern nihilstic adaptation of a hyper-Fundamentalist orthodoxy, dislocated, lost, and ship-wrecked in the pitiless cultural churn of a twenty-first century secularist vortex. This is a modern Islamic innovation, which is as real and as valid as all of the other modern innovations, which they seek to stamp out; and therefore, it is valid to call it Islamic.

Yes, it is the responsibillty of Islam to reply to this new terroristic nihilism, which is becoming rapidly ascendent in Islamic thought and culture. It is up to Islam to deal with the question of hyper-fundamentalism, and how it adapts to a modern world, either by more traditional methods of moderation and assimilation, or by admititng and acknowleging the new nihilistic innovations as a standard part of Islam.

Obama is making a mistake. An Islamic terrorist is just that. This is not a person who would be otherwise a terrorist. It is only the religion that makes them a terrorist. Everything an Islamic terrorist does they do in their God's name. It is all motivated by the words in their holy book. So what if others are capable of reading that book and not killing apostates. The book says what it says and an Islamic terrorist is an Islamic terrorist.

Islam is not compatible with America or any free society for that matter. Islam is only compatible with Sharia law.

"What should we call terrorists, some of whom claim to be motivated by their religion?"

How about "terrorists"?

"Can one be an Islamic terrorist?"

One can.

"What about a Christian terrorist?"

If you are attempting to ask "Can one be a Christian terrorist?", one can.

"Does what we call terrorists matter?"

It might matter to the terrorists.

The problem with all religions is their holy books. Everything was written direct from God, unchallengeable, unalterable, forever. So, while plenty of Muslims, Christians, and Jews have moved on to a more humanist position, their sacred texts rail at them to follow the life of pre-Industrial peoples to whom women are property, slaves are an economic boon, and life is cheap.
I think it is unfair to think all Muslims/Christians/Whateverans are terrorists, but you can't just disown those who actually follow what your sacred holy books say, and become terrorists or murders or just plain jerks. Our thoughts on morality have come a long way since any of the main holy books were written. So I say to all religious people, if you want your religion not to endorse extremist morals, please, write down what you want it to endorse. Make a moral catechism, and put it in the back of every holy text. Otherwise, people will read in the Bible to put witches and gay men to death, or in the Koran to kill anyone who converts from Islam, and wonder, why should this not be followed? And it is just as much the fault of these religions for not making it very clear why that is the case.