3 ms·
You seem to attribute a lot to politics. I would argue that religion is the variable that plays the dominant role in this war of ideas.
by michaelmcmillan 11y ago
You seem to attribute a lot to politics. I would argue that religion is the variable that plays the dominant role in this war of ideas.
- ascorbic 11y agoIn these situations, religion is politics.
- swiley 11y agoThis isn't talked about enough. More people in both secular and religious contexts need to notice how bad this can get sometimes.
- michaelmcmillan 11y agoHow does the actual belief in paradise have anything to do with politics?
- twoquestions 11y agoYou and many others seem to post that there is a mental cancer infecting 1.5 billion people on this planet, and at any time it could transform its host into a bloodthirsty murderer seemingly at random. I don't buy it.
- kbart 11y agoAll religions are mental cancer, some just have more serious consequences than others.
- tomp 11y agoThat's not exactly true; e.g. in the UK, there was a lot of terrorism in the past by IRA - although Ireland and the UK have different religions, I don't think that was the main issue. The main issue was divisions between two groups of people and the resulting inter-group hate. On the other hand, religion is probably the most important, yet arbitrary and completely illogical, divisive influence in the world. So, religion most definitely is to blame.
- DanBC 11y agoYou don't think religion was the main issue in the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence#Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence#Northern_Ir...
- matthewmacleod 11y agoThe parent's point is valid – although religion is the most obvious expression of social division, the roots are deeper. People don't erupt in open warfare due to differences in religion unless there are other issues – such as social injustice, or economic differentials, or so on.
- pjc50 11y agoNot religion in the sense of theological belief, but religion in the sense of loyalty and belonging. Christianity fractured in 1517 over the question of the extent of Papal authority and corruption. This led to centuries of power struggle as to who was superior: papal authority or civil authority? The UK eventually decided for civil authority in 1688 by installing a Parliament-respecting Protestant monarch rather than a Pope-respecting absolutist Catholic monarch. The ensuing fighting was ended at the Boyne in 1690. But it's still a battle the commemoration of which leads to fighting in the street in NI. This led to a position of Catholic oppression by Protestants for centuries. Is this really a religious issue, or a self-perpetuating cycle of violence?
- tomp 11y agoMaybe it was a poorly chosen example, I though it was mainly a fight for independence. ETA (Basque) vs. Spain would probably be a better example.
- acqq 11y ago> I don't buy it. How about reading the exact sources in order to avoid even being in position of having to "buy" anything? For example the core texts? Just get one and read it. Don't let anybody tell you anything, especially don't trust any claimed "interpretations," read it yourself, in your language, undiluted, not just one sentence, but at least the whole chapter where it appears, take notes, then discuss. And then if you question the translation you read, there are enough online sources which display the different translations which can be then compared. You can even search where any word is used through all the texts. Just don't believe anybody who says that you can't do that. Just like I don't have to know ancient Greek to understand what's written in the Odyssey. Then investigate if there are any known interpretations by the influential scholars that are equivalent to western approach to other religions "that it shouldn't be taken literally." Investigate the practices and how the ideas are actually applied in real life. Study history to know how they were historically applied and which effect they had. Know the context. (I'm not going to discuss this further here, this is my only post, but I stand to my claim that everybody can read and understand the sources and research how they are viewed by the influential scholars, and that these facts can be calmly discussed, and that the discussion should not depend on the groupthink or faith but the actual knowledge of the topic discussed. Don't write "I don't buy" this or that, discuss the facts you actually know, then somebody can contribute to your knowledge by stating the facts he knows etc). Moreover I haven't seen anybody else who wrote what I see only you write: "You and many others seem to post that there is a mental cancer infecting 1.5 billion people on this planet, and at any time it could transform its host into a bloodthirsty murderer seemingly at random." Careful readers are advised to read what others really wrote (e.g the post to which you respond wrote just "I would argue that religion is the variable that plays the dominant role in this war of ideas"), not what you claim (or somebody else claims) it is supposed to mean. Analyzing your post in this light, it appears to be strikingly manipulative and dishonest, distorting what others actually wrote and promoting non-thinking and blindly believing (your attempt to discredit somebody with something he hasn't even written).
- artursapek 11y agoReligion is the way the leaders of these groups convince their followers to blow themselves up. Without religion it would be completely against their self interest to do so.
- danharaj 11y agoI'm pretty sure desperate economic conditions, political instability and alienation have a lot more to do with it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- michaelmcmillan 11y agoHow do you explain that a person without any social or political grievances decide to abandon their computer science degree to fight for an Islamic state? [1] [1] Jihadi John: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/27/the-horror-of-jihadi-john-and-the-jihadi-janes-coming-to-join-him/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/27/the-horror-...
- tobltobs 11y agoNot getting laid for too long.
- harshreality 11y agoIslam, and radical Islam specifically, are not the sole ingredient transforming random people into murderers or suicide murderers. It is an ingredient. Eric Hoffer's _The True Believer_ is a good sketch of the phenomenon. Among the disaffected, some will latch onto any available dogmatic belief system. As long as radical Islam is in the news, and is accessible, some among the disaffected will choose that path. Not all dogmas result in blowing yourself up in crowds, or setting off bombs or gunning down people in theaters. Doesn't it make sense to preferentially attack those dogmas that bring out, at present, the worst characteristics in their adherents? It would be great if our foreign policy in the past 1.5 (or 3, or 5, or 7) decades hadn't been a disaster and promoted unrest in the region, because that undoubtedly increased the seriousness of our current situation. We (by that I mean our leaders who make foreign policy and military decisions) should try to learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes, although they all (no matter their politics) seem to do a very poor job of that. But the question of why radical Islam is such a problem now is irrelevant to the question of whether we should fight radical Islam. It's not a very reasonable thing to conclude that because we're partly responsible for the rise of radical Islam, we should do nothing and let it conquer the world if it wants.
- twoquestions 11y agoDeal with individuals goading others to violence by all means! What I think would be an awful mistake is to replicate the Roosevelt style policy with regard to Muslims. Also, The True Believer is already on my to-read list, I'll bump it up after I get done with Piketty. Thanks for the recommendation!
- vixen99 11y agoYou don't have to. It's working its infection through. Just read the holy text and go figure. Or is that hate speech?
- dang 11y ago> Just read the holy text and go figure. Or is that hate speech? It's certainly religious flamewar, which has no place on Hacker News. It's also intellectually puerile, as if there's such a thing as "just reading" any text and "going figure", let alone an ancient text with countless interpretive traditions.
- bottled_poe 11y agoCrazy people can be found from all walks of life. Unfortunately many of those people do not receive the mental health services they need. It's not the religion that makes people crazy, it's the lack of other social support services available to the very few that really need it. Instead of the support they need, these people get a radicalised church offering meaning and the promise of a better life.
- amelius 11y agoI would say that religion is only a means here. The underlying reason for the problems is political failure.
- tobltobs 11y agoWhereby the biggest political failure is to not separate politics and religion.
- mozumder 11y agoIt's less religion and more economic disparity. That's why you have beheadings in Mexico as well.