Something vaguely interesting in the wake of recent terrorist attacks.

[the splendor of antigone]

I have told you before, jokingly, that all religion is a form of mental illness. Yes, believing some of that **** as literal makes one appear rather crazy. However, when the same book promises you things you like the sound of if you are willing to believe it, it starts to sound less mad. Chuck in the fact that your parents and everyone around you believes it and it begins to look inevitable.

The real 'sickness unto death', is not usual story of the individual who is caught between the acknowledgement that death is the end, that there is nothing Beyond this material reality, and his needing to believe that our own demise isn't the last thing -- i.e. that there is another life beyond death, with its promise of redemption and a blissful eternity. The 'sickness unto death', rather, is the condition of someone who knows well enough that our material demise isn't the end, i.e. that we have immortal souls, but cannot face the maddening demands of this fact (the necesseity of abandoning fleeting aesthetic pleasure and tirelessly work for our salvation), and as a result desperately wants to belive that death IS the end -- that there is no divine unconditional demand exerting pressure on us.

In short: Are you sure you're not the mentally ill won

[Ash]

The real 'sickness unto death', is not usual story of the individual who is caught between the acknowledgement that death is the end, that there is nothing Beyond this material reality, and his needing to believe that our own demise isn't the last thing -- i.e. that there is another life beyond death, with its promise of redemption and a blissful eternity. The 'sickness unto death', rather, is the condition of someone who knows well enough that our material demise isn't the end, i.e. that we have immortal souls, but cannot face the maddening demands of this fact (the necesseity of abandoning fleeting aesthetic pleasure and tirelessly work for our salvation), and as a result desperately wants to belive that death IS the end -- that there is no divine unconditional demand exerting pressure on us.

In short: Are you sure you're not the mentally ill won

I have read this twice and it doesn't really work at all as a piece of communication.

Congrats, Splenders, first pwopah bit of wordkuntery we've had on here in ages.

[the splendor of antigone]

I have read this twice and it doesn't really work at all as a piece of communication.

Congrats, Splenders, first pwopah bit of wordkuntery we've had on here in ages.

The nonsense above does read rather spastically, I admit Happy to be back, Ash

[Peter]

.
"All but very few people will have been brought up in an environment that taught them that [murder] is wrong"

Yes but millions upon millions are
brought up to believe Islam exists to conquer the world. If not directly, then by dint of the fact they are taught that the Koran is the literal word of god.

It is only in modern secular societies that we believe murder is wrong.
State-sanctioned murder of gay people and apostates is still murder according to our own moral code.

Do you believe the rulers of Iran,
Saudi Arabia et al are "mentally
ill" for killing people for acting against the rulings of Islam?

No, you don't. So why are
you so quick to assume a 22
year old who blows up
a pop concert for the precise same reason Iran and Saudi kill gays and apostates must be mentally ill?

Woaaah….slow down a minute.

Firstly, there is a difference between religious domination of a state and an individual act of terrorism. While the outcome (killing a non-believer or someone perceived to be in the wrong) may be the same, the action is not. Our moral code (if you mean the West) does NOT hold that state execution is the same as murder. You will find plenty of people in Britain who do not agree that it is. Of course, the US still practices it at state level.

Now, your moral or religious backdrop may decide which crimes are deserving of this punishment and indeed which activities are a crime. State sponsored murder of gay people is appalling- but is it appalling because it is murder or because they still believe it is a crime that merits punishment? I would argue both.

From a political perspective there is also a huge difference between exacting punishment within your own jurisdiction and going to another country where you have no authority and doing the same. I am not defending anything here, merely pointing out that they are not the same thing.

What you are really talking about is societies still based on religious dogma, strict interpretation and brutal punishment. We were still burning catholics in the 16th century. By the 19th century were just banning them from political office. We had the enlightenment, we had scientific and philosophical advances that questioned everything- the societies you mention took none of this on board, either through geopolitical-economic accident or through ruthless design.

It’s a tough sell to blame the religion itself for this, which is pretty much what you are doing if you wish to blame Islam for everything done in its name but absolve the other religions. Christianity exists most vociferously in the developed world where it sits alongside a modern set of values that hold archaic, rules, rituals and punishments to be unacceptable. Islam exists in its more extreme form in parts of the world where these modern values never took hold. Do you think this is purely because of Islam or related to other factors?

Apart from anything else, it tends to be ****ing hot in most of these places. I would get the hump every now and then.

[Peter]

The real 'sickness unto death', is not usual story of the individual who is caught between the acknowledgement that death is the end, that there is nothing Beyond this material reality, and his needing to believe that our own demise isn't the last thing -- i.e. that there is another life beyond death, with its promise of redemption and a blissful eternity. The 'sickness unto death', rather, is the condition of someone who knows well enough that our material demise isn't the end, i.e. that we have immortal souls, but cannot face the maddening demands of this fact (the necesseity of abandoning fleeting aesthetic pleasure and tirelessly work for our salvation), and as a result desperately wants to belive that death IS the end -- that there is no divine unconditional demand exerting pressure on us.

In short: Are you sure you're not the mentally ill won

Its funny. Monty thinks Muslims are mental for believing that the big Mo flew to the moon. In our era people are considered to be mental if they believe that Neil Armstrong didn’t.

Its all *******s isn’t it.

[Monty92]

Its funny. Monty thinks Muslims are mental for believing that the big Mo flew to the moon. In our era people are considered to be mental if they believe that Neil Armstrong didn’t.

Its all *******s isn’t it.

Erm, my entire argument is based on me not believeing they are mentally ill
for believing that. No more than someone who believes in horoscopes anyway.

[Peter]

Erm, my entire argument is based on me not believeing they are mentally ill
for believing that. No more than someone who believes in horoscopes anyway.

I only meant that you referred to it. Clearly I owe you an apology.

[Monty92]

I only meant that you referred to it. Clearly I owe you an apology.

That's fine, but I'm still confused by your position. Perhaps you can help me out if we take things step by step. So, am I right in saying that you believe:

1) That those who commit suicidal terrorist attacks must be mentally ill, since “no-one can possibly believe all that shít and be prepared to kill for it”. So the only explanation for their actions must be a chemical imbalance in their brains that led them to seek out a cause to justify their pre-disposition for murderous crime – and that cause happened to be religion. In other words, if religion hadn’t turned these people into murderous criminals, something else would have.

2) When it comes to people who live in societies still based around religious dogma, religiously-inspired fanaticism can be explained by the environment they were brought up in, rather than mental illness.

Anything I've misrepresented about your view here?

[Peter]

That's fine, but I'm still confused by your position. Perhaps you can help me out if we take things step by step. So, am I right in saying that you believe:

1) That those who commit suicidal terrorist attacks must be mentally ill, since “no-one can possibly believe all that shít and be prepared to kill for it”. So the only explanation for their actions must be a chemical imbalance in their brains that led them to seek out a cause to justify their pre-disposition for murderous crime – and that cause happened to be religion. In other words, if religion hadn’t turned these people into murderous criminals, something else would have.

2) When it comes to people who live in societies still based around religious dogma, religiously-inspired fanaticism can be explained by the environment they were brought up in, rather than mental illness.

Anything I've misrepresented about your view here?

I think my general point is that it is absurd to blame the entire religion for the actions of a tiny group of people who have been indoctrinated with a medieval interpretation of that religion’s very worst imperatives. And that you could apply the same to any religion if you look at a different period of history.

I don’t think it is fair to say that all these people are mentally ill but I do suspect that there is something seriously wrong with them. On the journey from curious young man finding out about Islam on his computer to standing outside a large event with a nailbomb in a rucksack there are a million points of departure, a thousand different avenues to go down. The fact that very, very few get this far suggests that it isn’t something that appeals to those with a semblance of balance in their lives. And thank god…. These forms of terrorism are a piece of piss to pull off. If there were a million muslims just itching to get over here and hire a van we would be scraping bodies off the pavements every hour. We aren’t, because there isn’t….. because despite the best efforts of radical clerics, one handed beardy ****s and a load of would-be gangstas in Toyotas rolling through the desert with a childish flag the prospect of blowing yourself up in order to kill a few teenage pop fans still seems to appeals to very, very few people, even among the ardent believers.

So no, your two points are not really a fair summation, if for no other reason than you contrast 1) where the subject is a murderer with 2) where he or she is simply a religious fanatic. Of course, in 2, it is not mental to believe what you were taught growing up and what everything in your environment tells you. Maybe that includes butchering people but if it is all you have ever known……. **** knows, maybe it is a perfectly sane and rational response. Neither of us would know, would we.

The original point was whether Islam itself is to blame for this, whether the religion itself is the inevitable root cause of all these events. I don’t think it is.

[Monty92]

I think my general point is that it is absurd to blame the entire religion for the actions of a tiny group of people who have been indoctrinated with a medieval interpretation of that religion’s very worst imperatives. And that you could apply the same to any religion if you look at a different period of history.

I don’t think it is fair to say that all these people are mentally ill but I do suspect that there is something seriously wrong with them. On the journey from curious young man finding out about Islam on his computer to standing outside a large event with a nailbomb in a rucksack there are a million points of departure, a thousand different avenues to go down. The fact that very, very few get this far suggests that it isn’t something that appeals to those with a semblance of balance in their lives. And thank god…. These forms of terrorism are a piece of piss to pull off. If there were a million muslims just itching to get over here and hire a van we would be scraping bodies off the pavements every hour. We aren’t, because there isn’t….. because despite the best efforts of radical clerics, one handed beardy ****s and a load of would-be gangstas in Toyotas rolling through the desert with a childish flag the prospect of blowing yourself up in order to kill a few teenage pop fans still seems to appeals to very, very few people, even among the ardent believers.

So no, your two points are not really a fair summation, if for no other reason than you contrast 1) where the subject is a murderer with 2) where he or she is simply a religious fanatic. Of course, in 2, it is not mental to believe what you were taught growing up and what everything in your environment tells you. Maybe that includes butchering people but if it is all you have ever known……. **** knows, maybe it is a perfectly sane and rational response. Neither of us would know, would we.

The original point was whether Islam itself is to blame for this, whether the religion itself is the inevitable root cause of all these events. I don’t think it is.

So, the behaviour of a father in Afghanistan who stones his own daughter to death for adultery, as prescribed by the hadith, is not the fault of Islam itself.

A citizen of Saudi Arabia who openly advocates death for apostasy, supports his government in applying such a law and expresses his enthusiasm for it by attending public executions, is not the fault of Islam, even though it explicitly prescribes this punishment.

A law-maker in Iran who in good conscience helps to implement the death penalty for homosexuality, because he believes Islamic scripture, which commands that homosexuals be killed, is the infallible word of God, but this is not the fault of Islam.

Even though all of these actions are at the direct behest of the religion you claim should not be blamed...

On another note, you wrongly assume I absolve other religions for their past (and enduring) moral failings. I do absolutely no such thing.

If I am singling out Islam, it is because Islam remains an intolerably dangerous religion (dangerous to other muslims far more than to non-muslims) whereas the others do not. That is not to say that other religions do not continue to do untold harm, but to no way near the same extent as Islam.

I think it’s incredible that you deny the primary role of religion in these matters and how different things would be without it. It is indisputable that without Islam (or certainly with LESS Islam) these societies would have had a far better chance of adopting modern western values. For starters, without Islam (or any other religion), no geopolitical events would have created a climate of religious devotion in which apostates are executed (by definition this is true, because without religion there would be no such thing as apostasy) and there’s every chance that women and gays might be spared by now as well.

The other point is that the geopolitics you rightly refer to as a factor in how these societies have failed to progress is also inextricably linked with religion. This is because Jihad is justified by Islamic scripture when Muslim societies are being attacked. Given this, how can you possibly separate geopolitics from religion, as you seem so keen to do?