Taking Offense

[Cheraphy]

So, they do assinign things like calling Christmas Trees "Holiday Trees", or Muslim terrorists "terrorists" or "radicals"

We do that to disassociate the fringe sect of Muslim extremists from the overwhelming majority of muslims that are not. Because it is popular culture in America to believe that all Muslims are terrorists, when in reality the terrorists that act in the name of their god ARE radicals who use their religion to justify violence.

As for referring to Christmas trees as holiday trees. I'll agree that's asinine. We should call them saturnalia trees like they really are.

[IWishIKnew]

@Cheraphy

Cheraphy said:

We do that to disassociate the fringe sect of Muslim extremists from the overwhelming majority of muslims that are not.

And what? That means they aren't muslim? You should not avoid calling them by name simply because people have seen and heard muslim terrorists repeatedly commit heinous acts. They are Muslim. They are terrorists. They are muslim terrorists.

Just because fools generalize doesn't mean we should avoid naming them what they are.

[Cheraphy]

Just because fools generalize doesn't mean we should avoid naming them what they are.

I would agree if the issue of generalization wasn't the norm.

[Disch]

Just because fools generalize doesn't mean we should avoid naming them what they are.

Are they not terrorists?
Are they not radicals?

How are we misnaming them by eliminating the word "Muslim" from our description?

We also could call them "Muslim extremist terrorists who often have facial hair, are predominantly male, and are usually above 5 feet tall". Most of that information is completely unnecessary to voice when talking about the group as a whole, as it is not their defining characteristic.

[booradley60]

Cheraphy wrote:

We do that to disassociate the fringe sect of Muslim extremists from the overwhelming majority of muslims that are not.

We can do that by leaving the word "terrorist" in, not by taking "Muslim" out. Taking out "Muslim" whitewashes the motivations for what they're doing.

Disch wrote:

Most of that information is completely unnecessary to voice when talking about the group as a whole, as it is not their defining characteristic.

In what way do we distinguish Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and Mohammed Atta? Their motivations. In this case, the religious fundamentalism is an important, defining characteristic.

[Cheraphy]

We can do that by leaving the word "terrorist" in, not by taking "Muslim" out. Taking out "Muslim" whitewashes the motivations for what they're doing.

What does it matter what their motivations are? Especially if their motivations aren't exclusively their motivations?

Three men blow up three different public schools. One does so proclaiming "Praise Allah!". Another chanting "END LIBERAL PROPAGANDA" and one more saying "I'm just like Rico from 'Just Cause!' "

Would you punish them all differently because they did so for different reasons? Would you call The second a Conservative Terrorist, or the third a Gamer Terrorist? I'm willing to bet not. You might call them domestic terrorists, but domestic has nothing to do with their ideology.

And most importantly, would you associate conservatives or gamers with mass violence if a non majority percentage of them acted this way? Because that's exactly what you're doing with Muslims when you vindicate attaching their ideology to the acts of terror from a fringe minority.

[IWishIKnew]

@Cheraphy

Cheraphy said:

What does it matter what their motivations are?

Now you're just being rediculous. I'm not going to explain common sense (which, evidently, isn't common) to you.

Cheraphy said:

Three men blow up three different public schools. One does so proclaiming "Praise Allah!". Another chanting "END LIBERAL PROPAGANDA" and one more saying "I'm just like Rico from 'Just Cause!' "

You assert that others commit the same crimes as muslims, yet no other religion preaches violence (yes, it's in their book, GO READ IT) as is in the Quran (the Muslim holy book).

Everything else you've said amounts to nothing, and I won't even bother with it because you're being absurd.

[booradley60]

What does it matter what their motivations are?

Who has time for causes when there's all these effects to think about?

Would you punish them all differently because they did so for different reasons?

I don't understand the point of this question. The point of distinguishing motive is not to inform punishment. It is to establish some sort of context to identify why arguing ideas intellectually was not sufficient to the perpetrator to advance the idea. If we disregard the idea altogether, then we learn nothing from the violent act and leave ourselves open to disaffecting like-minded people in the future.

Would you call The second a Conservative Terrorist?

Why would he blow up a public school and not, say, a federal building in Oklahoma City? Your scenario makes little sense because you don't make any effort to identify or establish motive in connection with the violent act. I might call him a Conservative Terrorist but I'd more likely say right-wing extremist or something similar.

or the third a Gamer Terrorist?

This one stands out because it isn't driven by broader political ideas. There aren't armies (like in the Muslim case), or militias (in the domestic, anti-government case) that elevate playing videogames to an ethos to commit violent acts. The people who commit acts that are commonly associated in the media with a history of violent videogames are usually mentally ill.

So let's review our violent candidates: a Muslim fundamentalist terrorist, a right-wing extremist terrorist, and a mentally-ill mass murderer that played videogames. What do establishing these motives do? Inform the response to the act (beyond the response to the perpetrator directly, which is what law is for). Should we take the same action to prevent future acts from these disparate types of violent people?

To try to steer this back on-topic:
In the first two cases (religious motivation, political motivation), there exists a codified set of principles that drove the action. Ideas must be exposed and argued and the partisans of those ideas must be able to accept criticism without resorting to violence. This is why the phrase "I'm offended" is banal. One is within his rights to be offended, but he should not expect this fact to be compelling or held in regard. Some people mistakenly believe they have the right to be insulated from criticism and offense while maintaining the right to take part in public discourse. I have diminished respect for those people.

[Cheraphy]

yet no other religion preaches violence (yes, it's in their book, GO READ IT) as is in the Quran (the Muslim holy book).

Have you actually READ the bible? I think not.

Who has time for causes when there's all these effects to think about?

My point is that the causes don't matter when those causes don't exclusively result in these effects.

[Disch]

booradley60 wrote:

Taking out "Muslim" whitewashes the motivations for what they're doing.

This brings up a point about whether or not religious extremist groups are really about religious faith or about something else.

Sure, the majority of the followers are using blind faith as their primary motivation -- someone they revere is telling them to do something, and so they do it without question. But what about the people in charge? Is it really religious principles that drive these groups? Or is it something else?

There's no evidence to suggest faith alone drives a person to become the leader of a terrorist group. And faith alone is not dangerous. It takes something else -- some other kind of motivation to make the leap from "passionate about your faith" to "leader of an armed militant dictatorship".

Faith is more often used as a tool by which to wrangle in others, rather than being a primary motivator. Conquer a few places as a dictator and people see you as a thug. Conquer a few places as a prophet and people will line up to support you.


That's not to say faith isn't a contributing factor. I'm just not convinced it's the primary factor. And using it in such a context seems disingenuous and gives people the wrong idea about what's really going on.

[Disch]

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's true motivations may be political, or militaristic, or rooted in a hunger for power. Even if he says otherwise -- it can't be trusted, as he is using religion as a tool to hold his army, so publicly he will always have to assert that he's fighting a holy war, or he risks losing followers. But we have to question whether or not that's really true.

If it is, there's nothing to be done about it (you can't argue with faith). If it isn't, the faith aspect of his motivations are purely a distraction.

Either way, making a special point to call this brand of terrorism "Muslim" contributes little in the way of determining a cause-effect relationship and building some kind of preventative policy -- but it does tons in the way of instilling a fearful prejudice among the populous.

[booradley60]

Cheraphy wrote:

My point is that the causes don't matter when those causes don't exclusively result in these effects

If the causes must bear out 1-to-1 with action, then I meant 'primary contributing factor' instead of 'cause'. This seems like an argument for greater specificity when labelling such groups instead of less.

Disch wrote:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's true motivations may be political, or militaristic, or rooted in a hunger for power. Even if he says otherwise -- it can't be trusted, as he is using religion as a tool to hold his army

Then we see the worst in humanity in both the cynical and exploited. If al-Baghdadi is cynically abusing the credulity of his followers, then he'd probably be more open to negotiating if he could be held in a position where he could lose his power and his life. After all, what has he beyond this?

As for his followers, you can't herd that many cynics; you have to have a lot of true believers. In that case, the religion itself provides the mechanism of control by taking advantage of people's fears about death and their desire to know truth. The religion, therefore, should be subject to examination and argument.

If it is, there's nothing to be done about it (you can't argue with faith).

You can argue faith with faith. Christianity has been bent from its former forms into a shape more in line with human rights and dignity. This has been done by taking liberties in interpreting the text, along with selective application of the rules it decrees. Christian fundamentalism still exists, but not nearly to the dangerous extent it once did.

If it isn't, the faith aspect of his motivations are purely a distraction.

As I mentioned before, if it isn't about faith for its leaders then the faith probably still applies for most of the followers. I have a hard time reconciling any suicide attack with only a facade of belief.

[lockandstrike]

Oh fellows, how I love that soon or later every single debate about social problems turns to religion in this site. It's lovely :D

But getting on track with the toppic being discussed, I stand besides @IWishIKnew. Just because the uninformed public generalizes the situation, things are what they are, and terrorist who bomb buildings for the sake of Alah are in fact Muslim terrorist, and I'd say more, taking it out will only help build up the idea that all terrorists are Muslims(take note that I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but the idea that is passed is that all terrorists are Muslims) because if you don't specify the preconcept that only Muslims take part in terrorist acts will only grow.

[naraku9333]

@IWishIKnew
The Quran does NOT preach violence. Extremists choose to interpret the text in a way that legitimizes their actions. This isn't something specific to Islam, anyone remember the rash of abortion clinic bombings and shootings during the 80s and 90s perpetrated by "Christian" extremists?

Qualifying these radicals as muslin does nothing but hurt real Muslims. Mohammed preached tolerance and love for all people, Muslim or not.

[Disch]

If al-Baghdadi is cynically abusing the credulity of his followers, then he'd probably be more open to negotiating if he could be held in a position where he could lose his power and his life. After all, what has he beyond this?

Honor? Reputation?

Most if not all extremists (even non-religious ones) would rather die for a cause than admit they were wrong.

Or maybe fear of his own people turning on him? Honestly, if I'm faced with dying at the hands of an opposing force vs. being tortured by a bunch of psychopaths who suddenly realized they were duped -- I'd probably choose the former.

As for his followers, you can't herd that many cynics; you have to have a lot of true believers. In that case, the religion itself provides the mechanism of control by taking advantage of people's fears about death and their desire to know truth. The religion, therefore, should be subject to examination and argument.

I agree that followers would have to be religious -- but tying that to any one specific religion seems unfair.

On the other hand you do have a point -- Islam does have more violent and more, I guess, "controlling" teachings than new testament Christianity does. So maybe it is just naturally more prone to terrorism?

But such a claim is weighted, and a public speaker saying that will stir outrage among many Muslims.

Honestly, I don't know. There are two sides to this and they both are compelling. You make really good points, but at the end of the day the question remains:

Is the knowledge gained by referring to these groups as Muslims outweigh the prejudice you are instilling in the public?

And for me, the answer is still no. Historians, foreign policy makers, and other such parties who actually are in a position to take actions regarding these groups will certainly be aware that they're Muslim, even if we publicly refer to them only as terrorists. It's not as though that information will vanish. So what real benefit is there to constantly "rub it in" so to speak?

EDIT:

naraku9333 wrote:

The Quran does NOT preach violence.

I'm addressing this to preemptively defend my previous statement of saying Islam has more violent teachings than Christianity.

While it's true that the Quran does not advocate people to be violent in a general context, Muhammad does use violence as a means to achieve victory over oppressors, so it's easier for such a misinterpretation to exist.

Christ never had any such teachings -- his whole thing was pacifism, kindness, and acceptance. He chose to die on the cross rather than start an armed revolt. Muhammad probably wouldn't have.

[z05DSL3A]

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

[Disch]

Again, preemptively defending my statement here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/muslimsforasafeamerica/2012/12/according-to-the-quran-when-are-muslims-required-to-fight-and-against-whom/

The Quran wrote:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Basically it's saying "if you are pushed, push back"
Compare that to Christianity's teaching of "if you are pushed, turn the other cheek"


I'm not saying it's a bad teaching per se. But it certainly is a more violent teaching and it certainly makes horrible misinterpretation and terrorist manipulation more likely.

[naraku9333]

@Disch
I agree, Christ certainly did preach pacifism, but lets not forget that the Christian bible also includes the old testament which is far more violent.

One of my biggest issues with religion in general is that most if not all texts are written in a way that leaves far too much up to interpretation. And I believe far too few question those interpretations.

[Disch]

naraku9333 wrote:

I agree, Christ certainly did preach pacifism, but lets not forget that the Christian bible also includes the old testament which is far more violent.

This is the Christian conundrum.

The gods in Old and New Testaments have such radically different personalities and put forth completely contradictory teachings. So which do you listen to?

The Christians I know personally who I've talked to about it (which admittedly isn't many) say that the New Testament is basically a recreation of the religion and you should follow its teachings while [mostly] ignoring the Old Testament.

So that's generally what I consider to be "Christian". After all, if Christianity is not about the teachings of Christ, then what is?

[Cheraphy]

but lets not forget that the Christian bible also includes the old testament which is far more violent.

IIRC, the hebrew word for god most used in the old testament is derived from the name of Canaanite god of war. Considering how the entire Judaic/Christian family of faiths is an amalgamation of other faiths, most of which coming from the region Canaanite's inhabited I wouldn't be surprised. However, I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly. It was something I learned during a discussion with my University's head of religious studies during some event in 2011.