But in current and recent history, 70% of all terror deaths are justified by one specific fairy tail. This fairy tail, for whatever reason, is particularly attractive to the kinds of people who can snap and act like this.
Pretty much all of those are caused by the leadership of someone who is twisting what the religion teaches to gain power.
It's all about finding a way to create an Other so you can unify people against the "threat" of the Other, thus putting yourself in a position of power over the people you unified. Religion is just an easy string to pull because it is already based in faith rather than logic.
If it's not religion, these people will find something else. You know, like skin color or ethnicity.
That said, removing religion from the equation couldn't hurt. Religion offers something that racism doesn't: eternal and/or post-death rewards.
How many skinhead suicide bombers are there versus religious? From that terror report, Sunni Islamist terrorists seem to be the far, far majority of all suicide bombs in the world. I doubt non-religious movements would have quite so many people willing to commit suicide for their causes.
Islam isn't the problem there. Assholes are. Assholes who teach that murder and terror are what will earn you rewards in the afterlife. Which, by the way, Islamist extremists do not have a monopoly on (HELLO, Crusades and Inquisition!). And frankly, suicide bombs are FAR less of a problem lives-lost-wise than organized religious wars.
Hell, take the Holocaust. That wasn't even really religiously motivated. It just used an easy religious classification to create an Other. Once the power was established, it basically abandoned any pretense of preying solely on Jews and spread to anyone the leaders wanted gone.
People have a tendency to be irrational. Even if we somehow managed to forcibly eradicate religion, another irrational thing would just fill the void, and Bad People would exploit that instead.
The most effective way we have ever found to combat this problem is by raising the level of education of the populace and making religious books accessible to them. Martin Luther knew what the fuck he was about. Translate the bible into the vernacular so people can read it themselves, and suddenly priests have a LOT less power to manipulate them into doing bad things in the name of religion.
tl;dr Educating the people that are being exploited is a way better strategy than trying to eradicate religion.
I'm starting to go into full anti-theist mode. Fuck all of this primitive superstitious nonsense. Stop fucking killing people because of fucking fairytales. That does not belong in anything resembling civilization.
The fairytales are just an excuse. Pretty much every religion that has been used as an excuse for murder and terror actually teaches peace if you fucking read their holy book. If it wasn't religion that they claimed, they'd find another reason.
That's BS. All the major holy books contain just as much violence as they do peace, if not more. Old and new testaments and the Quran all contain numerous passages encouraging stoning, smothering, or otherwise exacting bloody vengeance on various wrongdoers and infidels.
Peace loving believers choose to ignore such passages. They choose to reinterpret the word of their deity to one that matches their existing worldview. This is a huge cognitive dissonance and contradiction. You can't logically claim that there is an all powerful being that created the universe while also saying that mere human knows more about this deity's desires than the explicit instructions supposedly written by that same deity.
Violent people claim no such authority, and follow the word to the letter using it as an excuse for their heinous acts. God said to do this, so it's OK! Of course, they also ignore passages that say not to do such things, but that's because all these holy books contradict themselves!
Scott, have you ever read the Bible? The New Testament is all "hey, God was really vengeful back then, but now he wants you to be peaceful and groovy."
These books are full of self-contradictions. If you focus on one part to the exclusion of the others, you miss the whole point. If you take them as A WHOLE, they are overwhelmingly in favor of peace.
You can't review a religion by its "original" source material. You can only really review it by:
1. How it's actually practiced by a particular group 2. The particular group's generally-agreed-upon doctrine (e.g., the Catholic Canon)
If this is the case, then you have to recognize all the branches of Protestant Christianity as separate religions. Likewise with the branches of Islam.
You can't review a religion by its "original" source material. You can only really review it by:
1. How it's actually practiced by a particular group 2. The particular group's generally-agreed-upon doctrine (e.g., the Catholic Canon)
If this is the case, then you have to recognize all the branches of Protestant Christianity as separate religions. Likewise with the branches of Islam.
I think the Sunni connection is more of a correlation than causation. The place with the greatest instability, and the group with the most reason to do it, happens to be a majority Sunni place. Religion probably doesn't help, mind you.
I think the Sunni connection is more of a correlation than causation. The place with the greatest instability, and the group with the most reason to do it, happens to be a majority Sunni place.
I'm of the same mind. The majority/minority government vs people factor just put them on the wrong side of that coin. Theologically, the branches aren't that different.
Meanwhile in Nigeria Boko Haram just upped the ante with the bloodiest attack in their history. They razed 16 villages and murdered everyone they could.
Sending in a multinational force to fight and contain Boko Haram, while simultaneously building up the infrastructure of Nigeria.
I was gonna suggest deorbiting a satellite to take out Boko Haram's leadership like a fist from an angry God, but that's a little excessive and hard to pull off.
?There's so much space on the planet, what's stopping a capable organising setting up a new stable region someplace, to take refugees from all around. under heavy screening to maintain that no crazies get in with more guns and bombs.
Education, food, water, shelter provided. Build up a new state over time, separate from already established nations.
?There's so much space on the planet, what's stopping a capable organising setting up a new stable region someplace, to take refugees from all around. under heavy screening to maintain that no crazies get in with more guns and bombs.
Education, food, water, shelter provided. Build up a new state over time, separate from already established nations.
It's like in How to Win at Games: Everyone knows it has to be done, but everyone looks at each other and says, "You have to do this or the terrorists win," and nobody wants to do it themselves.
Uhhh, where the hell are you getting that idea? Pretty much every place that's got all the things you said should be provided is already taken. All the unoccupied spots are that way for a good reason.
Uhhh, where the hell are you getting that idea? Pretty much every place that's got all the things you said should be provided is already taken. All the unoccupied spots are that way for a good reason.
Pretty much... All the awesome spots are taken and no one wants to be put on some reservation somewhere.
Well, those "good reasons" are mostly that nobody wants to do the work to make them habitable. There have been tremendous breakthroughs in reversing desertification lately, and with enough money and a concerted effort we can make any area liveable.
Yeah. Enough money and a concerted effort forever for each location that is developed. Sounds like a good plan.
Dude, we are already trying to do that in places where people actually already live. It's a logistical nightmare. The money isn't translating to results because of a huge lack of infrastructure. I don't think you quite grasp the magnitude of such a task. Even if all the super-rich people came together to fund it, they might manage to pay for a few years.
The work required to completely turn an area that can't support people into a place that can be possibly self-sufficient and modern (roads, power, comm, medical, etc) is HUGE. There's not just the monetary toll to consider, but also the energy, water, and other resources it would require. And there's a pretty good chance it wouldn't work; most countries are already facing resource shortages (water, for one). Some things are limited by the planetary biosphere we inhabit. Providing it to a new place would take it away from one that already uses it. This is a far cry from simply reversing desertification.
Comments
It's all about finding a way to create an Other so you can unify people against the "threat" of the Other, thus putting yourself in a position of power over the people you unified. Religion is just an easy string to pull because it is already based in faith rather than logic.
If it's not religion, these people will find something else. You know, like skin color or ethnicity.
How many skinhead suicide bombers are there versus religious? From that terror report, Sunni Islamist terrorists seem to be the far, far majority of all suicide bombs in the world. I doubt non-religious movements would have quite so many people willing to commit suicide for their causes.
Hell, take the Holocaust. That wasn't even really religiously motivated. It just used an easy religious classification to create an Other. Once the power was established, it basically abandoned any pretense of preying solely on Jews and spread to anyone the leaders wanted gone.
People have a tendency to be irrational. Even if we somehow managed to forcibly eradicate religion, another irrational thing would just fill the void, and Bad People would exploit that instead.
The most effective way we have ever found to combat this problem is by raising the level of education of the populace and making religious books accessible to them. Martin Luther knew what the fuck he was about. Translate the bible into the vernacular so people can read it themselves, and suddenly priests have a LOT less power to manipulate them into doing bad things in the name of religion.
tl;dr
Educating the people that are being exploited is a way better strategy than trying to eradicate religion.
Peace loving believers choose to ignore such passages. They choose to reinterpret the word of their deity to one that matches their existing worldview. This is a huge cognitive dissonance and contradiction. You can't logically claim that there is an all powerful being that created the universe while also saying that mere human knows more about this deity's desires than the explicit instructions supposedly written by that same deity.
Violent people claim no such authority, and follow the word to the letter using it as an excuse for their heinous acts. God said to do this, so it's OK! Of course, they also ignore passages that say not to do such things, but that's because all these holy books contradict themselves!
These books are full of self-contradictions. If you focus on one part to the exclusion of the others, you miss the whole point. If you take them as A WHOLE, they are overwhelmingly in favor of peace.
1. How it's actually practiced by a particular group
2. The particular group's generally-agreed-upon doctrine (e.g., the Catholic Canon)
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/8/nigeria-bokoharamattack.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2d7a0252dd04676b20697bd39356fcc/7-kids-reunite-parents-lost-nigeria-islamic-uprising
We should totally carpet bomb the jungles Book Haram is in. Fuck those guys.
Military police? Better gun control? Better surveillance and identification systems?
Education, food, water, shelter provided. Build up a new state over time, separate from already established nations.
Dude, we are already trying to do that in places where people actually already live. It's a logistical nightmare. The money isn't translating to results because of a huge lack of infrastructure. I don't think you quite grasp the magnitude of such a task. Even if all the super-rich people came together to fund it, they might manage to pay for a few years.
The work required to completely turn an area that can't support people into a place that can be possibly self-sufficient and modern (roads, power, comm, medical, etc) is HUGE. There's not just the monetary toll to consider, but also the energy, water, and other resources it would require. And there's a pretty good chance it wouldn't work; most countries are already facing resource shortages (water, for one). Some things are limited by the planetary biosphere we inhabit. Providing it to a new place would take it away from one that already uses it. This is a far cry from simply reversing desertification.