What I’ve proposed is an examination of belief systems as a universal human experience.
Sorry, fundamentalists won’t allow that. Good luck getting them to do so.
You want to exclude fundamentalists from the discussion? Please.
No it clearly did not. I did not present that as the only solution but as one aspect of it.
Sorry, holding suicide bombers accountable can’t even be one aspect of a solution for those people.
You see, the thing is they’re dead.
So they stand outside of society and its controlling tools like law and laugh in your face. Furthermore, as you ignored, they have a belief and understanding of justice, equality, etc. that justifies 9/11. That’s their point of view. And the actions they take in furtherance of that view – like 9/11 – are by definition actions for which they cannot be held accountable.
So saying that holding suicide bombers accountable can be ANY kind or aspect or part of a solution (as you did) is just plain dumb. And it’s impossible, too.
I can’t tell if you’re being purposely obtuse or not. It should be perfectly obvious that any solution you’ve offered isn’t going to help those who are already dead. It’s a matter of approaching the problem with preventative solutions. I thought that was what you were talking about and assumed you could grasp that I was proposing an alternative preventative approach. Your comment here has zero to do with what I’ve suggested. If you seriously think it does then that’s the only plain dumb thing here.
I never suggested we exclude the fundamentalists. Please stop reading things into my posts that aren’t there.
Certainly fundamentalist will resist any examination of their belief system. The goal is to gradually change how belief systems are looked at while still respecting people’s rights to choose their own. As new generations are given more exposure to an alternative paradigm the norm begins to shift and the overall approach of belief systems will change, which in turn will change the content of belief systems.
Racial prejudice is a good example. Generations ago racial prejudice in the south was much more the norm than it is today and much more accpeted as a proper belief system. It still exists but serious progress has been made. In each passing generation in which it is less and less acceptable it loses it’s influence as an acceptable part of a belief system.
Holding people accountable for their actions is not a preventative approach for suicide bombers. It’s not that hard to understand.
The goal is to gradually change how belief systems are looked at while still respecting people’s rights to choose their own. As new generations are given more exposure to an alternative paradigm the norm begins to shift and the overall approach of belief systems will change, which in turn will change the content of belief systems.
That’s precisely what Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials upon which the Golden Compass movie is based, Stephen King’s The Mist movie, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, etc., etc., etc. are doing.
Satanism was the first bold effort in that direction in modern times that I’m aware of, obviously scandalous and too much for religious idiots to take (not that it was any overt effort to convert them anyway, but it was out there as an alternative paradigm that challenged everything about xianity in a foundation-destroying way, as was long overdue in a way more bold than early American thinkers from Benjamin Franklin to Mark Twain to others.)
There’s an interesting article in The Atlantic about The Golden Compass being made and the rub between Pullman’s anti-religious philosophy espoused by his trilogy upon which the movie is based and Hollywood’s ‘scrubbing’ of those elements to convert them into some vague, sappy, esoterically mystical journey about something or other. The balls cut out, in other words, so as to not offend the delicate xian sensibilities of the chosen people.
Over time, what you’re speaking of will happen it seems to me. And just like racism, which you brought up, it will take Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary” POV as much as MLK’s “dream” POV to make it happen. Hard and soft.
Neither is anything you proposed if we’re talking** after the event**, correct?
I’m just wondering why you mentioned it so often since even a minimal thought process should have told you that was not what I meant …ever.
You said we were talking about preventative measures. Which is it?
I recognize that confrontation is inevitable and part of the growth process. I’m only pointing out that the same inner mechanism that allows the negative aspects of religion exist within mankind as a whole. Communism is one historic example. Unless we recognize and deal with those inner mechanisms we won’t truly progress by simply dealing with religion.
In the interest of honesty and progress, if we’re going to push people to examine their religious beliefs, then we must be willing to examine our own belief system with the same microscope.
I will assume you are being purposely obtuse now because the alternative is just so sad.
In that case, I’ll have to assume you are not being obtuse purposely and really are.
You seem to run into dead ends when your statements are shown to be stupid and just go into these sort of dumb attacks.
For the sake of intelligent people reading, I’ll repeat:
We were talking about preventative measures. You said so yourself.
You said, while discussing preventative measures (not after they’re dead, but before) that “holding people accountable” has something to do with anything.
It doesn’t.
Uttering the words “holding people accountable” is a stupid thing to say while discussing preventative measures for suicide bombers.
Which is what we were talking about.
That’s because (holy shit, it’s so sad this has to be spelled out for the obtuse) suicide bombers have already figured their own death into their upcoming action.
Therefore, saying to a suicide bomber (before he’s committed the act): “We hold people accountable for their actions!!” is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
That, to review, is **before **they are dead. It’s a dumb phrase to utter.
Taking such an approach, making such a statement, adopting such a strategy is breathtakingly idiotic. One of the many fallacies, in fact, of the war on “terror.” Contributing to the demise of fundamentalist, dogmatic, afterworld-based religion can eventually help to undercut the cancer of these paradigms by making them less ubiquitous (as you yourself have said) and prevent such things from happening in the future by eliminating their reason (at least one of their reasons).
On the other hand, saying “Hey asshole! We hold people accountable for their actions over here so don’t even think about suiciding bombing us!” is…dumb.
That would never deter, prevent, or convince any suicide bomber of anything.
Here on the SDMB the tradition is that when you state something as fact it is up to you to support it with evidence. You may not convince me but presenting evidence is a way to show readers that your position is valid and mine is indeed absurd. I see you’re unwilling to , or simply can’t support your argument.
Mine was made to challenge the assertion you first made and never defended with any evidence. To clarify, I’m not claiming to know the motivations of the individual hijackers of 911. I’ve done no research on that. I’m talking about the history of our relationship with the Arabic Nations of the middle east, our involvement there and why we came to be labeled as a threat. It’s obvious that there are political and economic influences as well as religious issues.
Try reading my posts and responding to what’s in them.
If we’re speaking only of the fundamentalists that’s one thing. When the fundamentalists are used as if they represent religion as a whole , that’s disingenuous. They do not. It has happened quite a bit here on the boards. When you use terms like Xianity and religion it isn’t clear that you’re referring to only the fundamentalists since those two terms encompass much more.
I’m trying to agree with the Sam Harris approach in that religious beliefs cannot receive any kind of protected untouchable status. They should be judged in the same manner as any other belief system. Many atheists here on the board have heartily agreed with Sam. So do I. I am also saying that in order to honestly level the field rather than just find and excuse to vent distaste for religion, we need to judge all belief systems with the same standards as much as possible. We need to make an effort to separate subjective beliefs from objective fact as well as several other things that were discussed in the other thread.
Reading this sentance I’d say it was you. It’s misdirection without content.
Then perhaps I missed the part early on where you clarified that you were speaking of fundamentalists. Lot’s of very religious people who believe in afterworld considerations are not fundamentalists. When you use the term religion you include them.
[QUOTE]
Commandeering in non-fundamentalist quasi-religious vaguely spiritual people with loosely held, provisional beliefs about the nature of the universe simply…um, moves the goalposts. That’s not what I’d call religion. Just fuzzy thinking.
They said they were?? Well if that’s the case then it should have been easy for you to provide a cite or two about that.
As for alternative views by other boneheads who don’t find your view quite so obvious, how about
and the wikki
article. Under Motive you’ll note that while it does mention the use of Islamic text it mentions
bolding mine
and there’s more in that same article from CIA chiefs to a quote by one of the hijackers.
What you fail to defend and claim is obvious is clearly shown to be in error. Snide remarks and veiled insults may make you feel better but they are a poor substitute for a substantial argument.
And you’ve ignored the fact that you said ‘holding people accountable’ during a discussion of preventing suicide bombing. It was a dumb thing to say. You don’t see that, I guess, because you – like religion – apparently think you’re infallible.
Moving on – since you apparently can’t hear that holding people accountable is not a preventative measure for suicide bombers – do you know what a fatwa even is?
Your wiki link states in the very first sentence that it was a fatwa. Look it up.
You might find that it’s a religious ruling.
Never intended any such thing and I am still amazed that you seem to think so.
My proposal was that having a standard of justice and equality that held all people accountable for their actions and was implemented as much as possible for all people would , over time, remove some of the other influences that are in bold in my recent post. If we had a system of justice that held Israel responsible for it’s actions against the Palestinians {listed as a major motive} and truly took a stand for human rights rather than compromise them for political allies and economic advantage, the motives listed in the wikki article would fade.
I mean please, give it a little thought. Yes I was talking about long term preventative measures. What you just described above is not that. Do you think telling a suicide bomber that his religious beliefs are bullshit will prevent him from acting once he’s strapped on the bomb and gotten in the truck? Will he smack his forehead and say “Oh yeah, you’re right. Wow thanks” Of course not. That’s obviously not what you meant and I never accused you of any such foolishness.
It was obvious to me you meant a long term goal over a period spanning generations. It should have been obvious that’s what I meant to.
With either method, once someone has decided to be a suicide bomber the method hasn’t worked. The goal of both methods is to prevent them from getting to that point. Sheeesh
Discussing preventative measures. “Holding people accountable” while discussing same. Doesn’t compute. Can’t break down any simpler for you. SHEEEESH!
If what you were saying by that phrase – and didn’t explain – is that your proposal is creating a balanced world of justice where the religious won’t get pissed off so suicide bombing for religious reasons will cease, then that’s even dumber.
That’s a good idea and I’m all for it insofar as secularists. Won’t work on godfolk. God may instruct them as he did Abraham.
I’m perfectly aware of what it is. I never said there wasn’t a religious element of influence. The article makes it clear {as does the video} that the motives had more to do with issues of economics and perceived injustice.
This comment by one of the hijackers reveals religious and the injustice element. He uses a religious term but shows his outrage is based on acts not belief. That being the case a system of equality and justice that is applied more evenly to people across the globe might actually help.
If you’re implying that minus religious beliefs a race of people would not respond to generations of continued perceived injustice then you’ve got a hard case to make.
I’d also point out that it took me five minutes of effort to defend my position while you made excuses why you wouldn’t defend yours.
lest we forget
you asked, I delivered.
"This comment by one of the hijackers reveals religious and the injustice element. He uses a religious term but shows his outrage is based on acts not belief. That being the case a system of equality and justice that is applied more evenly to people across the globe might actually help.
If you’re implying that minus religious beliefs a race of people would not respond to generations of continued perceived injustice then you’ve got a hard case to make."
Thanks for the strawman, he looks great.
They’d respond to injustice, as people always do. I’m stating, obviously, that without religious belief it’s one less reason for responding in an evil manner. I’m not stating that nobody would ever respond to injustice. What is reasonable, however, is that responses would be less likely to take the form of **suicide bombing **if you don’t believe in an afterlife (religion).
What would prove to you that someone committed an evil act exclusively due to their religious belief?
you asked, I delivered.
Excuse me, what?
I asked what would prove to you that someone committed an evil act exclusively due to their religious belief.
You delivered an answer to that? What was it?
**"When you want to provide some proof that the the 9/11 hijackers were not just motivated by their religious belief – even though they said they were – then get back to me. Until then, I think the obvious is obvious.
Anyone who doesn’t think the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by their religious beliefs is really just beneath discussion, defensive, and/or boneheaded.
What would prove to you that someone committed an evil act exclusively due to their religious belief?
you asked, I delivered."**
LOL Ooooh, you mean in response to proof that the hijackers weren’t motivated exclusively by their religious belief with the link that stated their beliefs were based on a religious order? LOL Wow.
Your quotes contain the word “infidels” out of their mouths; I guess you missed that. It’s a religious term, didya know?
And an “agenda” isn’t a motive, it’s a plan (in his case, to execute a religious belief).
a·gen·da /əˈdʒɛndə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-jen-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, formally a plural of. agendum, but usually used as a singular with plural. -das or -da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.
[Origin: 1745–55; < L, pl. of agendum that which is to be done, ger. of agere to do; the pl. orig. carried a collective sense denoting the various items to be transacted]
—Related forms
a·gen·da·less, adjective
—Usage note Agenda, “things to be done,” is the plural of the Latin gerund agendum and is used today in the sense “a plan or list of matters to be acted upon.”
So secular people would never sacrifice themselves for a cause they felt strongly about?