Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[Adrian Lopez]

Commenting on the Taliban's killing of aid workers with ties to a Christian charity, Hillary Clinton said that "terror has no religion, and these acts are rejected by people all over the world, including by Muslims here in the United States."

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard? For one thing, the Taliban consists primarily of religious fanatics determined to destroy all those who don't believe the way they do. For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite.

Clinton was going for a clever soundbite that would capture the public's attention, but all she accomplishes in my view is to show what a hypocrite she really is.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard?

No; this is...

For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite.

Yeah, she didn't say that, and I don't think any reasonable person would interpret it that way.
In fact, when I read the thread title, I came into the thread to post "Hillary says that all terrorists are atheists!"... as a joke. Because a joke is all that statement can be.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard? For one thing, the Taliban consists primarily of religious fanatics determined to destroy all those who don't believe the way they do. For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite.

I don't think that's what she's saying. She's saying when we see "terrorist", we shouldn't think "Muslim", and when we see "Muslim", we shouldn't think "terrorist".

Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim.

I'm no big fan of Hillary's, but that's logically correct.

 

[Tricky]

Depends on the religion. If you're a follow of Cthulhu, then pretty much terror IS your religion.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Yeah, she didn't say that, and I don't think any reasonable person would interpret it that way.

What else could "terror has no religion" possibly mean? That the implication is indeed ridiculous is the reason I called Hillary a hypocrite: she knows it's not true, she doesn't believe it, but she says so anyway because it plays into the public's beliefs.

The Taliban has cited the aid workers' religious ties to justify the killings, prompting Clinton to suggest that the Taliban is anti-religion while conveniently ignoring the fact that religion is the prime motivator behind the Taliban's actions.

Religion is a good thing, therefore "terror has no religion"? Sorry, Hillary, but that's pretty damn ridiculous.

 

[sthomson]

...For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite...

If Clinton had said, "Terrorists have no religion," then I would agree with this interpretation. But that's not what she said.

She made no claims about individual terrorists. She is making a claim about the nature of acts of terror, which have been committed by Muslims, Christians, and yes even Republicans.

Edited to add: Since we apparently feel compelled to share our opinion of Clinton, I will state that I voted for her.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What else could "terror has no religion" possibly mean?

It means "terror is a product of evil choices by evil people, and is not a necessary result of any particular religious belief or practice".
... or "religion is not the root cause of terrorism".
Her way is just a cuter sound bite.
I don't like Hillary at all, but I don't need to misinterpret her rhetoric to do that.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

It means "terror is a product of evil choices by evil people, and is not a necessary result of any particular religious belief or practice".
... or "religion is not the root cause of terrorism".

Which is false. While religion does not invariably lead to terrorism, it is indeed the root cause of numerous terrorist acts. Clinton was playing on the fact that the people killed had ties to a religious organization by suggesting that terrorism is actually in opposition to religious thought, which is clearly nonsense in light of the fact that religion is obviously the motive behind the Taliban's actions.

I know she didn't mean to suggest that terrorism is atheistic, but if terrorism is opposed to any and all kinds of religious thinking (that is, if "terror has no religion") then her statement's unintended implication is that terrorism is an atheistic phenomenon. The statement is so ridiculous that it's clear even she cannot possibly believe it, but that's nevertheless what it implies.

 

[Philosaur]

Commenting on the Taliban's killing of aid workers with ties to a Christian charity, Hillary Clinton said that "terror has no religion, and these acts are rejected by people all over the world, including by Muslims here in the United States."

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard? For one thing, the Taliban consists primarily of religious fanatics determined to destroy all those who don't believe the way they do. For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite.

Clinton was going for a clever soundbite that would capture the public's attention, but all she accomplishes in my view is to show what a hypocrite she really is.

You're definitely able to inflate things and twist them up. In fact, you're a red rubber nose away from being a circus clown.

 

[KingMerv00]

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard?

Hang out in the conspiracy forum for a bit and you'll recalibrate quickly.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Which is false. While religion does not invariably lead to terrorism, it is indeed the root cause of numerous terrorist acts.

I completely disagree. I can't think of a single terrorist act which has religion as its root cause. Islamic fundie terrorists are the way they are because of the Middle East and the culture they're in, not because of the teachings of Islam. If history were slightly different and the same group with the same cultural heritage were polytheist or animist or even Christian, it wouldn't make one lick of difference in the frequency or targeting of these attacks, because they would twist the teachings of any of those things the same way they've twisted Islam for the same purpose.
This goes both ways, mind you -- most of what's good in America boils down to its fanatical adherence to certain principles of liberal democracy, not its Christian identity. This is true no matter how many of its leaders refer to it as a "Christian nation," because again it's their cultural values that colors their use of Christianity and not the other way around.
Political situations use religion far more than they are caused by religion.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

You're definitely able to inflate things and twist them up.

She said that "terror has no religion" -- no religion. The implication is clear, even if she didn't intend it that way.

Like I said, she was going for a soundbite and ended up saying something incredibly stupid.

In fact, you're a red rubber nose away from being a circus clown.

I'm glad to know I can cheerfully address the ridiculous implications of Clinton's ill-conceived statement.

 

[Philosaur]

Which is false. While religion does not invariably lead to terrorism, it is indeed the root cause of numerous terrorist acts. Clinton was playing on the fact that the people killed had ties to a religious organization by suggesting that terrorism is actually in opposition to religious thought, which is clearly nonsense in light of the fact that religion is obviously the motive behind the Taliban's actions.

I know she didn't mean to suggest that terrorism is atheistic, but if terrorism is opposed to any and all kinds of religious thinking (that is, if "terror has no religion") then her statement's unintended implication is that terrorism is an atheistic phenomenon. The statement is so ridiculous that it's clear even she cannot possibly believe it, but that's nevertheless what it implies.

All you did was find one very literal and very myopic way to parse "terror has no religion" so you could make a big stink about Clinton.

Try this one:

Nothing is better than beer.

Water is better than nothing.

Therefore, water is better than beer!

 

[Philosaur]

She said that "terror has no religion" -- no religion. The implication is clear, even if she didn't intend it that way.

Like I said, she was going for a soundbite and ended up saying something incredibly stupid.


I'm glad to know I can cheerfully address the ridiculous implications of Clinton's ill-conceived statement.

It's no different than when someone says something like "Cancer knows no skin color." The very clear (to anyone with half a brain--oops, you're gonna misinterpret that, too) way to understand that is to parse it as "Cancer afflicts all races". Your way of interpreting it would be to say "Cancer afflicts people with transparent skin."

 

[Adrian Lopez]

I completely disagree. I can't think of a single terrorist act which has religion as its root cause.

Only because you're treating the terrorist's religious beliefs as something distinctly different from religion. It's a false distinction, for the terrorists' extremist brand of religion is no less religious than the religions of those who are peaceful, loving individuals.

The Inquisition and the Taliban's behavior are both good examples of religion as the root cause of terrorist acts. These people do not use religion as an excuse for their terrorist activities; religion is the reason they engage in terrorist acts.

 

[sthomson]

Only because you're treating the terrorist's religious beliefs as something distinctly different from religion. It's a false distinction, for the terrorists' extremist brand of religion is no less religious than the religions of those who are peaceful, loving individuals.

Have you watched The Battle of Algiers? Care to enlighten me as to whether the terrorist acts committed during the Battle of Algiers were due to politics or religion?

Religion is an excuse for war, not a cause.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

It's no different than when someone says something like "Cancer knows no skin color." / "Cancer afflicts all races"

Your claim is she's responding to the Taliban's attack by suggesting that all religions are susceptible to terroristic behavior? And you accuse me of twisting things beyond recognition? That's rich!

The very clear (to anyone with half a brain--oops, you're gonna misinterpret that, too)

I interpret it as an ad-hominem attack -- or does that strike you as a misinterpretation?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Nothing is better than beer.

Water is better than nothing.

Therefore, water is better than beer!

Care to point out exactly how that clever bit of sophistry is analogous to what I said?

 

[Philosaur]

Your claim is she's responding to the Taliban's attack by suggesting that all religions are susceptible to terroristic behavior?

That is *precisely* what I think she means.

And you accuse me of twisting things beyond recognition? That's rich!

I interpret it as an ad-hominem attack -- or does that strike you as a misinterpretation?

It's a misinterpretation.

What I was implying was that anyone using at least half their brain-power would interpret the statement "Cancer knows no skin color" the way I mentioned.

How did you interpret it?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Have you watched The Battle of Algiers?

No, I have not. If, however, you're merely suggesting that not all terrorist acts are motivated by religion, I will not disagree. What I don't agree with is the notion that terrorism is somehow anathema to religion in general, which is clearly false.

Religion is an excuse for war, not a cause.

Only if you ignore those groups of religious people whose religious beliefs motivate their acts of terror.