Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[AvalonXQ]

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

Remind me again what group of people you believe were motivated by religious beliefs, and not by cultural and political realities, to commit acts of terror.
To put it another way, show me the group that acted against their cultural identity and political reality to commit acts of terrorism specifically because they believed their religion required it.
I honestly don't think there are any. Religion is a tool to enable terrorists' motives; religion does not supply the motives.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

That is *precisely* what I think she means.

Nonsense. There's only two religious groups implicated in her speech: the Taliban and the group that was backing the aid workers. To speak of all religions being susceptible to terrorist behavior makes absolutely no sense in that context.

It's a misinterpretation.

Sure it is. You must really think I'm stupid.

 

[sthomson]

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

Where do religious beliefs come from? Do they come from a god, or do they come from a man? If they come from man, as I believe, then only man is to blame for terrorism.

A group of Muslims claim to believe that their terrorism is supported by their higher power. Who taught them this? That is the person ultimately responsible for their acts, not some amorphous concept of "religion".

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Remind me again what group of people you believe were motivated by religious beliefs, and not by cultural and political realities, to commit acts of terror.

The Taliban. It's not that religion is their only motive, but it's clearly a major one.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Where do religious beliefs come from? Do they come from a god, or do they come from a man?

They come from man.

If they come from man, as I believe, then only man is to blame for terrorism.

Man does not exist in a vacuum, and men are not immune to the ideas other men have themselves conceived. You cannot ignore religion as a factor even when man is the agent behind all acts of terror.

 

[JFrankA]

Misinterpretation knows no limits.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The Taliban. It's not that religion is their only motive, but it's clearly a major one.

So you believe that the Taliban is fighting us, not because they hate us and believe that we have hurt them, but just because Islam says so. You think they say, "Hey, guys, even though we don't gain anything from this or really want anything from you, and in other circumstances we'd really rather not, our God has told us to kill you, so of course we will"?
Do you not agree that in fact what's happening is that the Taliban are claiming that God tells them to do exactly what it is that they want to do anyway?

 

[Thunder]

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

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Have you given any thought to the reason why everyone else interprets Clinton's comment, or the public's perception of that comment one way, and you alone interpret it another? Here's an angle for you to consider: You're wrong.

 

[sthomson]

Man does not exist in a vacuum, and men are not immune to the ideas other men have themselves conceived. You cannot ignore religion as a factor even when man is the agent behind all acts of terror.

Yes, I can. Whether they're using religion as the excuse, or nationalism, or Confucianism, or Darwinism - doesn't make a difference to me.

Edited to add: Or environmentalism!

 

[JFrankA]

Looking for flaws has no obstructions.

 

[Philosaur]

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

It's not particularly clever, and in fact quite clumsy. The obvious equivocation involved in what I wrote is as clumsy as the parsing you did with Clinton's quote.

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."

Have you ever heard of the principle of charity?

Here's a charitable way to interpret Clinton:

terror (has no) religion => terror (is not limited to any single) religion

And here's your less-than-charitable interpretation:

terror has (no religion) => terror (is atheistic)

I say that the former way is charitable because the former is not offensive to Muslims (which I think was her intent) where the latter is actively offensive to atheists--many of whom Clinton probably acknowledges as supporters.

If you're just intent on being offended, then I can't stop you. But neither can I lend my righteous indignation to your cause.

 

[Philosaur]

Nonsense. There's only two religious groups implicated in her speech: the Taliban and the group that was backing the aid workers. To speak of all religions being susceptible to terrorist behavior makes absolutely no sense in that context.


Sure it is. You must really think I'm stupid.

I'm beginning to.

 

[Foster Zygote]

In the absence of a clarification from Mrs. Clinton, I'm willing to grant her the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was not her intent to imply that secularism is the root cause of terrorism. I'm inclined to agree with aggle-rithm's interpretation of her statement as an attempt to remind certain people that "Muslim" is not equal to "terrorist". I have a relative who regularly sends me E-mail forwards composed by the sort of people who think that all Muslims are to blame for the acts of a few.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

So you believe that the Taliban is fighting us, not because they hate us and believe that we have hurt them, but just because Islam says so.

"They hate us" is meaningless if you don't ask why. The why is, in part, due to their interpretation of Islam -- their religion.

You think they say, "Hey, guys, even though we don't gain anything from this or really want anything from you, and in other circumstances we'd really rather not, our God has told us to kill you, so of course we will"?

Do you really expect me to believe Islam has nothing to do with the actions of Islamist extremists? That their brand of Islam is somehow not really religion?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

It's not particularly clever, and in fact quite clumsy.

You've apparently missed the irony in my post.

The obvious equivocation involved in what I wrote is as clumsy as the parsing you did with Clinton's quote.

You still haven't explained how your bit of sophistry is at all equivalent to what I said. You think they're both clumsy, but you don't explain how they're similar in that respect.

terror (has no) religion => terror (is not limited to any single) religion

That interpretation makes no sense, because there's only one terrorist group whose religion is implicated in the particular incident Clinton was referencing.

 

[sthomson]

"They hate us" is meaningless if you don't ask why. The why is, in part, due to their interpretation of Islam -- their religion.

False. Their interpretation of Islam was developed to convince people to go to war. The "hating the West" part didn't need any religious help.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Yes, I can. Whether they're using religion as the excuse, or nationalism, or Confucianism, or Darwinism - doesn't make a difference to me.

Of course you can ignore religion as a prime motivator, but then you'd be blind to the ways in which religion can influence human behavior.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

False. Their interpretation of Islam was developed to convince people to go to war. The "hating the West" part didn't need any religious help.

Again, you're falsely characterizing their brand of Islam as non-religious for no other reason than to be able to claim religion is just an excuse for terrorism.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Have you given any thought to the reason why everyone else interprets Clinton's comment, or the public's perception of that comment one way, and you alone interpret it another? Here's an angle for you to consider: You're wrong.

So you're saying might makes right?