Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[sthomson]

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.

I never once said that their brand of Islam is non-religious. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The US have a long and complicated history with the Middle East. To characterize the motivations of the Taliban as "they hate the West because of their religion" ignores over 200 years of history and politics. It is frankly ignorant.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you really expect me to believe Islam has nothing to do with the actions of Islamist extremists?

They've made Islam say whatever they want it to say to justify what they want to do anyway. Just like the Crusades, slavery, manifest destiny, etc.
And again, it works both ways -- liberal democracy, abolition, free market capitalism, etc. Every one of them has quotes from the dominant religion of the time supporting them. And in no case was religion the reason that any of it happened.
Again, for good or evil, politics and culture are at the root of these political actions -- not religion.

 

[Philosaur]

You think they're both clumsy, but you don't explain how they're similar in that respect.

You're trying too hard. The fact that they are both clumsy is exactly how I think they're similar.

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

I see it now. You actively try to misinterpret arguments so you don't have to admit that you might be wrong.

So you're saying might makes right?

And there's the red rubber nose.

I'll take this opportunity to bow out now, because it's no longer interesting debating with someone who has the conversational skills of ELIZA.

 

[joobz]

They've made Islam say whatever they want it to say to justify what they want to do anyway. Just like the Crusades, slavery, manifest destiny, etc.
And again, it works both ways -- liberal democracy, abolition, free market capitalism, etc. Every one of them has quotes from the dominant religion of the time supporting them. And in no case was religion the reason that any of it happened.

Yup.

Again, for good or evil, politics and culture are at the root of these political actions -- not religion.

Considering culture is typically the root of religion, it isn't hard to see why the confusion can happen. I think the most unfortunate aspect religion does in these circumstances is permits people to do things without needing justification. "God is on my side" is a powerful belief. One that permits much immorality.

 

[cassis]

Again, for good or evil, politics and culture are at the root of these political actions -- not religion.

Well yes - if you're talking about the leaders (which you no doubt are). I'm willing to concede to the OP that there are probably some members of a religious group (e.g. suicide bombers) who were motivated purely for religious reasons. That said, Philosaur's associative parentheses example, and the majority opinion, seems spot on, to me.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

I never once said that their brand of Islam is non-religious. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You said religion is an excuse for war, rather than a cause. Either their brand of Islam is merely an excuse for war (the religion is a facade rather than a "true" religion), or it is a real religion and therefore more than just an excuse for war.

The US have a long and complicated history with the Middle East. To characterize the motivations of the Taliban as "they hate the West because of their religion" ignores over 200 years of history and politics. It is frankly ignorant.

To characterize it as solely motivated by religion ignores said history and politics. Good for me that's not what I'm doing.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You said religion is an excuse for war, rather than a cause. Either their brand of Islam is merely an excuse for war (the religion is a facade rather than a "true" religion), or it is a real religion and therefore more than just an excuse for war.

False dilemma fallacy and equivocation fallacy, both. Within the causal relationship of Islam and terrorism, Islam is "merely" an excuse for terrorism -- it is not a more direct cause than that. You're equating this with the religion having no other role at all than to be an excuse for war, which is not the case.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

You're trying too hard. The fact that they are both clumsy is exactly how I think they're similar.

They're both clumsy because you say they're clumsy. I get it.

I see it now. You actively try to misinterpret arguments so you don't have to admit that you might be wrong.

Am I wrong in saying there's only one group whose religion is implicated as a motive for terrorism in this particular incident?

And there's the red rubber nose.

I'll take this opportunity to bow out now, because it's no longer interesting debating with someone who has the conversational skills of ELIZA.

There you go again with the ad-hominems. Have a little integrity and stick to the arguments.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

False dilemma fallacy and equivocation fallacy, both. Within the causal relationship of Islam and terrorism, Islam is "merely" an excuse for terrorism -- it is not a more direct cause than that. You're equating this with the religion having no other role at all than to be an excuse for war, which is not the case.

You say that religion is merely an excuse for terrorism, implying that the Taliban's motives are not truly religious. It's like the "true Scotsman" fallacy, where true religions do not ever lead to terrorism.

 

[GeeMack]

So you're saying might makes right?

No. Everyone saying it makes you wrong.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

No. Everyone saying it makes you wrong.

Exactly what I thought you said.

 

[ravdin]

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

You had me until you said this. Hillary Clinton's comments are flat out wrong- we can and should blame the Taliban's twisted religious beliefs for these atrocities. But it's disingenuous to suggest that she's implying that terrorism is the product of atheism. There's plenty to criticize about what she actually said, and it's not helpful to misrepresent her words.

 

[GeeMack]

Exactly what I thought you said.

Is English your first language? I ask because you seem to seriously misunderstand not only what Clinton said, but you're misunderstanding what pretty much everyone in this thread is saying.

 

[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.

So you agree that she may not have meant her words in the way that you chose to interpret them.

Where you and most others in this thread disagree is that the implication you point out is clear.

I'm not even saying that you *can't* possibly tease out such an implication. I'm just saying you are being really uncharitable (what some might describe as annoyingly literal, disingenuous, naive, maybe even dishonest) in your interpretation of her words.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You say that religion is merely an excuse for terrorism, implying that the Taliban's motives are not truly religious.

Yes. I'm saying that things like terrorism aren't motivated by things like religion.

It's like the "true Scotsman" fallacy, where true religions do not ever lead to terrorism.

Except that I'm saying that things like terrorism aren't motivated by things like religion. I'm not saying anything about the Taliban's beliefs not being a "true religion"; I'm saying that true religion or not, it's not the root of their actions.
Religions are the justification, not the cause, of major political actions.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Is English your first language? I ask because you seem to seriously misunderstand not only what Clinton said, but you're misunderstanding what pretty much everyone in this thread is saying.

I understand perfectly what others are saying. I just don't agree.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Whoa! That Churchill dude didn't know a thing, did he? He said, "... an iron curtain has descended...." I mean does he hate steel workers? Why does he say "iron"? There's no such thing as a curtain made of iron. And what good would it be?

I agree that she was working for a sound byte. And it works. For people with normalized interpretive skills, "Terror has no religion" is as Philosaur mentioned, like "Cancer knows no race", or "A Tsunami doesn't care if you're a Democrat or Republican". It's a bit of a throwback to elevating your public pronouncements into a more poetic language.

The extrapolation to it being a statement about atheism is just plain wrong. Her statement means, "Terror is not the product of one specific religion - it runs across all religions." Does she have to enumerate them for the point to get through? Not to the general public. I think everyone else got it.

 

[Tricky]

I understand perfectly what others are saying. I just don't agree.

Claus? Zat you?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

So you agree that she may not have meant her words in the way that you chose to interpret them.

I don't think she actually meant to blame atheists for terrorist acts. Instead, I'm addressing the implications of her statement that "terror has no religion". I'm saying that in her attempt to absolve religion of blame she has managed to imply that terrorism can only survive in those niches of the human mind where religion is absent. Granted that's not the same as saying that atheists are terrorists, but it's awful close to saying that terror exists where religion does not reach.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Claus? Zat you?

I don't know what you're referencing here. Care to explain, or are you merely content with engaging in petty abuse?