Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

This is The JREF is Not an Atheist Organisation: Part Deux.
 
Adrian Lopez said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're seeing implications that others aren't seeing when they parse her comment using reasonable English language skills. She wasn't attempting to either blame religion or absolve religion of blame. And nobody but you seems to think there was any implication "that terrorism can only survive in those niches of the human mind where religion is absent". Your interpretation of Clinton's comment is simply wrong.

Adrian Lopez said:
I understand perfectly what others are saying.
Click to expand...


No, Adrian. No, you don't.
 
Adrian Lopez said:
I don't know what you're referencing here. Care to explain, or are you merely content with engaging in petty abuse?
Click to expand...
We have a member here, mostly inactive, who would make a statement that was a bit silly, and rather than say something like, "Oh, I guess I misspoke", he would go to ridiculous lengths to defend his original statement in defiance of all logic and evidence. I know you're not like that at all.
 
GeeMack said:
You're seeing implications that others aren't seeing when they parse her comment using reasonable English language skills.
Click to expand...
I'm seeing implications that others aren't seeing, but the notion it has anything at all to do with reasonable English language skills is strictly your invention.

Your interpretation of Clinton's comment is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Because you say so.

No, Adrian. No, you don't.
Click to expand...
Because you say so.
 
Taking "terror has no religion" as implying that terrorism lies in the realm of atheism is quite a stretch. I'm glad you have dispossed yourself of that notion. But to say that her words imply that she is absolving all religions of blame is an squally fallacious argument. One could just as easily interpret the phrase to mean "'fear'has no religion" or "all religions are equally and jointly to blame". I think you have not considered all possible interpretations notwithstanding that you seem to have ignored the common one. . .
 
Tricky said:
We have a member here, mostly inactive,
Click to expand...
And how is that relevant?

... who would make a statement that was a bit silly, and rather than say something like, "Oh, I guess I misspoke", he would go to ridiculous lengths to defend his original statement in defiance of all logic and evidence.
Click to expand...
That's how you choose to characterize it. Fine. You still haven't explained what "Claus" is in reference to, nor why such abuse is in any way justified.

I know you're not like that at all.
Click to expand...
You don't know me at all, so how do you know what I'm like?
 
Adrian Lopez said:
I'm seeing implications that others aren't seeing, but the notion it has anything at all to do with reasonable English language skills is strictly your invention.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with reasonable English language skills. That's the tool we use to parse Clinton's comment. It's how everyone else has come to interpret her comments differently than you. So far you've been wholly unable to convince anyone that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You are applying your language skills differently, and, by the way, incorrectly.

Tricky said:
We have a member here, mostly inactive, who would make a statement that was a bit silly, and rather than say something like, "Oh, I guess I misspoke", he would go to ridiculous lengths to defend his original statement in defiance of all logic and evidence.
Click to expand...


This comment seems to have some relevance here.
 
Adrian Lopez said:
And how is that relevant?


That's how you choose to characterize it. Fine. You still haven't explained what "Claus" is in reference to, nor why such abuse is in any way justified.


You don't know me at all, so how do you know what I'm like?
Click to expand...
Your writing, the way you badly or purposely (I do not know what you are like so I have no way of knowing which) misinterpreted a phrase which clearly and without any possibility of LOGICAL contravention stated simply that terrorists might claim to be acting for religious reasons but no religion actually supports those acts - which does not mean that the terrorists have no religion and does not therfore mean they are atheists..

Functionally Claus, on occasion, did the same thing and when caught on it did exactly what you are doing. Claus was so well known for this that it is pretty much a meme here - not unlike corn-dogs, dicks his own potatoes (Pilloryisms), it's true! and a modest number of others.
 
And, Tricky, the followers of Cthulhu are not terrorists - they are just in terror of his return and wish to be certain they will be eaten first!!!
 
fuelair said:
... a phrase which clearly and without any possibility of LOGICAL contravention stated simply that terrorists might claim to be acting for religious reasons but no religion actually supports those acts...
Click to expand...
And so once more the "no true Scotsman" fallacy rears its ugly head. Never mind the Taliban's religious beliefs, because no true religion actually supports such acts.

Functionally Claus, on occasion, did the same thing and when caught on it did exactly what you are doing. Claus was so well known for this that it is pretty much a meme here - not unlike corn-dogs, dicks his own potatoes (Pilloryisms), it's true! and a modest number of others.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not familiar with the poster named Claus, which no doubt constitutes evidence of how rarely I visit these forums. To be honest, I rarely feel motivated to visit these forums given how most of what I read here (as well as what I write here) lacks the same clarity of thought that I'd get from reading SWIFT back when Randi was responsible for writing it. Reading the JREF's forums is an experience I find generally disappointing.
 
I've read the article in the OP. The way I see it, Clinton was basically doing the same thing" Bush did when he proclaimed Islam as a "religion of peace". She was just covering political tracks here and abroad, same as he did.

I didn't get any particular anti-atheist or anti-secular vibes out of it. It's just boiler plate political jargon. She had to say something, and exonerating religion was what she chose to do because it was politically expedient to do so. After all she isn't going to outright condemn Islam when we still depend on the Middle East for a lot of our oil. And as someone else pointed out------we do have a Muslim contingent here in the U.S. now that has to be contended with.

Basically----no surprise to me in her statement.
 
I see the Secretary of State has no grasp of the reality of this conflict. Of course this brand of terrorism is religious, and Islamic.

Keep your head in the sand Hillary.
 
Last edited:
cassis said:
Because you say so.
Click to expand...
I hope not.

In any case, it's clear to me she didn't mean "all religions are equally and jointly to blame" (which you suggested as a possibility) for the simple fact that she's delivering a message that emphasizes a lack of connection between religion and terror ("these acts are rejected by people all over the world, including by Muslims here in the United States"). The other possible interpretation you've offered has "terror" defined as "fear", which is plausible (people of all religions are affected by terror), but not entirely convincing.
 
Tricky said:
We have a member here, mostly inactive, who would make a statement that was a bit silly, and rather than say something like, "Oh, I guess I misspoke", he would go to ridiculous lengths to defend his original statement in defiance of all logic and evidence. I know you're not like that at all.
Click to expand...
Wow... I just realized I totally misread your post. You were explaining who Claus was, but I thought you were still talking about me. I read it as "We have a member here [Adrian], mostly inactive ...", which is not what you said. Now what was that GeeMack said about English language skills? ;)
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
And I'll ask again, because understanding your level of competence with the English language is germane to the discussion. Is English your first language?
Click to expand...
Why should I bother responding to such patronizing nonsense? If you truly care to know about my English skills, judge them according to how I write. If you only care to put me down, then please bugger off.
 
Pardalis said:
I see the Secretary of State has no grasp of the reality of this conflict. Of course this brand of terrorism is religious, and Islamic.

Keep your head in the sand Hillary.
Click to expand...

Did she say "This brand of terrorism has no religion."
No, she said "Terrorism has no religion." And her statement is correct. The IRA certainly arent muslim. Tim McVeigh wasn't. Neither are the Tamil Tigers.

What she was saying in long form would be:
Terrorism has no religion. It has many religions or none at all on a case by case basis, but no one religion to call its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom