Religion Was Not the Reason For the Paris Attacks

[cbayer]

http://religiondispatches.org/religion-was-not-the-reason-for-the-paris-attacks/

BY MARK JUERGENSMEYER JANUARY 9, 2015



Earlier today, French police pursued the suspects in the murders at Charlie Hebdo to a warehouse north of Paris, where the duo was killed in a swift raid. But questions remain: why did they do it, and did religion play a role?

As soon as it became clear that the perpetrators of Wednesday’s military-style assault were Muslim, and that they had shouted out as they raced from the scene of their massacre that this was in revenge for the insults levied by the cartoon portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, the die seemed to be cast. This was a case of Islamic terrorism.

Senator Lindsey Graham said so. The Paris attacks prove that we are “in a religious war” with radical Islam. The respected journalist, George Packer, hurriedly posted an opinion piece at The New Yorker arguing that this act had nothing to do with the ethnic tensions in France and it was simply a calculated attack on behalf of “Islamist ideology.” Twitter and Facebook were full of accusations that once again Islamic religion has propelled its faithful into violence.

But the truth may be more complicated than that.

more at link

[hrmjustin]

1. Interesting article.

Likely a mixture of a feeling of going nowhere in life and religious belief.

[cbayer]

4. The strongest and most consistent thing correlated with religious belief

is economic status. One can not assess the underlying causes of events like this without taking that into consideration.

[hrmjustin]

5. Agreed!

[Skinner]

2. The crux of this person's argument is this line in italics:

Religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it.

This seems like a thin justification to let religion off the hook. Particulatly because in far too many cases, providing the excuse for terrible behavior is what religion does.

[cbayer]

3. Religion does much more than provide the excuse for terrible behavior.

Religion also often provides the reasons for very good behavior. Should it get credit?

We often see the argument here that when people do good things for religious reasons, they are really only doing it because they are good people and religion has nothing to do with it.

But, when people do bad things for religious reasons, religion is held responsible, even if the person is psychotic or alcoholic or otherwise impaired.

[Skinner]

6. Yes, religion does much more than provide the excuse for terrible behavior.

Yet the fact remains that far too often it provides the excuse for bad behavior.

[cbayer]

8. Is it more responsible than the social and political conditions in which

these two found themselves.

"They were scarcely religious. They were raised in a secular household". They were poor and disenfranchised and angry and just wanted to join a fight.

Sure, religion offered them the excuse but the soup they crawled out of can not be dismissed.

[Skinner]

10. I am not dismissing it.

But I find the argument that religion is not (partially) responsible to be laughable on its face. This is a case where a bunch of people were killed because they have a history of ridiculing Muhammad. Obviously religion was a cause here.

[cbayer]

11. I think the headline is misleading, as the author would agree with you,

I believe.

He does not entirely dismiss the role religion plays, just makes the point that it's role may not be primary.

[Skinner]

21. Except the author wouldn't agree with this:

It is entirely possible that if you take away the excuse, then the perpetrators of this horrible act might not have ever killed anyone.

[cbayer]

22. I wouldn't agree with that either. Is that your position?

Do you think a woman with postpartum psychosis who comes to believe that her child is possessed by the devil and is having command hallucinations to kill the child would not do so if your took the religion out of it?

Religion does supply an easy handle to grab on to when your world feels out of control, but were it eliminated, there would be something else.

[Skinner]

26. We're not talking about a woman with postpartum psychcosis.

We're talking about two people who shot up a satirical newspaper that ridiculed their religion.

I think your certainty that "there would be something else" is unfounded. Sure, there might have been something else. But we don't know that. And we can say with near-100% certainty that this particular mass killing would not have happened. The staff from Charlie Hebdo would all be alive right now.

Religion is not just an easy handle. It is a very special kind of justification for behavior. Religious excuses are based on the idea that an omnipotent, all-powerful being who is the ultimate source of morality (and punishment) is providing the justification. If a person believes that God thinks someone deserves to be killed, that is a very dangerous belief. It is the ultimate third-party justification. Don't blame me, I'm not the one who thinks these people should be killed -- God think so. It is an invitation for a person to shut off their own capacity for critical thinking and simply accept the morality that has been handed down from an authority that is greater (and smarter) than themselves or anyone else.

[cbayer]

30. I'm not so sure that you can really make a distinction between a woman

with postpartum psychosis and these two.

They may have also been psychotic. They may have had delusions or felt they were being commanded.

You are most likely right that these particular victims might have been spared, but it would have likely been someone else, just as it was in Boston, Sandy Hook, Newtown, Aurora and so many other places where religion played no role whatsoever.

It is indeed a very dangerous belief to think that an all-powerful being is commanding you to kill. Fortunately it is the rare religious person who believes that, which is not to dismiss how unspeakably tragic it is when it happens.

I do believe that anyone who has become convinced that they are doing something like this because god says so has crossed a line, but they are in the same category as someone who thinks that the CIA is after their family and feels morally obligated to take out some agents.

And for all the examples of people perpetrating evil in the name of religion, there are many more examples of people doing good in the name of their religion.

In the end, it comes down to someone being personally responsible.

If you take away religion, bad people will still do bad things.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Um, religion did play a role in boston.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/boston-marathon-bombing-motivated-by-religion_n_3135099.html
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-officials-hospitalized-bombing-suspect-says-he-and-brother-acted-alone-motivated-by-religion?lite
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324235304578437131250259170

Not really known about James Holmes state of mind for aurora, the batman thing is obviously not related, but, he was seen in his church up to the week before the shooting, and he may fall into the 'hearing demons' type category you identified upthread.
Lanza, no one knows.

Sandy Hook and Newtown are the same thing.


You might want to research these claims a bit first next time.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Religion supplies the concept of devil and possession.

Take those away, and maybe the person suffering the delusion might seek help, not knowing what is wrong, rather than lashing out with preconceived notions about how to evict a non-existent supernatural 'thing' from a human body (drawing on the myriad backgrounds of how different religious cultures have dealt with 'demonic possession'/exorcism in the past. Like drilling holes in someone's skull.)

[rug]

33. Nationalism supplies the concept of organized violence in the service of a "greater good".

There are dozens more examples for the body count sweepstakes.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Nationalism can, sure.

But I don't see it applying to someone suffering postpartum psychosis, nor to people living in france, for ...what? Not being French enough?

[rug]

37. I blame it on the Belgians.

[NYC_SKP]

68. Visigoths.

Those stinkers!

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Wow, really? Your argument here is that this endless onslaught

of jihadist terrorism is just an odd epidemic of psychosis? Seriously? Or perhaps you are desperately attempting to change the discussion.

What evidence do you have that any of these people were hallucinating?

[bvf]

70. Interesting read here.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism#Economic_and_Social_Conditions

Section 1 in partcular.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Yeah I've seen that data before.

It kind of disturbs the narrative of oppression. Not that there isn't oppression going on, there is a lot of that and obviously the heavy hand of the west in the Islamic world plays a major role, it just is a very complicated picture that defies simplistic generalizations.

[rug]

23. That statement applies equally to hundreds of service members who spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan

The issue is ideology and human behavior. In this case it's religious ideology but it's ideology nonetheless.

[rug]

17. If you look at the people who flipped out because a flag was burned you'll likely see similarities.

A fetish is a fetish whether it's religious or secular.

[PassingFair]

32. Religion offered them the "excuse"...

the funding, the organization and the motive.

[rug]

34. The Defense Appropriation bills do a much better job every years.

More often as needed.

[cbayer]

35. Religion also offers the "excuse"

the funding, the organization and the motive for projects protecting women and girls in Africa from genital mutilation, to name just one relatively small project among thousands.

Let's condemn the bad and support the good.

[PassingFair]

40. Wow.

It is the religious culture in some Islamic African and other nations that CAUSES the genital mutilation to occur.

[cbayer]

41. It's actually much more cultural than religious, but that doesn't matter.

It is the reason it is important to support the good while fighting against the bad.

Religious groups are also on the forefront of fighting human trafficking, which generally has nothing at all to do with religion.

Wow, indeed.

[Leontius]

50. Then perhaps you can explain how this "cultural" phenomena has spread to

several areas of the Islamic world with entirely different cultural identities.

[cbayer]

52. There is a portion of the population for which this has

become religiously symbolic, but it is primarily a cultural phenomenon.

[okasha]

63. Emigration.

Where it is culturally supported, this hideous practice is found not only among Muslims but among Christians, Jews and followers of indigenous religions. It is most heavily concentrated in a wide belt across sub-Saharan Africa and north through Egypt. This suggests a cultural/regional origin, not a religious one.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. nobody is denying the good, somebody here is desperately attemptimg to deny the bad.

[Locrian]

29. maybe

I don't think they're applying that conclusion (religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it) for ALL cases. In this particular instance it's an interesting argument.

For the deadbeat, dead-end Kouachi brothers, the notion of being a part of a great jihadi battle may have seemed appealing for many reasons. For such people, real wars are exciting, and the imagined wars of great religious conflict are more than exhilarating. They also offer the promise of opportunity, of playing an ennobling role within that cosmic war. Perhaps most directly, such imagined wars provide a justification for doing something destructive to the very society that they think has shunned them and their community.

Hence the defense of religion provides a cover for violence. It gives moral license to something horrible that the perpetrators may have longed to do, to show the world how powerful they and their community really could be, and to demonstrate their importance in one terminal moment of violent glory. Religion doesn’t cause the violence, it is the excuse for it

In this excerpt - they acknowledge a difference:

These lone wolf events are different from other instances in recent years where organized radical groups with religion as part of their ideology, such ISIS or the Christian militia, have plotted attacks and recruited participants to be involved in them. In the lone wolf cases, religious ideas, when they appeared at all, were more of an excuse than a reason for the violence.

,

[m-lekktor]

54. I agree. nt

[Prophet 451]

74. It also provides inspiration for wonderful works

My grandmother was devoutly Christian. Prayed every day. She was pro-choice, pro-gay and spent her entire adult life caring for disabled and disturbed kids. While it may be difficult to see in a country where the public perception of religion is dominated by fundies (a theology that amounts to a cross between a revenge fantasy and a death cult), most theists are decent people (or, at least, no worse than anyone else) who, if you respect their right to believe, will respect your right not to.

Religion is complicated. Fred Phelps might have read his Bible but MLK read the same book. Maybe that's the final truth, that we get out of religion what we put into it. If you come to a holy book looking for excuses to comdemn your fellow man, you'll certainly find verses that give you that excuse. But if you come to it looking for reasons to love, care and raise up your fellow man, you'll find those too. Far be it from the devil-worshipper to defend the Abrahamic faiths but I suggest that the people who hang their hatreds on religion would find something to hang it on regardless.

[samsingh]

76. that's a load of crap. this was about religion

[Skittles]

77. I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE

that is EXACTLY what it is

[mike_c]

108. I find myself in agreement with that line...

...although I disagree that the sentiment lets religion off the hook in any way.

I agree with Christopher Hedges' position that the real driver of much extremism and violence is social and economic inequality and the entrenched, generational despair they engender. However, politicians, religious leaders, and others with their own agendas exploit that anger and turn it to their own purposes. Religious dogma more often than not has built-in xenophobia and persecution ideation that easily lends itself to channeling extremism.

So while religion might not be the proximal cause of extremist violence, it is certainly often the vehicle for directing, focusing, and exploiting it. It's a difference without much of a distinction, IMO. But it does suggest that seeking solutions to extremism and violence by arguing about religion and its role won't ever really solve the problem, since its real roots are deep in more fundamental, longterm social and economic injustice.

[cbayer]

109. Well said.

It is easy, but too simplistic, to dismiss this as having a single cause.

I fully agree that arguing about the role of religion will never solve the problem because it is the vehicle but not the root.

[mike_c]

112. yes well, that said...

...I still advocate strong gun control even though guns don't pull their own triggers. Religious dogma has to be held accountable for fostering hatred and division, and for projecting violence as a means of achieving delusional religious status. "We have avenged the prophet Mohammed! We have killed Charlie Hebro!" The roots of that extremism might lie in social and economic inequity, but violence flowered in the fetid darkness of religious hatred. Religion doesn't get a pass-- uprooting extremist violence simply has to START with revealing the delusions used to channel it, then move on to its real root causes. Both are necessary parts of any solution to extremist violence.

[cbayer]

113. Ah, I forgot you were the delusion guy.

[edhopper]

7. Terrible headline

(I know, the editors, not yours)

It misses the point completely, that the religious beliefs of the brothers was one of multiple and complex reasons why they did it.

Not the only reason by a far stretch, but one of the reasons none the less.

[cbayer]

9. But, if you read it, these guys weren't really religious at all.

This was new information to me, but I think it's important. They were raised in secular homes and were nominal muslims, at best.

So while I don't think religion can be dismissed, it seems to not be as big a factor as was originally thought.

[edhopper]

12. They became radicalized

and Islam became more important to them. They might have even been given their target in Yemen, which was definately due to religion.

Their attack was, without question, designed to suppress any type of harsh or vulgar criticism of Islam.

So it is about religion. But it isn't "Islam bad" and the only factor.

We shouldn't blame all of Islam on this, but neither should we dismiss the attackers beliefs.

[cbayer]

13. Did they become radicalized? Where are you getting that information?

The author makes the case that they may have been lone wolves, similar to other similar episodes. In some of those episodes, religion played a role and in others, it did not.

Perhaps religion supplies the excuse when you have angry, disenfranchised young men who are looking for a target, but it may be careful to analyze how much of a role it actually plays.

I think we may really miss the boat if this is seen as entirely religiously motivated, but it would be convenient to dismiss all the other things that may have factored in.

I agree that the author probably takes it too far, but sometimes that is what you have to do to make a point.

[edhopper]

16. I have read in numerous reports about Yemen.

and the author acknowledges.

This week’s tragedy may be a case in point. Though at least one of the brothers may at one time had ties to the Yemeni al Qaeda, there is no evidence that they were sent by some higher authority in the organization to commit this crime. The details of the background and motives of Said and Cherif Kouachi are not yet clear—as it turns out, religion per se might not have been a primary motivation.

There is no evidence either way, though there has been reports of Al Queda encouraging lone wolf attacks.

I don't know if we can ascertain a "primary motivation", outside of punishing the cartoonist.

We can only say there were several factors, religion being one of them.

I think the Muslim world's reaction to this will say more about Islam today than this terrible act.

[cbayer]

18. "May", "no evidence", "details not clear".

This is why it is important to hold back on forming an opinion sometimes.

When you make statements like "they were radicalized" it present two problems. First, the very definition of that term is unclear. Second, you are drawing a conclusion for which there is not yet evidence.

The "Muslim world's reaction"? What in the world is that? If that is the case, I would say that the non-Mulsim world's reaction will also say quite a bit about the underpinnings of this terrible attack.

[edhopper]

19. Going to Yemen

and training with Al Qaeda is pretty much the definition of radicalized.

I am encouraged that I am hearing condemnation from the Muslim world.

[cbayer]

20. Training? Where do you get the information about training?

People are believing what they want to believe so that it fits their narrative, but there is much that is not known.

The fact that there is condemnation from the Muslim world should come as not surprise. All previous surveys would have solidly predicted that response.

I am discouraged that I am hearing condemnation of Islam from the non-muslim world.

[edhopper]

24. From the NY Times

among other places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/paris-terror-attack-suspects.html

[cbayer]

25. I was not aware of that and appreciate the information.

This really smacks of the Boston bombings, doesn't it. One brother is the aggressor and uses the weaker brother. But in that case, there wasn't a hint of religion being involved.

So does the question come down to angry young men and available outlets for their rage? The article you link to also makes the case for this possibly being a lone wolf attack.

[edhopper]

27. I agree

it is too early to make definitive statements.

Except about the unequivocal support for free speech.

[cbayer]

31. In the end, the free speech is not at issue.

If this was meant to silence, I think it will have the opposite effect.

[edhopper]

38. I think

free speech was a major part of this story.

We don't know how this will curtail future publishing.

[Cartoonist]

14. what a ridiculous argument

Let's see, there were 10 deadly attacks. Two of them had no religious connection. Therefore religion is not to blame in any deadly attack. What a load of bs. I would love it if we could reduce the number of deadly attacks by 80%.

[cbayer]

15. I ask that you answer honestly. Did you read the article or are you

only reacting to the headline?

Because the point you are making bears absolutely no resemblance to any of his points.

[Cartoonist]

42. It's the same dumb argument that gets trotted out

He points to a couple of deadly attacks that seemingly had nothing to do with religion. He then concludes that deadly attacks happen, don't blame religion even when the gun-toters spew religious dogma.

[cbayer]

43. That is not at all what he says.

He talks at length about these two men and brings up a lot of other factors that likely played a role.

He talks about a variety of lone wolf incidents, some of which have religious ties and some of which clearly do not - not "seemingly" about it.

He talks about the clear role religion did play in this episode but concludes that it is not the primary reason.

At no point does he say that religion should not be held responsible when it clearly is, like when "gun-toters spew religious dogma" (honestly, I don't even know what that means.

And the whole 80% thing that you referred to in your original response is never brought up as a factor at all.

The dumb argument being trotted out is not his, it is your fabrication of what he was saying.

[Cartoonist]

44. Seems pretty clear to me what he is saying

It was not Muslims in general who attacked the Paris office, it was these guys. Hence no amount of thundering about Islam or Islamic radical ideology in general explains why these particular people did what they did . . . why they used a religious pretext related to a religious issue . . . as a cover for their rage?
-
no amount of thundering about Islam
as a cover for their rage

No, Islam had nothing to do with it, it was merely a cover. Move along, nothing to see here.

[cbayer]

45. Well, that is not what he is saying but that is the version that fits your

narrative.

What does appear true is that these were people filled with rage who found an outlet for that rage that was encouraged and supported by a radical arm of Islam, Al Queada.

It's not a cover, it's a convenient outlet.

He never says Islam had nothing to do with it. Never.

You are looking at this too black and white, but I think you stopped reading at the headline.

[Cartoonist]

46. The quotes weren't in the headline.

[cbayer]

47. It's important to look at quotes in context.

There is plenty of satire that angers or wounds religious folk without causing violence... but [they do] not storm the artists’ and writers’ homes with military-grade weaponry.

Neither did any other Muslim except the Kouachi brothers. Even though Muslims in general may have been displeased by these drawings of the Prophet Mohammad (or any attempt to picture someone who should not be portrayed at all) no other Muslim attacked the cartoonists’ office in Paris. This brings us back to the idiosyncratic nature of this terrorist act. It was not Muslims in general who attacked the Paris office, it was these guys. Hence no amount of thundering about Islam or Islamic radical ideology in general explains why these particular people did what they did. If they were not commanded by some radical organization to undertake the attack, then the relevant questions are why the Kouachi brothers were angry about the society around them, and why they used a religious pretext related to a religious issue (the cartoon portrayals of the Prophet) as a cover for their rage?

(bolding mine)

What he is saying is that you can not say that this is something simply explained by "because Muslim". You have to look at all the other factors that make this an idiosyncratic event. If you just say "because Muslim" you make a potentially fatal error of understanding all the other things that contributed to it.

[m-lekktor]

55. it's a sad attempt to let religion off the hook

makes me SICK. I am tired of people, particularly LIBERALS and LEFTISTS trying to excuse FASCISTIC belief systems, yes we KNOW not all muslims are bad but SOME ARE and it is based on their RADICAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

[cbayer]

56. I'm going to guess that you also didn't read the article,

because that is not what he does here. He is not excusing FASCISTIC belief systems and acknowledges that religion played a role here, but he focuses on the fact that there are other factors that must be considered.

These guys were raised secular. They were nominally religious. Religion gave them the reason to express their rage and they grabbed it. Let's go after the factions that feed this and recognize that they do not represent the vast majority of muslims in this world.

Some people are bad.

[Maedhros]

133. Consider that by making this tragedy ALL ABOUT ISLAM,

we are adding fuel to the fires of hatred being stoked by radical Christian Dominionists here in the U.S, who so desperately want a full-scale crusade against Muslims.

Should we be wary of fundamentalist extremism? Of course we should. Does it mean we need to denigrate religious people across the board? No way. That's black-and-white, binary thinking - "You're with US or aganst US." I'll leave that mode of thought to Republicans.

[Igel]

51. Easy to spot motivated thinking and confirmation bias when it's not your own.

It's maybe not what we think, so it's not what we think.

Some mass murderers have various other reasons.

We don't know what this guy was thinking, so for all the information we do have we don't have any. Arguments ex silencio are facile when you're wearing earplugs.

Then there's the whole racial thing. The guy was "Muslim" by race. Now, traditional Muslim thought places them all in the same ummah or "race" ("ethnicity," if you will). But there is no good stereotypical drawing of a Muslim. There are Arabs, Persians, Pakistanis, Albanians, Malians, Tunisians. But they have as much in common as Jews and Swedes, and you wouldn't say, "Oh, look--a stereotype of a Jew" looking a a caricature of Breivik. Sorry, Coulibaly, you've just been transmogrified into a Saudi by those who are culturally aware and sensitive and smarter than those who can just look at a picture. See? It's just not convincing once you get past nice sounding words and stop to think what the words mean. In fact, it starts looking pretty damned foolish and simple-minded.

Esp. when one thinks that it's not just the "race" that's stereotyped but their symbols. I mean, I'm mostly Irish and should be offended to tears if anybody caricatures an Irish deity, right? They're Irish, I'm Irish. It's automatic. Except for the fact that for it to be a symbol that I take to heart it has to be something I take to heart. An attack on the symbol has to be an attack on me. If I don't think of an Irish deity as being "mine", screw it. It's silly. Same for Mary the mother of Jesus: If I'm not a believer, really, I'm not going to be offended if you glue elephant dung to a picture of the virgin Mary. Pick any woman you're portraying as Caucasian and it's a matter of extreme indifference, unless it's a woman that I personally care about.

No, just as we need to accept that all Muslims are Arabs, all Arabs are heavily invested in adoration of Muhammed. Druse, Xians, Yazidi. This Mark guy is looking really far off the mark, but he's making his point: Let's defend Islam because we don't want to create any more anti-Islamic fervor. It might not be Islam at the core of things, it might be Western neuroses attributed to the killers. "They're bad because they're like us" is as valid an argument.

In a number of instances--none that Mark S. notices, of course--such killings by apparent reprobates are to reclaim honor, but not as he present it. It's honor sought in religion, honor before god--what we'd call "atonement" in more benighted times. Because of defilement that must be undone through acts of extreme virtue that produce atonement. Zealots die hard. And it's especially nasty when your zealotry involves a kind of Kingdom of God on Earth that you have to defend, a righteous natio (sic) to defend as an acti of righteousness. Something that we haven't had in Western thinking for centuries (apart, oddly, from some Soviet and Nazi rhetoric). Then you get a politico-religious toxic brew in which the secular see only the political.

Or those obsessed with social equality and discrimination see only a reflex against social inequality and discrimination. As though the three were immiscible. They're as immiscible as water and alcohol. (Which reminds me: There's a margarita waiting for me. Ciao.)

[cbayer]

59. Ok, I've read this several times and I am having a lot of trouble

understanding your point.

I do have to let you know that water and alcohol are completely miscible until you get to 4 carbon chains and higher, and at 7 carbons they become immiscible.

Perhaps that was your point, but I'm not sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. The road that led from tough Paris estate to radical Yemen training

Speaking to French TV channel BFM on Friday afternoon, as police commandoes prepared for the final assault, Chérif, 32, said he had travelled to Yemen in 2011. His expenses were paid by the American-Yemeni extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was influential within al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) and one of the most popular radical propagandists in the world. “It was a while ago, before al-Awlaki was killed,” he told BFM. Al-Awlaki died in a suspected US drone strike in September 2011.

Saïd, 34, had also travelled to Yemen, attending the Iman University, which is headed by fundamentalist preacher Abdel Majeed al-Zindani, whose name figures on a US terror blacklist, according to a former Yemeni classmate interviewed by AFP. The classmate said he had lost track of Saïd between 2010 and 2013, when local rebel Houthi militiamen, who are from the Shia minority strand of Islam, overran a religious school in the small town of Dammaj, to the north of the capital Sa’ana, run by conservatives from the Sunni majority. The school, well- known in jihadi circles and to security agencies, was a destination for hundreds of foreigners, former students have said.
...
US officials believe Chérif, a former pizza deliverer, also received training in small arms and basic tactics from Aqap at this time. But the brothers differ from men such as Lindh or Storm in that they had previous deep links with extremists. Chérif was jailed for his role in a network funnelling volunteer fighters to Iraq between 2003 and 2005, and both brothers were investigated for another plot in 2010, around the time they were travelling to the Yemen.
...
Chérif told BFM he had been sent back to France by Aqap to execute attacks, and the organisation on Friday claimed responsibility for “directing operations” against a target “chosen carefully as revenge for the honour of the prophet”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-yemen-connection

It was not a 'lone wolf' attack. It was an explicitly religious motivation, repeated several times by the perpetrators.

Charlie Hebdo attacks background: A network of dissidents stretches from Algeria to Finsbury Park

Amedy Coulibaly, who took five hostages in a kosher bakery in Paris yesterday after the murder of a policewoman on Thursday, knew and was in touch with the Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo murders. He was linked to the brothers through, among others, Djamel Beghal, a senior al-Qaeda member and convicted terrorist. Intercepts on telephone calls by the French security service reportedly showed Coulibaly and the Kouachis had recently planned to visit Beghal in Murat, Cantal, where he is under house arrest, but turned back after fearing they would come under suspicion.
...
Their mentor was Faird Benyettou, who worked as a cleaner in a Paris mosque where, it is claimed, he met Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi.

Coulibaly, 32, was released earlier this year from a five-year jail sentence for a jailbreak plot with Beghal, who is suspected of recruiting shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. Coulibaly and Beghal planned, but failed, to free Smain Ait Al Belkacem, a former member of the Algerian Salafist GIA movement who was sentenced to life for a 1995 attack on a train in Orsay in which eight people died.
...
Beghal supposedly hero-worshipped Abu Hamza and was frequently seen at the cleric’s Finsbury Park mosque in north London where he also met Abu Qatada, who was once described as Osama bin Laden’s emissary in Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attacks-a-network-of-dissidents-stretches-from-algeria-to-finsbury-park-9969253.html

[edhopper]

57. Thank you for doing the leg work

I noticed on the news that they are no longer saying they were "lone wolves" but that it was an attack stemming from "radical Islam",
Now I would agree that "radical Islam" does not represent mainstream Islam or the bulk of the Muslim population.
But it is religion therefore religion was one of the prime motivations.

[cbayer]

58. Thanks for that information.

There is so much coming out and it is coming out so quickly, it is hard to keep up.

At this point, I have to step back and acknowledge that I really don't know enough. Religious extremism clearly played a role here, that seems convincingly clear.

[NYC_SKP]

60. Of course it wasn't. But, boy, some people are not going to like that POV.

The whole reason it happened was to foment inter-religion hatred.

More likely than not, this is about power and resources, not religious beliefs.

Just as rape is more about power than it is about sex, this is not about juvenile satirical images of Muhammad.

But dang I know some internet peeps that WANT it to be about religion.

Poor things.

[cbayer]

61. It has led to some very interesting conversations.

I don't think either extreme position is valid. Religion was a factor. It was not the sole factor by any means, but it played a role.

The important thing is to tease out how religion is used by some to gain power and resources and control others.

I believe these men were used and were perfect targets for the forces that wanted to use them.

Fortunately, those forces are small, but they sure are powerful.

I hope this backfires terribly on them.

[NYC_SKP]

62. I agree, and yours is a rare but wonderful point of view: those men were used.

And, in that sense, were victims too.

In another thread about Buddhist's loving all things and what about cockroaches, it was observed that unconditional love of all things is most shown by sincerely feeling respect for the least and most loathed critters.

These men were like that, they were used and, in that sense, were victims of the larger power play that's been playing out in many of these current events.

The real bad guys never show up to the scenes of the crime.

Ever.

[Leontius]

66. They made a choice. To call these murderers victims too is ridiculous.

They knew what they were doing they believed they were right in murdering to avenge a wrong.

[NYC_SKP]

67. Yes, that is the story line being perpetrated by the media and by the men who sent them.

The Muslim religion does not condone this.

The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad.

These men were sick and depraved, and they are to be pitied for their sickness.

The murdered and the murderers are, in the grand scheme of things, suffering and in one way or another, are victims.

No, not victims in the Western binary black and white good guy bad guy way, that much is obvious.

I mean that in the spiritual sense, (this is the Religion Group), they can be regarded as victims of humanity.

Take care.

[Leontius]

71. That's just crap. They made a choice to kill it was their choice reinforced by their religious zeal.

Part of the Muslim religious world most certainly condones this act.

[cbayer]

94. But I can not embrace them.

In order to be available for this, their hearts have to be black and their ethics terribly corrupted. I maintain that they would have done something equally heinous if religion hadn't been the handle and if another group had indoctrinated them.

The important thing is to look at how these type of people develop and how the larger organizations recruit and indoctrinate them.

I do agree that they were used and the the bigger organizations is where the worst of the evil resides.

[NYC_SKP]

97. You know that whole experience I had with incarcerated youth.

It might not be a fair comparison, but some of these kids were quite messed up from knowing nothing but abuse.

It was easy, in fact it was my default approach, to see them as beaten victims no matter how nasty they were.

Deep inside they weren't so nasty.

[cbayer]

98. I have also had many experiences when I felt a great deal of

compassions for some people that had done some really horrible things.

But I also spent time in forensic facilities where the evil was too profound to forgive. I might be able to understand why it was there, but I could not find it in my heart to forgive them.

Some people are really nasty deep inside. It may not be of their doing, but I do think some people are truly evil.

[NYC_SKP]

64. More, not just a Buddhist point of view, Jesus would have embraced them, too, these killers.

As mentioned in my other reply, above, "all God's creatures" does not cut off at cockroaches, not for Buddhists and not for Christians, IMHO.

In other parts, it seems that people cannot fathom the concept, the concept that the people with the guns might be puppets of the real evil people.

I maintain that a truly enlightened being sees the shooter as pawns, as victims of the people who think they have something to gain.

I further suggest that even those people, probably save in their bodyguarded suites, are to be pitied.

What horrible set of circumstances, disease of the mind and spirit, can possess otherwise ordinary beings of perpetrating such evil

I believe all are human, and all are victims in a way.

Matthew 5:44:

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Some are going to disagree, probably, but that's the way I see all of this. And, it keeps me in a more peaceful and centered place than to rant and to rage.

[phil89]

106. Nonsense.

According to "Jesus" they would not have been given entry to heaven, as none come to the father but through him. You have to play the game his way.

[trotsky]

82. You're right, because some people prefer facts.

Religious extremism main cause of terrorism, according to report

Religious extremism has become the main driver of terrorism in recent years, according to this year’s Global Terrorism Index.

The report recorded 18,000 deaths in 2013, a rise of 60% on the previous year. The majority (66%) of these were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida.

Overall there has been a fivefold increase in deaths from terrorism since the 9/11 suicide attacks.

The report’s authors attribute the majority of incidents over the past few years to groups with a religious agenda.

[NYC_SKP]

84. Religion is the main cover story used to promote an a-theistic political terroristic agenda.

Duh.

The agenda is about power and dominance and resources and culture, not about competing dogma.

Religion is the cover story, the excuse used to recruit.

Dude, that's what the KKK does with the bible.

This isn't about religion, quite the opposite.

How much clearer could it be?

[trotsky]

85. An "a-theistic political terroristic agenda"?

Nice. You're just pure class, aren't you?

Dude, the KKK is a Christian organization. Made up of Christians. They believe their god favors the white "race." Yes, it's about religion. AND about power. AND about politics. Same as other terrorist organizations.

Some of us are willing to look at everything. Others like yourself apparently only see black and white.

[NYC_SKP]

88. Correct. Religion is simply the excuse used to cover this and to distract.

For better or worse, I'm gifted with a capacity to discern patterns with precision to a tested degree matched by only 1/10 of one percent of those tested.

Most others, demonstrably, are not.

Nothing's black and white, friend.

Even black has shades of black.

No, it's the simple-minded folks who can't see beyond "Religion Bad" and who cannot resist clinging to simple conclusions.

They can't grasp that everyone in that chaotic series of events was played, and you're being played right along with them.

Peace.

[trotsky]

93. No, you're wrong. The Paris terrorists were not following an "atheistic" agenda.

I see no one here promoting a "Religion Bad" message, only the acknowledgment that religion played a role. You have adopted the extremist message that religion is only positive and good.

But since you're so much more gifted and talented than just about everyone else (and humble too, obviously!) I can see you have no interest in discussion. You already know that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Get the last word in if you need it. I'm done with you.

[NYC_SKP]

96. I believe they thought they were acting on a religious mission, but were sent by agents...

...who had a politic agenda.

We might agree on this much:

Religions have, most of them, been corrupted and misused over the centuries to oppress people.

That is the case here.

Thus, there are ways in which the religious tradition is sound and loving, but it's modern expression has been corrupted.

The Koran does not forbid use of images of Mohammed, that's a new development.

So is the Trinity and scores of other features of Christianity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

107. Religion

and

politics

are

not

mutually

exclusive.

[NYC_SKP]

119. Indeed they are not. And extremists don't speak for the religion that they exploit. (nt)

[Act_of_Reparation]

121. Nonsensical gobbldegook.

Politics
and
religion
aren't
mutually
exclusive.

Ergo,
the
extremists
aren't
exploiting
anything.

They
actually
believe.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Unless you can point out PRECISELY who they were 'played' by

this is anecdotal opinion of one, single, admittedly uninformed human.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=176157

[NYC_SKP]

123. Agents of Al Qaeda have taken credit for the attacks. Neither you nor I really know.

And with what authority are you able to ascribe fault, and to whom or to what?

From reports generated by the media?

Those at Hebdo don't blame Islam, why do you?

Tell this to your friends:

Religious Extremism is the Opposite of the Religion it Exploits

You see them as both. That's a very simplistic and unsophisticated point of view.

Islamic Extremists did this, they used the religion, they appropriated it, but true Islam teaches the opposite of these acts, which are wrong.

I think one day you'll understand.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I fully understand. The term 'true islam' is a logical fallacy, and the rest of your post is garbage

Because you see, interpretation of religious texts is subjective, much like a painting. You don't get to determine 'true' islam and what is within or outside those bounds.

Hopefully one day you'll understand.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. By the way.

"For better or worse, I'm gifted with a capacity to discern patterns with precision to a tested degree matched by only 1/10 of one percent of those tested."

"Even black has shades of black."

Discerning patterns, and discriminating color/hue wavelengths are entirely separate skills. The first quote has dick-all to do with the second. Visual pattern perception and thalamic neurons in your primary visual cortex that discriminate shade/hue are entirely different systems.

Worse still, behavioral pattern recognition isn't handled in the visual cortex at all, which is what you are describing when you talk about things like people responding to controlling stimuli by political or religious manipulators. Behavioral pattern recognition of a sequence of events is a different area of the brain as well.

Tests for one form of pattern recognition don't necessarily apply to all.



So basically you strung together a bunch of nonsense there, upthread.

[NYC_SKP]

125. Did I strike a nerve? Make a point? Provoke you?

My, such passion.

[randys1]

128. I am confused what you two are arguing about, is someone saying to you in essence

that religion by it's basic nature can be wrong and there is no true goodness to a given religion or something like that?

Or just tell me to butt out

But I am curious

[NYC_SKP]

129. I'm not sure why I got the response that I got from that member.

Don't know who alerted, either.

I guess you won't have an answer from them, but for my part I'm saying that evil people use religion as cover, then people conclude that the solution is to end religions, or hate religion, or something like that.

Religion BAD!

When, in fact, most religions aren't this way and I don't think that extremists are following the faith correctly, if at all.

So I use my free expression ticket to freely express compassion and love and them BOOM, three or four people come down on me!

I am curious, too!

[randys1]

130. I completely disagree with you but you have always been polite and nice to me so it wouldnt enter

my mind to alert on you.

Yes, religion is BAD, but we dont have to agree on that to agree that murder is wrong, period.

The simple way to deal with what happened or is happening in France is

murder
bad


period

And I consider any death at the hands of a terrorist, murder, OR death at the hands of an empire, for that matter.

Which is why W is a much bigger murderer than Obama could ever be, if at all.

But if it comes down to numbers, W wins over any terrorist organization.

[NYC_SKP]

131. We are together on those points.

Indeed, the murder is wrong at anyone's hands.

I think you're witness to a degree of stalking that I endure for having offended a handful of members here over the years, some of the drama goes all the way back to DU2 when I was a moderator.

In any event, I feel compassion for the millions of ordinary Muslims, Christians, and others who have to bear the bigotry that is felt toward them partly as a result of evil deeds done by fanatics in the name of their faith.

I have a history of defending the defenseless and of standing up to bullies.

It sometimes feels that way on the DU.

Take care!

[randys1]

135. I am a fan of a Canadian sitcom "Little Mosque on the Prairie"

AS insane as this is about to sound, watching that cute, benign, barely funny but warmly amusing show, for several years, I have grown to learn a fondness for Muslims.

I would have grown to a fondness anyway if I knew any or many, but this show pointed out the truth of their religion.

Now, their religion is crazy and wacky and often harmful as is Christianity, whether baptist or Mormon and as are all religions, but what I learned from that show is the mainstream folks are hardly radical, at all, in any way whatsoever.

[NYC_SKP]

136. There's a great reply in another thread...

...that says that the blame placed on ordinary Muslims is a convenient distraction from understanding history and the role the West has played in oppressing these people.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/123033383#post7

OBTW, I'll have to try to find that show, it sounds like fun.

[edhopper]

89. So the leaders

of all these Muslim terrorist groups don't believe in God or the Koran and don't think they are acting in accordance with their beliefs.

Do I have that right?

[NYC_SKP]

90. I don't know with certainty what they think. They are morally corrupt.

You might want to ascribe their evil to their religion, that might be convenient for you.

But they all work against the teachings of their faith so that fact suggests that they are, in fact, a-thiests or are woefully misinterpreting their faiths.

Mostly, evil powers are using religion as a tool to recruit helpers to foist their political agenda, not their theistic beliefs.

I hate when then foist like that.

Foisters!

[Goblinmonger]

99. "a-thiests"

If you are going to try and dump all this horrible stuff on atheism, at least spell it correctly. 99.9th percentile for recognizing patterns and all, it shouldn't be that hard for you.

[NYC_SKP]

100. It's a kindness I extend to those who profess to be atheists on this board.

I don't want to offend true atheists, I'm one of them after all.

It's such an elusive term, I chose to use the hyphenated form with lower case "a" to differentiate those with a non-theistic agenda who use religion for cover from most other atheists who neither follow any faith nor use a faith as an excuse to promote some other political or territorial agenda.

So, quite the opposite from dumping on atheism, I'm honoring them by using a different term to identify a distinctly different person.

It was a deliberate misspelling, a kindness to my kindred atheists and agnostics.

[NeoGreen]

102. You should not be using "a-theisim" to refer to...

... what you seem to be describing, i.e. a "flawed" religious dogma based on an existing religious dogma.

To attempt to conflate atheism (i.e. the openly professed {or not openly} doubt that god{s} exist) with the flawed religious dogma that is being exploited as justification for acts of terrorism, is disingenuous, at best.

A religious dogma (no matter how flawed or not) based on, derived from, reliant upon, an existing religious dogma (no matter how flawed, in its own right, or not) is religious dogma not a-theism and certainly is not atheism.

[trotsky]

104. Great point and very well put. n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

111. The problem with your line of thinking

is that you are basing it on misinterpretations of their faith. But it is actually part of their faith to destroy all who do not believe the same way that they do. I will agree that most Muslims do not follow this, just as most Christians do not follow many of the unsavory parts of the Bible. But it is there, and available for the fundamentalists to use for their own purposes.

From the Quran:

And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[Warren Stupidity]

110. that is some tortured "logic" there skippy.

[LiberalAndProud]

65. the target of their angry, vicious attack was related to religion

Not the reason... Just related... sort of.


I think you're stretching the point pretty thin there, Mark.

[NYC_SKP]

72. Religion was the cover story, but the reality is that they were sick.

They suffered a sickness of the spirit and probably of the mind, as well.

In reality, they were victims of their Al Qaeda masters, their extremism, of their brainwashing, of an actual organic illness, possibly more.

Simple beings blame others and hold fast to that ascription, almost like it was a life preserver, without doubt.

Enlightened beings know that all are suffering and all are victims, and that it is far more complex than it appears on the surface to be.

Their hatred is met, from my heart, with compassion.

[LiberalAndProud]

75. The deflection of responsibility in your post is nothing short of appalling.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

There is compassion, but your excusing these extremists by blaming their "Al Qaeda masters" and whatever other straws you try to grasp is really sort of amazing. And I won't ascribe it to compassion, because there is nothing redeeming about transparent and flimsy apologetics.

If this sort of nonsense suits you, carry on. Still, I think I can call that particular viewpoint malarkey without suffering the wrath of our jury system. Pete's sake!

[Warren Stupidity]

114. SKP has made this massacre all about SKP.

Isn't that fabulous? When I think of the horrors of last week they will be forever qualified by the gross distortions and fabulously dishonest arguments made by one individual on DU. This is the second massacre, the other one being Sandy Hook, where I have had this experience.

[tkmorris]

69. You tend to see things in the most convenient way possible

I think it's a flaw frankly.

[NYC_SKP]

73. No. I think those who cast blame and hold fast to it are simplifying.

They identify the bad person and blame them and then defend that blame as if their life depended on it.

That's easier than actually considering other possibilities, like the possibility that the shooters might be victims themselves and that whomever sent them deserve more of the blame.

It's convenient to blame the religion. It's not very sophisticated or realistic, but it's really easy. That's why it's done so often.

But it's harder to let go of blame and embrace the enemy.

Or, rather, it's harder to lose the blame-placing habit and learn to embrace.

But once you get to that point of acceptance and love, of knowing that we all suffer and are all victims, it's actually a much more loving and easy place to be.

[Fumesucker]

79. We're all simplifying, the map is not the terrain

Of course there is more to it than religion but some people want to make it about anything ~but~ the religion. The legacy of colonialism and Western adventurism in the ME and NA over more than a century is paying off in trumps, we can acknowledge that and still have serious reservations about an ideology that's so easily swayed towards violence while simultaneously admitting that most if not all ideologies people take seriously can be swayed to violence.

I end up saying things on these threads that I know hurt people's feelings, their beliefs and ideals. I could link to quite a few posts of mine lately that come across as hateful toward Christians, I acknowledge that and I"m disappointed with myself that I can't seem to find a better way and less divisive way to say what I feel needs to be said.

There was a poster long back on DU called Az, one of the wisest people I've ever seen I think, (s)he was really good at calming the waters and getting me to see another perspective, I miss Az.

[NYC_SKP]

83. I remember Az, he posted a lot in what was then called Religion/Theology.

Good and thoughtful material, more of that needed here.

I fear that simplicity in presentation is the tool of the bad guys, TPTB, the MIC, the RW and the DNC, etc., etc.

They all use oversimplification to sell whatever they got to sell, they use it to lie and misrepresent.

It's a form of distraction but it works, the masses gobble it up.

It's easy to understand, doesn't require a working knowledge of history or a capacity to see patterns or discern subtleties.

Thank you for the civil and considered reply, Fumesucker.

[trotsky]

86. Oversimplification indeed.

Like "religion was not the reason for the Paris attacks."

[NYC_SKP]

87. Religion is decidedly not the reason for terrorism, just as sex is not the reason for rape.

It's the excuse ascribed by people incapable of digging deeper, of seeing beyond their own shortsightedness.

Same dynamic, trotsky.

Religions teach love.

[trotsky]

91. "Religions teach love."

Some do, some don't. Some teach love, hate, forgiveness, revenge, and all sorts of positive and negative things.

Some of us see those shades of gray. Some, like yourself, don't.

Your religion/terrorism and sex/rape analogy completely fails, BTW.

[NYC_SKP]

92. Of course in your world the analogy fails. Because it doesn't. It kills your argument.

Nice try but other readers will see through it.

When you can't offer a detailed rebuttal, just call it a complete failure.

Right.

[Curmudgeoness]

116. If it is true

that religions teach love, why is there so little love in the world? Most people in this world subscribe to some religion, yet we see so little love, much less tolerance or peace or any of the other things that religion is supposed to be all about.

Why is it so impossible to point the finger at the fundamentalist religion as a root cause for these acts of terror? There are many factors involved, but the root of it is their beliefs and how they were taught to believe.

[NYC_SKP]

118. "Fundamentalist" = "Selective adherence"

I would submit that just as Christian bigots need to comb through the gospels to find any passage that supports their specific hatred, while ignoring those passages that teach tolerance, so do fundamentalist Muslims cherry pick their teachings.

In both instances, with Christian and Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, we see the antitheses of their religious traditions, opposites.

Thus, it's absolutely correct to point the finger at the fundamentalist mutation, but important to know that the mutation is NOT the religion; it is the anti-religion.

While the mutations and nuts are making the news, millions of Christians and Muslims are doing good deeds, performing acts of compassion and public service, loving one another as they love themselves.

[trotsky]

122. Wrong again. *Every* believer practices selective adherence.

Liberal Christians and Muslims have to disregard large parts of their holy texts, too.

Ask your friend cbayer about "cherry-picking."

[Curmudgeoness]

126. The "good" believers

of all faiths also cherry pick their religious books for justifications for the good that their religions do. But the problem is that both the good and bad are there to be picked.

[NYC_SKP]

127. Fair enough. It's the downfall of belief systems.

And the downfall of all organizations and systems, that given choices sometimes bad or even evil choices are made.

They are corruptible. And it's not limited to religions; schools, companies, service organizations, most any human association can start with a noble mission and end up being taken in an evil direction.

The part that is troubling, that media and others are doing, is that they go after the religion and not the extremist, or that they create a perception that absent the religion there would be no extremism, no evil.

That is a terribly lazy way to go about it, and it condones intolerance.

[Leontius]

132. Religious teachings are a light to illuminate your path in life

or a torch to burn down all things you oppose. The individual believer makes the choice of how faith is used.

[Curmudgeoness]

134. The individual chooses what part of their holy book that they will use.

The problem is that these holy books have some serious flaws, since they do contain those parts that are distasteful. You can use it as a light, or a torch, but either way, you can find things to back up your beliefs right there in your books.

[Leontius]

137. Because most humans are greedy self absorbed bastards who want their needs met whatever

the cost to others. No matter what the teachings love is hard to find and hard to keep when you're surrounded by that type of humanity. It's why when you see it it is clear what you are seeing and why it kills the spirit to see it ground in the mud.

[Jamaal510]

139. ...

They identify the bad person and blame them and then defend that blame as if their life depended on it.

That's easier than actually considering other possibilities, like the possibility that the shooters might be victims themselves and that whomever sent them deserve more of the blame.

It's convenient to blame the religion. It's not very sophisticated or realistic, but it's really easy. That's why it's done so often.

[cbayer]

95. It's an article so I am going to assume you are addressing this to the author and not me.

[ZombieHorde]

78. It was obviously religiously motivated.

Some people are in a religious war with radical Islam. If I remember correctly, some of the members of Blackwater talked about religious war between Christianity and Islam. We have a bunch of people saying they're killing each other for religious reasons, and calling them all liars seems like the height of pretension and snobbery to me. The author is saying he knows these people better than they know themselves. It's over the top patronizing.

[cbayer]

101. I don't think it's about calling them liars, but about

not dismissing this so easily as having a single and simple cause.

[Live and Learn]

80. I agree. I think those that seek to divide use religion, race, sexuality and whatever they can

think of to do so.

Forcing a certain religious affiliation on people or banning any religious affiliations have already been tried and history dictates that neither works very well.

In fact, the US was founded based on the principles of religious freedom. That is the freedom to decide if you want to ascribe to any religion or none at all. I am not willing to give up any rights that we were granted including the right to practice religion.

[cbayer]

103. Interesting perspective.

I tend to agree about how this can be used to be very divisive and intentionally so.

Saying "because Islam" is too simple and does not explain why the vast majority of muslims on this earth would not ever do anything like this or support this in any way.

[trotsky]

105. Has anyone actually said "because Islam"?

The only people I hear unilaterally proclaiming anything are like the author you embrace: they take the extreme position that religion had nothing at all to do with anything bad.

[trotsky]

81. I'll give you one thing, cbayer.

You are absolutely committed to your agenda.