Eamonn McCann: Islamic State’s actions are rooted in religion

[trotsky]

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eamonn-mccann-islamic-state-s-actions-are-rooted-in-religion-1.2435270

IS broke with al-Qaeda over religion. AQ doesn’t hold that the end of the world is at hand. Bin Laden felt no need to prepare for the end by conquering and holding territory on which a caliphate could be declared and cleansed of the stains of worldliness though the application of undiluted Sharia law. For IS, though, the beheadings, crucifixions and ruthless eradication of people and practices deemed unIslamic are required preparatory rituals for the second coming of Jesus. They are video-taped and broadcast to proclaim that the caliphate is here and the end coming soon.

IS has a detailed running-order for the countdown, based on the apocalyptic texts of Islam. The infidel armies will come from the West and set up camp at Dabiq, near Aleppo. Here, the armies of Islam will meet and defeat them.

...

Even the most sceptical will admit that, as proofs go, that has the authentic ring of religion about it.

The point is not that religious ideas cause war, or have caused this particular war. It is to say that to refuse to acknowledge the religious basis of the beliefs of those who attacked Paris last week is to refuse to face facts. The evil of IS is rooted in religion.

[DetlefK]

1. Religion is a main-reason, but there are 4 other ones:

There are other reasons for joining Daesh than merely the end-times:

You can break out from the confusion and decadence of the western life-style and join the morally pure rebels! Because our world can be divided in black&white, good&evil! You will be a righteous rebel fighting the Empire!

And while you are fighting the Empire with crucifixions and beheadings, you can fulfill your dreams of being a glorious warrior! You fight, you kill, you are THE MAN! And what do men want apart from violence? SEX!!! You can have sex-slaves! You can have all the sex and all the women you want!

Still not convinced to fight for Daesh? We offered you salvation, a righteous cause, sex-slaves... Revenge! Fight back at the West for throwing Iraq into violence! Because it's the West's fault that Sunni and Shia are trying to kill each other!

What? Still nothing? How about money? You want a job at Daesh? You kill people for us and you get money? You could provide for your family by publicly executing other families! Still No?

Aw, shucks. Off with his head.

NEXT APPLICANT!

[Festivito]

2. bs smoke protecting Blair and Bush. Religion is used; it is not the source.

The greed that bore invading Iraq, creating IS, is antithetical to these religions. To liken religion as the root cause smacks of a different and hidden agenda.

[Yorktown]

4. No. The Blair-Bush idiocy only added fuel to the islamic fire.

The hard line islamic revival started with the fall of the Ottoman Empire post WWI (al Banna), accelerated during the reign of the post colonial strongmen (Qutb) and has been going full force with the Muslim population boom + Saudi financing of extremism of the past 30 years.

The GW Iraq madness worsened the global picture, but didn't alter the basic equation.

[Festivito]

6. Blair-Bush, Ottoman fall, Suadis, Jacob and Essau perchance.

Religions have been abused for personal gains for longer than this skirmish. As to who added fuel to the fire, religion should have quelled it, abuse of religion can exacerbate it for sure.

Abuse certainly goes on. That is the basic equation.

[Yorktown]

36. Jacob and Esau also are a cause of violence. The Old Testament is.

And most religions are.

[Festivito]

39. Incomplete sentences, seem only to repeat same personal opinion. eom.

[Yorktown]

105. So, the OT preaching violence is just my personal opinion?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Christ on a pogo stick.

To liken religion as the root cause smacks of a different and hidden agenda

Poison the well much?

[Festivito]

7. Perhaps a well was poisoned before I wrote, and before pogo sticks. eom.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. As long as we're speculating...

...perhaps it wasn't.

[Festivito]

12. We? eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Yes, "we".

A personal pronoun often used colloquially to condescendingly reference the person being addressed, e.g. "And how are we feeling today?"

Which is to say: you.

[Festivito]

17. Ah, the condescending "we" as you as opposed to the there are wee others, "we."

Well, isn't that special.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. There could be "wee others".

But I haven't measured anyone here, and I wouldn't want to speculate.

[trotsky]

9. Do you believe that every line of the bible demonstrates proper moral behavior? n/t

[Festivito]

11. If you mean with no contextualizations, then, no. eom.

[cleanhippie]

13. Ah, the old context canard.

You mean the context YOU give it through YOUR interpretation, right?

[Festivito]

15. Ah, the old canard canard, now in context of context.

With me posting ideas from me and in interpretation and context from me.

Which makes sense since I'm the one posting my posts.

[cleanhippie]

22. Yet you make the argument that the above response is wrong due to lack of context.

When it comes to context regarding scripture, who decides what said context is to be?

What context makes killing a man by bear attack for yelling at kids ok? What context makes cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit ok? What context makes killing entire populations ok?

All of this and more are in the bible. Is the bible really a guide to moral behavior?

[Festivito]

40. The answer to the question was: "no," not "wrong."

And, it was not the response that needed (not lacked) context, it was the content of the response that needed context.

There is too much wrong in current post to respond further.

[cleanhippie]

43. You're right, there's so much wrong with your post it's not worth responding to.

You have a nice day.

[Festivito]

50. Disingenuous. eom

[cleanhippie]

70. Precious. eom

[Leontius]

25. What was the context when you told lies about my statements and views

in three other threads?

[cleanhippie]

27. Lol

[Leontius]

28. So lying about someone is funny to you.

And you question Biblical morality.

[cleanhippie]

29. Biblical morality is nothing more than contrived platitudes.

Your hatred and anger, OTOH, are quite real.

[Leontius]

32. No anger no hatred.

But someone willing to publicly lie about another might have those issues don't you think?

[cleanhippie]

41. Lots of anger and hatred. Maybe use your new found free time to reflect on it.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. What Biblical morality is found isn't the way to be a good person, at least by modern standards. n/t

[Leontius]

38. So what's your position on lying is it a sign of a good moral character?

Do you trust liars? Do you offer support for them?

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Depends on context, an entire branch of my family is dead because they chose to lie to the Nazis...

they hid and smuggled Jews out of the Reich.

If its done to hurt others, or misrepresent them, then its wrong. If its done to protect, or to prevent a bigger wrong, then its best out of a bad situation.

[cleanhippie]

44. He's been put on time-out for bad behavior.

Something tells me nothing will change upon his return.

[beam me up scottie]

53. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Nov 19, 2015, 07:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

He's been put on time-out for bad behavior.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=217705

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is his third post in this thread gloating about Leontius getting a fifth hide, doubtless on one of cleanhippie's alerts. One gloat may be understandable. Two is pushing it. Three is trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 19, 2015, 08:19 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh spare me the drama, it's not against the tos to comment on a timeout and I certainly don't recall reading anything about a limit on how many times one may do so in a thread. Stop alert stalking atheists and enjoy your vacation. - member of the Vermin News Network

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU soap opera drama.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Jury pulled the rug out from underneath that alert.

You do take your chances with a jury, it is a random crap shoot, but frequently juries just get it right.

[cleanhippie]

71. Bwahahahahaha! It's like a bad toupee, I can't stop looking at it!

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Unless your are Emanuel Kant, and then lying to the nazis is wrong.

[cleanhippie]

45. No, I find your antics and manufactured outrage funny.

Enjoy your vacation!

[trotsky]

16. So everyone agrees on the context of every verse? n/t

[Festivito]

18. No. There are actually more than one religion. eom

[trotsky]

19. Thanks for making my point for me.

Take care.

[Festivito]

20. A point is made by finally knowing there is more than one religion!

Oh my!

I suppose that point, whatever it is, is as profound as the final revelation to the newly apprised.

I wonder what it is.

[trotsky]

24. Nope that there are different interpretations, each as valid as the other.

Sorry you didn't grasp that.

[Festivito]

46. That just seems obtuse and condescendingly passive-aggressive. eom

[trotsky]

52. Are you saying that other religions are inferior to yours?

Is yours the most "Christian"? Are you certain that your personal interpretation is 100% correct?

[Festivito]

55. No. No need to say that.

There are some other religions with very good results. The question would be: are they sustainable? Or, will they someday fall apart.

And, am I 100% correct in anything? No, not really. A broken clock can be perfectly correct twice a day, yet, even my own concept of perfect is not itself perfect.

[trotsky]

61. OK, so you admit your interpretation of "context" could be wrong.

And perhaps there is no "context" with which one can justify the moral atrocities found in the bible.

[Festivito]

62. That's poorly worded; questioning my ability to digest a dictionary definition.

And, I'm certainly not saying that cannot be wrong ever.

I am also not saying that I would know everything in the Bible especially when including all contextual gyrations.

[trotsky]

63. So in your post #11...

Did you or did you not imply that a "contextualization" is possible for every moral atrocity found in the bible?

[Festivito]

66. Does Judas went out and hung himself demonstrate proper moral behavior? No.

Did I imply it?

Do you believe that every line of the bible demonstrates proper moral behavior?
If you mean with no contextualizations, then, no.

No. It was just a firm no if context was not to be included. The opposite of no is not always yes, it can be ambivalent.

[trotsky]

67. So then you admit there are examples of immoral behavior in the bible...

for which no "contextualization" exists. You could have been clearer with your initial statement.

So what happens when people view those immoral parts as legitimate communications of their god's will?

[Festivito]

69. There is always context. eom.

[trotsky]

72. Well, I thank you...

for perfectly demonstrating religious logic.

[Festivito]

74. Equally. eom.

[trotsky]

77. Thank you for the compliment!

It was a delightful exercise to make you spin in circles on that.

[Festivito]

79. Actually, I liked fast balls better than curve balls, and that was all the way through. eom

[cleanhippie]

99. Either way, you struck out.

[Festivito]

102. Struck out of the darkness into the light and won. eom sweet eom

[Festivito]

87. Nope. eom

[trotsky]

89. LOL

Repeating a non-argument doesn't make it an argument.

[Lordquinton]

21. So, in context all lines are good?

And please answer without a personal attack, it really undermines your point.

[Festivito]

47. I do not recall making a single personal attack.

I respond to the post, as I am doing now. That is what we are here at DU to do.

I suggest the illogical strawman attempt to say that I personally attacked should be removed.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Under what context would all the lines be good?

The Bible finds ways to justify atrocity after atrocity, from rape to infanticide, under what context is any of that moral?

[trotsky]

33. IT JUST IS, OK?!?

Context blah blah so shut up and quit asking!

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Don't dismiss the intellectual gymnastics necessary for Christians to justify...

parts of their Bible, or the actions/beliefs of their specific Churches, like here for instance.

Granted, that is low hanging fruit, being a very conservative Catholic subreddit, but interesting. The thought process of the Liberal Christian is similar in attempting to minimize, dismiss or outright disagree with sections of the Bible and/or past actions or beliefs of their Churches. Even going so far as saying there are new revelations(Jesus, LDS Prophets, etc.)

[trotsky]

37. You're right, it is fascinating in a way to see the sophistication...

of an "argument" that is crafted to appear so deep and intellectual, but utterly fails to address the point at hand. And then there is much back-slapping and sighs of relief. LOL

[Festivito]

48. Too many contexts to be simple. I agree that some of the stories appear atrocious.

How could they be seen as moral? I don't know. What lesson should I learn, if any. As of yet, I do not know.

[tkmorris]

51. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

They appear atrocious primarily because they are. You keep on looking for contexts that make them OK though. Everyone needs a hobby.

[Festivito]

54. Sometimes a cigar is an IED, sometimes it is a diplomacy device.

Yes, the acts described are atrocious.

And, yes, some people might spend time to see what can be learned from atrocious stories. Whereas others might make a hobby out of trolling that results in trying to degrade other people they don't even know.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. And yet the obvious answer that the idiot's book of ancient nonsense has many passages that should

simply be discarded as vile immoral horseshit, others that are simply absurd just so stories that no longer explain anything, that interpretation is off the table?

How would you intepret this passage:

"'If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Huh?

[Festivito]

64. Since that is old testament, it can be tossed -- after the new covenant.

They were big into populating the earth back then. Even if you did not enjoy doing it.

[trotsky]

73. "Since that is old testament, it can be tossed"

Says who? You? You are not the ultimate authority on Christianity.

[Festivito]

75. Did not say I was. eom

[trotsky]

76. Then why can the OT be tossed?

Lots of Christians think it can't.

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. I should think a fair portion of the world's Jewish population might want to keep it around as well.

Just guessing.

[trotsky]

83. I used the new Religio-speak Translator app I just wrote.

"It can be tossed" = "There is no way in hell I could possibly put up any kind of defense of the outrageous stuff in there so I'm going to pretend like I don't have to"

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Many a VERY SERIOUS theologian has noted....

...the OT is a bunch of useless shit and shouldn't really have been included in the Bible in the first place.

I'm told Harvard Divinity is taking it off the curriculum.

[Festivito]

90. Yes, I would think that they would indeed. eom

[Festivito]

88. While they eat a pork sandwich? eom

A letter from the next word seems to filter into the current word I type. Oops.

[trotsky]

91. Now your words aren't even combining into valid sentences.

[trotsky]

95. Disregarding certain dietary restrictions is assuredly not the same as...

tossing the whole thing out, as you claim should be done.

[Festivito]

103. Nearly evey post where you say what someone claims -- is not their claim.

It's like a parade of bad idea straw men that are made by you to claim falsely that good ideas expressed in good form are somehow suddenly not good.

I find that to be disingenuous. And, I've expressed that to someone with similar posts under this OP before.

[trotsky]

107. LOL

I don't think you know what "disingenuous" means because if you did, you wouldn't be accusing someone else of being it.

[cleanhippie]

96. Turn off the auto-privilege setting.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. How convenient.

Of course Paul echoes the OT condemnation of homosexuality in epistles and tosses women into this condemnation as well. I guess he forgot the OT was null and void. Are you also tossing the alleged prophesies of a messiah along with the OT, or keeping those bits?

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. Everyone's favorite Ecclesiastes gets "tossed" too, I take it.

For everything, there is a dustbin.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. It's the convenience toss.

Tossers using this dodge don't really mean the OT is out, obviously it isn't. They mean "I have no good argument so I'm going for the toss."

[trotsky]

84. Not to mention...

""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -- Matthew 5:17

[Festivito]

92. Some say keep the old, some say no. Somewhere it says to build their own church and see if it fails.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. So basically everyone can make up anything they want.

So we the big book of bizarre and frequently appalling idiocy why?

[LiberalAndProud]

85. Contextualization.

Would it be accurate to say that contextualization is a tool believers employ to ignore the bad bits?

Do you agree that scripture need not be wholly true, because it is holy true?

[Festivito]

93. Hopefully its in a context of love.

Wholly true, not wholly understood.

[LiberalAndProud]

94. Which leads to contextualizations that don't agree.

New light. Because Moses misunderstood, I suppose.

…17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. 19"And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day.…

ETA: In my experience, passages like these can't be contextualized. What I know when I read that passage is that no truly loving god ever commanded those things. In the context of it can't be true ... it's not true.

[cleanhippie]

97. Love of what? Your God or actual humans?

It's the context of love of a God that gets us where we are today.

We're it a love of other humans, religion would have been tossed aside eons ago.

[Festivito]

104. Or, those and the love of love. eom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. What about the attacks on the Yazidis? Killing gay men? Blowing up Roman temples

and Shia shrines? Those are, to you, all ways to get back at Bush, Blair and their supporters, are they?

If ISIS was about anti-Iraq invasion stuff, how come they set up in Syria first, fighting Assad, who was himself opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

[Festivito]

49. Awful. Now, what feeds these acts? Scriptures or greedy invasions?

I think invasions have made people fearful and some are using and misusing religion to work on their fears. In part by garnering support to further the only power they seem able to acquire.

Why Syria first?

Foremost, I do not see why it would matter to you.

I would suggest conditions were better for such a movement in Syria. Iraq, Afghanistan too war-torn. Saudi Arabia, Iran too tightly controlled. Syria had just enough unrest, Assad was not either Sunni or Shia and tolerant of other religions -- certainly of his own branch. And, Saudi money flows into Shia schools.

Blaming religion as the root is not right. It is like blaming a car for driving over a cliff.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Scriptures. The answer is painfully obvious.

They massacre people with religious differences from them. Their victims have nothing to do with greedy invasions.

I brought up Syria because it's more evidence. Assad is an Alawite, a Shia sect, and ISIS kill them too, because they aren't fundamentalist Sunnis. Being tolerant of other religions would also be a reason for opposing him, because they're not about tolerance of other religions. And Syria was not invaded by the western powers you wish to blame for ISIS's actions. There were non-fundamentalists who were fighting Assad, but the leadership of ISIS would only fight as a fundamentalist Islamicist group, determined to impose their version of the religion on everyone.

I'm not sure what "Saudi money flows into Shia schools" was supposed to say, but it's obviously a typo.

ISIS spends its time proclaiming that it's about religion, that they are a caliphate which all 'true' Muslims have a duty to support, and enslaving and killing people from other religions. I don't think there's been a regime so driven by religion since the Mahdi in Sudan, and there's a good case that ISIS is even more about religion that he was.

[Festivito]

57. At least we can see that we disagree.

Yes, religion is being abused in the way you describe. My contention is that if we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no ISIL/ISIS/IS/...

There would still have been thousands of scared angry Muslims with a few percent of those crazily motivated. Now, there are millions scared all through the middle east. A few percent of crazies now numbers in the thousands and tens of thousands.

Regardless of the invasions, there will be people using religion for personal gain. I don't blame the religion itself for that, and I gather you do.

Good luck to you.

[cleanhippie]

98. Religion exists solely for personal gain.

Religion exists to save the soul, a personal gain.

We're there any positive societal gain, there would be only one or none at all.

[onager]

65. "Saudi money flows into Shia schools?"

Not likely. The Saudis in general hate the Shi'ites and consider them apostates. Money flowing into Shia schools would be coming from Iran, a Shia state.

I lived in Saudi Arabia for about 2 years, coinciding (accidentally) with the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Shield/Storm. The Saudis were intensely paranoid about Shia fifth columnists during that time and really cracked down on the known Shia villages/towns. Those places were surrounded by Saudi troops and the residents watched very closely.

Things apparently haven't improved very much:

In November 2014 at al-Dalwah village in the eastern province of al-Ahsa, three unknown masked gunmen opened fire at a Husseiniya, or Shi'ite religious center, killing eight and injuring dozens.

While Saudi citizen circles blamed the Khawarij for the attack, claiming they wanted to start a civil war, a handful of articles in the Saudi press argued that the attack "had not come out of nowhere", that there was anti-Shi'ite incitement in the kingdom on the part of "the religious establishment, preachers, and even university lecturers – and that it was on the rise". The Saudi government/religious establishment, as well as the National media did not comment on the attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia

[Festivito]

68. You're right. Probably Iran, not Saudi. My mistake.

Someone starts new schools in Syria that would bug Assad. Not much was said about who was funding them. Could be Iran, could be ISIS, or both.

If one starts educating the young just right, one can find ones suicide bombers in a few years.

Thanks.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. If one starts educating the young just right, one can find all sorts of ludicrous things.

That's rather my point.

[Yorktown]

106. One of the causes of the creation of ISIS is the sectarian mode of government by al Maliki

Still got nothing to do with religion?

[Yorktown]

3. "The evil of IS is rooted in religion". Spot on.

I would go further: the problem of any hypothetical mellow reform of Islam is that the fundamentalists have the literal word of the Quran on their side.

It will take gigantic courage from the moderates to go back to the times of mu'tazila exegesis (8th century) which said muhamad could have been wrong in parts of the Quran.

As long as the Quran is believed to be the perfect, inerrant word of allah, ISIS has a strong ideological foundation for its crackpot literal interpretation of the texts.