Thread: Fuck (again) Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005600
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yet another act of mass murder.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I still can't quite understand how someone crosses the borderline into thinking "today would be a good day for murdering as many strangers as I can find."
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
Yep. Some people have strange hobbies.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hollande ramping up the rhetoric an 08:15 BBC report, perpetuating the cycle. Condemnation. Which always seems weird.
Seeing the news last night, with people fleeing, a mother with a child in a pram, it felt like watching Cloverfield, War of the Worlds.
I'm horrified at my own suppression of horror. At a sense of distance. Tears and grief hover in the deep ... or shallows. Nice is a long way away. Even Eastbourne would be, but with English identifiers.
This is WW3 and cannot end as long as there is ... difference. The degree of difference, degrees of difference, alienation between Old World Christendom and Islam. The weakness of the strong and the strength of the weak.
08:30 BBC latest video. Dads carrying their children.
My former instinct would be a combination of Israeli disproportionate response and the ultimate commando raid. Declaration of war is being demanded in the States. I would track down the SCIS leader who gave the order, 2 years ago, Abu Mohammed al Adnani and all at his level and above. I would accept their surrender. Gerald Ford's awesome response to the Mayaguez pirating by the Khmer Rouge comes to mind. Under the auspices of the UN security council.
I repudiate that, I MUST in the face of Christ from the cross. But WHY won't it be done? Because the calculus in Christendom is to be 'proportionate'? To defend 'our way of life', epitomized by France - rich, beautiful, young, insouciant - with minimal change?
And in repudiating that, what should insignificant Christianity be doing? Beyond the empty intercessory prayers of Sunday? Beyond bolting the gate after the bolted horse with 'Lord have mercy'?
How can Christendom's Christianity embrace the broken bottle of SCIS? Canterbury and Rome will make hand ringing noises with 'just war' in their back pockets.
Lord have mercy.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I still can't quite understand how someone crosses the borderline into thinking "today would be a good day for murdering as many strangers as I can find."
I think it's usually something along the lines of their believing their god wants them to do it. The 'borderline' here is that into extremism, but the fuel for the trip across is belief.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What should insignificant Christianity be doing? Beyond the empty intercessory prayers of Sunday? Beyond bolting the gate after the bolted horse with 'Lord have mercy'?
As someone charged with leading worship and sensing the increased futility of "standing in prayer" with the victims of X or Y, I feel the same frustration and rage at both terrorists and, yes, God. Yet what more can we do?
[ 15. July 2016, 08:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God bless you BT.
We should be having this conversation, this confession in public? Not in our invisible holy huddles.
Christendom must respond with courage. That means with complete vulnerability. For that to happen Christianity must lead.
Rome must lead. Canterbury is a Roman province.
Rome MUST lay down the 1500 year lie of just war.
Complete vulnerability means NO MORE MILITARY INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Which includes the arms trade.
It can't happen, Christianity must therefore revert to what it once DID best. Subvert the empire. Loudly for as long as it has the freedom to.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Advisory note: anyone posting video of the incident will be hung out to dry.
DT
HH
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I still can't quite understand how someone crosses the borderline into thinking "today would be a good day for murdering as many strangers as I can find."
I think it's usually something along the lines of their believing their god wants them to do it. The 'borderline' here is that into extremism, but the fuel for the trip across is belief.
Information so far on who the culprit is. One BBC reporter suggests the possibility that basic petty criminals, pimps, and so on can make good targets for radicalization when they reach a stage of wanting to 'atone' for their crimes in one 'righteous' act of 'holy war'. But so far no-one's tied this guy down to any particular supported jihadist work. So far.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I suppose that, as long as there are human beings, there will be those who are susceptible to radicalisation and those who will be radicalisers. I'm guessing that there is no way to cure the disease by treating the symptoms so it's the radicalisers that need to be dealt with, obviously.
I just wonder how the radicalisers can be dealt with. I rather doubt that increasing miltary attacks on Syria and Iraq will help matters, as per Hollande's rhetoric today. Surely that can only worsen the disease, right?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Right. I fail to see what religious belief has to do with any of it, except as a difference. There are other far more fundamental, material differences.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
The main reason for that wave of terrorism seems to me less the western meddling with the area, but much more the general helplessness of the respective regional governments in terms of clearly improving their citzens' everyday lives. I believe it is a lack of funding, or investing into the wrong places (i.e. for the rich and powerful themselves; apparently endemic corruption in many places and levels), instead of fostering education, job markets, etc.
I think we know that there are an overwhelming number of young people, many without any outlook of enbetterment and advancement in life and society at all. Their patience may run out, indeed is running out, sadly. Islam seems a welcome cover for this. (I'm not commenting here on a potential belligerence of it.) Autocratic governments in the region may find Islamism an ideal 'ally' of sorts to 'help' overcome their structural weaknesses.
I do not have any immediate or miracle solution to this either, but believe the purely economic factor of desperation needs to be taken into account, similar to what Martin60 appears to be saying. (See also the refugee crisis.)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Matt Black quote:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
Or could it be that people - even those who use 'social' media - are finally beginning to realise what a pointless, futile (and in some cases narcissistic) exercise it is?
A far, far better response might be for people to bombard their elected representatives with requests for relations with the people who fund the spread of the nastier strains of Islam which promote violence (Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, Pakistan and Salafist Jihadism) to be cut. And follow that up with asking why EU funded bodies routinely distribute texts for school-children published in, and donated by, Saudi Arabia, which promote a strident, anti-West view of the world. For those in the UK, they should demand that such texts be outlawed under anti-hate legislation and copies be seized from the many mosques and madrassahs which use them.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
I reckon a lorry crash, even as massive as this, without the big bang of explosives, sort of seems 'too normal'? People get killed in road traffic every day. This might be one possible explanation?
(Again I daren't think of a time when 'they' realise this, and in their folly try to act accordingly... Lord have mercy!)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm a long way from home right now, but as a result got wind of this while many of you were still asleep.
My first thoughts are a riff on "godliness with contentment is great gain".
The perpetrators of such events are people with nothing to lose. The way to mitigate that is to allow people both godliness - space to practice their attachment to God in non-violent ways - and contentment, which means opportunities for acceptance and advancement. More thought is required, but I think christians and churches could do their bit in that.
It seems that godliness without contentment tends to lead to great loss.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
Entirely possibly. Compassion fatigue was always going to happen at some point. After a while it becomes difficult to keep repeating "How shocking" with the same depth of feeling as the first time, basically because it isn't any more, it's part of modern life now and if things are quiet for a while it doesn't feel like peace, it feels more like the calm before the storm.
We've been through "Je Suis France" a couple of times already recently and the Middle East is so full of bombings on a frequent basis that it's becoming pretty much expected and nothing very different to report.
Which is deeply depressing, but that's the way it is in the early 21st century.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm a long way from home right now, but as a result got wind of this while many of you were still asleep.
My first thoughts are a riff on "godliness with contentment is great gain".
The perpetrators of such events are people with nothing to lose. The way to mitigate that is to allow people both godliness - space to practice their attachment to God in non-violent ways - and contentment, which means opportunities for acceptance and advancement. More thought is required, but I think christians and churches could do their bit in that.
It seems that godliness without contentment tends to lead to great loss.
How do we make the discontented content? And what do we do until they are? We being invisible all-the-way-down Christians?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't know what being invisble all the way down means, but I think that a great way in general of making people who have nothing to lose more socially responsible is to give them something they'll miss if they lose it.
Acceptance and friendship might be a start.
Too many christians and churches trip on that first step.
[ 15. July 2016, 11:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We don't exist Eutychus. We make no difference. Or worse, we make it worse, we justify war. We have to accept and be good neighbours to a culture that formally MUST hate us. Something we reciprocate in our ever shrinking, world rejecting, huddle.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
Last time I looked on Twitter "Pray for Nice" was trending. Mind you, that tells us nothing. If Twitter was anything to go by Ed Miliband won the last General Election and Remain won the Referendum by a country mile.
In any event, atrocity fatigue, or whatever you want to call it is the sort of thing one feels after a series of atrocities in a country far away that you see on the telly. Right now, Europeans are eyeing their neighbours nervously and wanting their governments to start getting draconian on the bad guys arses.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
I reckon a lorry crash, even as massive as this, without the big bang of explosives, sort of seems 'too normal'? People get killed in road traffic every day. This might be one possible explanation?
Maybe it's odd of me then, that I feel more horrified by the brutality of this attack than I have before, where explosives in cars kill people in the random proximity, or even when gunmen open clinical fire on people in their workplaces or at a rock concert. Guns and explosives kill, that's what they're for, but the use of an ordinary lorry for such apallingly violent destruction of lives seems all the more obscene, and indeed more frightening somehow. I gather it's a stated operational procedure in ISIS to use trucks to kill crowds.
I'm very distressed about this attack in Nice. It's the thought of those mutilated little bodies being carried by their dads, I think, that touches a nerve. I suppose I must be suffering the symptoms of atrocity fatigue deficiency.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We don't exist Eutychus. We make no difference. Or worse, we make it worse, we justify war. We have to accept and be good neighbours to a culture that formally MUST hate us. Something we reciprocate in our ever shrinking, world rejecting, huddle.
I was thinking that we should give up religion, especially its discourses of purity and sin, which seem to lead easily to scapegoating. But then I thought, that such discourses would go on in any case, for example, in politics, strategic warfare, and so on. I don't know how we give those up, since eros and thanatos appear to be engraved on our hearts. Just another dualism, then.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Aye, this.
War and violence continues in mankind's history as it always has, despite the fact that we are better educated in that history than our ancestors (and should therefore have learnt from our mistakes). Despite our cultural and sociological evolution, our species remains in the same animal state as when we lived in caves, and we remain driven by primitive and base impulses. We will always have this fear and hatred of Other that can so easily be triggered into violence in the minority amongst us. It’s part of life.
Maybe the reported atrocity fatigue is simply a form of acceptance of this inevitability, or a resignation to it. Maybe, if enough of us become sufficiently atrocity-fatigued and this kind of violence loses its horror for us, terrorism will stop because it will have become powerless.
Well, I say 'us', but I mean you (general).
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Matt:
quote:
I've noticed a fairly muted response to the atrocity on social media thus far; hardly any 'Je Suis Nice'-s or the equivalent. Are we possibly beginning to experience 'atrocity fatigue'? I hope not...
When I see the equivalent of Je suis Baghdad then I might take social media more seriously as a measure of human compassion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Aye, this.
War and violence continues in mankind's history as it always has, despite the fact that we are better educated in that history than our ancestors (and should therefore have learnt from our mistakes). Despite our cultural and sociological evolution, our species remains in the same animal state as when we lived in caves, and we remain driven by primitive and base impulses. We will always have this fear and hatred of Other that can so easily be triggered into violence in the minority amongst us. It’s part of life.
Maybe the reported atrocity fatigue is simply a form of acceptance of this inevitability, or a resignation to it. Maybe, if enough of us become sufficiently atrocity-fatigued and this kind of violence loses its horror for us, terrorism will stop because it will have become powerless.
Well, I say 'us', but I mean you (general).
That's an interesting point. I've worked in Zen for 30 years, and there is a lot of work in confronting one's own dualisms and Other-related hatreds and so on, but this is very tough work, and maybe peripheral in the West.
But then Buddhism is also capable of violence, so there is no escape, except to accept that I am violence, I am hatred, I am war, as well as that I am love, I am peace. IS reflect who I am.
But maybe this has no effect at all.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We don't exist Eutychus. We make no difference. Or worse, we make it worse, we justify war. We have to accept and be good neighbours to a culture that formally MUST hate us. Something we reciprocate in our ever shrinking, world rejecting, huddle.
I was thinking that we should give up religion, especially its discourses of purity and sin, which seem to lead easily to scapegoating. But then I thought, that such discourses would go on in any case, for example, in politics, strategic warfare, and so on. I don't know how we give those up, since eros and thanatos appear to be engraved on our hearts. Just another dualism, then.
We need to give up the discourses of imperialism, of 'our will to fight terrorism' reported as I write, said by Hollande. Our discourses of ignoring injustice, inequity, of consumption. Of justifying and defending 'our way of life'. But they won't stop either.
We went to our new local CoE on Sunday. It's all so entirely, ONLY, verbal. And not a man in the place except the vicar and an old friend met my eye.
The connection? EVERYTHING.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. When it does, the terrorists win.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
If I were in charge of that sort of thing, in the next life, I would make the perpetrators of these murders experience the final moments of each of their victims, over and over again, like groundhog day, until they truly understood what they had done. Since they like to escape the consequences by quitting this life. Not that it would help prevent the next lot.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We don't exist Eutychus. We make no difference.
I call bullshit. No, better, I call that the ground in which the genuine Kingdom of God takes root.
Have you thrown your Bible away?
God chose the things that are not.
Go reread the three instances of multiplication of loaves. Count how many there were to start with, how many they multiplied to, and how much was left over afterwards. The less there was to start with, the more it is said to have multiplied to and the more there was left over.
Stop being so defeatist and go and start living up to your quote in my sig.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If I were in charge of that sort of thing, in the next life, I would make the perpetrators of these murders experience the final moments of each of their victims, over and over again, like groundhog day, until they truly understood what they had done.
Shame on you. Sounnds worse than Sharia law to me.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The home-grown terrorists develop an identification with the legitimately victimized. It's a pretty powerful thing: the invasions, many civilians killed, the destruction of the infrastructure of several countries, followed up by brutality of various sorts, ongoing drone strikes. Highly symbolic when we're not actually killing hundreds
Then identification with an Arabist version of Islam, which replaces the former gentler version (Thou shalt not say Khuda Hafiz, but say Allah Hafiz in Pakistan anymore, "god keep you safe"), which identifies the disasters with lack of rigid faithfulness and lack of unity in Islam.
It is not hard to convert the identification with victims into anger, and combine it with belief of god being on the side of the downtrodden.
We will never solve any terrorism unless we stop killing people ourselves. Which of course why Tony Blair, George Bush and the others should be punished.
Why France? It didn't even taken part in the Iraq attack and invasion. Because it is highly secular and has a large population of vulnerable young men. It is why also that the person who is yelled at at work comes home and kicks the dog.
We have friends who left Nice, heading north earlier that afternoon. Grateful for their safety. Horrified at the attacks. Horrified at the whole mess from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, which our countries have created.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I still can't quite understand how someone crosses the borderline into thinking "today would be a good day for murdering as many strangers as I can find."
A line from a post WW2 anti-war film went something like-- How can airman, some of whom couldn't drown a puppy, get into to aircraft night after night and drop high explosives on people asleep in their beds who they've never met?
I suspect it is to do with Legitimisation both internal and external.
Not sure if this is a factor, but are we living in a world so brutal that individuals are forced into carrying out murderous activities because of threats to their families?
I see no solution to human barbarity, merely different levels of management.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
no_prophet: quote:
Why France? It didn't even taken part in the Iraq attack and invasion.
France is also an ex-colonial power, and governed Syria and the Lebanon between the World Wars. And as you say, France has one of the most secularized cultures in Western Europe. The headscarf ban in schools is particularly controversial.
Oh, and ...you expect terrorists to play fair?!
[ 15. July 2016, 15:50: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
no_prophet: quote:
Why France? It didn't even taken part in the Iraq attack and invasion.
France is also an ex-colonial power, and governed Syria and the Lebanon between the World Wars. And as you say, France has one of the most secularized cultures in Western Europe. The headscarf ban in schools is particularly controversial.
Oh, and ...you expect terrorists to play fair?!
Also North Africa. And Francophone Africa. And, if you are running a terrorist organisation with folk memories of the Crusades as one of your sources of ressentiment then the Franks are going to show up on your list of targets.
In any event, Islamism is a belief system which goes back to the eighteenth century and further back to a succession of puritan reactions to the perceived decadence of the people in charge which is a recurring theme in Islamic history. The idea that the invasion of Iraq is the pivot on which all this turns is terribly parochial.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A line from a post WW2 anti-war film went something like-- How can airman, some of whom couldn't drown a puppy, get into to aircraft night after night and drop high explosives on people asleep in their beds who they've never met?
I suspect it is to do with Legitimisation both internal and external.
My theory is that that kind of thing resembles a computer game. No potentially worrying close-up contact, no anguished faces to remember, just the motivation to score as much as you can on this run and get back to base if you can (though with this lot, the extra twist that your own death could potentially increase that score quite a bit).
But that's air strikes: remote, distant, the bolt from on high. It's not the same as being in a nightclub with a machine gun and seeing (and hearing) the effect of your actions instantly, inches from you.
I'm thinking an increased sense of Them v Us has to be behind this - They aren't fully human, They just look like people, so it doesn't matter what happens to Them.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A line from a post WW2 anti-war film went something like-- How can airman, some of whom couldn't drown a puppy, get into to aircraft night after night and drop high explosives on people asleep in their beds who they've never met?
I suspect it is to do with Legitimisation both internal and external.
Not sure if this is a factor, but are we living in a world so brutal that individuals are forced into carrying out murderous activities because of threats to their families?
I see no solution to human barbarity, merely different levels of management.
People also kill others because it is their job. A career. Is it an honourable career? Don't terrorists get honoured too by those who identify them as freedom fighters? Human to pig, pig to human. Tell me the difference please. Other than I live here and thus am on our side. --though I'd be dead if I was there, because we blew up their hospitals and the doctor who would have attended to me now works here.
I travelled to an airport where many flights were going to many countries. They invite those with small children to board, those who need extra time, and also military personnel. Really? Military personnel? If they don't have mobility problems, then no. Though I suppose it identifies them to terrorists.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Eutychus, what would you have happen to the perpetrators who kill themselves in killing their victims? Actual eternal hell? I was talking about the dead, not the living.
I have no idea what can be done with the living - Anders Breivik doesn't seem to be improving at all.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
no_prophet: quote:
Why France? It didn't even taken part in the Iraq attack and invasion.
They've done Turkey as well. At one point the Turks were bombing isis fighting Kurds.
If it were possible to identify a logical objective beyond the desire for bloodshed then somewhere a political settlement might exist. A way to stop this kind of terror might be evident to someone, but to the most of us this business looks like going on for as long as humanity itself.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
This is all very interesting, but in the rush to assign causes, do we even know this is an Islamist attack yet? It may be, but just because the guy had North African parents...
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
We'll probably never know for sure since the guy is dead, unless he left a statement or something behind.
But it seems likely.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I've only heard two radio news bulletins today, there seemed little doubt it was a terror attack.
It could of course be foolish to believe what we hear on the news and maybe no one has claimed responsibility, but it has to be said the Omens aren't great.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an interesting point. I've worked in Zen for 30 years, and there is a lot of work in confronting one's own dualisms and Other-related hatreds and so on, but this is very tough work, and maybe peripheral in the West.
But then Buddhism is also capable of violence, so there is no escape, except to accept that I am violence, I am hatred, I am war, as well as that I am love, I am peace. IS reflect who I am.
But maybe this has no effect at all.
Our evolutionary heritage (from what we know of humanity's development and the comparison with other primates) suggests that we certainly have the capacity for wonderful dreams, kindnesses and altruism and terrible nightmares of murderous rage, enjoyment of suffering, and satisfaction with successful conquest or domination (to requote Carl Sagan and add to him). We are required to understand ourselves enough so as to control our violence and aggression, and to choose to not do that which we are able, if it hurts another, or causes suffering. I think that when this becomes the habit - avoidance of violence - that we are probably considered to be enlightened and/or living the Christian life. Such is the consanguinity* between Jesus-ism and Buddhism I think.
*consanguine: of the same descent, of the same blood. Double meaning intended: this is my blood....
[ 15. July 2016, 20:42: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
no_prophet: quote:
Why France? It didn't even taken part in the Iraq attack and invasion.
They've done Turkey as well.
Yes, we were in the airport just 4 hours before the latest attack there. A bit scary when we found out later.
And tonight there has been a military coup in Turkey.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The balloon's gone up in Turkey.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Eutychus, what would you have happen to the perpetrators who kill themselves in killing their victims? Actual eternal hell? I was talking about the dead, not the living.
I go along with the assertion that it is up to God to avenge and repay as he sees appropriate - or not.
Imagining suitable acts of revenge - in whichever life - might be part of an individual grieving process, but I personally draw the line at publishing them, which looks like endorsement is being sought. I'm pretty sure such perpetrators' thought processes include a fair bit of acting out their fantasies of revenge.
[ 16. July 2016, 01:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Probably a thankless task to try to delve into the mind of a terrorist, but I wonder if France being a target is related to the fact that it has a large population of non-extreme Muslims.
Maybe the terrorists are disgusted at those Muslims with capitulating to the crusader/Christian agenda of liberal democracy and the attacks are designed to show what happens to people who do not embrace IS' brand of "true" Islam.
But generally, this is the sign of things to come. Nothing is safe. You can't protect against people running amok with a motor vehicle.
God save France. God save all of us. I fear he isn't going to.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Incidentally, I'm typing this in a pub in Newport and the staff are waiting on the table of a large group of French students. They (the students) probably don't realise that this isn't done in this pub.
But the staff are quietly showing solidarity. Fair play to them.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The balloon's gone up in Turkey.
Spreading steadily North, bit by bit.
Many do believe France is being targeted because of it's large muslim population. Instability and civil unrest breaking out in France would be is-is' ultimate wet dream.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes, my nightmare is bunches of youths patrolling the northern suburbs of Marseille in Toyota Hiluxes with heavy machine guns mounted in the back and an IS flag aloft.
The fact that this hasn't happened yet is perhaps an indication that despite much resentment, IS doesn't have the traction it dreams of in western democracies, even among the marginalised. The latest atrocity (which Daesh have now claimed responsibility for) might work as intimidation, but I don't think it will win any actual friends among the wider muslim community. It seems a muslim mother was one of the first victims.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The fact that this hasn't happened yet is perhaps an indication that despite much resentment, IS doesn't have the traction it dreams of in western democracies, even among the marginalised.
They know they don't and that is why they call for such attacks. It costs them nothing whatever the result and is likely to engender reaction which fuels more such incidents.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
This was written by a friend of mine, who's a risk analyst.
The take-home point is, I think, this:
quote:
there is no reason, none whatsoever, to believe that Isis and other terrorist groups are holding back. They are killing this many of us precisely because this is as many of us as they can kill. And the reason for that is straightforward: there aren’t very many of them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Indeed.
Where I feel a lot of analysis falls down is that it fails to distinguish the different categories of "them".
At the top are military strategists who are likely to have had Western university-level training in this field, plus their team of spin doctors and psy-ops people.
At the bottom are their side's "useful idiots", easily influenced, marginalised, probably often addicts and/or psychologically unstable people, with only tangential adherence to Islam, and entirely expendable. I know far too many people I could imagine running amok like this given the right circumstances, and cannot imagine an effective way of stopping them except by decreasing the influence of the top tier.
Somewhere in the middle are the convinced radical islamists.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God bless you BT.
We should be having this conversation, this confession in public? Not in our invisible holy huddles.
Christendom must respond with courage. That means with complete vulnerability. For that to happen Christianity must lead.
Rome must lead. Canterbury is a Roman province.
Rome MUST lay down the 1500 year lie of just war.
This
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Eutychus, what would you have happen to the perpetrators who kill themselves in killing their victims? Actual eternal hell? I was talking about the dead, not the living.
I go along with the assertion that it is up to God to avenge and repay as he sees appropriate - or not.
Imagining suitable acts of revenge - in whichever life - might be part of an individual grieving process, but I personally draw the line at publishing them, which looks like endorsement is being sought. I'm pretty sure such perpetrators' thought processes include a fair bit of acting out their fantasies of revenge.
Not actually seeking endorsement. And it wasn't entirely revenge, but education.
I cannot understand how people can believe that doing that sort of thing will lead them to a paradise with 72 virgins.
How do we teach empathy in this life? (And one of the most empathetic children I taught was one with diagnosed Asperger's, who believed he didn't have it. But worked to think of others.)
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
Elie Wiesel on taking sides (and Yugoslavia), quoted in another thread
quote:
“As a Jew I am saying that we must do something to stop the bloodshed in that country!” he said. “People fight each other and children die. Why? Something, anything must be done.”
In 1986, the Nobel committee called Wiesel “a messenger to mankind”. He accepted the peace prize with characteristic grace.
“I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget,” he said in his acceptance speech, “because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
it wasn't entirely revenge, but education.
I am so glad I have never had to suffer any "education" at your hands. Just what kind of Sisyphean version of lex talionis were you considering?
quote:
I cannot understand how people can believe that doing that sort of thing will lead them to a paradise with 72 virgins.
Many people cannot understand how people believe praying a prayer accepting the unconditional forgiveness of one man nailed to a piece of wood for their benefit gets them eternal happiness. People believe some weird things. Some of us believe some of them to be true.
quote:
How do we teach empathy in this life?
Well, restorative justice tries, when wrong has been done. And in the meantime, offering friendship to the friendless might - might - instil some small sense of social accountability.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The rate of people killed by terror attacks isn't peaking. It peaked in the 1970s and 80s. Though if Iraq and Afghanistan are included, terrorism is peaking now.
Which begs several questions of how to define terrorism. Was in invasion of Iraq terrorism? Should brown people be included or do we only include people from developed western nations?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Eutychus, this is, I supposed, a place where one could rant a bit. What I do here has absolutely nothing to do with what I have done in non-scare-quoted education, which, oddly, ex-pupils seem to have valued - and that's pupils who have not gone on to join the BNP or its like, but are perfectly reasonable, good members of society.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Eutychus, this is, I supposed, a place where one could rant a bit.
So it is. But it's not somewhere you can rant unchallenged.
(That's called a blog).
As it says on the tin, this is a place where posting paints a big target on oneself.
If you post a rant here, expect people to comment on what its content indicates to them about your thought processes. As I have done.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The rate of people killed by terror attacks isn't peaking. It peaked in the 1970s and 80s. Though if Iraq and Afghanistan are included, terrorism is peaking now.
Which begs several questions of how to define terrorism. Was in invasion of Iraq terrorism? Should brown people be included or do we only include people from developed western nations?
It depends what you mean by terror. 1945 was a bad year.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Good point. State sponsored killing being a right good and honourable profession.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Eutychus. You went beyond what you saw here to what I am beyond this place. About which you know nothing.
I find it very hard to read reports of this sort of thing because the words instantly translate into imagery, into understanding what the victims will have experienced in their last moments. Fortunately not into a physical feeling, but not something comfortable.
To go to a neutral example, my geology tutor from the OU was killed in a phreatic eruption on an Andean volcano. I entered into a correspondence with a magazine which published the word "shredded" in their report, by a witness. They did not understand that to people who knew the person, this might have been disturbing. I've recently heard a closer colleague, who was also there, describe the event with a less disturbing vocabulary, still explaining how he, and others with him, simply vanished in the material of the eruption.
You could say I am squeamish, if you wanted to be superior about it. But it does rather mean that I, and other squeamish people, are unlikely to commit the sort of offences that are committed by the adherents of Daesh. (On the other hand, I do worry about how useful I would be in a situation where people needed wounds attended to.)
I wanted nothing more than that the perpetrators of atrocities would share what I experience. Perhaps a bit more extremely.
This is rather less than many religions have traded on over the millenia.
Here's an example
This is the only place I have posted about my feelings about Daesh's habits, and the only place I would.
[ 19. July 2016, 17:12: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Here's an example
An example so small we need a magnifying glass to see it, or a magic CSI-style piece of software we can shout "enhance!" at.
Here's a better view. You can thank me later.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Eutychus. You went beyond what you saw here to what I am beyond this place. About which you know nothing.
I have no idea what you are talking about, unless it is "education". A word which you introduced, not me, as an effort to justify what you were suggesting. I haven't gone anywhere beyond what you've posted.
quote:
I wanted nothing more than that the perpetrators of atrocities would share what I experience. Perhaps a bit more extremely.
There was no "perhaps", or "a bit", about it: quote:
I would make the perpetrators of these murders experience the final moments of each of their victims, over and over again
The escalation of violence in the name of justice or "education" is what I took exception to, and continue to take exception to.
quote:
This is rather less than many religions have traded on over the millenia.
And your point is? Legitimising recourse to disproportionate revenge in the name of divine justice? How is that any different to the point Daesh is trying to make?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Penny S is posting here and Daesh is killing people, so the comparison is ridiculous. But don't let a sense of proportion get in the way of your criticism of a shipmate's expression of pain and anger.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I worked a job a year or so ago for an activist group whose cause I was not at all unsympathetic to.
The founder and leader, a person who had clearly suffered indescribably much and unjustly at the hands of physicians, vented his spleen at one point with a suggestion, to rapturous applause, that it was high time for a few doctors' offices and hospital archives to be burnt down - but that he of course was too old for that sort of thing now; the clear implication was that some of the younger delegates might not be.
Expressions of pain and anger are fine: see the Psalms. But I think how, where, and when they are expressed - and to whom - matter. Especially so when the subject is retribution.
As someone who's a French national and who spends a fair bit of time with people reputedly highly likely to be radicalised - inmates - I object to the public airing of the idea that a fitting or educational response to terrorism in my country is disproportionate, divinely sanctioned torture. It's too close to the actual far right rhetoric for comfort and I repudiate it wholeheartedly. We need a different register.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
I'm sorry about what happened in your country, and I take your point. FWIW, though: ISTM that Penny was talking about dealing with the terrorists *after their deaths*, by making them understand what they'd done. Not an eternal punishment. Educating them, so they'd learn to be/do better.
Different from the man you mentioned who wanted things burned down *in this life*.
YMMV.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Golden Key, thank you for reading what I meant into what I wrote.
And I don't really want to continue this tangent, but Eutychus, you wrote: quote:
I am so glad I have never had to suffer any "education" at your hands. Just what kind of Sisyphean version of lex talionis were you considering?
which seemed to me to cast aspersions on my teaching career and what I did in school, in other words, going beyond what I have written here into RL. If I misunderstood that as you have persistently misunderstood me, I am sorry.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Expressions of pain and anger are fine: see the Psalms. But I think how, where, and when they are expressed - and to whom - matter. Especially so when the subject is retribution.
As someone who's a French national and who spends a fair bit of time with people reputedly highly likely to be radicalised - inmates - I object to the public airing of the idea that a fitting or educational response to terrorism in my country is disproportionate, divinely sanctioned torture. It's too close to the actual far right rhetoric for comfort and I repudiate it wholeheartedly. We need a different register.
How, where, when? By posting, on this thread, this week. Do many of the inmates you deal with read the Ship's boards? Yeah, thought not.
Would it be okay with you if I wished terrorists were tossed alive into a lake of fire? That divinely sanctioned torture is Biblical.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
which seemed to me to cast aspersions on my teaching career and what I did in school, in other words, going beyond what I have written here into RL. If I misunderstood that as you have persistently misunderstood me, I am sorry.
You most certainly did. As I said, it was you who brought up education, I used the word solely because you did, and I have no idea what you do or did IRL.
As far as misunderstanding you goes, I hear your wish for terrorists to learn empathy, and your need to express anger, but I disagree profoundly with the fantasised means of achieving such empathy, as is my right from the point that you make it public in a forum that invites interaction.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How, where, when? By posting, on this thread, this week. Do many of the inmates you deal with read the Ship's boards? Yeah, thought not.
I don't understand your point. Mine is that is that how/where/when our desires for vengeance are expressed matters. That's something I spend a lot of time working on, with inmates who spend a lot of time fantasising about revenge and who have learned the valuable lesson that they are quite capable of moving from fantasy to acting out.
quote:
Would it be okay with you if I wished terrorists were tossed alive into a lake of fire? That divinely sanctioned torture is Biblical.
Well, at least you wouldn't be arguing it would somehow help them see the error of their ways, which is what was being suggested earlier. But no, it wouldn't be okay with me, because as I posted upthread, I think vengeance is God's prerogative to dispense or withhold, not ours to wish, even on our enemies.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How, where, when? By posting, on this thread, this week. Do many of the inmates you deal with read the Ship's boards? Yeah, thought not.
I want to further reply to that by explaining what I mean about needing a different register.
Last week one of my colleagues told of how she had once been called down to seg to see a prisoner who had just brutally murdered a fellow inmate. She had seen the body and "it wasn't pretty". The inmate, still covered in the victim's blood, asked her for a Bible.
Her immediate response was "who the hell do you think you are, after what you've just done you're asking me for that?", following which she stormed out to collect herself.
A few minutes later she went back in and apologised to the guy for not serving him in her role as chaplain by responding to his request, and offering him the Bible he had requested. As you can imagine, this completely floored him.
I don't know how that story played out to the end, and I think her initial reaction was entirely understandable and perhaps not as wrong as she thought, but I think the next step she took characterises the kind of asymmetric spiritual warfare that's needed to generate the kind of empathy Penny S is talking about. It's emphatically not responding in kind.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
FWIW, though: ISTM that Penny was talking about dealing with the terrorists *after their deaths*, by making them understand what they'd done. Not an eternal punishment. Educating them, so they'd learn to be/do better.
Education after the point where there is no possibility of using that education to live a better life (ie: after death) is a pretty pointless thing. If that experience is unpleasant then "punishment" seems to be a much better word than "education".
Of course, if you believe in reincarnation the above argument need not apply.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
What that story has to do with anything discussed above, I can't imagine.
Just as there is no obligation on anyone to rant here, there is also no obligation for anyone else to take it upon themselves to ensure that a ranter gets a kicking.
Quite why Eutychus is so self righteous that he constantly feels he has to respond in this way, I can't imagine. I guess he just needs to regularly keep his anger levels topped up so whips up his disgust whenever hyperbole is used with first gaining his permission.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Self-righteous? I think it's self-righteous to assume that one's own human nature is a cut above the terrorists'.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
You're the one lecturing folks about what they should and should not think, Eutychus. Mote, beam, etc.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How, where, when? By posting, on this thread, this week. Do many of the inmates you deal with read the Ship's boards? Yeah, thought not.
I don't understand your point. Mine is that is that how/where/when our desires for vengeance are expressed matters. That's something I spend a lot of time working on, with inmates who spend a lot of time fantasising about revenge and who have learned the valuable lesson that they are quite capable of moving from fantasy to acting out.
Since I know from experience that I don't even fight back when assaulted and since I have never laid plans to harm anyone, I think I'll manage not to go from imagining painful punishments to inflicting them.
And while vengeance may be the Lord's, that didn't stop the Psalmist or plenty of others from wishing and praying God's vengeance upon their enemies. There's a hell of a lot of smiting going on on the Bible, done in God's name, that you seem happy to ignore.
So come down off your high horse already.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while vengeance may be the Lord's, that didn't stop the Psalmist or plenty of others from wishing and praying God's vengeance upon their enemies.
With this I agree, as mentioned above, but the subtle difference is who gets the last word on the smiting.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
But, you're responses to Penny seem to suggest that no one should have a word about smiting, even if they're going to have their say and then let God have the last word.
You have expressed a perfectly reasonable personal standard, "I think vengeance is God's prerogative to dispense or withhold, not ours to wish, even on our enemies" but seem to expect everyone else to adhere to that personal standard.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have to say that I've been wandering around for a while trying to think to myself about whether I'd apologise to a murderer who is covered in blood for not immediately giving him a bible.
My instant response was no. My considered response is still no. I would feel absolutely no compulsion to give the man what he wanted in that situation and would feel no guilt afterwards if I refused.
For several reasons: he's covered in blood so not really in the right state for reading the bible. He's not of sound mind, so not really great to be giving him a book which at times justifies extreme violence. He may well be looking for relgious justification for his own actions. He may be playing me in a form of power struggle.
If being a prison chaplain means that one is forced to give prisoners things that you are not sure about and that it means one can tell other people how they should and shouldn't think when provoked by the most extreme forms of religious-inspired violence, then maybe it is a good thing I'm not a prison chaplain.
It is times like these that I wonder if Christianity isn't just a pile-of-crap philosophical system used by emotional incompetents as a passive-aggressive weapon to gain some kind of upper hand over people perceived as wrong or weak.
Saying that one wishes horrible things to someone after they are dead is clearly not the same as actually doing them to people whilst they are alive. FFS.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
This is just the latest tragedy. It's no worse than AIDS, or sexual abuse, or racism, or slavery,or the glass ceiling in private companies, or what's happening in Turkey or the burning of hundreds of people in a church in southern france in 1200 and something. It's just the shit that life is throwing at us right now. That, and the election of racists in response to the fear people seem to have.
Now we have sympathy for the victims and their families, we remain vigilant to the risk, but that's all. No hand-wringing please about the absence of God, or why the humanity that did the holocaust, the cultural revolution, the [insert horrific crime here] drove a truck into a crowd with the intention to kill.
God is where he always is. He's on suicide watch.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Now we have sympathy for the victims and their families, we remain vigilant to the risk, but that's all. No hand-wringing please about the absence of God, or why the humanity that did the holocaust, the cultural revolution, the [insert horrific crime here] drove a truck into a crowd with the intention to kill.
God is where he always is. He's on suicide watch.
I'm sorry, who gave you the right to tell other people how they should respond to these events? Why shouldn't I ask why God is absent?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You have expressed a perfectly reasonable personal standard, "I think vengeance is God's prerogative to dispense or withhold, not ours to wish, even on our enemies" but seem to expect everyone else to adhere to that personal standard.
I'm not demanding anybody adheres to my standard.
I just don't think that wishing gruesome punishment on the perpetrators in this life or the next is the way forward here, still less if it is recast as educational.
I also persist in thinking that there's a difference between fantasising about revenge and retribution privately and doing so publicly. It seems to me there's plenty of violence, in fact and in rhetoric, already. It's the same in politics. The media love it.
We need to find another voice.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that the criminal justice system had as one of its components, retribution, partly to deprivatize this. In other words, people can stop having feuds, since they trust the state to enact their revenge. I can't see how any other system would work, since revenge fantasies are pretty much universal, and have to be dealt with.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that the criminal justice system had as one of its components, retribution, partly to deprivatize this. In other words, people can stop having feuds, since they trust the state to enact their revenge. I can't see how any other system would work, since revenge fantasies are pretty much universal, and have to be dealt with.
Retribution is indeed a (disputed) aspect of the criminal justice system, but the whole point of it is that it's supposed to be proportional and humane.
Of course that breaks down almost immediately when confronted with man's inhumanity to man, but that's not the first paradox inherent in the system by a long way, and I still think it's better than a lynch mob. People who have done atrocious things are still human - and if we lose sight of that, I believe we've lost sight of our own humanity.
And when I hear, say, post-Brexit aspirations to bring back hanging in the UK, or some of Trump's wilder pronouncements, I wonder where the line between fantasising and implementation really is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that the criminal justice system had as one of its components, retribution, partly to deprivatize this. In other words, people can stop having feuds, since they trust the state to enact their revenge. I can't see how any other system would work, since revenge fantasies are pretty much universal, and have to be dealt with.
Retribution is indeed a (disputed) aspect of the criminal justice system, but the whole point of it is that it's supposed to be proportional and humane.
Of course that breaks down almost immediately when confronted with man's inhumanity to man, but that's not the first paradox inherent in the system by a long way, and I still think it's better than a lynch mob. People who have done atrocious things are still human - and if we lose sight of that, I believe we've lost sight of our own humanity.
And when I hear, say, post-Brexit aspirations to bring back hanging in the UK, or some of Trump's wilder pronouncements, I wonder where the line between fantasising and implementation really is.
A good reply. I've just found that some liberal types are shocked to think that justice contains retribution, but it is bound to, in order to siphon off revenge fantasies at large. Otherwise, people would take the law into their own hands, more than they do. Quite often after a murder trial, you see the family of the victim express satisfaction (or not) at the sentence.
Yes, the death penalty goes further, I think, into downright sadistic fantasies. Of course, if somebody killed my wife, I would want him/her dead, but ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well as I mentioned at the start of this tangent, I'm a believer in restorative justice, in preference to retributive justice. If that makes me a wet liberal, so be it. I really think restorative justice offers an interesting avenue of exploration for combating violent extremism, but this view is not very popular.
In the meantime the fact is that retributive criminal justice, with all its defects, is so strongly ingrained in most of our societies that I don't see it being replaced altogether any time soon. And I still think it's better than a lynch mob.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
My problem with the retributive component of the justice system is that it is based on a misunderstanding of how the universe works in moral terms. It is just a rehash of the myth of redemptive violence and it just doesn't work. I doesn't deliver, and it can never deliver, and to suggest that it can is to encourage expectations that can never be fulfilled.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Now we have sympathy for the victims and their families, we remain vigilant to the risk, but that's all. No hand-wringing please about the absence of God, or why the humanity that did the holocaust, the cultural revolution, the [insert horrific crime here] drove a truck into a crowd with the intention to kill.
God is where he always is. He's on suicide watch.
I'm sorry, who gave you the right to tell other people how they should respond to these events? Why shouldn't I ask why God is absent?
well, everyone else is doing it.... Seems like the popular choice.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My problem with the retributive component of the justice system is that it is based on a misunderstanding of how the universe works in moral terms. It is just a rehash of the myth of redemptive violence and it just doesn't work.
In my experience the trouble is that this isn't as true as one would like to believe: sometimes it does work, at least after a fashion.
Some convicts accept their guilt, understand a prison sentence as an opportunity to pay their debt to society (the retributive aspect), use the time in jail to sort themselves out and gain some sort of qualification, never want to see prison again, and never do. The numbers of such people may be low but they do exist, and I've met several.
On the other hand, the uncomfortable truth is that restorative justice doesn't always work very well either. For a tells-it-the-way-it-is look at this, see the excellent documentary Beyond Punishment (the trailer begins in German, but most of the audio is in English). It follows the story of three attempts at victim-offender meetings in three different countries and justice systems - including a victim of terrorism.
Still, I'm increasingly persuaded that restorative justice offers an avenue for dealing with violent extremism that certainly can't be any less productive than violent retribution, real or imagined, and that christians - especially christians inclined to bash PSA views of what happened at the cross, as so many here are wont to - should be seeking to explore more at every level.
[ 21. July 2016, 05:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Crikey, as they say.
Eutychus, if I said, "I wouldn't piss on Trump if his heart were on fire" would you lecture me on my frivolous attitude toward heart disease?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
No. But look at the violent rhetoric coming out of the RNC and the concerns people are expressing about it.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Actually, the teenagers I work with, many of whom are already young offenders, do not need any encouragement in their revenge fantasies. Either against the police for being so lacking in sympathy as to arrest them or against their victims.
Did anyone see the footage of a police car being targeted with firework rockets in the East End a couple of years ago? I never asked, because I would probably have been lied to, but I suspect I know some of the perpetrators of that one.
[ 21. July 2016, 06:59: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The French news reported this morning the conviction of some loser who had attempted to sell personal effects he claimed he had scavenged from the Nice attack site on the local equivalent of Craigslist.
For this (and charges of drug possession) he has received a ten-month jail sentence. In my view this sentencing (for, it would seem, a first offence) is disproportionate, vindictive, unduly influenced by the prevailing grief, and will be wildly counter-productive. A restorative justice approach would have been far better for everyone, including the nation at large.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Alan--
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
FWIW, though: ISTM that Penny was talking about dealing with the terrorists *after their deaths*, by making them understand what they'd done. Not an eternal punishment. Educating them, so they'd learn to be/do better.
Education after the point where there is no possibility of using that education to live a better life (ie: after death) is a pretty pointless thing. If that experience is unpleasant then "punishment" seems to be a much better word than "education".
Of course, if you believe in reincarnation the above argument need not apply.
Well, I tend to think of the afterlife as more life, an ongoing process of healing each other and ourselves. And no one is ever ultimately lost. I think few people--if any--die in a state of perfect grace, with everything taken care of. So we'll all have work to do, plus ongoing growth. Sort of over-lapping purgatory and heaven. And everyone will eventually be well.
Tolkien wrote a great short story on this called "Leaf By Niggle", part of his "Tree & Leaf" work.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My problem with the retributive component of the justice system is that it is based on a misunderstanding of how the universe works in moral terms. It is just a rehash of the myth of redemptive violence and it just doesn't work.
Some convicts accept their guilt, understand a prison sentence as an opportunity to pay their debt to society (the retributive aspect), use the time in jail to sort themselves out and gain some sort of qualification, never want to see prison again, and never do. The numbers of such people may be low but they do exist, and I've met several.
Is this not rehabilitation rather than retribution, in that, you could remove the retributive descriptor, and the outcome would be the same. That is to say, the retribution adds nothing to the judicial process, which would still involve protecting society, possibly by incarceration.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is this not rehabilitation rather than retribution, in that, you could remove the retributive descriptor, and the outcome would be the same. That is to say, the retribution adds nothing to the judicial process, which would still involve protecting society, possibly by incarceration.
A discussion of restorative justice probably belongs on another thread in Purgatory, but I'd say that in practice deprivation of liberty is mostly about retribution, and that it's largely arbitrary.
(How do you measure the cost of, say, a car theft, or a rape, in days or months or years of incarceration?)
Despite such absurdities, retributive criminal justice does sometimes seem to work. Sort of. Because that is how most people - not only judges and the general public, but also the perps - perceive justice to be done.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A discussion of restorative justice probably belongs on another thread in Purgatory, but I'd say that in practice deprivation of liberty is mostly about retribution, and that it's largely arbitrary.
The third leg is public safety. We lock criminals up to prevent them from committing more crimes.
I don't think I really understand restorative justice for crimes against the person. If someone smashes my window or steals my stuff, they can replace the window or the stuff, and I am restored to my pre-crime state.
Rapists can't un-rape their victims, and murderers can't bring their victims back to life. What does "restorative justice" look like in these kinds of cases? They payment of some kind or weregild?
If someone assaults their victim and leaves them paralyzed, do we force the criminal to act as a personal care assistant to their victim for the rest of his natural life? The Chinese, I'm told, have a word for going back and repeatedly driving over someone you hit in a car accident, because dead victims are cheaper than paralyzed-for-life victims.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Rapists can't un-rape their victims, and murderers can't bring their victims back to life. What does "restorative justice" look like in these kinds of cases?
There are various approaches (and numerous limits), but the "restorative" component includes making an effort to restore the offender to the community following an engagement with the victim or someone representing the latter.
I was served a coffee this afternoon by a guy who has just been convicted of murder. After the sentencing, he had an informal opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and receive their forgiveness, having done his best during the trial to supply as much explanation as was possible of what happened.
In this instance, this has not impacted his custodial sentence, nor, obivously, has it brought back the victim, but it has offered some closure to the family and taken a weight off him, which should help all parties, eventually, to move on. It's a small example of what restorative justice is all about.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the meantime the fact is that retributive criminal justice, with all its defects, is so strongly ingrained in most of our societies that I don't see it being replaced altogether any time soon. And I still think it's better than a lynch mob.
Offer restorative justice by all means, if it works then all well and good. I happen to believe it worked for Myra Hindley, many who were alot closer than me to her tragic exploits were not so convinced. Her accomplice has apparently shown no response to restorative justice. I can sympathise with one of the victim's relatives who said, while not being an advocate of the death penalty, he would nevertheless like to live long enough to see brady dead.
Retribution justice does seem to run pretty deep. What else could explain the macabre *celebrations* following Thatcher,s departure.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I heard once of a specialized counseling clinic, here in California, that had survivors of sexual abuse meet with *other people's* abusers. AIUI, it gave everyone a chance to vent, understand each other a bit, and work things out--without the volatility and danger of survivors and *their* abusers dealing directly with each other.
Sort of a restorative justice approach, IMHO.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I heard once of a specialized counseling clinic, here in California, that had survivors of sexual abuse meet with *other people's* abusers. AIUI, it gave everyone a chance to vent, understand each other a bit, and work things out--without the volatility and danger of survivors and *their* abusers dealing directly with each other.
Sort of a restorative justice approach, IMHO.
It is a restorative justice approach, called indirect victim-offender mediation. Here is an example of one such programme run by Prison Fellowship in several countries, including some 40 prisons in the UK.
(Full disclosure: I'm actually somewhat sceptical of Sycomore Tree because of the word "programme". It seems to me to be hard to systematise this sort of thing. But I don't think it should be rejected out of hand).
[ 22. July 2016, 05:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Today: Munich
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Yes, here we go again. Friday night, this time it's Munich... though they think it's over now.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Urr, not according to the most recent information I read a minute ago. It is looking bad, let's hope the initial reports are not accurate.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Yes, still ongoing with reports of another shooting elsewhere in the city now as well...
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Friday's often are favoured by terrorists, I remember this being the case in the days of IRA activity. Presumably because it then carries maximum news coverage over the weekend.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Munich nolonger looking like a terrorist incident.
Fuckin Guns .
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Evidently, the Munich shooter was obsessed with mass shootings, and had a lot of info on them at home.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
No coincidence, as it now appears, that the perpetrator made his fantasy a deadly reality on the fifth anniversary of the Norway mass shooting.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And a Syrian refugee blew himself up in Ansbach, Germany, and injured 12 people. From what the article said, one cause might be that he was turned down for asylum--but they didn't send him back to Syria, because, well, Syria. Also said he'd just been turned away from an open-air music festival, but no reason was given. Would've been far worse if he hadn't been turned away.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Tonight's host to the latest outbreak of inhumanity is a care home for the disabled near Tokyo where someone has stabbed 15 people to death.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Is this shit actually happening more often, or are we just seeing greater prominence given to the reporting of spree violence across the world as a whole ?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Slate has it that it is actually less as of 2014, article by Stephen Pinker and Andrew Mack. Lots of charts and graphs, looks more evidence based than most. Pinker is a well known scientist.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Another day, another incident.
Two hostage takers shot dead in a church in France.
Source: Guardian
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Ouch. That's close to home in more ways than one.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I wondered how close. Very worrying.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
We are seeing more terrorist incidents in places we didn't formerly see them. These overlap with mentally ill/disturbed types e.g. the Japanese incident which has nothing to do with terrorism.
I see Trump has now put France and Germany on his list on account of there having been too many terrorist incidents recently.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Fr Jacques Hamel, priez pour nous et priez pour France.
[Pray for us and pray for France]
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this shit actually happening more often, or are we just seeing greater prominence given to the reporting of spree violence across the world as a whole ?
Smart phones and social media.
I'm getting sick of the anti Islamic hysteria on social media.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
With all respect: I'm getting sick of the fucking Islamist hysteria on social media, and their driving (young) people to absolutely senseless, utterly useless destruction of others and selves!
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
I think I sort of see what Balaam means - while there can be no justification of what happened to Fr. Hamel, it seems wrong to tar all Muslims with the same brush. I should imagine that most of them are as horrified as we are, and are wondering what evil perversion of their faith leads people to do such things.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That is why I have taken up the Council of Europe's vocabulary and talk henceforth in terms of violent extremism.
The Council underlines the importance of being able to quote:
distinguish between religious practices and the adoption of violent extremist behaviour
This 1) heads off religious persecution under the guise of combating terrorism and 2) usefully covers non-religious forms of violent extremism, such as we have just witnessed in Munich.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Serious question: How do you stop a violent person who not only is willing to die, but chooses it? Like suicide bombers--except for ones that are forced or tricked.
If someone's planning a violent act and they're past listening to "it's wrong!", you can tell them that they might be injured, imprisoned for life, killed, etc. But if they want to go out in a blaze of glory, how do you stop them? And if they haven't done anything *yet*, how do you figure out whether they're venting, fascinated, or truly dangerous?
And what about those whose main problem is severe mental illness? AIUI, the Nice driver (hope I've got the right one) had pre-existing mental illness, and seems more to have stuck a jihadist label on himself towards the end, rather than really holding radical beliefs. Or the Munich bomber, who was obsessed with mass killings, but evidently wasn't religious.
Is there anything, even small things, that might help?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You basically can't.
In the short term, French tactics appear to have shifted from aiming to prevent attacks to attempting to minimise the consequences when they happen. We have repeatedly been told to expect more of them.
In the medium term, better intelligence might help. It's certainly tempting to conclude that one of the reasons for more attacks in France than in the UK recently, say, is more poorly coordinated intelligence.
In the longer term, there are a number of social challenges.
One is to frame what counts as "legitimate" expressions of violence. There's no doubt in my mind that 24-hour media coverage of new kinds of atrocity helps to enshrine them as legitimate courses of action for the desperate of all persuasions.
Another is to think about how to give people with nothing to lose something worth losing. In France I believe that would require accepting the reality of domestic Islam and immigration as part of the national scene. That would reduce the scope for the mindset of marginalisation and zero prospects that is ripe soil for violent extremism. We are well behind the UK in this respect.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
....... 2) usefully covers non-religious forms of violent extremism, such as we have just witnessed in Munich.
And maybe also covering that co-pilot who deliberately crashed a passenger plane into a mountain?
Always tempting to conclude the whole world is going mad and the dark corners of the Internet are wholly to blame. When was that Golden Age again?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Sometimes, I think that both people who are bound and determined to die by violence (including their own) and also those who are bound and determined to kill people should be put in a pit and allowed to go at it. They'd be allowed to leave--but if they did, they couldn't go back. They'd get what they wanted, and the rest of us could get some peace.
No media or Web coverage, because some people would get obsessed.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't want to start this tangent all over again, but until we can get past the idea of physical violence constituting just desserts, even in our fantasies, we're not going to get any further on this.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
There's truth to what you say. But, while there's a little revenge in what I suggested (and I don't imagine watching them fight), it's mostly pragmatic frustration. If we can't get people to stop this madness, put them somewhere where they can do what they want, and at least not hurt anyone else (directly). I've got a pragmatic streak.
FWIW, YMMV.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Sometimes one has to be pragmatic. I suppose that shooting to "neutralise" a beserk terrorist on the assumption that they'll do more damage if allowed to live is pragmatic. But relying on pragmatism alone will not address the underlying causes.
FWIW, I think the French Catholic church's response to this has been very good so far. They have reasserted that their only weapons are prayer and the fundamental brotherhood of man, not called for any additional protection, and called Catholics to a day of prayer and fasting on Friday. To my mind, that's the kind of assymetric response this needs. I hope they invite us protestants to join in.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Is an invitation necessary?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
us protestants
There it is, in beautiful 3D panoramic technicolour irony...
... the root of all evil.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
... the root of all evil.
What, diversity? That's news to me.
[ 27. July 2016, 09:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
No, division. I suppose it's a fairly subtle distinction since the two are so intimately related (a little bit like 'really clever' and 'nearly clever').
[ 27. July 2016, 09:36: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Are you channelling John Lennon?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Imagine that!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Is an invitation necessary?
Sorry, missed this due to Yorick's interjection.
I'm about as informal as they come, but the fact is that formal displays of unity do call for a bit of protocol.
The diocese may be considering inviting representatives of other faith traditions to a particular event (if one is organised locally), and I'm in a position where I can reasonably expect to receive such an invitation.
If no such invitation is forthcoming, I think it would be a missed opportunity for a formal expression of solidarity.
Of course nothing's to stop individuals joining whatever's happening, but representatives of other faith traditions can hardly formally invite themselves.
Another factor is that lots of people, including senior clerics, are on holiday here; and of course the Catholics' opinion on whether inviting others is desirable may differ anyway.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Yes, I see - but I was sort of thinking of non-public praying and fasting. God would know.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yorick's interjection.
Actually I was trying to make a serious point. This thread is about horrific incidents which would seem to share one basic underlying cause, and which I reckon underlies most violence between human beings. People find it easier to act on violent impulses towards those they see as Other. Any sort of view that identifies differences between people, especially groups, can facilitate this sort of violence.
Religions very frequently claim exclusive and often opposing Truths and this is dangerously catalytic. Inter-group violence only happens because people (whether we be ‘us protestants’ or ‘we of Aryan blood’ or whatever) are hardwired to seeing category differences between each other rather than seeing us all as the same nasty little children of God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But religion is not the only source of otherization and mass killing, is it? For example, the invasion of Iraq was not really started on religious grounds, but political, strategic, economic, or whatever. Or the British Empire employed religious justification but had other motives as well.
Thus, scape-goating has taken on religious raiments at times, but is not intrinsically religious.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
[x-post with quetzalcoatl]
Fair enough. But I don't think the solution is to pretend that differences don't exist.
Even if we share a common humanity, the latter doesn't consist of some boiled-down lesser-common-denominator cookie-cutter generic humanity, but humanity in all its diversity; something that I think the ethos of Imagine completely and utterly fails to acknowledge (for a start, it lays a large share of the blame fo the world's ills at the feet of religion and declares rabid intolerance of religious belief. It seems to assume the solution is for everyone to be stoned all the time).
I find that acknowledging one's own distinctiveness is the first step towards meaningful unity. If I'm secure in who I am and my own idiosyncracies, it's a whole lot easier to embrace others with their own differences, and a lot more meaningful when I do.
[ 27. July 2016, 13:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Religions very frequently claim exclusive and often opposing Truths and this is dangerously catalytic. Inter-group violence only happens because people (whether we be ‘us protestants’ or ‘we of Aryan blood’ or whatever) are hardwired to seeing category differences between each other rather than seeing us all as the same nasty little children of God.
IOW, the problem is not so much religion as diversity.
We could all be atheists, or all Methodists, or all Hare Krishna devotees, or whatever, but it doesn't really matter which, so long as we all believe exactly the same thing.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Almost. It doesn’t matter which, so long as we all believe everybody has the equal right not to be killed. And although quetzy is right, that religion is not the only means by which people come to think they know a Higher Truth, it sure does seem to be very good at that.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Any sort of view that identifies differences between people, especially groups, can facilitate this sort of violence.
Says the atheist harping on how religious views - i.e. views different from his own - are a problem.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Harping on? Oh, poor dear Dafyd, is that what you think I was doing? And did you really think I was saying that religious views are the problem? And that they’re a problem specifically because they’re different views from mine?
Have you banged your head?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
That is obviously what you were doing. You could add the adjective disingenuous now.
Try banging your head.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yorick
I don't feel that atheists are necessarily less interested in 'truth' than anyone else. But perhaps what they have going for them is that if they have aggressive impulses they can't cloak their violent rampages or outbursts in religious language. They obviously have to pick some other explanation.
I have to say, I can't really understand Islamicist violence on a purely religious level. It's not as if these killings are designed to save anyone's soul. They don't occur at the behest of any globally powerful religious leader. They're not apparently designed to protect young Muslims from Western corruption (in which case the perpetrators and their families could simply emigrate to a Muslim country). They don't seem to be organised as part of a programme of information to 'convert' the West.
Sometimes it's said that Islamic terrorists are just doing what it takes to get into paradise, which is described for Western consumption as some kind of celestial brothel, but is this really their priority? The idea that suicide (let alone murder!!) is a way to heaven sounds curious to Christian ears anyway.
Commentators sometimes claim that Islam's problem is in not distinguishing too much between religion and politics. I don't know how true this is, but IMO the religious violence is unlikely to heal until the socio-political divisions are addressed.
[ 27. July 2016, 18:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Almost. It doesn’t matter which, so long as we all believe everybody has the equal right not to be killed. And although quetzy is right, that religion is not the only means by which people come to think they know a Higher Truth, it sure does seem to be very good at that.
Surely, some religions are better at this than others? I am struggling, for example, to think of an instance where a Jain or a Methodist, to take two random examples, has burst into a Catholic Mass and slit the throat of the Priest. Might it not be the case that some religions or some manifestations of irreligion are better at tolerance and respect for difference than others?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Nominally at least, Christians are casually estimated to have killed fifty times more people than Muslims in the twentieth century (mainly as a result of their superior industro-technological capability rather than their greater natural murderousness).
And as for the argument that religion in and of itself isn't capable of doing anything, but that it's only sick people who do the killing, I see this as rather like the argument that guns do not kill.
All religions are inextricably linked with violence. I refer you to your Old Testament for plentiful gory examples, glib though this may seem.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
To that I would respond, on a human level, that what's important is 1) a religion's capacity to evolve towards non-violent expression 2) its capacity to embrace tolerance and diversity. And that 1) and 2) apply to any other belief system too, including atheistic ones.
Since you pounced on my use of the word "protestant", I'd argue that protestantism contains within it the necessary ingredients for both ongoing reinterpretation and doubt (and thus the benefit thereof).
Like I say, I can only see Imagine applying in a world where everyone is perpetually stoned, and even then you have the problem of how they go about paying for their next fix.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
And as for the argument that religion in and of itself isn't capable of doing anything, but that it's only sick people who do the killing, I see this as rather like the argument that guns do not kill.
That's an interesting analogy. After Hungerford and Dunblane the British government passed strict laws restricting the access of the public to firearms. (Pauses to peer meaningfully at the US). If your analogy holds then we can do something similar in this context?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eutychus:
...on a human level, that what's important is 1) a religion's capacity to evolve towards non-violent expression...
Given that it's now a couple of thousand years since Big J came along to show us the way, we Christians seem to have a fearfully low capacity for such evolution.
Since you pounced on my use of the word "protestant"
Myeah, I didn't think you understood my point. I was trying to pounce on your use of the word "us" rather than "protestants" but since you seem so keen to misunderstand me I think I should probably just put the kettle on and make a more fruitful cup of tea.
I can only see Imagine applying in a world where everyone is perpetually stoned
And I thought I was pessimistic about human nature, but, yes, you're probably right.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
And as for the argument that religion in and of itself isn't capable of doing anything, but that it's only sick people who do the killing, I see this as rather like the argument that guns do not kill.
That's an interesting analogy. After Hungerford and Dunblane the British government passed strict laws restricting the access of the public to firearms. (Pauses to peer meaningfully at the US). If your analogy holds then we can do something similar in this context?
I suppose you are asking me to put forward my answer to an impossible question, which is fair enough. I don't think there is a cure for the disease of religion being a growth medium for hatred and violence, but I live in hope that our woeful species might continue on its trajectory of secularisation to the stage where organised religion ultimately dies of irrelevance, peacefully and in its sleep.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Given that it's now a couple of thousand years since Big J came along to show us the way, we Christians seem to have a fearfully low capacity for such evolution.
A bit harsh, I think. Granted, there's been plenty of violence in the name of Christ since, but there is a worked-out, consistent theology of non-violence, too, starting with his own example.
quote:
I was trying to pounce on your use of the word "us" rather than "protestants"
As has been pointed out, "us" and "them" doesn't necessarily imply superiority or division, but it does recognise diversity. Failing to acknowledge that diversity exists seems to me to be a recipe for far more violence than recognising that it does.
[untangled too many negatives; clearly also in need of tea]
[ 28. July 2016, 11:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Is "We Christians" a better, less divisive way of speaking than "Us Christians"?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
translator hat on/
It could sound more superior.
Besides, you couldn't have replaced "us" with "we" in my original sentence as written.
I could rewrite the original sentence to use "we" instead of "us" but I'm not sure of the end result and in any case, the rest of the post applauds the Catholics' response, so Yorick's jibe was achieved by taking "us protestants" way out of context.
/translator hat off.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
And as for the argument that religion in and of itself isn't capable of doing anything, but that it's only sick people who do the killing, I see this as rather like the argument that guns do not kill.
That's an interesting analogy. After Hungerford and Dunblane the British government passed strict laws restricting the access of the public to firearms. (Pauses to peer meaningfully at the US). If your analogy holds then we can do something similar in this context?
I suppose you are asking me to put forward my answer to an impossible question, which is fair enough. I don't think there is a cure for the disease of religion being a growth medium for hatred and violence, but I live in hope that our woeful species might continue on its trajectory of secularisation to the stage where organised religion ultimately dies of irrelevance, peacefully and in its sleep.
Candidly, that's not good enough.
Seriously, the problem is currently, that Muslim extremists are attempting to forment some kind of religious war in Western countries and are doing this by the means of killing people in an attempt to increase hostility between Muslims and everybody else. This isn't a philosophical problem, it is a policy issue. I presume that you agree with me that a religious war, or even major conflict, between Muslims and everybody else, roughly analogous to the Troubles in Northern Ireland would be a bad thing? If so, we need to work out how to stop it.
Now it strikes me that a fairly major question, at this juncture, is how to neutralise and isolate the extremists. A lot of this will be a matter of police work and counter terrorism. But if all we can do is to shoot the bad guys after the event we will not be able to stop them recruiting. So part of the problem is going to be about how we handle community relations and about differences in belief and praxis among people of different faiths and none.
Now, I think that part of the problem is how we stop the enemy from dividing us whilst persuading the Muslim community that the extremists, and not the rest of us, are their real enemy. So we face a balancing act between, on the one hand encouraging Muslims to re-evaluate their theology and, on the other hand, being very clear that we have no problem with the overwhelming majority of decent Muslims who do not want a religious war.
So, at this point a lazy equation of "Muslims' with "religious violence" does us no good. If the Prime Minister stands up and starts making speeches to this effect, the net effect will be to drive Muslims into the hands of the enemy. Which is why, after atrocities of this nature, politicians always feel obliged to say something about Islam being a religion of peace. I don't think that entirely cuts it. ISIS has a basis in Muslim theology, that Muslims (no-one else can do it) need to address, just as, say the Westboro Baptist Church has a basis in homophobia that Christians (no-one else can do it) needs to address, but I give them credit for grasping the salient point that treating all Muslims as the bad guys is an incredibly bad idea.
Now your position appears to be that you want to not only equate "Muslims" with religious violence, but "All Religious People" with religious violence. Indeed, you began by calling out Eutychus for describing his tradition as "us Protestants" in the context of his offering solidarity to the Catholic Church, as if he was seriously suggesting that a re-run of the French Wars of Religion might be a good idea, here. To use a technical phrase, at this point, this is really Cockwombleism of the highest order. The point, Eutychus was making, was that our humanity and opposition to acts of terror is, really, more significant than anything that divides us. This is solid good sense. It is a point that needs to be woven into samplers and hung on walls. It is a point that needs to be carved into obelisks and placed at strategic places in our cities. It is a point that needs to be engraved on our hearts. Now if you are going to go round insinuating that there is no significant difference between a French Reformed Christian self-identifying as protestant and a couple of maniacs popping into a church during Mass and slitting the throat of a Priest who was quietly going about his lawful business, then I call smug disingenuous cuntery.
I mean, really, how the fuck does this, in any sort of way, get us anywhere, precisely? The whole fucking point of this exercise is to isolate the terrorists. You want to conflate them with not only the Muslims but anybody who believes in a higher power and a life of the world to come. What exactly does that contribute except an opportunity for you to engage in self-congratulation on an epic scale.
I mean, the whole USP, of your particular sort of atheism is that it is supposed to be based on evidence and strict rationality and here you are advancing a thesis so banal and so contrary to the observable facts that it makes the Legend of the Holy House of Loretto look like Einstein's Theory Of Fucking Relativity. I get that you think that we would be better off as atheists. Personally, I think we would all be better off as Anglicans but you pays your money and you takes your choice. But if you think that you and your tribe have some kind of monopoly on decency and hostility to violence then fuck you and fuck the fucking horse you rode in on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yorick, you seem to be arguing that if religion died out, violence would diminish. That seems highly speculative to me, and there is little evidence for it. In fact, the UK is more secular than it used to be, yet we embarked on a very violent war in Iraq, not for religious reasons. We also got involved in Libya and Syria.
As to religious differences, well, there are plenty of secular differences. As Freud said, the narcissism of small differences can be a killer.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nominally at least, Christians are casually estimated to have killed fifty times more people than Muslims in the twentieth century (mainly as a result of their superior industro-technological capability rather than their greater natural murderousness).
Would you give some statistics on this. I would like to know who the 'Christians' are who have done this mass slaughter.
Moo
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Religion isn't a disease. Some of its adherents would be just as unpleasant if they didn't have any religion. They'd just find a different pretext.
I expect Yorick will completely dismiss that point as it doesn't fit into his opinion that all religion is wrong, but I thought I'd make it anyway.
[ 28. July 2016, 11:40: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nominally at least, Christians are casually estimated to have killed fifty times more people than Muslims in the twentieth century (mainly as a result of their superior industro-technological capability rather than their greater natural murderousness).
Would you give some statistics on this. I would like to know who the 'Christians' are who have done this mass slaughter.
Moo
I hope Yorick is not saying that the two world wars were waged by 'Christians', as I have seen this kind of sleight-of-hand used at times. I suppose the word 'nominal' is a get-out.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nominally at least, Christians are casually estimated to have killed fifty times more people than Muslims in the twentieth century (mainly as a result of their superior industro-technological capability rather than their greater natural murderousness).
Would you give some statistics on this. I would like to know who the 'Christians' are who have done this mass slaughter.
Moo
Hi Moo.
Please google Juan Cole, as I,ve forgotten how to post a link on this ubb. If you can't find his article let me know and I'll try to link it.
I'm not convinced by the argument I think is proposed by quetzy and Ariel that the violence committed in God's name would happen anyway if there were no religion. OBVIOUSLY there would still be violence, but would there be so much? I absolutely doubt that.
I'll try to respond more fully in time to the excellent points raised above if you'll forgive my dipping in and out as I get my chances.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html
for Moo
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm not convinced by the argument I think is proposed by quetzy and Ariel that the violence committed in God's name would happen anyway if there were no religion. OBVIOUSLY there would still be violence, but would there be so much? I absolutely doubt that.
I refer you to the various incidents that took place during and after the Russian revolution and during the years of Communism in various countries. Purges and crackdowns and disappearances for ideological reasons are not unknown.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And that they’re a problem specifically because they’re different views from mine?
I'd guess that nobody who acts on violent impulses against the Other thinks they're doing so specifically because they're different.
Atheist who call religion a disease always think that they've got reasons; and that makes them different from the people calling Judaism a disease or communism a disease or whatever.
They're not different. An atheist who calls religion a disease is just as much a part of the great goosestep of history as the people he's talking about.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Okay, Dafyd, fuck right off. If you persist in misrepresenting what I say, I'm taking you off my Yuletide Card list.
I was talking about a cure for the disease of religion being a culture medium for violence. I wasn't saying religion is a disease. Can you get that huge black knobbled dildo stick out of your ass for just a second and represent what I am saying here honestly? Thanks, dear.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm not convinced by the argument I think is proposed by quetzy and Ariel that the violence committed in God's name would happen anyway if there were no religion. OBVIOUSLY there would still be violence, but would there be so much? I absolutely doubt that.
I refer you to the various incidents that took place during and after the Russian revolution and during the years of Communism in various countries. Purges and crackdowns and disappearances for ideological reasons are not unknown.
This argument is very frustrating to me, and sounds very much like a rather dishonest sidestep. Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
[ 28. July 2016, 12:11: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html
for Moo
So not only are we chalking up all the fatalities of the Two World Wars to Christianity (which would doubtless come as a surprise to Hitler. Tojo, and Stalin) but also the state church of Sweden is cited as an example of the intertwining of nationalism and religion. Sweden's military policy since the fall of Bonaparte has largely consisted of providing troops to UN Peacekeeping Missions. I can only assume that he's working on a follow up article denouncing the irredentist posture of Malta, Andorra, San Marino and, Lichtenstein.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Oh, and your rant, above, Callan.
I avow to answer that as soon as.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I was talking about a cure for the disease of religion being a culture medium for violence. I wasn't saying religion is a disease.
That's a fine hair to split. Indeed, so fine it's almost as if there isn't a hair there at all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html
for Moo
But he is using weasel terms here, isn't he? For example, he talks about 'people of Christian heritage', which I suppose means Europeans and Americans, even if they are not themselves Christian. That's like saying that Mao killed millions of people because he was an atheist. This is sleight of hand.
I don't see how one can go from a correlation between religion and violence (or whatever), to a causation. There are so many variables involved.
For example, suppose that religious areas of the US use more porn, and more social security benefits. How would establish a relation of causation here, as opposed to correlation, in other words, that it's being religious that causes increased porn use?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This argument is very frustrating to me, and sounds very much like a rather dishonest sidestep. Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
You know that you can poison yourself and die if you drink too much water?
There's a massive difference between a little wine for your stomach's sake and being a raving violent confabulating alcoholic.
If is also possible to kill yourself by taking too much acetaminophen/paracetamol.
Misuse it is called, Yorick. We have the capacity to overuse and misuse everything.
People (I think most of us, if not all) have the very real, raw and genuine capacity for extreme muderous violence and can even learn to enjoy it. This is the very human characteristic that religion aims itself at. To lessen it, to redirect atavistic impulses in the direction of kindness. But I suppose that trying to persuade you at all is like banging your heads on the wall.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Famous example of the correlation/causation confusion: some studies of HRT indicated that women taking it were less liable to heart disease. However, this ignored other variables, e.g. higher economic group, better diet, more exercise, and so on, which themselves may produce less heart disease.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, and your rant, above, Callan.
I avow to answer that as soon as.
I'm pretty sure you will reply to it, but doubt you will answer it all.
Part of the problem, and part of your problem too, is that Christianity, if not other faiths, is based on the premise that human nature is not good. Human nature and by extension man is naturally sinful. Until one accepts that it is impossible to be a Christian. Even then we are inclined to fall short of the example set by Christ.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How would establish a relation of causation here, as opposed to correlation, in other words, that it's being religious that causes increased porn use?
That one's easy. The more religious an area is, the more likely it is to have a culture that represses sexuality in any context other than man-woman marriage. Denied the usual outlets for sexual exploration and experimentation that people elsewhere have, people from said areas are more likely to resort to furtive online porn sessions in order to get their jollies.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This argument is very frustrating to me, and sounds very much like a rather dishonest sidestep.
Nobody forced you to return to the boards, and it was your choice to decide to turn a Hell thread deploring terrorist outrages into a tangential and more Purgatorial discussion about religion, and rehashing your old favourite points of view yet again. If you don't like the quality of the answers you get, tough. I'm not wasting time, energy or brainpower on your postings. I thought at first you might have something new or original to say, but I see now it's just the same tired old bilge that's available in countless places over the internet and that we've all seen here before.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I hope Yorick is not saying that the two world wars were waged by 'Christians', as I have seen this kind of sleight-of-hand used at times. I suppose the word 'nominal' is a get-out.
It's hard to say that WW1 wasn't heavily bound up with Christendom.
"Thank God for matching us with His hour" was the cry that went up from the wildly enthusiastic masses. Psychoanalysis would probably have diagnosed that war fever as coming pretty close to the brain chemicals pumping in today's radicalised jihadist.
Clearly it would be a nonsense to say Christain practice caused WW1, but with Communion wine being supped both sides of no-man's-land it certainly played a part in aiding and abetting it's progress, (or lack of progress as it turned out).
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How would establish a relation of causation here, as opposed to correlation, in other words, that it's being religious that causes increased porn use?
That one's easy. The more religious an area is, the more likely it is to have a culture that represses sexuality in any context other than man-woman marriage. Denied the usual outlets for sexual exploration and experimentation that people elsewhere have, people from said areas are more likely to resort to furtive online porn sessions in order to get their jollies.
If there are more churches, there are more bars and pubs.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This argument is very frustrating to me, and sounds very much like a rather dishonest sidestep. Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
I wouldn't want to misrepresent your argument, so may I check I've got it right.
Your argument is:
quote:
(Some) violence is perpetrated in the name of gods
I add the word 'some' to make it clear you've explicitly denied meaning all violence.
That's all you're arguing. You are not arguing for this position:
quote:
OBVIOUSLY there would still be violence (if there were no religion), but would there be so much? I absolutely doubt that.
You are not arguing there would not be so much violence if there no religion. That's a far stronger claim than your argument, and if that were your claim then looking to see whether there was less violence where there was no religion would be relevant. But that would be a far stronger claim than your actual argument, which is merely:
quote:
(Some) violence is perpetrated in the name of gods
.
Just wanting to make sure I don't misrepresent you.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It's hard to say that WW1 wasn't heavily bound up with Christendom.
Would you care to define Christendom? AIUI the majority of Europeans were not practicing Christians, although they may have paid it lip-service. The Japanese were certainly not Christians.
quote:
"Thank God for matching us with His hour" was the cry that went up from the wildly enthusiastic masses.
I am very interested in the history of WW2, and I have read a great deal about it. Until now, I have never heard this phrase. Where did you hear of it?
Moo
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if we share a common humanity, the latter doesn't consist of some boiled-down lesser-common-denominator cookie-cutter generic humanity, but humanity in all its diversity; something that I think the ethos of Imagine completely and utterly fails to acknowledge (for a start, it lays a large share of the blame for the world's ills at the feet of religion and declares rabid intolerance of religious belief. It seems to assume the solution is for everyone to be stoned all the time).
AIUI, "Imagine" was written in response to the Irish troubles--which were, at least partly, framed as religious battles. They could drive a pope to take up with Richard Dawkins, IMHO.
As to getting stoned: well, it was the '60s. Personally, I'd rather have very dark chocolate!
And I do have days when "Imagine" is just the song I need to hear.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
"Thank God for matching us with His hour" was the cry that went up from the wildly enthusiastic masses.
I am very interested in the history of WW2, and I have read a great deal about it. Until now, I have never heard this phrase. Where did you hear of it?
It's WW1, not WW2. It's from a 1914 poem by Rupert Brooke (1887–1915) entitled ”Peace":
quote:
NOW, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping,
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary,
Leave the sick hearts that honour could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
And all the little emptiness of love!
Oh! we, who have known shame, we have found release there,
Where there’s no ill, no grief, but sleep has mending,
Naught broken save this body, lost but breath;
Nothing to shake the laughing heart’s long peace there
But only agony, and that has ending;
And the worst friend and enemy is but Death.
Whether the phrase should be taken at face value, or whether it "was the cry that went up from the wildly enthusiastic masses" I'll leave for others.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's from a 1914 poem by Rupert Brooke (1887–1915) entitled ”Peace":
Brooke is not a good example, as he was an atheist.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's from a 1914 poem by Rupert Brooke (1887–1915) entitled ”Peace":
Brooke is not a good example, as he was an atheist.
Exactly why I wanted to leave discussion about the poem to others—I know very little about Brooke.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, if he meant it as ironic, it reads chillingly like something that Daesh could take on board as is, without the irony.
Our church premises will be hosting a time of prayer open to all this lunchtime, and the regional representative of the national Muslim council has just e-mailed me responding favourably to my personal invitation to attend.
Yorick may be interested to read BBC Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield's latest article. His pieces usually make my blood boil with their French-bashing, but I think this one nails it for once: quote:
so far one is bound to observe that the country has reacted to this horrific succession of provocations with good sense and an eye on the higher values.
Most French people will argue that these values - tolerance, respect between peoples, forgiveness, eschewal of violence - are part of the country's enlightened secular tradition.
But of course before that they were something else. They were Christian.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
"Thank God for matching us with His hour" was the cry that went up from the wildly enthusiastic masses.
I am very interested in the history of WW2, and I have read a great deal about it. Until now, I have never heard this phrase. Where did you hear of it?
I was referring only to the First World War.
To my knowledge all the main participants were steeped in institutionalised Christianity apart from maybe Turkey. Excluding also some Commonwealth Countries which were press ganged to join in.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, if he meant it as ironic, it reads chillingly like something that Daesh could take on board as is, without the irony.
He didn't mean it as ironic. Brooke was all in favour of military glory and heroic death. He's using the word 'God' because there isn't a readily available atheist way to express a feeling of gratitude towards things in general, and he's not a conscientious enough poet to make one up for himself.
It was widely shared. I've just been reading about the Italian proto-fascist poet D'Annunzio, who makes Brooke look like Wilfred Owen.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
And many here would promise you that we really do understand that violence is perpetrated in the name of religion. What is being questioned is how much is directly attributable.
Cancer is an interesting example. How many people die of prostate cancer rather as opposed to incidentally having prostate cancer? It isn't a straightforward thing to answer, even with very good individual-level medical data to look at.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He didn't mean it as ironic.
In that case, those who insist on dismissing Daesh as nothing more than a bunch of raving loonies must also accept that our forefathers in the trenches were nothing more than a bunch of equally raving loonies.
Maybe we should consider their motivations as level-headedly as we do those of our forebears.
[more excess of negatives addressed]
[ 29. July 2016, 08:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
[continuing WW1 poets tangent]Brooke was full of ardour for the battle and the heroism of dying for his King and country, theoretically. Unlike Gurney, Thomas, Owen and Sassoon, he didn't serve in the trenches. After his jingoistic poetry was published, (The Soldier was read from the pulpit of St Paul's Cathedral) he joined the Navy. He died (from an infection) on his way to conflict.
Until the 50th anniversary of WW1, Brooke and similar works were seen as the voice of WW1. Those who are now accepted as the First World War poets changed with that anniversary, which coincided with Vietnam. Owen only had one or two verses published in his lifetime and attempts to publish his work in the 1930s failed.
Something similar happened to the art. The IWM sold off and gave away many of their commissioned WW1 works post war (the Nashes and Nevisons) because that bleakness wasn't what people wanted to see post-WW1. [/tangent]
I have found Brooke incredibly difficult to teach to current teenagers who find those sentiments very alien. They understand Owen's cynicism. How we think about war has changed over time.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
And many here would promise you that we really do understand that violence is perpetrated in the name of religion. What is being questioned is how much is directly attributable.
Cancer is an interesting example. How many people die of prostate cancer rather as opposed to incidentally having prostate cancer? It isn't a straightforward thing to answer, even with very good individual-level medical data to look at.
Yes, it seems very difficult to me to demonstrate that religion leads to violence. Of course, one can assert this, but that doesn't demonstrate a link. One can point to various religious acts of violence, e.g. by IS, but still that does not show that religion leads to violence, except in so far that being human seems to lead to violence quite often. It's like saying that being left-wing leads to violence, or being right-wing, or being atheist.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
hosting
There's a place for those who love their poetry—it's across from the sign that says "Prose Only."
Or at least not here.
Tangent closed.
a, hh
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
And many here would promise you that we really do understand that violence is perpetrated in the name of religion. What is being questioned is how much is directly attributable.
Cancer is an interesting example. How many people die of prostate cancer rather as opposed to incidentally having prostate cancer? It isn't a straightforward thing to answer, even with very good individual-level medical data to look at.
Yes, it seems very difficult to me to demonstrate that religion leads to violence. Of course, one can assert this, but that doesn't demonstrate a link. One can point to various religious acts of violence, e.g. by IS, but still that does not show that religion leads to violence, except in so far that being human seems to lead to violence quite often. It's like saying that being left-wing leads to violence, or being right-wing, or being atheist.
Only when religion repudiates violence can it not lead to violence.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Only when religion repudiates violence can it not lead to violence.
But to the extent that's true and not an over-generalization, the same can be said of atheism, secularism, politics generally—pretty much any societal enterprise. Religion is not unique in this regard.
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
I was delighted to read about Muslims attending mass across France. Surely exactly what we need to be doing. This is the defeat of forces that want division and hatred. Maybe we should ask to be invited to mosques?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A month or so ago I was invited to an Iftar (evening meal) at the local mosque during the Ramadan period. As mentioned above, a regional Muslim representative was happy to join us, and be prayed for, at an inter-church gathering here.
Good friends of ours in the UK, christians, have gone one further and have been attending the Living Islam festival in the UK. The promotional video for this event is to all intents and purposes identical to those for Stoneleigh Bible Week back in the day, which gives pause for thought.
I'm convinced that meetings like this, crossing boundaries, are a great way of overcoming distrust without in any way needing to compromise our beliefs.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Serious question: How do you stop a violent person who not only is willing to die, but chooses it? Like suicide bombers--except for ones that are forced or tricked.
If someone's planning a violent act and they're past listening to "it's wrong!", you can tell them that they might be injured, imprisoned for life, killed, etc. But if they want to go out in a blaze of glory, how do you stop them? And if they haven't done anything *yet*, how do you figure out whether they're venting, fascinated, or truly dangerous?
And what about those whose main problem is severe mental illness? AIUI, the Nice driver (hope I've got the right one) had pre-existing mental illness, and seems more to have stuck a jihadist label on himself towards the end, rather than really holding radical beliefs. Or the Munich bomber, who was obsessed with mass killings, but evidently wasn't religious.
Is there anything, even small things, that might help?
Missed this earlier...
The really dangerous people won't give you any clues or hints that they're planning something. This is in case you try to stop them.
Others may drop hints. Some may even talk about it outright. You're unlikely to be able to talk any of them out of it. If you're satisfied that it's not just venting, and you have cause for concern, quietly alert the police/security services. Step back and leave it to them: they have professional training and resources, and you can't do any more. There's a confidential phone line (in the UK, anyway) for anyone who wants to flag something up.
If they are "just venting", it's not normal behaviour to enjoy a detailed fantasy about mass murder of fellow citizens. If you're worried about it, again, speak to someone. It may come to nothing, but coming to nothing is better than it escalating into yet another incident.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, of course I understand that violence and even genocide is committed outwith religion. I really do understand that, I promise! But to offer it as a refutation of the argument that violence is perpetrated in the name of gods is like saying cancer isn't the only problem because people can also die of banging their head too hard against walls.
...we really do understand that violence is perpetrated in the name of religion. What is being questioned is how much is directly attributable.
Well okay, I would say that any amount is too much. In other words, even if it were the case that, say, only one tenth of one percent of all violence ever perpetrated by people against others was inspired by religion, and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
This is a pointless question.
An "acceptable" answer would obviously be "none".
But the human condition leads to the existence of violence. There are times when it seems the only way of preventing further violence is a measured but violent response; for instance, in Saint-Etienne de Rouvray, killing one of the terrorists to prevent a clear threat of further deaths.
If you wish, you can probably argue that such rules of engagement are ultimately based on a Judaeo-Christian value system attributable to religion, and lay it all at religion's door. But I don't know what you will have proved by doing so.
Religion in general and Christianity in particular offer a response to what Sartre called "the absurd", which I think is pretty much coterminous with what we call "sin", but this side of the eschaton, it doesn't offer nice tidy answers, because that's the world we live in.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
This is a pointless question.
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.
Plenty of people on this thread have already provided examples of violence in atheistic states, which you have not addressed. Perhaps I could threaten reactive christianisation in return?
"Religions are a source of bloodshed" is just a cheap shot. My response is that bloodshed is going to happen, the question is how do we mitigate it and make at least some sense of it. As far as I can see, Christianity at least has attempted some answers to that. In a variety of ways and with varying degrees of success, but it has some sort of a plan, and on a very personal level I'm doing my best to implement one. What are you doing?
[ 01. August 2016, 09:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yorick--
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.
That's one possibility. But people could also change their own behavior; and, perhaps, revise or reinterpret their religion. Both religions and people change.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.
Plenty of people on this thread have already provided examples of violence in atheistic states, which you have not addressed. .... What are you doing?
I have addressed the counter-argument that atheists are also violent (see the bit where I draw an analogy with cancer and head banging). ‘Religions are a source of bloodshed’ is not a 'cheap shot', Eutychus, it is an impassioned and sincere cry for an honest consideration of the real world issues here. Your oh-so-defensive denial is demeaning even when you are allowed some discount for being hopelessly blindsided by your massively obvious bias.
What am I doing? Well, like you, I’m not being a religiously inspired terrorist, but unlike you I’m also challenging the denial so often shown by peaceful believers of any possible association with these murderers and their various religious faiths.
I understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation, I get that not all religious people are terrorists, and I realise that atheists are sometimes genocidal terrorists too, but none of these things gets rid of the fact that too much violence is perpetrated in the name of religion.
Denying this is arguably part of the problem.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?
That gets you to the "inspired by" bit. No-one's arguing with that.
It doesn't get you to the "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently" bit. Which I imagine lots of people would argue with.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe. Or, or maybe because they were particularly bored that day.
This reminds me of the proof of the existence of god being that nobody can successfully argue against the existence of invisible pink unicorns.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe.
Or perhaps patriotism, or racism. Really, just about any ideology can be latched on to. Even vegetarianism/veganism, where it is considered justified to prevent the murder of animals.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
But you’re doing the same thing here as Eutychus and others.
Right. Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did. And if you want to persuade me that Tom would have blown up the same infidels in the same airport if he didn’t believe in any gods, well, good luck, but please don’t tell me the onus is on me to disprove your ridiculous assertion.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
A Christian who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning Muslim violence is not sincere. Such a Christian is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.
A Muslim who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning Christian violence is not sincere. Such a Muslim is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.
A religious believer who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning atheist violence is not sincere. Such a religious believer is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.
An atheist who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning religious violence is not sincere. Such an atheist is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Not sure if this is an answer that you'd accept, but there have been people who were otherwise peaceful individuals who were radicalised and committed acts of violence.
There was that guy who was a teaching assistant who ended up being involved in the London bombings, for example.
People are inspired by religion to do things that are out of character and which are hard to comprehend otherwise. I can't see how this can be argued against, as the facts show this time after time.
These are not just crazy psychopaths who are looking for something to latch onto, they're - at least sometimes - calm and peaceful individuals who are inspired by religion to commit great acts of violence.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Why exactly must they be insincere?
(This, to Daft Id).
[ 01. August 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?
Because that is the symbol of resistance to the West. It wasn't always thus, it was pan-Arab nationalism at one point, but Islam has taken over. Have you noticed how some extremely irreligious promiscuous drug-taking alcoholics do the same thing?
But I must say I think it is unlikely that there isn't some violence that would go away if religion vanished, magically in an instant. There is probably also some violence that would appear if religion vanished. Who knows how much?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Not sure if this is an answer that you'd accept, but there have been people who were otherwise peaceful individuals who were radicalised and committed acts of violence.
There was that guy who was a teaching assistant who ended up being involved in the London bombings, for example.
I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?
Because that is the symbol of resistance to the West. It wasn't always thus, it was pan-Arab nationalism at one point, but Islam has taken over. Have you noticed how some extremely irreligious promiscuous drug-taking alcoholics do the same thing?
But I must say I think it is unlikely that there isn't some violence that would go away if religion vanished, magically in an instant. There is probably also some violence that would appear if religion vanished. Who knows how much?
Yes to this. So to make the case for ending religion ending violence, you'd have to be confident in the overall net effect.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)
Well except that we know this guy was exposed to these other pressures (just like everyone else) during his life and did not resort to violence until he was exposed - apparently - to a certain form of militant Islamic teaching.
I think it is fair to conclude that the Islamic teaching had an impact on turning him to violence that - as far as we can reasonably tell - other pressures in life did not.
[ 01. August 2016, 14:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But you’re doing the same thing here as Eutychus and others.
Right. Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did. And if you want to persuade me that Tom would have blown up the same infidels in the same airport if he didn’t believe in any gods, well, good luck, but please don’t tell me the onus is on me to disprove your ridiculous assertion.
No one has argued that religion has not inspired violence. It has, without question. But you seem to want to oversimplify that in order to reach a foregone conclusion—religion is bad, and bad in ways that other ideologies aren't.
I think it's usually more complicated. Is the current terrorist violence religiously motivated or politically motivated? It can be hard to separate the two here—they feed on (and I would say distort) each other. Ditto the crusades and many other examples. And, of course, there are other things in the mix beyond politics and religion.
I have no idea whether Tom would have done what he did if he didn't believe in any gods, or whether something else might have triggered his violence. Nor do you or anyone else. Which is why, as others have suggested, the question can only be considered on a broader scale—if religion were no longer a factor, would violence decline. I see no reason to think so.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe. Or, or maybe because they were particularly bored that day.
I think some people require particular triggers for their violence. Some men only rape and kill women who wear certain kinds of clothes, for example, or who have certain kinds of occupations. I don't think I would feel justified in blaming the trigger for this, however.
And to make it even more complicated other circumstances can factor. If someone's violence is triggered by short skirts and late hours, how culpable is the assailant's mates if they goad him on to it, or furnish him with a philosophy that helps him to justify his violence to himself? There is a level of culpability there, of course, and responsibility depending on the extent of enablement involvement.
But again the guilt - if guilt there is - of the trigger in all this is not so clearly defined.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)
Well except that we know this guy was exposed to these other pressures (just like everyone else) during his life and did not resort to violence until he was exposed - apparently - to a certain form of militant Islamic teaching.
I think it is fair to conclude that the Islamic teaching had an impact on turning him to violence that - as far as we can reasonably tell - other pressures in life did not.
Agreed, with the proviso that he was only 30. All sorts of things had yet to happen to him. And he could have gone on to be anything, including, of course, a good man. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
This is a pointless question.
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.
Religion is also a source of non-violence and pacifism. It's certainly keeping me from going postal while reading this thread.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The part of that question I was objecting to in particular was "how much violence in the name of religion is acceptable", which sounded a bit like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
As to the last words of suicidal terrorists, I think the Munich assassin was reported as repeatedly shouting "I am German".
What conclusions do you invite us to draw from that?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The part of that question I was objecting to in particular was "how much violence in the name of religion is acceptable", which sounded a bit like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
As to the last words of suicidal terrorists, I think the Munich assassin was reported as repeatedly shouting "I am German".
What conclusions do you invite us to draw from that?
It's an interesting example, as within my memory, after the war, British people used to say that Germans were inevitably impelled towards violence and I suppose world domination. Nobody really explained how this worked, some kind of German DNA or whatever.
But of course, it has faded, although during the Brexit debates, I heard people say that Germany has ended up dominating Europe by peaceful means!
Well, it illustrates the difference between correlation and causation quite nicely. Back to religion - as far as I can see, nobody can demonstrate a necessary link between religion and violence. Sure, people can assert that there is one - this is inadequate.
[ 01. August 2016, 17:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Missed the deadline. I know that some atheists object to the use of faith as a motive for violence, as with some Islamists. I mean that faith is seen as an irrational defence. However, this criticism can also be leveled at other ideologies, e.g. patriotism, racism, nationalism.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Why exactly must they be insincere?
Must is perhaps a bit strong. But it has to be the leading hypothesis.
A Christian or a western secular atheist condemning Muslim violence is less likely to have the effect they supposedly desire - reducing overall violence - than if they condemn non-Muslim Western violence. So if a Christian or a western secularist condemns Muslim violence it looks rather as if what they object to is not the violence but the fact that it's done by Muslims.
Does the belief that religion in general and Islam in particular are intrinsically violent itself cause violence?
It would be naive or complacent or self-righteous to think the belief doesn't. Islamophobia causes violence in its own right, or as part of religiophobia. When a gang of white youths beat up a young Muslim because they think Muslims are terrorists, I think white secularists who talk about the violence of religion should treat themselves as being just as culpable as they think religious believers in general should be.
Everyone should put their own glass house in order before they throw stones.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did.
Actually, yes it does. Tom has in common with Dick and Harry the fact that he's killed lots of people. Tom does not have that in common with the vast majority of his co-religionists who haven't killed anybody. Any competent sociologist trying to explain why Tom has killed people would start by seeing what Tom has in common with Harry and Dick who have also killed people; rather than trying to explain it using what Tom has in common with his co-religionists who haven't actually killed people.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Well there it is. Correlation does indeed imply causation.
Dafyd, I know it's a tangent, but would there be any chance you could explain how up is instead down? Thanks.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
How typical that people spend some time trying to explain stuff to you and you respond with a daft one-liner.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
We should know by now that Yorick is the High Priest of proof by assertion. He really should go into party politics.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Wait just a minute. The assertions I'm making here are like this:
1. Some people are inspired by religion to do violent things
2. Some other religious people deny that this is a problem of religion
3. This is bad
How is it that I'm the unreasonable one for challenging this here?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Because other people are using more words to explain stuff and you keep doing the asserting thing rather than engaging and discussing.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yorick:
You are not so much being unreasonable as being disingenuous. As I said, what I objected to was the latter part of this from you: quote:
If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
That's not so much a question as a rhetorical trap.
I've argued violence is part of the human condition. You are going to have a hard time demonstrating that religion incites more violence than absence of religion; there are too many variables.
As to correlation and causation, as usual, there's an xkcd for that.
[ 02. August 2016, 07:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
More words. Are you shitting me?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
How on earth do you expect to be engaged with here if not with words ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You are going to have a hard time demonstrating that religion incites more violence than absence of religion
I'm not trying to demonstrate that. It would of course be impossible, and I agree that a world without religion might be more violent than one with religion, and I agree that religion does not necessarily cause violence, and I understand that atheists can be even more violent than theists, and I appreciate that there are other factors that make people commit violent acts in the name of religion apart from religion itself.
But....
Some people are inspired by religion to kill people.
That is what this thread is about, and it is the way that some religious people deal with this by dishonest sidestepping denial that I am now challenging. There's been quite a lot of it on here, along with plenty of good sensible argument.
When people start pathetic ad hominem arguments about the number of words you're using, it looks very like they know their position is shit.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Are you shitting me?
If only I could flush as well.
[ 02. August 2016, 07:13: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Because that same list could be redrawn as:
- some people are inspired by a range of different things to commit violence, including religion, patriotism, animal activism;
- scapegoating one cause among others is seen as divisive;
- these acts of violence are condemned by everyone as bad.
One of the big problems with the Prevent Duty, which covers these types of crimes, is that it's another example of a Government legal duty produced as a knee jerk reaction. Prevent was drawn up with ISIS/Daesh in mind following some terrorist incidents linked to Islamic radicalisation. It does not deal properly with all the current causes of terrorism in the UK, which include:
- animal activism;
- far right groups such as the English Defence League (far more common among the young people I work with);
- residual IRA groups (common in North West London);
- Islamic radicalisation.
How much of the Leytonstone tube stabbing was ISIS, how much schizophrenia and how much cannabis use? One of the bystanders told him he was no Muslim at the time, so can you really blame that one on religion?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some people are inspired by religion to kill people.
I can't see anybody denying that, um assertion.
quote:
That is what this thread is about, and it is the way that some religious people deal with this by dishonest sidestepping denial that I am now challenging.
However, I can see you throwing out a lot of other insinuations along the way.
If all you're saying is that some religious people try to disown religously-motivated violence by invoking the "No True Scotsman" argument, you're late to the party.
The real debate, to my mind, is about the best way to deal with violence that makes some claim to religious inspiration.
Where I am, this is a very live debate, with on one side those who are arguing that the best way is to eliminate religion altogether, and on the other those who are arguing that the best way is to accommodate religion instead of trying to excise it from the public sphere and marginalise believers of any stripe. I give you no prizes for guessing which side of that debate I am on.
[ETA there is another, more vocal side which simply argues that the "arabo-muslims" (sic) should be got rid of, the implication being that only Christianity should be allowed. That's just as bad, to my mind]
[ 02. August 2016, 07:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Thanks, Eutychus, for your courteous and measured post.
I'm surprised that there would be any serious discussion about getting rid of religion (as a way of dealing with religiously inspired violence), as that would seem both impossible and probably counterproductive, even to a bigotted and intransigent atheist like me. To my mind,mitvis very much up to religious people to remove the baby from the bathwater before getting rid of it, and they are singularly failing to do this when they try to avoid their absolute responsibility in this by denying it. Non-theists cannot solve theists' problems. Only theists can, even if they do so by failing to handle the situation appropriately and thereby allowing the rise of reactive secularism.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
There is a non-insignificant caucus of Islam trying to do exactly that, and more have been stepping up to the plate to do so in France since last week; link (in French; "we Muslims are ready to shoulder our responsibilities", from July 31).
In my wildest dreams/prayers, I dare to hope that Saint-Etienne de Rouvray will be looked back on as a sort of Enniskillen watershed moment at which Daesh overplayed its hand.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Clarification: by "doing exactly that", I meant of course that there are now Muslims in France attempting to take on responsibility for acts of violence committed in the name of Islam - a new development - and not that they are trying to eliminate religion altogether.
[ 02. August 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Muslim response to the Leytonstone stabbing:
quote:
Speaking in Leyton today, Imam Imran Patel told gathered media: "He is not a member of the congregation of Leytonstone and his actions only he can answer for himself." The brutal knife attack was "totally unacceptable", Patel said. "Islam does not allow and does not have a place for any acts of violence and terrorism. Leytonstone is a well-integrated and multicultural community. We live in peace and harmony," the imam added.
Patel's sentiments were echoed on social media, where #YouAintNoMuslimBruv is trending. The hashtag is a reference to a phrase shouted by an onlooker as police Tasered the attacker before arresting him.
Using this example as it is in the news following sentencing yesterday.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Dafyd, I know it's a tangent, but would there be any chance you could explain how up is instead down? Thanks.
Oh dear, did some nasty Christian disagree with you? There you are selflessly explaining to the world how it is, and how the problems of the world are religious people's problems (and not yours). And instead of nodding along and hailing your wisdom the nasty religious people tell you you're wrong. And they even argue against you! They use rational argument! How dare someone come along and disagree with you using rational argument!
I bet that offline you mansplain.
And then you're not used to people disagreeing with your wisdom, and you can't handle it when don't bow to your wisdom online, and you start name-calling and throwing hissy fits.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Hahaha. Dafyd, you're embarassing yourself.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wait just a minute. The assertions I'm making here are like this:
1. Some people are inspired by religion to do violent things
2. Some other religious people deny that this is a problem of religion
3. This is bad
How is it that I'm the unreasonable one for challenging this here?
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Yorick has always been arguing only 1, 2, and 3.
You started this off by pouncing on something Eutychus said out of context:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
us protestants
There it is, in beautiful 3D panoramic technicolour irony...
... the root of all evil.
That isn't 1 or 2 or 3.
(It's apparently ok to say that about Eutychus; but entirely unreasonable for me to point out that the same could be said about your post.)
And then you wrote:
quote:
This thread is about horrific incidents which would seem to share one basic underlying cause, and which I reckon underlies most violence between human beings. People find it easier to act on violent impulses towards those they see as Other. Any sort of view that identifies differences between people, especially groups, can facilitate this sort of violence.
Religions very frequently claim exclusive and often opposing Truths and this is dangerously catalytic. Inter-group violence only happens because people (whether we be ‘us protestants’ or ‘we of Aryan blood’ or whatever) are hardwired to seeing category differences between each other rather than seeing us all as the same nasty little children of God.
Again, rather more complicated than 1 or 2 or 3.
Anyway, the assertions we're making in response to 1, 2, and 3 are:
A. 1 is way too simplistic.
B. Yes, we say 1 is way too simplistic.
C. If A is true, then B isn't bad.
D. If A is true, then saying 1 may itself make the problems worse rather than better.
E. It seems you have a problem with people arguing A. That is unreasonable.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0