How do these numbers compare to other religions?
For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Probably similar issue for other religions and possibly also among non-religious people.
Even fundamentalist Christians don't have divine commandments to kill apostates. Nor do atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Jews (well, they do, but it hasn't been in force since the Exile.)
This is a false equivalency.
Christians, ideally, are supposed to behave like Jesus. Buddhists, ideally, are supposed to behave like Buddha. Muslims, ideally, are supposed to behave like Mohammed.
These three individuals were very different.
Of course, adherents aren't ideal adherents. But you can still generally expect different behavior from each set of adherents. That's now calling one set evil and one set good (now that's some cultural imperialism!), that's recognizing reality. Muslims, historically, have taken very seriously that apostasy is a serious crime punishable by death. Christians and Buddhists, not so much; it's the rare exception and not an almost-rule.
not that religions aren't powerful. the kinds of religion-based stupidity you see in other nations is exactly the reasons why the founders of the U.S. explicitly separated church and state.
I grew up very religiously christian, but that changed after I went to war in Iraq. It took me years of reading, studying, and discussion with others to pull myself out of that mental bondage, and one of the things I realized is that it is religion itself that encourages irrationality, and that is certainly no false equivalance as you claim.
I see more American taliban where I live in the bible belt than I saw jihadists in Iraq. We have killed thousands upon thousands more men women and children. (Not debating justification at the moment)
That is not to ignore the varying of degrees of extremism and the probability scale on which one religion produces extremists over another, especially given cultural contexts which I would consider more important than the religion itself. (See differences between wahhabi suadis and shia who live in America)
That being said though, the real danger is for the west to accept the idea that this is a purely ideological war of muslim fanatics against the oh so peaceful christian (or culturally christian) west, all the time ignoring that same seed of extremism in us that mirrors our so called enemy.
Until we can admit that it is religion itself that is the danger, and the irrationality it encourages, this issue will never be solved.
Also, regarding France, And I may get downvoted for this, but wasnt France bombing in Syria for almost two months prior to the attack? I would be willing to bet they killed at least as many civilians as died in the Paris attack, not including military age males, but where is the outrage for the syrian people?
Ill tell you the main thing I realized about terrorism, is that we create terrorists faster than we kill them, and very few of them are purely reliously motivated. I put it this way to my family and friends:
I am a warrior first and foremost. If a random bomb fell on my house and killed my family, or a stray shot from an occuping nation in America killed my son, daughter, mother or wife, I can guarantee you I would be on a great warpath. If the chinese invaded America because they claimed we were a terrorist country, and kidnapped my friend, we would try to rescue him by force if necessary.
If we want to reduce terrorism, the number one way is to stop fucking bombing every country in the middle east. not just that, but we need to stop propping up every dictator who has friendly policies to us and overthrowing any democratic movement that isnt friendly. We undermine the very foundational principles of America by doing so, and we should be leading by example, and not by force.
That is not to say force should never be used, for Im not a pacifist and beleive in the right of self defense, but I am increasingly having a hard time beleiving self defense means bombing countries halfway around the world. I would like to have that debate with someone knowledgeable.
Undoubtedly, but important questions about the ethics of war aren't usually based upon the body count. They're based upon initiation of force, hostility, ability to negotiate peace, treatment of captives, willingness to adhere to treaties, etc.
World | Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:36pm EDT Related: WORLD, UNITED NATIONS, FRANCE, SYRIA France launches air strikes against Islamic State in Syria UNITED NATIONS/PARIS | BY JOHN IRISH AND DOMINIQUE VIDALON
France said on Sunday it launched its first air strikes in Syria, destroying an Islamic State training camp in the east of the country to prevent the group from carrying out attacks against French interests and to protect Syrian civilians.
France had until now only struck Islamic State targets in neighboring Iraq, carrying out just 3 percent of air strikes in an offensive on the group by a U.S.-led coalition. France has also provided limited logistical support to Syrian rebels it considers moderate, including Kurds.
This is a fallacy that's constantly repeated by atheists. It's not true. Lack of religion is just as bad, if not worse (e.g. nazis, communists).
The issue is the "us or them"-thinking that all humans are born with. We all want to belong and in trying to achieve that it's inherent in us to define our group as different from "that other group". This is human nature. The problem comes from us going too far to define our group as better than "that other group", we start to claim they are not human/not worthy to live. It quickly goes downhill from there. The dividing factor can be anything: religion, culture, politics, race, sports and so on.
Near as most can tell, Islam _is_ a central factor in recent events. A lot of people are looking for a reason to conclude it isn't; if you can explain (either way) please do.
Source: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/africa...
The Rwandan genocide, just like the Paris attacks, must've been carried out by a bunch of nutsos. They both used religion and its tools to promote and support their wicked agenda forward.
It's like saying, "You'd need to find a Jainist[1] population that's at war or serious unrest."
Their ideology tends to self-select states that aren't at war.
There is words, in the Quran, which Muslims believe every word is true and correct, that literally tells you to kill someone for leaving Islam. And before someone makes the "taken out of context", that's in context.
