Salon: What we really talk about when we talk about religion.

[lindysalsagal]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/19/what_we_really_talk_about_when_we_talk_about_religion/

In every heated conversation about faith and violence, there's one thing that everybody gets wrong

by Sean McElwee

The conclusion:

Religion will always exist and will reflect material circumstances; it is therefore best to support religious moderates, but also remove the despair and deprivation that allow violent ideologies to flourish.

[mr blur]

1. Why is it "therefore best to support religious moderates"?

Yes, I've read it.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. otherwise the immoderates will kill you for blasphemy.

So you have your choice. Not supporting any of them has been taken off the table. I suggest praying to -insert your god here- right f'ing now.

[cbayer]

11. The author makes a good case for that.

How do you think he reached that conclusion? If you disagree with his conclusion, where do you find it faulty?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. 'Religious moderates' includes Nouri al-Maliki and George Bush

The article is not a good argument for supporting religious moderates as a group. It's an argument against colonialism and imperialism. It does make an argument for "removing the despair and deprivation that allow violent ideologies to flourish", but "supporting religious moderates" seems to be piggybacking on that.

[cbayer]

19. According to whose definition are those two moderates?

I don't even think there is a group, just a distinction between moderates and extremists. He uses the term one time and doesn't define it.

What is your objection to that? The only thing I can imagine is that supporting anything religious is an anathema.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. The clue is in the paragraph about US, English and French scientists all finding themselves smartest

McElwee is "a poorly-practicing Christian". He is a religious moderate. Therefore, it is best to support religious moderates.

[cbayer]

17. So anyone who identifies with a religion but doesn't practice it much is a religious moderate?

That would pretty much describe most religious people and be a good reason to support religious moderates, as they are quite representaive.

It seems to me he is acknowledging that religion is a reality and not going anywhere and it is best to support the moderates as opposed to the extremists.

I fail to see how this is problematic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The article is also a swipe at the New Atheists

"This leads to the core delusion pushed by the Maher/Harris/Dawkins “New Atheist” team"
"Ironically, the “New Atheists” share with Christian conservatives their desire to use history as nothing but an ideological bludgeon"
"A more correct assessment is that the material circumstances in the Middle East, many of them the legacy of colonial repression and exploitation, are the motherlode of bad ideas. But it is Maher and Harris (and, of course, Hitchens) who support these very policies."

Of course, Hitchens - because he's dead, but he needs to be dragged into anything McElwee writes about religion. With Dawkins as a bonus. Nothing in the article about what Hitchens or Dawkins said, but still, the side-swipe is needed. I have no idea where he's pulled "history as nothing but an ideological bludgeon" from, or what he means by it.

But, having attacked the 'New Atheist team' and their 'delusion', and classed them with Christian conservatives, there's no call for supporting non-religious moderates. Religion is, for some unstated reason, necessary.

[cbayer]

21. He does take issue with Maher/Harris/Dawkins, but many people also have

objections to their positions regarding Islam. It's not a "swipe", it's a legitimate criticism.

I think he sees them as just another set of extremists, which, again, is something that he is certainly not alone in thinking. It is not that difficult to see similarities between some of their positions and the positions of christian conservatives. This "one way" ideology and the wish to eradicate the others ("together we will find a cure&quot is all part of the same tune.

As for me, I'll take moderates any day when it comes to religion. And since religion isn't going anywhere, I agree with his conclusion.

[lindysalsagal]

45. He says religion will always exist, not that it's necessary.

He's right that the moderates don't foment violence.

I like his point that religion always flexes to circumstances. To me, that's the clue that he's anything but complimentary.

[skepticscott]

2. The author overlooks the fact

that religion and religious belief are never the cause of violence. That fact has been declared by Wise People all over this board, ocean-loving and otherwise.

[lindysalsagal]

6. The author states that fact plainly:It's the point of the article: Religion isn't the cause

of terrorism: Economic and political problems are the cause: Religion is always changing with circumstances.

This leads to the core delusion pushed by the Maher/Harris/Dawkins “New Atheist” team: that religion exists independently of social, political and economic systems, and that religion influences these structures. In fact, the opposite is true: Religion is largely the handmaiden of economic and political power. It is fluid, able to mold to whatever needs are suited to those wielding it.

[edhopper]

9. Yes that's it

If we can find any other contributing factor then religion, the deeply held beliefs that people have killed and died for, the thing that informs every part of their lives because they are sure that is exactly what God wants. That thing must be excused from causing anything.

[lindysalsagal]

12. Personally, I'm a 100% atheist. So that's not my agenda here.

The author states that no matter what the terrorist's ideology details, or excuses, they'd be looking for a revolution, and we (the western world) have contributed to their feeling that nothing short of elimination of their oppressors will satisfy them.

The author is saying that if we just shrug our shoulders and point the finger at religion, nothing changes. More attacks will be expected. Real change that would reduce the desire for killing would mean giving 3rd world people a reason to work together. Western colonization and our occupations have not exactly helped them feel like we are their friends.

Western civilization is not interested in sharing the wealth. Until we see that, this will be our future.

Ideology springs from real-world circumstances: Not the other way around. If all islamists felt they were given the same opportunities of the west, their religion would adapt to the new circumstances. That's the point of the article.

[edhopper]

13. How does that account for

Muslims living middle class lives in the west who turn to terrorism?

I was thinking of larger issues than just terrorism, Manny discussed on this forum where religion is denied as a causation.

[lindysalsagal]

33. We're talking in generalities, of course. There are always borderline cases

where people turn violent and seek out generally accepted excuses. But that's not the same thing as saying that any one religion deliberately and systematically teaches violence as its central purpose and expression.
Otherwise, every muslim who goes to pray would arrive armed and attempt a killing on the way home. That's not happening.

People and circumstances are always stronger than doctrine. Doctrine is used as a semi-legitimate excuse for all manner of unethical immoral and illegal acts, but the doctrine itself does not universally promote violence.

[edhopper]

37. I think we are talking about different things

You are right that we cannot group all people of one religion and say that religion causes this or that.
Religions are not monolithic and their adherents don't believe the same things.
But at the same time we can point to the specific religions beliefs as the cause of bad actions.
Maybe we can rephrase and not say "this religion causes..." but rather "these religious beliefs do cause..."

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. How does that account for

ISIS terrorizing local religious minorities like the Yazidis and Christians, and forcing them to convert - or face death? How does it account for them fighting the Kurds, who have no country of their own?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. "Religion will always exist" - perhaps but not as a dominant social force.

In many regions of the world the influence of religion is waning as the number of people in those regions who do not identify as religious increases. There is no reason to assume that "religion will always" - be such a major problem - but instead I am quite optimistic that the opposite is true, that outside of a few peculiar outliers, developed and developing countries are becoming increasingly secular and the problems that religion is causing in the world will diminish.

We don't need to coddle religious moderates for fear that if we don't the awful religious radicals will dominate. We just need to wait them out and ride out the death throes of religiosity.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. You hit the nail on the head, but unfortunately

the U.S. is still dominated by religion, both politically and culturally, and I don't see that changing for at least another few generations, if ever. Maybe it won't ever change since U.S. extremists are born and bred in the incubators of our religious congregations, and extremist religious belief is not only tolerated in the U.S. but encouraged as a positive trait.

[Promethean]

36. It is an interesting situation.

Ask the people who are old enough and don't have any skin in the game and they'll tell you religion was present but really not talked about when they were young. The prevalent extreme fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. A case can be made that it is a response to decreasing religiosity overall and is a sign of religion in decline. I agree with this with addendums. There are studies showing that both Atheism and Fundamentalism are on the rise in the US. The only way this would be the case is if "moderates" were picking sides at increasing rates. Ideally the vileness of the fundies would eventually lead to their demise but they have the backing of the powers that be who recognize the usefulness of religion as a tool of control.

[Fumesucker]

5. Some of the worst crackpots seem to have large sums of money

And the Muslims who flew the planes into the WTC were middle to upper middle class, not poverty stricken.

[lindysalsagal]

8. I don't actually know, but maybe it was more about

politics for them, and the results of colonization.

One way or another, those men felt they had nothing to gain from continuing on this planet.

Your average bus suicide bomber actually feels impoverished and hopeless. That's what we need to accept:

Just like ebola: If we continue to relegate large portions of the earth's population to hopelessness, we in the first world will pay for it eventually.

Still, we put our heads in the sand and turn on Big Brother, American Idol, and Desperate Housewives.

[Fumesucker]

10. Maybe they felt they had more to gain by leaving the planet?

For some reason it's probably politically incorrect to speculate about a lot of Muslim men seem really hung up about female virginity.

They die in jihad for Allah and they get 72 perpetual virgins for eternity.

[okasha]

28. Or maybe 72 white grapes,

according to an alternate reading. (Ie., abundant food and drink forever.)

But the 72 virgins really seem to stir up the ol' Western testosterone.

[edgineered]

7. I'll rec your post,

Can't stick around for any incoming mortars though, I'm between working on a swamp buggy, taking a long drive, and going to the billiards. I admire your bravery! Got to go, have fun!

[cbayer]

18. Good article and a position I resonate with.

Those who wish to rid the world of religion are tilting at windmills and may even force extremists further into their corners.

It is best to work side by side with religious moderates to counter the extremists.

[Cartoonist]

22. Can't buy it

Religious extremists need religious moderates to keep them afloat. Just like the World Series champs need a farm system to produce all-stars.

[cbayer]

23. The comparison of World Series Champs and religious extremists really doesn't make

sense.

The world series champs are the cream of the crop when it comes to baseball players.

Religious extremists don't represent the cream of the crop at all. They are often most easily recruited because of their degree of desperation and hopelessness.

The world series champs value their farm teams. The religious extremists want to destroy the moderates.

They don't need moderates to keep them afloat. All they need is other extremists.

[Cartoonist]

24. It depends

I know that there are people who would never blame religion for anything bad. Some of them are sailors. The comparison is still valid. You're just making a moral comparison that is not in my analogy. ISIS has no identity without Islam. They aren't fighting for economic rights or environmental issues or anything else, they are fighting for their version of their holy book.

[cbayer]

25. I've never met anyone who would never recognize the bad things

that have happened because of religion, but you may have. Not clear what that has to do with sailors, other than you have grabbed on to a juvenile meme that is being used to ridicule and attack other individuals because of their lifestyle choices. That's kind of sad, but not entirely surprising.

[Cartoonist]

29. You're good at seeing things that aren't there

to ridicule and attack other individuals because of their lifestyle choices.
-
If you think I have anything against sailors, then you are woefully mistaken.
You consistently ascribe meanings to what has been said that aren't there. That's why you are a popular ignore figure.

[cbayer]

30. Let's be honest here, whaddaya say?

Why did you bring the sailing thing into the conversation?

Come on, give it a shot and be honest.

It's juvenile and beneath you.

[Cartoonist]

31. It's just an offhand remark

Don't take it personally and alert on me. Let's be honest, have you ever done that? I have.

[cbayer]

32. Bullshit.

[MellowDem]

26. Terrible, non-sensical article with bad analogies...

Who gets to decide what a "religious moderate" is?

I'm capable of recognizing that many factors go into violence beyond religion, but I'm also capable of seeing religion, it's fundamental beliefs, as one of those factors. And I'm also capable of finding the fundamental beliefs and texts of a religion to be immoral and likely to induce violent behavior and ideas.

That makes supporting even religious moderates impossible. Liking them more than radicals? Sure, but I don't support their ideas and I find their ideas extreme as well, just slightly less so.

[trotsky]

34. Why MellowDem, it's easy.

I'm a religious moderate, and everyone who believes something I think is extreme is an extremist! Oh, and what I take literally from my holy book is OK, but anyone who takes anything else in it literally is a literalist.

See how simple that is! Amazing how we mean nasty atheists just don't get it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. That's bullshit.

It is best to entrust social services to neutral, decidedly more capable secular institutions (like government) instead of leaving religious organizations to pick up the slack. It seems to have worked in Scandinavia.

[cbayer]

38. And when the governments and secular agencies really step up to the

plate and provide adequate social services to the neediest on this planet, I think it would be appropriate to ask religious organizations to step down. But until they do that, religious organizations provide critical services.

Scandinavia is a wealthy and very homogeneous region. The rest of the world doesn't really look like them.

[NYC_SKP]

39. Recommended as a rational, impartial, and objective discussion of the topic. A good read.

To wish away all religions or to wish away all but one's own religion, just because, is a form of denial and ignorance of context.

All belief systems are contextual, all are "valid" in the sense that they grew within particular sets of social and environmental conditions and experiences.

This does not make them necessarily "fair" or "right", but they are nonetheless valid and they undeniably play very real and significant roles, some good, others bad.

Thanks, lindysalsagal, for posting this.

[mr blur]

41. I can't believe you are so confused,

as to write this rubbish.

[NYC_SKP]

43. To call another's composition "rubbish" is rude and childish.

You could have taken the high road and just ignored it, or the more intelligent road and responded to parts with which you disagree.

You offer nothing to the discussion.

[mr blur]

40. The fact is that the "average" Christian is a religious moderate,

and it is all of them together which legitimizes the extremists. It's the same faith, just taken to different degrees. As soon as a sect of people agree that a god exists then they are all acting under the influence of the same delusion. Without the millions of moderate Catholics, you couldn't have the rapist priests. Without the millions of moderate Muslims you couldn't have the extremists beheading people in the name of the same god.

[rug]

42. I love how you uses the word "fact: before recycling a tired out opinion.

[NYC_SKP]

44. You've been around these groups a while...

Why do you suppose it is that people who profess to be atheists or agnostics and who have their own safe haven group where they can be free to write whatever they want to feel a need to come into a perfectly innocuous thread in the religion group and post insults and toxic comments?

It never seems to lead to anything productive or constructive and seems more like really petty and juvenile behavior.

I just don't get it.

[rug]

46. Because it has less to do with atheism or agnosticism than it does with establishing superiority.

Or attempting to.

It doesn't even have anything to do with separation of church and state. That very serious and necessary fight doesn't need blather about unicorns and teapots.

You saw the exact same crap in the Lounge Wars five years ago. The only difference is those were about burps, Italian restaurants and woodcarvers. And eggs. I almost forgot the one about eggs from free range chickens. (On second thought, the difference is very slight.)

It boils down to trolling. Check the chortling in that "safe haven" for demonstrable evidence. Or a thread in here at random. Why people get off on it eludes me.

[NYC_SKP]

47. It totally reminds me of the Lounge Wars.

The cliques and the nastiness and swarming.

Amazing and pathetic.