@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

Interesting that a fundamentalist Christian is arguing a completely nihilist position. Nye could have done much better in responding to him: that we have a moral obligation to future generations to enable the species to continue to evolve and survive indefinitely. A scientific treatment of global climate change can provide us direction in how to ameliorate adverse changes that current and prior generations have created, whereas the "Christian" position, that global climate change is the result of sins by our current culture, doesn't lead to an effective strategy to ensure survival of the species.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

I used to think the same thing, because that seems logical, because you're a logical person, but for a fundamentalist's mind, it's not the case at all.

ISIS themselves have stated in their magazine "Dabiq" that the war and bombing is the smallest concern for their motivation. Sam Harris reads this magazine, and about 29 minutes in to this podcast, the magazine goes out of it's way to mention that US/Allied invasion is not the motivator.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want/
The truth is much scarier than my rational imagination could have ever come up with.

Most extremists also aren't people who have been affected by war and just want revenge or have mental war scars. The people flying the planes in 9/11 for example were western university educated, engineers, doctors. And other extremists often have grown up in western countries.

These people are fanatics

There are two issues here.

Radicalization is the first part of it. And while terrorism, is loud, scary and happening now, it's impact is quite small to the well-being of society as a whole.

The second part, however: the erosion of progressive values over generations, is a much bigger threat to everything society has fought and bled for over centuries.

I've been listening to a lot of Sam Harris podcasts lately, and once you have grasp of the statistics, urgency and severity of what is happening and what the future holds, then you realise Penn is very very wrong on this one.

The solution is not immigration, but foreign aid. We need to erode their fundamentalist ideologies in their own countries, not the other way around.

And no I don't have Islamophobia, my fear is completely rational and based on reason.

IMO, to be devout in any religion, you must be a fundamentalist. If you believe you have access to the direct instructions from GOD, and you believe in that god, yet you ignore the parts you dislike, you aren't following the religion and are an infidel, not devout. EDIT: Unless your text specifically allows you to use your own morality and interpretations, but I have not heard of a religion that does that.
As I see it, if you apply your own morality you are creating your own religion. Codified religions come with a defined set of morals that are unmodifiable, indisputable and unquestionable. If you question them, you question god, so can't be devout or following the religion. (This would be a good reason for any true believer to read only the original texts in their original tongue, not a translated version that's someone else's interpretation of the meaning.)

The religious texts are the central authority, they all contain specific rules and requirements. If you ignore some of those, IMO, you aren't honestly religious, you're a fan of religion.

I grew up in the deep south. I can say for certain that you are wrong that almost everyone ignores the outdated bits, but it's correct that most do hide the fact that they believe them because they know it makes them look terrible....but get them at a church picnic and you'll find out they do think slavery is fine, and whores should be stoned to death, etc. They are just mostly too chicken shit to do it themselves, as their book directs them to, because they're afraid of repercussion (and because they don't really believe god will protect them for being righteous, or that heaven is enough reward for being a martyr).

So which is it?

Either you can be a Christian or a Muslim and apply your own morality to your religion ...

or

you're not a Christian or a Muslim unless you're a literal fundamentalist?

Given there isn't really some kind of central authority on who is or isn't Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, I think it's fair to say that if you believe in the general tenets of your religion, you are a christian/muslim/pastafarian.

IMO, most people are generally good despite their religion. While a few do good works because of their religion, almost everyone ignores the outdated bits (slaverly, etc)

I don't care for Christian lies any more than Muslim lies. In the world we live in, in the time we live in, fundamentalists of one of these religions is responsible for quite a bit more suffering. This is primarily due to the neutering of the Christians political power by secular society. When christianity had real power it was just as wicked.

So your are really saying not to show any media or such indicating fundamentalist radical ISIL / Muslim etc ?


That would be putting you head in the sand.

Hear no evil
See no evil


Wrong.

Point out the Bullies in the world and do something about it.
Meet the problem head on.

That you would make the comment at all shows that you think it's worth noting that 'Look, this one ISN'T a fundamentalist, and this Arab looking woman isn't being subjugated!', only leaving out "now I've seen everything."
For me, that's what was disturbing, the apparent surprise that any random Arab family might NOT be Islamic extremists.

I got your point about there being fundamentalists in other religions, but that's not the point. You would not see a white man encouraging his daughter to dance and say "Look, she's not wearing the little house on the prairie dress. Dad must not be a fundamentalist.", or a Semite with their daughter and say "She's not wearing a sheitel (wig) or a tichel (headscarf). Dad must not be a fundamentalist.", and when people jump to that disparaging (even subconsciously racist?) conclusion about them apparently based solely on their skin color and/or accent, it's unseemly (to me) and is exemplary of a problem.

EDIT: Also, I don't understand your 'diagram'. shouldn't it be
(non fundamentalists (religious people) fundamentalists)
or more clearly but probably not proper punctuation-
[non fundamentalists (religious people] fundamentalists)
Or even-
[non religious people-{non fundamentalists]-(religious people}-fundamentalist)
?

@Drachen_Jager

I think the point that eric was trying to make is this:

There is something intrinsically wrong in having religion be the thing that is commented on AT ALL when it comes to Arabic people.

I did it myself in my description of the vid -- masked by the generic word "culture."

We don't do that native Americans -- sort out where they fall on a religious spectrum. We don't do that to generic white people. But when it comes to Arabs, the first thing we do is sort out in our minds -- moderate? fundamentalist? do we even consider they could be atheist?

It is a fact that this young woman is NOT a fundamentalist of ANY religion, nor is her encouraging father.

What is sad is that we sort by religion first. And I did it myself.

I think @eric3579 is correct -- we need to push back against instantly falling into any stereotypical thinking, and let people be people just in themselves.

We're human, though. We are going to fall into stereotypes. The trick is to not stay there.

Wow, do I need to draw a venn diagram every time I comment here?

(non funda(mentalists - religious people (fundamentalists))

The group of non-fundamentalists includes religious and non-religious people. My comment was in response to the video's comment.

She's out in that dress and no veil.

Obviously Dad's not a fundamentalist.

Also it's worth noting that there are Christian strongholds in America that would be scandalized by such behavior from their youth and don't get me started on Orthodox Jews.

It's not a problem with one religion, it's a problem with the extremists within EVERY religion. Extremism takes hold more easily in poor/poorly educated populations, so the answer isn't bomb the crap out of them, the answer is to educate and lift them out of poverty.