Print
Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says
by The Vancouver Sun
Thanks to John Mertes for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=0cd104c9-63d4-4d78-8a49-b1f086c9462e&p=1
Former CIA official, now an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, argues that a 9/11-type attack would have been likely anyway
Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008
VANCOUVER - A terrorist attack on the U.S. like that launched on Sept. 11, 2001 would likely have occurred even if the Muslim religion had never existed, says a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency who now makes his home in Squamish.
"If not 9/11, some similar event like it was destined to come," writes Graham Fuller, an expert on political Islam who was in charge of long-term strategic forecasting for the CIA, in the cover story of this month's issue of the magazine Foreign Policy.
Fuller, an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, argues in his opinion piece, titled A World Without Islam, that though Islam provides a convenient scapegoat for those trying to explain the origins of terrorism, violent reformers would have likely arisen out of the Middle East even if the region had remained largely Christian.
"A world without Islam would still see most of the enduring bloody rivalries whose wars and tribulations dominate the geopolitical landscape," says Fuller, author of many books, including The Future of Political Islam.
"In the bluntest of terms, would there have been a 9/11 without Islam? . . . It's important to remember how easily religion can be invoked when other long-standing grievances are to blame. Sept. 11, 2001, was not the beginning of history."
It's too comfortable for Western observers to ignore a long history of Western colonialism in the Middle East while blindly identifying Islam as the key source of global tension, Fuller says.
"It's much easier than exploring the impact of the massive global footprint of the world's sole superpower," writes Fuller, who was an intelligence agent and strategist in the highest echelons of the CIA until 1988, before moving to the Rand Corporation think-tank. With the CIA, he spent most of his career in Muslim countries, advising top U.S. government officials.
If Mohammed had never founded Islam in seventh-century Arabia, Fuller writes, the Middle East would likely have become dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which has had a history of often-violent conflict with the West and the Roman Catholic church, including during the Crusades.
"Today, the U.S. occupation of Iraq would be no more welcome to Iraqis if they were Christian. The United States did not overthrow Saddam Hussein, an intensely nationalist and secular leader, because he was Muslim . . . Nowhere do people welcome foreign occupation and the killing of their citizens at the hands of foreign troops."
A Middle East dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christians would have responded much like the now-Muslim region to Western foreign invasion, the West's establishment of pliable puppet leaders and the West's undying efforts to control oil supplies, Fuller writes.
"It wasn't Islam that made Middle Eastern states powerfully resist the colonial project, with its drastic redrawing of borders in accordance with European geopolitical preferences," Fuller writes in Foreign Policy, which won the 2007 U.S. National Magazine Award for general excellence.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity "maintains residual fears about the West that parallel in many ways current Muslim insecurities: fears of Western missionary proselytism, a tendency to perceive religion as a key vehicle for protection of their own communities and culture, and a suspicion of the 'corrupted' and imperial character of the West."
The Middle East, without Islam, would still be challenged, Fuller says, by ethnic rivalries involving Turks, Kurds, Jews, Persians, Arabs and others -- all of whom remain involved in ongoing conflicts over power, territory, influence and trade.
To those who suggest Islam is inherently anti-democratic, Fuller responds that Christians have supported recent dictatorships in Latin America and Europe, including in Spain, Portugal, Greece and even contemporary Russia.
Fuller, 69, who has lived for several years with his wife, Prue, in Squamish, where he plans to remain, also doesn't let off the hook those atheists who like to blame religion, whether Islam or Christianity, for inciting much of the planet's violence.
He notes that the "principal horrors" of the 20th century "came almost exclusively from strictly secular regimes: Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It was Europeans who visited their 'world wars' twice upon the rest of the world -- two devastating global conflicts with no remote parallels in Islamic history."
dtodd@png.canwest.com
To reach Douglas Todd, go to his blog at www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/blogs
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=0cd104c9-63d4-4d78-8a49-b1f086c9462e&p=1
Former CIA official, now an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, argues that a 9/11-type attack would have been likely anyway
Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008
VANCOUVER - A terrorist attack on the U.S. like that launched on Sept. 11, 2001 would likely have occurred even if the Muslim religion had never existed, says a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency who now makes his home in Squamish.
"If not 9/11, some similar event like it was destined to come," writes Graham Fuller, an expert on political Islam who was in charge of long-term strategic forecasting for the CIA, in the cover story of this month's issue of the magazine Foreign Policy.
Fuller, an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, argues in his opinion piece, titled A World Without Islam, that though Islam provides a convenient scapegoat for those trying to explain the origins of terrorism, violent reformers would have likely arisen out of the Middle East even if the region had remained largely Christian.
"A world without Islam would still see most of the enduring bloody rivalries whose wars and tribulations dominate the geopolitical landscape," says Fuller, author of many books, including The Future of Political Islam.
"In the bluntest of terms, would there have been a 9/11 without Islam? . . . It's important to remember how easily religion can be invoked when other long-standing grievances are to blame. Sept. 11, 2001, was not the beginning of history."
It's too comfortable for Western observers to ignore a long history of Western colonialism in the Middle East while blindly identifying Islam as the key source of global tension, Fuller says.
"It's much easier than exploring the impact of the massive global footprint of the world's sole superpower," writes Fuller, who was an intelligence agent and strategist in the highest echelons of the CIA until 1988, before moving to the Rand Corporation think-tank. With the CIA, he spent most of his career in Muslim countries, advising top U.S. government officials.
If Mohammed had never founded Islam in seventh-century Arabia, Fuller writes, the Middle East would likely have become dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which has had a history of often-violent conflict with the West and the Roman Catholic church, including during the Crusades.
"Today, the U.S. occupation of Iraq would be no more welcome to Iraqis if they were Christian. The United States did not overthrow Saddam Hussein, an intensely nationalist and secular leader, because he was Muslim . . . Nowhere do people welcome foreign occupation and the killing of their citizens at the hands of foreign troops."
A Middle East dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christians would have responded much like the now-Muslim region to Western foreign invasion, the West's establishment of pliable puppet leaders and the West's undying efforts to control oil supplies, Fuller writes.
"It wasn't Islam that made Middle Eastern states powerfully resist the colonial project, with its drastic redrawing of borders in accordance with European geopolitical preferences," Fuller writes in Foreign Policy, which won the 2007 U.S. National Magazine Award for general excellence.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity "maintains residual fears about the West that parallel in many ways current Muslim insecurities: fears of Western missionary proselytism, a tendency to perceive religion as a key vehicle for protection of their own communities and culture, and a suspicion of the 'corrupted' and imperial character of the West."
The Middle East, without Islam, would still be challenged, Fuller says, by ethnic rivalries involving Turks, Kurds, Jews, Persians, Arabs and others -- all of whom remain involved in ongoing conflicts over power, territory, influence and trade.
To those who suggest Islam is inherently anti-democratic, Fuller responds that Christians have supported recent dictatorships in Latin America and Europe, including in Spain, Portugal, Greece and even contemporary Russia.
Fuller, 69, who has lived for several years with his wife, Prue, in Squamish, where he plans to remain, also doesn't let off the hook those atheists who like to blame religion, whether Islam or Christianity, for inciting much of the planet's violence.
He notes that the "principal horrors" of the 20th century "came almost exclusively from strictly secular regimes: Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It was Europeans who visited their 'world wars' twice upon the rest of the world -- two devastating global conflicts with no remote parallels in Islamic history."
dtodd@png.canwest.com
To reach Douglas Todd, go to his blog at www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/blogs
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 115 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #130865 by ianmkz on February 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Leopold II of Belgium? Other Comments by ianmkz
3. Comment #130868 by Donald on February 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Todd does not say whether Fuller addresses the issue of the specifically territorial claims of Judaism and Islam in their religious texts. Could that have anything to do with the above-average intensity and duration of the Middle East conflicts?Other Comments by Donald
4. Comment #130870 by JamesDB on February 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This is a pretty interesting take on terrorism, I wouldn't say that i agree though.
Its hard to say that these attacks weren't faith based when the suicide bombers scream out allah's name as they push the button.
I do however agree that the U.S. has pushed its way into far too many places it doesn't belong and I can understand how residents of those countries would have an issue with americans.
I just wouldn't go so far to say that because the U.S. is a bully, people start flying planes into buildings and strapping bombs to their chests. Religion seems to be the only motive for those loony toons.
Other Comments by JamesDB
5. Comment #130872 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Violence is endemic to humanity.
Religion facilitates and instigates its use. Any foolish dogma increases the likelyhood of violence. Islam is one shared by about 1.5 billion people. Plenty more dogma out there.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
6. Comment #130874 by Steve Zara on February 21, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Al: I am not sure violence is that endemic. I saw a recent lecture by Stephen Pinker than showed that, in terms of deaths per unit of population, we are a far less violent race now than we have ever been (surprising, I know, but there you go).However, I fully agree that religion facilitates the use of violence. Nothing like having a "whatever you believe, the creator supports it" framework to encourage the worst in people, and bypass conscience.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
7. Comment #130875 by Quetzalcoatl on February 21, 2008 at 12:21 pm
In the bluntest of terms, would there have been a 9/11 without Islam?
Would there have been a 9/11 without religion?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
8. Comment #130877 by Jolly Bloger on February 21, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Is his argument that were it not for Islam, Christianity would be the rationalization for the majority of global terrorism? I don't disagree with that!The logic is a little faulty though. "Terrorism would exist without Islam, therefore don't blame Islam." That's like saying if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland then someone else may have, so we shouldn't vilify Hitler.
Coincidentally, I'm from Vancouver myself, and the general attitude is pretty close to this kind of "let's not offend anyone" stuff.
Other Comments by Jolly Bloger
9. Comment #130879 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Steve,
Let me revise...
We have historically been violent. There is a trend away from that, except where religion remains prevelant. Where religion dominates life, so does violence. The less religious a society gets the less internally violent.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
10. Comment #130881 by Gymnopedie on February 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Blaming America only goes so far. The violence is disproportionately Islamic (or so the perpetrators claim) and is not just directed at the west, as I think many of us were quite sickened with the serial bombings of Buddhist statues a few months ago, not to mention the status of Dhimmi which was around long before America was ever founded. If the violence was directed only towards the West, then there would be something to this argument.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
11. Comment #130883 by Quetzalcoatl on February 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm
It's too comfortable for Western observers to ignore a long history of Western colonialism in the Middle East while blindly identifying Islam as the key source of global tension, Fuller says.
Hmmph. Some Western observers are all too keen to blame colonialism for all the world's current ills, and to prevent us getting involved in matters abroad.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
12. Comment #130884 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Gymnopedie,
I agree on the disgust for Dhimmitude and Islamic violence. But what about American economic violence? It's commitment to the overthrow of democracies that remained unpliable? It's self bestowed right to use military force for economic ends? Any weight to those arguments?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
13. Comment #130886 by info_dump on February 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jolly Blogger,Those are my thoughts exactly. His arguments don't let Islam off the hook.
Also, I'm from Vancouver too, and I agree. It's definitely not cool to say anything that could be considered offensive to muslims, or anything that would threaten our "multi-cultural" values. I'm beginning to realize that multiculturalism in its present form isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Other Comments by info_dump
14. Comment #130888 by sidfaiwu on February 21, 2008 at 12:48 pm
It's definitely not cool to say anything that could be considered offensive to muslims, or anything that would threaten our "multi-cultural" values. I'm beginning to realize that multiculturalism in its present form isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I've noticed this trend as well. At some point, multiculturalism stopped being a means to integrate different cultures and started being a way to reinforce cultural differences.
Other Comments by sidfaiwu
15. Comment #130889 by Gymnopedie on February 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm
al-rawandi,could you be a bit more specific? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "economic violence" and using "military force for economic ends". Which unpliable democracies are you referring to? The US support for nations is practically arbitrary at this point. Ex) Throw money at Israel then show support for Palestine with financial aid. The US loves cognitive dissonance.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
16. Comment #130891 by atheist_peace on February 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
He's right, we shouldn't blame Islam for terrorism. All religions are at fault.PS. Nice to see there are people from Vancouver here :)
Other Comments by atheist_peace
17. Comment #130892 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Economic Violence: Sanctions on Iraq. 4,500 children died per month. Billions to Israel to buy weapons from American companies. Using economic institutions to use exploitative lending practices to impoverished nations.
Military for economic ends: Military Industrial complex. Shooting bullets at anything will reimburse corporations for their campaign contributions. Iraq (2x).
Unpliable nations: Mosadegh, Sandinistas, Seychelles, Omar Torrijos, Salvadore Allende, etc... Not to mention helping dictators crush populist movements all over the globe.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
18. Comment #130898 by MrPickwick on February 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Leopold II killed several million people in Congo. Although his main goal was money and power he used religion as an aliby whenever he could to justify his deeds. He was a devout roman catholic and when he died he was interred at the Church of Our Lady in Brussels. When he was having financial difficulties, while murdering african people, he asked the Pope to help him on the grounds that what he was doing in Africa was "spreading the word of God among infidels". He also hired the famous explores Stanley, the same guy that was very proud of having taught the King of Uganda the 10 commandments and also converted him to christianity (It was found later that the King only accepted the conversion after Stanley told him there was another commandment, number 11, that stated that Kings should be respected and obeyed because their power was given by God).Maybe religion is not the main cause but it surely helps... A LOT!
Other Comments by MrPickwick
19. Comment #130901 by Gymnopedie on February 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm
al-rawandi,The US no doubt has had its share of foreign policy blunders, but I don't exactly see where the connection is between that and Islamic terrorism. The terrorists/Jihadists use Islam to justify their actions against a great diversity of people, not US foreign policy. And non-Muslim nations we have terrible foreign policy with did not blow up the twin towers. The dots just don't seem to connect.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
20. Comment #130904 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Gymnopedie,
I wasn't trying to insinuate the US policy is the sole, or even major cause.
I was trying to say that the US has done things that makes Islamic violence pale in comparison. It has done so for a longer period of time, and has done so for equally sinister reasons.
I would like to also state that I would rather have the US have this kind of power than Muslims. If the muslims had this power... I cannot imagine. That being said, we Americans should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
21. Comment #130915 by BAEOZ on February 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm
To those who suggest Islam is inherently anti-democratic, Fuller responds that Christians have supported recent dictatorships...
He doesn't dispute that Islam is anti-democratic, but hey, it's no worse than Christianity. I love that kind of reasoning.
also doesn't let off the hook those atheists who like to blame religion, whether Islam or Christianity, for inciting much of the planet's violence.
He notes that the "principal horrors" of the 20th century "came almost exclusively from strictly secular regimes: Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Never heard this line before. How novel.
Sidfaiwu:
At some point, multiculturalism stopped being a means to integrate different cultures and started being a way to reinforce cultural differences.
When you tell each group that its own culture applies then you're being racist. Muslim women have to obey muslim rules, etc. They don't get the law of the land.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
22. Comment #130917 by Quetzalcoatl on February 21, 2008 at 1:43 pm
BAEOZ-
Never heard this line before. How novel
At least he didn't call them "atheist" regimes.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
23. Comment #130921 by jimbob on February 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Fuller, 69, who has lived for several years with his wife, Prue, in Squamish, where he plans to remain, also doesn't let off the hook those atheists who like to blame religion, whether Islam or Christianity, for inciting much of the planet's violence.
Hey, I don't blame religion exclusively---it's dogmatic ideologies in general! The "principal horrors" of the last century or so have all been religious or quasi-religious in the sense that going against political dogmatic ideologies still gets you murdered for apostasy or heresy.
Frankly, Fuller is a doofus author for writing what amounts to an apology for islam.
Other Comments by jimbob
24. Comment #130926 by Partisan on February 21, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Well, thanks to the CIA for yet another pearl of wisdom *cough-we-swear-mr-president-there-are-WMDs-in-Iraq-cough* Other Comments by Partisan
25. Comment #130943 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I agree with jimbob,"Religion" is not to blame -it's dogmatic ideologies in general. Religions have a tendency to institutionalize dogma and transfer it down from one generation to the next, and that is a particular problem, yes. But blaming religion for 9/11 is not different than crediting religion for much of the great art and music in the world. Both blame and credit for such things rely on bad arguments.
RELATED:
BLOWING UP AN ASSUMPTION (May 20, 2005)
Over the past two years, [Robert A. Pape (University of Chicago)] compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003. A total of 315 episodes occurred, excluding attacks authorized by a national government. The lead instigator of suicide attacks, committing 76 of the 315 incidents was not an Islamic group, but rather the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group.
Pape explains that what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists consider their homeland. Religion, often used as a tool by terrorist organizations, aids in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.
From Pape's analysis, three general patterns support his conclusions:
* Nearly all suicide terrorist attacks -- 310 of the 315 -- took place as part of organized political or military campaigns.
* Democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades.
* Suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective; the sponsors of every campaign -- 18 organizations in all -- seek to establish or maintain political self-determination.
True to form, says Pape, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003. Understanding suicide terrorism as mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism holds important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1719
Other Comments by Riley
26. Comment #130945 by al-rawandi on February 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Riley,
Have you read his book "Dying to Win". All about this research. I thought it was very good.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
27. Comment #130946 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:23 pm
.ALSO RELATED:
"Freedom squelches terrorist violence",
The Harvard Gazette, November 04, 2004
Excerpt:
Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie of Harvard: "In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.
Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html
Other Comments by Riley
28. Comment #130948 by BrandySpears on February 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm
RE: Comment #130864 by KesheRYou must be an Islamofascist sympathizer.
Other Comments by BrandySpears
29. Comment #130950 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
al-rawandi, no I haven't ... but I'll put it on my list of book to check out. Thanks. Other Comments by Riley
30. Comment #130960 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm
At some point, multiculturalism stopped being a means to integrate different cultures and started being a way to reinforce cultural differences.
There are good and bad aspects of multiculturalism.
What is culture?
I wasn't sure on the exact definition so I looked it up:
-the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
I was thinking along the lines of dress and food and music and dance.
Having a multiplicity of this type of culture is not a problem for me.
"Manners"? I'm not sure about this.
"Offensive to Muslims"? How? Ofeensive to their religion? Who cares?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
31. Comment #130968 by js5535 on February 21, 2008 at 3:24 pm
How many times do we have to hear this? Hitler, Leopold(!?), and Mussolini (a convert from atheism) were theists. Mao took inspiration from a Christian rebellion in China which killed 20-30 million people about a century earlier (See Taiping Rebellion), and Lenin and Stalin WERE gods. Other Comments by js5535
32. Comment #130969 by Teratornis on February 21, 2008 at 3:25 pm
In reply to comment #130892 by al-rawandi:
Economic Violence: Sanctions on Iraq. 4,500 children died per month.
Claims like this, which may be true for all I know, make me wonder how the region which is Iraq managed to get along before there was a United Nations to impose sanctions. Since Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization, there must have been a time when the people who lived there managed to take care of themselves without much outside trade.
Also, wasn't Saddam building lots of palaces despite all the sanctions?
Other Comments by Teratornis
33. Comment #130970 by Teratornis on February 21, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Another point to consider is that the U.S. hasn't gone around invading many oil-producing countries, such as Venezuela, Mexico, or the U.K. (back before the North Sea fields peaked and went into inevitable decline). While there is no doubt oil played a large role in leading to 9/11, so did Islam.
It's like lighting a match in a room with a gas leak. It's not fair to blame the resulting explosion only on the match, or only on the gas.
Other Comments by Teratornis
34. Comment #130971 by Gymnopedie on February 21, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We get most of our oil from Canada, anyway.al-rawandi,
The only problem that comes into play is when Islamist/Jihadist supremacism is dismissed because of all the faults of US foreign policy. Responding to Islamic terrorism with "well look at what shit the US has done" is simply a logical fallacy and a world view which only masks violence. (I don't think you've espoused this position, but I think it is relevant nonetheless.)
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
35. Comment #130981 by Mitchell Gilks on February 21, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The man has somewhat of a point, only no one is arguing against him, it's a strawman he is attempting to portray critics of Islam as saying they are the "origin" and ultimate cause of terrorism. I am unaware of any intelligent person spouting such nonsense. They are merely one of several sources, not the sole cause or origin.
Without Islam people would still kill each other, who claimed they wouldn't? Though the reasons for killing each other would decrease, as religious reasons would no longer exist.
"Secular people kill people too." is not an argument that Islam shouldn't be called out for terrorism, no more than pointing that out there are other murderers besides yourself is a defence in court.
This sort of head-up-ass rhetoric annoys me.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
36. Comment #130985 by Mitchell Gilks on February 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Should also mention that all three abrahamic religions are fudementally, and inherently totalitarian, authoritarian, and anti-libratarian. Thus, anti-demoncratic at their very core.
The religions themselves, quite obviously not the people. That distinction needs to be reiterated again and again to people like him.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
37. Comment #130993 by Teratornis on February 21, 2008 at 4:52 pm
In reply to comment #130971 by Gymnopedie:
We get most of our oil from Canada, anyway.
What is your source for this claim? The U.S. Department of Energy says Canada was the largest single source of U.S. oil imports in Dec. 2007, but Canada's share was 1.78000 / 9.81800 = 18% of U.S. imports.
Number 2 on the list: Saudi Arabia, ahead of Mexico and Venezuela.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
There is a lot of misunderstanding among Americans have about where their energy comes from, and even more about where it is going to come from in the future.
Mexico and Venezuela have both peaked in conventional oil and are in irreversible decline. Both of those countries have their own problem of increasing domestic consumption to deal with.
The U.K. and Indonesia recently stopped exporting and are now importing oil.
The world is careening toward the day when there will only be five remaining oil exporters, all in the Middle East.
And then those nations too will peak and go into irreversible decline. That's why all the world's nations need to have an energy summit immediately to determine an oil depletion protocol. That is, how we will divide up the world's remaining oil fairly between the various nations, so we can avoid wars between the consuming nations (such as the U.S. and China).
As world oil production declines, every nation needs to institute conservation measures sufficient to cut its consumption in proportion to the decline in production, in an orderly way. Otherwise there will be shortages and resource wars.
Peak oil may be the most immediate threat on the table right now. Global warming and climate change have gotten overwhelmingly more media attention, but oil production could start to fall seriously behind demand Real Soon Now, and the economic and geopolitical effects could be devastating to the entire industrialized world.
In contrast, as bad as the climate change problem is, it won't impact everyone equally. Some people may actually benefit, for example as growing seasons move farther north, and the worst effects may be decades off.
Peak oil could start seriously disrupting the global economy at any time. And it won't be a temporary problem. Once the decline starts, it will get worse and worse almost every year. It will be a "Long Emergency." If the oil-starved world economy goes into a recession or a depression, it may become impossible to generate enough investment to develop alternative sources of energy fast enough.
We already have the technology to eliminate the need for most personal travel, but will we have the discipline to exploit it in time?
Other Comments by Teratornis
38. Comment #130996 by katsuosgrl on February 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I agree that religion is a great catalyst for violence.However, i think that it is very dangerous to lose sight of the other problems that exist in this world. In the case of 9/11, American foreign policy is surely more to blame than religion. Aiding military coups, plundering other countries, and other such activities are likely to provoke retaliation eventually.
The negative forces of religion, oppression politics, and both governmental and corporate greed are usually intertwined as the causes of human or environmental tragedy. While it is important to recognize each of them for what they are, and for their part in the problem, it is dangerous to explain disasters through a sole paradigm.
Other Comments by katsuosgrl
39. Comment #130998 by jimbob on February 21, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Pape explains that what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists consider their homeland. Religion, often used as a tool by terrorist organizations, aids in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.
To what extent is a belief that the martyrdom is a guaranteed route to paradise a root cause? Anybody know?
Other Comments by jimbob
40. Comment #131000 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Peak oil could start seriously disrupting the global economy at any time. And it won't be a temporary problem. Once the decline starts, it will get worse and worse almost every year. It will be a "Long Emergency." If the oil-starved world economy goes into a recession or a depression, it may become impossible to generate enough investment to develop alternative sources of energy fast enough.
Well how about going nuclear?
Other Comments by Bonzai
41. Comment #131009 by NakedCelt on February 21, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Comment #130970 by Teratornis:It's like lighting a match in a room with a gas leak. It's not fair to blame the resulting explosion only on the match, or only on the gas.
Nicely put.
Multiculturalism seems to mean different things to different people, to the point where you can't — well, I can't — just say "I agree with multiculturalism" or "I disagree with multiculturalism". Both statements are true for different applications of "multiculturalism".
Let me give a concrete example. If you walk into a job interview and shake the interviewer's hand, you're probably fine. If you lean in close and press your nose against his, chances are you won't get the job. There's no actual reason why a handshake is better than a hongi (the traditional Maori greeting), but one will get you the job and the other won't.
(I've deliberately chosen that example to forestall arguments along the lines of "Immigrants should adapt to the established culture". In my country, the handshakers are the immigrants.)
Fundies arguing against gay marriage often say "Gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straight people have." The argument "People from minority cultures have the same right to use the forms of the majority culture that people who grew up in that culture have" is exactly as logical as that. Using those forms comes automatically to people who come from the majority culture; not to people from minority cultures. That means that people from minority cultures are at an unfair disadvantage, and fixing that disadvantage is plain social justice.
If that's multiculturalism, I'm a multiculturalist. But it goes further than that. Because cultural forms like handshaking vs. hongi aren't arbitrary; they form part of a network of memes and behaviours that also include deeper parts of culture such as worldview and religion. Westerners are "cultural Christians": if I start a joke with the words "A man turns up at the Pearly Gates, and St Peter says to him..." a Westerner, even a non-believer, will recognise the religious reference and understand what has just happened to the man. To someone familiar only with Buddhism, it would be incomprehensible.
Some, realizing this, go too far the other way, and argue that cultures are all of a piece; that to try and mix the forms and values of two different cultures results in disaster. There is some evidence that seems to support this view, but on closer inspection what's generally happening in such cases is that people of a minority culture find that culture to be a burden and a shame, and so reject it — without gaining sufficient familiarity with the majority culture to be able to function competently there either. Their children's environment then consists of a despised, shameful home culture and a bewildering, overbearing majority culture. In particular, procedures for defusing conflict are culturally specific, and children from such disadvantaged backgrounds often fail to master those of either their home culture or the majority culture. And so begins the cycle of violence in immigrant and indigenous communities.
I disagree with certain self-styled multiculturalists on two points. First, what I've just described is not an inevitable result of one culture attempting to adapt to the presence of another; it happens only in the specific condition of a minority culture that is despised even by its own members — in leftie parlance, colonization. Second, while I'm sure the colonized condition doesn't help, it's not sufficient to explain violence by religious minorities. If there's one thing that stands out about minority religions, it's that they don't despise their own culture. They despise the majority culture. Rather than failing to master conflict defusion techniques, they choose not to use such techniques when conflict arises between themselves and the majority. Let God be true though every man be false!
Broadly, there are four strategies a government can adopt when faced with cultural conflict:
1. Crude nationalism — foreigners can fuck off.
2. Refined nationalism — foreigners can stop being foreign or fuck off.
3. So-called multiculturalism — foreigners can be foreign amongst themselves, and we won't bother them.
4. Integrationist multiculturalism — let's talk to these people, and make sure we all understand one another. They will be doing some things that we find unacceptable, and vice versa; those will have to be negotiated and discussed and argued over, which will take time and effort, but hopefully it's worth it in the end.
Other Comments by NakedCelt
42. Comment #131010 by notsobad on February 21, 2008 at 5:19 pm
jimbob:
Hey, I don't blame religion exclusively---it's dogmatic ideologies in general! The "principal horrors" of the last century or so have all been religious or quasi-religious in the sense that going against political dogmatic ideologies still gets you murdered for apostasy or heresy.
indeed
And saying that they are not to blame because someone would have done it anyway and that they are not to blame because someone does equally horrible things is childish.
Other Comments by notsobad
43. Comment #131011 by Socrates on February 21, 2008 at 5:20 pm
can't type... threw up on keyboard Other Comments by Socrates
44. Comment #131012 by Gymnopedie on February 21, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Oops, I meant Canada is our #1 source of oil imports, not that they provide most of our oil.But anyway, if this oil for war logic prevails, shouldn't we be attacking Canada for oil? I just can't swallow that giant conspiracy theory.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
45. Comment #131014 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm
To what extent is a belief that the martyrdom is a guaranteed route to paradise a root cause? Anybody know?
My understanding is that mainstream Islam doesn't even consider suicide attack "martyrdom". It is suicide and is strictly harem (forbidden)To be a martyr one has to die by the enemy's hand, which obviously is not the case if you strap a bomb to yourself and light the fuse. It is only the opinions of a minority of Muslim scholars (some, like OBL, are not even scholars) that suicide bombing counts as martyrdom.
So I think it is hard to argue that suicide attack is an Islamic concept. It looks more like a case of people reinterpreting their scriptures to justify their actions. If I am right it shows that the so called "fundamentalists" are just as likely to cherry pick and reinterpret their scriptures to suit their purpose. So the contention by some people (Sam Harris?) that the fundamentalists would always win in theological debates with moderates because they have the text to back them up is probably wrong,--everyone cherry picks.
Maybe Al Rawandi and clarify this.
Other Comments by Bonzai
46. Comment #131018 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Of course mainstream Islam is only that which the most Muslims believe in at a given time. It's not like religious doctrine is carved in stone...alright sometimes it is technically carved in stone. Religious doctrine is whatever its adherents say it is...it has no immutable qualities -- perhaps with the exception of the almighty excuse provider for whatever terrible act you want to commit but can't muster up any legitimate reason for.
Other Comments by Radesq
47. Comment #131021 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Of course mainstream Islam is only that which the most Muslims believe in at a given time. It's not like religious doctrine is carved in stone...alright sometimes it is technically carved in stone.
Yes, but "mainstream" Islam is built upon layers and layers of traditions, scholar edicts and religious rulings. While it changes over time it is not something that changes with the wimps of individuals. It does have a relatively stable form.
Other Comments by Bonzai
48. Comment #131025 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 6:00 pm
You are probably right Bonzai. But I think times are going to be different in the 21st century for religion. My suspicion is that religion will look and act increasingly like politics in the upcoming years. It (religion)is under threat and I think that may cause volatility and rapid change in response to environmental stress. I would expect religious fundamentalism to increase, religious conflict to increase, but I also expect to see religious cooperation between groups that normally don't like each other in the name of self preservation. Maybe weird things will happen like the ABC promoting Sharia in the UK for instance. Bald speculation perhaps...
Other Comments by Radesq
49. Comment #131027 by Teratornis on February 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm
In reply to comment #130968 by js5535:
How many times do we have to hear this?
Until we invent an efficient form of communication, one which permits us to refute an argument once, and then it stays refuted unless and until new information appears to support it.
The problem we have now is that lots of people know lots of different things, adding up to "human knowledge," but no one person knows every part of it. Compounding the matter is the odd human tendency to feel certain about things in inverse proportion to how much they actually know about them. Thus we have millions of people repeating the same mistakes.
For example, many Americans have no idea of how much of their petroleum actually comes from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Some even assume the figure is zero, without even bothering to look.
What humans need is a kind of super-intelligent assistant which will insure their factual correctness. This may not be entirely pie-in-the-sky. There is a lot of interest in building computer programs that pass the Turing test well enough to help people "intelligently" search the Internet. Such a program would need (one way or another) to have a sufficiently complete ontology (knowledge representation) so it could "read" Web pages, weigh their claims against recognized sources of fact, and then know how to answer any question that can be answered from the information on those pages.
If such programs can be built (either by humans, or most likely by a combination of humans and semi-intelligent software systems), and they really work, then humans will quickly come to trust them as they demonstrate their grasp of human knowledge.
That is, when you have a know-it-all machine that consistently proves to be correct when you ask it questions, then eventually people will come to trust the machine to provide the best available answers.
We can see the first tiny steps toward something like this on Wikipedia, where people with every point of view slug it out with each other until they have managed to write about controversial topics in a sufficiently neutral way to find what we might call a "local minimum of controversy." That is, none of the extremists like the article, but they can (just) tolerate it, and any change toward one side or another will trigger more edit warring from the offended side.
The process is somewhat similar to the scientific method, and would probably evolve toward being indistinguishable from science, given enough time, because the most convincing arguments are always from objective evidence that everyone can verify. Because a wiki allows everyone to edit, people cannot indefinitely get away with making controversial claims without backing them up with evidence. (This assumes a wiki page that lots of people are reading. A seldom-read page might contain lots of garbage, but few people view it, so it doesn't matter much.)
Once we have "truly" intelligent computer systems that "really" "understand" all human knowledge, then when someone entertains a crazy idea like "there are no transitional fossils for whales" or "the U.S. imports no oil from Saudi Arabia" they would be in the habit of running their questions past their smart computers before voicing them in public and possibly feeling embarrassed when Prof. Meyers calls them "ignorant."
Psychological studies have found that people feel less threatened by correction from a computer than from another person. This makes perfect sociobiological sense in light of the critical need for our ancestors to maintain their standing in their tribe. Nobody wants to look stupid in front of other people, but in front of the computer it's no biggie.
Of course some people will be too insane even to trust their super-intelligent computers about some things, but at least the diehard theists will be aware that there are logical objections to their claims. It is amazing to see theists voicing their arguments as if they are unaware that our side refuted their arguments centuries ago.
Other Comments by Teratornis
50. Comment #131028 by Electric Monk on February 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm
"It was Europeans who visited their 'world wars' twice upon the rest of the world -- two devastating global conflicts with no remote parallels in Islamic history."One of the main protagonists in WWI was the Ottoman Empire. So this statement is pretty stupid. Although admittedly they didn't join in for religious reasons. But then, none of the other powers involved joined in because of their atheism (in fact none except france were, in theory, entirely secular anyway - they were monarchies supported by absurd 'divine right' dogma). - Russia pulled out when it became nominally atheist although this reigeme was eventually replaced by pseudo-religious Stalinist communism.
Other Comments by Electric Monk
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work."
Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
"Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it."
Richard Dawkins
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Genome
Matt Ridley
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #130864 by KesheR on February 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm
If USA kills and destroy certain people, that certain people will eventually kill and destroy American people. That's all. 9/11 was awful, but just a tiny fraction of what USA has done to the rest of the planet for decades.Islam is what speeds up the process.
Other Comments by KesheR