The religious imperative

[sauronsfinger]

If the superiors of Hasan made an error in judgment then it is on their heads, not on Islam. For they, or anyone to attempt to hide behind the skirts of this argument is less than honest and does not advance the cause of truth or justice.

What "misguided worship of Tolerance" are you talking about? You have mentioned stuff like this over and over - changing and rechanging the name as your argument is refuted - but you never document it.

Attempting to provide a polticially motivated excuse for the superiors of Hasan not properly doing their job is disingenuous. All it does is to further a cover-up of what really happened and further hostility and misunderstanding against a major religion and its followers.

[Primula Baggins]

Relevant to the topic of the religious imperative, from this morning's Washington Post:

When a child dies, faith is no defense
Why do courts give believers a pass?

By Jonathan Turley

An excerpt:

In the past 25 years, hundreds of children are believed to have died in the United States after faith-healing parents forbade medical attention to end their sickness or protect their lives. When minors die from a lack of parental care, it is usually a matter of criminal neglect and is often tried as murder. However, when parents say the neglect was an article of faith, courts routinely hand down lighter sentences. Faithful neglect has not been used as a criminal defense, but the claim is surprisingly effective in achieving more lenient sentencing, in which judges appear to render less unto Caesar and more unto God.

Link

[solicitr]

Attempting to provide a polticially motivated excuse for the superiors of Hasan not properly doing their job is disingenuous. All it does is to further a cover-up of what really happened

I can't believe you even believe what you're saying, as you spiral into ever-more-extravagant incoherence. What "cover-up of what really happened"???

"excuse for the superiors of Hasan not properly doing their job ". And their job in this case consisted of.... what was it? Oh, yes, recognizing that Hasan's open advocacy of radical Jihadism made him a security threat.

[sauronsfinger]

Please do not be personally insulting.

If the superiors of Hasan failed to recognize him as a true threat when there was evidence that he was a threat, then that onus is upon themselves.

If we do as you seem to be suggesting, and joined by others from the right on FOX and in other parts of the media, we will have already pronounced this as a terrorist attack before the investigation is ever held and results are in.

If we do as you seem to be suggesting, and joined by others from the right on FOX and in other parts of the media, we will have already blamed the lack of oversight regarding Hasan on some vague and unspecified political correctness laid at the feet of those who would fight bigotry and intolerance.

If we do as you seem to be suggesting, and joined by others from the right on FOX and in other parts of the media, we will have already blamed the very nature of Islam itself and some of its adherents.

That is the cover-up.

I am willing to wait for the investigation to be held, the results in and analyzed and lessons to be learned before passing judgment. I would hope we all are.

To attempt to come to hasty conclusions now does nothing to advance the cause of truth and justice.

[Teremia]

I think sf's point about Hasan being home-grown, whatever his motivations, was a good one.

It was not JUST Hasan's advocacy of radical Jihadism that made him a threat, it was all the other signals that he was in trouble: mood swings, irritability, strong desire not to be deployed but feeling trapped, etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, the man was troubled, and latched onto (so it seems) an extremist branch of Islam, as other troubled, monomaniacal people might latch onto White Supremacy or whatever. That is not a Tol Eressëa issue, in a sense, right? It seems psychological on the one hand and political on the other. Human beings do these things. Unfortunately. That they do terrible things under the banner of religion has to do with stage decoration: it's not fundamental to religion that people have to go kill each other. It's fundamental to human nature. Without religion, they'd still be doing it.

Unfortunately.

(And still there is that of God in every one.)

[solicitr]

If we do as you seem to be suggesting, and joined by others from the right on FOX and in other parts of the media, we will have already blamed the very nature of Islam itself and some of its adherents.

Complete and utter strawman, invented out of whole cloth.

If the superiors of Hasan failed to recognize him as a true threat when there was evidence that he was a threat, then that onus is upon themselves.

Rather than on Hassan? Tschah.

...when there was evidence that he was a threat

And what, pray tell, did that evidence consist of? Which of the unconnected dots in Hassan's long, long trail were not connected to his ideology? And it has become very clear that the reason no action was taken against Hassan, like processing him out of the service, was because the Army's preoccupation with PC took precedence over the safety and security of the troops. 'Discrimination' complaints can and do end military careers.

And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse

The fish rots from the head down.

....we will have already pronounced this as a terrorist attack before the investigation is ever held and results are in.

Right, let's not jump to conclusions. It might turn out Hassan was really working for Halliburton......

[vison]

I think sf's point about Hasan being home-grown, whatever his motivations, was a good one.

It was not JUST Hasan's advocacy of radical Jihadism that made him a threat, it was all the other signals that he was in trouble: mood swings, irritability, strong desire not to be deployed but feeling trapped, etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, the man was troubled, and latched onto (so it seems) an extremist branch of Islam, as other troubled, monomaniacal people might latch onto White Supremacy or whatever. That is not a Tol Eressëa issue, in a sense, right? It seems psychological on the one hand and political on the other. Human beings do these things. Unfortunately. That they do terrible things under the banner of religion has to do with stage decoration: it's not fundamental to religion that people have to go kill each other. It's fundamental to human nature. Without religion, they'd still be doing it.

Unfortunately.

(And still there is that of God in every one.)

Good post, Teremia. And I am one of those wondering how this thread still keeps going. It isn't about "spirituality" at all.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I agree. If this thread moves, I'd prefer my posts remain here or another forum.

[solicitr]

all the other signals that he was in trouble: mood swings, irritability, strong desire not to be deployed but feeling trapped,

If those constituted predictors of going postal, then you would have to kick out 3/4 of the US Army.

Anyway, the man was troubled, and latched onto (so it seems) an extremist branch of Islam, as other troubled, monomaniacal people might latch onto White Supremacy or whatever

Yes, but Hasan latched onto his particular brand of extremist ideology long ago, and evinced plenty of evidence of it. It's not like he decided to be a killer first, and then shopped around for an agreeable doctrine.

That they do terrible things under the banner of religion has to do with stage decoration: it's not fundamental to religion that people have to go kill each other.

Oh, I disagree. Religious wars are the most common and most vicious sort. While in many cases it's true that 'religion' simply becomes a tribal identity, as was (largely) the case in Northern Ireland, there are way too many historical cases of killing derived directly from naked religious belief. Like 9/11.

This redounds to the main topic: I think it part of our avoidance-mechanism (never criticize religion) to go into deep denial WRT to the religious motivation of some heinous acts.

[solicitr]

To vison and TED:

The issue as I see it is whether religious belief is somehow sacrosanct, if heinous ideology gets a pass because it's labelled 'religious.'

[Teremia]

Oh, I disagree. Religious wars are the most common and most vicious sort.

I think this may be factually incorrect, though. Hutus vs. Tutsis? Second World War?

IF religion were responsible for mankind's viciousness, then we could all become atheists, and all would be well. But I'm willing to bet all of my life's not-so-copious savings plus my eyeteeth that if religion went totally *poof*, people would still be doing simply dreadful things to each other all the time.

I am not whitewashing religion. I am saying that it is not the root cause of man's bad behavior.

[sauronsfinger]

Again, there will be an investigation on this and the facts and the truth will come forward. I see no good purpose in rushing to judgment before that investigation is held just to advance some political agenda. I see no good purpose in allowing cynicism or sarcasm to overrule due process and rational thought.

And what is the most important, I see no reason to trash a religion or any part of any religion before the investigation is held and all the facts are in. Hasan was a home grown American citizen who did some terrible things. We need to know exactly what happened and why before we start pointing the finger of blame, especially at a major religion or something like the need for tolerance and understanding.

The issue as I see it is whether religious belief is somehow sacrosanct, if heinous ideology gets a pass because it's labelled 'religious.'

There has been no conclusion that any such thing has happened. Nothing is getting "a pass". Let the investigation run its course and let truth be told.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

The issue as I see it is whether religious belief is somehow sacrosanct, if heinous ideology gets a pass because it's labelled 'religious.'

What ideology has gotten a pass? Radical islam? You are treating this issue as if religious ideology is the only factor when it certainly is not. The deeper question is do you condemn the ideology or a practitioner's interpretation of that ideology? Like I said earlier, is it fair to condemn all of catholicism for "promoting molestation" when it is only a handful of priests committing these acts? Is their religion motivating them, or do they have deeper issues that transcend religion? You seem to want to treat this "issue" as a black and white (yes or no), but religion is not necessarily the heart of the issue.

Do you smell that? sniff sniff...

[solicitr]

I am not whitewashing religion. I am saying that it is not the root cause of man's bad behavior.

But it can bring it out. Killers usually are made, not born; Hannah Ehrendt titled her Holocaust study The Banality of Evil precisely because the perpetrators were not slavering padded-cell lunatics.

While Naziism was not a 'religion', it certainly had quasi-religious aspects; and that struck home very forcefully not long ago when I read an article on the SS' recruitment and indoctrination of personnel for its T4 or Aktion Reinhardt operation, the pilot program for the extermination camps. Interestingly enough, mental illness and criminal history were disqualifiers; and while modest pluses were given for Party or Hitler Youth membership, it was not really necessary to be a fanatical Nazi; the biggest pluses were given for pure 'Aryan' descent (natch) and for no active religious practice: "no confessional obstacles." In other words, a blank religious slate.

Because the emphasis from the start of training was indoctrination in Himmler's weird religio-mystico-occult ideology, a jumble of Teutonic mythology, the Grail legend, runes, Aryanism, German nationalism and Hegelian idealistic philosophy- none of this actually postulating or invoking any deity, but nonetheless designed to instil a transcendant, supernatural duty to further the glory of the 'Nordic race.'

Whereas the process of creating executioners came later.

At first, T4 recruits weren't even told what they were there for, just that it was a classified program. As they moved into later training and their first jobs, things were kept carefully technocratic and vague: railroad timetables and the like. Only gradually would the functions and knowledge expand: the trains were 'resettling' Jews, the functionary was accounting for 'recovered' property, then luggage, then hair and teeth, and on down the slippery slope to camp duties and gas-chamber operation. By that time of course the custom-made murderer was too morally compromised, but at least as importantly too fully committed to quasi-religious self-justification, to turn back.

[solicitr]

Like I said earlier, is it fair to condemn all of catholicism for "promoting molestation" when it is only a handful of priests committing these acts? Is their religion motivating them

But the analogy breaks down - besides the obvious point that nobody is "condemning all of Islam"* - because child molestation is unequivocally, unanimously, beyond any cavil or subtlety of interpretation condemned, vilified and a Mortal Sin. For priests that goes double. Nowhere, no matter how hard you look, will you find any Catholic branch, sept, sect, order, discipline or congregation which claims that God commands pederasty. You can't point to any Catholic Doctrine of Boy-Buggery, anywhere, because it doesn't exist. Those priests violated most everything Christianity and Catholicism stand for, and they themselves would be the first to tell you that: that their lust overrode their religion.

Whereas there most assuredly exists a strain of extremist Islam which does advocate and justify murder and bloodshed- this is by no means representative of the vast majority of the world's Muslims- but nonetheless it exists, and those who follow the doctrine spouted by bin-Laden and his ilk will tell you, proudly, that they are fulfilling a religious imperative, not violating one.

Yet there seems to be in some quarters deep, deep denial of this empirical fact, an ostrich-like reaction pretending that it doesn't exist, or if it does it's only in caves and deserts a long, long way from here. In some cases it takes the form that religion is inherently good, Islam is inherently good, therefore those who do heinous things in declared obedience to their whacko version of Islam "aren't really religious." I think anyone who blows himself up together with dozens of innocents in the genuine expectation of Paradise is in fact really, really religious. That remains true no matter how twisted that particular religious belief is.

Those who proclaim "we love death more than you love life" should be taken at their word.

____________

* However, many of the more obnoxious sorts have happily condemned all Catholicism for the pedophilia scandal, as a quick survey of popular signs at pro-choice rallies shows.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

Whereas there most assuredly exists a strain of extremist Islam which does advocate and justify murder and bloodshed- this is by no means representative of the vast majority of the world's Muslims- but nonetheless it exists

Who is denying this?

In making this statement, what then?

[Cerin]

I don't mean to be critical, TED, but I think this is a poor example. I don't know of anyone who makes the case that molestation of boys is a legitimate expression of Catholicism.

That's my entire point. I thought I made it pretty clear.

Here is the post I was responding to:

sf's article brings to light the dichotomy of what the religion says and what a practitioner might interpret. Some catholic priests molest boys, does that mean that we should condemn catholicism for encouraging the molestation of boys?

Your point seemed to be about the dichotomy between what a religion says and what a practitioner might interpret. My point was that molestation of boys isn't an example of either one (what a religion says, what a practitioner might interpret). I've never heard an example of a priest justifying his abuse by saying that that is how he interpreted his religion, so the example didn't seem applicable to me.

So perhaps I didn't understand your point after all. But I disagree that words can't be heinous until someone acts on them and gives them a heinous meaning. If they represent an idea that is heinous, then they are heinous, whether or not they ever inspire heinous action.

[solicitr]

Whereas there most assuredly exists a strain of extremist Islam which does advocate and justify murder and bloodshed- this is by no means representative of the vast majority of the world's Muslims- but nonetheless it exists

Who is denying this?

You are. Or at least you're engaging in the sort of denial I described, "pretending that it doesn't exist, or if it does it's only in caves and deserts a long, long way from here." Even in a case where it is staring you right in the face, you duck and weave and say things like "I see no good purpose in rushing to judgment-" just an attempt to avoid or delay admitting the patently obvious., fortified by baseless piffle like "a polticially motivated excuse for the superiors of Hasan not properly doing their job... to further a cover-up of what really happened"

[vison]

solictr, what's the rush? Why is it so important to you to keep hammering away at sf? Do you fantasize that you are going to change his mind? Are you demonstrating your brilliance? The brilliance we all, like, have seen so many times before?

sf? Same to you. Avec les bells.

For the luvva pete, you two are tied at the ankle and dancing like it matters.

No one cares, guys. In another thread, we ordinary mortals were discussing farts. Well, the discussion has spilled over. This thread stinks.

[sauronsfinger]

I ask again.... so once most everyone admits that there are some extremists in the Islamic faith out there, what next? This is not exactly a situation where CNN is going to break in with a bulletin and devote a three hour special to the 'revelation'. We have known this for a long time.

Is there something you want done with this knowledge?

Are you advocating some policy?

Are you supporting some action?

If you tell us that, maybe we can give Vison what she wants and end this.