"Terror has no religion" - The Essentials

Many in a religion and out of it seem unmoved by how the religion's standard teaching or scriptures permit or advocate violence in the name of God.

If a religion stops being violent, then you can understand their being unmoved - a bit.  But even when the violence resumes they will often try to remain unmoved and keep excusing the religion.  They never offer evidence that it is not the religion's fault.  But simply saying "It is not down to the religion," is just a statement and not an exoneration.  It is no good and they are merely helping the problem continue and insulting the victims.  What they are really saying is that if a religion preaches violence and whether or not people obey they will refuse to impute any blame to the religion.

It could be that organised religion is really a structure rather than religion.  Catholics say each Protestant is her or his own pope and religion.  If so then nobody has the right to say that a violent fanatical Muslim or Christian is not a Muslim or Christian.  A religion can cause evil by commanding it or by surrounding the bad with so much good that the impact does not sink in.  Black is not so black in a mix of colour. 

The leftist view that terror or violence has no religion is an utter disgrace. It cannot be intended to convince those who say their faith leads them to be violent.  In fact the stupidity will only make them mirthful.   Anything human can seem to be a reason to be violent. Faith is human. Religion will give some members reasons to be terrorists.  If the bootlickers are suggesting those people are insane that is an insult to people with mental illness and exaggerates the link between mental illness and violence. It ignores the otherwise sanity of the perpetrators. People with mental problems have to be slandered so that religion can smell of roses. 

Feminists even put the violence down to “toxic masculinity.”  The role of women as terrorists and inciters of terrorism is ignored.  Many terrorists are formed at their mother's breast as she brainwashes them to believe and love evil scriptures.  And as for the violent necessarily not being inspired by religion what about those who applaud what they did or say they don’t care and who speak in the name of religion as well? They can be noisy on social media.

What about religions that have essential standard doctrines that speak of bad religions? Jesus blamed bad religion for his own death. Ideology leads to terror and to say it doesn’t when it is religious is just effectively to give it a license to cause trouble and to demonise those who point out your hypocrisy or who disagree.

While it is true that all members of a religion that produces many terrorists are not all terrorists they share a sort of responsibility for the acts. After all why is it Christians who try to murder abortion clinic workers while Muslims do not? What if the terrorists want their religion blamed as a whole? Religious doctrine and religious scripture when they preach violence or praise past violence are responsible for inspiring the few terrorists in a religion or responsible for potentially trying to. What if it should not be few but many but through luck it is only a few? The nice texts inspire violence too for all violent people are battling for some goods that they consider worth the evil.

And many terrorists have university educations and are well instructed in religion and their scriptures.

As for blaming British or American imperialism for say Islamist violence why are other nations that were victims not carrying out terrorist acts? There is a bigotry in saying that we cannot expect much of the victims of imperialism so that we can blame how Britain and America treat them. If they are that dumb why can their religion be dumb too? What can’t it be to blame in some way for the blood spilling of the innocents

Liberals give people from religions that spawn terrorism too many rights as if they do not trust them and think they can bribe them with whitewash about how nice their religions are and that giving them a good life will keep them out of trouble.  The liberals are virtually brainwashing them to think of themselves as dangerous.

The only thing that is bad as a religion that gets some members to be violent on faith grounds is the liberal who in defending it ends up being no better.

If an evil entity has to pretend to be a religion to do evil, then it is still proof that the religious framework has the power to help people do harm and to solidify and channel their badness.  An army cannot pretend to be a garden party.



People who know too little about religion or a particular religion suddenly become experts on it when the religion develops terrorists.  They have no right to say things like, "Violence in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion."  Or, "That terrorist is not a Muslim terrorist.  He is a terrorist not a Muslim."  Saying they are not Muslims or whatever is bad but saying they are not Muslims or whatever AT ALL is definitely overdoing it.  Is religion so insidious that it even has people who do not belong to it willing to protect it from justified criticism?

If we are all sinners and if we can twist even good things into sin then why can't religion itself be an example of sin?   If man is sin then why can't religion be sin?

Islam and Christianity claim to consist of sinners trying to connect with God. This doctrine refutes the notion that Islam or Christianity are essentially good. The doctrine that all are sinners can be used to soften people up when confronted with a religious terrorist. The believers might think they can enable violence or unleash it for they are sinners anyway so why not? The doctrine that we are all sinners is used to stop people turning against a religion because its leaders and many of its members are evil.
Some when they see the violence done say by Christians or Muslims in the name of religion say, "They are not really Christian/Muslim". Why can't those people just say that not all Christians or Muslims are terrorists? Why do they have to go so far? No religion or entity by definition can be a religion of peace but perhaps it can be one that tries to be. Trying does not get the religion off the hook if it fails. The bigger the fail the worse it is as a religion. And not all religions are about being good - in Christianity the only problem with living an evil life is that you cannot count on getting a chance to convert at the end. But it regards deathbed conversions as effective.
Those like the Pope who try to make out that religious terrorists are not truly religiously motivated are just brownnosers. Part of it is about manipulating those who don't know they are supposed to endorse violence for their religion. And what right has anyone who is not a student of Christianity or Islam to say such things? When there are good and bad things in God's revelations, the religious terrorists who say they are Christian or Muslim have a right to be believed. Saying they are not Christian or Muslim means you cannot say to them, "Okay you do bad things for the religion but don't you see it does not permit what you are doing?" To pretend religions are never violent is a gross misreading of history. It could be cowardly as well - you are trying to avoid the wrath of the religious. The political world needs to lie to the public about the dangers of religion for it seeks to prevent violent sectarianism breaking out.

A terrorist can be a real Christian or Muslim in everything else but the violent things they do. To say they are not Christian or Muslim is just sickening.
Do-gooders implicitly encourage people on the wrong path by rationalising their behaviour and believing they're really "victims". For example, if you blame ISIS on how the West treated the countries in which ISIS emerged you can hardly be taken as seriously discouraging the violence. You are doing more to enable it than disable it.

All Muslims are not to blame for terrorist violence but they are to blame for implicitly supporting it. They endorse and follow Islam and this Islam causes the terrorism. Most Muslims in Islamic Countries, about 80%, want Sharia Law with all its horrors imposed.

"Not Christian/Muslim at all"
If you treat a fanatical Christian or Muslim as a non-Christian or non-Muslim you have closed off any hope of reaching that person. They will be insulted at how you don’t regard them as the real deal but as a fraud or ignorant. They will see you as a hypocrite for it makes no sense to say you can be Christian and Muslim and sin a lot every day as religion says we all do and then say that just because you lift arms for God that you are not Christian or Muslim at all! If a pope who beats his wife is a Catholic so is one that launches crusades to slaughter heretics. Your argument that a mad bloodletting Christian or Muslim is not a Christian or Muslim is about yourself not the other person. It is about you trying to validate how real a Christian or Muslim you are. Using such a terrible issue as religious terrorism to inflate your ego and parade your holiness and religiosity is itself treating the victims of the terrorists as things. If you abhor what religion does to them you will not try to whitewash.
Calling the fanatical Muslim or Christian a psychopath or insane is not helpful. Leave that to the medics. If you treat them as lunatics you will make them angrier if they are not and you demotivate yourself from trying to reason with them. It is better to see them as sane people who are in the grip of mad beliefs.

Why can't they say the terrorists are Christian and Muslim but disobeying their faith?  Why do they say they are not Christian or Muslim at all?  The reason is that admitting they are in any sense implicates the faith.  So a lie is told and the role of faith is covered-up.  Saying they are not Christian or Muslim at all is a way of making an excuse for the violence.

No Copyright