Graeme

I've seen a lot of Islam-bashing on these threads in the past month or so, but very little in the way of constructive ideas. Everyone seems to agree there is a problem, but nobody seems to have any real solutions.

My personal opinion is that the religious aspect of this struggle is NOT something we should be focusing on. I have two main reasons for this opinion, and I'll lay them out here.

1:

Religion can never be a root cause for extremist violence and widespread support for such. Simply because of the nature of religion itself, it's impossible for it to be a root cause for ANYTHING - history clearly shows that humans in positions of power will very often use religion as justification for their actions, and if need be will confer upon themselves religious authority so that they can more easily change and shift the religious 'party line' to suit their own personal agendas. See Henry VIII's creation of the Church of England for a perfect example.

If religion is this flexible and prone to manipulation by political leaders (and again, history shows that it most definitely is), it becomes logically impossible for it to be a major motivating factor behind the creation of original ideologies. It can still be used very effectively as a tool to propagate those ideologies, but its usefulness in the raw creation of societal attitudes or ideologies is basically nil.

In addition to this, we see that in most large-scale religions, the edicts of the human leaders are almost always only heeded when the leaders are very literally preaching to the converted. When a Catholic Pope issues an edict that runs contrary to a modern social norm, what happens? The members of the faith who already identify as conservative stand up in support, but the huge majority simply say 'meh' and ignore it almost completely. It's the same for Islam - and even easier for nominal members to ignore. An American muslim ignoring the order to kill Salman Rushdie, for example, would be generally analogous to an American protestant ignoring a Papal edict. The proof that these edicts have little effect in an Islamic context? Well, Salman Rushdie is still very much alive, for one. You'd think that with 1.3 billion muslims on the planet, if an edict calling for his death were at all taken seriously by any more than an outer fringe, he'd be long dead by now.

Basically, as a root motivator, Religion is too interpretable and flexible to be any good. It only helps as a 2nd-stage agitator - it is an excellent tool to stir an already-boiling pot of resentment. And it is also extremely effective in keeping fringe fanatics focused and committed to a 'cause'. A pre-existing conflict can be further framed in the larger 'good vs. evil' context. If a footsoldier can be convinced that god is on his side, he is a much more effective footsoldier and is much less prone to fleeing or throwing down his weapon. Religion has been used as a tool of military morale since the dawn of time - and why not, it works. But again, it's just a tool, and is rarely the real cause of a conflict.

This brings me to my second point.

2:

If religion IS a root cause, what do we do now? It seems to me that if everything I raised above is incorrect and the conflict between the mideast and the 'west' is something based in core religious beliefs, then no amount of appeasement or policy change will serve to reduce hostility towards the West. There is no point, as far as I can see, to two sides sitting down at a table and working on specific policy grievances, because the religious issue will always be there motivating hostility, so no matter what policy issues are worked out 'they' will still want to kill 'us'.

This seems to be the point of view of many of the more conservative posters on here - that there is an inherent futility in looking past the religious issue and that radical policy change would be useless. Basically, there's no point not beating the dog because it's still going to try to bite you no matter what, so you may as well keep hitting it with the stick.

But the problem I have is this - if there really is no way to solve the conflict by diplomacy and/or policy change, then doesn't that mean we're inevitably hurtling towards a global conflict with no forseeable end? And if that is the case, have we really decided that a world where we either totally subjugate or outright destroy entire societies based on their religious affiliation is better than one where a few thousand people a year are killed in terrorist attacks?

Basically, if the problem is religious at its core, what's the solution aside from all-out global war?

I have more to add to this, but I'll add it after I've had a few responses.

Booyakasha!

Religion itself poses the greatest threat to humanity. And yes, it may take a global war to subdue Islam. If nuclear bombs start going off in London, Washington DC, Moscow, etc, get ready to see every Islamic nation on earth that does not surrender to the free world invaded. At that point, Islam would be deemed a cult and outlawed.

Another scenario, the one I hope happens, is that we can try to bring education, democracy, freedom, prosperity, and hope to Islamic nations. When people are educated and free and happy, they are less likely to believe literally in illogical, hateful religions.

Nice Squirrel

GRD again....

Pomp

More to the point, when people are educated and free and happy, they are less likely to become violent extremists. At that point, it doesn't matter whether or not they believe in any religions, illogical, hateful, or otherwise, because they have no underlying tendency toward violence to be exploited by radical ideologues using religion as a tool. Note that the West is full of people who subscribe to (arguably) illogical and (often) hateful religions, yet is not, generally, a hotbed of violent extremism.

Graeme

I have a bit of a problem with this. I specifically posed this question in the PD forum because I wanted to discuss it in a political context.

Booyakasha!

Good points, but keep in mind that Islam is a particularly backwards and restrictive religion, and Islam itself must accept much of the blame for the lack of freedom, critical thinking, democracy, liberalism, and real education in Islamic countries. Just trying to stop them from being violent doesn't address the root cause -- literal belief in a backwards, dangerous and stifling religion.

Booyakasha!

I agree because we are talking about political solutions to the problem of Islam -- ie, spreading democracy, etc.

Graeme

But as the world's fastest-growing faith and with a worldwide adherence of close to 1.3 billion, what non-violent options do you really think are available as far as effectively reducing the number of people who believe in Islam to a number far below this 1.3 billion?

Spitfire

I won't beat around the bush here: I don't think Islam is made into a problem by bad people, I think Islam is a problem. One vote for case #2 mentioned above. Greedy people taking advantage of an already evil religion only makes what is already bad worse. Wiping more than a billion people off the face of the earth isn't an option, of course. All non-Muslims can do is stand up for what we believe in, whatever that may be, and refuse to give any ground. Ever. And hope it eventually collapses under its own weight.

Graeme

That doesn't really answer my question tho. What does 'standing up for what we believe in' mean? And what does 'hoping it collapses under its own weight' really involve or accomplish?

Does this mean bombing civilian populations, or not? Does it mean controlling the leadership of Islamic countries by military means, or not?