Mark_Chid

There is a small chnage the attack was not religiously motivated, but its vanishingly small, and you know it is. We never have 100% proof of ANYTHING in this life, but sometimes something is so overwhelmingly likely that its madness to treat it as other than proven. This is such a case.

sighhswolf

Rationalize any way you want, the reality is that these people are involved in a religious war against ANYONE who is not Muslim.
A religious war...Jihad.
There is no possible way for anyone to try and rationalize religion out of these events.
If you recognize that those responsible for the actions leading up to the terrorists attacks were directed by Muslims, under the direct supervision of clerics of the Muslim faith, and financially supported with Islamic funds, then it is pretty clear to me it was an action of one religious faction against what they feel are "evil" idol worshippers and infidels.

Islam is a religious belief system is it not?

Islamic leadership, clerics, political leaders, all advocate the systematic murder of non-muslims and the confiscation of all property owned by infidels.

They advocate the complete destruction and death of ALL JEWS, this is the teaching of the prophet, to kill the infidels and idol worshippers, wherever they are found, and steal (sorry take) their property.
Now explain to me why this is not a direct result of RELIGION?
While Islamic terrorists were hitting New York, Muslim militants in northern Nigeria were killing Christians (not people, christians). The violence occurred in the majority Christian city of Jos, where the Nigerian government has imposed the Sharia (Islamic law,not government or political laws or regulations, ISLAMIC LAW) on the largely Christian population. The violence began when a "Christian woman" was attacked after she had the temerity to cross the street in front of a group of "Muslim men" who had gathered near a "Mosque". What followed was three days of killing and burning "churches".

Around the world Islamic militants are engaging in a holy war against the infidels - from Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Dinkas in the Sudan, to Hindus in Kashmir, Bahais in Iran, Catholics in the southern Philippines and Christians in East Timor.

In Sudan, the Islamic militants impose slavery on captured Dinkas - but wherever radical Islam is in power, it subjugates and actually enslaves people it regards as infidels.
The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights, an organization supporting those persecuted by militant Islam, argues that "radical Islamism is a world ideology, fielding a world terror-army, which oppresses millions with a racist ideology" that deems "non-Muslims" less than fully human.

Please explain to me why this is not "evil" perpetrated on those who do not accept the religious doctrines of Islam?
Lets not play semantics games here, lets define "evil" for the purposes of this post.
Murder, slavery, theft, destruction of property not owned by those who do the act, the oppression
of simple human rights and the wanton misogyny rampant within Islam.

Of course we must react to the violation of humans rights in a "christian" manner, at least that is what we are told by the clergy.
The same christian clergy that sweeps the murder
and deceptions of it's past under the rug as quickly as it is brought up.
Religion is the heart of "darkness", not the lack of it.
Lay the blame where it belongs......from the time of Constantine and his so-called donation to the present, religion has been the cause of the most horrible crimes against mankind.
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck
and it quacks it damn fool head off....the probability is extremely high that it is a damn duck.

Semantics ......
Misdirection....
Lies......
And political correctness....
Crap......
Wolf

Wyz_sub10

Casey Kasem is religion? I wasn't aware. Does he require a tithe?

You say "in the name of religion" is different than "religion did this". I say it's a meaningless distinction because religion can't "do" anything.

When people say "religion did this" they are speaking of the cause and motivation.

If you believe the cause and motivations for what happen weren't religious then you have information the rest of us do not.

GeoTheo

I think 9/11 is proof of both the evil of air travel and the evil of high buildings.
Prove that your baseless assertion is more apt than mine.

Family Man

Airplanes don't fly themselves high buildings. The people who flew them believed that, in doing so, they were ensuring themselves an exalted place in the Islamic heaven (not to mention a few other pleasures to boot.) Without that inducement, it is possible that would have done it anyway. However, that specific belief probably helped make the decision and action easier.

In other words, Geo, we do have a basis for our claim. I don't think you could reasonably come up with one for your own.

Wyz_sub10

How about this - shall we compare references and stated motives? You provide some references to what happened as a plan to eliminate the world of tall buildings and/or to convince the world that air travel is evil.

I'll search really, really hard to see if I can find some references to what happen with regards to religious motives, and we'll compare notes.

Genesis' assertion is not baseless. It may not be accurate, but it is not without foundation.

Your assertion is nonsense, as I'm sure you are aware.

Religion is directly involved as a motivating factor. The height of the buildings and air travel might have been useful for end purposes, by they cannot, in any way, be seen as motivating forces.

RJS

Hey, after reading this thread, I am encouraged to report that I fully expect most of you to cross Islam off the list of religions you are considering One step closer to the Truth.

waj

I love that argument. "You already know I'm right!"

We're both guessing, but my guess is that the attacks were politically motivated. If the idea is to terrorize infidels, there are plenty of those to blow up without coming to the US. What religious motive would there be to choose the World Trade Center and Pentagon (and possibly Capitol Building) as targets?

September's hijackers don't seem to fit the profile of most Islamist terrorists: they were educated, had families, and did not seem particularly devout or economically desperate.

I'll admit it's a narrow distinction. For most of the world and most of history, religion and politics have been difficult to separate.

Family Man

I have crossed all religions off my list. And I think I have arrived at the truth, at least as far as religions go.

waj

Perhaps you misunderstand me (I hope so -- I'd hate to be a misdirecting liar quibbling over semantics!). Let me summarize my point of view:

-"Belief in God" in and of itself isn't any more evil than any other unsubstantiated belief.

-It's pointless to try to tally up the good and bad effects of religion and use that tally to argue for or against religion, just as it's pointless to do the same for atheism.

What's worse: the Crusades, or Stalin's purges? The torture devices of the Inquisition, or nuclear weapons? Misogyny deriving from religious belief, or from pseudo-science? What's better: the Bach B minor Mass, or the Declaration of Independence? The theorems of Ramanujan, or those of Bertrand Russell? This might be a fun exercise, but it's not really useful in deciding whether to be religious or not, or what place religion has in civilized society.

-Just because other people have the bad taste to manipulate feelings about the terrorist attacks to further theism doesn't justify doing the same to further atheism.

Secondary points which are, admittedly, more controversial, but don't bear all that much on my main points:

-It's not clear, from the evidence made public, that the 9-11 hijackers shared a particular theology with Al Qaeda or any other radical Islamic group. (Frankly, I think there's not enough evidence made public to place much of any responsibility for September's terrorist attacks on Al Qaeda, but that's another story.)

-There's as much reason to believe the hijackers were politically motivated as religiously motivated.

I don't have time at the moment to respond in detail to your list of grievances against Islam. I'd agree with you that the bad stuff you listed is bad, but you haven't convinced me that the cum hoc propter hocs.