" Can the Obama administration successfully divorce terrorism from religion?"

[Clio the Leo]

The War Over the War on Terror

Can the Obama administration successfully divorce terrorism from religion?

ADAM SERWER | June 3, 2010

For two painful minutes this spring, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to blame "radical Islam" for terrorism. Rep. Lamar Smith prodded Holder over and over during the May House Judiciary Committee hearing, but Holder wouldn't budge.

"There are a variety of reasons I think people have taken these actions," Holder said.

"Could radical Islam been one of the reasons?" Smith insisted.

"There are a variety of reasons why…."

"But was radical Islam one of them?"

"There are a variety of reasons people are doing these things…."

For conservatives, the exchange was proof the administration isn't taking terrorism seriously. Likewise, when White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan defended the traditional Islamic concept of "Jihad" as legitimate, conservatives were aghast. In a speech hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan said the administration would not "describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children."

"Rather than running from the expression 'radical Islam,'" read an editorial in The Washington Times, "the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them."

That's exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to do. The administration's studious avoidance of associating terrorism with Islam isn't political correctness run amok. It represents one of the few points of divergence between the Obama administration and its predecessor on matters of national security -- a deliberate effort to narrow the scope of the "war on terror" to a fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups. Some conservatives, who see not just terror groups but Islam itself as a threat, oppose the administration's approach. They see the threat as posed not merely by plots against the homeland but by the influence of Islamic culture within the United States.

By cleaving terrorism from Islam, the administration hopes to dismantle any claim al-Qaeda and its ideological allies have to the religion. "We reject the notion that al-Qaeda represents any religious authority," reads part of the administration's recently released National Security Strategy. "They are not religious leaders, they are killers, and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents."

more...

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_war_over_the_war_on_terror

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Most Terrorism today is inextricably linked to extremist religious groups.

Whether it is a Christian Extremists setting off bombs and killing abortion doctors, an Islamic extremists firing rockets, or any other type, terrorism is a natural tool. They engage in asymmetrical warfare using terrorism as a tactic because they don't have large standing armies.

I don't think it is possible to separate the two. I suppose it is useful to try, because the war on "terra" has translated to easily to a war in Islam. But I don't think it can be done. Typically, it is not atheists that comit terrorist acts today. The age of the Red Brigade, Shining Path and other leftist terrorists seems to have ended, for now.

[Clio the Leo]

2. But those acts of terror are diametrically opposed to the beliefs the terrorists claim to have..

.... is the point.

I know for a fact that those who kill in the name of Christ are in violation of the religion they claim to follow. .... As for Islam, I'll confess my ignorance to it, but, anecdotally, the Muslims *I* have personally known have also been the most peace-loving people I've known.

Religion is no more a cause for hate than food is a cause for obesity. It's not the element .... it's the abuse of it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I think you need to look at that one more closely.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they're diametrically opposed to your interpretation of the religions they follow.

I'm also far from convinced that taking e.g. the Bible at its word when it says that homosexuality is hateful to God, or the Koran when it advocates all manner of horrifically wicked behaviour, is abusing religion; if anything I think it's the decent liberal interpretations that are usually further from what the founders intended, especially in the case of Islam.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. In Oklahoma, I was told that you needed to believe that Christ was your savior...

and be Baptised and, bingo, you were in the Christian club. Of course, there are doctrinal differences between churches. But Catholic, Baptist, or any other flavor has its dotrines on what you need to be christian.

No, if a Christian kills an aboriton doctor becaus that Christian believes...he is doing Christ's work, he is a Christian and a Christian terrorist. Just because you disagree on aspects of doctrine, doesn't make that person less a Christian, even if you want to pretend it does. Good and decent Christians have been murdering people that disagreed with their religion for almost 2000 years. Relgion creaes a world view, and anything can be slipped into that world view. Slavery here in the U.S.A. considered Christian by slave owners because it was in the Bible. John Brown, a Christian, considered slaver an abominatio in the sight of the loard, and murdered people to end it. Both sides were Christians following Christ's guiadance as they saw it. Religion isn't something definte with precies rules that, if you violate them, you are suddenly out of the club. Groups adopt religion to fit their world view, and adapt their worlf view to fit their religion. They are not abusing religion, they are using it as a tool to hold the group together to aid in survivial.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. You can't live without food

You can live without religion.

People of faith are far too prone to glossing over the uglinesses inherent in their belief systems and dismissing anyone acting with the faith as a justification for unpleasant things as not really understanding the faith. Nothing bad can come from the belief, even when there's obvious doctrine right in the sacred texts themselves, and anyone saying otherwise is being some kind of intolerant bigot.

Having said all that, though, I don't think all religions are equally good or bad; certain ones suck much more than others.

Far too many of faith demand that religion be accepted as "good", and are outraged and self-justified into high dudgeon to hear anything to the contrary. Inherent problems, even if admitted, are trumped by the undeniable wonderfulness of the whole mindset.

For far too many believers, even saying things such as this is a brutal ugliness, and they don't see that they're demanding some kind of aristocratic privilege of de-facto moral superiority that overrides any unpleasant actions along the way. It is absolutely ridiculous to the ears of those of us outside of these cults some times; it's like listening to people tell me--as they have--that women are equal to men in Islam.

It's wonderful that people derive joy and fulfillment from these beliefs, but DEMANDING that everyone else give them a blank check and overlook the danger is a form of selfishness that flies in the face of the concept of pluralism. Religion is inherently conservative, and it's because of the core aching need for one particular thing: certainty.

[Enrique]

6. 'it's useful to try'

that's the part of your post I agree with.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. I am happy to find one thing to agree on with anyone...

The only real way to fight terrorism, whether it is Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, or Shining Path is cooperation between nations that uses law as a surgical instrument to bring terrorist criminals to justice.

Using the military to stop terrorism is like using a sledge hammer to swat a mosquito on your arm. Someone is going to get hurt. Most likely, it won't be the mosquito. By the time you manage to kill that mosquito, you won't recognize yourself.

[impik]

4. It's mostly about religion, and sadly, most of them are Muslims. That's just the reality now