Beheading in Oklahoma

Rufus Coppertop said:

Hopefully, even more of the sensible Muslims will condemn them as the 100 clerics did.

Hopefully they'll soon be isilated.

They didn't have DSM in Muhammed's day but the section of the 100 clerics document (link provided by Mr Haskins http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296950) says that jihad genuinely fought for God (ie - a defensive and communal war that fulfills the criteria and which doesn't involve torture, murder and forced conversion) might gain the martyr entry to paradise but fighting (and being martyred) to embiggen yourself in the eyes of other Muslims gets you dragged face down into the fire.

It's easy to retrospectively put one's own interpretation on such things and say, "see, even Allah knew about Narcissistic Personality Disorders with Antisocial tendencies" but at least we can say that Muhammed knew there were peeps who liked fighting to prove their machismo.

Approximtely six feet and seven and a half inches to the left of sociopathy?

Click to expand...

You're arguing doctrine, and falling into the "No True Scotsman" trap that I mentioned earlier, so it doesn't really address my question(s).

It doesn't matter what the "moderate/progressive" or even "not totally fucking insane" interpretation of Islam is or isn't. It only matters what a person or group of people believe based on their interpretation of Islam and what those beliefs drive them to do. Quibbling about what is "true" Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Whatever is a fool's errand, in my opinion, because every denomination/sect of every religion thinks that what they believe is the true/right interpretation and their behavior is driven by that belief.

All mainstream religious doctrine is based on cherry-picking. Some [insert mainstream religious group members here] can pick out only the touchy-feely parts of their holy book and follow those putative commands with great piety. Some others can pick out the more barbarous commands from the exact same book and follow them with equal piety.

What is the difference between the two groups in regards to each's religious earnestness and belief that they are following the "proper" interpretation?

Why, if they are equal in amount of conviction from the same text (though different scriptural exegesis) is one "sane" and the other "crazy?" Why are the touchy-feely "good" expressions of their faith totally because of their religious beliefs, but the more barbarous, "bad/evil" expressions of faith totally unrelated to their religious beliefs? Why is extreme zealotry that is overall innocuous or positive "a true example of that person's/group's religion" but extreme zealotry that is overall harmful is somehow divorced from any connection with that religion because it's not the "correct" version of that religion?

Why the double standard?

Opty said:

You're arguing doctrine, and falling into the "No True Scotsman" trap that I mentioned earlier, so it doesn't really address my question(s). Basically, it amounts to "this group did something evil based on their religious beliefs but this other group over here who is of the same religion but a different denomination said that the first group has the religion all wrong, therefore we're just gonna agree with them because they seem like nicer people and we don't like what the other group is doing."

Click to expand...

We're discussing the actions of religious if twisted people so doctrine does have relevance in my view.

It doesn't matter what the "moderate/progressive" or even "not totally fucking insane" interpretation of Islam is or isn't. It only matters what a person or group of people believe based on their interpretation of Islam and what those beliefs drive them to do.

Click to expand...

I think it matters to moderate Muslims who are also horrified by the activities of Isil and I think it's worth remembering that Isil's interpretation is not the only one.

Quibbling about what "true" Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Whatever is a fool's errand, in my opinion, because every denomination/sect of every religion thinks that what they believe is the true/right interpretation and their behavior is driven by that belief.

Click to expand...

Stating something isn't quibbling. It might provide the opportunity for quibbling but in and of itself it isn't quibbling.

All mainstream religious doctrine is based on cherry-picking. Some [insert mainstream religious group members here] can pick out only the touchy-feely parts of their holy book and follow those putative commands with great piety. Some others can pick out the more barbarous commands from the exact same book and follow them with equal piety.

What is the difference between the two groups in regards to their religious earnestness and belief that they are following the "proper" interpretation?

Click to expand...

The difference is their behaviour and the relative desirability of the two groups as next door neighbours.

Also, possibly, the extent of cherry-pickage. I don't know enough about Islamic doctrine to say for sure but it seems that the people who wrote the 100 Clerics document can see a phenomenal amount of cherry picking perpetrated by Isil to support their agenda.

And it may be that in the case of Isil, the word agenda is more relevant than the word belief.

Why, if they are equal conviction from the same text (though different scriptural exegesis) is one "sane" and the other "crazy?"

Click to expand...

I never said they're crazy. I agree with Nighttimer that

Crazy people don't need a reason to do something crazy. All they need is an opportunity.

Click to expand...

and the reason I mention DSM and sociopathology or psychopathology, whichever term one prefers, is that psychopaths don't need a reason to do something psychopathic. All they need is an opportunity.

Which necessarily means I think your question

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that a person can operate under a horribly irrational belief system (e.g. Religious fundamentalism) and not actually be "crazy"?

Click to expand...

is valid. I don't think they're necessarily crazy but I do believe they're psychopaths.

Why are the touchy-feely "good" expressions of their faith totally because of their religious beliefs, but the more barbarous, "bad/evil" expressions of faith totally unrelated to their religious beliefs?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Have I actually stated that there is a total disconnection?

Why is extreme zealotry that is overall innocuous or positive "a positive example of that person's/group's religion" but extreme zealotry that is overall harmful is somehow divorced of any connection with that religion because it's not the "correct" version of that religion?

Click to expand...

I don't think I've said that that's the case.

Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

I don't see myself as having applied a double standard.

I see a double standard as something more along the lines of, it's okay for Buddhists in Burma to persecute Muslims but it's not okay for Muslims persecute Yazidis.

I can't be sure until you reply to this but I think you might have misinterpreted me. Maybe that's my fault for not being more clear or for assuming that anyone reading would automatically connect up all the dots.

What I'm saying is that I think these Isil people are psychopaths availing themselves of an opportunity to behave as psychopaths. Murdering people to show twisted piety is opportunistic and tacky and according to a hundred moderate and learned Muslims, there is precedent within Islam for believing that they're wrong to do so and that they will not be rewarded for it in the afterlife (assuming for argument's sake that there is such a thing and that Islam is accurate as to its nature).

Trying to argue there is a true version of a religion is like trying to argue there is a true religion.

kuwisdelu said:

Trying to argue there is a true version of a religion is like trying to argue there is a true religion.

Click to expand...

I suspect an argument about this could potentially be more curly than a DNA helix.

Rufus Coppertop said:

True. But arguing that there are nicer, milder and more civilized versions of a religion whose adherents would make more pleasant neighbours is also true.

Click to expand...

Certainly. But I'm not sure about "milder". One can be passionately pleasant.

Rufus Coppertop said:

True. But arguing that there are nicer, milder and more civilized versions of a religion whose adherents would make more pleasant neighbours is also true.

Click to expand...

Being more palatable to outsiders doesn't make a version of religion truer to the intended interpretation.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Being more palatable to outsiders doesn't make a version of religion truer to the intended interpretation.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the futility of that debate for a moment, is there any reason that should matter to anyone not a member of that religion?

Rufus Coppertop said:

Firstly, we're discussing the actions of religious if twisted people so doctrine does have relevance in my view.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that "we" are discussing that. I'm still referring back to my original post.

I think it matters to moderate Muslims who are also horrified by the activities of Isil and I think it's worth remembering that their interpretation is not the only one.

Click to expand...

The fact that there is not just one interpretation (which, in practice, yields many sects), yet some are arbitrarily considered more "wrong" than others based on post hoc value judgments, was exactly my point.

Stating something isn't quibbling. It might provide the opportunity for quibbling but in and of itself it isn't quibbling.

Click to expand...

Given that you're referring to where I mentioned people (media, pundits, people in this thread, etc.) arguing over which version(s) of a religion is the "true" or "correct" one, please point out to me where you "stated" which one was the "true" one. Then, re-read where you just explained how 100 Muslim clerics disagreed with ISIS's interpretation of Islam. Then, please explain to me how such disagreements about who's right and who's wrong are not "quibbling."

The difference is their behaviour and the relative desirability of the two groups as next door neighbours.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I think you're still maybe missing my point, which was addressing the befuddling apologist response of claiming that barbaric acts which are (likely) driven by religious beliefs (no matter what the beliefs are)...like those of groups like ISIS and the Muslim guy in Ohio who beheaded his coworker...are somehow NOT the result of religious beliefs, because...you know..."crazy."

Also, possibly, the extent of cherry-pickage. I don't know enough about Islamic doctrine to say for sure but it seems that the people who wrote the 100 Clerics document can see a phenomenal amount of cherry picking perpetrated by Isil to support their agenda.

Click to expand...

That's an appeal to authority, if not an argumentum ad populum, and still totally disregards the crux of my question.

And it may be that in the case of Isil, the word agenda is more relevant than the word belief.

Click to expand...

Not sure there's much of a qualitative difference between the two.

I never said they're crazy. I agree with Nighttimer that

Click to expand...

I didn't say you did. I was still speaking in generalities as they related to my actual point from my original post.

Which necessarily means I think your question

is valid. I don't think they're necessarily crazy but I do believe they're psychopaths.

Click to expand...

"Crazy," I would think, colloquially refers to a mental illness of some sort. Psychopathy is a mental illness (personality disorder, technically). So, I don't think that's a hair you can split.

I don't know. Have I actually stated that there is a total disconnection?

I don't think I've said that that's the case.

I don't see myself as having applied a double standard.

Click to expand...

I was restating my original questions/thoughts. They were not direct responses to specific things you said. They were not directed specifically at you. I was restating my position because it seemed you misunderstood.

I see a double standard as something more along the lines of, it's okay for Buddhists in Burma to persecute Muslims but it's not okay for Muslims persecute Yazidis.

Click to expand...

The double standard (and, again, this was a general question and not specific to you) is my observation that apologists with a progressive/moderate bent will ascribe non-harmful acts of extreme zealotry (based directly on esoteric religious beliefs) to the person's religion. Or, at least, they seem to have no problem accepting that the person's religion drives that behavior.

However, when the acts of extreme zealotry (based directly on esoteric religious beliefs) ARE harmful, the apologists tend to deny that religion had anything to do with the behaviors. They instead claim that the person/people is/are "crazy" or "mentally ill" or just plain "evil," and deny that the religious beliefs were the motivation.

Which, takes me back to my original post...

Opty said:

...at what point does indoctrination become considered a mental illness?

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that a person can operate under a horribly irrational belief system (e.g. Religious fundamentalism) and not actually be "crazy"? Where is the line drawn?

Click to expand...

Back to what you were saying...

What I'm saying is that I think these Isil people are psychopaths availing themselves of an opportunity to behave as psychopaths. Murdering people to show twisted piety is opportunistic and tacky and according to a hundred moderate and learned Muslims, there is precedent within Islam for believing that they're wrong to do so and that they will not be rewarded for it in the afterlife (assuming for argument's sake that there is such a thing and that Islam is accurate as to its nature).

Click to expand...

Again, missing the point. ISIS, like the Sunni and Shia and probably a dozen other Muslim groups in that area, have their own interpretation of Islam. Their "bucket of fucks to give" when it comes to what those 100 clerics have to say is probably empty. If they believe they are doing Allah's work, and they believe the Qur'an supports them, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Their religious beliefs are guiding them (assuming that is the case). Just like the dude who cut that lady's head off could've also been driven by his Islamic beliefs (whatever they may be).

If they believe their interpretation of their religion is true, and they believe it validates their actions, and their entire morality system is centered on those beliefs....which is roughly the same belief-dependent worldview process that non-murderous religious followers experience....then is it fair for apologists (in the media or religious leaders with differing interpretations) to deny religious belief as a motivator and instead blame it on "crazy" or "political power grabs" or whatever?

If ISIS (or Westboro Baptist, or extreme anti-choice Evangelicals, etc.) is deemed "crazy" rather than "zealous," then I'm curious of where on the spectrum actions resulting from religious indoctrination change from "zealotry" to "mental illness."

My contention is that it's wishy-washy, bullshit denialism to say, for instance:

1) that Catholic and Protestant charity work is absolutely due to religious beliefs;

2) anti-LGBT behavior exhibited by more fundamentalist Christians is also due to religious belief (and many of them proudly defend it as such);

3) but a religious group doing something barbaric or violent (strongly attributable, by their own statements, to their particular religious beliefs) is somehow NOT due to their religious beliefs (i.e. they're just "crazy"). Again, that is a statement about general religious barbarism and assholery and not necessarily about the specific situation with ISIS. I'm addressing the typical knee-jerk reaction I see.

I think ISIS is evil. I think they're barbaric. But, I absolutely think many of their actions are the result of their esoteric religious beliefs. And I don't think they're mentally ill or crazy. Religious zealotry is not a mental illness (yet, though maybe it should be).

Opty said:

"Crazy," I would think, colloquially refers to a mental illness of some sort. Psychopathy is a mental illness (personality disorder, technically). So, I don't think that's a hair you can split.

Click to expand...

Crazy as a colloquialism might refer to a mental illness of some sort by your definition. By mine it refers to psychosis. Psychosis and personality disorder are not the same thing. I wasn't splitting a hair. I was interpreting a colloquialism used by psychiatric nurses in Australia in the way that any psychiatric nurse in Australia would interpret that colloquialism.

i.e. - crazy = psychotic = auditory and possibly other hallucinations, delusions whether grandiose, nihilistic, paranoid or other, thought disorder, disorganization, irritability, poor impulse control, impaired judgment etc etc.

I was restating my original questions/thoughts. They were not direct responses to specific things you said. They were not directed specifically at you. I was restating my position because it seemed you misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

kuwisdelu said:

Trying to argue there is a true version of a religion is like trying to argue there is a true religion.

Click to expand...

It would be neat to think there could be more than one, like, say, ways of getting fit. All good for you In different ways, while not really suited to everyone (and outright unhealthy for a few). But being The One seems to be part of the charter (or business model, if you will).

poetinahat said:

But being The One seems to be part of the charter (or business model, if you will).

Click to expand...

Nah, there are plenty of religions that don't claim to be the one and only truth.

Some claim to be a vehicle to where you will be able to see the truth for yourself. All doctrine and all praxis is merely a method utilized by that vehicle, or one of the wheels or the chariot's axle if I can stretch the metaphor a bit further.

kuwisdelu said:

Nah, there are plenty of religions that don't claim to be the one and only truth.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected

kuwisdelu said:

Trying to argue there is a true version of a religion is like trying to argue there is a true religion.

Click to expand...

Yup. And, imo, it's the wrong argument to have, in both cases. Forward motion won't come from it. But if you can get an insight into the other individual or groups personal motivations...

I do think it's often because of their religious beliefs, and I think they are 'crazy' (in the colloquial sense, at least) for being drawn to that interpretation.

I understand Muslims calling them 'not true Muslims', but technically I suppose they are. Still, if other members of the religion want to assert that the interpretation is 'wrong', then that's a debate that is good for a religion, imho. Even fundamentalists will find enough to argue about in any religious text, I'd think. (Personally, I think the texts are like a Rorschach test, and I find it a crucial and brilliant feature of religious texts).

But I can see where folks would see it as being apologists if not adhering strictly to logical arguments bothers someone. I don't see the need for all the logic equations to work out in religion, and that goes back to what Kuwi said, imho. I am religious, but I never say that it my views will work out like a science proof. It's a spiritual thing, which is by nature pretty emotional, imho. That doesn't mean it is flawed, unless your personal beliefs call for no emotion in personal motivators, I think. Then it would be too confusing/frustrating, yes

It's key to point out that most religious folks don't argue that proofs are going to work for that particular subject matter, though. It's closer to a 'science' like counseling psychology, not physics, imho. So saying some interpretation is 'wrong' is a subjective opinion mostly, but that's fine and often encouraged (like in one of my faiths).

Here's my take on "true" religions. I think it is possible to discuss a generally accepted viewpoint of most people in a religion, and to discuss people who are extremist in their viewpoints in a way that the vast majority of followers would disagree, and perhaps even to the extent that the extremists would no longer qualify as the same religion.

I think there are certainly extremist groups who outright misinterpret and intentionally teach doctrine that is in direct opposition to mainstream interpretation, and that such could be considered inappropriate.

And I definitely think that there are a lot of people who mold "religion" to fit their own cultural or societal views so that it can be held up as a shield against others who find their viewpoints reprehensible. This version in particular I have a hard time defining as "religion."

In this particular case, it sounds like a man was pissed off, had a lot of issues, and looked for something that gave him permission to act in a way that is horrific and tragic, but that he can justify to himself. I think a lot of the people joining up with ISIS probably fall into this category.

So I don't think there is a "true" religion in the sense of one that is right while others are wrong, it is definitely possible to see that certain religious groups twist established doctrine and scripture to suit their own needs. I disagree with calling ISIS a part of Islam because most Muslims recognize that this is just incredibly horrible behavior and that what is being taught is not considered anywhere near what mainstream Islam teaches, and in fact that much of it is in direct opposition.

I also think that by referring to it as Islam and putting it in the same category rather than saying that it is a separate, extremist viewpoint taken from Islam that doesn't reflect the vast majority, we run the risk of having another period where Muslims are targeted for hate crimes or are seen as evil as a group because of the horrific actions of a few. Just as I imagine most would find it appalling to look at what happened in Waco and declare that Branch Davidians were representative of Christians, I think it is unfair to group ISIS as representative of Islam.

No one here is suggesting ISIS is representative of Islam in general.

I think it's playing No True Scotsman to claim they're some weird crazy aberration.

Amadan said:

No one here is suggesting ISIS is representative of Islam in general.

I think it's playing No True Scotsman to claim they're some weird crazy aberration.

Click to expand...

I think they are, but I do think that it's a large aberration. Frighteningly large.

Folks who have joined QSIS have cited religious epiphanies as being part of what prompted them to join. And many of our lone wolf murderers have also had conversions to extreme, violent versions of modern Islam.

I think there is definitely something there to how there is an actual religious appeal to some types of minds and terrorist Islam. The 'teachings' must be quite effective. So was Hitler's propaganda, so I'm not surprised or anything. But it is important to acknowledge, imho.

Amadan said:

No one here is suggesting ISIS is representative of Islam in general.

I think it's playing No True Scotsman to claim they're some weird crazy aberration.

Click to expand...

I guess I feel that they are a weird, crazy aberration.

The two had not worked together before.

Click to expand...

I doubt they'll work together much in the future, either.

I'm trying to imagine how this guy thought his insane threat would play out in the work place. Did he imagine that human resources would tut-tut and arrange a team-building exercise? (Though, come to think of it, I've worked in a couple of places where I can almost imagine that happening.)

IMO, this guy is not so much a terrorist as he is a dangerous nutcase.

The appeal is simple - here's a world where women are chattel, where education is strictly regulated and all the answers come out of a book or from a religious man's mouth.

The Arab Spring showed how easy it is to access Western culture and ideals; Twitter and Facebook allowing people to find and discover a variety of choices they didn't have before under oppressive regimes. Suddenly with all this freedom there's a need for some to turn back to "the old days" when women didn't drive, men were the sole authority and there was no question of if something was right or wrong - you asked the local holy man and he delivered the answer. You killed the unbeliever and made sure you insulated your family from all that education and kept them safe from deviating from social norms.

These are men who are upset at society for offering equality to everyone - men, women, Christians, Jews, everyone. They want their closed little world and they can't find it inside general society these days when you can access the Internet and find everything you need to tempt you away from their religious beliefs.

These fighters want nothing more than to drag Europe into a second Dark Age. They would burn the universities, enslave the unbelievers or kill them all, turn the women into chattel and destroy the libraries. They'd have bookburnings that would put the Nazis to shame.

If the ME doesn't start getting their act together they're going to be dragged back centuries as these monsters seek to turn back the clock out of fear of the future, a future they can't control with their warped religious views.

William Haskins said:

though, to be fair, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

True, of course. But I'd define a terrorist as a dangerous nutcase who uses violence to further a political and/or religious agenda.

terrorist is to dangerous nutcase what politician is to ranting windbag.