Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

[stevecanuck]

It is relevant to expect the law to treat Muslims and Christians fairly in my view. Personally I'm in favour of naming and shaming both their religiously motivated terrorism.

Of course. However, I occassionally go down that rabbit hole because of the frequently made claim that the bible is just as bad as the Qur'an in terms of commanding violence. That is just not true, and it needs to be said every once in a while.

It is Catholic doctrine though, which makes it a subset of Christian doctrine in my view.

The difference is that when a pope tell Catholics to kill people he can't quote Jesus. When an imam does the same, he can not only quote Mohamed, but he can cite examples of him doing so himself.

 

[stevecanuck]

So now you’ve learned that defining an amorphous and highly subjective word like “religious” by itself is pretty silly ....

You're confused. A religious belief itself may be amorphous, but there is nothing amorphous about basing everything you think and do on a religious belief.

Islam has it's contradictions (after all, it IS manmade, just like all the others), but it's very clear in it's most basic message.

 

[stevecanuck]

The point was that, while religions are often held up as being fundamentally different from “secular” belief systems,

They are fundamentally different in terms of origin of doctrine. The Qur'an is beleived to be direct dictation from a god that must accepted by blind faith (that would be the religious bit). Communism is known to be dicatation from a very real person named Karl Marx. Exactly zero blind faith is needed to identify the source.

 

[stevecanuck]

... there is no real way you can differentiate them. They are functionally identical (that does not mean all ideologies are functionally identical, just that being religious or secular is not a key factor in how they influence behaviour).

I never said it was. If anyone argued otherwise, please go and waste his time.

There is no way to craft a definition that covers Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, neo-paganism, etc. and demarcates these from Humanism, Nazism, Marxism, nationalism, etc.

Sure there is. Any belief that has supernatural origins rather than humanist origins is that demarcation. Muslims do what they do entirely because of their belief in that 'god' thingie who they believe sent down a book of rules.

Ideologies are systems of belief that people hold and that help them differentiate right from wrong, decide what is good or desirable, explain the way they world works, (usually) connect the individual to something bigger than the self, etc.

Ideologies may be anywhere from pacifistic to extremely violent, may be dogmatic or flexible, etc.

OMG, Professor, get over yourself. Go Augustussplain the bleedin' obvious to someone else.

A jihadi may think he is progressing the world to a utopian caliphate ordained by god, a Leninist may have thought they were progressing the world to a utopian communism that was the end point of history.

Do you honestly think you're saying something that the rest of the world doesn't get?

One ideology is “religious” the other “secular” but they share far more in common with each other than with liberal religious or secular ideologies.

Okay.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The distinction is pretty meaningless in all circumstances.

There is no meaningful way to differentiate a religious ideology from a non religious ideology imo.

They are functionally the same thing.

Not in relation to counter terrorism.
My choice of operatives between infiltrating Islamic groups would be different to Nazi groups, and my methodology would differ also.

 

[Augustus]

You're confused. A religious belief itself may be amorphous, but there is nothing amorphous about basing everything you think and do on a religious belief.

Why would I be confused given that has nothing to do with anything I actually said?

Do you honestly think you're saying something that the rest of the world doesn't get?

No, I assumed it was very simple, but that you didn't understand. This is because you replied with stuff unconnected to what I said, then did your LOL schtick insisting your reply was actually connected to what I said, then made several other irrelevant responses along the same lines of your initial misunderstanding, all while never addressing what I actually said in any way.

They are fundamentally different in terms of origin of doctrine. The Qur'an is beleived to be direct dictation from a god that must accepted by blind faith (that would be the religious bit). Communism is known to be dicatation from a very real person named Karl Marx. Exactly zero blind faith is needed to identify the source.

Sure there is. Any belief that has supernatural origins rather than humanist origins is that demarcation. Muslims do what they do entirely because of their belief in that 'god' thingie who they believe sent down a book of rules.

Finally, something that relates to what I actually said

Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and other forms of neo-paganism have (either definitively or arguably) identifiable human origins.

Forms of Hinduism recognise the human mythical origins of their religion. Neo-pagans may see gods as mythical archetypes, psychologically useful constructs or features of the natural world

Your demarcation rules out numerous things we generally consider religions, so I don’t think it is particularly useful in the diverse, modern world.

It’s just defining religion by its resemblance to Abrahamic beliefs.

And while you wouldn't need faith to identify Marx, you would need faith to assume certain tenets of Marxism such as the teleological view of history that necessitates the triumph of the proletariat. The idea that history follows laws akin to the laws of physics is functionally identical to the idea of Divine Providence.

Numerous secular ideologies contains concepts that are hard to differentiate from 'the supernatural'.

 

[Augustus]

Not in relation to counter terrorism.
My choice of operatives between infiltrating Islamic groups would be different to Nazi groups, and my methodology would differ also.

That different ideologies/religions have different characteristics, are associated with different ethnicities, etc. has little connection to whether there is a fundamental difference between secular and religious ideologies in general though.

Your operatives and methodology may also differ between Islamic terror group A and Islamic terror group B, of Nazi A and Nazi B.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That different ideologies/religions have different characteristics, are associated with different ethnicities, etc. has little connection to whether there is a fundamental difference between secular and religious ideologies in general though.

Your operatives and methodology may also differ between Islamic terror group A and Islamic terror group B, of Nazi A and Nazi B.

Perhaps, but I think there would be far more commonality of approach in Islamic terror group A and B, than in Islamic Group A and Nazi Group A in your hypothetical.

Similarly, this cuts both ways, despite how it's being presented here. Unlike some places, there are rules in some parts of Australia governing the legality of displaying symbols. Where I live, the swastika is illegal (although there are allowances for religious and cultural purposes) due to it being a symbol of violence and division. Patches on motor cycle gangs, and tattoos of the same are also illegal. Religious symbols are not, whether they are used as rallying cries for terrorism or not, as there is an understanding that the religion is made up of a diversity of people.
Another example of this is the knife ban in place in Australian schools, and the allowance for Kirpans.

Ultimately, most of the Australian legislation I have read in this area discusses violence with political, ideological or religious foundations. These are legislative documents almost no one reads, and are not part of the common language discourse. I fail to see the problem, personally.

 

[stevecanuck]

Why would I be confused given that has nothing to do with anything I actually said?



No, I assumed it was very simple, but that you didn't understand. This is because you replied with stuff unconnected to what I said, then did your LOL schtick insisting your reply was actually connected to what I said, then made several other irrelevant responses along the same lines of your initial misunderstanding, all while never addressing what I actually said in any way.




Finally, something that relates to what I actually said

Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and other forms of neo-paganism have (either definitively or arguably) identifiable human origins.

Forms of Hinduism recognise the human mythical origins of their religion. Neo-pagans may see gods as mythical archetypes, psychologically useful constructs or features of the natural world

Your demarcation rules out numerous things we generally consider religions, so I don’t think it is particularly useful in the diverse, modern world.

It’s just defining religion by its resemblance to Abrahamic beliefs.

Your entire argument boils down to equating 'spiritual' with 'religious'. It's also a non sequitur.

Go back and read the title of this thread. You'll see its intended scope is much more narrow than you're trying to make it. It's about an Islamic group's attempt at distancing the tenets of Islam from terrorism. If you want to talk about that (and clearly you don't), you know where to find me.

And while you wouldn't need faith to identify Marx, you would need faith to assume certain tenets of Marxism such as the teleological view of history that necessitates the triumph of the proletariat. The idea that history follows laws akin to the laws of physics is functionally identical to the idea of Divine Providence.

Numerous secular ideologies contains concepts that are hard to differentiate from 'the supernatural'.

Again, this is the topic of this thread, which you have derailed:

Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view.​

 

[Augustus]

Again, this is the topic of this thread, which you have derailed:

Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view.​

I made a short reply to another poster based on something they said as normally happens on forums.

You jumped into the conversation with irrelevant nonsense. If you think it is “detailing” why did you bother initiating and continuing a conversation largely unconnected to anything I actually said only to whine about the conversation you started?

If you want to understand the link to the OP as you can;t make it yourself, the OP says "A spokesperson for ASIO said the overarching descriptors of "ideologically motivated violent extremism" and "religiously motivated violent extremism" allowed accurate categorisation of security threats on the basis of their primary driver."

For me if you put Islamic terrorism into the category of "ideologically motivated terrorism" it is not whitewashing anything. You are still calling it the same thing. People can still identify the ideology responsible.

As terrorism is rarely caused by a single factor, ideologically motivated is more accurate, and better helps people understand human psychology. Terrorism motivated by beliefs and values is simply that, it matters not if they are held for 'religious' reasons or 'secular' reasons, what matters is the belief and its impact on behaviour.

Other than via arbitrary classification, there is no fundamental difference between religiously motivated and ideologically motivated violence.

Again, this wouldn't prevent you from your diatribes against Islam and Muhammad and how much you hate them and think they are really nasty and bad and mean.

You don't have to think there is a fundamental difference between religion and ideology in order to hate Islam as an ideology.

Your entire argument boils down to equating 'spiritual' with 'religious'. It's also a non sequitur.

No it really doesn’t. Again your powers of comprehension fail you badly.

Definition of Religion​

3.2
Australian case law has recognised the difficulty in attempting to exhaustively define “religion”. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses case, discussed further in Chapter Four, Latham CJ said in this regard:

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise a definition of religion which would satisfy the adherents of all the many and various religions which exist, or have existed in the world.1

3.3
The members of the Court in the Scientology case, also discussed in Chapter Four, concurred with this view.2 They nevertheless went on to point out certain indicia of religion. Mason ACJ and Brennan J held that:

… for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.


Unsurprisingly, religion is defined by its resemblance to Christianity, and in a manner that defines many people who would self identify as belonging to a religion as not being not religious. Lots of 'religions' are very borderline on these criteria, at least for some adherents.

Numerous 'secular' ideologies would qualify as a Marxist sense of Historical teleology, Hitler's sense of providential millenarian nationalism, etc. are 'supernatural' in that they function to explain a (completely fictitious) purpose in the universe that certainly not reflected in the laws of nature. They also have canons of conduct to effect that belief (which some religions don't).

Honestly, I think pretty much all ideologies hold to tenets that are patently untrue.

For me if people want to have a category of 'religious' that is distinct from 'ideological', just be honest that this is based on somewhat arbitrarily grandfathering in certain religions as being religions and rule out everything else.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps, but I think there would be far more commonality of approach in Islamic terror group A and B, than in Islamic Group A and Nazi Group A in your hypothetical.

But would there be more in common between 2 religious terror groups, such as Jihadis and Christian-nationalist white supremacists, or between "secular" Nazis and Christian-nationalist White supremacists?

In Britain there has been violence between Hindu and Muslim groups in some cities, it is not impossible that this will escalate to terrorist attacks. It is not impossible that there will be white supremacist attacks on minority communities.

I would say that these would all be roughly the same phenomenon - communal violence based on identity. Whether people draw these lines on grounds of ethnicity, religion, or both makes minimal difference imo.

But you can potentially have the Muslim-Hindu stuff classified as "religious" terrorism, and the white supremacist as 'ideological'. This creates a system where, for the Hindu and Muslim groups the terrorism reflects them all, but the white supremacist version only reflects white supremacists.

Similarly, this cuts both ways, despite how it's being presented here. Unlike some places, there are rules in some parts of Australia governing the legality of displaying symbols. Where I live, the swastika is illegal (although there are allowances for religious and cultural purposes) due to it being a symbol of violence and division. Patches on motor cycle gangs, and tattoos of the same are also illegal. Religious symbols are not, whether they are used as rallying cries for terrorism or not, as there is an understanding that the religion is made up of a diversity of people.
Another example of this is the knife ban in place in Australian schools, and the allowance for Kirpans.

Ultimately, most of the Australian legislation I have read in this area discusses violence with political, ideological or religious foundations. These are legislative documents almost no one reads, and are not part of the common language discourse. I fail to see the problem, personally.

Religious exceptions tend to be based on grandfathering in traditional systems of belief and practice and arbitrarily declaring certain things to be religions and other things not to be.

There are reasons to do this, but they are neither objective or consistent.

For me, the reasons to do this for religious exemptions don't really make sense in the context of religiously/ideologically motivate violence. If being 'divisive' is a reason to modify what is acceptable in terms of symbols, it also makes sense to avoid being divisive by subjectively and somewhat arbitrarily trying to demarcate "religious" violence from "ideological" violence when the things that make up the former are simply subsets of the latter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But would there be more in common between 2 religious terror groups, such as Jihadis and Christian-nationalist white supremacists, or between "secular" Nazis and Christian-nationalist White supremacists?

In Britain there has been violence between Hindu and Muslim groups in some cities, it is not impossible that this will escalate to terrorist attacks. It is not impossible that there will be white supremacist attacks on minority communities.

I would say that these would all be roughly the same phenomenon - communal violence based on identity. Whether people draw these lines on grounds of ethnicity, religion, or both makes minimal difference imo.

But you can potentially have the Muslim-Hindu stuff classified as "religious" terrorism, and the white supremacist as 'ideological'. This creates a system where, for the Hindu and Muslim groups the terrorism reflects them all, but the white supremacist version only reflects white supremacists.



Religious exceptions tend to be based on grandfathering in traditional systems of belief and practice and arbitrarily declaring certain things to be religions and other things not to be.

There are reasons to do this, but they are neither objective or consistent.

For me, the reasons to do this for religious exemptions don't really make sense in the context of religiously/ideologically motivate violence. If being 'divisive' is a reason to modify what is acceptable in terms of symbols, it also makes sense to avoid being divisive by subjectively and somewhat arbitrarily trying to demarcate "religious" violence from "ideological" violence when the things that make up the former are simply subsets of the latter.

Thanks, I think you make some good points here. I'm not really sure that there is any 'demarcation' happening, though. All of the legislation I have read includes a small shopping list of the 'types' of terrorism as part of a single clause.

eg. To be considered a terrorist act by the legislation, an act needs to satisfy two main criteria;
1) It intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.
2) It causes one or more of the following:

• death, serious harm or danger to a person
• serious damage to property
• a serious risk to the health or safety of the public
• serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

Source : https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/australias-counter-terrorism-laws

So yes, religious terrorism is separately identified to 'political or ideological', but ultimately it's a grab bag calling out the need for a higher cause of some description to be involved in order for something to be considered terrorism. I'd don't think it's any more unreasonable or unwarranted to say 'religious' than it is to say 'political', and in neither case does the segregate terrorism in a legal sense. The descriptors can overlap, that really doesn't cause issue. What would cause issue is any motivation for terrorist acts not included in the umbrella statement.

 

[stevecanuck]

I made a short reply to another poster based on something they said as normally happens on forums.

You jumped into the conversation

YOU "made a short reply", but I "jumped into the conversation". Got it.

Your desire to color everything and create bias is obvious.

Terrorism motivated by beliefs and values is simply that, it matters not if they are held for 'religious' reasons or 'secular' reasons,

Of course it matters. It tells you where to look to understand it.

what matters is the belief

Pick a lane. Does the belief matter or not?

and its impact on behaviour.

On that we agree. People who kill for their 'ism' are equally horrible.

Other than via arbitrary classification, there is no fundamental difference between religiously motivated and ideologically motivated violence.

Sorry, but root beleifs are NOT an "arbitrary classification". They are the cause. The tenets of Islam are the root of ....wait for it .... Islamic terrorism.

Again, this wouldn't prevent you from your diatribes against Islam and Muhammad and how much you hate them and think they are really nasty and bad and mean.

I do hate them, and they are "bad and mean". I hate them because they are "bad and mean".

You don't have to think there is a fundamental difference between religion and ideology in order to hate Islam as an ideology.

Except for the fact that Islam is a religion that is so all-compassing that it is also a whole-life ideology. Your earlier pretend quibble is that it can't be differentiated from secualr ideology.

 

[stevecanuck]

Honestly, I think pretty much all ideologies hold to tenets that are patently untrue.

For me if people want to have a category of 'religious' that is distinct from 'ideological', just be honest that this is based on somewhat arbitrarily grandfathering in certain religions as being religions and rule out everything else.

There is nothing even remotely questionable as to whether or not Islam is a religion, and whether or not it inspires terrorism.

From the article in the OP, here is the type of propaganda and bare-faced lie that the Muslim groups are trying to sneak by the rest of us:

"The group's spokeswoman Ramia Abdo Sultan said terrorism was driven by political ideology and not religion. The presumption that terrorism is inherently tied to religion is not only inaccurate but harmful," Ms Abdo Sultan told a press conference."

She's right about terrorism not being tied to ALL religion, and she wants Islam to piggy-back on that basic truth. Sophistry at its best.

"This misconception persists despite extensive scholarly work demonstrating that terrorism is driven by political and ideological motives, not religious faith."

That would be the bare-faced lie part of the program. How many cries of "allahu akbar" and depictions of the Islamic shahada have to be ignored to tell that lie?

 

[Augustus]

YOU "made a short reply", but I "jumped into the conversation". Got it.

Your desire to color everything and create bias is obvious.

Interesting how your quote stopped mid sentence.

“You jumped into the conversation with irrelevant nonsense.“

I made a short reply related to what someone else said, you generally have been replying to figments of your imagination based on your failure to comprehend what I actually said.

Of course it matters. It tells you where to look to understand it.

Case in point

Sorry, but root beleifs are NOT an "arbitrary classification". They are the cause. The tenets of Islam are the root of ....wait for it .... Islamic terrorism.

And again.

Except for the fact that Islam is a religion that is so all-compassing that it is also a whole-life ideology. Your earlier pretend quibble is that it can't be differentiated from secualr ideology.

And again…

Pick a lane. Does the belief matter or not?

And again…

There is nothing even remotely questionable as to whether or not Islam is a religion,

And again…

I do hate them

Really? Not sure anyone here had noticed.

Anyway, seeing as you are unable to reply to what I actually said, I’ll leave you to your hatred and bitterness until the next thread.

 

[stevecanuck]

Interesting how your quote stopped mid sentence.

“You jumped into the conversation with irrelevant nonsense.“

Okay, if you want to play kids games, it's my turn.

Nuh-uh. You "made a short reply" containing "irrelevant nonesense".

Your turn, but hurry. Recess is almost over.

I made a short reply related to what someone else said, you generally have been replying to figments of your imagination based on your failure to comprehend what I actually said.

Yawn.

Case in point

And again.

And again…

And again…

And again…

Really? Not sure anyone here had noticed.

Anyway, seeing as you are unable to reply to what I actually said, I’ll leave you to your hatred and bitterness until the next thread.

Another Yawn.