The Logical Conclusion to Religion...

In the aftermath of the horrific Paris Attacks friday night, Twitter was quick to jump down the throat of anyone daring articulate that Islamic extremists were at it again. 'Terrorism has no religion' quickly became a trending topic, and as warm and fuzzy as that might make us feel, it is actually a load of crap. Religion has used terrorism for just about as long as religion has existed. Pretending otherwise is historically blind. Pretending religion doesn't play a role in modern jihad against the West is intellectually bankrupt.

Some are even committing dizzying mental gymnastics to separate ISIS (that is the ISLAMIC STATE) from Islam at all. ThinkProgress, which is usually not worth the paper it's printed on (see what I did there?) proves its stupidity once again with a piece entitled 'Why ISIS Is Not, In Fact, Islamic' where it pretends that having political motive wipes out the parts of the movement that are deeply intrenched in fundamentalist understanding of Islam, the Quran, and Mohammed's teachings. Let us not forget that ThinkProgress, and the five people who actually read ThinkProgress, have been blaming the entire American culture, and white people in general, for the fact that some drunk frat guys were allegedly racists once at Mizzou. So, essentially, the crimes of an isolated Frat reflect on all of society, but the actions of millions of radical Muslims say nothing about Islam at all. That is, of course the definition of intellectual hypocrisy.

But why such and urge to separate Islam from ISIS (or the countless other terrorist groups associated with radical Islam)? Well, there are two main reasons. 1) There are far too many right-wingers who are eager to blame regular Muslims for the crimes of the most radical of their religion. This is not fair and leads to the over reaction by identity politics leftists to defend 'all Muslims'. 2) It is difficult for many leftists to admit that a group they personally see as a victimized minority could be the perpetrators of such violence. They like to see victim and aggressor in black and white, and for them, the 'privileged' need to fill the role of the black hat wearing villain. Fundamentalist Muslims really poke a hole in that narrative...especially when they start killing people.

But forgetting why, it doesn't really matter. It's nearly impossible to reason with the twitter crowd. So lost in their Tumblr morality, they are irredeemable. What I think is fascinating about this 'Terrorism has no religion' nonsense is that, in fact, if taken to the logical conclusion, most religions are the very definition of terror. It is only by picking and choosing which parts to observe and which to ignore that religion has made it to the 21st century much less harmful than it was a century ago. Think about it...

Do Jews or Christians really believe that women who are raped within the city limits are complicit in their own rape and therefore should be stoned to death? Or that God would not only condone but deliberately burn down a city because of homosexuality within? Or that God would murder the first born of an entire race of people? Or call for the murder of 'witches'? ...I literally could go on and on and on and on. And these bible verses were used to perpetrate serious crimes against humanity. All of them. As society progressed Jews and Christians have had to ignore these and countless other heinous calls for murder, violence, torture, slavery, etc to integrate in a progressive, tolerant, and diverse society. In fact, Israel, the Jewish State, soundly opposes Capital Punishment for moral and ethical reasons, even though its foundational text is filled with 'eye for an eye' justice.

Do Christians really believe that children who curse their parents should be killed? Or that Jesus will punish people who do not believe in him with hell fires? Or basically any one of the epistles that make life sound like a real hell hole for anyone who happened to have never heard of Jesus before? Really? Because that is a pretty terrorizing ideology on its own. That's why most Christians have accepted that they might not know God's ultimate plan. That they should simply love each other and try to do the best they can. But, fundamentally, if you follow the 'word of God', you would look a lot more like the Westboro Baptist Church than the Unitarian Universalists. That's for certain.

Do Muslims really believe that it's okay to marry a 9-year-old child? Or to beat your wife if you avoid her face? Or that infidels must die? Or that there is a constant war with non-believers? Or that that forced conversions are sanctified by Allah? And on and on and on. In no fewer than 109 verses, the Quran calls upon believers to fight the infidels and kill them. So, explain to me how this is a religion of peace? Because you can find peaceful verses? Well, that's all well and good, and I'm certainly glad it's been the basis of belief for those Muslims who have decidedly chosen not to embrace every aspect of their religion. But for those who are fundamentalists of Islam, it logically follows that killing non-believers - or anyone - who stands in the way of Islam or the Caliphate is a religious mandate.

This extends to other religions as well. I generally talk about the 'big three' because for the people who read my blog, it covers most of us. However, there are plenty of parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, etc that could become violent and deadly if treated literally. And that's the problem isn't it? What is the point of religion at all if not interpreted literally? For the Torah or Bible or Quran to matter at all, doesn't it have to be the word of God/Allah? And if it's the word of God/Allah, then isn't every word true and valuable? At what point do we decide certain parts don't matter but the religion as a whole does? For Religious Extremists, they don't have to answer that question. They are simply following their religion to it's logical and fundamental conclusion.