I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1

In the wake of 9/11, we found ourselves asking what could inspire people to commit such a tragedy. We were asking ourselves, why do they hate us? I have begun so far explaining the roots of our religious challenges in the modern west that have lead to the contempt of the west. This is in no way justifying their behavior, don’t get me wrong, this is merely explaining it. Only with understanding the ideology can we combat it. Only ideology can defeat ideology.

But let us continue identifying problems before solutions. The crisis of modern religion in the west so plagued by secularist dogma is a primary factor in the surge of terrorism. The series of questions I asked myself two paragraphs earlier are precisely at the core of the terrorist issue. You may ask how terrorism can be so intertwined with those questions, but it is less the questions themselves but the lack of answers to those questions. There is a specific discipline of study designed to answer those questions. A discipline so utterly rejected and denied of legitimacy: theology.

It is ridiculous to assume the theological field of study is not a legitimate one. And yet this is how the public perceptions are steadily moving towards. It does not take a genius to realize this. In our day and age, the public attitude only thinks about philosophy in general. The books we read, the classes in school, the people we hear about are in the field of philosophy. The Church ministers of our day misinterpret scripture on an almost weekly basis, someway or the other. In the Muslim World, extremists (this does not imply terrorists) refuse to even consider the theological approach to Islamic study, leading to much of the confusion and disaster when it comes to institutions in power such as the Muslim Brotherhood.Many simple questions I have about the Bible are not even addressed on Google today, as if the theologians of our day don’t even have access to the internet (think about John 17:4 – carefully). Most of our intellectual public can explain to you what existentialism is, but don’t have a clue about biblical predestination. This is a sad truth, and this truth is why terrorists terrorize.

To be a doctor is to have one of the most widely respected professions of our day. Doctors have a responsibility for taking our bodies. By analogy, theologians are responsible for taking care of our souls. Ironically, people of western religions would see the soul as infinitely more important than the body, as it is everlasting, and yet we refuse to give even a moment’s thought to the importance of the field. The here and now are equally important to theologians. How we deal with the societies we live in based upon our religious values is decided by them: the very moral structure of society lies in the hands of the theologians, and to lose them is to lose the insight they can provide. A teacher of the Islamic university Al-Azhar states that a theologian requires two disciplines: theology and sociology. The understanding of religion is intertwined with the understanding of society, so that one can apply their faith within the context of their living. Without theologians both are lost.

Because of this loss of insight, we live in a sort of religious anarchy today. Religion is practically free for all, and we interpret things whatever and whichever way we want to. We do foolish things like quoting “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” without even understanding the meaning of the phrase (no, it has nothing to do with secularism). To most secular minds, the theologian has no relevance, but I don’t think even an atheist should see it that way. When the learned of a faith suddenly lose relevance to that faith, the people with the loudest voice and the most testosterone take the faith into their own control: thus the terrorists. When the voices of the scholars that repeatedly and constantly preach against extremism are suddenly silenced, the bloodshed continues on. This is the phenomenon in the Muslim World, where the theological tradition was nearly destroyed after colonialism. Just as I can feel philosophy to be pointless, the destroying of such an institution would only cause more problems then I’d seek to solve.

The lack of religious understanding in our modern world can be attributed to the loss of theology. The numerous questions we ask, or don’t ask for that matter, are what terrorists answer themselves without the tools to look into other methods. This is in broad terms of course, as the majority of terrorists would be gangsters if they lived in America, or cartel members if they lived in Brazil. But the foundations and roots of radical ideology come from this lack of resources, this lack of understanding. The chaos that erupts from no learned opinion is disastrous. Imagine if half of all US bills on civil law in America suddenly disappeared. Our court system would go haywire, and our justice would become unjust. The loopholes would tenfold, and the system would be abused to the point of no return. This is what has happened, to an extent, to the religious traditions of the world. The secularist dogma has destroyed it seemingly irrevocably, and the gaps were filled by maniacs. Put simply, the maniacs then do whatever they want. That is why the terrorists terrorize.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 2)

  1. “…the majority of terrorists would be gangsters if they lived in America…”

    Politicians, surely?

    Gangsters do not try to convince the public that their immoral activities (murder, assault, coercion, extortion, theft, fraud etc) are somehow morally justifiable.

    The ONLY groups in society who attempt to convince other people that their immoral activities (murder, assault, coercion, extortion, theft, fraud etc) are somehow morally justifiable are politicians, terrorists, royalty and the church. Often these groups are linked, such as religious terrorists, or politicians who are related to (or friends with) royal families.

    Religions might be useful as a tool to deter immoral activities (including terrorism), but only IF they applied their own universal moral rules universally (ie to everyone). But no priest or pope or bishop or nun or minister of any significance will ever APPLY THEIR OWN RELIGION’S BASIC MORAL CODE and publicly condemn politicians for murdering, stealing, assaulting, coercing, kidnaping, torturing, stealing, extorting or defrauding. This is as absurd as having a fire service who will preach about fire safety in the abstract (every Sunday) but who will never actually go out and put out fires in real life.

    Either these activities (murder, assault, coercion, extortion, theft, fraud etc) are immoral and we condemn them, or they are not and we support them – so which is it?!

    In light of the evidence we must logically conclude that the TRUE purpose of religions is to impose moral rules onto the masses, while simultaneously turning a blind eye when it comes to the immoral activities of politicians, terrorists, royalty or the church itself. After all, that has been the trend so far throughout all of human history.

    “The first thing to do when presented with a moral rule is to examine NOT the moral rule itself, but those who claim to be exempt from that moral rule” – Stefan Molyneux.

    To believe in a god MEANS to believe in his/ her moral rules (the ten commandments or whatever). To not apply those god-given moral rules to yourself and to others is to disobey god’s will and make a mockery out of your own (supposed) religious beliefs.

    Terrorism is defined not just by the committing of an immoral act in the pursuit of some political agenda, but also by the terrorist’s absurd claim of moral legitimacy, in spite of their immoral activities. This absurd claim of moral legitimacy is what distinguishes a terrorist from other kinds of gangsters or thugs who never pretend their murder, theft or coercion is moral.

    If a religious person (a priest, churchgoer etc) fails to condemn the blatantly immoral activities of others, and instead willingly supports those activities and declares them to be somehow morally legitimate, then they are behaving just like terrorists in that regard.

    Morality is not rocket science.

    The enormous complexity in religious ideology is like the enormous complexity in law – it is there primarily to disguise and distract AWAY FROM simple moral rules, which would be perfectly adequate (and far more effective) on their own. The complexity, and the endless debate which results from this complexity, is like an eternal street carnival procession which allows the most immoral in society to commit their evil acts and then make their getaway unnoticed. And it has been that way throughout all history.

    It all boils down to one simple question. Should we apply (god’s) universal moral rules universally (ie to everybody)?

    Like

  2. Thanks for commenting! I look forward to hearing more from you. I won’t answer your grand question, I”ll leave that open ended for anyone else who wants to comment, but I have some reply for the other stuff you’ve said:

    -I like what you said about the terrorists becoming political and the like. I hope you’re not implying that all politicians are self serving creeps, but certainly some are. Now I’ve never met a terrorist or anything ( :P), but the numbers show that most of them are angry male young teens. The same demographic for gangsters and whatnot. The masterminds of the ideology and the leaders of these groups (paradoxically the ones who don’t do the suicide…) might be the politicians and the like by their claims of moral legitimacy. The followers I suspect are just looking for how to contribute violence to their society.

    -Onto what you said about ministers and stuff, this is precisely what I’m talking about. Our theologians have no power, and they succumb to the whims of their superiors because otherwise their voice is crushed. In the Islamic World for one the Saudi Arabian government has a strong control over Salafi scholars globally – and thus little is ever done to criticize Saudi Arabia (which does lots of major things wrong, like for example, a monarchy is universally considered not the best form of Islamic governance). The same goes for their treatment of women and the like.

    Once again, thanks for commenting. Hope to hear more from you soon.

    Like

  3. Pingback: I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 3) | Whispers of Satan

  4. @AbandonTV
    ”It all boils down to one simple question. Should we apply (god’s) universal moral rules universally (ie to everybody)?”

    Depends where one mines examples of this supposed divine (gods)morality? And even may depend on which god are you referring to?
    I sure as hell wouldn’t give you two halfpennies for Yahweh’s morality.In fact, to accredit any morality to this asshole would automatically tar you with the same brush. And what was Yahweh? Not a nice fellow I believe. Not nice at all. But then very few people actually study the Old Testament let alone read it.
    And the Ten Commandments ? Biggest load of BS

    Like

    • Right, but my point was not about WHERE the moral rule comes from. Either you agree that it’s immoral to murder, rape, steal (or whatever) …. or you think these are morally acceptable ways to behave. Where the moral rule comes from is largely irrelevant.

      Moral rules do not actually ‘exist’. They are just agreements we accept or reject …. abide by or violate. Moral rules are like the agreement to all drive on one side of the road. There is no ‘correct’ side of the road to drive on, just an agreement.

      But as well as being agreements we can also apply logic to morality as well. We can argue that murder is immoral because we would never wish to be murdered ourselves. This is called ‘Universally Preferable Behaviour’ (UPB) and is a way to derive moral rules from pure logic, without needing to look it up in some old religious text.

      But my point was this: if you accept a moral rule (regardless of where it comes from), then should you apply it to everyone? I think most people would say “Well yeah, obviously!” But if you look at the world this is NOT what happens.

      Governments (and before them the church and royalty) have always imposed moral rules onto society, while making themselves exempt from those moral rules. Theft is wrong, and that’s why we must steal your wages by force. Murder is wrong, and that’s why we need to go invade this country and kill a bunch of people. Fraud is wrong, and that’s why we need to monopolise the money system by force and print money whenever we feel like it as well as taking out loans in your children’s names (and so on).

      Again the issue of WHERE those moral rules come from is a side issue. The REAL issue is who is claiming to have some kind of magical exemption from moral rules? You’ll find in every case it is the very same people who have set themselves up as the enforcers of those same moral rules (in this age that’s the state).

      When the government (or any other group) enforces a moral rule while simultaneously making themselves exempt from that moral rule they are NOT really enforcing that moral rule at all. They are enforcing their monopolistic right to violate that moral rule!

      Like

      • I could not agree with you more. I quote you an Arab philosopher from the 1400s:

        Government is “an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself” –Ibn Khaldun. As for your stuff on universal morality, that’s something I’ll talk about one day.

        Cheers,
        Lux

        Like

      • Sorry for the late reply.
        And yet the most stable countries – ones that have the highest per capita income, highest standard of living , some of the best medical care etc etc are those that have eschewed mainstream religion or are moving away from it. Sweden comes to mind. Not perfect but a damn site better than many.
        The worst western country also happens to be the most religious – the US.

        Religion and/or theology has no part to play in today’s society. It is untenable and based on fallacy.
        And Islam is worse than Christianity.
        To defend either one would need to have one’s head examined.

        Like

        • The religious demographics of Sweden are contested. 80% attend church. A large number nevertheless do not beleive in God. It’s weirder than you make it out to be.

          You mentioned the west. The Christian west. Christian history. Christian tradition.
          In the Islamic world, it did best when religious. Under the Abbasid Arab world or in Umayyad Spain.

          Go back to the early 20th century. The most non religious countries? Nazi Germany. Maoist China. Stalinist Russia. Things change. Get over it.

          “theology has no part to play in today’s society”
          This is what terrorists say. Look how they turned out.

          Like

          • I could not make out the demographics either. They were a bit odd. Nevertheless, unlike a religious country such as the UK for instance, where Islamic idiots are trying to foister Sharia law on the British ( I hose myself just thinking of this) Sweden is still moving towards a godless society.
            Islam just about killed off scientific advancement for how long?
            How much are women struggling in Islamic societies?
            Islam for women, democracy and freedom is not much beeter than what living in a zoo is to a cheetah.

            Nazi Germany was most definitely religious – please don’t chuck in THAT old Canard just because Dear Old Adolf was a chuffing headcase of the first order. He just hated the Jews and other non-Aryans..and gays and ..well lots of others, but he was definitely religious as was Germany.
            You don’t really need me to pull out stats and photos and quotes do you?

            “theology has no part to play in today’s society”
            This is what terrorists say. Look how they turned out.
            Word games? Really…..

            A silly comment which actually demonstrates quite succinctly the original meaning of what I meant.

            Like

            • I just wanted to point out that statism is also a religion/ superstition/ cult. It is the product of (and it encourages) the same kind of superstitious, irrational mindset as religions. The fact that most people think it is the opposite of irrational madness makes it by far the most dangerous of all current superstitions.

              Instead of a ‘god’ you have a ‘government’ – a fictional construct which does not exist in reality. The only thing which exists is PEOPLE who claim to speak ON BEHALF of this entity called ‘government’….. just like the people called ‘priests’ who claim to speak on behalf of a ‘god’.

              It’s hard to argue against all men being created equal. This has always been a problem for people wishing to rule over others. By setting up an all powerful, but invisible, authority (government/ god) and then claiming to be able to speak and act on its behalf priests/ politicians are able to act AS IF they have more authority, power and rights but under the pretence that they are just doing the bidding of ‘god’ or ‘government’.

              If priests allowed the public to elect them (from a handful of candidates chosen and sponsored by the church) and if they claimed ‘god’ was not up in heaven but was in every person down here on earth, and if they portrayed themselves as ‘serving god’ (ie serving the people AKA ‘public servants’) then they would have converted their religion into the current democratic system we all know and love today! 🙂

              The key to human beings is our adaptability… and that applies just as much to the ruling classes. Statism is just their way of adapting religion to suit the modern world of science and technology. If you think of religion as a technology invented to control the masses, then statism is like rebranding that technology to capture a new and growing market.

              It’s like Coca Cola starting up another company and a different brand of cola and then marketing it as a ‘rival product’.

              The dangerous superstition of statism explained in two minutes… LINK

              Like

            • I am against the silly guys in Britain trying to do what they are doing on the same grounds Tariq Ramadan is.

              Women are struggling quite a bit in Islamic societies, and my hearts go out to them. Of course half the eurocentric reasons people will cite are false and ignorant and stupid, but the other half is true. Then again, plenty of women are oppressed in the West. Then again, 100 years ago racism was rampant in the West and absent in the Muslim world. Things change. Believe it not.

              “Islam just about killed off scientific advancement for how long?”

              wat. read history perhaps? I recommend any good high school textbook to get you started.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s