[smearcase]

Can religion produce a terrorist? How?

Could this be one way?:

Have the trainee participate in jihad and become a mujahid as a man named Shazad did? :

"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad said in a long speech frequently interrupted by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum seeking clarification. "I consider myself a Mujahid, a Muslim-soldier."
Reuters June 21, 2010


Mujahid. What's that?

"Noun 1. mujahid - a Muslim engaged in what he considers to be a jihad
mujahadeen, mujahadein, mujahadin, mujahedeen, mujahedin, mujahideen, mujahidin - a military force of Muslim guerilla warriors engaged in a jihad; "some call the mujahidin international warriors but others just call them terrorists"
Moslem, Muslim - a believer in or follower of Islam"
The Free Dictionary by FARLEX (freedictionary.com)


Jihad?

" (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle. Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims."
Wilkipedia


This vicious loop must be erroneous. What is the flaw?

Can we talk about that? Or does Freedom of Religion trump Freedom of Speech?

[smoothy]

The answer is yes... and we see it every day in Islamic countries.

They are taught to say one thing to none muslims and another to their own kind. They teach its good to kill non-muslims... but not their own kind, even if they are radical terrorists.

Freedom of speech does have its limits... you for example can not incite a riot, or shout fire in a crowded building.

Religion is not a shield for terrorism or the support of terrorism. You have no freedom in the name of religion to do or say anything you want when it violates the law of the land, and the rights of those you choose to oppress.

Basiclly... you can't claim your religion requires you to evade taxes... commit pedophillia, kill others, or deprive them of their civil rights.

Its also important to specify WHAT country you indicate the rights about. Not every country offers the same rights to its citizens. Some offer as little as none... and others are quite generous.

[Wondergirl]

The question asks about "religion," but immediately jumped into Islam and Muslims.

I know from personal experience that fundamentalist Christianity can breed fear and suspicion of those who are different. Terrorism? It isn't called that, but many of those who are different in some way have lost their lives or suffered in some way because of the actions of fundamentalist Christians.

Anytime a person or a group of people or a sect or a religion feels it has lost control of a situation and its place in the greater scheme of things, there is the danger of "terrorism" (or bullying or abuse or reprisal or whatever name you want to give it).

[smoothy]

Name another religion on the plantet TODAY, where the religious leaders call for terrorism, and forced subjugation of all people of a different faith.

The only name that will come up is Islam. Wiccas don't do it... Buddists, Taoists, Christians, Jews... etc... don't do it as a organized practice. Only Islam do you find Religious leaders cultivating this sort of mindset, with no objections by the higher leaders of that church, and in fact, a nodding approvale. And THAT makes it a hallmark of that religion.

[Curlyben]

Don't forget the Christian Crusade to the Holy Land 11-13th Century.

So it's not just Muslims that partake in this activity.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[smoothy]

Don't forget the Christian Crusade to the Holy Land 11-13th Century.

So it's not just Muslims that partake in this activity.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why I said on the planet TODAY. But the Crusades were in direct response to Islam conqureing historically CHristian lands FIRST... so that again falls to ISLAM beiung the terrorists since they forced conversion and killed those who would not, and the Christians were just defending their historical brothers...

Now the only point in Christianity where that MIGHT apply, would have been during the Spanish Inquisition... but not the Crusades.

Big difference between what happened in the middle ages (and was limited to that era)... vs what has been happening with a particular religion non-stop for 1,300 years and continues to this day. People were illiterate and didn't know what happened in the next town back then... today with radio, TV and internet there is no excuse for blindly believing radial Church leaders rants. Today its willful ignorance... and the fault of the individual as much as the Church leader that preaches that hatred. Sort of like the Rev Jeramiah Wright has. However his rants have not led to innocent people being killed, and as much as he preached hatred... he never called on his followers to kill others.

[Curlyben]

Smearcase, you know better than that!!
You made NO mention of era of reference in your OP.

I was merely pointing out, from your OWN title, that Islam is NOT the only religion that has used these tactics.

Can terrorism be cultivated by religion?

Remember one person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter.
It's all a matter of perspective.

I'll accept your apology now, thanks.

Also the Crusades where NOT just against Muslims, but many other religions stand points as well.
It was Rome (and others) stamping their own view point on the rest of the world.

[smearcase]

Post #5 indicates that you were replying to smoothy. I didn't mention era. He asked a question and your answer dropped back 1,000 years from his TODAY qualifier. I debated where to put this question but history wasn't on my mind. There are recent, actual quotes from an alleged terrorist at NYC. That's pertinent while your comments about it are not.
You assume a lot of things like me knowing better than that, that I know what elicited your comments, and that any apology is being offered for you to accept.
I do respect the administrators of this site even when they close a thread while a simple debate is in progress. Actually it should have been closed when it stopped making any progress. My analysis indicated that about 68% of replies to Ex's Mosque at ground Zero were against or leaning against the mosque as of page 76 and I haven't found anything to change that since. No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.
Maybe administrators shouldn't be permitted to take a position on a thread or if they do, another in authority should take actions when needed.

[Curlyben]

Post #5 indicates that you were replying to smoothy. I didn't mention era. He asked a question and your answer dropped back 1,000 years from his TODAY qualifier.

I was responding to your own comments are putting things into perspective.
Currently, mostly due to the increased media coverage, Islam has gotten a very bad name for itself. So it was more of a balancing comment.

You assume a lot of things like me knowing better than that, that I know what elicited your comments, and that any apology is being offered for you to accept.

Yep referring to your reddie, but I accept.

I do respect the administrators of this site even when they close a thread while a simple debate is in progress. Actually it should have been closed when it stopped making any progress. My analysis indicated that about 68% of replies to Ex's Mosque at ground Zero were against or leaning against the mosque as of page 76 and I haven't found anything to change that since. No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.

I purposely stayed out of that one so I could watch things unfold.

Maybe administrators shouldn't be permitted to take a position on a thread or if they do, another in authority should take actions when needed.

And that's how things do indeed happen.
If a Mod or Admin does have a position on a subject then they are not permitted to take any action on that thread. The official hats are off for the purpose of the subject in hand.

Hope that clears up a few things.

[NeedKarma]

No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.

By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.

[smoothy]

By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.

Being on the opposite side of NeedKarma in many cases... I'll agree with this statement as well.

[smearcase]

Check for yourself, karm. It's your claim, your calculations-not mine.

[NeedKarma]

That why these threads are kind of pointless, aren't they?

[Wondergirl]

By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.

I have.

[smearcase]

Karm
Sounds like you missed one. Post your calculations for all to see.

[NeedKarma]

Let's see now: 1
Link Wondergirl?

[Wondergirl]

let's see now: 1
Link Wondergirl?

No link, but reading one of these threads did change my mind and soften my stance.

[NeedKarma]

Duly noted. But most of these types of threads are pure ranting mixed with spreading of FUD.

[Wondergirl]

Duly noted. But most of these types of threads are pure ranting mixed with with spreading of FUD.

Being the intelligent person I am, I was able to wade through the morass of nastiness and misspellings and bad grammar and find the grains of truth beneath the surface.

[smearcase]

I only gave facts and quotes, if the all were accurate as they were placed on the quoted sites. Should I accept your undocumented sound bites or my own lying eyes?