The Islam Problem

It's not an Islam problem really, it's a religion problem. They're all dangerous. Without going into why religious history is one of violence, I will attempt to show why "peace" in the Middle East crisis right now is impossible.

The extremist Muslims are not going to negotiate. After releasing two American hostages, you can be sure they are willing to politicize their war, but they aren't going to change the way they think. The way they think is not a way that is open to negotiation.

Israel knows this. And they know that after Hamas attacked, they had no choice but to declare war. And war means civilian casualties.

So, if you are trying to overcome your emotional/mental illness called religion and truly think about this crisis, this is a start - Israel had no choice but to declare war. This war started by Hamas (this time) will put civilians in jeopardy because of Hamas.

I'm sorry if your emotions tell you to stick with Islam as your emotional God-guess, and yes, all religions are dangerous in similar ways, but the truth is that Israel is not investing in infrastructure globally to destroy other faiths, non-believers, and those that don't adhere to their fanatical religious laws (see Iran). It doesn't matter what Israel has done wrong in other ways, this particular issue of religious extremism is the issue about which this particular war wages.

And let's be clear. the Muslims in the US that pretend to uphold a different version of Islam are not using intellect but emotion. The case was made long ago, and recently by Sam Harris, that the passive, revisionist, non-violent adherents of a violent faith do as much or more damage than the extremists. To buy into a system, especially when you are an American politician, enables the violent faith to continue unquestioned. To be a non-violent adherent of a violent faith helps the violent ones defend their brutality. To be a part of a system and uphold it, is in fact sharing responsibility for all that the system does.

How hard would it be as a Muslim who is non-violent - and believes in peace - to break with the system? Especially as an American politician, who is free politically to criticize and change. What kind of person sees their subjective view of a religion and defends that in the face of global fanaticism? Someone in a cult - that's who. I'm sorry to be blunt (no, I'm not) but those who want peace, yet adhere to violent sects, need to stop talking and rethink their allegiances.

Is it possible that the violent extremism in Islam is not representative of the religion itself? That's what we are supposed to think if we have any tolerance for the enabling, non-violent, defenders and apologists. This same question has been asked many time about Christianity. The truth is that religion is by definition "objective' in its rules and by definition it separates those who follow from those who don't. It is a punishment-based system and so breaking those rules has consequences. This is the same outline as a democratic rule of law - religion just doesn't use rationality. I am not coming down on Islam, I am coming down on emotional thinking and blind confidence in herd-cults - religions. This is why we have the problem.

Islam is not worse than Christianity at its core, it just takes itself more seriously right now in history. And that has not always been the case.

Christianity is very dangerous and has shown itself so. It doesn't have as much serious extremism currently in large groups and in desperate third-world countries (possibly in Africa?). Its terrorism - say toward pro-choice Americans - is not on the same scale currently as the fervor contained in the cult of Islam. It doesn't bode well for modernity that religions are still afforded a moral high ground and it doesn't help that all of them are upheld by enabling, non-violent, first-world believers.