I see it as religious fanaticism
Religion = close mindedness
Yeah, so many religions have vocal converts violently snapping and driving cars into people. So much so that we couldn't possibly pick one religion in the current year with more problems with this than others. Statistically.
Religion = close mindedness
Yeah, so many religions have vocal converts violently snapping and driving cars into people. So much so that we couldn't possibly pick one religion in the current year with more problems with this than others. Statistically.
This is the definition of a closed-minded remark.
There clearly is one religion that stands out in recent years, but over the course of history other religions are not necessarily better and in some cases worse.
Religious fanaticism is religious fanaticism. If certain religions behave "statistically" differently than others, it's because of the reception or rejection of that religion in a particular historical and cultural context. It doesn't have to do with any fundamentals of said religion.
I agree that other religions when looked at era-blind don't necessarily do better, but that blindness does damage to people in the now when it informs policy.
Sure. We could even talk about the vagaries in labeling "Christian" or "Muslim" and all of the baggage that informs these labels. Or we could just look at the specifics of the individuals engaging in particular activities, or we could take it all in and weight it in the interest of the then(then = whenever you wish) or the now. I think the "now" has some salience. Not that I think that the West is innocent, but I think it isn't innocent broadly and yet we don't have Russian Nukes reigning down or Russians driving cars into crowds for Mother Russia. And yet nationalism is a form of religiousity, and Americans act violently against those who besmirch the flag. Levels of incidence and response suggest that Islam has some - at least sectarian - abnormalities in difficulties of appropriate coping and response.