NOTE: This post probably comes off as argumentative or something but it's not my intention. I do refer to another post in another thread that got my goat, but I try to explain all my points without getting butthurt.
So yeah, not attacking anyone
-------------
Catholicism is a perfect example, although it has lost most of it's power, it sticks to this single ancient and (mostly) disprooven interpretation of the Bible and just rolls with it. It generates extremism as well.
I have to disagree, Catholocism is probably one of the more progressive branches of Christianity, especially after Vatican II. The Catholic Church believes in evolution for example, and have an Academy of Science (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences).
Don't forget that the go-to 'Christian Extremists' that everyone points to, the KKK, actually hate the Catholic Church. I don't think it's fair to say that Catholicism is what breeds extremism.
Now stereotypical 'racism' is open to satire. That is the kind you'll see on Family guy and such, in reality it's the same thing as national stereotyping... Like how we stereotype French people as lover of cheese and bread, or British people tea drinkers... I fucking love tea, got a cup as I write this! Or how if cats were from Australia they'd probably be called Wallarongadingobongas. It's environmental, it's not racism because we're multicultural but it's basically the exact same thing and again it's open to satire.
But what if I said that British people were genocidal, because of things like the Irish Famine and their invention of concentration camps? Is that stereotypical racism for example? As you said I think it's a blurry line. It's easier to see a distinction when it's something light like music preference, but doesn't this also count as not 'True Racism'?
As for religion, well religion is a concept... It's an idea. I can't 'insult' an idea or a concept. It is wrong to say to someone 'you're an idiot for believing this.' I wouldn't do that, because calling someone an idiot IS an insult. But I think it's fair game for me to say 'I believe religion is idiotic, and here is why.' If someone feels insulted by that well tough shit, that's their choice.
That's fine, but if you want to say 'religion is idiotic and here is why' and then just make up something insulting, isn't that a direct insult to the followers?
I'm going to call out again the other thread, where you basically said that Muslims can't eat pork due to 'Mohammed spinning in a circle and doing a dance'. While you didn't directly say "Muslims are all idiots", by suggesting that their chosen belief is so asinine aren't you just calling them idiots?
By comparison if you were proud of British Culture, and I said "Just a shame that British Culture mandates to kill black people and have horrible teeth!", I'm not insulting YOU, but aren't I just doing it by proxy by insulting your culture/belief with some fictional reasons I made up?
(Fun Fact: British People actually have amongst the best dental Hygiene in Europe.)
Religion is at it's heart a theory, like any scientific theory. The only difference between religion as a theory and scientific theories is that science invites criticism-- After all, every hard fact is simply a theory that has never been proven wrong! It's a fact that paper is made from trees, but only because there is absolutely no reasonable theory that could prove that wrong. We all know that... That said, theoretically if a new theory was published tomorrow that disproved paper was made from trees, without a shadow of a doubt, science would accept that as the new truth with open arms. The sciences books would be rewritten and we'd all be like, WELL SHIT!
Religion is the opposite of that, religion is fixed. Religion is belief in a single idea that is unchanging. "Here is the holy book, everything in it is fact, no there is no room for debate, no there is no room for questions." Can't prove something? "That's why you have to have FAITH!" Something happens that doesn't seem in accordance with the scripture? "God works in mysterious ways!" Religion is blind faith in something that cannot be proven.... Or unproved, because; 'faith.'
As I said above, this simply isn't true.
First of all, not all religions are the same.
Some religions are fundamentalist and refuse to deviate from their written word to the letter. Others challenge that and interpret it differently. Again, the Catholic Church believes in evolution, they don't believe that 'the world was made in exactly 7 days and dinosaur bones are the devil's tricks'. Catholic Schools teach their students evolution.
Religion is at it's heart a theory, like any scientific theory. The only difference between religion as a theory and scientific theories is that science invites criticism-- After all, every hard fact is simply a theory that has never been proven wrong! It's a fact that paper is made from trees, but only because there is absolutely no reasonable theory that could prove that wrong. We all know that... That said, theoretically if a new theory was published tomorrow that disproved paper was made from trees, without a shadow of a doubt, science would accept that as the new truth with open arms. The sciences books would be rewritten and we'd all be like, WELL SHIT!
Small point, but I think you have this the other way around. I think the burden is to prove a theory rather than not be able to dis-prove it. Otherwise you get into the flying spaghetti monster nonsense, where you can say it's fact that the Spaghetti monster exists because it can't be disproven.
As I said above, most religions will accept scientific discoveries, I don't know where this idea comes from that they all ignore science.
In the past, and even today in some parts of the world, religion has such a strong strangle hold on society that questioning it leads to punishment; Prison, attack, execution and so on. In these societies there is no room for debate. Here in the West religion has faded and that's BECAUSE we're free to think for ourselves, to ask those important questions about religion which don't add up... We're also free to be any faith we choose, if we choose. And that is seen as a threat to those oppressive nations, they see directly what freedom does and they enjoy their absolute power!
A big part of this is down to a Christian/Western belief that Church and State should be seperate (EG: "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar..."). In Europe the sciences were relatively unimpeded compared to other cultures, for example, the Ottoman Empire, that believed that Religion and the State were inseparable.
Having said that, it's also worth noting that the Church in Europe was one of the only bastions of learning and eduction during the Dark Ages. Without it, much knowledge would have been lost. It was the church who were making records, translations of texts, preserving literature and setting up universities around Europe (University of Paris and Cambridge for example).
Religion can be used to oppress people, no doubt, but it's not accurate to say that about all religions impede progress or shun learning in favour of blind faith.
You will notice a correlation between those places where religion is absolute and oppression. Oppression of women, gays, of the freedoms we have in the West and a reluctance to move forward. And it is those places that breed the terrorists.
Considering that the shooters were both French born nationals, and even looking at the 2005 London Bombings, three of the bombers were born in the UK, one born in Jamaica (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Bombers), I don't think that's accurate.
I think it's this particular brand of religion that's causing it. Not all of Islam, but this particular type of fundamentalist/radical teaching is what's causing it.
