Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[Berkut]

I did not claim that they are not Marxist, I just said that they are rather likely Muslims, and hence motivated by a belief that their attacks, even if politically motivated, will still result in a religious reward.

I don't really know much about PFLP, but this nugget from wiki is interesting:

According to Politburo member and former aircraft hijacker Leila Khaled, the PFLP does not see suicide bombing as a form of resistance to occupation or a strategic action or policy and no longer carries out such attacks.

That stands in contrast to several mentioned suicide bombings the group has engaged in in the early 2000s.

In any case, my position has never been that suicide bombing is a uniquely religious phenomenon. It is enough to note that it is *mostly* one, and even in the example you provide where the stated objectives are not religious, it is still being executed by religious people who, as I noted, almost certainly believe that they will enjoy eternal paradise as a result of their actions.

Hell, I would guess that you can actually come up with examples of absolutely non-religious suicide attacks - that Tamil Tigers, for example? But that doesn't really disprove my point.

[lustindarkness]

For some reason I now want to watch Achmed The Dead Terrorist signing Jingle Bombs.

[Malthus]

I did not claim that they are not Marxist, I just said that they are rather likely Muslims, and hence motivated by a belief that their attacks, even if politically motivated, will still result in a religious reward.

I don't really know much about PFLP, but this nugget from wiki is interesting:

According to Politburo member and former aircraft hijacker Leila Khaled, the PFLP does not see suicide bombing as a form of resistance to occupation or a strategic action or policy and no longer carries out such attacks.

That stands in contrast to several mentioned suicide bombings the group has engaged in in the early 2000s.

No doubt they found that the opprobrium earned from such attacks was counter-productive to their propaganda efforts.

In any case, my position has never been that suicide bombing is a uniquely religious phenomenon. It is enough to note that it is *mostly* one, and even in the example you provide where the stated objectives are not religious, it is still being executed by religious people who, as I noted, almost certainly believe that they will enjoy eternal paradise as a result of their actions.

Hell, I would guess that you can actually come up with examples of absolutely non-religious suicide attacks - that Tamil Tigers, for example? But that doesn't really disprove my point.

Their founder, George Habash, was by background from a Christian family, not Muslim. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. In fact, he was a former church choirboy! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Habash

It strikes me as a somewhat ... unusual claim that an avowedly secular, Marxist group created by a (former) Christian (choirboy or not  ) would be composed of believing Muslims motivated by an eternal heavenly reward of virgins.

If you won't accept this as an example of an "absolutely non-religious suicide attack", it strikes me that you won't accept any. Tamil Tigers? Hindu. Vietnamese Communists? Buddhist ...

I can't "disprove" your point because it is, evidently, not disprovable by evidence. All I can do (all I tried to do) was to answer the challenge posed - to find a non-religious group that used suicide bombing tactics. There is, of course, no way to prove whether the individuals involved were or where not religious (despite belonging to a non-religious group), because they are mostly unknown - at least, as far as their private devotions go.

By the same token, one could argue that many members of avowedly religious terrorist groups aren't, personally, motivated by religion. That may even be true, but there is no way of proving it.

Suicide bombing would be "mostly" a "religious" tactic today even if religion was not a particular motivator, because right now the majority of really active terrorist groups are religious and Muslim. This wasn't always true - for example, in the Palestinian case, in the 40s through 70s most active Palestinian terrorist groups were not religious, but Arab nationalists and Marxists. That was the era when Palestinian groups gained their rep for terrorism. Similarly, most active terrorist groups world-wide used to be marxist and/or nationalist. That did not stop them from using terror tactics. The reasonable conclusion is that fanaticism in such groups is pretty indistinguishable in its effects, whether the source of that fanaticism is religious, nationalist, marxist, something else, or some combination of the above: that as groups change their express motivation (or are succeeded with groups with different motives), their tactics don't change a lot.

[Valmy]

At least the Communists do not tell you you are going to burn forever for masturbating.

[Malthus]

At least the Communists do not tell you you are going to burn forever for masturbating.

But porn didn't officially exist! 

We in Eastern Europe have a strange relation with sex. First, during the communist years, in many countries within the Soviet Bloc, 'anti-sex' was one of the anti-capitalist propagandistic weapons. On many newsreels you can see the accusation of the West of being spoiled, lazy, and therefore somehow 'sleazy', and our cinematography after the sexual revolt of the 60s especially was much more prudish when it came to depiction of sex. Pornography didn't officially exist (and prostitution was ardently fought with), and if at all, was usually smuggled from the West, mostly West Germany.

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19776/1/do-communists-have-better-sex

[Gups]

and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.

Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.

Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.

[The Minsky Moment]

Anarchists carried out suicide attacks back the day.

[The Minsky Moment]

I also agree with Malthus' point -- terrorist tactics, including suicide attacks, have a long regional history at this point, and what we are seeing in recent years is more of an adaptation and incorporation of those tactics to a religious ideology rather than something arising uniquely and naturally out of religious expression.

[grumbler]

Lots of Palestinian groups use suicide bombings - some are expressly religious, and some are not. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, and it has used the tactic.

Yes, PFLP used the tactic five (possibly six, though this is disputed) times in 2002-2004, and then dropped the tactic (while Islamic and Tamil Hindu organizations increased their use of it).  So, religion is not necessary to attempt to use the tactic, but religious organizations seem to be the ones who can continue to get volunteers to carry it out.  It certainly isn't clear that the five or so PFLP suicide bombers did not believe in an afterlife, even if they were members of a Marxist organization.

[grumbler]

Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.

Tamil Tigers were Hindus.

[Barrister]

Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.

Tamil Tigers were Hindus.

So was the Sinhalese government.  That was not a conflict over religion.

[Gups]

Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.

Tamil Tigers were Hindus.

Most Tamils are Hindus for sure but the LTTE was a separatist group, with Marxist leadership.

[Berkut]

Indeed - there is a difference between something a religious person does, and something a person does because of their religion.

[Gups]

Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.

Tamil Tigers were Hindus.

So was the Sinhalese government.  That was not a conflict over religion.

Sinhalese are largely Buddhist but I agree religion had little/nothing to do with the conflict though perhaps relevant as a background aggravating factor as per Serbia/Croatian conflicts.

[LaCroix]

Except that they don't. Plenty of people in the world do NOT blow themselves up with the promise of eternal paradise on their lips.

Hell, plenty of religious people don't do that, even if they are in fact in terrible conditions.

I simply do not understand this idea.

Religions are not all the same - belief systems are not all the same. They have actual content that define their followers behaviors.

Mormons don't blow themselves up. Nor do Tibetan monks. I cannot help but think that their religious strictures that say "Don't blow yourselves up" compared to "Blowing yourself up is the will of God" might have some kind of significant effect on their actions.

Yeah, it is called fanaticism, and it is driven by either

a) Abject hopelessness, or
c) The belief that it will result in real and tangible rewards such that there is considerable personal and social pressure to engage in those activities.

There are many, many examples of people in case A who do not engage in suicide bombing. Contrary to that, in nearly every case of suicide bombing, those engaging in the act (and their families) would be telling you that it is sanctioned and rewarded by their god.

Pretending like this is not so...I don't understand that.

Who said it is a necessary ingredient?

Nobody is claiming that religion is the sole cause of extremism in the world, just that it is a common cause we should recognize that.

Your argument is like saying we should not care about drunk driving, because sometimes people are in car accidents where there isn't any alcohol involved at all.

your final point really shows how much we differ on this. what i've been saying in this whole thread is that religion isn't like alcohol at all. you think it is. give people some religion and they'll suddenly change and do bad things. disagree. it's not the religion that does it but the groups associated with that religion.

this isn't about poor conditions. tibetan and mormon groups seem pretty peaceful. a destitute mormon growing up in el salvador has no basis to blow himself up or go on some "religious-driven" killing spree because there's no one sponsoring it. violent groups come into existence not because of religion but because of whatever culmination of factors exist that give birth to violent groups.

do you really believe the (mostly) lack of religious violence in the US exists because the bible says something different? we have "religious fanatics" left and right who, while annoying, do their own thing peacefully. why is this - is christianity an objectively peaceful religion? i think that's a ridiculous notion.