"Sacred Motivation"

Have I ever mentioned that I heart Religion News Service (like, a million times, right). Good articles and a good daily news roundup and, there is always an 'and', and they have a fair share of the lady writers-which is always a good thingy. Any who, today's article Does Religion Cause Terrorism? It's Complicated is about the influence that good 'ol faith has on making human bombs and such. Their conclusion, yes and no. Good article and all that shit, but I want to talk about what they didn't talk about.

One of the persons interviewed said the relationship is "neither the chicken or the egg when it comes to terrorists." If fact most of the peeps interviewed said the same: sure religion is a factor, but there are others like, economics, psychology and politics. Which is true, but-there is also always a 'but'-but what about when there is a direct relationship.

The writer of the article, the peeps interviewed and observers in general always seem to play a numbers game with religion and religious violence. Most Muslims are not terrorist, most Christians are good people that do not subscribe to dominionism. Sure that is true, but so what. What is this astrology? Are we only going to count the 'hits' and not the 'misses.' or visa versa. While the number of religious terrorists in an entire population of believers may be small...it still only takes one human bomb to fuck shit up.

Hutaree is my "favorite" Christian terrorist group.

Another point the article does not bring up is the motivation to commit religious violence. That guy, D'nesh D'Souza, once said in a debate with the mighty Christopher "Our Hero" Hitchens that Israel Palestine is all about land, and he is correct, but...Why? It is because their particular good book says Gawd said it is OK to go all gang-star and just take over the land. Why is dominionism in the news lately, because Bachmann's and Perry's Gawd says, in their particular good book, that they are ordained and justified in... ruling the world. Sure politics, psychology and economics play important roles, but it is bronze age books intended to control the illiterate masses of the past that give believers today the justification to commit religious violence.

The nature of extremist religion is elitist. It is us v. them and ya know what, our Gawd said we are better than others, so we are gonna take your land, rule over you, hate on my preppy good looking GLBT homies and treat women like cattle-not necessarily in that order. As of now, I'm still an acomodationalist atheist, not a full fledged angry atheist, and I do acknowledge that there are many good religious folk out there, but so what. When the conversation is about religious violence we don't need to focus on those peeps (unless the topic is who should help combat terrorism), we need to focus on...the terrorist and what motivates them. What motivates them...their particular good books.

* Check out the epic sounding titles of books by people interviewed in the article (the article that is very good even tho it  didn't talk about everything-which is impossible anyways...)

The missing martyrs: Why there are so few Muslim terrorists.
Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence.
The myth of religious violence.
Blood that cries out from the earth.
Dying for heaven: holy pleasure and suicide bombers.
Terror in the name of god.
When religion becomes lethal.

If that is not the most epic and heavy sounding books, than I do not know what is. I'm currently reading a book called The Longships and it is fiction, semi historical and about...Vikings. So awesome buddies.