FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Fpqxz on May 12, 2012, 08:03:04 am
-
From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy):
A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following second world war precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
Wired magazine has a more detailed article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1) on this, along with a copy of the presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf) (warning: large PDF file).
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
-
From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy):
A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following second world war precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
Wired magazine has a more detailed article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1) on this, along with a copy of the presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf) (warning: large PDF file).
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
-
On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
It would indeed be nice, though nuking Mecca and Medina wouldn't exactly help matters.
-
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
I meant the belief system as a whole. Mainstream Islamic belief is the the Quran was dictated by God and is absolute.
-
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
I meant the belief system as a whole. Mainstream Islamic belief is the the Quran was dictated by God and is absolute.
That's also mainstream Christian belief about the Bible. And mainstream Jewish belief about the Torah. Etc etc etc.
-
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
And once you've nuked Arabia back to the stone age and (somehow) conquered the rest of the Muslim world, what do you intend to do? The only thing you will have managed to do against Islam at this point is to push its followers further towards misery, reclusion, violence and extremism. As history tells us, in order to truly eradicate an entire religion, you will have to use some combination of religious oppression, proselytizing and genocide. So much for the "greater good".
Sure, you won't be defeating fundamentalism so much as displacing it. And, of course, you will be the first to try and apply those methods to a belief system with one billion plus followers. But, hey, if you really wish to become the greatest monster in the history of mankind, go ahead.
Also, why stop at Mecca and Medina? How can you condemn them, and yet spare Rome and Jerusalem, the embodiments of the two absolute worst aspects of organized religion : its corrupt leadership, and its ability to spread hatred among people?
That's also mainstream Christian belief about the Bible. And mainstream Jewish belief about the Torah. Etc etc etc.
Well, not quite. Muslims believe that their holy book was literally dictated by God to Muhammad, while Christians only believe that theirs was divinely inspired by Him. Whether this fundamental difference in theology justifies the eradication of Muslims is up to you to decide.
-
From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy):
A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following second world war precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
Wired magazine has a more detailed article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1) on this, along with a copy of the presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf) (warning: large PDF file).
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
The problem is (aside from the totally horrific tactics) that they didn't say they wanted to defeat fundamentalist Islam. They just want to defeat Islam. All of Islam. And they claimed there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
-
On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
You can never defeat fundamentalism so long as there are idiots. Attacking a holy site only creates more fundamentalism, not less.
-
......
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
What's that saying.. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
I have to disagree with your analysis.
For one thing we would only weaken one set that authoritarian assholes that does occasional terrorism while cementing into power another set of authoritarian assholes willing to commit genocide.
Al queda at it's most dangerous killed over 5000 people. These people above are thinking it may be a good idea to kill over 1,000,000,000 (muslims and anybody who stood in their way)
For another fundie Islam (like fundie christianity and fundie Judaism) already has this fetish when it comes to global wars and being persecuted (the perception of it anyway) So this would make lots of people who weren't' fundy before now fundy.
it wouldn't really work.
I also have to wonder... is the pentagon just unaware that some of it's military are muslims?
I am cynical about this just because it's so profoundly stupid.
-
From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy):
A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following second world war precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
Wired magazine has a more detailed article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1) on this, along with a copy of the presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf) (warning: large PDF file).
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
Well this makes a bit of a mockery of our leaders' "respect" for Islam...
-
This is absolutely disgusting. How does this rhetoric make us any different than the terrorists?
-
Fpqxz, I have to say... I am disappoint.
-_- Seriously, you do realize that Islam is as diverse as... pretty much every other religion, right? You've got the fundies, the conservatives, the moderates, and the liberals.
The problem is the environment. A theocracy is pretty much always going to be ruled by fundies and create more fundies. But nuking the area is just going to make even MORE fundies.
Islam != terrorism. There's no need to destroy the entire belief system.
-
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
And once you've nuked Arabia back to the stone age and (somehow) conquered the rest of the Muslim world, what do you intend to do? The only thing you will have managed to do against Islam at this point is to push its followers further towards misery, reclusion, violence and extremism. As history tells us, in order to truly eradicate an entire religion, you will have to use some combination of religious oppression, proselytizing and genocide. So much for the "greater good".
I think the goal of any sort of wide-ranging Mongol-style conquest of the Islamic world is foolhardy at best, genocidal at worst. While I would like nothing better than to see violent Islam consigned to the ash heap of history, I don't believe that military action would accomplish this end. Frankly, that should really be the last resort. War doesn't prove whose ideology is correct, it only shows who is militarily stronger. The right combination of scientific & historical education, economic development, and good old-fashioned propaganda, on the other hand, might work.
Sure, you won't be defeating fundamentalism so much as displacing it. And, of course, you will be the first to try and apply those methods to a belief system with one billion plus followers. But, hey, if you really wish to become the greatest monster in the history of mankind, go ahead.
Hey, I never said I was fully on board with the agenda described in the OP. Besides, who one considers a "monster" largely depends on what side of history one is on. Romanians don't consider Vlad Tepes a monster. The Uzbeks don't consider Tamerlane a monster. Mongols don't consider Genghis Khan a monster. The Iranians don't consider the conquering Achaemenid kings (Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes) monsters. Most Western civilizations don't consider Caesar and Alexander the Great monsters. I'm sure that if the Hunnic Empire had survived, Attila would be hailed as a national hero there.
Also, why stop at Mecca and Medina? How can you condemn them, and yet spare Rome and Jerusalem, the embodiments of the two absolute worst aspects of organized religion : its corrupt leadership, and its ability to spread hatred among people?
You'll get no arguments from me on that point. The only differences are that 1) right now, the West is not in conflict with the Vatican or with Judaism, and 2) neither of these religions has the sort of expansionist doctrines that Islam has (at least, not in the present day).
That's also mainstream Christian belief about the Bible. And mainstream Jewish belief about the Torah. Etc etc etc.
Well, not quite. Muslims believe that their holy book was literally dictated by God to Muhammad, while Christians only believe that theirs was divinely inspired by Him. Whether this fundamental difference in theology justifies the eradication of Muslims is up to you to decide.
This is basically what I meant. Biblical literalism is a fairly recent innovation in Christianity. Quranic literalism has been a feature of (most) of the surviving sects of Islam, though some are a bit more "serious" about it than others. This alone is hardly justification for genocide, and I am not arguing that it is. Using one's own religious doctrine as an excuse for violence and subjugation of others, however, is quite another matter, and it needs to end, one way or another. I would rather it end with some sort of peaceful coexistence. Whether or not that happens, time will tell.
-
Bullshit genocidal tendencies aside, it really reinforces the total lack of rational thinking among many of the High Command of the US army. Anyone with a shred of intelligence would have understood that a largely unarmed, impoverished society poses no serious threat to a nuclear power. It's basically childish to imagine otherwise.
-
From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/us-military-course-islam-enemy):
A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following second world war precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material. The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.
Wired magazine has a more detailed article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/all/1) on this, along with a copy of the presentation (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf) (warning: large PDF file).
I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity.
Naive. Would the US also invade Europe, Africa and Asia to eliminate the "menace," as they're also becoming quite populous there as well? Not to mention prison/concentration camps in Canada and the US? It's a religion, not a race, anyone can become a Muslim and not that many of them are extremist, despite what the popular media decides to portray.
The easiest way to defeat the fundamentalist system is to educate the poor and get them to a level of self-sufficiency. That would go much further than launching an all-out attack on everyone who owns a Qur'an. It's the extremist aspect that needs to be eliminated, not the religion itself.
-
Fpqxz, I have to say... I am disappoint.
Biblical literalism is a fairly recent innovation in Christianity. Quranic literalism has been a feature of (most) of the surviving sects of Islam, though some are a bit more "serious" about it than others.
Actually, Jihadism as a political and religious ideology (it later became the basis for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda) only arose in the last century or so, invented by two really fundamentalist clerics who claimed that the entire Qu'ran was corrupted after Muhammad's death, dismissing all other Islamic scholarship. Sorry, I've just studied this topic in the past, and I couldn't let this go.
The only differences are that 1) right now, the West is not in conflict with the Vatican or with Judaism, and 2) neither of these religions has the sort of expansionist doctrines that Islam has (at least, not in the present day).
"Expansionist doctrine"? Um, this isn't the Ottoman Empire we're talking about, dude. The Muslim population growing in Western countries is not "expansionism," just "immigration."
Would the US also invade Europe, Africa and Asia to eliminate the "menace," as they're also becoming quite populous there as well? Not to mention prison/concentration camps in Canada and the US? It's a religion, not a race, anyone can become a Muslim and not that many of them are extremist, despite what the popular media decides to portray.
Considering the incredibly toxic political climate after 9/11, I would seriously not have been so surprised if the U.S. herded Muslims into internment camps, even the ones who were loyal American citizens. They've already done that during WWII with loyal Japanese-American citizens. I know kids whose grandparents were forced to leave all their property behind, and they basically grew up in those camps for the entire war. Why? Because they might have "racial/nationalistic ties" to their "home country." Yes, even the ones who were born here.
The fact that we are training our military to believe in abject bigotry and racism through propaganda is disgusting and reprehensible. This is not a war about religion, it never was. It was a war about oil. They're just exploiting people's Islamophobia to dehumanize the"enemy" and make him seem "other" - the same way we humans do in every war. It helps many of these soldiers justify the "collateral damage" and other atrocities committed there.
I'd like you to meet Nayzak. Classy dude, he is. He's a Muslim, and his religion is the topic of most if not all of his art. http://nayzak.deviantart.com/ (http://nayzak.deviantart.com/)
-
Actually, Jihadism as a political and religious ideology (it later became the basis for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda) only arose in the last century or so, invented by two really fundamentalist clerics who claimed that the entire Qu'ran was corrupted after Muhammad's death, dismissing all other Islamic scholarship. Sorry, I've just studied this topic in the past, and I couldn't let this go.
The trend during the 20th century was towards a some sort of secular nationalism: Turkey under Ataturk and then later in Egypt and Iran under Nasser and Mossadegh. The US helped fund the creation of fundamental Islam through its funding of the King of Saud and Sadat, both supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, they used Khomeini's teacher (I forget his name) during the coup against Mossadegh to gather support.
-
Actually, Jihadism as a political and religious ideology (it later became the basis for groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda) only arose in the last century or so, invented by two really fundamentalist clerics who claimed that the entire Qu'ran was corrupted after Muhammad's death, dismissing all other Islamic scholarship. Sorry, I've just studied this topic in the past, and I couldn't let this go.
The trend during the 20th century was towards a some sort of secular nationalism: Turkey under Ataturk and then later in Egypt and Iran under Nasser and Mossadegh. The US helped fund the creation of fundamental Islam through its funding of the King of Saud and Sadat, both supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, they used Khomeini's teacher (I forget his name) during the coup against Mossadegh to gather support.
Yup, America actually funded the Taliban in Afghanistan simply because they were rebelling against the Soviets.
-
The US continued to back the Taliban even after the Soviets left.
-
Yeah. Blowing up a chunk of a country without regard for civilians. That totally won't make the rest of the world hate you forever
-
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
I meant the belief system as a whole. Mainstream Islamic belief is the the Quran was dictated by God and is absolute.
So you would use a fundamentalist mentality to do away with fundamentalists....You are completely nuts
-
As a Muslim myself, I can only say that as long there is idiocy & hate, fundamentalism shall continue to exist. I am not defending extremism of my own religion (or any religion), I'm saying that we should purge the world of this idiocy and hate, instead of making anyone owning a Qur'an/Bible/any religious text glow in the dark. Don't destroy the religion as a whole, destroy the idiots & douchebags that use religion as an excuse for murder, hate crimes, etc.
-
If you want the violence and bloodshed to escalate at an unprecedented rate, an attack on Mecca would certainly be an efficient way to accomplish your goals.
-
Attacking a holy site that is sacred to millions of people worldwide is a surefire way of making your country look like a massive dick in the eyes of the world community.
-
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
I meant the belief system as a whole. Mainstream Islamic belief is the the Quran was dictated by God and is absolute.
So you would use a fundamentalist mentality to do away with fundamentalists....You are completely nuts
I said no such thing. In fact, I clarified my position earlier in the thread.
You people don't even read what I write, do you?
-
While I would like nothing better than to see violent Islam consigned to the ash heap of history, I don't believe that military action would accomplish this end. Frankly, that should really be the last resort.
Okay then, I stand corrected. You don't support genocidal military action against Muslims, you just potentially support indoctrinating soldiers with propaganda that makes them want to do so.
Like I said before, this is not a war against religion. It never was and it never will be. The media and government wants their Christian fundamentalist population to see this as an extension of the Crusades, and while it would maximize morale, it would minimize sanity and a respect for human rights. Really, there's no good moral reason why we should be in there in the first place. We're not liberating the people or accomplishing anything worthwhile in a region that is essentially unstable by default to begin with. When Britain and France were dividing up the destroyed Ottoman Empire, they drew the borders based on their own economic and military concerns, but ignored the ethnic and religious wars that it would incite.
-
How exactly is bombing Mecca off the face of the earth supposed to end the threat of radical Muslims? If anything, it'll just piss them off even more.
-
To be honest, I suspect the only way to stop Fundementalism from ever cropping up would be to kill 'everyone'.
Which is really not a good idea.
A high level of education and a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism but I doubt it will ever really stop entirely.
-
How exactly is bombing Mecca off the face of the earth supposed to end the threat of radical Muslims? If anything, it'll just piss them off even more.
This. The ideology of most, if not all, Muslim terrorist organizations in the Middle East is based of a hatred of Western involvement, and a feeling of persecution at the hands of Western nations. Don't add fuel to the fire.
To be honest, I suspect the only way to stop Fundementalism from ever cropping up would be to kill 'everyone'.
Which is really not a good idea.
A high level of education and a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism but I doubt it will ever really stop entirely.
Yeah, I mean I think that religion in general is liberalizing, but America itself is quite an anomaly in that despite being a developed first-world nation, its rates of religious belief and fundamentalism are very high.
-
a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism
This.
-
Don't add fuel to the fire.
Are you familiar with the concept of a controlled burn? You know the forest will catch fire eventually so you set it alight deliberately while you have ability to deal with it.
It takes a special kind of fucked-up to view the entire world and the people in it as nothing more than a chess game where the only thing that matters in the end is that the king survives.
-
Seeing as the tyt version of the story mentions that the course said that there is no such thing as moderate Islam it would not be just fundies
I meant the belief system as a whole. Mainstream Islamic belief is the the Quran was dictated by God and is absolute.
So you would use a fundamentalist mentality to do away with fundamentalists....You are completely nuts
I said no such thing. In fact, I clarified my position earlier in the thread.
You people don't even read what I write, do you?
I see that now...perhaps being a bit clearer at first would help? See, you said this;
"I will be honest with you, I am not sure how I feel about this. A global clash of civilizations would be utterly horrific, and would probably dwarf both World Wars in terms of body count. On the other hand, the defeat of a fundamentalist belief system would probably mean a long-term gain for all humanity."
Which, to me and it seems a lot of others that you were willing to back the notion of blowing the ever living shit out of Islam as a solution
-
To be honest, I suspect the only way to stop Fundementalism from ever cropping up would be to kill 'everyone'.
Which is really not a good idea.
Nobody can be a fundie if everyone else is dead.
-
To be honest, I suspect the only way to stop Fundementalism from ever cropping up would be to kill 'everyone'.
Which is really not a good idea.
Nobody can be a fundie if everyone else is dead.
I know, but a world where everyone else is dead would be dull. I mean, there is a limit to the fun one can have on their own....
. a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism
This.
As for my comment about higher education and a high standard of living reducing instances of Fundementalism, I seperating the two is probably meaningless. A higher level of education with a greater emphasis on critical thinking 'would' be part of a higher standard of living. Especially the critical thinking
-
How exactly is bombing Mecca off the face of the earth supposed to end the threat of radical Muslims? If anything, it'll just piss them off even more.
Along with creating a boatload of new extremists. The only people it would scare into pacifism are the ones who were never a threat in the first place.
-
a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism
This.
Not necessarily, the US has high standards of education and it has a quite large fundie base. Or look at the rise of fundamentalism in North Africa and India.
-
a higher standard of living for people could no doubt minimize the incidents of fundementalism
This.
Not necessarily, the US has high standards of education and it has a quite large fundie base. Or look at the rise of fundamentalism in North Africa and India.
Well, perhaps what is needed at least in the case of education is not just a higher standard but also a fundemental shift in how students are taught.
An emphasis on how to think critically and how to apply that critical thinking should certainly be a big part of education. Reducing the reliance of on tests and exams as a mark of progress and achievement and rather use them to help illustrate any particular weaknesses a student might have could also improve quality. I would say certainly scrap mulitple choice tests because they really aren't anything but a student repeating something by rote and that's really not learning.
So, maybe it would be better to argue for an increase in the quality of education rather than the standard.
Of course, Education alone no matter the quality wouldn't solve the problem, it would need to be raising the Quality of life in general, which means access to public facilities, healthcare, training for work, social activities such as sporting clubs and the like. I am sure there are some ideas that I have missed out there but those are the some of the ones I think are important.
A higher quality of life, I imagine, would reduce the feeling of helplessness and isolation that would assuredly drive people towards a fundementalist belief where, despite the repressing, opressive nature that can come with such beliefs, the person involved at least has some sense of belonging and community which is important for human beings, after all, we do not function well on our own.
-
Of course, Education alone no matter the quality wouldn't solve the problem, it would need to be raising the Quality of life in general, which means access to public facilities, healthcare, training for work, social activities such as sporting clubs and the like. I am sure there are some ideas that I have missed out there but those are the some of the ones I think are important.
A higher quality of life, I imagine, would reduce the feeling of helplessness and isolation that would assuredly drive people towards a fundementalist belief where, despite the repressing, opressive nature that can come with such beliefs, the person involved at least has some sense of belonging and community which is important for human beings, after all, we do not function well on our own.
Eliminating poverty and unemployment, and the sense of hopelessness that goes along with them, will probably reduce the number of people (especially young men) who would willingly volunteer to commit terrorist violence. It won't necessarily eliminate the sort of coercion to join that is often exercised by terrorist groups, which is in no way limited to religious-based terrorist groups (just ask the AUC and FARC in Colombia).
-
You'll get no arguments from me on that point. The only differences are that 1) right now, the West is not in conflict with the Vatican or with Judaism, and 2) neither of these religions has the sort of expansionist doctrines that Islam has (at least, not in the present day).
"The West" (which is a ridiculously constructed and generalizing concept by itself) is not in conflict with Islam either, or any representative of Islam as a whole. (partially because none exist, partially because it just isn't). Your second point has been addressed by others.
A political entity can not be in conflict with a religious entity, unless either the political entity gains religious aspects (not), or the religious entity gains political aspects (i.e. fundies of all colors, in our case the Qaida).
-
Of course, Education alone no matter the quality wouldn't solve the problem, it would need to be raising the Quality of life in general, which means access to public facilities, healthcare, training for work, social activities such as sporting clubs and the like. I am sure there are some ideas that I have missed out there but those are the some of the ones I think are important.
A higher quality of life, I imagine, would reduce the feeling of helplessness and isolation that would assuredly drive people towards a fundementalist belief where, despite the repressing, opressive nature that can come with such beliefs, the person involved at least has some sense of belonging and community which is important for human beings, after all, we do not function well on our own.
This I completely agree with. What drives the average shcumck to religion? Generally it is a way of trying to deal with their daily shitty lives. People generally pull out the Marx quote 'Religion is the opium of the masses' as an short way of saying that it is a brainwashing thing (not that I disagree with that in general), however Marx meant (look at the rest of the quote, not just the first line) opium as a a type of morphine, a way of dealing with pain and alienation.