You need to get with the program! The problem is and remains Those Other People who are not like Us.

Are you suggesting that the IRA are religious? If you are, then I’d love to hear how you managed to come to that conclusion.

They do emphasize science and reason (also social action) There’s no “creed” or beliefs but they affirm 7 basic principles.

When Baader-Meinhoff or another leftist terrorist group claims their justifications are based on a reasonable, logical assessment of political reality, we can agree they are in actuality completely bonkers. When a Palestinian kid straps on a suicide belt and claims hes about to kill and die for Allah, we can agree that his dim prospects for anything like a normal life probably also have something to do with his decision.

BTW, everything in my last post after I quoted the remark about the fast-track security check for atheists, wasnt directed at you but the type of thinking that would come up with that remark. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I would quibble with you about the definition of secular, however. You say a group cannot be considered secular if any of its members are religious – I would disagree with that definition as a general rule. For instance, we definitely want the government, the school system etc to be secular but I don’t think that has to mean that everyone involved has to be free from religious belief.

as implying that you thought all terrorists were religious.

No, clearly not, but you’ll run with it anyway.

OK, but I think you could argue that Baader-Meinhof and other Marxist-oriented terrorist groups felt that they were acting rationally in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism.

That’s not a argument for whether materialism or rationalism were being expressed.

Yet apparently you also think that when a group’s stated goals have nothing to do with religion, and they use no religious justifications for their actions, they are religious if any of their members and supporters are religious.

No, I do not think that. You cannot say they are secular. I am not sure you can say that no Tamil Tiger has ever used religious justification. You cannot separate a group from its members.

as it does to say that all sectarian conflicts are purely religious and have nothing to do with ethnicity, economic inequities, and the post-colonial legacy.

Good job I didn’t. If your argument is going to consist of misrepresenting what I posted or arguing against someone else’s points, I don’t think it’s worth replying to you. You’re making it out to be all-or-nothing, groups have to be religious or non-religious.

White men dancing to rap music.

Woah, so Karl Rove came out as an atheist at the conference?

The Tamil Tigers are not secular, people hold them up as examples to support the claim that religion has nothing to do with acts of terrorism. The argument is made about nearly all, perhaps every, other terrorist organisation, including Islamic ones.

as implying that you thought all terrorists were religious.

In fact you said that “There probably has [sic] been atheist suicide bombers, however, it was not an expression of atheism, rationalism, humanism, or naturalism.”
OK, but I think you could argue that Baader-Meinhof and other Marxist-oriented terrorist groups felt that they were acting rationally in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism.
Yet apparently you also think that when a group’s stated goals have nothing to do with religion, and they use no religious justifications for their actions, they are religious if any of their members and supporters are religious. Huh? Something about that does not compute for me. Anyway, the remark quoted in the post, that atheists should be allowed to skip the security check at the airport, is just plain dumb. The world doesn’t divide that evenly between good/evil, theist/atheist and it’s simplisitic and dangerous to think so. It makes as little sense to argue that terrorist groups that use religious rhetoric aren’t really motivated by religion, as it does to say that all sectarian conflicts are purely religious and have nothing to do with ethnicity, economic inequities, and the post-colonial legacy. It’s interesting that a number of people, such as Scott Atran and Robert Pape, who have actually studied suicide bombers using empirical methodology, strongly disagree with Sam Harris’ conclusions about their motivations.

Does a card carrying Humanist count? I have it right here.