'Major incident' in Woolwich

[WorkingMummy]

El Pibe, then why is the entire bible there on a high lectern near the altar of every church, and in the version of every "good news" bible handed out to kids.

WHY not go with the Jefferson bible?

Instead of keeping the evil claptrap but having small print (not on the lectern or in the good news) to try to gloss over it, why not treat it as it deserves and cut it out?

[El Pibe]

Perhaps that's because it's an interpretation.

Each faith in the hugely schismatic christian universe is a different interpretation of it all.

Most aren't literal, very few in fact, most of those are in Africa and the US and are generally fringe churches.

It's very much on the rise in Israel too sadly, following very much the same trends that it's neighbours are, towards more conservative and literal interpretation and towards intolerance over understanding.

Hell, even the Catholic church accepts that genesis is allegorical and that the scientists have it right.

Likewise, without a central church islamic interpretations are centred around the koran, the legacy of the tales told about muhammed, his teachings and the teachings of those who followed.

Of course the followers started disagreeing with each other the moment he died and everyone has disagreed about interpretation ever since, hence why there are deep schisms within that faith too and wide extremes of interpretation even among mainstream sunnis.

It's really a pointless starting point to say that red pen needs to be taken to these books, because figuratively speaking that's what's been done for millenia.

You're on to a hiding to nothing with this one I'm afraid.

[*Bob*]

"Cast down the gourd and follow the shoe."

I don't think it's been better put - before or since.

[stacey-lyn]

As others have mentioned, of course you'll find radicals in all religions/sects.

Getting back to Woolwich, in an attempt to legitimise such barbaric acts there seems to be a recurring theme of suffering (by proxy) for their 'brothers' in Afghanistan etc. as seen in the Woolwich footage, and the video messages by Siddique Khan (tube attacks) and Bouyeri (Theo Van Gogh's murderer). Perhaps central to all of this is 'radicalisation' (and the threshold from that to 'terrorism'). Radicalisation as the process of transformation doesn't have to be violent. Not all people who are radicalised are. However, imho it's how to deal with those who pose an actual threat to our safety: those who generate & distribute radical material, incite 'jihad', recruit and other such acts that potentially disrupt society and spread potentially violent ideologies. From Choudary, Hamza, Qatada right down to their foot soldiers, this is the challenge.

As an aside, it's also interesting that in general, radicals, even suicide bombers, show no signs of mental derangement or psychopathology (eg Crenshaw study).

[TE44]

http://www.historytoday.com/matt-carr/cloaks-daggers-and-dynamite

Piece on non religious anarchist terror.

Taking religion out of the equation, I do not believe it would stop attrocities, people or groups commiting these acts

in the name of religion makes other reasons they may have insignificant, as religion is seen as the problem.

In no way am I condoning these actions, I myself am not religious and like many on here, have been able to raise my children to have a fundamental understanding of rights and wrongs. Regardless of how they were brought up they have respect

for other peoples beliefs. people attach themselves to groups, beliefs, etc often losing individual identity and find a cause.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree with TE44. Atrocity exists alongside religion as much because of it. Culture is a more accurate descriptor I think, and the question is one of how we discourage the kinds of culture that lead to violence and hatred.

A muslim commentator on the radio yesterday made the point that accross the globe, more muslims kill each other than non-muslims kill muslims. Her belief was that's it's a nation state problem, where violent nations (be that through government tyranny or civil unrest) export cultural violence. And at present, many of those kinds of nations happen to be Islamic ones. The export becomes possible because of disaffection in non-muslim nations amongst certain kinds of, for example, young men (and helped by global media technology) and so it goes on from there. She further went on to make the point that converts to Islamic jihadism by say British born nationals, are believing in a fantasy of Islamic orthodoxy. That if those converts were to go and live in the kind of country actually enforcing the kind of culture they are supposedly fighting to defend, that most of them would run back to Britain having changed their minds (and she knew of several cases of that through friends).

Extremists often claim to their followers that their views are the answer to all the world's ills. But what followers often hear is 'the answer to all your ills'. Whilst I think it is important to understand why a British man, born to a respectable family, turns to an extreme belief system (and acts on it), we can never prevent it. The same questions were asked of the predominently middle class young women that followed Charles Manson and murdered Sharon Tate for example. There are dangerous people who influence impressionable or disconnected young minds. Those are the people we have to target and keep out of our society.

[uncleglen]

Religious leaders are just like politicians. Instead of votes they want bums on pews, knees on prayer mats etc. It gives them power- we need to be suslicious of the motives of all these people.They all have little sections of society that they exclude from their 'community' for one reason or another because of some aspect of their lifestyle. If your god is a creator then he/she/it created EVERYTHING including itself!