Another terrorist attack

[Kreeshsheesh]

Priest has been murdered. Apparently IS had threatened to target churches in France.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785

I don't know which recess of my clipboard that last line just appeared from

'Aren't they deriving the seeds of their ideology and the justification for their murderous rampage from their holy book? Which is the final, literal word of God?'

There is nothing wrong with that question.

In fact It's a good question.

It is not an undiscussable as far as I can tell.

It's a very dodgy question if the intent is what it seems to be - to implicate millions - a while religion, in fact - of peaceful people in the actions of a murderous minority.

But it makes me a determined bigot Inkanta, quite a nasty personal attack I feel, even though I don't think I've said anything remotely offensive.

Forgive me Charlie, it seemed to me that implying all the Muslims on this thread belonged to a religion of hatred and killing was a tiny bit rude of you.

Two more points:

Radicalisation - we have started to discuss radicalisation as if it happens overnight. It doesn't. I have about as much chance of being radicalised into the Church of Scientology as the next person but, if I'd been primed for it, with a slow exposure to its ideas and beliefs over my whole life, I'd probably be far more likely to start believing its key tenets than if they were to be introduced afresh (think about why you buy a certain brand of washing powder or start liking a particular song on the radio - repeated exposure leads to liking). It is more appropriate to view radicalisation as the culmination of a long line of exposure... to something. What?

'Nothing to do with Islam' implies that we should view 'moderate' Muslims as an entirely different group of people to the radicals. This suggests that everyone has an equal chance of committing these atrocities. This is not the case.

MIstressMia What are your solutions?

I can find you both biblical and Koranic verses to apparently condone or justify several bad things.

The question is whether there are people reading them and actually doing the bad things. And of course, most of the bad stuff you'll be citing is in the old testament, which immediately falls to the doctrine of the "New Covenant".

More fundamentally, there are very, very few Christian churches, even the really crazy ones, which believe the bible to be divinely inspired anyway. The furthest they will go is that in the nuttier fringes of evangelicalism they have "red letter" bibles in which the reported words of Jesus are given an extra boost of credibility by red ink. But that rather undermines the "bad things" claim, because it's the old testament where the bad stuff resides, and obviously there's no red ink in there, so the bad stuff is all implicitly less reliable.

(( Some of the very nutty churches start into things like regarding the King James bible as divinely inspired in that form, or even nuttier dismissing the old testament on the grounds that it's Jewish, but we're really in the fringes by this point. ))

That's why Christians aren't too bothered about, say, the burning of bibles. Not divinely inspired. No agreed contents. Even the basic contents not standardised until the Council of Trent. Doesn't form the supreme basis, or even the basis, for doctrine (Catholicism is reason, scripture and tradition, for example).

Excellent post Dacre

Since someone mentioned the IRA, it's true that the some leaders may or may not have claimed to be catholic - but many who enabled them certainly did. Just to give a few examples, I very much doubt that folk who offered the safe houses, those priests who gave tacit support and the Irish Americans who raised so much money for them would have thanked anyone for saying they weren't followers of the faith

Just like the IRA, the recent terrorists don't exist in isolation ...

'Radicalisation - we have started to discuss radicalisation as if it happens overnight. It doesn't. I have about as much chance of being radicalised into the Church of Scientology as the next person but, if I'd been primed for it, with a slow exposure to its ideas and beliefs over my whole life ...'

This is what interests me.

Yes, there'd be no chance of me either falling for Church of Scientology.

Is radicalisation like grooming - from an early age?

If so where does it happen?

And who is doing the grooming?

I very much doubt that folk who offered the safe houses, those priests who gave tacit support and the Irish Americans who raised so much money for them would have thanked anyone for saying they weren't followers of the faith

Sure. But they weren't supporting the IRA as a consequence of their Catholicism, rather their Catholicism and their support for the IRA came from the same root. They had a straightforward (and in principle deliverable) political objective, the reunification of Ireland by re-incorporation of the six counties. That political objective was not about Catholicism: you would get far beyond Sinn Fein, far beyond the IRA and even the INLA and the PIRA before you found even a hint of the idea that Protestants should either be expelled from the six counties, or forced to convert to Catholicism, or in any way disadvantaged post-reunification (has any republican organisation ever suggested anything of the sort?)

And I bet that a lot of those Catholics are pissed off with what they've ended up with, given that Sinn Fein (ie, McGuiness and Adams) are campaigning for same sex marriage and abortion rights both north and south of the border. I know protestants living in Belfast who are voting Sinn Fein because they are a great deal more progressive than the UUP and the DUP.

Western society needs to stop pussy-footing around and realise what it’s up against. These extremists hate us and their ideology tells them to destroy us. Throwing money at them and modelling Western moral codes to them cuts no ice.

“Moderate” Islam may not condone this, but it appears totally ineffective thus far. It hasn’t condemned the Rushdie fatwa, its followers protest against cartoons and it considers women to be the property of men.

To my shame, I had no idea about the Rushdie fatwa being renewed

Good grief

implying all the Muslims on this thread belonged to a religion of hatred and killing was a tiny bit rude of you

I didn't, you might be a tiny bit paranoid. I said the root of their beliefs is their holy book. Which is true. If that doesn't square with what you believe or you are uncomfortable with it, that's for you to question and examine. If all the peace loving decent people did that instead of screaming bigot, we may start to find a way to a solution.

Limer - “Moderate” Islam may not condone this, but it appears totally ineffective thus far. It hasn’t condemned the Rushdie fatwa, its followers protest against cartoons and it considers women to be the property of men.

As an aside, I was on the 'Don't attack Iraq' demo..Lots of Muslims there - shouty and vocal women, young girls, teens, young men, old men. Lots holding banners. It remains an overriding image for me.

Mia - "And as for exposing people to alternative views - you can just see the reaction from the muslim posters on here when confronted with opposing arguments. For FFS it's not a discussionI can have with my immediate family & they are certain not fanatics in any way, but educated professional intelligent individuals. The subject is just not broachable".

This has to be a condition of living here (exposure to mutliple perspectives). As the blogger called Re-Enlightenment says, it's the "price of freedom", the price of living in this society.

*The imams, mosques and the religion of Islam have nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry but I disagree. They might not be directly involved in any terrorist attacks but as influential leaders of the community they do have a part to play in the messages they send. A message of total revulsion and disgust at these acts needs to be shouted louder and louder by all those these people ISIS 'believe' they represent - politicians in the Middle East, community leaders, Imans and yes ordinary Muslims because like it or not these guys believe they represent you.*

^^ This.

You see, when the IRA at its peak, I don't remember, as a catholic be asked to go on marches and shout out loud against the terrorism. Of course we all utterly rejected it but I don't remember being made to feel like I was partly responsible for not shouting loud enough.

So what are the reason for the radicalisation? Poverty, MH issues, social problems within their country etc... Let's address that. That will help and a lot if others at the same time

What about main stream Muslim leaders saying its GOOD to murder for blasphemy?

What sort of impression do you think this gives to followers?
I have asked before and got no answer.

Where is the line drawn? This Imam claims to deplore ISIS.

And we are allowed to freely discuss and debate those issues, no one would immediately scream racist, bigot etc. There really isn't a comparison

When people discuss catholic priests as abusers I dont feel personally insulted, I understand the need , the imperative need to discuss it.

Just I feel your posts are ramping up rhetoric. I dont think anyone has said - " oi, all you Muslims your all the same and think the same and are dangerous " they simply have not, only you keep saying this over and over and its not really helpful.

I think marches would be helpful.

Not to apologise to non muslims but to let any muslims on the wrong path, know their actions are being condemned.

How can anyone deny there is a crisis in Islam, Wahhabism is creeping everywhere surely moderate Muslims recognise the need to stand up to it and fight it?

all isn't that unlawful to say it's good to murder someone for blasphemy? Something to do with incitement to murder/violence? If it isn't then surely it should be.
Then just apply the law.

The authorities have tried to apply the law against such as Anjem Choudary - and that's not exactly gone very well, has it?

Given the utter disdain with which such individuals regard our laws and their calls for Sharia to prevail instead, I'm wondering what other posters think about allowing this parallel legal system to operate in the UK ...?

What about main stream Muslim leaders saying its GOOD to murder for blasphemy? What sort of impression do you think this gives to followers?
I have asked before and got no answer

Sadly, madmen, I believe you'll wait a long time - and probably in vain - for your answer

Then maybe it's time for a change.
Because there is no way you can accept that people are living in a country wo following its laws. That's a basic rule that should be followed by everyone.

Re the sharia law, I don't have an issue as long as it stays within the law and people can chose to stay up of it (both men and women).
So if according to the sharia law, let's say women should dress with long sleeves and long dressed/trousers and they can be told off for not doing it OK. If said tribunal then can punish her and 'allow' physical violence (hitting her) then no because physical violence isn't lawful.

We already have plenty of laws in place to protect people. Let's use them. REALLY use them. Not step down each time we are told we are being unfair/racist or whatever else. Being politically correct has no place in applying the law.

Note: this isn't new and shoould have been stopped years and years ago btw. But at the time, it wasn't seen as such an issue and we needed to respect other people freedom to express their ideas ....

When Catholic priest/ abuse scandals occurr, people quite rightly wanted:

The perpetrators brought to justice
Discussion and soul searching about Why this happens. Is it something to do with enforced celibacy? Church culture?
Discussion and soul searching about the church hierarchy and culture that covers these cases up. Rooting out of those who allowed priests just to be moved on. Criminal charges brought, cases brought into the open, compensation for victims. Apologies right from the top, along with a commitment to prevent it from happening again.
I can't believe I'm actually defending the Catholic Church here, but hard questions were asked openly by the media and by Catholics themselves. And quite rightly too. The faith was questioned harshly and found wanting. It admitted that ( eventually, like I say I'm not the biggest fan of the RC..)
No one was murdered for questioning why it'd happened. No one was threatened with death for asking the questions. Scathing cartoons were published in the papers and no one was killed for it.

Now, compare that with Charlie hebdo/Rotherham abuse scandals/Rushdie affair...

If you can't criticise an ideology in a rational debate without its followers threatening your life there is something very very wrong.

Superb post formalhaut