|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ayyyye. Cuh. Fuh. As it invariably is, this IS the best of all possible worlds, of all possible trajectories of the moral universe. As for 'our' terrorists, i.e. terrorists from the dominant non-Muslim culture, they are so far only 1% as effective and as with Muslim terrorists, an open society is going to have to take hits and MAY BE learn to keep its fucking nose out of other people's back yards
I don't know that Christian terrorists are only 1% as effective as the current Islamic ones. It rather depends on what one defines as terrorism.
Indeed. The ones that make it to breaking news.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Kaplan. Killing pagans isn't a smart thing to do. It's also wrong.
It's wrong on all sorts of points as well as not being a smart thing to do.
It ain't smart, it ain't clever.
Neither is it very nice.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Charlemagne wouldn't have had a concept of the secular in the way the word is used nowadays.
That's quite likely. But that doesn't mean we can't make a distinction between the motive of being a strong king, the motive of working for the triumph of Christianity, and the motive of seeking to be Christ-like.
The more general question is what acts we call Christian.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Martin 60: As for 'our' terrorists, i.e. terrorists from the dominant non-Muslim culture, they are so far only 1% as effective and as with Muslim terrorists,
And considerably less than 1% as numerous.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How can a process of theological thinking be crap (invalid)?
Very easily and all too commonly.
I have already cited the example of those who use Isaiah 19:19-20 to justify extracting revelatory material from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid (a Christian archaeologist friend of mine calls them "pyramidiots").
Another example that I like is the teaching that Amos 4:6 ("I have given you cleanness of teeth"KJV) constitutes a promise of dental welfare to those with the faith to appropriate it.
You could probably fill a book with similar crap if you had nothing better to do.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Very easily and all too commonly.
I have already cited the example of those who use Isaiah 19:19-20 to justify extracting revelatory material from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid (a Christian archaeologist friend of mine calls them "pyramidiots").
Another example that I like is the teaching that Amos 4:6 ("I have given you cleanness of teeth"KJV) constitutes a promise of dental welfare to those with the faith to appropriate it.
It is quite hard to claim that those are hermeneutics because they're not fully worked out theories of interpretation of the faith, they're specific ideas about a detail.
And they're nothing like a hermeneutic that says state violence is justified.
Try again, this time try reading for comprehension.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60: As for 'our' terrorists, i.e. terrorists from the dominant non-Muslim culture, they are so far only 1% as effective and as with Muslim terrorists,
And considerably less than 1% as numerous.
Can you quantify that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Can you quantify that?
He's using his own definitions of the word "terrorist" and "Christian", so of course it comes out numerically as lower than the thing he despises in Islam.
This is what really makes me sick: we amplify and exaggerate the things we most hate about others whilst simultaneously disowning, downplaying, rejecting, forgetting the dirty parts of our own religion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I am of course wrong. The actual OOM figures for attacks with killed victims in the UK are 10:1 (11:2 actual not counting Jo Cox) for Islamist to non-Islamist killers and 100:1 (92:2 actual) for their killed victims. IOW non-Islamist attackers with killed victims are 10 x less numerous than Islamist attackers (not 100 x as I asserted) who are 10 x more lethal.
I'm wrong by 1 order of magnitude and Jamat is wrong by 2.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's only Islamist : Islamophobic attacks with killed victims in the past 12 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
They count as terrorism. Politically-motivated violent crime directed at the general population.
I don't know what proportion of the IRA are atheists. It's probably safe to assume that at least some of them are at least nominally Christian.
What they're not doing is acting out the Christian faith.
If you choose to count all acts by self-professed Christians as acts of Christianity, then yes you'll probably conclude that no religion is better than any other. Reflecting the universal sinfulness of mankind rather than the content of any religious belief system.
That approach voids religion of content, reducing it to a tribal identifier.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nominally Christian, culturally Christian, i.e. not acting out the Christian faith in any visible, incarnational manner, is the only visible manifestation of Christian of the majority of self-identifying Christians apart from the minority that go to services (whatever is incarnational about that) apart from for rites of passage.
The PIRA were initially - 1969-71 - defenders (acting out the Christian faith) of the Catholic Christian community against Protestant Christian oppression.
[ 19. July 2017, 13:41: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What they're not doing is acting out the Christian faith.
The bizarre thing is that many of the Islamic terrorists we know of are not "acting out of the faith" if this is the criteria. Many seem to have been heavy drinkers and drug takers with little obvious serious links to the religion before becoming radicalised.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Surely they are once radicalized? They've repented, found God, are atoning?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Surely they are once radicalized? They've repented, found God, are atoning?
That was Dubya, wasn't it? Killing a ton of people really makes your own shit fade away. Not sure about Blair, what was he atoning for?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Surely they are once radicalized? They've repented, found God, are atoning?
No, many profiles include alcohol and promiscuity right up to the murderous act itself. People who study these guys often say it is political. (Of course a brand of politics full of Islamic language and Islamic culture).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank you. Sod the 'politics', what's the psychology? It still looks like redemptive violence to me. "I can't stop shagging, drinking, drugs and I'll burn in hell unless I can martyr myself against this infidel shit that's bringing me down."?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I've not done an in depth study, but I understand the murderous martyrs tend to talk about caliphates, geopolitics and opposing the West more than the promise of paradise. But I've no doubt one can find examples of both by googling.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks again. Intriguing. Is there a Guardian article on that?!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
'strewth! Everything except redemptive violence! I'll try a factor list.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
AFAIK the RCC condemned the IRA, forbade RCs from joining it, and threatened to excommunicate those who did.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Very easily and all too commonly.
I have already cited the example of those who use Isaiah 19:19-20 to justify extracting revelatory material from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid (a Christian archaeologist friend of mine calls them "pyramidiots").
Another example that I like is the teaching that Amos 4:6 ("I have given you cleanness of teeth"KJV) constitutes a promise of dental welfare to those with the faith to appropriate it.
It is quite hard to claim that those are hermeneutics because they're not fully worked out theories of interpretation of the faith, they're specific ideas about a detail.
And they're nothing like a hermeneutic that says state violence is justified.
Any approach to the Bible involves a hermeneutic of some sort, even if it is unconscious, perverse, self-justifying, or just shallow, jejune and crappy.
You can have a good hermeneutic or a bad hermeneutic, but you can't have no hermeneutic, in the same way that you can't have no weather, or no character, or no ethnicity.
quote:
Try again, this time try reading for comprehension.
You are blustering to cover up the fact that you are shooting your mouth off while possessing only the haziest concept of what a hermeneutic is.
Try again, this time after you have thought about it a little.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
AFAIK the RCC condemned the IRA, forbade RCs from joining it, and threatened to excommunicate those who did.
Shedloads of imams, entire organizations of them, have taken similar stances toward ISIS. May we conclude therefore that ISIS are not a Muslim terrorist organization?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
AFAIK the RCC condemned the IRA, forbade RCs from joining it, and threatened to excommunicate those who did.
Shedloads of imams, entire organizations of them, have taken similar stances toward ISIS. May we conclude therefore that ISIS are not a Muslim terrorist organization?
ISIS openly, proudly and aggressively identifies as Muslim, and in fact regards its Muslim critics as either inadequately Islamic or not real Muslims at all.
Ihe IRA, AFAIK, was secular, political and nationalist rather than religious, and never identified as RC.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
AFAIK the RCC condemned the IRA, forbade RCs from joining it, and threatened to excommunicate those who did.
Shedloads of imams, entire organizations of them, have taken similar stances toward ISIS. May we conclude therefore that ISIS are not a Muslim terrorist organization?
ISIS openly, proudly and aggressively identifies as Muslim, and in fact regards its Muslim critics as either inadequately Islamic or not real Muslims at all.
And its critics say it's not really Muslim at all. Which can be seen by the things that it does, like killing non-combatants, killing during Ramadan, and so forth. Yet of the two you take the word of the murderers and not the peaceful ones. Why is that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Because of his hermeneutic?
At any rate, I think the most we can say is that there is/was a distinct religious dimension in the Northern Irish Troubles and their aftermath.
There is no denying that.
The Provos had a broadly Marxist ideology but their roots were in the RC minority population in largely Protestant, loyalist Ulster. Some of them and their supporters saw no incompatibility with that and with their RC faith. Joe McCann, a 1970s IRA 'hero' was a devout and practising Catholic. Whilst the RCC officially condemned the violence it's incontrovertible that some clergy condoned and supported terrorism - as did many ministers on the Protestant, Loyalist side.
You can't begin to understand / discuss the Northern Irish issue without taking into account the religious dimension.
The same applies to ISIS. Their Muslim opponents recognise that. They aren't claiming that ISIS is unIslamic in the sense that it bears no relation to Islam, rather that it is a distorted and extreme version in a similar way to how the Westboro Baptists represent an extreme firm of Protestant fundamentalism.
We are into both/and not either/or territory again.
It does nobody any favours to play down or elide the religious dimension in any of this - whether Northern Ireland or the Middle East or Islamist support for a putative Caliphate in Syria.
There is a religious dimension. That is incontrovertible.
The issue then becomes whether one religion or another is more or less I equally prone to extremism and terrorist violence. At which point chauvinism kicks in and one side or t'other starts to demonise the other.
I would suggest that the issue isn't so much whether Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other faith can be marshalled to justify extremism or terrorism, rather, it's what socio-political, cultural, economic and other factors go into the mix to create a situation where faith can turn toxic in that way.
That would apply equally to disaffected youths being groomed by radical Jihadists to RC or Protestant sectarianism in Northern Ireland, religio-ethnic identity in the Balkans, the behaviour of right-wing conservative Christians in the US or the actions of theocratic rulers in the 8th century.
They are all part of a complex web of relationships and influences of which religion is undoubtedly a part.
Pointing the finger at this, that or the other tradition / Tradition or faith misses the point - the issue is broader than that.
I would say that it is always possible for religion to 'go wrong'. Given the right set of circumstances, any group can develop cultish tendencies. Equally, religion can be drawn into conflicts of identity, influence and hegemony.
Rather than seeking to elide that we should acknowledge the fact and look to redress those aspects and factors that contribute to this happening - so far as we can.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that including IRA shootings? Or do they conveniently not count as Christian terrorism?
AFAIK the RCC condemned the IRA, forbade RCs from joining it, and threatened to excommunicate those who did.
Shedloads of imams, entire organizations of them, have taken similar stances toward ISIS. May we conclude therefore that ISIS are not a Muslim terrorist organization?
ISIS openly, proudly and aggressively identifies as Muslim, and in fact regards its Muslim critics as either inadequately Islamic or not real Muslims at all.
And its critics say it's not really Muslim at all. Which can be seen by the things that it does, like killing non-combatants, killing during Ramadan, and so forth. Yet of the two you take the word of the murderers and not the peaceful ones. Why is that?
I am accepting the self-assessment of each organisation.
If you think you know better, and want to argue that ISIS is "not really" Islamic because some Muslims think so, or that the IRA was "really"
Roman Catholic because some RCs were involved in it, then you are, of course, free to do so.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Are Mormons Christians?
[ 20. July 2017, 04:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think JWs, Mormons, Arians, Gnostics and Branch Davidians are all Christians by those criteria.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any approach to the Bible involves a hermeneutic of some sort, even if it is unconscious, perverse, self-justifying, or just shallow, jejune and crappy.
You can have a good hermeneutic or a bad hermeneutic, but you can't have no hermeneutic, in the same way that you can't have no weather, or no character, or no ethnicity.
Yes, but having a strange idea about a particular verse does not necessarily add up to a systematic theory of interpretation. I accept it might - but then you are the one who introduced the terms "hermeneutic" and "valid", not me. I was quite happy talking about worldviews.
quote:
You are blustering to cover up the fact that you are shooting your mouth off while possessing only the haziest concept of what a hermeneutic is.
Try again, this time after you have thought about it a little.
Yeah, yeah, of course. You make all kinds of claims with no justification whatsoever, assert this that and the other - but somehow I'm the problem because I'm not using the words in the way that you like.
I suggest that you are the one out of step here, not me. I suggest that almost everyone uses hermeneutics to suggest a pattern and theory of a framework of interpretation which individuals work within to understand their faith. I suggest that almost everyone accepts that "valid" and "wrong" are different ideas.
Further, I suggest that having a belief in the meaning of a particular verse does not in-and-of-itself make a hermeneutic. I accept that if someone believes something about the pyramids this might indeed be evidence of a particular framework of interpretation of the bible, but not necessarily. It might just be a passing thought, or it might be evidence of an all-encompassing theory and framework of interpretation of the bible that means the individuals believes that the world is controlled by aliens.
If you are introducing terms and asserting that they're to be used in a certain way, it is down to you to defend why they should be used in that way. I've been fairly clear about why I think they should be used but if they should be in the way you say you need to give some reasoning because you introduced them into this discussion.
[ 20. July 2017, 06:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And its critics say it's not really Muslim at all. Which can be seen by the things that it does, like killing non-combatants, killing during Ramadan, and so forth. Yet of the two you take the word of the murderers and not the peaceful ones. Why is that?
I think it is an arguable point whether or not any given group is to be seen as from a particular religion or not. It is obviously true that the majority of Muslims do not accept Ahmadiyya as part of Islam even whilst they say that they are.
My point here is that there is an effort - which we've seen once again from Kaplan just above - to portray Islamic violence as quintessentially violent whilst at the same time disowning any violence committed by Christians. In my view that's a deeply flawed analysis.
If one wants to say that Christians who commit violence are not really Christians, that works as far as it goes but seems to be to come down to salami slicing with regard to what is or isn't a Christian action. Hence the focus here on talking about the crusades but not the dropping of a nuclear bomb, the carpet-bombing of Dresden, the use of drones and so on.
To me it certainly makes most sense to think of Christianity which is against all ideas of state religion and justification of violence - but if one is going to do that and say that all expressions of violence are somehow people way off the beam of the central tenants of Christianity, then why not allow that this might also be the case with Islam?
It can only be that there is a narrative that there is a battle of civilisations between Christianity and Islam and that Christianity represents the "good guys" and Islam "all that is wrong".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would say that it is always possible for religion to 'go wrong'. Given the right set of circumstances, any group can develop cultish tendencies. Equally, religion can be drawn into conflicts of identity, influence and hegemony.
Rather than seeking to elide that we should acknowledge the fact and look to redress those aspects and factors that contribute to this happening - so far as we can.
Which neatly returns us to the OP, well done.
One thing we haven't talked about is how exactly the things in your final paragraph are to be done. In the UK this is often seen to be a responsibility of government via the "Prevent strategy" to target those at risk of extremism.
But this seems to be a flawed idea on several levels; first like it or not, Christianity is embedded into the state so it is almost impossible to not see state interference in teaching religion as somehow associated with Christianity. Second, if course, the whole point about being an Islamic extremist is that you believe strongly the problems with the world are due to modern Western society - so it seems incredibly unlikely that representatives of that very society would be able to convince you to change your mind. Third, there seems to be a line being crossed when the state is the determinant of what is or isn't "right" theology.
More insidiously, it encourages a particular narrative about Islam that makes it look foreign and alien and the obvious source of violence in our own society. Something to be feared and condemned.
There was an example of this I heard about yesterday. I state funded Islamic school in Birmingham is in trouble with Ofsted, the education watchdog. Part of the issue appears to be about "segregation" of boys and girls within the school.
Now, of course one can have various views about education and boys and girls. But it cannot be that this is, as was claimed on the BBC's Moral Maze yesterday, a particular issue for Ofsted when boys and girls are taught in different classes in the same school building.
Because I happen to have experience of this. My child went to a school which was recently joined from two single-sex schools and where boys and girls are routinely taught in different classes until 14 and all the way to 16 for Maths and English.
I accept that there may be deeper issues at the Islamic school, but the perception here is that an Islamic school in Birmingham is being castigated for doing something that is not even mentioned by Ofsted when it occurs in a school of 99% white children in Kent.
[ 20. July 2017, 07:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, and it becomes messier when ideologues from both ends of the political spectrum get involved with this sort of thing. There's a bit of a kerfuffle across the US religious Right (largely) at the moment about Ofsted allegedly putting pressure on a Jewish school her in the UK for it to teach LGBT rights in a way that currently isn't on their curriculum.
I've even seen US posters putting 'First they came for the Jews' on social media to imply that the nasty, wooly, politically-correct UK establishment is harbouring and nurturing incipient Fascism.
So whatever the 'Gummint' tried to do whether through Prevent or through apparently politically-correct legislation is going to come under fire from one direction or another.
I've recently read 'The Battle for British Islam' which is by a UK Muslim woman who appeared on the BBC's Question Time recently. It is equally as critical of some on the 'identity politics' Left as it is of aspects of Prevent. She calls for a concerted coalition of Muslims who believe in democracy and egalitarian values to resist and overturn the jihadist narrative. She's been getting it in the neck from all sides.
It's easier said than done, but the answers to any of these things - if there are any and one hopes there are - have to come from within the communities themselves.
I've come across right-wing US Christians, Orthodox, RCs and evangelicals, who seem to think that the only answer is to convert all Muslims to Christ - and one wonders, given their support for Trump, whether they'd expect, envisage state-support for that or even violent for in the style of Charlemagne ...
We live in dangerous times. 'The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wiki is not the only reference I've read since last night, but these sum up the exterior and interior issues as a proposition.
Motivations of Islamic terrorism
Citizenship
Economics
Identity
Ideology
Religion
Small-group dynamics
Western foreign policy
Profiles of Terrorists
In which displacement is significant. But doesn't explain 7/7 for example.
There is NOTHING about ultimate redemption from sin through violence.
Address the externals - righteousness = social justice - and that addresses the internals. There is no other way. And that's long and slow and expensive and chaotic. By the end of the century we'll know if it's working. If the death toll declines over several decades for a start. If Islam can transcend itself.
[ 20. July 2017, 11:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've even seen US posters putting 'First they came for the Jews' on social media to imply that the nasty, wooly, politically-correct UK establishment is harbouring and nurturing incipient Fascism.
Seriously, is that what you take from that? Harbouring and nurturing is not "coming for." Your interpreter is broken.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've even seen US posters putting 'First they came for the Jews' on social media to imply that the nasty, wooly, politically-correct UK establishment is harbouring and nurturing incipient Fascism.
Seriously, is that what you take from that? Harbouring and nurturing is not "coming for." Your interpreter is broken.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be criticising Gam for an idea he is repeating not holding.
And anyway, I don't see that it is particularly off the wall.
Jewish schools unfairly investigated by authorities which leads to closure of those schools and attacks on Jews because they don't hold the supposed liberal values of the state. This allows a victory to the facists who want to destroy Jewish culture.
I can see how that chain of argument might be asserted. In what sense is the interpreter broken.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Mr cheesy, on "right" theology Karen Armstrong comes to mind; 'if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology'. The state can say that.
And Islam is 'foreign and alien' but NOT 'the obvious source of violence in our own society'. 1:60 murders are by Islamist terrorists.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Charlemagne wouldn't have had a concept of the secular in the way the word is used nowadays.
That's quite likely. But that doesn't mean we can't make a distinction between the motive of being a strong king, the motive of working for the triumph of Christianity, and the motive of seeking to be Christ-like.
That's a distinction we make, not a distinction that would have occurred to Charlemagne. There is a letter of his, extant, to the Pope whereby he explains that he is the defender of the Church and the Pope's role is to pray for the success of his endeavours. The fact that no-one, today (with the possible exception of William T. Cavanaugh) regards this as remotely plausible doesn't alter the fact that Charlemagne held it entirely sincerely. The people who did disagree weren't Kaplanites. They were clerics who thought that smiting the bad guys was a necessary task to which kings were called but that the real custodians of Christendom were the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The first people to challenge this dichotomy are our mates the Anabaptists in the 16th Century and it basically falls to pieces during the 17th Century.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, my interpreter isn't broken. The dude I'm thinking of is convinced that the liberal left is incipiently fascist and that any attempt to regulate gun ownership - for instance - or - as in this case, suggest what should or shouldn't be on particular school curricula is nanny-state interference that will lead ultimately to the infringement of hard-won liberties.
It's a trope I hear a lot from the US religious Right and from US libertarians.
Anything from gun control to environmental sustainability or a belief in Climate Change is seen as the thin end of a very large wedge that proceeds through abortion to euthanasia and the eradication of Christianity ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Incidentally, the guy who quoted the 'First they came for the Jews ...' thing is Orthodox, a convert from a very conservative form of Reformed Christianity. I was too polite to point out to him that his present ecclesial affiliation doesn't exactly have a terrific track record when it comes to pogroms.*
* Although, of course, there are examples of individual clergy who opposed the pogroms in Russia and the very excellent example of Mother Maria Skobtsova and Fr Demetrius in WW2.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Wiki is not the only reference I've read since last night, but these sum up the exterior and interior issues as a proposition.
Thanks for summing that up. I don't find it very intuitive given my own experience of religion, but I guess that just goes to show the value of actual observation over conjecture.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wow! I should say the same. You recalibrated me. Not for the first time!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
having a strange idea about a particular verse does not necessarily add up to a systematic theory of interpretation.
almost everyone uses hermeneutics to suggest a pattern and theory of a framework of interpretation which individuals work within to understand their faith.
First, a hermeneutic is simply a mode of interpretation, and is not necessarily systematic or even conscious.
Secondly, the term hermeneutics is not restricted to "faith" matters, but can be and is used far more generally.
And thirdly, "almost everyone"? Really? Sez who? You?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Mr cheesy, on "right" theology Karen Armstrong comes to mind; 'if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology'. The state can say that.
And Islam is 'foreign and alien' but NOT 'the obvious source of violence in our own society'. 1:60 murders are by Islamist terrorists.
Karen Armstrong is not any kind of eg of a decent theologian.
She is a very good writer though and an eg of what the RCC did to people in the 1950s and 60s and still would given half a chance.
No one's notion of God makes them anything. It might create a rationalisation or justification or excuse for what they are already.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, a hermeneutic is simply a mode of interpretation, and is not necessarily systematic or even conscious.
But you didn't identify a mode of interpretation. You identified interpretations of two isolated verses. What is the hermeneutic you think either interpretation illustrates?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
seen once again from Kaplan just above - to portray Islamic violence as quintessentially violent whilst at the same time disowning any violence committed by Christians.
I'm not sure that you know what "quintessentially" means.
Why should "Islamic violence" (eg that of ISIS) be seen as any more violent than, say, Nazi violence, or communist (eg Khmer Rouge) violence, or intercommunal (eg Indian partition, or Hutu/Tutsi) violence?
Perhaps you meant "characteristically", and should have written "violence as characteristically Islamic".
OK, I have said that a case for religious violence can be legitimately made from the Koran, though not all Muslims do, and those who do, don't necessarily obey it (out of cowardice, common decency or whatever).
I have never "disowned" violence committed by Christians.
For a start, a genuine NT case can be made for violence committed by Christians in the course of a just war (as can a case for pacifism), so I am not about to "disown" Christians who fought Nazism.
But also, I have never tried to pretend that Christians such as Savonarola and Charlemagne who practised specifically religious violence, which cannot be justified from the NT, were not "really" Christians - just Christians who, for whatever reason, were not faithful to their religion in this particular.
It's possible to think that they were wrong, and to be ashamed of them, but not to "disown" them.
Try to read for comprehension, instead of for what you want to find even when it's not there.
[ 21. July 2017, 03:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday, this was for you:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are Mormons Christians?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For a start, a genuine NT case can be made for violence committed by Christians in the course of a just war (as can a case for pacifism), so I am not about to "disown" Christians who fought Nazism.
So, it is just to set up the conditions for a war as long as you do not fire the first shot? And then turn away the people being persecuted?
Interesting.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
