|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Unless your case is that non-religious people from Muslim cultures tend to shout "Allahu akbar" in the same way that my childhood friends would shout "Geronimo". Which I guess is possible, but I'd like to see some evidence.
That's pretty much it. It isn't as simple as to say that shout is like Geronimo, but the point is that if one is committed to a political cause within an Islamic culture, then war, death and terror all get wrapped up in the cry "Allahu akbar". Considering that evidence of an Islamic inspiration is as helpful as considering the cry "Geronimo" evidence of inspiration pro-native American self-determination.
It is more complicated than that though, because those crying Allahu Akbar will often have a religious justification and make claims for their actions in religious terms. And they likely do often fall within the sphere of what one might call "Islamist". But within that sphere there are many people with primarily political motivations, some religious fanaticism and some madness.
A similar thing happened with the crusades. A lot of that was about geopolitics, with a religious justification and lots of religious language.
Evidence? Almost anything written by Reza Aslan includes a discussion of this.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
A bloke called Demitrious Gargasoulas decided to drive a car down Bourke St Mall in January, killing four people and injuring a whole lot more. Gargasoulas didn't claim anything.
On the contrary, he claimed to be influenced by the Illuminati, suggesting the possibility of mental disorder and/or drugs.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We are still not sure what we should have done.
I'm not sure either, although I think it is great that you were in the position of having the difficulty in the first place.
The difficulties don't seem specifically about Muslims though, rather the generic difficulties of communicating dietary intolerances to someone who doesn't speak the same language well.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not to mention a christian terrorist would have to be quite an heterodox christian, since nowhere in christian scriptures or in any known christian tradition it is ordered that christians kill enemies (let alone non-christians), and in fact, it´s a distinctive christian teaching to do the exact opposite.
Crusades.
Irrelevant.
There is not a single NT verse which teaches the use of violence on the part of Christians to protect or propagate their faith.
There is religious violence in the OT, but Christianity by definition supersedes and transcends the OT.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is more complicated than that though, because those crying Allahu Akbar will often have a religious justification and make claims for their actions in religious terms. And they likely do often fall within the sphere of what one might call "Islamist". But within that sphere there are many people with primarily political motivations, some religious fanaticism and some madness.
Sure. Nobody has said otherwise. Nobody serious tries to claim that Islamist terrorists are all dedicated Koranic scholars. I agree that individual terrorists have all those reasons and more for being drawn to nutbag Islamism. I could point you at some people who became hunt saboteurs not because they were particularly fond of animals, but because they were angry young men who didn't like toffs. What of it?
The problem is still Islamism, or animal rights extremism. Just like the poor, we'll always have a supply of angry young men ready to latch on to whatever cause crosses their path. If those causes don't have such a violent ideology, they won't kill people. Maybe they'll start a punk band instead.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not to mention a christian terrorist would have to be quite an heterodox christian, since nowhere in christian scriptures or in any known christian tradition it is ordered that christians kill enemies (let alone non-christians), and in fact, it´s a distinctive christian teaching to do the exact opposite.
Crusades.
Irrelevant.
There is not a single NT verse which teaches the use of violence on the part of Christians to protect or propagate their faith.
There is religious violence in the OT, but Christianity by definition supersedes and transcends the OT.
We have, of course, had that discussion before, for example to ask how many swords the disciples needed. Or, since the government is granted the power to wield the sword does that extend to a Christian government?
The Crusades are relevant on a couple of counts. First that the modern view that the Christian faith doesn't condone violence in the name of Christianity wasn't always held to be self-evident (it's among a list of things that includes slavery etc where Christians in previous generations found support in Scripture which we fail to see today). The particular relevance is when people start to dismiss claims by the majority of Muslims that they follow a religion of peace by pointing to a minority who justify violence from their scriptures, because we have our own minority who have done the same (the vast majority of which were in our past rather than present, but that's not particularly relevant IMO). Another relevant point is that the Crusades were a particular set of wars against Islam, and so any time some political leader in the West uses the word "crusade" it recreates that religious war feeling into the situation - so, though the second Iraq war was entirely political and economic (and, unjustified under any reasonable assessment) it gets seen as a religious war by Christians against Muslims when our political leaders start using the C word. Which plays straight into the narrative of the Islamic militants, reinforces their claim of the Christian west waging a war against Islam and attracts recruits to their cause.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I could point you at some people who became hunt saboteurs not because they were particularly fond of animals, but because they were angry young men who didn't like toffs. What of it?
What of it? It would lead me to the conclusion that perhaps funding for deradicalization programmes targeting the dangers among vegetarian and anti-vivisection would not be well spent, and that there was little value in demanding that vegetarians everywhere denounce animal rights activists when they plant a bomb. It would also make me wary regarding taking what animal rights activist bombers said regarding their motivation.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The problem is still Islamism, or animal rights extremism.
Why? If you've just argued that Islam and/or animal rights aren't actually the primary motivation, doesn't it follow that they aren't the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
we'll always have a supply of angry young men ready to latch on to whatever cause crosses their path. If those causes don't have such a violent ideology, they won't kill people. Maybe they'll start a punk band instead.
Isn't the conclusion of your first sentance that the angry young men are going to find a cause to attach their violence to? Irrespective of how much twisting is required to do that?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Isn't the conclusion of your first sentance that the angry young men are going to find a cause to attach their violence to? Irrespective of how much twisting is required to do that?
My conclusion is that "angry young men" will latch on to whatever cause is available. If the cause is inciting them to go out and kill the "enemy", that's what they'll do. If the cause is inciting them to get piercings and sing protest songs, they will do much less killing.
The angry young men provide the fuel, but the cause provides the direction. I suggest that it is the direction which is more at fault, and perhaps also easier to deal with.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I find it hard to accept the idea that piercings and protest songs would fill a gap that otherwise would be filled with suicide bombing.
It seems more likely to me that a sense of belonging, being part of mainstream society, and having treatment for mental illness would fill the gap, rather than a supply of causes with aggressive but non-violent outlets.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I do perceive a risk of a double standard here. Someone kills people in the name of Islam and it's nothing at all to do with the Muslim next door. Someone kills people in the name of some confused "England for the English" ideology and everyone who has the slightest sympathy for that ideology is immediately complicit...
Whereas the double standard I perceive is that "Islamic Terrorist" is all over the headlines whenever an incident occurs and yet "Christian Terrorist" isn't.
Is there any evidence that he was a Christian? White, yes, and in so far as he is, the rest of us white Brits have a degree of responsibility, but Christian?
That is rather the point. When a brown person commits and act, Islamism is assumed at the outset. Rarely, if ever, the case for a white person.
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All things are true so far.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
Such evidence exists every time? Or are you just generalizing evidence from some cases to suggest it is true in all cases?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Matt Black: quote:
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
And the far-right murderer of Jo Cox shouted "Britain First!". That isn't an assumption either, but he and the Finsbury Park attacker were both described as 'mentally disturbed'. Why is it so easy to believe the likes of Nigel Farrago and Katie Hopkins when they say 'we didn't mean this to happen', and so difficult to believe Muslims when they say 'these people do not represent us'?
[ 27. June 2017, 12:56: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
Such evidence exists every time? Or are you just generalizing evidence from some cases to suggest it is true in all cases?
I can't think of a single case that isn't. Can you? Such evidence exists, one way or the other, every time, is my perception. And no, none of these attacks are representative of even the twenty thousand persons of interest (1% of the Muslim population, 4-8% of the gender age-group biased population) who haven't acted upon their extremism yet and the 99.9% of those persons of interest who never will. Let alone the 99% who are not of interest, despite their 'interesting' views, but who form waters in which those of interest swim. Around which are 'our' waters yet.
[ 27. June 2017, 13:51: 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
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wouldn't wipe your arse with The Express. And what has that got to do with actual attacks?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
Such evidence exists every time? Or are you just generalizing evidence from some cases to suggest it is true in all cases?
Neither; I am saying that in those ccases where there is evidence of Islamist connection with the attack, it is fair and reasonable to refer to them as 'Islamist terrorist attacks'. Similarly, where there is evidence of Christian motivation for attacks, it is reasonable to call the attacker a 'Christian terrorist'. I haven't seen any evidence for the latter in the most recent (Finsbury Park Mosque) attack; I have seen evidence of the former in the penultimate (London Bridge) attack.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, there is that pesky thing called evidence eg: either ISIS claims them as their own, the terrorist posts a video saying it's in support of the Caliphate, or, as was the case in the London Bridge attack, they state "This is for Allah". So not really an assumption.
If I committed a crime and said "Lawyers made me do it!" You would rightly question whether the legal profession had any connection and, if I had no prior interest in law, rightly conclude it was inaccurate to connect it with the crime.
This is ignored or dismissed with Islam.
ISIS will claim any such act for two reasons.
It fits their agenda and the have called for random attacks. Unlike Al Qaeda, they do not check for any connection.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Apples and oranges. Last time I checked, legal pronouncements could not be interpreted to call for acts of violence (capital punishment excepted) in the same way that Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious texts can and have been.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apples and oranges. Last time I checked, legal pronouncements could not be interpreted to call for acts of violence (capital punishment excepted) in the same way that Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious texts can and have been.
It is a matter of what is accepted as accurate. If someone claimed Christianity made them commit a crime, that claim would be investigated. If no apparent connection beyond the claim were found, the public would accept the declaration as an aberration. The same is not done for Islam.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I wouldn't wipe your arse with The Express. And what has that got to do with actual attacks?
I'm sure there are some publications that rise above this, but the point is there's a double standard in sections of the press that are widely read. Can you imagine the express running a headline saying "Jewish plot to kill pope"?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
where there is evidence of Islamist connection with the attack, it is fair and reasonable to refer to them as 'Islamist terrorist attacks'.
The rub in that tautology is what one considers evidence. Islamic name? Mosque membership? ISIS pronouncements (they might claim anything and we don't take them at face value on much else)?
Or do we wait for a facebook post, a circle of contacts and laptop browser history?
My feeling is many will jump to label it with the former list, when it might be better to wait for the latter.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles)
And Northern Ireland doesn't count because...?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I wouldn't wipe your arse with The Express. And what has that got to do with actual attacks?
I'm sure there are some publications that rise above this, but the point is there's a double standard in sections of the press that are widely read. Can you imagine the express running a headline saying "Jewish plot to kill pope"?
Nice one. No they wouldn't dare. Unless there were one ... They know that they can get away with making up Islamophobic shit. Now if the Guardian reported it ...
Islamist terrorism on the West is only a generation old in modern times. Since the Siege of Vienna sort of thing. Correlated not even with 80% of the Palestinian conflict at least. 95% But with the aftermath of the Western creation of highly successful anti-Soviet Salafi jihad. And disastrous Western foreign policy since. Despite centuries of Salafism under various imperialist yokes.
Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.
We need a new Monroe doctrine. Walk very softly indeed and carry a woven stick basket from which to dispense social justice above all including defense for all.
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
We have, of course, had that discussion before, for example to ask how many swords the disciples needed.
Yes we have, at which time I pointed out that any young theolog trying to argue that Luke 22:38 teaches the right and obligation of Christians to use violence to protect or propagate their faith, in the face of the different ways the verse can be interpreted, and in the face of all the rest of the NT, would automatically flunk Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101.
quote:
Or, since the government is granted the power to wield the sword does that extend to a Christian government?
Paul in Romans 13 is referring to all governments, which by definition have a monopoly on violence in the service of external and internal security.
There is an unbridgeable chasm between that general principle, and any attempt to demonstrate a biblical mandate for a "Christian government" (assuming that there is such an animal) to kill heretics and heathens.
quote:
The Crusades are relevant on a couple of counts.
They are relevant on many counts, historical, religious and cultural, but they are not relevant to (ie they do not lend any support to) any argument that the NT supports religious crusades.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
The Crusades are relevant on a couple of counts.
They are relevant on many counts, historical, religious and cultural, but they are not relevant to (ie they do not lend any support to) any argument that the NT supports religious crusades.
When ya'll quit using the OT to support your arguments, then you can limit the range of what Christianity allows to the NT.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
Care to explain exactly why the Ku Klux Klan don't count as both Christian and violent? They certainly viewed their own activities through a Christian lens.
For that matter, why don't the folks who shoot up or bomb women's clinics in the U.S. count as "Christian terrorists"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not to mention a christian terrorist would have to be quite an heterodox christian, since nowhere in christian scriptures or in any known christian tradition it is ordered that christians kill enemies (let alone non-christians), and in fact, it´s a distinctive christian teaching to do the exact opposite.
Crusades.
Irrelevant.
There is not a single NT verse which teaches the use of violence on the part of Christians to protect or propagate their faith.
There is religious violence in the OT, but Christianity by definition supersedes and transcends the OT.
As Alan Creswell said. I don't se how you can duck the Old testament either. It is still canon.
The bible can be made out to say anything you want it too by selective quoting, selective interpretation stiles and with the help of an online search engine.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
I think we are missing what these 'Islamist' attacks are against. They are attacks on Western materialism, they are anti British/ American/ European, anti what they see as corrupt moral standards (homosexuality and promiscuity etc.). The point is there is another justification other than just Islam.
We can see these as Anarchist Revolutionaries/ Racist /Homophobia/ Islamophobia when they come from our culture even if the perpetrators cry " in the name of God and St George" . We can divide the Christians in Northern Ireland up in to the political groups of Republicans and Loyalists. Likewise we can identify our reasons for wars when the Generals use the same rallying call. Yet we fail to see the same motives when it is wrapped in an Isis flag and the cry is "Allah Akbar".
If we look at those reasons maybe we can even say "I can see the point you are making" and do something about that.
I think I want to take issue with your use of "Radical" Matt. It can mean going back to the root values. These may be very good. "Extremist" might be a better term. That could apply to original values + something else which produces a poisonous cocktail.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I don't se how you can duck the Old testament either. It is still canon.
"Ducking the OT" is a trivial and reductionist way of describing the necessity to decide which parts of the OT have been superseded by the NT, and which haven't.
Deciding on the basis of the NT that providing for the widow, the orphan and the stranger is still relevant, but that the Tabernacle, priesthood and sacrificial system have been rendered obsolete, is scarcely "ducking the OT".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Up to a point.
But the existence of genocide, religious violence and a bloody legal code in the OT is still a problem if you take a fairly high view of inspiration of Scripture. Sure, you can say that God wouldn't want the prophets of Baal slaughtered as Elijah did now, but you're left with the problem that he isn't apparently inherently against it given that he was supposedly cool with it then. Ditto stoning adulters to death, etc. etc.
And even with the NT, compared with what God's apparently going to do with all the non-believers and believers in the wrong religion, then a bit of blowing people up is actually small fry. You can see how the Inquisitors justified their actions - a bit of earthly pain and merely physical death to save people from eternal suffering and spiritual death.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I don't see how you can duck the Old testament either. It is still canon.
"Ducking the OT" is a trivial and reductionist way of describing the necessity to decide which parts of the OT have been superseded by the NT, and which haven't.
Deciding on the basis of the NT that providing for the widow, the orphan and the stranger is still relevant, but that the Tabernacle, priesthood and sacrificial system have been rendered obsolete, is scarcely "ducking the OT".
The point, however, is that the OT has been used by Christians to justify war and violence. History is full of examples. Extremists of what ever stripe are not overly concerned with exegesis and hermeneutics
except when it supports their cause. You see they selectively decide which parts of the OT are superseded to suit their own aims. Just as many churches selectively use parts of the OT to support their aims. "Short on funds?" they think "Let's teach about tithing 10%." Never mind that the tithe was for a whole raft of other things not just supporting the religious part of the community.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We have, of course, had that discussion before, for example to ask how many swords the disciples needed.
Yes we have, at which time I pointed out that any young theolog trying to argue that Luke 22:38 teaches the right and obligation of Christians to use violence to protect or propagate their faith, in the face of the different ways the verse can be interpreted, and in the face of all the rest of the NT, would automatically flunk Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101.
I would actually agree with your exegesis of Luke 22. Which isn't the point, the point is that some Christians have used the Bible to justify violence (in a manner I find extremely unconvincing).
The converse side of the same coin is that there are a sizable number of people who want to portray Islam as inherently violent, picking passages from the Koran that can be used to justify that. People who would be very likely to apply the same "flunk Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101" statement to Islamic scholars who would interpret those passages differently and reach a conclusion that there is not justification for violence.
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence, and likewise that many Muslims read the Koran without accepting the interpretations that call for violence. And, recognising that there are Christians who see the Bible calling for violence is necessary for us to address those people within our faith traditions who act in ways that we all find unacceptable and rightly condemn. Which includes trying to make amends for past actions in the name of our faith that still have ramifications today (eg: Crusades). It isn't enough to simply say that those interpretations of the Bible that were used to justify violence were mistaken, especially when we don't allow Islamic scholars make the same argument.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This whole "people in the past were obviously thick and wouldn't pass basic theology courses today" schtick is quite tiring.
Surely the simple point is that nobody interprets scripture in a vacuum. If everyone around is saying that it justifies violence then it is hard not to see it justifying violence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I think we are missing what these 'Islamist' attacks are against. They are attacks on Western materialism, they are anti British/ American/ European, anti what they see as corrupt moral standards (homosexuality and promiscuity etc.). The point is there is another justification other than just Islam.
I'm not sure that is correct either. I feel that the majority of Islamists are reacting against political issues in the Middle-East and elsewhere in the Muslim world rather than caring about what Westerners get up to in their own countries.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles)
And Northern Ireland doesn't count because...?
Because I thought we were talking about the sort of attacks in the OP ie: far-right Islamophobic acts of violence
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
Care to explain exactly why the Ku Klux Klan don't count as both Christian and violent? They certainly viewed their own activities through a Christian lens.
For that matter, why don't the folks who shoot up or bomb women's clinics in the U.S. count as "Christian terrorists"?
They do. As does Dylan Roof. But I refer you to the answer I gave just now to mdijon. If you want to widen the scope of terrorist acts, then I'm more than happy to include him, the KKK and abortion clinic bombers (plus possibly Anders Breivik) as Christian terrorists and condemn them as such.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence. So, apples and oranges still.
I think we are missing what these 'Islamist' attacks are against. They are attacks on Western materialism, they are anti British/ American/ European, anti what they see as corrupt moral standards (homosexuality and promiscuity etc.). The point is there is another justification other than just Islam.
We can see these as Anarchist Revolutionaries/ Racist /Homophobia/ Islamophobia when they come from our culture even if the perpetrators cry " in the name of God and St George" . We can divide the Christians in Northern Ireland up in to the political groups of Republicans and Loyalists. Likewise we can identify our reasons for wars when the Generals use the same rallying call. Yet we fail to see the same motives when it is wrapped in an Isis flag and the cry is "Allah Akbar".
If we look at those reasons maybe we can even say "I can see the point you are making" and do something about that.
i'm not at all happy with that: it skates close to co-belligerence and apologetics for grotesque criminality.
quote:
I think I want to take issue with your use of "Radical" Matt. It can mean going back to the root values. These may be very good. "Extremist" might be a better term. That could apply to original values + something else which produces a poisonous cocktail.
I wasn't happy with it either, hence why I put it in quotes. I prefer your word.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We have, of course, had that discussion before, for example to ask how many swords the disciples needed.
Yes we have, at which time I pointed out that any young theolog trying to argue that Luke 22:38 teaches the right and obligation of Christians to use violence to protect or propagate their faith, in the face of the different ways the verse can be interpreted, and in the face of all the rest of the NT, would automatically flunk Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101.
I would actually agree with your exegesis of Luke 22. Which isn't the point, the point is that some Christians have used the Bible to justify violence (in a manner I find extremely unconvincing).
The converse side of the same coin is that there are a sizable number of people who want to portray Islam as inherently violent, picking passages from the Koran that can be used to justify that. People who would be very likely to apply the same "flunk Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101" statement to Islamic scholars who would interpret those passages differently and reach a conclusion that there is not justification for violence.
We should recognise that there are interpretations of the Bible that can be used to support violence, and likewise that many Muslims read the Koran without accepting the interpretations that call for violence. And, recognising that there are Christians who see the Bible calling for violence is necessary for us to address those people within our faith traditions who act in ways that we all find unacceptable and rightly condemn. Which includes trying to make amends for past actions in the name of our faith that still have ramifications today (eg: Crusades). It isn't enough to simply say that those interpretations of the Bible that were used to justify violence were mistaken, especially when we don't allow Islamic scholars make the same argument.
Fiqh 101
Qur'anic hermeneutics maps to four main Sunni jurisprudence schools - fiqhs. The largest, Hanafi, maps to the former Ottoman and Mughal Empires and accepts Naksh - abrogation - in a large majority of two out of three modes.
Critically it is the abrogation by the Sword Verse - āyat al-sayf, Qur'an 9:5* - by which terrorist jihadists justify their atrocities against non-Muslims and compulsion in religion.
Needless to say this is a minority, literalist yet analogical yet painfully significant view in Islam.
*
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them"
ameliorated by the oft unquoted
"if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security -- that, because they are a people who do not know."
This is used analogically as the pagans referred to weren't literally Jewish or Collyridian descended Christians.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I think we are missing what these 'Islamist' attacks are against. They are attacks on Western materialism, they are anti British/ American/ European, anti what they see as corrupt moral standards (homosexuality and promiscuity etc.). The point is there is another justification other than just Islam.
I'm not sure that is correct either. I feel that the majority of Islamists are reacting against political issues in the Middle-East and elsewhere in the Muslim world rather than caring about what Westerners get up to in their own countries.
Though it all blurs doesn't it? This is their country. So are France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden. Although if Q. 9:5 never existed or even if all Muslims lost their faith by fiat or viral RNA overnight, Western materialism would still institutionalize injustice and violence provoking the same.
[ 28. June 2017, 09:05: 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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If an act of violence is perpetrated with political motive - for example, if a UK citizen survives an attack on a building or a person, civilian, military, political or police - and his motive was loyalty to Daesh, a movement intent on imposing political Islam onto a nation, shouldn't that be treated as treason?
What is the penalty for treason that is, as far as I am aware (unless it's a myth) still on the UK statute books?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It should be treated with wisdom. With understanding. With knowledge.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. But I’m convinced that hatred often arises from personal circumstances and is the consequence of anger which has been allowed to fester and build up in someone’s mind.
So Muslims living in Europe they may feel (and it's the feeling that's important) that they have been victimised by society and not been given the opportunities that are available to other people. Or they are suffering from a huge problem of identity: are we British or Muslim? Or they believe that their peers are giving in too easily to the norms of a secular society and losing their distinctive qualities: they want to resist that. They may also feel, with some justification, that the countries from which their families originally came have been treated as pawns by the powerful nations of the West, and want to teach them a lesson.
Similar anger may build up in native British people, too – you only have think of the intense debates over immigration and refugees where people have often said things like, “It’s not fair, they’re coming over here, getting our flats and taking our jobs”. Equally, some people feel that the dice have been loaded against them: “We aren't allowed to say a word against those Muslims but they can do what they like and nobody dares criticise them”. And many people simply fear those who are different to themselves, whether it’s because of the way they speak, the way they dress or the way they worship: “Those people are taking over our neighbourhood, things just aren’t the same as they used to be”.
None of these factors can ever condone terrorism; but I think they may help us understand why a person becomes an extremist - especially when (as seems to be the case with the Finsbury Park van driver) other issues are going wrong in their life as well.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Question
What is the motive for Daesh?
1) In western Europe?
2) In their own Islamic/Arab context?
Question
Why have some Weztern Daesh supporters and fighters been well-brought up, comfortably off, well-educated and seemingly well-intefrated members of society?
I do not accept the idea that terrorists are all disaffected youths. This is idealogical, not socio-economic. This is Islamic culture versus western culture and (in their eyes) insufficiently Islamic culture in the Arab regions.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Unrighteousness. I.e. injustice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an act of violence is perpetrated with political motive - for example, if a UK citizen survives an attack on a building or a person, civilian, military, political or police - and his motive was loyalty to Daesh, a movement intent on imposing political Islam onto a nation, shouldn't that be treated as treason?
What is the penalty for treason that is, as far as I am aware (unless it's a myth) still on the UK statute books?
It isn't. It was abolished some years ago. Sorry to disappoint, but we like to think we've moved on from killing people in cold blood. It's the sort of thing the people we're opposed to do.
[ 28. June 2017, 09:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles)
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And Northern Ireland doesn't count because...?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I thought we were talking about the sort of attacks in the OP ie: far-right Islamophobic acts of violence
The original quote was
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence.
So writing that back into your original quote would give us;
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is however a recent track record of correlation between radical Islamism and violence which is established in the way that there isn't (except in Northern Ireland in the Troubles) between 'radical' (in the same way) Christianity and violence narrowed to considering far-right islamaphobia only.
That doesn't make sense.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an act of violence is perpetrated with political motive - for example, if a UK citizen survives an attack on a building or a person, civilian, military, political or police - and his motive was loyalty to Daesh, a movement intent on imposing political Islam onto a nation, shouldn't that be treated as treason?
What is the penalty for treason that is, as far as I am aware (unless it's a myth) still on the UK statute books?
It isn't. It was abolished some years ago. Sorry to disappoint, but we like to think we've moved on from killing people in cold blood. It's the sort of thing the people we're opposed to do.
No, not disappointed. I don't support the death penalty. And in any case it would make a terrorist into a martyr.
What I was suggesting was that treason seems to have with it a sense off disgrace and shame because it's an offence against us as a people as well as the Crown. Life imprisonment is a good enough sentence as long as life meant life.
There should be an accumultive penalty for every life taken (murder), every property damaged (criminal damage / arson) AND conviction for treason against the state which must be penalised to the full.
Terrorists with a political motive, loyal to another regime, (as supporters of Daesh have) should be openly declared to be traitors.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think - and I'm open to being corrected if wrong - that short of killing the Monarch, treason is virtually impossible to commit outside of wartime.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
