Secular state addressing Muslim terror

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

While you're at it and you have their attention you can also say that it's a good thing to be good at each other. Just makes things run better.

You could go further back with pagans having codes of conduct, but we digress. 😉

Sure that's the point right? As religion got more organised it got better at projecting power onto societies.

Honestly, what do you think the rationale was for confessions?

I've never really thought about the rationale. Information gathering? Blackmail? I've always thought absolution was problematic. Confess and your sins are absolved? Too convenient.

rick_chasey

I guess I take an atheistic perspective.

I see the bible and the religious narrative as the vehicle in which the social control was projected.

I presume the same is the case for other religions.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

I guess I take an atheistic perspective.

I see the bible and the religious narrative as the vehicle in which the social control was projected.

I presume the same is the case for other religions.

Ditto.

Pross

nickice said:

surrey_commuter said:

nickice said:

It is true that people will behave as barbarically as Islamic terrorists in the right circumstances. You only have to see the reports of what the Australian SAS did in Afghanistan to see that. Wartime always brings out the worst in people which is why we should think very carefully before getting involved.

I think at least some of the IRA were probably just gangsters. However, a particular cause will cause you to do particular things. The Bataclan attacks wouldn't have taken place if the perpetrators hadn't believed they were acting in the name of Islam and IRA bombings wouldn't have taken place if the perpetrators hadn't been fighting for a united Ireland.

Were stats kept on how many members of IRA/SF were Protestant?

There were protestant nationalist and protestant IRA members (though that was rare). It was/is largely a nationalist struggle. Otherwise, you'd probably see other Catholics (who weren't of Irish ancestry) supporting them. Generally, nationalists happen to be Catholic because of history. I suppose you could argue that Iraqi Sunni ISIS members were not really joining because of religion but you'd struggle to make that case for foreign fighters.

Wolfe Tone, one of the original advocates for a United Ireland, was a protestant. He was also a French Republican and they were opposed by the Catholic Church as "dechristianisation" was one of their aims. As you say, Nationalism in NI is mainly seen as a Protestant / Catholic divide as a result of the historic impact of the Protestant Ascendancy in the 17th Century and the sides taken when William III took the English throne.

My opinion, having been raised in a Catholic household and these days being "cautiously agnostic" as I'm not clever enough to be certain of anything, is that religious leaders as with political and business leaders are generally there because they seek power and that provides an element of control. I suspect for those who lead "Islamic" terrorist groups it is more about using the power of religion to help them achieve their political aims (destablising the West) rather than being anything to do with trying to spread their religious beliefs more widely. Similarly, with the IRA it probably helped to stoke a "them and us" within the Catholic community as it gave them support and protection. As someone else said, getting a reaction and response from the West is one of the main aims of the Islamic terrorist groups as it helps to perpetuate their "cause" and increase division and instability.

Ben6899

I just Googled the Ten Commandments (couldn't have told you them otherwise)

1. I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!
2. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain!
3. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy!
4. Thou shalt honour father and mother!
5. Thou shalt not kill!
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery!
7. Thou shalt not steal!
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour!
9. Do not let thyself lust after thy neighbour’s wife!
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!

If you're not religious, then they boil down thus:

1. n/a
2. n/a
3. n/a
4. Agreed. But if you don't, so what?
5. This is also in accordance with the law
6. It's a bit rum, but nothing more than an expensive divorce and black-eye usually results
7. This is also in accordance with the law
8. This is also in accordance with the law
9. See #6
10. Anyone seen the "Your road bikes" section?

david37

rick_chasey said:

I guess I take an atheistic perspective.

I see the bible and the religious narrative as the vehicle in which the social control was projected.

I presume the same is the case for other religions.

it is exactly what it is. Large parts were re written and The Gospel according to Saint John was propaganda through and through and hugely influential on the development of Christianity. interesting stuff. It's an engaging area comparing the development of Christianity and society and certainly the idea that organised religion was about power is bare faced.

It was even written in a language few could read or speak creating a them and us break. In many ways Islam is where Christianity was in the dark ages. (or Christianity is today in parts of America)

rick_chasey

I wouldn't call it propaganda.

Islam is an extremely broad church ( to use an inappropriate phrase), and the types you see are a particular kind, usually driven by local political forces, Wahhabism etc.

Terrorism is often a by product of various problems - let's not forget the IRA etc were terrorists.

The middle eastern equivalent was pursued by a couple of the local dictators who developed that type of terrorism as a way to deal with the problems both in the region and western interference. It's since taken a life of its own.

But to be clear, these things are political and a part of a wider conflict (hence my point about the French). Radical islam is just the tool the leaders use to push a particular type of politics, in this instance, very extreme, very far right.

It's not an issue of islam - it is an issue of geopolitics.

tangled_metal

I read somewhere that ISIS and its caliphate had its origins in a power struggle during the early days of Islam.

Iirc the early religion as a movement was led by the family of Mohammed, brothers and then next generation. At some point it was determined that the family didn't have a good enough candidate to lead so it became led by someone from outside the family creating a schism in the early religion.

This led to iirc a family member forming a break away that actually gained a degree of power. They believed more in the use of force for conversion reasons not just defence iirc. That became the first caliphate I think. It later failed and other faction took over. Or something like that but the main point was that the main religious group/ leadership saw this caliphate as invalid and not true Muslim state. Now I thought that most Islamic states and sects do not believe in a single Islamic nation or state and thus having that is against doctrine.

Or something like that I haven't really paid attention in class so to speak. But there is a possible view that ISIS aren't actually muslims or true muslims but apostates like those who split away and became the first caliphate.

I take the view that terrorists aren't actually of the religion they're claiming. It's enough of a bastardised view of the religion to be worthy of dismissal as part of that religion.

Then Irish nationalism and unionism has so much history that it's too simplistic to use religion to define them. Aiui there were Catholics on both sides in the various battles that get commemorated by certain groups in the island of Ireland. Aiui it had links to a wider battle for power between Roman catholic leaders and French based ones but I'm no historian so forgotten more on that than I remember.

Sorry for my ramblings. Not enough sleep so I'm probably talking rubbish.

laurentian

I am not a particularly religious person but religion does fascinate me.

I think I am of the opinion that I am totally cool with "faith". If someone has faith in something or someone that's fine with me. As far as I can see, people of faith, and only faith, are rarely the people who commit terrible crimes and generally take a "live and let live" approach to the world.

Religion is the organisation of faith and is generally (in my book) not OK as it tends to be constructed to favour the organisers. Some of these organisers use the faith of others as a vehicle to accumulate wealth, seize land and perpetrate war in order to further their agendas.

Faith good, religion bad.

tangled_metal

I think that's a good way of looking at it. Faith and religion.

There's more with faith than religion but less so when you get to census time like next year. I was jedi last time just to see what would happen if I put nonsense answers to questions I didn't like. I still don't believe the state should know what religion you follow or don't.

elbowloh

tangled_metal said:

I read somewhere that ISIS and its caliphate had its origins in a power struggle during the early days of Islam.

Iirc the early religion as a movement was led by the family of Mohammed, brothers and then next generation. At some point it was determined that the family didn't have a good enough candidate to lead so it became led by someone from outside the family creating a schism in the early religion.

I think this is more a description of the difference between Shiia and Sunni branches of Islam rather than the basis for ISIS specifically.