Jokes2 mins ago
London Attack: Archbishop Warns Against 'religious Illiteracy'
Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said there is "a lack of religious literacy" among some people who are tackling the terrorist threat.
"They often don't understand the very basic doctrines of the faith they're dealing with and cannot put themselves "in the shoes of religious believers".
http://
I don’t often agree with him and he’s clearly chosen his words very carefully throughout this interview, but I don’t think the ignorance he’s talking about applies solely to those dealing with the terrorist threat and that, in itself, creates a problem. However, on this occasion he’s absolutely right to say what some of us have been saying for years.
"They often don't understand the very basic doctrines of the faith they're dealing with and cannot put themselves "in the shoes of religious believers".
http://
I don’t often agree with him and he’s clearly chosen his words very carefully throughout this interview, but I don’t think the ignorance he’s talking about applies solely to those dealing with the terrorist threat and that, in itself, creates a problem. However, on this occasion he’s absolutely right to say what some of us have been saying for years.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
As Tora said at 12:07, it ain't rocket science. They're mentally deranged, that's all we need to know. I don't think it needs an in-depth unspderstandimg of Islam to figure that out.
Strange that one person (the ab of c) who is head of a body who believes in a slightly different deity has the right to pontificate ( pun intended) over our society. Madness in a slightly more westernised and less radical form.
Strange that one person (the ab of c) who is head of a body who believes in a slightly different deity has the right to pontificate ( pun intended) over our society. Madness in a slightly more westernised and less radical form.
I am religiously illiterate. I have no interest in any religion whatsoever. The problem that Europe faces with Islam is that its followers not only have no interest in any other religion, they have no tolerance of it either.
Non-believers should not have to understand the basic doctrines of any religion in which they hold no interest. No other religion has caused such widespread problems across the UK in my lifetime (and I include in that the IRA's atrocities in the 70s and 80s)as has the Muslim faith. I don't subscribe to this view that only a small minority of Muslims are the cause of the trouble. They are simply the symptoms of the disease.
Non-believers should not have to understand the basic doctrines of any religion in which they hold no interest. No other religion has caused such widespread problems across the UK in my lifetime (and I include in that the IRA's atrocities in the 70s and 80s)as has the Muslim faith. I don't subscribe to this view that only a small minority of Muslims are the cause of the trouble. They are simply the symptoms of the disease.
I heard a spokesman of the National Association of Muslim Police say on Jeremy Vine today that when the IRA were killing and bombing, the Catholic Church wasn't continually being asked what they intended to do about it. I so wanted Vine to say: 'but they weren't killing and bombing in the name of Catholicism, they were doing it to get a united Ireland'! Needless to say, he didn't, and let him waffle on.
And why should there need to be a National Association of Muslim Police (Or a National Black Police association, for that matter) ? What happened to integration? Why the constant special pleading?
And why should there need to be a National Association of Muslim Police (Or a National Black Police association, for that matter) ? What happened to integration? Why the constant special pleading?
// when the IRA were killing and bombing, the Catholic Church wasn't continually being asked what they intended to do about it. //
then he has a short memory
they did and they were. There were RCs in the army who served with honour ( Robert Nairac GC)
https:/
Cardinal Cathal Daly was a bit soft on it
https:/
altho his wiki entry doesnt mention this
He mentioned support for 'the boys in the North' to disbelief and horrified disapproval on one occasion
Cardinal Basil Hume ( "my cardinal" a/c to the Queen ) used to wipe the floor with him regularly on the subject of rejecting terrorism (or in Daly's case failing to do it loudly and regularly enough). To the extent that Daly was 'out' ( to lunch) whenever Hume was in town or telephoned him
then he has a short memory
they did and they were. There were RCs in the army who served with honour ( Robert Nairac GC)
https:/
Cardinal Cathal Daly was a bit soft on it
https:/
altho his wiki entry doesnt mention this
He mentioned support for 'the boys in the North' to disbelief and horrified disapproval on one occasion
Cardinal Basil Hume ( "my cardinal" a/c to the Queen ) used to wipe the floor with him regularly on the subject of rejecting terrorism (or in Daly's case failing to do it loudly and regularly enough). To the extent that Daly was 'out' ( to lunch) whenever Hume was in town or telephoned him
New Judge, //Non-believers should not have to understand the basic doctrines of any religion in which they hold no interest.//
No, they shouldn’t, but when we are being attacked and people who know little or nothing about Islam tell the rest of us that its appalling doctrine is misinterpreted by a small minority, they need to realise that it isn’t misinterpreted by a minority, but is, in fact, understood by all. That is why the hordes that protest in the streets when a cartoon of Mohammed is published are nowhere to be seen following a terrorist attack.
goodgoalie, //'but they weren't killing and bombing in the name of Catholicism, they were doing it to get a united Ireland'!//
Absolutely right.
No, they shouldn’t, but when we are being attacked and people who know little or nothing about Islam tell the rest of us that its appalling doctrine is misinterpreted by a small minority, they need to realise that it isn’t misinterpreted by a minority, but is, in fact, understood by all. That is why the hordes that protest in the streets when a cartoon of Mohammed is published are nowhere to be seen following a terrorist attack.
goodgoalie, //'but they weren't killing and bombing in the name of Catholicism, they were doing it to get a united Ireland'!//
Absolutely right.
I do agree that I find the oft-repeated slogan "the terrorists want to divide us" very unconvincing. The terrorists want to get into heaven, I'm not sure they care much about the lasting impact their actions have on society - they certainly don't care about what they're doing to their victims.
Having said that, I'm not sure turning our country into a sh1thole police state is the right solution either (and that's what some of the most popular solutions look like to me).
Having said that, I'm not sure turning our country into a sh1thole police state is the right solution either (and that's what some of the most popular solutions look like to me).
Obviously I don't think Islamist terrorists should be permitted to run amok. Is that just the accusation du jour against anyone who disagrees?
I don't know what the answer is. There's no way I (or anyone else) can know enough about what's currently being done to judge whether or not it's effective because it's all protected under intelligence laws. So discussing what should be done is a bit of a pointless exercise to me.
After the Manchester bombing, we saw people on here advocate "banning muslims" which I don't think is an unpopular opinion and is impossible to do without building concentration camps on UK soil. I also think people are remarkably sanguine about giving up their privacy and rights to free expression (especially online but not exclusively) without realising what it is they are giving away. Bear in mind any power that we give to the government to fight Islamic extremism won't go away if the threat ever recedes - it'll just stay there, ready to be used against anyone in the future.
I don't know what the answer is. There's no way I (or anyone else) can know enough about what's currently being done to judge whether or not it's effective because it's all protected under intelligence laws. So discussing what should be done is a bit of a pointless exercise to me.
After the Manchester bombing, we saw people on here advocate "banning muslims" which I don't think is an unpopular opinion and is impossible to do without building concentration camps on UK soil. I also think people are remarkably sanguine about giving up their privacy and rights to free expression (especially online but not exclusively) without realising what it is they are giving away. Bear in mind any power that we give to the government to fight Islamic extremism won't go away if the threat ever recedes - it'll just stay there, ready to be used against anyone in the future.
Krom, //Is that just the accusation du jour against anyone who disagrees?//
No, it’s a question in response to your impression that we’re ‘turning our country into a sh1thole police state’.
//Bear in mind any power that we give to the government to fight Islamic extremism won't go away if the threat ever recedes//
Unless very drastic action is taken, I can’t see that the threat will ever recede, but that aside, we can’t restrict the laws we make to deal with current problems for fear they might backfire in an unknown future. We live in the here and now.
No, it’s a question in response to your impression that we’re ‘turning our country into a sh1thole police state’.
//Bear in mind any power that we give to the government to fight Islamic extremism won't go away if the threat ever recedes//
Unless very drastic action is taken, I can’t see that the threat will ever recede, but that aside, we can’t restrict the laws we make to deal with current problems for fear they might backfire in an unknown future. We live in the here and now.
How much would you be willing to sacrifice if the government told you they needed it to fight terrorism, Naomi?
Your free speech?
Your right to privacy?
Your property?
Because the first two are already being openly targeted in piecemeal ways. Once they're gone, they're gone. You don't get them back.
Short-termism like that is dangerous. We have a duty to preserve the rights we have for future generations. There's no point in being safe if society isn't worth living in.
Your free speech?
Your right to privacy?
Your property?
Because the first two are already being openly targeted in piecemeal ways. Once they're gone, they're gone. You don't get them back.
Short-termism like that is dangerous. We have a duty to preserve the rights we have for future generations. There's no point in being safe if society isn't worth living in.
Krom, Am I willing to give up everything? No one is asking me to give up everything or even suggesting it. Don't you think you're becoming a little over-dramatic? (I don't really care much for your comparison of deaths perpetrated by terrorists and those caused by bees. Doesn't seem all that respectful to me).
Peter Pedant, my little stalker. I won't ask you what you're talking about. Perhaps you should read what goodgoalie said again - and then try again.
Peter Pedant, my little stalker. I won't ask you what you're talking about. Perhaps you should read what goodgoalie said again - and then try again.
kromo is making the point with some validity that terrorism primarily what what we do to ourselves in response to these attrocities. If we curtail our own freedoms, if we make our day to day lives intolerable then that is what the terrorists want. Yes we must take measures but be careful where that can lead. For example the airport charades is a self inflicted ever more tedious process.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.