Terrorism - how will this all end?

[Zoon]

TTwiggy said:

But there's a massive difference between allowing something to die a natural death - as religion is likely to eventually do - and making its practice a criminal offence. Seriously, can you really not imagine the consequences of this?

I was referring to it being hilarious. Not the actual banning.

[TTwiggy]

lionelf said:

Yes, we used to tolerate smoking in restaurants but no longer do and I'm not equating that with religion either, oh wait, I suppose just have.

'We can't change things - what would we with all the churches?'

Quick, rebuild all the 19th century work houses

I made several points, yet you've chosen to solely pick up on my comment about churches. Would you care to address the other issues I raised?

[e21Mark]

Zoon said:

e21Mark said:

Sorry but suggesting the banning of religion will bring us into the 21st century is hilarious.

Not really, religion started when people had no understanding of why things happened.
So the solution was to blame all things, good and bad on God and it worked.
As an advanced being we now know that floating up and down from heaven and parting the seas is nonsense yet people still believe it.

Hundreds of years ago people used to drill holes in their skull to relieve a headache.
Now we just take a tablet with water.

It's easy to take examples from places like the Old Testament to try and say religion is nonsense but what right do we have to deny someone else's faith? As an agnostic I am not convinced there is a God but nor would I seek to take that comfort from the millions that do. I simply don't see that as an advance. Surely an advanced society would allow people to choose? It's a bit like denying people freedom of speech because you don't like what they say surely?

[rscott]

Zoon said:

e21Mark said:

Sorry but suggesting the banning of religion will bring us into the 21st century is hilarious.

Not really, religion started when people had no understanding of why things happened.
So the solution was to blame all things, good and bad on God and it worked.
As an advanced being we now know that floating up and down from heaven and parting the seas is nonsense yet people still believe it.

Hundreds of years ago people used to drill holes in their skull to relieve a headache.
Now we just take a tablet with water.

Zoon. Why not start your worldwide ban on religion in the US. Maybe in Texas or Alabama? Bear in mind nearly half the US believe in Creationism over evolution

[dudleybloke]

If god is that bothered about stuff let him sort it out himself.

[lionelf]

TTwiggy said:

lionelf said:

Yes, we used to tolerate smoking in restaurants but no longer do and I'm not equating that with religion either, oh wait, I suppose just have.

'We can't change things - what would we with all the churches?'

Quick, rebuild all the 19th century work houses

I made several points, yet you've chosen to solely pick up on my comment about churches. Would you care to address the other issues I raised?

No problem, your next one is even more asinine.

TTwiggy said:

Who's going to tell Her Maj that she doesn't have a church to be head of?

Now there's an insurmountable problem - that's me stumped.

Oh no, I've an idea, perhaps that might come from the elected government of the day, you know, the ones who actually call the shots around these parts and pretty much have since 1689's Bill of Rights.

fk it, pass me her number and I'll do it myself.

But you followed that with

TTwiggy said:

Do you think you may not have thought this through too well?

Do YOU not think that with replies like yours he felt he probably wouldn't have to.

I can think of a few good arguments for not banning religion in public but you've made none of them.

[TTwiggy]

lionelf said:

TTwiggy said:

lionelf said:

Yes, we used to tolerate smoking in restaurants but no longer do and I'm not equating that with religion either, oh wait, I suppose just have.

'We can't change things - what would we with all the churches?'

Quick, rebuild all the 19th century work houses

I made several points, yet you've chosen to solely pick up on my comment about churches. Would you care to address the other issues I raised?

No problem, your next one is even more asinine.

TTwiggy said:

Who's going to tell Her Maj that she doesn't have a church to be head of?

Now there's an insurmountable problem - that's me stumped.

Oh no, I've an idea, perhaps that might come from the elected government of the day, you know, the ones who actually call the shots around these parts and pretty much have since 1689's Bill of Rights.

fk it, pass me her number and I'll do it myself.

But you followed that with

TTwiggy said:

Do you think you may not have thought this through too well?

Do YOU not think that with replies like yours he felt he probably wouldn't have to.

I can think of a few good arguments for not banning religion in public but you've made none of them.

I also pointed out that driving religion underground is likely to lead to more, not less, terrorism. I also pointed out that imprisoning little old ladies who go to church and the well-loved parish vicar might be bad for PR. I also pointed out that banning something that has millions of followers is unlikely to be a 'bloodless' process. But feel free to ignore those points.

[stuttgartmetal]

Take their money away
That's how you deal with it
Watch closely who you let into your country.
Then scrutinise your society and pick up the nutters and lock them up
Make what they have worthless
eg Oil.
Err, that's happening now.
Th internal combustion engine is slowly being removed from society.

Watch who you let into the country
Happening now.

Scrutinise society
As above.

Once we've killed oil, it will all change.

[lionelf]

TTwiggy said:

I also pointed out that driving religion underground is likely to lead to more, not less, terrorism. I also pointed out that imprisoning little old ladies who go to church and the well-loved parish vicar might be bad for PR. I also pointed out that banning something that has millions of followers is unlikely to be a 'bloodless' process. But feel free to ignore those points.

I'm sorry TTw but you blotted your copy book with those two questions amongst others like the equally ridiculous 'marriage' one.

"Imprisoning little old ladies" - my goodness.

"Millions of followers" you say - perhaps - but only 1.4% of them bother to go to church each week to actually pray. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12095251/...

Come back when you hit upon a genuine reason for not banning religion in public. Google it if you must.

[TTwiggy]

lionelf said:

I'm sorry TTw but you blotted your copy book with those two questions amongst others like the equally ridiculous 'marriage' one.

"Imprisoning little old ladies" - my goodness.

"Millions of followers" you say - perhaps - but only 1.4% of them bother to go to church each week to actually pray. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12095251/...

Come back when you hit upon a genuine reason for not banning religion in public. Google it if you must.

You know what, as this is just a motoring website where a bunch of faceless people argue with each other to no particular ends, I really wasn't expecting any of our views to become policy anytime soon. As a result, I was just posting my thoughts 'off the cuff', as I always do, and didn't really see the need for indepth empiracal research into the issues surrounding the banning of public diplays of religion. I sort of took it as read that anyone possessed of rational thought would see it was rather problematic from the off.

[Zoon]

rscott said:

Zoon. Why not start your worldwide ban on religion in the US. Maybe in Texas or Alabama? Bear in mind nearly half the US believe in Creationism over evolution

My ban?
e21mark mentioned a ban, I simply stated it wasn't as hilarious as he thought given what we know.

[Zoon]

e21Mark said:

It's easy to take examples from places like the Old Testament to try and say religion is nonsense but what right do we have to deny someone else's faith? As an agnostic I am not convinced there is a God but nor would I seek to take that comfort from the millions that do. I simply don't see that as an advance. Surely an advanced society would allow people to choose? It's a bit like denying people freedom of speech because you don't like what they say surely?

We used to believe the earth was flat.
Science proved otherwise.

Take away the magical parts of the bible, (walking on water, feeding the 5000 etc.) and you basically have nothing more than a soap opera.

I haven't called for a ban on religion, but I think a ban on twisted beliefs that lead to lunatics blowing up and killing innocent people would be a good start.

[lionelf]

TTwiggy said:

lionelf said:

I'm sorry TTw but you blotted your copy book with those two questions amongst others like the equally ridiculous 'marriage' one.

"Imprisoning little old ladies" - my goodness.

"Millions of followers" you say - perhaps - but only 1.4% of them bother to go to church each week to actually pray. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12095251/...

Come back when you hit upon a genuine reason for not banning religion in public. Google it if you must.

You know what, as this is just a motoring website where a bunch of faceless people argue with each other to no particular ends, I really wasn't expecting any of our views to become policy anytime soon. As a result, I was just posting my thoughts 'off the cuff', as I always do, and didn't really see the need for indepth empiracal research into the issues surrounding the banning of public diplays of religion. I sort of took it as read that anyone possessed of rational thought would see it was rather problematic from the off.

I agree and in turn I only said that I couldn't see any way out of the current situation other than the banning of religion in public to deter the more rabid religious types from wanting to come here or continue living here. They'll gravitate away to a more religion-friendly country. I didn't say that there wasn't another solution - just that I didn't know what that might be.

My mum, like many of her generation born in the late 20's was deeply religious in that she believed in God and the bible etc but she barely ever saw the inside of a church, she was quite happy to keep her religion personal as were the majority of believers back then and very much now. Churches have become an anachronism more interesting for their architecture, history and ceremonial function than they are for their religious aspects.

Sorry, I may have come across a bit too snotty about it all.

[Digga]

lionelf said:

Churches have become an anachronism more interesting for their architecture, history and ceremonial function than they are for their religious aspects.

They can often make nice pubs. That's culture for you.

[avinalarf]

I presume we are talking about how terrorism,and in particular Muslim terrorism,can in time.be defeated.
Well one things for certain it will not be by demonising ALL Muslims living in Eorope.
Whether you like it or not,and many people don't,the World,as we knew it has changed.
The rapid movement of people over the past ten years has,and will continue to change,the "old order".
So what can we do to live in peace with our new neighbours.
Well we can learn to be more at ease with the different colour of their skin and their religious and social practices.
BUT they in return must RESPECT our culture and our traditions and must accept that THEY must be prepared to integrate into OUR society.
Yes,they should be allowed to quietly and peacefully retain their religion and practices BUT only if it does not interfere or seek to change our traditions.
Demonising all Muslims will only play into the hand of the evil of ISIS that seeks only to spread fear and hatred.
Let's not do their evil work for them.

[e21Mark]

Zoon said:

e21Mark said:

It's easy to take examples from places like the Old Testament to try and say religion is nonsense but what right do we have to deny someone else's faith? As an agnostic I am not convinced there is a God but nor would I seek to take that comfort from the millions that do. I simply don't see that as an advance. Surely an advanced society would allow people to choose? It's a bit like denying people freedom of speech because you don't like what they say surely?

We used to believe the earth was flat.
Science proved otherwise.

Take away the magical parts of the bible, (walking on water, feeding the 5000 etc.) and you basically have nothing more than a soap opera.

I haven't called for a ban on religion, but I think a ban on twisted beliefs that lead to lunatics blowing up and killing innocent people would be a good start.

We have that already.

[stitched]

e21Mark said:

Zoon said:

e21Mark said:

It's easy to take examples from places like the Old Testament to try and say religion is nonsense but what right do we have to deny someone else's faith? As an agnostic I am not convinced there is a God but nor would I seek to take that comfort from the millions that do. I simply don't see that as an advance. Surely an advanced society would allow people to choose? It's a bit like denying people freedom of speech because you don't like what they say surely?

We used to believe the earth was flat.
Science proved otherwise.

Take away the magical parts of the bible, (walking on water, feeding the 5000 etc.) and you basically have nothing more than a soap opera.

I haven't called for a ban on religion, but I think a ban on twisted beliefs that lead to lunatics blowing up and killing innocent people would be a good start.

We have that already.

Not exactly enforced though is it, granted we would need a monty python'esque beardy disguise for me to prove it but there are many supposed religious leaders in London, Manchester and Birmingham (they are the ones I know of) preaching messages of hatred and violence to their followers.
Messages which breach our laws and indoctrinate the hard of thinking to commit crimes, yet they are allowed to spout their bile time and again.
This I dislike

[marcosgt]

BigLion said:

With yet another likely terrorist attack it feels like these are happening daily.

What do people think will be the end game in say 5 years time?

Will people in the West start to feel more sympathetic towards the policies spouted by the likes of Trump, will society end up divided with Muslims seen as the common enemy despite the vast majority not condoning the violence or will we see an erosion of human rights akin to Guantanamo etc.?

What makes you think there'll be an 'end-game' in 5 year time (or 50?).

A few years ago the world was wetting itself about Al Qaeeda, then one day, they'd gone and we were all scared stiff of ISIS.

They'll be gone one day (maybe soon) and it'll be something/someone else...

M.

[Digga]

Well, as for foreign policy creating terrorism, there is absolutely no doubt that US prison camps in Iraq created the only safe environment where a lot of these radicals could meet and discuss tactics, without any fear of allied attack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...

[jdw100]

avinalarf said:

I presume we are talking about how terrorism,and in particular Muslim terrorism,can in time.be defeated.
Well one things for certain it will not be by demonising ALL Muslims living in Eorope.
Whether you like it or not,and many people don't,the World,as we knew it has changed.
The rapid movement of people over the past ten years has,and will continue to change,the "old order".
So what can we do to live in peace with our new neighbours.
Well we can learn to be more at ease with the different colour of their skin and their religious and social practices.
BUT they in return must RESPECT our culture and our traditions and must accept that THEY must be prepared to integrate into OUR society.
Yes,they should be allowed to quietly and peacefully retain their religion and practices BUT only if it does not interfere or seek to change our traditions.
Demonising all Muslims will only play into the hand of the evil of ISIS that seeks only to spread fear and hatred.
Let's not do their evil work for them.

I'd agree with most of that.