Iraq falling apart

[biffvernon]

These are 'intelligent' UK citizens. How do we square that circle? It goes to show the power of Islamic sentiment - or does it show something else?

We are not talking small numbers - it is estimated that 500 young followers of Islam have left this country to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Well I would not support their fight. (It seems to be largely a fight between two branches of Islam rather than a fight for Islam against non-Islam. At different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other.) I also did not support the very much larger numbers of young followers of I know not what, who went to Iraq wearing the uniform of the British Army.

[UndercoverElephant]

These are 'intelligent' UK citizens. How do we square that circle? It goes to show the power of Islamic sentiment - or does it show something else?

We are not talking small numbers - it is estimated that 500 young followers of Islam have left this country to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Well I would not support their fight. (It seems to be largely a fight between two branches of Islam rather than a fight for Islam against non-Islam.

It's both.

At different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other.

Not any more they don't. That fight played itself out during the development of European/Western/modern civilisation. You can't count the Irish situation, because regardless of the overt religious overtones, that was really a conflict about politics and Irish independence from England after England had proved it was unfit to govern Ireland (repeatedly, from the response to the potato famine to the response to the Easter uprising).

[UndercoverElephant]

So comments on our recent UK Jihadists?

These are 'intelligent' UK citizens. How do we square that circle? It goes to show the power of Islamic sentiment - or does it show something else?

We are not talking small numbers - it is estimated that 500 young followers of Islam have left this country to fight in Syria and Iraq.

IMO we should bring in a new criminal penalty for this. If you leave the UK to fight a religious war in a foreign country, your citizenship of the UK is revoked. Wanna fight for Allah in Syria? OK, you're a Syrian now, or at least you'd better hope they'll accept you, 'cos you aren't coming back here.

And begs the question. What is more important to them - being UK citizens (mostly since birth) or fighting for an 'ideal' overseas, that in fact they have no physical connection to.

Grrrrr...

http://www.charliewhite.net/2013/08/writing-errors-2/

Begs the question: Writers get this wrong almost every time it’s used. The phrase “begs the question” seems to say that it practically begs for a question to be asked. But the term “begs the question” actually means using an unproved point to prove itself. For example, “You shouldn’t beg the question because begging the question is something you shouldn’t do.” That’s begging the question.

What is more important to them - being UK citizens (mostly since birth) or fighting for an 'ideal' overseas, that in fact they have no physical connection to.

This must mean that the power of Islamic fervour is an overriding force. Or are they just messed up? And if so, why?

It's an over-riding force, although part of the problem (IMO) is the serious absence of anything worth "believing in" at home. X-Factor, anyone?

[Little John]

These are 'intelligent' UK citizens. How do we square that circle? It goes to show the power of Islamic sentiment - or does it show something else?

We are not talking small numbers - it is estimated that 500 young followers of Islam have left this country to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Well I would not support their fight. (It seems to be largely a fight between two branches of Islam rather than a fight for Islam against non-Islam.

It's both.

At different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other.

Not any more they don't. That fight played itself out during the development of European/Western/modern civilisation. You can't count the Irish situation, because regardless of the overt religious overtones, that was really a conflict about politics and Irish independence from England after England had proved it was unfit to govern Ireland (repeatedly, from the response to the potato famine to the response to the Easter uprising).

And the religious wars between protestant and Catholics was really a war between the vestiges of the Roman Empire and the rising regional powers of Europe. And the war between Islam and Zionism is really a war about land. It's certainly true. however, in any particular place and time, you could have checked with the participants and they would have sworn blind to you it was all about deeply held religious beliefs and they would have, no doubt, been entirely sincere if they said that.

But it was, fundamentally, about power and resources. In the end, it's always about power and resources. Similarly, the Sunni and Shia conflict is fundamentally a tribal conflict about who has power and access to resources. Ask any Sunni or Shia involved in conflict with each other, however, and they will no doubt swear blind it's all about deeply held religious beliefs. Now, I fully accept, in addition to the above, that the forces of romanticism versus empiricism tend to take sides in any such conflict and, for my own part, whilst my head tends to side with the rationalists, my heart sometimes disagrees. But, irrespective of this consideration, the point of it being fundamentally about power still stands.

In the end, religion, like all cultural phenomena, are after-the-economic-fact narratives. Stories that we tell ourselves to morally justify, to ourselves and others, our economically driven actions. We humans just love a narrative.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well I would not support their fight. (It seems to be largely a fight between two branches of Islam rather than a fight for Islam against non-Islam.

It's both.

At different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other.

Not any more they don't. That fight played itself out during the development of European/Western/modern civilisation. You can't count the Irish situation, because regardless of the overt religious overtones, that was really a conflict about politics and Irish independence from England after England had proved it was unfit to govern Ireland (repeatedly, from the response to the potato famine to the response to the Easter uprising).

And the religious wars between protestant and Catholics was really a war between the vestiges of the Roman Empire and the rising regional powers of Europe. And the war between Islam and Zionism is really a war about land. It's certainly true. however, in any particular place and time, you could have checked with the participants and they would have sworn blind to you it was all about deeply held religious beliefs and they would have, no doubt, been entirely sincere if they said that.

But it was, fundamentally, about power and resources. In the end, it's always about power and resources. Similarly, the Sunni and Shia conflict is fundamentally a tribal conflict about who has power and access to resources. Ask any Sunni or Shia involved in conflict with each other, however, and they will no doubt swear blind it's all about deeply held religious beliefs.

The two communities in Ireland may have been defined by religion(s), but if you ask(ed) people on the Irish republican side of that conflict "what it's about", then they'd have said it was about the right of the Irish people to self-determination and freedom from English oppression and mis-rule. I am not trying to underplay the importance of religion in that conflict, but while there is no religious element to the current debate going on about a certain Scottish referendum, you can still see the seething hatred of everything English coming from certain people on the side of independence. It has little to do with reason, everything to do with emotion, and if there was a religious divide to exploit then you can bet Alex Salmond would be exploiting at every opportunity.

Now, I fully accept, in addition to the above, that the forces of romanticism versus empiricism tend to take sides in any such conflict and, for my own part, whilst my head tends to side with the rationalists, my heart sometimes disagrees. But, irrespective of this consideration, the point of it being fundamentally about power still stands.

Yes, it's fundamentally about power. It's all about power. Not specifically power over resources, but power implies power over resources.

[biffvernon]

When I wrote 'at different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other' I was thinking more about the Cathars than the Irish.

It was not so very long ago that the UK Government policy was to send British troops to fight in Syria. A parliamentary vote scuppered that adventure. I think I am right in saying that most of the UK citizens who took it upon themselves to join the Syrian war have done so after the House of Commons decided not to.

Of course the young zealots are to be classed as terrorists and a threat to the UK on their return. Had the Commons vote gone the other way we might now be holding benefit gigs to Help more Heroes.

[UndercoverElephant]

When I wrote 'at different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other' I was thinking more about the Cathars than the Irish.

That was the Catholic Church annihilating anybody who challenged its absolute authority. There was no "fighting each other", because the Cathars were pacificists.

It was also a long time ago, before Christianity was forced to change.

[Atman]

Taking off my PC hat, but how can the jihadists be described as British as they were in a newspaper article I was reading. I thought that the qualifications for Britishness were a collection of cultural values, one of which was 'not being a Jihadist'. Or is it just a word that means nothing?

[UndercoverElephant]

Taking off my PC hat, but how can the jihadists be described as British as they were in a newspaper article I was reading. I thought that the qualifications for Britishness were a collection of cultural values, one of which was 'not being a Jihadist'. Or is it just a word that means nothing?

"British" certainly means something. The qualification for being British is identical to qualifying for a British passport. I don't see why such a right can't be withdrawn in a situation like this.

[biffvernon]

When I wrote 'at different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other' I was thinking more about the Cathars than the Irish.

That was the Catholic Church annihilating anybody who challenged its absolute authority. There was no "fighting each other", because the Cathars were pacificists.

It was also a long time ago, before Christianity was forced to change.

Yep, it was a long time ago, the early 13th century, but though the Cathars may not have been the aggressors, they had castles that would not be usual abode of a pacifist and they defended them vigorously. There was a good deal of "fighting each other" before several tens of thousands of people had been killed.

Anyway, all the Abrahamic religions share the commandment, in various languages, "Thou shallt not kill".

[madibe]

all the Abrahamic religions share the commandment, in various languages, "Thou shallt not kill".

which just goes to prove what a crock it is.

It is right there up at the top of the tree. But still it gets done by the sanctimonious. Meh.

[AndySir]

I understand the old Hebrew should read something more like "Thou shalt do no murder." Immediately upon descending from the mountain with this commandment Moses put 300 of his men to slaughter for worshiping calves, which was not murder but a lawful punishment for idolatry.

[UndercoverElephant]

When I wrote 'at different times in other places young followers of different branches of Christianity have fought each other' I was thinking more about the Cathars than the Irish.

That was the Catholic Church annihilating anybody who challenged its absolute authority. There was no "fighting each other", because the Cathars were pacificists.

It was also a long time ago, before Christianity was forced to change.

Yep, it was a long time ago, the early 13th century, but though the Cathars may not have been the aggressors, they had castles that would not be usual abode of a pacifist and they defended them vigorously.

No, they didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_castles

Cathar castles (in French Châteaux cathares) is a modern term used by the tourism industry (following the example of Pays Cathare – Cathar Country) to designate a series of fortresses built by the French king on the southern border of his lands at the end of the Albigensian Crusade. Some of these sites, before the royal period, were fortified villages capable of sheltering Cathars and which were destroyed during the building of citadels.

In Languedoc, the only real "Cathar castles" were fortified homesteads (castrum), such as Laurac, Fanjeaux, Mas-Saintes-Puelles. Certain sites like Lastours-Cabaret, Montségur, Termes or Puilaurens were castra before being razed to the ground and becoming royal citadels. The legend of Cathar architects and builders is no more than a myth. The only monuments which witnessed the events of the first half of the 13th century, and therefore the only ones which can claim the description "Cathar", given that the Cathar Church never built anything, are the small castles, often totally unknown to the public, whose meagre ruins are away from the tourist routes.

I repeat: The Cathars were a mystical, pacifist sect. The reason they ended up in conflict with the Catholic church was because they refused to acknowledge the authority of that church in matters of religious doctrine and practice. In other words, they claimed that individual humans could and did have direct contact with the Divine, thus denying that the church sat in between, and rendering the Catholic authorities pointless. You are very keen to paint "all religions are equally bad", but, not for the first time, you don't know what you are talking about. You do not understand the relevance of the Cathars, historically or spiritually/philosophically.

[Little John]

I don't think all religions are equally dangerous UE and I certainly don't think that non-rational beliefs per-se are necessarily dangerous. Though, they can be. I do think, though, that non-rational belief systems that are shared by groups of people have an inherent potential to be dangerous and, especially, if those non-rational belief systems concern moral codes for living. What I have just described there, of course, is organised religion. The fact that, on the ground, some of them are not as dangerous as others is not in dispute. But, they all have the potential for it, by their very nature.

It reminds me of a line from a poem I read somewhere.

"It matters little if you believe something is true or not.
Until you tell me I must live a certain way because you believe something is true or not."

[emordnilap]

I do think, though, that non-rational belief systems that are shared by groups of people have the potential to be dangerous[/i]

There you go, there's the nub, well said Steve. I've always maintained that you should be allowed to have whatever the feck 'faith' you like, no restrictions. Just don't force others to believe the same. I've no problems with any religion, get on with it, just don't do any harm.

I can't accept organised religion and no-one should.