[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is it enough yet?...

'Radical hate preacher Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of inviting support for Isis.

Muslims and Muslim organisations around the country have come out in support of the verdict, with many saying they have been waiting years for Choudary to be locked away.

“Although these men are no longer on the streets, we must recognise there are other extremists in Britain aggressively promoting an Islamist extreme worldview often on campus, communities and social media.

“We all have a responsibility in challenging this perverse ideology whether in mosques, universities or online. There is no place for such extremism in our society.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7196041.html

words on their own are never enough

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

words on their own are never enough

What would you have them do? All any muslim civilians can do is denounce the actions of extremists. Do you expect them to arm themselves and fly to the Middle East to fight IS?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

What would you have them do? All any muslim civilians can do is denounce the actions of extremists. Do you expect them to arm themselves and fly to the Middle East to fight IS?

they can be active in the community stamping it out. It's in their interests to do so, and there has been scant sign of any real opposition. Words mean nothing, unless backed up by action. Its their religion, they need to own it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they can be active in the community stamping it out. It's in their interests to do so, and there has been scant sign of any real opposition. Words mean nothing, unless backed up by action. Its their religion, they need to own it.

It's very easy to say that but what would you realistically do to stamp it out? 'words mean nothing' after all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they can be active in the community stamping it out. It's in their interests to do so, and there has been scant sign of any real opposition. Words mean nothing, unless backed up by action. Its their religion, they need to own it.

So if a group of white supremacist hardcore Christians was to rise up on a street in England, abusing everyone around them and attacking people, threatening lives... In your opinion, little Betty Smith from Number 3 should tackle them, because she goes to church every Sunday. After all its her religion... She needs to own it?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So if a group of white supremacist hardcore Christians was to rise up on a street in England, abusing everyone around them and attacking people, threatening lives... In your opinion, little Betty Smith from Number 3 should tackle them, because she goes to church every Sunday. After all its her religion... She needs to own it?

Don't be silly, they're white so their actions would automatically be separated from their religion and they wouldn't be called terrorists either, they'd be classed as misunderstood individuals that were let down by society.

[Redway]

At its core, yeah. I'm no fan of Islam but there's a fine line between religion and extremism.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's very easy to say that but what would you realistically do to stamp it out? 'words mean nothing' after all.

you asked me what i would have them do and i told you ... The problem, ultimately cannot be resolved by those outside the religion, it must be resolved from within, and that means taking ownership of their own religion, defining boundaries clearly.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

you asked me what i would have them do and i told you ... The problem, ultimately cannot be resolved by those outside the religion, it must be resolved from within, and that means taking ownership of their own religion, defining boundaries clearly.

Nah. Religions are slippery buggers. Start defining boundaries and those who have other agendas will simply declare themselves reformists and create a new sect with separate rules. Has happened countless times throughout history...

[Wizard.]

I chose the cop out option because, well, I agree with the statement "Most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim" and when the biggest global crisis in this day and age is claimed by people who say they belong to Islam - something has to be said about that.

[Wizard.]

I obviously have my own issues with Muslims, because I'm gay, and that's against their religion. Yes okay─ it's against Christianity too, but at least Christians keep themselves to themselves whereas many muslims have been vocal towards me about being gay.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

imo the IRA is not comparable here when you're talking about using Religion as a war tool. This was not why the IRA was formed, the IRA was formed because Ireland was taken over by Britain and then split in two and the IRA were fighting for the country back, not because they were trying to convert anyone to Catholicism or were doing it in the name of Catholicism, it really annoys me when British people try to pass it off as some sort of religious war. Yes most of the "Republicans" in the North are/were Catholics but that's just because Catholicism was the predominant Irish religion. There were actually Protestant members of the IRA too.

I'm not defending the IRA here btw especially in later years there was no going back but I hate the fact that alot of times British people are under the impression that the North was some sort of Religious war where the Catholics are trying to convert the Protestants or something when in Reality it was always a fight for our country back that you lot started by the way by invading us and beating our language out of us, etc etc

If it weren't for the IRA or the earlier version of it the whole of Ireland would still be part of Britain

I think that is generally an accurate assessment except that it's vastly simplified and missing out on about 500 years of history. The state made many mistakes and there were dreadful choices made and no support during the potato famine when many people starved to death. However you are missing out the fact that a lot of the problem was because there were two factions of people living in Northern Ireland with extremely strong opposing opinions and a lot of hate for each other. Most people call it Catholic v Protestant because that's a fairly easy thing to do but it was of course much more political and much less religious. IMO violence is always the wrong way and peace can achieve much greater things.

We can only learn from the mistakes of the past, we can't change what's been but we can hope never to repeat.

With regard to the OP question I would say that all religion causes wars and dispute because some those who ought to be focusing on the love of their deity get involved in a my god is bigger than your god thing and get carried away by misinterpreting their doctrine while others sit passively by. This has happened in most religions.

Most religion was forged in times of ignorance, lack of education, violence and extreme cruelty and it boggles me that anyone in 2016 would interpret and follow violent doctrine whatever the flavour of their worship is.