Shots fired outside Westminster

The texts are there and they really aren’t ambiguous

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

molgrips

The texts are there and they really aren’t ambiguous

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree? [/quote]

…because there are multiple sects, and mulitple interpretations. And there’s no single person or organisation who can pass judgement over them. And it can’t be reformed or go through a process of modernisation because the Koran dictates that it can only be written or recited in the tongue of the prophet and to do otherwise is heresy, and heretics should be put to death. And so on.

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

The same reason most moderate Christians don’t stone homosexuals? There’s probably dodgy rules like these in every major religion, but most folk of faith don’t take them too literally.

Interestingly, the people who do try and take them literally are the ones who tend to be very anti (insert particular religion here).

Because moderate Muslim clerics know that the texts are unacceptable in modern society, so make an interpretation that though hard to follow suits them, Molgrips. Read it yourself and you’re likely to doubt the reading ability of the clerics.

Christians do the same with their interpretation of Luke 19:27 which some regard as a fable and some as an instruction. The officila line of the Christian church is that it’s just a story but anyone reading is likely to interpret it as a call to kill enemies of Jesus.

Christians make a distinction between the Greek and Hebrew texts Peyote. The message in the Bible evolves through the message of the prophets, the ultimate word going to Jesus. though some people say that because Jesus endorsed the Moses code then all the hate and bile towards adulterers and homosexuals in Lévitique (Leviticus?) should stand.

edit when I say Moses code I mean “lois Mosaïques” = laws given to Moses by God, the tablets of stone and all that rather than anything else

but anyone reading is likely to interpret it as a call to kill enemies of Jesus.

Can you highlight which killing sprees have been inspired by this parable?

In a chaotic emergency situation, the people responding have better things to do than feed the 24 hour news machine. We seem to have lost the ability to wait for the facts to be reported when they are actually established. I turned off the radio last night because I didn’t want to listen to hours of space filling speculation that added nothing to my knowledge of yesterday’s events.

I must say this shift to using vehicles as weapons seems a threat that’s hard to counter

You could argue that it’s another good reason to take the human element out of driving a car.

Christians make a distinction between the Greek and Hebrew texts Peyote.

Interesting, the ones I’ve met don’t. Maybe it’s the more academic ones.

Either way, the point is that all religions offer differing interpretations of their texts, singling one out to be worse than others seems wrong.

All the monotheistic religions share the same basic texts and tenets – which include a lot of vile things they should do including killing their enemies. Christianity included. Religion is responsible for a lot of hate and killings from Tony Blairs holy crusade to northern Ireland to Hindu supremacists on the indian sub continent

Going back a few steps, the BBC have a policy of only reporting facts when they have got two sources to back them up. Hence they are usually slower to report breaking news than other interweb commentators.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

Lot’s of pretty ‘dated’ stuff in the bible too. A tiny, and don’t lose sight of this fact, tiny minority of Muslims take their text literally, but damming a whole religion based on that tiny minority is ok?

The Crusades, Grateape, past and present. It’s the line that means Christians can overlook the Christian message of peace and go about slaughtering their opponents.

Also have a look at how Bush justified his invasion of Iraq to Jacques Chirac.

If the French constitution included a line about killing anyone non-French I would damn the whole nation state. Just as the rest of the world damned a nation state that set about eliminating Jews. If the doctrine is wrong then it needs to condemning until it is revised.

Heavy, heavy police presence around Glasgow Central station this morning. Can’t remember seeing anywhere near as much before. Much respect to everyone in the emergency services.

If the doctrine is wrong then it needs to condemning until it is revised.

I don’t think this is really the place for this discussion, but I think you are wrong. Fundamentalists, of any religion, will always go to the base text. You simply cannot, for instance, amend them. That’s nonsensical. Would you, for instance, condone the rounding up, and wholesale burning, of all bibles, to be replaced by a revised version? That doesn’t sound like a country I’d want to live in.

France is a NATO member, isn’t it? That requires it to fight when other NATO members are invaded? Sounds similar to the Quran I think.

If you wish to condemn the whole of Islam Ed then I think you are ignorant and misguided.

There is no centralised top down interpretation of Islam, unlike Christianity.

I would ban the publication of all the religious texts as the currently stand as they break the laws of my country. I wouldn’t go as far as destruction of historic artifacts but I’d ban further publication as

All th ereligious texts fall foul of this law

I note that the murdered PC would probably still be alive if he had had more than a truncheon and an air of authority to protect himself.

Given that the scumbag was bought down by pistol fire from other (plain clothed) officers almost immediately, shouldn’t we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?

Depends on which branch of Christianity, Futon.

If I’m “ignorant and misguided”, Molgrips, how do you qualify the writers of the Bible and Koran?

Can’t resist an insult when you don’t agree with me can you.

Given that the scumbag was bought down by pistol fire from other (plain clothed) officers almost immediately, shouldn’t we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?

I do find it surprising he was unarmed in such a high risk location and agree we should probably see more armed officers in these type of locations.

#badreligion

“I would ban the publication of all the religious texts as the currently stand”

So they way to beat extremism is to reduce freedom (of speech) in liberal society?

“shouldn’t we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?”

I suspect the rozzer was caught by surprise. So if he’d been armed the scumbag could have killed him from behind and sourced a pistol.

shouldn’t we now widen the presence of regularly pistol-armed police?

no. because then you arm the next ring, and the next ring and we end up like usa. i think what this has shown is that parliamentary security works very well. he got, what 20 metres in? There isn’t enough armed police in the world to protect the average person on the street from these random attacks or maybe MPs at home like Jo Cox.

Also just trying to bring the thread back to the subject under discussion.

Can the bickering about religion go to a separate thread please…

Just a thought but, shouldn’t this predictable splinter discussion be best served in its own thread? Does someone want to go start one?

Given the original topic, turning this into another STW Religion thread seems a little distasteful to me.

Given the original topic, turning this into another STW Religion thread seems a little distasteful to me.

Are you new here?

One thing I don’t understand – was the cop not wearing an anti stab vest? All cops in Edinburgh do at all times.

Cougar – I agree with you.

Edit. Repetition.

I suspect the rozzer was caught by surprise. So if he’d been armed the scumbag could have killed him from behind and sourced a pistol.

Hmm. During heightened tensions, main railway stations are patrolled by armed police officers carrying sub-machine guns.

Clearly, the force doesn’t consider your caveats relevant?

I dunno if maybe some guys posting about armed police should try actually visiting London..
The police are very heavily armed in all the busy areas.

In a separate and more important note – Great interview from the Mayor of London on R4 this morning.

It’s all about religion, Woppit.

But I’ll go and wax some skis because the snow line is back down to 600m.

Where are the Daoist murderers and Pagan terrorists infecting our streets?

That is arguably the stupidest thing you have ever contributed on any subject.

Sadiq Khan on R4 Today, this morning.

I left work yesterday (city) not long after the attacks happened. Was pretty frantic and as expected Cannon Street had plenty of armed BTP about keeping an eye on things.

London is pretty much back to normal this morning – lots of people barging into each other getting stroppy and shouting. Much larger police presence as you would expect but other than that it’s situation normal.

To a lot of people in the office (me included) this didn’t come as a surprise. We’ve been ‘waiting’ for an attack for quite a while – that it wasn’t worse was the only saving grace about the whole thing. The knee jerk reaction to something like this is to look at who to blame. A number of people near me commented that they hoped it wouldn’t be an Islam related attack, just because it gives the mouth-breathers the opportunity to point the finger at the nearest brown person and blame them. Sadly it is and stuff like this only goes on to fuel those who can’t think without moving their lips.

Someone made a good point above – this was an attack ‘in the name of’ rather than ‘on behalf of’…there’s a massive difference. I hate the people who are doing this, I hate the people that are brainwashing these individuals into thinking that mowing down a load of people is the right thing to do. I don’t hate Muslims and I don’t hate Islam.

somouk – Member

I do find it surprising he was unarmed in such a high risk location and agree we should probably see more armed officers in these type of locations.

There were armed officers present too. (obviously, since one of them shot him) The security detail there is mixed armed and unarmed.

Eddie, how far would have 4 battle hardened lunatics with ak47s got against a bunch of comparitively green coppers who want to go home to their families.

The place ahould be guarded by people used to getting shot at.

I actually think its a bit harsh for society to ask policemen to do that job, crap job for crap pay. Am I right in thinking the unarmed huggable ones at the gait are essentially bait to give the hidden armed coppers time to react.