another Islamic Terrorist attack in the UK

@Jacanuk: Then the problem is the book. This is where they get their "interpretation" from. How can you say the problem is not the book?

If those parts were taken out decades ago, the problem would have been sorted by now.

@melisajones also, to be critical of religion is my right. I dont adhere to any of them so i can say what i like when i like. Its not my faith and i have no reason to respect it given the amount of wars and death religion has caused. Its not racist to critic or even insult a religion just like how its not racist to critic the phone network youre with.

lol no.

Dictatorships like Saddam's tend to encourage extremist groups to rise up. See the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War.

Dictatorships seem stable on the outside but on the inside, they're very fragile.

You're not to up on Iraq are you? Why bring up the Arab Springs or Syrian war? Stick with Iraq, we know what happened there, we know how Saddam controlled these groups. Its what you seem to take issue with so... lets stick with Iraq?

You may want to check up on history.

And the arab spring would not have happened if it wasn't for the meddling of the western world.

And while you are right that dictatorship can have it´s issues, it all depends on the nature of the dictator, after all Castro is still in power in cuba. But the problem is after the dictator is dead, since it usually means everyone tries to grab power.

But look at Libya and Syria , do you think the people have it better before or after the west put their big nose in?

Because the problem is not the book, you are making a false causation there.

While there is correlation between the extremist and the book, it´s not the cause of extremisme, after all you think To kill a Mockingbird is dangerous? , it's the same with the bible and Quran , it´s nothing but text.

And if that book wasn't there , these people would find something else that would fuel their feeble minds and extremism.

It probability for Islamic 3rd Reich.

It absolutely is the cause of this extremism. You have to remove the psychotic parts of these religious texts in order to be a normal, sane person who does not do these things. This is also why another for "extremist" is "literalist". If Harper Lee was not the author of Mockingbird, and instead people believed it was god telling us his unbreakable words... than yes, it would be problem. Just like Spiderman would as well.

I often find some people don't quite get that people view these things as everything in the universe, they are supposed to be the word of god, to them its not "nothing but text", its eternal life, its telling them they wont die.

Again you are looking at this the wrong way. correlation does not equal causation. It´s like with drug addicts, you can remove the drug but you can´t remove addiction.

A lot of Humans need something to believe in, a group to belong to, so if you take the quran away, they would just flock to something else that fits their need.

So you can blame the book all you want, and even ban it, but it won´t solve anything.

I feel like you're attempting to equate terrorism and religious extremism. They dont equate, you cant swap these terms out and keep the same context and narrative. Which one are you attempting to discuss here? Because terrorism can happen for a number of reasons, probably 80% of the time it will be either religious or a reaction to some kind of oppression or military action. Religious extremism happens for one reason and one reason only, religious text. Why the person decides to follow this religion is a different story (and seemingly what you wanted to point out in the "flock" comment).

On the topic of religious extremism we will, and we will be 100% in the right for doing so. This is not a confusing issue, its not something we are conflicted about. We've never addressed religious extremism in this world without addressing the religion itself. Even when a religion is used a secondary tool to something, say, Hitler and Stalin, it still had to be addressed because they preached the worst things mankind has ever thought of. And no, not all ideas or religions are created equally. Any sane person would so much rather see people "flock" to Jainism or even Buddhism over any of the three Abrahamic religions. The reason this is, is because with their core texts it would be extremely shocking to see people who do not alter those texts, to fall into what we've seen from Abrahamic religions.

Going back to one of your previous posts, i see similar mistakes being made....

1. There seems to be numerous reasons as to why people dismiss this. One is that in America, Christians are fairly dishonest with their religion, they dont really follow it in any way. So people tend to apply this worldwide and to every religion, and that is simply not the case. Another is the idea that addressing this religion means addressing brown people for being brown. Etc. Its all silliness that will never lead to a solution. After WW2 when we addressed the Roman Catholic Church for its support in Hitler and the Russian Orthodox Church for its Stalin support, we didnt say "hey you know what? Its cool, go ahead and continue to preach antisemitism, its your faith and i dont want to lump you all together".

2. ..... "Gospel" is actually a specific term used in the Christian religion. But i do understand how you're using it and how youre using it and what youre saying is utterly silly. Its revealed revelations by god, the literal word of the creator of the universe..... exactly how else do you expect this to be taken?

3. All the more rational reason to not follow them. The problem is humans are afraid of the unknown, the dark, death. Many will seek answers to these things even if they dont make sense, and from there it only takes a generation of sane to become insane.

@kod said:I feel like you're attempting to equate terrorism and religious extremism. They dont equate, you cant swap these terms out and keep the same context and narrative. Which one are you attempting to discuss here? Because terrorism can happen for a number of reasons, probably 80% of the time it will be either religious or a reaction to some kind of oppression or military action. Religious extremism happens for one reason and one reason only, religious text. Why the person decides to follow this religion is a different story (and seemingly what you wanted to point out in the "flock" comment).

You again seem to miss my point. These people you call Religious are no more different than what you saw in IRA or any number of major terrorist organizations around the world, Rote armee fraction etc... You look at the book as the illness when it's merely a symptom of the real illness. So yes you can equate Terrorism to religious extremism, the root cause is still the same problem. That people look for a meaning or for a place to belong whether it´s a book or a movie or a group.

So no extremism does not happen because of a book , it happens because some do not have the intelligence or ability to use reason. Just look at fanboyism as an example, you can draw many parallels between the behaviour of fanboys and religious extremists,

@kod said: On the topic of religious extremism we will, and we will be 100% in the right for doing so. This is not a confusing issue, its not something we are conflicted about. We've never addressed religious extremism in this world without addressing the religion itself. Even when a religion is used a secondary tool to something, say, Hitler and Stalin, it still had to be addressed because they preached the worst things mankind has ever thought of. And no, not all ideas or religions are created equally. Any sane person would so much rather see people "flock" to Jainism or even Buddhism over any of the three Abrahamic religions. The reason this is, is because with their core texts it would be extremely shocking to see people who do not alter those texts, to fall into what we've seen from Abrahamic religions.

Again no you can't , you are doing the same as many before you when they try to argue for censorship and forget that the cause is not a certain book, text, movie, music etc... It´s again merely a symptom. To show this with a current situation, look at the shooting in Virginia. Here you have a guy who found a meaning in Bernie Sanders and used him as excuse to commit a horrendous crime. This is no different than a religious extremists , here you just have a politician carrying the reasoning for violence.

So again remove this religious text and these "animals" will find something else to gather around and use for their own distorted views. It´s just a fact of life and the dark side of the "human race"

No i got your point, but you continue to equate things that you should not. Just because two groups are committing terrorism does not mean the same reasons are behind it. The IRA 100% political, nothing they said or wanted had to do with anything else. The exact same can be said about the RAF. ISIS, Islamic terror, while i have no problems saying that intervention has created more terrorists, the mentality of terrorist takeover has been a staple in the religion since day one and its always been a problem.

The reason you cant say they are no different is because of the reasoning behind it and the solutions looking ahead. The RAF and ISIS, you have to handle in two very different ways. To suggest that these details do not matter is silly and will lead to failure every single time.

If you were paying attention to what i said youd realize i very much addressed the "real illness", its people. Its people who are uncomfortable with the thought of death. People will turn to religion when it tends to surround them and whatever surrounds them tends to depend on their geographical location. Now, lets say this is 100% true, the only cause (which its not), what does that say about specific religions and ideas? Nothing.

And again, no you cannot equate terrorism and religious extremism, these are two very different things. If you dont get that, i really don't know what else i can say. It seems you want to combine the two and pretend they are not different. I will say that im glad you agree that the root problem of religious extremism (being the religion itself) is still the problem.

We've been over this. Religious extremism 100% of the time happens because of religious text. Actually, ill go with 99% simply because there is usually a few people who simply use the religion to gain power. But for the vast majority who are not gaining power, its because of the religious text.

I can see how youre rationalizing all of this because of how far off course you go. You can show parallels in behavior to almost anything, but because youre going so far off the path you're ignoring the actual actions. You can point out fanboys having a some what similar mentality, but i cant think of a group of fanboys who sacrifice children in the name of xbox. Even with the way you want to suggest these things, you're not conceding that this is something that we cannot address and will not address, so we simply have to address the bad ideas, which to quote Maher "Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas". We wont get people to stop fearing death anytime soon, but we can address how they treat other people.

Im a free speech absolutist, ive never suggested censorship. In fact forcefully changing Qurans around the world would probably make things worse.

That said, we know how to handle this situation because we handled it with the Catholics before and yes, it is a forcing of western values on societies. We cant have countries with Sharia law. We cant have nations built on constitutions established by bibles. This is what we stopped in the middle ages and Catholicism still has many problems, but its not acting like it once did or how Islam is currently acting. My question to you is how many times do we need to see this before you recognize the problem? I have no problems admitting that socioeconomic situations increase the number of people willing to do this, but going by facts and history we could say something like.... currently, 60% of "terrorists" are doing so because of socioeconomic reasons. The 40% are pure religious.

Part of me wants to say you're intentionally doing this because you seem capable of recognizing this problem, and the other part does not know..... But how are you ignoring what is said? Because again, with the incident you mention, you have to create something that is not there in order to arrive at the conclusion this person did. With Islam, you dont have to create anything, simply read THE WORD OF GOD, as its written.

Come on man, im not trying to insult you but you cant be so dense that you dont understand that difference and how its applied. Lets say you were to follow my word, im god to you. I say "Do not murder anyone" and you go out and murder someone. You have to be delusional and bastardize anything i said to come to try to say i said this or that was my message. On the other hand, my buddy Tony tells you to "Go rape a fucking bear", hes your god and you go rape a bear...... its because your god told you to. Do you really not get that difference and its real world implication? If myself and Tony each had followers, who do you think would be raping more bears? And if i never mention bear rape yet one of my followers does so, is that on me? Is that on my text? Is this really that hard?

You just seem so hard up to not blame a religion for what its very obviously and factually the cause of.

I refer you back to my third response about "ideas" and which ones we stop or propagate.

@Jacanuk:IRA was fighting for a united country....not religion. You cannot form opinions based on a superficial understanding of an issue.

And? not forgetting that Ireland is catholic and is fighting the evil english protestants., so sorry religion is involved there.

Even tho that was not actually my point.

i dont get why youre having such a hard time understanding this and why you cant seem to understand that there are two different solutions to the situations. And that was your point, you were very specific on stating that you saw no difference. You have to recognize this difference if you are to actually solve the problem and move on. When attempting to address these issues, youre going to come at problem A (a religious problem) differently from problem B (a political problem). But i think the problem is you refuse to recognize the role religion is playing in the attempted spread of gods law (sharia, which is all the terrorist organizations say they want) across the world.

@kod said:No i got your point, but you continue to equate things that you should not. Just because two groups are committing terrorism does not mean the same reasons are behind it. The IRA 100% political, nothing they said or wanted had to do with anything else. The exact same can be said about the RAF. ISIS, Islamic terror, while i have no problems saying that intervention has created more terrorists, the mentality of terrorist takeover has been a staple in the religion since day one and its always been a problem.

The reason you cant say they are no different is because of the reasoning behind it and the solutions looking ahead. The RAF and ISIS, you have to handle in two very different ways. To suggest that these details do not matter is silly and will lead to failure every single time.

Again you seem focused on the wrong thing, Correlation does not equal causation. You blame the book/Text for people doing evil things because the book in their understanding says it. that may very well be correct, but the main reason these people look to this book , is not because the book tells them, it´s because they are either on the fringe of society or in place where they are susceptible to certain influences.

And yes you can treat the people who get drawn to organizations like R.A.F and ISIS , with the same concept, you need to deal with the illness not the symptom.

@kod said:If you were paying attention to what i said youd realize i very much addressed the "real illness", its people. Its people who are uncomfortable with the thought of death. People will turn to religion when it tends to surround them and whatever surrounds them tends to depend on their geographical location. Now, lets say this is 100% true, the only cause (which its not), what does that say about specific religions and ideas? Nothing.

And again, no you cannot equate terrorism and religious extremism, these are two very different things. If you dont get that, i really don't know what else i can say. It seems you want to combine the two and pretend they are not different. I will say that im glad you agree that the root problem of religious extremism (being the religion itself) is still the problem.

You seem very much focused on religion as the root of all evil, religion is man-made and with all man-made things, it´s not any worse or better than the cult following of Justin Bieber or Hinckley who tried to impress a imaginative relationship with Jodie Foster.

So sure let's call Terrorism a umbrella which religious extremism or any extremists belong under when they do their heinous crimes.

@kod said:We've been over this. Religious extremism 100% of the time happens because of religious text. Actually, ill go with 99% simply because there is usually a few people who simply use the religion to gain power. But for the vast majority who are not gaining power, its because of the religious text.

I can see how youre rationalizing all of this because of how far off course you go. You can show parallels in behavior to almost anything, but because youre going so far off the path you're ignoring the actual actions. You can point out fanboys having a some what similar mentality, but i cant think of a group of fanboys who sacrifice children in the name of xbox. Even with the way you want to suggest these things, you're not conceding that this is something that we cannot address and will not address, so we simply have to address the bad ideas, which to quote Maher "Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas". We wont get people to stop fearing death anytime soon, but we can address how they treat other people.

And i do not disagree that the london attacks, 9/11, Paris attacks and all the others are done in the name of a religious understand. What you do seem to miss is that what i'm saying is that , remove that text, and these people would find something else to use.

People who commit these things are not sane , they are insane out of reach individuals, who no matter what would find something to use to commit violence. Be it a book or a cartoon in a newspaper.

@kod said:Part of me wants to say you're intentionally doing this because you seem capable of recognizing this problem, and the other part does not know..... But how are you ignoring what is said? Because again, with the incident you mention, you have to create something that is not there in order to arrive at the conclusion this person did. With Islam, you dont have to create anything, simply read THE WORD OF GOD, as its written.

Come on man, im not trying to insult you but you cant be so dense that you dont understand that difference and how its applied. Lets say you were to follow my word, im god to you. I say "Do not murder anyone" and you go out and murder someone. You have to be delusional and bastardize anything i said to come to try to say i said this or that was my message. On the other hand, my buddy Tony tells you to "Go rape a fucking bear", hes your god and you go rape a bear...... its because your god told you to. Do you really not get that difference and its real world implication? If myself and Tony each had followers, who do you think would be raping more bears? And if i never mention bear rape yet one of my followers does so, is that on me? Is that on my text? Is this really that hard?

You just seem so hard up to not blame a religion for what its very obviously and factually the cause of.

I have no problem putting the blame where it belongs, and while you seem to think if we banned this text, the problems would be solved. It is not how the world work.

People do evil things and they do it because they are insane.

And as to the religion itself, well i know a lot of muslims, have had several gf´s who were muslims or religious in some way and none of them would ever dream of reading the text in the same way, So while you seem hell bent on blaming the text, maybe you should go visit a mosque and actually learn that it's not the book,

@kod said:Im a free speech absolutist, ive never suggested censorship. In fact forcefully changing Qurans around the world would probably make things worse.

That said, we know how to handle this situation because we handled it with the Catholics before and yes, it is a forcing of western values on societies. We cant have countries with Sharia law. We cant have nations built on constitutions established by bibles. This is what we stopped in the middle ages and Catholicism still has many problems, but its not acting like it once did or how Islam is currently acting. My question to you is how many times do we need to see this before you recognize the problem? I have no problems admitting that socioeconomic situations increase the number of people willing to do this, but going by facts and history we could say something like.... currently, 60% of "terrorists" are doing so because of socioeconomic reasons. The 40% are pure religious.

Then if you are not suggesting censorship, i am at a loss

And what do you mean "we" forced the catholic church? What changed christianity was mainly from the inside as well as from outside sources. And they also never had the same fundamentalistic people to take control.

And sure we can have countries with Sharia, we can even have places in the western world where Sharia rules, just look at the uk, they have a few areas where they allow for Sharia law to rule certain subjects.

Islam itself is not the problem, the problem is people.

Stop with the correlation and causation..... im a biologist, i have to have a very good understanding of correlation and causation and when we should note that one is not the result of the other.

I say that religious extremism comes from a religion, in this case Islam, not because of people's "understanding" of the text, but because of the literal reading of the text. The literal reading that people then act out and take as the word of god. There are not many better examples or easier proven examples of correlation/causation.

Now again, as ive said before, im not one of these people who claim that terrorism (because again, you are mixing things here. Religious extremism is not terrorism and you cant swap these terms) is caused by one thing, i wouldn't even say mostly one thing. Given religious history i think its pretty safe to say that religion and socioeconomic split it 40/40. And then 20-30% other factors. Now, we know that religion can cause these things no matter the social class, economic situation, education, etc. because we have nothing but proof of this throughout world history and of course, all you have to do is listen to them when they speak. Unless of course you're ready to suggest you know their motives and minds better than they do. Personally speaking, im not ready to do this. When a college educated person who comes from oil money and has the world at his fingertips decides to take part in a caliphate because his religion commands him to do so and he ends up happily killing himself in this process because he believes it will get him closer to god, im inclined to believe that person takes his religion very seriously and that this religion is the motivating factor. Of course when we decide to look into the religious text this person read from, we then find out he did not need to change or alter a single word or command in order to come to these conclusions and that the world would be better off had he.

Can you demonstrate this? Can you show us how the RUF was handled (not RAF) and draw a comparison to say.... Mormon extremists? No, you cant. And those two are actually far more similar than not and even in these scenarios we are talking about entirely different solutions. "Treat the illness"..... you say this but you still don't realize that one is cancer the other is aids.

So again, it is. And it is because it preaches the worst ideas mankind has ever written down. How do you not understand that this matters? How are you having such a hard time understanding that with the examples you continue to give here, you're talking about one off's. Examples of insane people doing something insane for no given reason other than what they have constructed in their head. Had Jodie Foster said to her fans "Please, shoot the president"... than you'd have a solid comparison, but not in favor of what you're saying. Im actually a bit shocked that you don't seem to get that what deities tell people, matters and we have nothing but all of human history to demonstrate this.

Yes, i fully understand this, in fact ive debated with a fairly large atheist youtuber on this very point. The problem is, and the thing you have to acknowledge is that the specifics matter. Her argument was that removing religion from the world would make for a world where people didnt follow bad ideas. I had to explain to her that this would not remove or solve the issue of people following stupid ideas. But the thing i had to acknowledge and admit, as do you, is the specifics would absolutely change. The problems faced with religion, would not longer be there. We might have an entirely different set of problems and given the history of religion and what its preached, its hard to think of worse problems than what its already promoted/promoting.

You will always have followers, you will always have blind followers, the thing we need to address is the bad ideas that these people follow. And as said before, not all bad ideas are created equally, i'd so much rather have the issue of over-pacifism than what we see with Christianity and Islam. Both are problems, but not both are equally damaging to the human race.

For some reason you seem to want to argue that we address people following others or indoctrination, this is what you're considering the "illness" right? Okay, well this is natural. This is something you will never change because its biological, its why we've survived as a species and why our ancestors survived for millions of years. As a social species, this is what we do. So again, this simply goes back to the minimizing of bad ideas and to do so you have to recognize that shooting someone in the face is worst than kicking them in the nuts and you cant simply say "well its injury of some kind, thats the illness" and expect that to mean anything or solve anything.

In the context of their religions literal text, they are very much sane... that's the problem. If you have to, go back to my Jodie Foster response, or in my other post where i explained this very clearly. Ill give you yet another example even though you dont seem to be paying attention (which i will also get to next). If someone says they blew up a building because Sponge Bob Square Pants. clearly they are going to have to create meaning from something that is not there. If they are however religious and they stone a gay person to death for being gay, than they are merely following that text..... how is this very obvious and very important difference escaping you?

How is it also escaping you that bad ideas put forward by gods, create or emphasize insanity? Religion in its literal form, does nothing but promote what you consider insanity. In the context of sane and normal for religion, its okay, its not insane, its simply following the word of the creator of everything.

So im going back to that point i made about you not paying attention. I very clearly stated that i was not in favor of banning anything. I then went on to highlight how we have dealt and solved, religious extremism in the past. For more simply go back and read what i said... or if you want more than that, just read up on the age of enlightenment and how it got us out of the dark ages.

Holy shit... this is all so basic man.... Again, since youre clearly not paying attention, this is where we see people NOT follow their religion. Like it or not, to ignore the text that commands you murder someone for eating clams, is actually going against the word of god of that religion. Now, its what a normal person would do and as history has shown us, it really depends on how devoted one is, its not the word of god. Ignoring this commandment is not acceptable from a literal religious stand point. Maybe you should spend some time thinking about these things a bit more, yes?

I mean "we" as a world. It didnt change because it wanted to change, it changed because the propagation of better ideas won over the masses. And yes... you really need to brush up on your world history if you expect to hold a conversation with me on these topics.... the entire dark ages... that over thousand year period, was due to a Christian Sharia. Aside from specific scriptures recognized by one religion and not the other, they were almost identical.

I hate to sound conceded on this topic, but you really don't know much about Abrahamic religions or their histories do you?

No, we cannot have any nation living under Sharia if we are to solve this problem. Just like again, we could no longer have any nation basing its constitution on the ideas of Christianity and the Vatican when we solved the dark ages problem. It has to stop existing or it will create problems and those problems, as you mentioned with the UK, affect innocent people... look how they spread. At the expense of the innocent. All to what? Undermine equality? Promote bigotry and hate? Promote ignorance among children? If you hold the idea that people are or should be equal, there is not a single thing under Sharia you should agree with or think is acceptable to force onto other people.

Clearly.... because Japan deals with this shit right? If people are the problem and not the promotion of bad ideas, clearly Japan should be facing the same problems with their population right? We should be facing the same problems with our population right? In fact, worldwide problems should be specifically fairly even right? But that is not what we see is it? Yet on the flip side of that, why is it Indonesia and Suriname and Pakistan, face very similar problems all centered around a religion, when their histories, their cultures, their peoples are as different as it gets. The only common theme being a specific religion. And in the case of Suriname, its the only country in SA that has these problems.

I would also like to mention that the whole "people problem/religion not" "religion problem/people not" is very fatuous and rather impossible to divide. Bad ideas are not really bad ideas until they are practiced by people.

Id like to have more of a conversation with you on these things, but im not sure how much of it you're paying attention to. I will provide historical events or eras and cite factual issues faced, and its like you don't even recognize it or in the worst case demonstrated, you didnt even seem to know what the Dark Ages were about and why they were "The Dark Ages".

@Jacanuk: You are saying absolutely correct, "People are ignoring it because it's not the case." They might not familiar who the real terrorist is !! Now its a time to understand not just criticize on each other here or religions.

"Lets be peace on earth guys"

There is a big difference in the reasons. It's political and geographical. You are simplifying the problem.

That also applies to ISIS, Al Qaeda and pretty much every single other terrorist organisation.

Terrorism is never simple.

I'm getting bored of this myth. There's simply no truth to it.

Sharia law has absolutely no legal presence in the UK what so ever. Those infamous Sharia courts are pretty much just religious marriage counsellors. A couple can get divorced legally but according to their religion they may be still married in the eyes of god, so they go meet their local religious leader to discuss it. The only difference between what Muslims do to what Christians do is that Christians don't refer to it as a court even if it is just a court in name only.

If you want to ban sharia courts in the UK, you're going to have to also ban having private meetings with a priest.

It´s not a Myth. UK has several areas where Sharia law when it comes to family law, finance and business. And where it´s recognized by the government. Which is within the british law system.

Not to mention that there are 2 instances of Sharia incorporated into the UK law, regarding halah and finance.

And i never said to ban Sharia councils, i even said that they can work within a western country.

That is the truth, human behaviour is never simple.

It's a myth to say that because the UK allows the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to function as a form of dispute resolution that it therefore has sharia law. While the MAT likes to use the phrase sharia law a lot, they can't actually enforce it. If they told a woman she can't divorce her husband because allah says so, there's nothing preventing her from going to an actual court and getting a divorce there. They are not recognised as courts they're recognised as independent mediators.

There is no area in the UK that "allow for Sharia law to rule certain subjects."

I would be shocked if Jacanuk has ever left the continental United States. His ignorance on matters outside the US (as well as inside the US) is quite something. Best not to bother.

ITT: People complaining about Sharia law but have no qualms about supporting politicians and political parties that want to introduce Christian morality laws on everyone else.

It's odd that.

I don't think I've ever heard a British politician say that they're voting for a bill because Muhammad's teaching tell them to. Yet it's rather common to hear MP's say they're voting for a bill because of their Christian faith.

Christian morality laws?

No same sex marriage, censorship of pornography, banning abortion, promoting creationism and other myths in schools etc.

That sounds disgusting.

Do you disagree that for muslims there is a sharia council? just answer yes or no.

And yes there is areas,, who cares if the decisions can be upheld legally in a court of law in the UK if the people won't seek that out, but be forced to abide by the council's decisions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sharia-courts-in-uk-face-government-probe-over-treatment-of-women-a7049826.html

Funny, can you do other jokes or do you just do this one where you portray yourself as a little snowflake?

Another terrorist attack in the UK:

Another Truck Ramming Attack in London, This Time at a Mosque

The terrorist is a 48 year-old white man.

I knew something like that would happen.

Not really a terrorist attack.

But sad and luckily no one died from it.

The police have confirmed that it is a terrorist attack.

And yes, someone has died. Along with many more injured.

According to news, the person they thought died was already dead before the truck hit.

And the police is calling it that because of political reasons.

People use religion as a rallying cry for for an outlet for their frustrations and biases because it offers them carte blanche to do as they like in the form of a divine mandate. If these people didn't have religion providing them with an unassailable justification for their terror campaign then they'd simply operate under another banner such as racial purity, or operating in national or cultural interests.

When the majority of devout are taking the word of the text literally, then it is time to start pointing fingers at the text. But when it is only a minority you have to ask yourself what is it about them that's making them commit terrorism and not the overwhelming majority?

Citing religious text doesn't actually isolate the factors that are causing terrorism, and the numbers speak to that. If you really want to get to the cause you have to dig much deeper. What is it that a majority of terrorists share, that the majority of peaceful practitioners of Islam (and indeed, anyone) don't?

That's not what the police are saying. This is what the police have stated:

The attack unfolded while a man was already receiving first aid from public at the scene. And sadly that man has died. Any causative link between his death and the attack will form part of our investigation. It is too early to say that his death was as the result of this attack.

And you do not have any evidence to support your claim about the police's "reasons". The police are the experts in the field. If they say it's a terror attack, then it's a terror attack.

Which Christian laws on morality don't you like?

If we were seeing random people doing random things and then attempting to wrap religion in it, this would be a solid point. We've seen it before, we will see it again. But there is a world of difference between wrapping one's actions or ideas in religion and justifying it with religion, and following the literal word of a religion.

The fact is that its silly to suggest its one or the other for every single case or even a majority of cases, enough to claim one specific reason over another. Instead we seem to be faced with some people being fundamentalist simply because of their religion, and others gravitating to that fundamentalism for other reasons. Sadly a lot of people have this habit of ignoring how long these holy wars (no one uses this term lightly) have been going on, how they encompass every possible demographic of Muslim, how they stretch across the globe. One of the worst aspects of it is how they will knowingly ignore the dramatically worse and far more devastating situations of holy war within the Islamic religion

In short its definitely a reality that many people have been turned on to extremist ideologies as a reaction to a political climate. But this is not true for everyone, the religious texts were started for various reasons and it always predates these conflicts... holy war comes from holy books and there is no way of getting around the fact that this is a holy war. Its rules and desired outcome are 100% determined by religion.

As we have seen time and time again 10% (a conservative estimate) of one of the largest religions in the world is far more than what is needed to change the world for the worse and commit acts that society will never fully recover from.

But the percentage does not matter. If this is what the religious text says, its what the religious text says, this is simply facing reality. And we need to stop creating these double standards and excuses. I often find if you want to give someone a litmus test on the subject, all you have to do is ask if these same rules apply to those who blow up abortion clinics (which in this case would be due to preaching) or if it applies to homophobia. Which of course 999 out of 1000 times people refuse to apply this same standard.

And as mentioned before, the majority of this violence is against other Muslim sects. We see this in times of peace, war, as reactions, as initiations, provoked, unprovoked, rich, poor, it does not matter. It is something we see across the board and that is always adherent to literal texts of said religion. This is something demonstrated throughout human history with all three abrahamic religions. For myself and most educated people on the subject of Abrahamic religions, its fairly shocking to see the amount of mental gymnastics that goes into people attempting to distance the unquestionably proven link between literal religious text and these acts. Whats even worse is the simplistic and obviously uneducated argument of "not all Muslims", where no matter how much proven history you cite (or words of these people themselves, which is funny how many people dismiss what these people say and then kill themselves over) or obvious linking of acts and texts, this is really the only reply you'll ever hear. Sadly this seems to come from well minded people who have good intentions (mostly about how minorities in America are treated, but surprise, Muslims are not minorities in the world), but cant seem to admit they don't know enough on the subject to have a basic conversation about it. The intentionally irrational and anti-critical thinking people are those who attempt to equate religion to a race or sex, which is so horribly wrong and stupid to do that at this point i often wont even address it with anything more than a single sentence or two that mostly explains how stupid this equivocation is.

Quoting ancient religious scriptures to explain current world events is a childishly simplistic, irrational argument. Most people either do not read religious texts, do not take religious texts literally, pick-and-choose verses from religious texts, or interpret them however they want. Almost every religious scripture contains violence, whether it's the Bible, Quran, Torah, or Gita. If even 10% of people acted upon the violence of these religious books, then human civilization would've ended a long time ago. Yet it's only during periods of political upheaval that we start seeing people turning to religious scripture to justify violence.

This whole religious terrorism thing might be new to the US (or maybe not, since the KKK was a Christian terrorist organization), but the UK has been through it all before. In the late 20th century, it wasn't Muslim immigrants from the Indian subcontinent carrying out terror attacks, but they were instead stereotyped as "weak", seen as "easy" targets for "Paki-bashing" by white-supremacist National Front skinheads (the UK's equivalent to the KKK). In the late 20th century, the terror threat was Irish Catholics, carrying out terrorist bombings in the name of Catholicism. Irish Catholics were still carrying out terror attacks in the UK all the way up until late 2001 (shortly after 9/11). What brought Irish Catholic terrorism to an end was a peace process in Northern Ireland, the source of the religious extremism. And even that peace process is fragile, with a hard Brexit having the potential to unsettle Northern Ireland once again.

Despite the four terror attacks we've had this year (three from Islamist extremists, and one from a far-right extremist), it doesn't come anywhere close to the amount and frequency of IRA terrorist bombings we had back in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. The UK is relatively much safer from terrorism today than it was back in the late 20th century. In the late 20th century, an unstable Northern Ireland was the source of religious terrorism. In the early 21st century, the destabilized nations of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (destabilized by our own governments) are sources of religious terrorism.

You're kidding, right? Look at any anti-LGBT law you can shake a fist at. For the most blatant, the right for gay people to marry one another.

You realise that Christian laws and Muslim laws are indistinguishable?

Many of them are the same as Islam sprang out of Christianity.

Under Sharia law LGBT are killed. What law did Christians pass that is against LGBT?

I'm not talking about Sharia law or Islam. If your defense is to say 'well we're not as bad as them', then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, I've already answered your question. Christians were the ones trying to define marriage as being between a man and woman. You asked for an example and I gave you one. Quit being coy.