Bolded the big problem. If you seriously “interpret” that kind of thing as an attack, like malicious, dangerous attack, not merely a challenge or question or whatever, you are a person who is not a good person. Like, seriously. You are part of the problem with this planet (not you, you, this theoretical person). I disagree that it actually necessitates saying “you’re wrong” - rather saying “consider this interpretation” or “another way of looking at it is this”. If you insist on interpreting that as “you’re wrong”, again bad person. No-one who is “reasonable” person of any religion is going to start a shit-fit about that. They might roll their eyes or whatever, but if you’re the sort of person who flips tables because his religion is questioned (assuming you would do so even in private, when you know you don’t have to prove anything “for the cameras” as it were), you are seriously one of the bad ones. No two ways about it. Maybe this is a bad person detection system? (I jest, of course but…)
Personally I wasn’t thinking about busting into other countries and trying to explain their religion to them (hilarious I used to have a Muslim co-worker who regularly asked me stuff about Islam though - like, technical and historical stuff mostly but anyway!), but I am thinking about religious schools and religious education as a subject in school in my own country. I really think we need to never open another religious school, and we need to take a close look at what is taught in RE (particularly in Free Schools, which seem to be immune to most rules/regulations and which the Tories are keen to see even more immune), and whether we should be teaching RE at all, or rather some sort of broader subject. I learned a ton about other religions in RE through the years as a kid, but what I never learned was to question religions - in fact I learned you weren’t really allowed to (in a polite, subtle way - but that kind of makes it worse), which is a fucking horrible message to be sending to kids.
I don’t think it’s wildly out there to suggest the fox should not be in charge of the hen-house, as it were. And with religions that proselytize and convert and are willing to do so to children (which is NOT all religions, I am well aware), well, those are foxes.
I don’t think anyone can or should be “disproving” religion, btw, no idea where you’re getting that.
That’s precisely right - the vast majority of these attackers seem to be “My life sucks, fuck everyone else”-types. This guy definitely was.
I disagree with the assertion kara made that they are usually recent converts. I think that’s about 5% of Western terrorists. As you say they are mostly “rediscovered my faith” types instead.
Coo? Cop? Crook? Not sure what you’re saying there.
However, shooting people and blowing yourself up is like, a thing. It’s how the attackers in Istanbul operated, for example or the previous Paris one, and previously in many attacks with guns the shooters have had suicide vests. Just because people start with guns doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism. It can be a mass shooting AND terrorism, or it can be one or the other. Can you give specific examples of “re-branded” attacks that were not terroristic in nature? Orlando was specifically, explicitly intended as terrorism by the attacker, even if it crossed over with a bunch of other shit, for example.
So go ahead, examples of re-branding?