SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports that Britain's most senior Muslim policeman, Mak Chisty, has warned "Islamist propaganda is so potent it is influencing children as young as five and should be countered with intensified monitoring to detect the earliest signs of anti-western sentiment". He gives several examples of indoctrination being forced upon children as young as five (Christmas being "haram" [an act forbidden by Islam]) and teenagers being groomed to join ISIS.
Chishty said friends and family of youngsters should be intervening much earlier, watching out for subtle, unexplained changes, which could also include sudden negative attitudes towards alcohol, social occasions and western clothing. They should challenge and understand what caused such changes in behaviour, the police commander said, and seek help, if needs be from the police, if they are worried.
[...] Chishty said communities in Britain had to act much earlier. He said: "We need to now be less precious about the private space. This is not about us invading private thoughts, but acknowledging that it is in these private spaces where this [extremism] first germinates. The purpose of private-space intervention is to engage, explore, explain, educate or eradicate. Hate and extremism is not acceptable in our society, and if people cannot be educated, then hate and harmful extremism must be eradicated through all lawful means." [...] Asked to define "private space", Chishty said: "It's anything from walking down the road, looking at a mobile, to someone in a bedroom surfing the net, to someone in a shisha cafe talking about things."
[...] He said friends and family were best placed to intervene. Questions should be asked, he said, if someone stops shopping at Marks & Spencer [a shop perceived to be Jewish owned] or starts voicing criticism. He said it could be they were just fed up with the store, but alternatively they could have "hatred for that store". He said the community should "look out for each other", that ISIS was "un-Islamic", as proven by its barbarity.
turgid notes:
As an atheist who enthusiastically celebrates Christmas, eats chocolate eggs at Easter and carves turnips or pumpkins at Halloween, I find it very strange that people of many religions often artificially exclude themselves from harmless and enjoyable local traditional customs. I find it very sad that we have young people brought up in a strictly-controlled environment cut off from the ideas and views of the rest of the world. I also find it abhorrent that the Establishment now finds itself publicly calling for the complete abandonment one of the core values of individual liberty.
Maybe the rest of us shouldn't worry because we're not Muslim? Where have I heard this before?
Meanwhile, our government is attempting to tear up the Human Rights Act. It's easier to control when the proles have no rights.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission. Significant edits to this submission have been made - acknowledgement of the submitter has been changed to reflect this. janrinok]
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:43AM
Normally avoid replying to ACs but this is a common misconception and other will certainly bring it up...
Atheist means a person who doesn't have religious beliefs, you fucking idiot.
In theory you are correct, in practice not so much. Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though. Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion, something almost every one of em misses while being so smug and superior about having no truck with none of that superstitious nonsense. Then going on about different but equally irrational beliefs. Sorry buddy, unless you can convince everyone that Buddhism and a buttload of other religions without a deity aren't religions, any all encompassing belief system that proposes an explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is a religion. Now show me an atheist who doesn't profess a belief in some answer to The Ultimate Question?
And no, Science can't answer it. Many make the mistake of confusing Scientism for Science though; but Science (at least in any form we currently understand) can't answer any of the truly important questions.
Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:37AM
He isn't an fucking idiot, you are just fucking ignorant about the English language. The prefix "a" means "lack of", "amoral" is "lacking of morals", asexual means "lacking sexuality", apolitical" means "lacking of political (interest)", atheist means "lacking of theism".
Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though.
Well boo-hoo, you've seen anecdotal evidence. I've seen a lot of religious assholes but you don't see me claiming that religion makes people assholes or that most religious are assholes.
Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion
Strictly not, but it requires a belief and worship in a supernatural controlling power [oxforddictionaries.com].
Sorry buddy, unless you can convince everyone that Buddhism and a buttload of other religions without a deity aren't religions, any all encompassing belief system that proposes an explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is a religion.
The word atheism was conceived in an environment where virtually all known religions were theistic. In practice, it has since grown to encompass rejection of all supernatural belief systems. You know, kind of like you don't need horses to pull modern cars, language tends to evolve in order to meet modern demands.
Now show me an atheist who doesn't profess a belief in some answer to The Ultimate Question?
A belief is not automatically a belief in the supernatural. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics even through I lack the knowledge to verify them. That doesn't mean I a physics-worshiper, it means I'm using heuristic reasoning.
Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.
"That's why I'm so much better than all of you."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:30PM
That's odd. I've seen at least a few comments here on SN make precisely that claim. *Shrug* Maybe you are different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:22PM
If is weird that you want to cite the OED for the definition of religion, but prefer to use your own definition of atheism.
Could it be that the OED doesn't agree with your broad definition of atheism?
Ahyup!
atheism [oxforddictionaries.com]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Hhhm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:05AM
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Sounds fair to me. What's the issue with this definition?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:37AM
In theory you are correct, in practice not so much. Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though. Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion, something almost every one of em misses while being so smug and superior about having no truck with none of that superstitious nonsense.
Your definition of religion must be so broad that it's impossible to not be part of a religion. In which case, yes, I guess everyone is part of a religion, but that's meaningless now.
but Science (at least in any form we currently understand) can't answer any of the truly important questions.
"truly important" means what? Is increasing the quality of life of just about everyone not truly important?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:26PM
Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.
And I'm wise enough to know that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, and there can never be for any credible definition of a god. Therefore...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:00PM
Neither can there be credible evidence against the proposition. Same can be said for the theory we all live in a computer simulation, etc. And that is the point, we don't know and by all the science we currently possess the evidence points to the impossibility of knowing. Science runs back to the Big Bang and hits a brick wall since the definition of a singularity is that zero information can pass, thus we can never know anything about what, if anything, is/was on the other side. Heck, we don't even really have the proper language for asking that question since time itself came from the Big Bang so we lack a proper word for an event 'before' the Big Bang.
So any attempt to develop a working theory of Life, the Universe and Everything must, by definition, be irrational and entirely taken as an article of faith. Which makes it religious. Irrational ideas are like math that ends up dividing by zero and other impossibilities, the answer is simply NaN and thus impossible to compare or rank other than to say they are all equally NaN. So which religious system is more irrational? The question itself is irrational.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:35PM
I am also an aphilatelist.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:48PM
Replying to myself.... since besides hosing the close of the quote tag I apparently entirely failed to communicate the concept I was going for.
A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained. And yes, pretty much everybody has one... including atheists. Most human minds seem to require answers to the Ultimate Question and since reason can't give one people rationalize themselves into an irrational one. Where did the Universe come from? Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing? And so on. Science, reason, logic, all that stuff eventually fails when confronted with the really big questions, at least it does at our present level of understanding, and people start filling in the gaps with all sorts of nonsense.
At least most (one notable exception) of the major world religions/philosophical systems have the benefit of being evolutionary advantageous while most of the new age atheistic ones are contra survival and will get culled out just like 90+% of religious systems throughout history have. On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of. The end result is that they end up looking more like cheap devil cultists with the pentagrams ripped off of the robes.
Note that conferring a evolutionary benefit on the society practicing them does not in any way speak to their 'Truth' or even 'Truthiness.'
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:26AM
A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained. And yes, pretty much everybody has one...
Well, nice job making the word "religion" useless. As for me, I lack a belief in a god or gods (which makes me an atheist), and when I don't know the answer to something, I say I don't know. And for practical reality, I act and form beliefs based on probability.
On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of.
Where did you get your data? And I'd say religion doesn't own morality; religion may take credit for it, but they used their own brains to come up with the rules whether they like it or not. Religion just makes assertions that things are wrong or right (usually because some sky daddy says so). It's not a meaningful way to develop a moral code.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:56PM
A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained.
No, religion is the belief in a mystical world order. Believing that aliens made man is both irrational and non-religious. You are re-defining words in order to fit your narrative.
Most human minds seem to require answers to the Ultimate Question and since reason can't give one people rationalize themselves into an irrational one.
And most people follow a religion. Hmmm... coincidence?
Science, reason, logic, all that stuff eventually fails when confronted with the really big questions, at least it does at our present level of understanding, and people start filling in the gaps with all sorts of nonsense.
Science is a bottom-up approach, if we ever answer all the "big questions", then we'd be done with science because we will know everything. Of course we don't know all the answers. That doesn't mean science fails, it means it hasn't accomplished everything yet. Your definition of failure is meaningless, it means that you have "failed" any test as soon as you start it.
Filling the gaps with nonsense is called "making a hypothesis". That's part of the process. It's a valid research method. It's not irrational to consider a crazy idea, because sometimes it turns out to be true. Did you know that there are really really tiny little creatures EVERYWHERE? They are all over your skin, and your walls and even inside you!
At least most (one notable exception) of the major world religions/philosophical systems have the benefit of being evolutionary advantageous while most of the new age atheistic ones are contra survival and will get culled out just like 90+% of religious systems throughout history have.
"Evolutionary advantageous" is not a virtue.　Rape is evolutionary advantageous, because it makes your genes more likely to be passed on. Evolution sucks.
On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of.
Are you projecting your personal issues here? That sounds awfully specific description for hundreds of millions of people across a multitude of different cultures.
The end result is that they end up looking more like cheap devil cultists with the pentagrams ripped off of the robes.
Well damn, you got us. The gig is over guys, they know that we all secretly suck Satan's cock. Well, time to don the silly
dressesrobes and go burn some churches.