I have some key questions for those that deny religious terrorism and/or religion being connected to terrorism.
In regards to religious terrorism (1):
- A) Why do you think that there is a wide range of reasoning for terrorism, e.g. poverty and other grievances, and yet you believe that religion and religious instruction plays little to no part in it? B) What is your reasoning? Please explain clearly.
In regards to understanding the other (2):
- Why do you just assume that there is only one peaceful way of understanding religious doctrine and the commandments given within that doctrine, and that everything else is a ‘misinterpretation’ or not ‘true’ to the faith?
- If you do not come from a strict, dogmatic, or doctrine-based religious background, how can you truly understand the believer basing religious scripture on his or her own personal actions and fulfillment of their life?
In regards to the system of belief (3):
- Should a system of belief share responsibility for the actions of an individual following said belief system or associated doctrine?
- If a system of belief is held upon the assumption that the violent practice in question is not at core of the belief system, is it not important that we objectively seek core understanding to see if it is true, and interpret it for ourselves?
- A) If a core doctrine has a defined enemy and state of play: ‘disbeliever’ and ‘disbelief,’ does that not suggest that the core doctrine promotes a forever-problem and constant challenge to our communities? B) In that, does the above not show you that some believers will interpret the doctrine and follow it as stated or individually interpreted?
In regards to religious teachings (4):
- Can an individual be radicalised through religious teaching and instruction?
- A) Can religious teaching or instruction lead to violence? B) If not, how are those teachings of violence found in doctrine disconnected from today’s politics and climate?
- A) Is it not true that believers practice and follow their doctrines and culture to differing degrees? B) And if so, is it not plausible for some to follow-through with written and codified violence whilst others do not? C) Therefore how are they wrong within their own understanding?
- If religion is largely retrospective, in that it looks to revelations made thousands of years ago, why is it that any revived commandments for violence is seen as ‘historic context’ and yet other, non-violent, practices are seen as ‘just part of the religion’ or religious ‘culture’?
Total (10) questions.