Alice Perkins, Ex-Chair Of The Post...
News2 mins ago
Religious Extremists Vs Religious Moderates: Part Of The Same Problem?
73 Answers
We all know the threat posed by extremists – murder, terrorism etc. Many religious moderates routinely label the criticism of religious beliefs and practices as intolerant. In doing so, do the these moderates (inadvertently?) stymie legitimate debate and therefore create a medium in which extremists can thrive and develop?
Answers
"(f) That religionists should be open to interrogatio
00:03 Sun 29th Dec 2013
We all accept that anyone can criticise political ideas and philosophical ideas etc. Religious ideas should also be open to criticism. It should not be treated with any more respect than political and scientific ideas. This is one of the crazy things in the UK and other countries, that religion and religious ideas cannot be subjected to so-called aggressive criticism, which would be considered perfectly acceptable in other areas, such as politics and philosophy and economics.
Richard Dawkins, the mild-mannered atheist, receives hate mail and hate tweets from thousands of people, so I am sure that there are many who do not accept the right to criticise religious ideas, as dawkins does. Dawkins has also stated many times that he agrees that anyone can believe anything they wish, as long as they don't use schools, parliament, the house of lords, sharia law etc to force their ideas on others.
Solvitquick - “... Your question is built [on a] false premises which you seem to be struggling to justify...”
I disagree. First, it simply isn't and second, I haven't “struggled to justify” anything as of yet. If you're referring to the short debate with Jeffa, I think I found it quite simple to justify the question using a quick Google search. Even Jeffa agreed with that.
-- “... How many extremists do you know who are inspired by your "religious complainants"?...”
I think you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that extremists are 'inspired' by religious moderates or religious complainants. The only thing religious extremists are 'inspired' by are their own religious teachings. What my question asks is whether or not the extremists are assisted by a culture of (for want of a better phrase) “being afraid of causing offence”. Even though I'm sure that some people will contest this view, it is true that criticism of a person's religious belief is, in most cases, often seen as bad form. Religious people (generally speaking) do not take kindly to people questioning the basis of their faith or the internal 'logic' of it. Debates of this kind often get heated very quickly from the religious camp. As I have shown above, some religious moderates (and no doubt some non-religious people) suggest that the criticism of faith is aggressive, intolerant, rude, etc. Given this fact, it is true that the non-religious must often tread very carefully when discussing this topic. This goes to the heart of the question.
-- “... C'mon Birdie most of us know you as a wise person. Must do better than simplistic rabble-rousing tho' you phrase your views as a question!...”
Once again, I disagree. The fact that you think it's “rabble rousing” to even ask this question goes some way to confirm the suggestion made within it.
I disagree. First, it simply isn't and second, I haven't “struggled to justify” anything as of yet. If you're referring to the short debate with Jeffa, I think I found it quite simple to justify the question using a quick Google search. Even Jeffa agreed with that.
-- “... How many extremists do you know who are inspired by your "religious complainants"?...”
I think you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that extremists are 'inspired' by religious moderates or religious complainants. The only thing religious extremists are 'inspired' by are their own religious teachings. What my question asks is whether or not the extremists are assisted by a culture of (for want of a better phrase) “being afraid of causing offence”. Even though I'm sure that some people will contest this view, it is true that criticism of a person's religious belief is, in most cases, often seen as bad form. Religious people (generally speaking) do not take kindly to people questioning the basis of their faith or the internal 'logic' of it. Debates of this kind often get heated very quickly from the religious camp. As I have shown above, some religious moderates (and no doubt some non-religious people) suggest that the criticism of faith is aggressive, intolerant, rude, etc. Given this fact, it is true that the non-religious must often tread very carefully when discussing this topic. This goes to the heart of the question.
-- “... C'mon Birdie most of us know you as a wise person. Must do better than simplistic rabble-rousing tho' you phrase your views as a question!...”
Once again, I disagree. The fact that you think it's “rabble rousing” to even ask this question goes some way to confirm the suggestion made within it.
Theft[edit]
Malik, the originator of the Maliki judicial school of thought, recorded in The Muwatta of many detailed circumstances under which the punishment of hand cutting should, and should not, be carried out. Commenting on the verse regarding theft in the Quran, Yusuf Ali says that most Islamic jurists believe that "petty thefts are exempt from this punishment" and that "only one hand should be cut off for the first theft."[7] Maududi also agrees that petty theft is exempt, although he admits that jurists disagree as to the exact dividing line.[8]
Explanations for punishments[edit]
John Esposito explains that some Muslims justify these punishments in general terms because the
Malik, the originator of the Maliki judicial school of thought, recorded in The Muwatta of many detailed circumstances under which the punishment of hand cutting should, and should not, be carried out. Commenting on the verse regarding theft in the Quran, Yusuf Ali says that most Islamic jurists believe that "petty thefts are exempt from this punishment" and that "only one hand should be cut off for the first theft."[7] Maududi also agrees that petty theft is exempt, although he admits that jurists disagree as to the exact dividing line.[8]
Explanations for punishments[edit]
John Esposito explains that some Muslims justify these punishments in general terms because the
Not just moderates. All those who lend support to the farcical notion that any book contains the wisdom of a deity upon whose whim all action should be judges are part of an edifice that lends credibility to the so called "extremists".
Be aware thought that the actions of the extremists closely match that prescribed by the holy texts. The so called moderates are falling well short of what they are told to do by the books.
The extreme is what they all, moderates and those notionally religious included, consciously or unconsciously endorse by adopting the proposition that these hideous books are deserve our reverence.
Be aware thought that the actions of the extremists closely match that prescribed by the holy texts. The so called moderates are falling well short of what they are told to do by the books.
The extreme is what they all, moderates and those notionally religious included, consciously or unconsciously endorse by adopting the proposition that these hideous books are deserve our reverence.
It appears that some here, recoiling in horror at the very suggestion that they may, albeit unintentionally, be supporting the dubious rights of extremists to do what they do, have instantly posted an indignant ‘No’ without actually considering the question simply because they deem religion to be beyond criticism. As can be seen from these pages, in the main the religious don’t simply defend their own religion against criticism – they defend all religion against criticism – and that, I would suggest, answers the question in the affirmative.
The great unavoidable problem with ALL religions, that they firmly believe that they are right. And if they think they are right, then everybody else must therefore be wrong.
Some religions, and some followers of all religions, might say that they are tolerant of other opinions but you can't away from this central difficulty. If you hold the beliefs of a particular religions to be correct, then everybody must be wrong !
Look for instance at the dictionary definition of the word "infidel" :::
https:/
Doesn't leave much wriggle room does it ?
Some religions, and some followers of all religions, might say that they are tolerant of other opinions but you can't away from this central difficulty. If you hold the beliefs of a particular religions to be correct, then everybody must be wrong !
Look for instance at the dictionary definition of the word "infidel" :::
https:/
Doesn't leave much wriggle room does it ?
Dear birdie1971,
My post to you was simply querying the phrasing of your question.
I don't get your reason for linking "murder and terrorism" to your
statement that "many religious moderates label the criticism of religious beliefs...as intolerant" and your then adding whether they "(inadvertantly) create a medium .... in which extremists can thrive etc."
In my lifetime I have never met a religionist who complains about intolerance but then again I have never criticised their beliefs nor preached my atheism to them and I don't care what the media say. I am my own man and make up my own mind based on my experience.
However many complaining religionists you have personally met, I repeat that I do not believe murderous maniacs are in any way amenable to reason nor act in the medium that you ask about.
I just found your question overcomplicated but repeat my answer in a simple word.
No.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
My post to you was simply querying the phrasing of your question.
I don't get your reason for linking "murder and terrorism" to your
statement that "many religious moderates label the criticism of religious beliefs...as intolerant" and your then adding whether they "(inadvertantly) create a medium .... in which extremists can thrive etc."
In my lifetime I have never met a religionist who complains about intolerance but then again I have never criticised their beliefs nor preached my atheism to them and I don't care what the media say. I am my own man and make up my own mind based on my experience.
However many complaining religionists you have personally met, I repeat that I do not believe murderous maniacs are in any way amenable to reason nor act in the medium that you ask about.
I just found your question overcomplicated but repeat my answer in a simple word.
No.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Positing the existence of a divine overseer of reality who arbitrarily dictates what is right or wrong without recourse to reason is laying out the welcome mat to anyone else's arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of their own alleged god's arbitrary will. Hell is the just destination of anyone who asserts its existence . . . in the company of their (and its) alleged creator.
SIQ -
I agree with you that murderous loons are not amenable to reason. I said as much in my earlier post.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I honestly think you've misunderstood some element of the question. Maybe I've worded it poorly. I don't know. However, it remains a fact that criticism of religion is frowned upon and is often considered insulting by religious moderates. Even on this thread we have seen people post an indignant, “No!” as if the very suggestion itself is anathema. The cry is, “There's a link between religious moderates and religious extremists!?!. How very dare you!”. This argument is largely analogous to the one made by the gun lobby in the States. The law abiding, pro-gun people simply refuse to see any link whatsoever between the easy availability of firearms and the number of people being shot.
I agree with you that murderous loons are not amenable to reason. I said as much in my earlier post.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I honestly think you've misunderstood some element of the question. Maybe I've worded it poorly. I don't know. However, it remains a fact that criticism of religion is frowned upon and is often considered insulting by religious moderates. Even on this thread we have seen people post an indignant, “No!” as if the very suggestion itself is anathema. The cry is, “There's a link between religious moderates and religious extremists!?!. How very dare you!”. This argument is largely analogous to the one made by the gun lobby in the States. The law abiding, pro-gun people simply refuse to see any link whatsoever between the easy availability of firearms and the number of people being shot.
vascop // We all accept that anyone can criticise political ideas and philosophical ideas etc. Religious ideas should also be open to criticism. It should not be treated with any more respect than political and scientific ideas. //
If I understand it correctly this is at the heart of birdie's point. Religious belief, however moderate, expects special dispensation from criticism. People who question it or ridicule it are seen very much as the bad guys - intolerant, aggressive, rude, disrespectful etc.
With this being the case, do we tend to pussyfoot around religious extremism (therefore allowing it to thrive) in a way that we wouldn't dream of doing with political extremism, or bad science?
If I understand it correctly this is at the heart of birdie's point. Religious belief, however moderate, expects special dispensation from criticism. People who question it or ridicule it are seen very much as the bad guys - intolerant, aggressive, rude, disrespectful etc.
With this being the case, do we tend to pussyfoot around religious extremism (therefore allowing it to thrive) in a way that we wouldn't dream of doing with political extremism, or bad science?
ludwig
I think the answer to your question is yes. An example is thought for the day, which is often presented by a religious person, and is broadcast without any criticism, whereas politics, economic ideas, scientific ideas etc are often criticised aggressively by the presenters - as you put it yourself they pussfoot around the issues when it comes to religion.
I think the answer to your question is yes. An example is thought for the day, which is often presented by a religious person, and is broadcast without any criticism, whereas politics, economic ideas, scientific ideas etc are often criticised aggressively by the presenters - as you put it yourself they pussfoot around the issues when it comes to religion.
Dear Birdie,
Re your last posting to me.
We are agreed on you first line.
If you read insult into anything else I said, I don't know why, but apologise for what must be bad wording.
My last firm "No" was just a repeat of my earlier answer to what appears to be your eventual quesion as to whether, (however strongly moderate religionists are to criticism) they create a medium in which extremists can thrive and develop.
That you have no criticisms of or questions to those who say "yes" or do so using other words but treat "no" as an insult is disappointing to say the least.
I have no wish to indulge in a to-and-fro' with you.
Hence if it helps to make you happy, I will change my answer to "yes they do" if you wish.
Regards,
SIQ.
Re your last posting to me.
We are agreed on you first line.
If you read insult into anything else I said, I don't know why, but apologise for what must be bad wording.
My last firm "No" was just a repeat of my earlier answer to what appears to be your eventual quesion as to whether, (however strongly moderate religionists are to criticism) they create a medium in which extremists can thrive and develop.
That you have no criticisms of or questions to those who say "yes" or do so using other words but treat "no" as an insult is disappointing to say the least.
I have no wish to indulge in a to-and-fro' with you.
Hence if it helps to make you happy, I will change my answer to "yes they do" if you wish.
Regards,
SIQ.
The question of the - complicity, for want of a better word - in the shielding of extremist views, or allowing extremism to flourish in the midst of the moderate religious community is a legitimate one. which admits of no easy answer.
On the one hand, there is very clear evidence that, for example, the overwhelming majority of moderate british muslims were horrified, aghast at the murder of Lee Rigby - but the way the media chose to cover the unfolding events and subsequent discussions did not allow for many spokesmen of that moderate voice, leading some to question whether they actually were against this kind of thing. And such coverage runs the risk of offering a misleading stereotype which demonises a whole community for the actions of an extremist few.
Recent hate crime figures suggest that at least some of the british community felt the same way, since there was a spike in sectarian attacks against mosques and members of the muslim community.
But many of those who describe themselves as moderate theists will often call for the suppression of criticism of their religion on the grounds of religious offence - Blasphemy laws around the globe being a classic example of this. You can see examples of this attitude in the US with Fox News' coverage of the so-called "War on Christmas" by atheists and non-believers and secularists. We see leaders of the Church of England over here making similar claims. We see BA workers claiming discrimination over wearing the cross, and Christian guest house owners claiming the right to discriminate against homosexuals because their sexuality offends their religious teachings. You can find a lot of examples of this demand to discriminate based upon religious teachings.
And in such an environment, where moderate religious believers turn a deaf ear toward religious criticism, or actively lobby to shut such criticism down, extremism can flourish unchallenged. This is undoubtedly dangerous, in my opinion.
On the one hand, there is very clear evidence that, for example, the overwhelming majority of moderate british muslims were horrified, aghast at the murder of Lee Rigby - but the way the media chose to cover the unfolding events and subsequent discussions did not allow for many spokesmen of that moderate voice, leading some to question whether they actually were against this kind of thing. And such coverage runs the risk of offering a misleading stereotype which demonises a whole community for the actions of an extremist few.
Recent hate crime figures suggest that at least some of the british community felt the same way, since there was a spike in sectarian attacks against mosques and members of the muslim community.
But many of those who describe themselves as moderate theists will often call for the suppression of criticism of their religion on the grounds of religious offence - Blasphemy laws around the globe being a classic example of this. You can see examples of this attitude in the US with Fox News' coverage of the so-called "War on Christmas" by atheists and non-believers and secularists. We see leaders of the Church of England over here making similar claims. We see BA workers claiming discrimination over wearing the cross, and Christian guest house owners claiming the right to discriminate against homosexuals because their sexuality offends their religious teachings. You can find a lot of examples of this demand to discriminate based upon religious teachings.
And in such an environment, where moderate religious believers turn a deaf ear toward religious criticism, or actively lobby to shut such criticism down, extremism can flourish unchallenged. This is undoubtedly dangerous, in my opinion.
I can understand why the Islamic community are coming under fire today because of a dangerous minority of lunatics who do not understand religious or any other rational arguments.
But I believe this is a short-sighted approach. If you know your history.
I am aware that all the posts which cite texts which are 1 to 2 thousand years old concentrating on the Koran.
Why not other religions? e.g. The 10 or is it 17 Commandments depending on whether you are Christian or Hebrew etc.
Re Christianity (so far not specifically targeted).
e.g. The Christian Crusades; The Christian persecution of Protestants forcing the English and Dutch to flee on the Mayflower; the "Spanish" Inquisition and torture to death of non-believers; the current racialsm here in Britain and particularly the Christian Bible Belt in the USA where black people are treated as sub-human by many and were recently hung by the KKK not to mention the notorious Scopes Trial of the 1920's where a teacher broke the law by informing his students of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
All of the above were justified by the maniaclal believers in the Christian Bible - but no citations criticising "our"-lol Bible - at best lumping all religions in one batch.
I'll continue later.
SIQ.
But I believe this is a short-sighted approach. If you know your history.
I am aware that all the posts which cite texts which are 1 to 2 thousand years old concentrating on the Koran.
Why not other religions? e.g. The 10 or is it 17 Commandments depending on whether you are Christian or Hebrew etc.
Re Christianity (so far not specifically targeted).
e.g. The Christian Crusades; The Christian persecution of Protestants forcing the English and Dutch to flee on the Mayflower; the "Spanish" Inquisition and torture to death of non-believers; the current racialsm here in Britain and particularly the Christian Bible Belt in the USA where black people are treated as sub-human by many and were recently hung by the KKK not to mention the notorious Scopes Trial of the 1920's where a teacher broke the law by informing his students of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
All of the above were justified by the maniaclal believers in the Christian Bible - but no citations criticising "our"-lol Bible - at best lumping all religions in one batch.
I'll continue later.
SIQ.
Let's get a few things straight:
(a) I am an atheist and condemn all violence except in extremis like WW2.
(b) I have asked religionists of any persuasion (only here on ab) to justify their beliefs without satisfactory answer.
(c) If harmless people believe in a divine creator then I wish them well although I think they have been brainwashed from childhood. It's been tried on all of us at school and certain homes. I rejected it very early on and my parents, whom I suspect were agnostic, never discussed religion.
(d) I have had muslim friends, employed and worked with them and been courteously served by muslims in supermarkets (latter assumed by head-gear), spoken with coloured Drs & Consultants who may well have been muslim. Nope, Islamophobes, don't try to convince me they were/are all just "sleepers" secretly supporting maniacal murderers.
(e) Of course religion has been mankind's curse but mankind created hundreds of gods in the past and thereby created religions so it's our fault.
(f) That religionists should be open to interrogation without protestation of intolerance is nonsense and not worth discussing if we seek a positive way forward. Remember their belief is not logically derived so leave the harmless ones alone.
Finally, for now:
Has anyone been approached or in any way been threatened personally by or been encouged to be recruited to the maniacal "islamic cause"?
If not, "calm down dear" an anti-femininist phrase by Michael Winner and repeated by a reputedly Christian David Cameron, sounds a bit extreme islamic to me.
SIQ.
(a) I am an atheist and condemn all violence except in extremis like WW2.
(b) I have asked religionists of any persuasion (only here on ab) to justify their beliefs without satisfactory answer.
(c) If harmless people believe in a divine creator then I wish them well although I think they have been brainwashed from childhood. It's been tried on all of us at school and certain homes. I rejected it very early on and my parents, whom I suspect were agnostic, never discussed religion.
(d) I have had muslim friends, employed and worked with them and been courteously served by muslims in supermarkets (latter assumed by head-gear), spoken with coloured Drs & Consultants who may well have been muslim. Nope, Islamophobes, don't try to convince me they were/are all just "sleepers" secretly supporting maniacal murderers.
(e) Of course religion has been mankind's curse but mankind created hundreds of gods in the past and thereby created religions so it's our fault.
(f) That religionists should be open to interrogation without protestation of intolerance is nonsense and not worth discussing if we seek a positive way forward. Remember their belief is not logically derived so leave the harmless ones alone.
Finally, for now:
Has anyone been approached or in any way been threatened personally by or been encouged to be recruited to the maniacal "islamic cause"?
If not, "calm down dear" an anti-femininist phrase by Michael Winner and repeated by a reputedly Christian David Cameron, sounds a bit extreme islamic to me.
SIQ.
"(f) That religionists should be open to interrogation without protestation of intolerance is nonsense and not worth discussing if we seek a positive way forward"
-Therein lies the problem. You conflate the justified criticism and the questioning of the effects on society of religion and its practices with intolerance, or bigotry. You might find a few extremist commentators who dress up their own bigotry using "justified criticism" as a defence, that's true, but those are the few, not the many. And that there might be a few such commentators does not of itself justify trying to shut down those pointing out the logical absurdities, or who call for a constructive debate and critical analysis of religious observance by terming such calls as "nonsense".
"(d) I have had muslim friends, employed and worked with them and been courteously served by muslims in supermarkets (latter assumed by head-gear), spoken with coloured Drs & Consultants who may well have been muslim. Nope, Islamophobes, don't try to convince me they were/are all just "sleepers" secretly supporting maniacal murderers"
- No one here is attempting any such thing, and this lofty dismissal of the criticism of religion and its cultural impact as simply being "islamophobic" or borne out of bigotry is a classic example of this attempt to shut down rational debate, offering special protection for religion.
" Remember their belief is not logically derived so leave the harmless ones alone."
-And this forms part of the problem,although whether these beliefs are logically derived is neither here nor there - No one is advocating that we impose a vulcan society.
I would agree with the observation that religious and cultural practices arrived at through indoctrination and faith and cultural tradition can be refractory to logic, but that does not mean we should just stop applying logic of offering critical analysis.
Remember also that the harms we are talking about here do not exclusively equate to terrorism. It can be the desire to implement segregated seating by gender in our universities, for instance, or the so-called "honour killings", defended by some of those who practice them as being part of their religious heritage, or the rejection of the teachings of evolution in favour of doctrine approved by religious belief that we see in some faith schools, in the UK in the 21st century! The majority of those holding to the teachings of religion may indeed be harmless, but by defensively joining in with claims of persecution, or an infringement of their religious freedom in the face of such observations and critical analysis - or indeed by labelling such criticism as being borne out of bigotry by asserting, for example, Islamophobia - they offer the minority who do hold and disseminate extremist views a kind of protective camouflage in which to operate.
"(e) Of course religion has been mankind's curse but mankind created hundreds of gods in the past and thereby created religions so it's our fault".
-And because it is our fault, it is down to us to address and correct the problems and the damage that it does.Part of that corrective process has to involve critical analysis and changing cultural practices where necessary.
"Has anyone been approached or in any way been threatened personally by or been encouged to be recruited to the maniacal "islamic cause?If not, "calm down dear" an anti-femininist phrase by Michael Winner and repeated by a reputedly Christian David Cameron, sounds a bit extreme islamic to me"
- What? How does the second part of this question/statement refer to the first part? Is this just a question of the personal experiences of the AB community or is it some kind of back-handed "argument from incredulity"?
You would not, I hope, be attempting to assert that such recruitment never occurs, or that unless we have had personal experience of such regressive effects of militant theism we are not entitled to comment?
-Therein lies the problem. You conflate the justified criticism and the questioning of the effects on society of religion and its practices with intolerance, or bigotry. You might find a few extremist commentators who dress up their own bigotry using "justified criticism" as a defence, that's true, but those are the few, not the many. And that there might be a few such commentators does not of itself justify trying to shut down those pointing out the logical absurdities, or who call for a constructive debate and critical analysis of religious observance by terming such calls as "nonsense".
"(d) I have had muslim friends, employed and worked with them and been courteously served by muslims in supermarkets (latter assumed by head-gear), spoken with coloured Drs & Consultants who may well have been muslim. Nope, Islamophobes, don't try to convince me they were/are all just "sleepers" secretly supporting maniacal murderers"
- No one here is attempting any such thing, and this lofty dismissal of the criticism of religion and its cultural impact as simply being "islamophobic" or borne out of bigotry is a classic example of this attempt to shut down rational debate, offering special protection for religion.
" Remember their belief is not logically derived so leave the harmless ones alone."
-And this forms part of the problem,although whether these beliefs are logically derived is neither here nor there - No one is advocating that we impose a vulcan society.
I would agree with the observation that religious and cultural practices arrived at through indoctrination and faith and cultural tradition can be refractory to logic, but that does not mean we should just stop applying logic of offering critical analysis.
Remember also that the harms we are talking about here do not exclusively equate to terrorism. It can be the desire to implement segregated seating by gender in our universities, for instance, or the so-called "honour killings", defended by some of those who practice them as being part of their religious heritage, or the rejection of the teachings of evolution in favour of doctrine approved by religious belief that we see in some faith schools, in the UK in the 21st century! The majority of those holding to the teachings of religion may indeed be harmless, but by defensively joining in with claims of persecution, or an infringement of their religious freedom in the face of such observations and critical analysis - or indeed by labelling such criticism as being borne out of bigotry by asserting, for example, Islamophobia - they offer the minority who do hold and disseminate extremist views a kind of protective camouflage in which to operate.
"(e) Of course religion has been mankind's curse but mankind created hundreds of gods in the past and thereby created religions so it's our fault".
-And because it is our fault, it is down to us to address and correct the problems and the damage that it does.Part of that corrective process has to involve critical analysis and changing cultural practices where necessary.
"Has anyone been approached or in any way been threatened personally by or been encouged to be recruited to the maniacal "islamic cause?If not, "calm down dear" an anti-femininist phrase by Michael Winner and repeated by a reputedly Christian David Cameron, sounds a bit extreme islamic to me"
- What? How does the second part of this question/statement refer to the first part? Is this just a question of the personal experiences of the AB community or is it some kind of back-handed "argument from incredulity"?
You would not, I hope, be attempting to assert that such recruitment never occurs, or that unless we have had personal experience of such regressive effects of militant theism we are not entitled to comment?
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Abandoned Baby Elsa Is Third Newborn...
News5 mins ago
Food & Drink9 mins ago
Food & Drink19 mins ago
News25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.