There was an item on the news over the weekend about the large number of young black males from Christian families becoming radicalised Muslims.
This news came after I had just read a book about the Viking invasion of Britain (although it wasn't technically "Britain" back in the 9th Century) and how the Saxons were steadily converting the Norsemen to Christianity - often by force or bribary.
It occurred to me that if you can change your religion at the drop of a hat in that way, you can't have a great deal of real faith in any religion. I mean, if you are going to believe in a God, surely it has to be a whole hearted belief to be of any value and that fact that people can change their beliefs so easily does make you wonder what they want from religion in the first place.
I disagree oddly enough. It might just be that one religion's version of God is more rational for you than your own. I'm about to begin a thread on superstition but when I was thinking about it it made me wonder how much religion is actually just superstition.
@ Scholar: "Wat you talkin 'bout, Willis?"
I tend to agree with John's thinking, though, that your faith in whatever version of God cannot we well founded if you can change, on a "whim". It does reflect on the society and the relevant families though, if they must join a radical sect to find their god. We taught our children about our beliefs and have encouraged them to make their own, informed, decisions. Some have chosen to go the agnostic route, however, none have disrespected our beliefs to the point of joining a group that is the antithesis of our belief set.
I'm not saying that the Christian way of life is perfect, it should be, but our society is largely based upon the Christian principle and it is a sad reflection on society if our youth feel that they must reject it for what appears to be a violent and totalitarian lifestyle.
The news item didn't go into any depth but I formed the impression that it was more about disillusion with the White West and seeing Islam as being
their enemy's enemy.
I can see what Scholar is getting at and he does have a point. And I agree with Leigh that it is the violent and totalitarian lifestyle that seems to be the attraction in this instance.
Funny how things that have rules about "Thou shalt not kill" are responsible for more deaths than anything else, innit?
What about hitler? Afghanistan? Iraq? and now Syria and Egypt.
Where's your empirical evidence for that "fact" scholar?
Sorry scholar I thought I was quoting you but I must have hit edit. Anyway the bit I've left was the bit I was asking you to back up.
The first podcast on this page by Yasmin Hai from 21st August is worth a listen.