Recently I was told that if World War 2 popped up now many young people would ask if their Play Station be affected as a priority question. Perhaps some folk, of any age, cannot be relied upon to be a part of the solution like most people did during WW2. I think the majority would. When threat looms large, usually as it gets closer people band together.
Melbourne has seen raids just before Christmas of a thwarted plan of an "Islamist Terrorist" attack upon Australian soil during Christmas. I commend Malcolm Turnbull for actually using the word "Islamist" in his press briefing because I was expecting a completely De-religioned press conference.
At some point though we may have to stop calling them terrorist attacks or at least define closely what a terrorist does and what terrorism is. If its purely to cause terror, there are plenty off criminal offences that fall into that category some of the not religious.
Point is, some of them are terror attacks as part on some people's RELIGIOUS WAR. Whilst there is in some places like Australia no set battlefield with set lines of defence nor No Man's Land between them, it is still a war with a battlefield.
When we finally accept this then yes we need to use all the weapons at our disposal such as security & intelligence groups, state & federal police and their task forces. These groups are in some ways front line, but they shouldn't be the only defensive weapon we use.
At some point, we're going to have to accept it is for some a religious war and engage with that enemy at the gate, or within our borders with the same rules of engagement they use. No not blowing them up with improvised bombs, no something far more devastating and effective.
Use the hardest weapon to defend against in a Religious War.
Proper in context exegesis of the Scriptures they're using to valid their murder. If a so called Christian group were planning to wear suicide vests and take hostages in an Australian city, you'd hope the security forces could prevent it and if not prevent halt it. But if it looked like young at risk men of military age are being recruited and fooled with an evil and murderous interpretation of the Bible then alongside all other reasonable actions there should be religious leaders coming together to cite chapter & verse of the Bible to show, using God's Word why it is not only evil but anti-Christ doctrine.
If Christianity's scholars, leaders and preacher did not then it might be time to ask why. If it isn't intellectually possible using those Scriptures then the religion is a false religion and possibly should be left out of Australian culture & society. It certainly should if Scripture demanded followers to kill, maim, terrorise, destroy in "God's Name".
Clerics need to use Scripture to fight the evil "done in God's name" or they are doing evil against mankind and God.
This then applies to all religions. If Buddhists self illuminated or killed atheists, humanists, agnostics, Muslims or Christians here then yes its a religious war. If a strange minor religious offshoot of any religion attacked, its a religious war. If one person on their own, with no input from others decided an attack needs to happen for their god then yes its a religious attack in a religious war and good in context exegesis must be played out loudly in public to deter others falling for the falsehood and following suit.
If the Melbourne attack is an offshoot of Islam then yes, we need Islamic Scholars & clerics to not come out and say "we don't support these actions" or "this is not what we're about". We need the scholars & clerics to come out and present chapter and verse exegesis to explain to followers why, by their scriptures, these actions are evil, are apostate and based on Apostate's Heresy. They want to kill in God's name, the clerics need to explain why its against God's word & why these actions are not going to produce 76 virgins but be a first class hell bound ticket.
Proper in context exegesis explaining these action are the work of apostates & heresy is the only real immunisation for religious war at the source point. Leaving it in a reactionary mode for security services to react with force might be needed but its not preventative.
Malcolm Turnbull hosted a banquet for a group of Muslims breaking their fast at the end of the religious feast. Instead of accommodating them & enabling them to remain out of the fight, he should be enlisting them to help end it.
If not, why.
No comments:
Post a Comment