It isn't the first time, Here is what the BBC had to say back in May 2014:
"Nigeria's militant Islamist group
Boko Haram - which has caused havoc in Africa's most populous country through a
wave of bombings, assassinations and now abductions - is fighting to overthrow
the government and create an Islamic state.
"Its followers are said to be influenced by the Koranic phrase which says: "Anyone who is not governed by what Allah has revealed is among the transgressors".
"Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society.
"This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education.
"Boko Haram regards the Nigerian state as being run by non-believers, even when the country had a Muslim president."
A 2011 article from GeoCurrents here gives more background on the ethnic and religious differences that have split Nigeria.
 |
| (source) |
For me, this isn't about religion. It's about Puritans, the Christian variety of which set England on fire in the seventeenth century Civil War. And power: the Protestants' fear of losing their post-monastic-destruction possessions (and more) led to the "baby in the warming pan" lie and the overthrow of James II in the "Glorious Revolution" (itself the inspiration for more and bloodier revolutions elsewhere.)
Pseudo-sentimental posturing by world politicians in Paris - apparently in a separate location from the one to which they called up the crowds - won't stop it; nor will increased blanket prurient spying on all of us. If we want security, we need a secular state that firmly enforces rules of behaviour and demeanour. All groups need to keep their heads down.
But when things get doctrinal, on what solid rock does liberalism stand? And even if there is one, does our current political and economic leadership stand on it?
READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
4 comments:
How does one separate religion from power? With bad examples including the Tibetan Buddhists, it is clear that societies dominated by religions bring to the fore fanatics.
I seem to recall that Bertrand Russell identified three forms of power: religious (or ideological), military and financial. There are extremists in all three categories.
The worst is religious/ideological, because the belief system overrides the logic centres of the brain, enabling the user to do terrible things, including against their own interest, and those very same beliefs. It is that delicious feeling of being 'right', and why scientists don't generally fare well in debate, since the good ones are always hesitant about conclusions.
I'm inclined to agree, at least as far as the self-harm is concerned; but think of the Golden Horde.
And I'm not quite sure how we'd define what our wretched Western governments have been doing overtly and covertly in the Middle East, and why, or measure the extent of the harm - think of the millions displaced in Syria for example. I can herdly think the intention or result is to improve our domestic security.
Perhaps as with banking, we need to look at the financial-political-military-industrial complex generally to see how benefits of various kinds accrue to a minority and disbenefits are thrown onto the rest of us.
Post a Comment