How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Onyx8 · #2 by **Onyx8** » Jul 06, 2015 1:51 am

Shut them all down?

laklak · #3 by **laklak** » Jul 06, 2015 2:18 pm

Bring back press gangs and the lash.

Sendraks · #4 by **Sendraks** » Jul 06, 2015 2:44 pm

laklak wrote:Bring back press gangs....

I'm not sure how Julia Swahila and Dexter Fletcher will help combat extremism, but its worth a try....

SafeAsMilk · #5 by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 06, 2015 3:06 pm

Onyx8 wrote:Shut them all down?

Gah, beat me to it.

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Jul 06, 2015 6:13 pm

Onyx8 wrote:Shut them all down?

BAZINGA!

Rachel Bronwyn · #7 by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Jul 06, 2015 6:17 pm

I was coming to make the joke Onyx8 beat us all to.

Thomas Eshuis · #8 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 06, 2015 6:22 pm

What exactly does extremism in British high schools have to do with Islam intrinsically?

Spearthrower · #9 by **Spearthrower** » Jul 06, 2015 10:07 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What exactly does extremism in British high schools have to do with Islam intrinsically?

I don't think it necessarily does, but there is obviously a strain of Islamic based extremism in some schools in Europe at the moment. With teenagers jaunting off to Syria to fight with ISIL, I think it's probably something which needs to be noted.

One of the main problems, i would guess, is the stupid policy of allowing religious schools. This is just a recipe for division. Education in a modern society is normative, it's not only the way in which required information is disseminated, but also acculturates the children into the society. We often say that the better schools are those which teach the kids how to think, rather than what to think, and when you have religious schools teaching their kids to think in terms of antiquated appeals to ignorance, then you are intrinsically creating a form of extremism, even if that particular type of extremism doesn't result in violence.

But forget religious schools - take just plain old state schools. There may be dozens in a county, but placement in those schools comes down to several factors, not least of which post-code of the kid's address. Given that members of a sub-culture tend to congregate in neighborhoods creating mini-enclaves of communities, these tend to become much more highly represented in corresponding state schools. While the education might still be normative of the dominant culture, the kids are interacting less with that and often find they don't identify with it. Again, this isn't a simple straight line from not identifying with normatives to ideologically motivated violence, but it does show how echo chambers can form, and as such, if a seed is planted in that echo-chamber, it can take root in a group.

Given that kids are at a point in their emotional development and knowledge about the world where they may be more susceptible to partaking in potentially harmful activity and have less understanding of the consequences, we should probably be quite concerned about this.

I guess every nation state is going to have to address this in some way. There was an article a couple of days ago in the BBC about a kid who started towards the path of radicalizing, then was lucky enough to be picked up early and put onto a programme called the Aarhus Model.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33344898

Strontium Dog · **#10** by **Strontium Dog** » Jul 06, 2015 10:56 pm

Ban staff membership of Labour-affiliated unions?

Thomas Eshuis · **#11** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 06, 2015 11:17 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:What exactly does extremism in British high schools have to do with Islam intrinsically?

I don't think it necessarily does, but there is obviously a strain of Islamic based extremism in some schools in Europe at the moment. With teenagers jaunting off to Syria to fight with ISIL, I think it's probably something which needs to be noted.

Then the thread title should be edited to reflect this is specifically about Islamic extremism.

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 07, 2015 1:39 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:What exactly does extremism in British high schools have to do with Islam intrinsically?

I don't think it necessarily does, but there is obviously a strain of Islamic based extremism in some schools in Europe at the moment. With teenagers jaunting off to Syria to fight with ISIL, I think it's probably something which needs to be noted.

Then the thread title should be edited to reflect this is specifically about Islamic extremism.

I assume it's clear given it's in the Islam subforum.

Clive Durdle · **#13** by **Clive Durdle** » Jul 07, 2015 7:20 am

There is an old joke about someone asking how do they get somewhere, ah, I wouldn't start from here....

But actually in this case we need to!

We need to understand the violent behaviours have a context. This is assumed to require understanding Islam, or economics or justice but the problem here is that the Islamic and Jewish and Christian versions of history, in the immortal words of Porgy and Bess "ain't necessarily so".

We are looking at a set of beliefs passed on over millennia based on stories of a guy called Abraham who had a child by a slave and their continual iterations with another group whose stories assert they are descended from Abraham's actual wife, although miraculously at the age of 90. Mohammed is a further iteration - not the last prophet but another iteration of these stories.

So the problem is actually about creating and telling new stories, based on ideas of our common humanity, and saying goodbye to our old stories of the gods and their prophets.

Clive Durdle · **#14** by **Clive Durdle** » Jul 07, 2015 7:24 am

Age of Reason, Part First, Section 1

IT has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion. I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the purity of the motive that induced me to it, could not admit of a question, even by those who might disapprove the work.

The circumstance that has now taken place in France of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.

As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm

Alan B · **#15** by **Alan B** » Jul 07, 2015 12:31 pm

First identify the utterings of priests and Imams that signify their intent.
Of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism appears to be the most introspective. The other two however, seem to be the opposite in that their main thrust is to actively 'convert' non-believers with the expressed opinion that 'their' religion's destiny is for world domination at the expense of all other religious beliefs.
It is this idea that influences the more radically inclined personalities that result in the violence we now see - apparent in both Christianity and Islam but more so in Islam - the more extreme Christians mostly resort to verbal violence rather than physical violence (but there are some exceptions).
The key phrase to look out for is along the lines of 'everyone will be Muslim' or 'Christianity will prevail over all others', etc. Innocent though this may seem (we've got used to it and tend to ignore it), it is the starting-point to extreme radicalisation exhibited by right-wing psychopaths.
These clerics who express these views about the 'purpose' of their religion need to be 'taken aside' and re-educated about real life in the world about them and the effect their 'innocent' teachings have on the vulnerable. If it gets them to admit that their religion is not destined for 'world domination' then that's a start...

If they refuse then they should be proscribed, expelled from the country or kept in isolation so that they cannot poison other peoples minds.

Thomas Eshuis · **#16** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jul 07, 2015 12:36 pm

Alan B wrote:
It is this idea that influences the more radically inclined personalities that result in the violence we now see - apparent in both Christianity and Islam but more so in Islam - the more extreme Christians mostly resort to verbal violence rather than physical violence (but there are some exceptions).

I think this also depends on which part of the world you're talking about.

Alan B · **#17** by **Alan B** » Jul 07, 2015 12:42 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I think this also depends on which part of the world you're talking about.

Of course. It is a generalisation.

Thommo · **#18** by **Thommo** » Jul 07, 2015 1:01 pm

As far as schools are concerned:-

1) End free schools
2) End faith schools
3) Put more money into governance and spreading best practice to improve oversight without placing emphasis on teachers, who should be free to teach

Sendraks · **#19** by **Sendraks** » Jul 07, 2015 1:05 pm

Thommo wrote:As far as schools are concerned:-

1) End free schools

I'm interested if anyone knows about how free schools operate in Sweden and other countries. Are they also a clusterfuck abroad or can they actually be productive educational establishments?

Do we need to end free schools or, now that they exist, just get the operation and delivery of them right?

Thommo · **#20** by **Thommo** » Jul 07, 2015 1:22 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote:As far as schools are concerned:-

1) End free schools

I'm interested if anyone knows about how free schools operate in Sweden and other countries. Are they also a clusterfuck abroad or can they actually be productive educational establishments?

Do we need to end free schools or, now that they exist, just get the operation and delivery of them right?

Those are good questions. I don't have the answers, all I can do is identify what it is about the current British free school programme that allows extremism to creep in and why I think it should end.

This won't cover all the reasons I disapprove of the concept of free schools (which largely revolve around the idea that you can have a free market in education, despite most of the conditions for free market success not being met, such as being able to simply "fail" a large subsection of pupils, or to have customers genuinely able to "vote with their feet").

Firstly I don't think all free schools are destined to fail. In fact without red tape and oversight I expect the very best to do exceedingly well. Over time when combined with selectivity it's quite probable that the very best results will be obtained among free schools. The problem occurs at the other end of the spectrum.

If you allow teachers to teach without teaching qualification you remove safeguards. Sure it will fast track some highly capable brilliant people. It will also allow people without the basic skills into the classroom. Without assessing teachers during a training phase you won't be able to improve or weed out those who bring their personal ideologies into the classroom, or make other critical errors.

Without free schools being obliged to follow a national curriculum again you lose safeguards. Sure some schools might specialise, they might become excellent in drama and art and allow pupils who have little interest in "academic" subjects like maths and science to specialise more, to do what they want and flourish. On the other hand you allow schools to specialise religiously. Instead of teaching a broad and balanced religious view they can segregate classrooms, spend extra time on fringe doctrines, teach that Shariah law is fair and that women's voices are worth only half of what a man's is.

All problems can occur in any kind of school, but reduced standards for curriculum, teaching qualification, inspection and so on simply make it easier and easier for indoctrination to take place instead of education. If a school simply has to "dress up" for inspection day it's going to have a much easier ride to fly under the radar. The problem we face is not just the schools we've found bad practice at, it's those (and these are not all Islamic by any means) that are still managing to hide it.

If you address all these issues, what you have left is no longer a free school. The very concept that anyone can set up a school anywhere goes away. Instead basic standards, whether they be building codes or teacher qualification requirements would be maintained, which is effectively what we have in the pre-existing state system.

How Should Britain Combat Extremism

How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Re: How Should Britain Combat Extremism

Who is online