SOLUTIONS TO THE HEALTH SECTOR
The forum for managers
You are not logged in - LOGIN here
Contact DYB
You can contact DYB here:
- Office: 271 Regent Street, London, W1B 2ES
- Tel: 0207 147 9949
- Email: info@dyb.uk.com
Register with DYB
Benefits include:
- Participation in Forums
- Post comments against Articles or News
- Monthly Newsletter
News Search
Article Search
Forum
The DYB Forum for intelligent discussion
Forum
Online users: 0
DYB Forum
CATEGORIES » TOPIC
[World issues] » MESSAGE [Does toleration require the removal of religion from the public realm? ]
6 messages [1/1]
| 1 |
 Date Posted
 |
By Whom | Message |
|---|---|---|
 04 Mar 2009 19:43 |
Josh Day |
-In relation to 'international' peace and security do you think that nation states affiliations with varying religions makes toleration of differences and lasting peace unattainable? -Has the 'war on terror' done anything to improve the security of the international community, or has it inflamed and legitimised historic divides? With the only lasting result being the loss of individuals rights? -Is religious terrorism any different to political terrorism, and should it be handled in a different manner? -Also in today's discourse in the media and governments has the term 'terrorist' lost all real meaning due to is overuse? Throwing out a lot of questions here, answer all or none of them as you please. |
| 04 Mar 2009 20:00 |
.JPG "My photo")
Henry Darnley |
Well i dont think ill be able to answer all of those at once. But i believe that the inablility of hundreds of organisations in the middle east and many parts of africa to accept others beliefs have left world peace definately unattainable. However i think there is a difference between political terrorism and religious terrorism. 1) 9/11 and 7/7 were not acts against christianity therefore not acts of religious terrorism but political terrorism 2) the recent terrorist attacks in Lahor Pakistan were (i think anyway) blatant religious attacks on Sri Lanka. I don't think terrorism has los it's meaning. Terrorism has always been used to it's meaning- acts of terror. No attacks have been unfairly called terrorism in my knowledge, therefore it is still a feared phrase in todays society. |
| 15 Mar 2009 16:07 |
Bob Dudley |
I agree on the main part but i think there have been examples of misuse of the word "terrorism" |
| 14 Apr 2009 23:32 |
J Mitchell |
I would be very interested to know why you say 9/11 and 7/7 were not acts of 'religious' terrorism "because they were not against christianity" I dont believe that 'religious' terrorism is any different to 'political' but am interested in your view that they do in fact differ. |
| 16 Apr 2009 15:29 |
Henry Darnley |
It's a difficult queston to ask; what is the difference between religious and political terrorism? I believe that 9/11 happened due to the USA's involvement in the middle east and it should be said that the wars in the middle east are all down to religious motives ever since the beginning. Therefore 9/11 was down political terrorism for religious gain if that makes any sense at all. |
| 19 Apr 2009 23:27 |
J Mitchell |
so therefore that makes it an act of religious terrorism |
To advertise, please email info@dyb.uk.com
Latest Comments
Latest Forum Posts
- What is everyones views on the Budegt 2009?
- so therefore that makes it an act of religious terrorism
- It's a difficult queston to ask; what is the difference between religious and po...
- Ok so who is going to decide on a topic??
- I would be very interested to know why you say 9/11 and 7/7 were not acts of 're...
