Perhaps I am slow to pick up on this, but I find it interesting that the first sentence of this video did not get broadcast.
“There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran [referring to religious verses] that says we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today but in our land women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”
That text in bold, sourced from LiveLeak is new to me.
Before reading that, I had come to conclusion, like Jonathan Pearce that the murder was effectively tribal , though the “tribe” consisted of international muslims. Of course, it might still have been primarily tribal (“as they fight us” points in that direction) and rationalised as a Koranic obligation (if “rationalised” can apply to a religious justification) but it does muddy the waters greatly.
JP wrote, and where I had thought that he’d nailed it was this:
There are many reasons how this state of affairs came about, and I am sure commenters have their views on this. I would point to what has happened in our own education system and the climate of ideas in the West for the past few decades. While Western society is, by some measures, more “individualistic” than it used to be – and that is a good thing – in some ways tribal mentalities remain strong. Maybe part of that has to do with post-modernism and the whole challenge to the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth, and that there are universal, shared qualities that all humans have, most importantly, the capacity for long-term, rational action, coupled with notions of taking responsibility for one’s actions, linked as that is to the idea that humans have free will.
I would very much like to belive that no religion is fundamentally violent, I find the idea depressing, but this is a great challenge to that sentiment. Do I now need to read the Koran for myself? I suppose I should.