Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do with Theology

>In France right now the topic is extremely controversial due to recent events

For those not aware last week a teacher was decapitated : https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/france-teach...

>Social networks which are blamed openly by the public opinion for their amplifying effect.

What are your source for public opinion here? Yes, mainstream media are bold on the social networks. The same mainstream media which are all owned by the wealthiest people of the country and still abundantly financed by the State to survive.

Mainstream media message is not "the public opinion", which is understandably diverse.

Actually, you don’t have to dig much into what penetrate even in the mainstream media to see opinions going from "well, if our proposal to harden the political system as we wish is unconstitutional, we just have to edit the constitution first" to "the same incompetent political class that led our country to the current wave of terrorism is now willing to burn the few remaining public liberty we can enjoy".

The question is not whether a topic is controversial or not. I can make a controversy on the color of your socket – or on endianness[1]. The question is whether we can treat a subject properly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu#History_...

This is a constant misunderstanding of what constitutes Islamic theology. Islamic teaching are made up of the Quran and Sunnah, the Holy text and ways and teachings of the Prophet Muhammed respectively; there is a whole science of hadith that form accept elements of the latter. This is the approach of the majority of Muslim communities.

There is an a sect of Islam that only followed the Quran but it has traditionally not been as widespread.

That’s because as far as I can tell, the purpose of “religion” is to assist in tribal bonds. Even though it’s not explicitly stated, it helps serve as a proxy for people to figure how closely to align themselves with another.

When I was a child, I wondered why people who didn’t believe in the assumptions of a religion or act according to them still stated they belong to that religion or performed certain rituals and traditions relating to the religion.

I came to learn it’s because it helps serve as a signal to where your political allegiances might lie and helps manage your priorities and subtly inform others.

Non “religious” societies may have weaker tribal bonds or allegiances with each other, so in times of conflict, they may be unable to create the group dynamics that enable them to survive and/or thrive. Of course, my whole theory might be wrong and maybe there are better signals nowadays.

Theology proper is richly coupled with the nature of the church, since the church is so richly coupled with God.