Hey, at least we can take comfort from the words of the Orlando shooter’s father

[Monty92]

, who is clearly a peace loving man, insisting that the fate of gay people "is not in the hands of humans" as it was “only God who could judge”. A heartfelt condemnation of his son's actions and no mistake.

What the Hadith and Sira say about benders:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

Oh.

[The Jorge]

, who is clearly a peace loving man, insisting that the fate of gay people "is not in the hands of humans" as it was “only God who could judge”. A heartfelt condemnation of his son's actions and no mistake.

What the Hadith and Sira say about benders:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

Oh.

What a mealy mouthed reply, eh?

[Monty92]

What a mealy mouthed reply, eh?

I blame the gays for...errr.....invading Iraq?

[Burney]

, who is clearly a peace loving man, insisting that the fate of gay people "is not in the hands of humans" as it was “only God who could judge”. A heartfelt condemnation of his son's actions and no mistake.

What the Hadith and Sira say about benders:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

Oh.

Yes. I do find it rather odd listening to people talk about how this bloke was someone who had made a 'radical interpretation of his faith' when in fact he's just someone who has followed the instructions clearly laid out in the Qur'an. :shrug:

It is also quite amusing watching the liberal media jump with desperate relief on the gun laws issue as a means of avoiding or at least downplaying the whole 'he was a raving muslamic nutjob' aspect of the matter.

[The Jorge]

I blame the gays for...errr.....invading Iraq?

Blame whoever you want, but the fact this is the 176th mass shooting of the year would probably point to a slightly wider problem.

[Monty92]

It is also quite amusing watching the liberal media jump with desperate relief on the gun laws issue as a means of avoiding or at least downplaying the whole 'he was a raving muslamic nutjob' aspect of the matter.

You mean exactly as Jorge has done above? :hehe:

[IUFG]

Guns don't kill people, J...

you knows the rest.

[Monty92]

Blame whoever you want, but the fact this is the 176th mass shooting of the year would probably point to a slightly wider problem.

What is the more ‘narrow’ problem, in this instance, in your opinion?

[The Jorge]

Guns don't kill people, J...

you knows the rest.

Trusay, you knows it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vX4ETlCr4A

[Burney]

Blame whoever you want, but the fact this is the 176th mass shooting of the year would probably point to a slightly wider problem.

Well it's a part of several wider problems, really. One is the availability of guns in the US, another is homophobia in general, another is radical Islam, but another is Islam and whether a faithful adherence to all of its tenets is compatible with life in a socially liberal western culture. Focusing on one of those issues does not obviate the others, I'm afraid.

[The Jorge]

What is the more ‘narrow’ problem, in this instance, in your opinion?

You seem to be the expert on the more myopic end of things

[Burney]

You mean exactly as Jorge has done above? :hehe:

Sure, but you expected nothing else, surely?

What I find irritating in these situations is when some muslim cleric immediately pops up to mouth the usual boilerplate condemning the killings and no reporter actually asks them what it is that their holy book actually says about gay people and how they should be dealt with.

[The Jorge]

Well it's a part of several wider problems, really. One is the availability of guns in the US, another is homophobia in general, another is radical Islam, but another is Islam and whether a faithful adherence to all of its tenets is compatible with life in a socially liberal western culture. Focusing on one of those issues does not obviate the others, I'm afraid.

Given he's killed a bunch of people in the middle of the holy month I'm going out on a limb to say he's not the most devout adherent.

[Monty92]

You seem to be the expert on the more myopic end of things

Seriously man, what are your thoughts?

Western foreign policy the likely motive, or simply an entirely non-religious dislike of gayers?

[Monty92]

Sure, but you expected nothing else, surely?

What I find irritating in these situations is when some muslim cleric immediately pops up to mouth the usual boilerplate condemning the killings and no reporter actually asks them what it is that their holy book actually says about gay people and how they should be dealt with.

Yes, like the Imman who used to preach at the same mosque attended by the shooter, expressing his “great sadness” and how he may disapprove of gay people’s lifestyle but they are equally free to disapprove of his.

As if that admission alone is not hugely, hugely problematic.

[Burney]

Given he's killed a bunch of people in the middle of the holy month I'm going out on a limb to say he's not the most devout adherent.

Not really. There's nothing that precludes the pursuit of Jihad during Ramadan. :shrug:

[The Jorge]

Seriously man, what are your thoughts?

Western foreign policy the likely motive, or simply an entirely non-religious dislike of gayers?

It's hard to know really. But he seems to be a religious nutter, not that it makes him alone over there.

[The Jorge]

Not really. There's nothing that precludes the pursuit of Jihad during Ramadan. :shrug:

Kind of one of the big things about Ramadan is that you're on your best behaviour. And you'll know that Jihad is a much wider thing too then, presumably.

[Burney]

Kind of one of the big things about Ramadan is that you're on your best behaviour. And you'll know that Jihad is a much wider thing too then, presumably.

Yes, but since he is explicitly following the instructions laid out by his religion in his actions, he could quite easily have justified his actions as holy and therefore not only not in contravention of Ramadan, but actively in keeping with it.

[The Jorge]

Yes, but since he is explicitly following the instructions laid out by his religion in his actions, he could quite easily have justified his actions as holy and therefore not only not in contravention of Ramadan, but actively in keeping with it.

Sure, though the Quoran is also pretty against killing people in other places. It's a bit like the bible like that.

[IUFG]

Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.

I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?

[The Jorge]

Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.

I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?

That's pretty much the long and the short of it, yes.

[Burney]

Sure, though the Quoran is also pretty against killing people in other places. It's a bit like the bible like that.

Yeah, but that comparative argument with Christianity doesn't really wash, since Christianity is based on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, which explicitly preclude the killing of anyone and are profoundly non-violent. The theology is pretty clear: Christ's teachings and sacrifice represent a new covenant between God and man that overwrites the Old Testament - which I agree is pretty ****ed up in parts. However, the Old Testament is simply not fundamental to Christian faith - whatever the more extreme protestant fundamentalists may pretend - and therefore can offer no meaningful justification for any violent actions by a Christian.

Islam, by contrast, takes all of the Qur'an as the explicit word of God as expressed to his prophet - contradictions and all. Ultimately, Christ's teachings are explicitly and consistently non-violent, while those of Muhammed are not. Pointing to the Old Testament and suggesting that Christians are no better than Muslims in respect of the violence of their doctrine is simply not valid, I'm afraid.

[The Jorge]

Yeah, but that comparative argument with Christianity doesn't really wash, since Christianity is based on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, which explicitly preclude the killing of anyone and are profoundly non-violent. The theology is pretty clear: Christ's teachings and sacrifice represent a new covenant between God and man that overwrites the Old Testament - which I agree is pretty ****ed up in parts. However, the Old Testament is simply not fundamental to Christian faith - whatever the more extreme protestant fundamentalists may pretend - and therefore can offer no meaningful justification for any violent actions by a Christian.

Islam, by contrast, takes all of the Qur'an as the explicit word of God as expressed to his prophet - contradictions and all. Ultimately, Christ's teachings are explicitly and consistently non-violent, while those of Muhammed are not. Pointing to the Old Testament and suggesting that Christians are no better than Muslims in respect of the violence of their doctrine is simply not valid, I'm afraid.

No, but whilst it might not be valid for you to draw those conclusions empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Most religions, no matter how peacefully they're written, tend to have an element of violence which is cultural. Christ, even the Bhagavad Gita takes place on a battlefield.

[Burney]

Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.

I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?

The Qu'ran is only about 1,300 years old. The New Testament is between 400 and 600 years older and offers no justifications for killing whatsoever. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'; 'Judge not lest ye be judged'; 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord'; ' - all of these explicitly demand that Christians do not even pass judgment, let alone perpetrate violence.

There is no such prohibition in Islam - quite the reverse, in fact.

[Burney]

No, but whilst it might not be valid for you to draw those conclusions empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Most religions, no matter how peacefully they're written, tend to have an element of violence which is cultural. Christ, even the Bhagavad Gita takes place on a battlefield.

You're confusing human nature and doctrine, I'm afraid. The fact that Christians can and do behave violently does not invalidate the fundamentally pacifist nature of their doctrine. All Christian arguments for Just War - let alone Crusade - are ultimately undercut by the explicit teachings of Christ. By contrast, it is easy for Muslims to find explicit justification for violence, conquering and enslavement in the doctrines of their religion.
Thus, while you may blame Christians for their violence, you cannot legitimately blame Christianity. By contrast, it is entirely valid to lay much of the blame for the violence of Muslims at the door of Islam itself.

[The Jorge]

You're confusing human nature and doctrine, I'm afraid. The fact that Christians can and do behave violently does not invalidate the fundamentally pacifist nature of their doctrine. All Christian arguments for Just War - let alone Crusade - are ultimately undercut by the explicit teachings of Christ. By contrast, it is easy for Muslims to find explicit justification for violence, conquering and enslavement in the doctrines of their religion.
Thus, while you may blame Christians for their violence, you cannot legitimately blame Christianity. By contrast, it is entirely valid to lay much of the blame for the violence of Muslims at the door of Islam itself.

So any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, not to mention slavery since you brought it up, is automatically OK because the new testament is against that sort of thing? Wheras anything carried out in the name of islam isnt as it's equivocal about it?

It's almost as if you're starting from a point of double standards and assembling a backwardly compatible justification from there.

[Burney]

So any violence carried out in the name of Christianity, not to mention slavery since you brought it up, is automatically OK because the new testament is against that sort of thing? Wheras anything carried out in the name of islam isnt as it's equivocal about it?

It's almost as if you're starting from a point of double standards and assembling a backwardly compatible justification from there.

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Nowhere have I said any religious violence is OK - that's simply a slur you've chosen to throw at me for some reason.

Christianity has certainly been abused and used as a justification for all sorts of dreadful things - from anti-semitic persecution to the Crusades and God knows what else. However, none of those justifications stands up for a moment when you actually look at the teachings of Christ. Any justification for 'Christian' violence requires monumental levels of sophistry and self-delusion such as those practised by St Thomas Aquinas in his 'Just War' nonsense. Such efforts are notable for their transparently self-serving attempts to ignore or circumvent Christ's rather inconveniently explicit strictures against all and any violence.

Where Islam differs is that it does not require any effort of sophistry on the part of those seeking to justify 'Islamic' violence to do so. Much of it is there in black and white not merely justifying violence, enslavement and subjugation of unbelievers, but actively encouraging and even demanding it.

That is the point I am making - that Christianity's doctrine is explicitly non-violent and Islam's is explicitly not. And therein, I'm afraid, lies both a fundamental problem with Islam and the reason why it is not valid to draw equivalency between the respective holy texts of Christianity and Islam.

The question is not whether people will always find some justification for their violence. That, unfortunately, is a given. The question is whether these two religions explicitly offer such justifications. One doesn't, while the other clearly does.

[Norn Iron]

Did anyone see the Sky News segment where the look at the Newspaper headlines? They had a gay bloke on and he stormed off the set in a huff.

[Burney]

Did anyone see the Sky News segment where the look at the Newspaper headlines? They had a gay bloke on and he stormed off the set in a huff.

Yeah, that was Owen Jones. Wasn't really sure what his issue was. He wanted them to call it a homophobic attack, which of course it was, but seemed not to realise that the point was that it was more than just a homophobic attack.

In other words, he wanted to ride his particular hobby horse while conveniently ignoring other issues.

[The Jorge]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Nowhere have I said any religious violence is OK - that's simply a slur you've chosen to throw at me for some reason.

Christianity has certainly been abused and used as a justification for all sorts of dreadful things - from anti-semitic persecution to the Crusades and God knows what else. However, none of those justifications stands up for a moment when you actually look at the teachings of Christ. Any justification for 'Christian' violence requires monumental levels of sophistry and self-delusion such as those practised by St Thomas Aquinas in his 'Just War' nonsense. Such efforts are notable for their transparently self-serving attempts to ignore or circumvent Christ's rather inconveniently explicit strictures against all and any violence.

Where Islam differs is that it does not require any effort of sophistry on the part of those seeking to justify 'Islamic' violence to do so. Much of it is there in black and white not merely justifying violence, enslavement and subjugation of unbelievers, but actively encouraging and even demanding it.

That is the point I am making - that Christianity's doctrine is explicitly non-violent and Islam's is explicitly not. And therein, I'm afraid, lies both a fundamental problem with Islam and the reason why it is not valid to draw equivalency between the respective holy texts of Christianity and Islam.

The question is not whether people will always find some justification for their violence. That, unfortunately, is a given. The question is whether these two religions explicitly offer such justifications. One doesn't, while the other clearly does.

Does it really matter whether the bits you've chosen to include/preclude say whether they're cool with it or not? There's clearly all sorts of deaths from either flavour.

[Ash]

Now, I have not read either of these 2,000+ year old guidebooks of how to conduct oneself.

I take it both say killing someone is a generally a bad thing. Are there appendices which list when it is actually acceptable?

Much of the book of Deuteronomy. Though, as has been pointed out, the OT is full of nasty stuff completely with odds of what Christianity is supposed to be about, and the NT supercedes all the rules of acceptable smiting and slavery and raping.

At this point we need the Ganpati chap to expound his theory that what Jesus was preaching was the Eastern philosophy he'd learned in the 'wilderness'. I find it quite plausible really, seeing as the OT seems so obviously a handbook of the leadership of a primative tribal culture where stuff was generally done according to violence, then along comes Jesus saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change. Radical stuff.

[Ash]

Does it really matter whether the bits you've chosen to include/preclude say whether they're cool with it or not? There's clearly all sorts of deaths from either flavour.

I can see why you say that it doesn't make a difference, historically, as there has been much smiting in the name of both religions, but in a contemporary context, and with some exceptions, Christianity in a modern secular and liberal society does seem the more chilled and tolerant brand, certainly when it comes to bumders. Let's face it, happy-clappy Christians sitting in a circle with acoustic guitars are pretty gay.

[Pokster]

Much of the book of Deuteronomy. Though, as has been pointed out, the OT is full of nasty stuff completely with odds of what Christianity is supposed to be about, and the NT supercedes all the rules of acceptable smiting and slavery and raping.

At this point we need the Ganpati chap to expound his theory that what Jesus was preaching was the Eastern philosophy he'd learned in the 'wilderness'. I find it quite plausible really, seeing as the OT seems so obviously a handbook of the leadership of a primative tribal culture where stuff was generally done according to violence, then along comes Jesus saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change. Radical stuff.

Didn't the Bible start mass genocide with a sodding great big flood that was meant to kill practically everything?

[The Jorge]

I can see why you say that it doesn't make a difference, historically, as there has been much smiting in the name of both religions, but in a contemporary context, and with some exceptions, Christianity in a modern secular and liberal society does seem the more chilled and tolerant brand, certainly when it comes to bumders. Let's face it, happy-clappy Christians sitting in a circle with acoustic guitars are pretty gay.

Yeah, but then again the guys protesting, and in some cases nailbombing/shooting up abortion clinics, arent exactly chilled, godly types.

[Ash]

Didn't the Bible start mass genocide with a sodding great big flood that was meant to kill practically everything?

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

[The Jorge]

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

No, all that stuff doesnt count because Jeebus came along and he was all like a hippy and stuff.

Which would completely invalidate the following 1900 years of christianity, but there you go.

[Burney]

Kind-of sets the tone, doesn't it?

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

I've always liked the way the Noah story is told as a really kid-friendly Bible story (cuddly animals, etc), with no-one apparently seeming to notice that it represents God as a capricious, indiscriminate psychopath who, like a spoiled toddler, decides to smash up his toy because it's not doing what he wants, causing the deaths of (presumably) millions - and loads of innocent animals (except the fish, of course - they get off the hook entirely, as it were).

I appreciate that this is hardly an original sentiment, but it is amazing how quick churches are to use this frankly terrifying story to suck in kids. Even more terrifying is how successful they are in doing so.

[Burney]

No, all that stuff doesnt count because Jeebus came along and he was all like a hippy and stuff.

Which would completely invalidate the following 1900 years of christianity, but there you go.

So you don't accept that there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments? Or that Christianity is based on one and not the other?

You don't seem to understand much about Christianity, if I may say so.

[The Jorge]

So you don't accept that there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments? Or that Christianity is based on one and not the other?

You don't seem to understand much about Christianity, if I may say so.

I think you missed the point here. I was saying that Christians tend to miss the point of most of the teachings of the NT. Ironic, given their name and all, but there you go.

[The Jorge]

I've always liked the way the Noah story is told as a really kid-friendly Bible story (cuddly animals, etc), with no-one apparently seeming to notice that it represents God as a capricious, indiscriminate psychopath who, like a spoiled toddler, decides to smash up his toy because it's not doing what he wants, causing the deaths of (presumably) millions - and loads of innocent animals (except the fish, of course - they get off the hook entirely, as it were).

I appreciate that this is hardly an original sentiment, but it is amazing how quick churches are to use this frankly terrifying story to suck in kids. Even more terrifying is how successful they are in doing so.

It's Job that gets me, poor lad was properly bantered off by Him.

"Oi, job, if you really love me you'll lob your kid off a mountain"

Job takes his kid up the mountain and goes to chuck him off.

"Aaaaaaaaaaah, Job you mug!"

[Burney]

I think you missed the point here. I was saying that Christians tend to miss the point of most of the teachings of the NT. Ironic, given their name and all, but there you go.

Oh, I wouldn't disagree. But that's humans for you - arseholes, basically.

The point is, however, that Christians are arseholes in spite of the teachings of Christ, whereas muslims are arseholes because of - or at least with the blessing of - the teachings of Muhammed.

[The Jorge]

Oh, I wouldn't disagree. But that's humans for you - arseholes, basically.

The point is, however, that Christians are arseholes in spite of the teachings of Christ, whereas muslims are arseholes because of - or at least with the blessing of - the teachings of Muhammed.

I'm not entirely sure what's better though. Or why we seem to be arguing about it.

[The Jorge]

It's Job that gets me, poor lad was properly bantered off by Him.

"Oi, job, if you really love me you'll lob your kid off a mountain"

Job takes his kid up the mountain and goes to chuck him off.

"Aaaaaaaaaaah, Job you mug!"

Also, Job:

https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gob1.jpg

[Burney]

It's Job that gets me, poor lad was properly bantered off by Him.

"Oi, job, if you really love me you'll lob your kid off a mountain"

Job takes his kid up the mountain and goes to chuck him off.

"Aaaaaaaaaaah, Job you mug!"

Ah, now, you've got your stories mixed up there. It was Abraham that God told to sacrifice his son Isaac and then stopped him. God (via Satan) just killed all of Job's sons.

That's right - Abraham. The chief patriarch of all the peoples of the Book was quite happy to slaughter his son because God told him to. It's been pretty much downhill since then, really. :-(

[The Jorge]

Ah, now, you've got your stories mixed up there. It was Abraham that God told to sacrifice his son Isaac and then stopped him. God (via Satan) just killed all of Job's sons.

That's right - Abraham. The chief patriarch of all the peoples of the Book was quite happy to slaughter his son because God told him to. It's been pretty much downhill since then, really. :-(

Oh yeah, I should listen to Bob Dylan lyrics more closely :music: :Highway61:

[Burney]

Oh yeah, I should listen to Bob Dylan lyrics more closely :music: :Highway61:

Yes, Hurricane, you should. :hehe:

[Ash]

Oh yeah, I should listen to Bob Dylan lyrics more closely :music: :Highway61:

i thought you said you'd read the bible. Hmmm?

Not paying much attention, if you were. :judge:

[The Jorge]

Yes, Hurricane, you should. :hehe:

In my defence, well just that really

[The Jorge]

i thought you said you'd read the bible. Hmmm?

Not paying much attention, if you were. :judge:

Listen mate, you have to get past all the begatting first. There's a lot of begatting.

Like your mum

[eastgermanautos]

Yes. I do find it rather odd listening to people talk about how this bloke was someone who had made a 'radical interpretation of his faith' when in fact he's just someone who has followed the instructions clearly laid out in the Qur'an. :shrug:

It is also quite amusing watching the liberal media jump with desperate relief on the gun laws issue as a means of avoiding or at least downplaying the whole 'he was a raving muslamic nutjob' aspect of the matter.

Ah, but you see, there's the complication of the issue. Many right wing people clearly have no problem with the fate meted out to the gays. The Texas lieutenant government tweeted, 'reap what you sow,' before taking it down again.

On the one hand, they call for arming all peoples. On the other, it's not desirable to arm the gays, who should be mowed down like sheep. It's a bit of a pickle actually.

[eastgermanautos]

Yes, but since he is explicitly following the instructions laid out by his religion in his actions, he could quite easily have justified his actions as holy and therefore not only not in contravention of Ramadan, but actively in keeping with it.

Good God, man! The old and new testaments are full of killin'. Smiting this, whacking that. Actually they don't say 'whack.' That was me.

[eastgermanautos]

Yeah, but that comparative argument with Christianity doesn't really wash, since Christianity is based on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ, which explicitly preclude the killing of anyone and are profoundly non-violent. The theology is pretty clear: Christ's teachings and sacrifice represent a new covenant between God and man that overwrites the Old Testament - which I agree is pretty ****ed up in parts. However, the Old Testament is simply not fundamental to Christian faith - whatever the more extreme protestant fundamentalists may pretend - and therefore can offer no meaningful justification for any violent actions by a Christian.

Islam, by contrast, takes all of the Qur'an as the explicit word of God as expressed to his prophet - contradictions and all. Ultimately, Christ's teachings are explicitly and consistently non-violent, while those of Muhammed are not. Pointing to the Old Testament and suggesting that Christians are no better than Muslims in respect of the violence of their doctrine is simply not valid, I'm afraid.

You're incorrect. The new testament is not an overlay of the old testament, redacting large portions of the OT. It is an interpretation of the old testament, an attempt to inscribe the older messages within new teaching. This is how it was understood in the high points of Christianity's growth: as in, for example, the high middle ages. Those same periods did a ****-ton of crusading.

[Chief Arrowhead]

Ah, but you see, there's the complication of the issue. Many right wing people clearly have no problem with the fate meted out to the gays. The Texas lieutenant government tweeted, 'reap what you sow,' before taking it down again.

On the one hand, they call for arming all peoples. On the other, it's not desirable to arm the gays, who should be mowed down like sheep. It's a bit of a pickle actually.

Actually, EGA, the guy regularly sends out Bible verse tweets on an automated schedule every Sunday morning. This one happened to be an unfortunate coincidence. Nice job extrapolating that into "ALL" right wingers hate gays and want them dead.

[eastgermanautos]

Actually, EGA, the guy regularly sends out Bible verse tweets on an automated schedule every Sunday morning. This one happened to be an unfortunate coincidence. Nice job extrapolating that into "ALL" right wingers hate gays and want them dead.

Why thank you. ;-) Just playin' man, you know that.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I would like to see the shooter, his father, his wife and his son all executed.

[IUFG]

Seems a bit harsh, imo

[SWv2]

I don't think the Bible touches at all on killing bufties, unless maybe it is Old Testament.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Yes. I do find it rather odd listening to people talk about how this bloke was someone who had made a 'radical interpretation of his faith' when in fact he's just someone who has followed the instructions clearly laid out in the Qur'an. :shrug:

It is also quite amusing watching the liberal media jump with desperate relief on the gun laws issue as a means of avoiding or at least downplaying the whole 'he was a raving muslamic nutjob' aspect of the matter.


Or, perhaps it has absolutely nothing to do with his or any other religion!