quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
Good thing none of the victims had their own firearm available or there is no telling how many more people could have been killed.

---

Probably hundreds
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
And how were they able to subvert France's regulations against such firearms? Incredible.

Good thing none of the victims had their own firearm available or there is no telling how many more people could have been killed.

---

I'm glad our secretary packs heat.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Amazing! Back to the Dead Horse in all but name in just a handful of posts.

For what it's worth I reckon these jihadists (I'm pretty sure that's what they are) simply want to worsen relations between ethnic and religious groups. It's simple enough anyway, but this gives another push.
 

---

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
They want to produce an over reaction from the authorities as a recruiting tool. They want "us"
vs "them". No middle ground.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Barbarism and attitudes which belong to the Dark Ages meet modern communications and weapons
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I have a horrible suspicion that what is going on with all these people is that really they are just the same as the sort who carry out school shootings, but have found what seems to them to be a guilt squashing self persuasion for it.

---

I had an interesting conversation with a westernized Moslem some years ago. What was said stuck with me. He referred to the western soldiers coming to villages, and to the dropping of bombs intended to kill the insurgents. He had experience of collateral damage to people who were not combatants, insurgents or irregular soldiers. The killed in his experience included some relatives, and included children. He thought it was rather odd that western countries would be surprised by the killing of people within our countries. He was clear that combatants should be targetted; troublingly, his discussion also included that the Pentagon attack on 11 Sept 2001 was entirely reasonable, though the civilian targets were not.

The Paris attacks are not within the bounds of his discussion, but I found myself in difficulty responding to his tit-for-tat idea of returning suffering, killing and violence to us, and the implied necessity to bring civilian suffering to western countries as suggested within human reciprocity. Not having the military apparatus to drop bombs, the countries we bomb were said to need to use resources at hand, including persons resident within our countries who were 'enlightened' enough to do so.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
European security forces 'pack heat' too - there was a gun battle with the attackers outside the newspaper offices. Unfortunately, unlike in Hollywood films, the bad guys were quicker on the draw ...



If you 'give' us Paris, we can 'give' you Ferguson and any other number of appalling US firearms incidents - both civilian and involving the security forces.



But this isn't a time for cross-Pond point scoring, it's a time for mourning and reflection.

What did the terrorists want to achieve?

Well, according to reports I've read on the BBC online they were heard to shout that 'Mohammed had been avenged' - so partly it was undoubtedly a visceral form of protest at what they've taken as unforgivable insults against their faith.

I'd also suggest that part of the reason was also to divide people and get them arguing among themselves. As we could potentially do on this thread if we indulge in Dead House type one-up-manship about whose gun laws are the best - and I'll readily admit that I've been as guilty of that as others ...



What do the terrorists expect to achieve?

Well, terror, disruption, fear ...

All these things and more. They are driven by the kind of fear and intolerance on which fundamentalism thrives.

It's another sad day.

For the victims and all caught up in this tragedy ...


 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've altered my opinion on this particular incident, having read, from someone who seemed to know of what he spoke, that they moved like "professionals" and could handle the weapons, apparently not easy to master, with the skill to place successive shots close together.
Worrying.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... from what I've been told though, it doesn't take a great deal of skill to use a Kalashnikov in a confined space - which is what I'm assuming the killers were using. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of the investigation.

The fact that they were able to escape so readily is worrying though - but then, it's not as if these incidents happen every day. This is France's worst terrorist incident since 1961 - although that was a bomb on a train and not a shooting incident.

I agree it's a worrying development, though, it obviously required meticulous planning and wasn't any kind of random incident but a highly planned and targeted one.
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


If you 'give' us Paris, we can 'give' you Ferguson

---

Sort of apples and oranges there….

In Ferguson, a violent criminal and drug user assaulted a police officer and was justifiably killed.

In Paris, 12 innocent people were systematically targeted and killed by religious fanatics with illegal weapons.

In Ferguson, the proper and legal use of a firearm prevented a criminal from continuing to victimize innocent people in his community.

In Paris, the cop executed on the sidewalk was either unarmed, separated from his weapon, or never drew it in the first place.

No cross-pond points attempted here, but more legal weapons in the area could only have helped.

It is a sad day for Paris, and every freedom loving person in the world.

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Even if Ferguson were a bad example I could give you plenty of others ... not to mention all the statistics about accidental deaths from legally held firearms in the US.

But that's not the point here.

I'm not taking a cheap swipe at the 2nd Amendment. It made sense in a US context when it was made. Whether it still makes sense - at least as it's currently applied - is a moot point and one for you guys to decide not us over here.

We have different systems - and we need to respect those.

I'd respect your 2nd Amendment more if you didn't presume to tell us that we ought to have more legal firearms on the streets, just as I'm sure you'd respect European views more if we didn't presume to tell you how to run your affairs.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
We don't yet know if the shooters were actually Moslems. They may well have been, but anyone can say the appropriate things. Sometimes, people want to stir things up for other reasons than the obvious.
 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
Good thing none of the victims had their own firearm available or there is no telling how many more people could have been killed.

---

Probably hundreds

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
In Paris, the cop executed on the sidewalk was either unarmed, separated from his weapon, or never drew it in the first place.

No cross-pond points attempted here, but more legal weapons in the area could only have helped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
By not being offensive.

Je suis Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
By not being offensive.

Je suis Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

As outlined in Hell, while I believe it is legitimate to impose at least some restrictions on the capacity of people to be offensive, the remedy against someone who causes offense is an angry letter, a boycott or a defamation case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
By not being offensive.

Je suis Muslim.

---

Islam offends me. Does that mean Muslims have to drop it?

---

But does Islam bring you shame? That's the major paradigm shift between western culture and Muslim/Middle Eastern culture: right vs. wrong in the west and honor vs. shame in the ME.

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

Truly a horrible event, prayers for all affected and for the country of France.



 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
But does Islam bring you shame? That's the major paradigm shift between western culture and Muslim/Middle Eastern culture: right vs. wrong in the west and honor vs. shame in the ME.

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
But does Islam bring you shame? That's the major paradigm shift between western culture and Muslim/Middle Eastern culture: right vs. wrong in the west and honor vs. shame in the ME.

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

---

Wow. I doubt I could get my head around such a thought process where doing something like that would bring honor to something I valued.

The Amish look better every day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

As outlined in Hell, while I believe it is legitimate to impose at least some restrictions on the capacity of people to be offensive, the remedy against someone who causes offense is an angry letter, a boycott or a defamation case.

---

I can understand you writing an angry letter or boycotting me if I offend you but not a defamation case. There would be no reason for government to get involved, especially if what offends you is my honestly held belief.

---

quote:

---

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by irish_lord99

quote:

---

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

---

1. The cartoons in question didn't 'shame' Mohammed, they poked fun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
2. You are guessing the motives of the attackers - the only reported words they spoke were 'Allahu akbar' (God is great) and requests to know if they were in the right offices.

The OP asked 'Why?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[...] Depicting Mohammed at all is shaming him. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I do think that in a world increasingly connected with information technology we are going to have to find a way to 'make this work'.

I don't know what that is, but viciously attacking Mohammed must be understood to be a dangerous endeavor and I would not encourage anyone to do for the sake of artistic ideology without being aware of the very real danger involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
For a free society to exist, the right to speak your mind without fear of violent reprisal must be non-negotiable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I do think that in a world increasingly connected with information technology we are going to have to find a way to 'make this work'.

I don't know what that is, but viciously attacking Mohammed must be understood to be a dangerous endeavor and I would not encourage anyone to do for the sake of artistic ideology without being aware of the very real danger involved.

---

I see it in the reverse. If attacking Mohammed is a dangerous endeavor, then Islam is a dangerous ideology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If anyone decides to drop the peaceful limb, it ceases to be an opinion, and society must do all in its power to restrain them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
2. You are guessing the motives of the attackers - the only reported words they spoke were 'Allahu akbar' (God is great) and requests to know if they were in the right offices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Lets put it this way: if there is a dark alley on the 'wrong side of town' with lots of gang activity, I'm not going to walk down that alley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Lets put it this way: if there is a dark alley on the 'wrong side of town' with lots of gang activity, I'm not going to walk down that alley.

---

And then the question becomes "is it important that you are able to walk down that alley?"

If we're talking about one isolated alley in a place where nobody really wants to go, perhaps its not worth getting too excited about.

If we're talking about many such alleys, or a spreading area full of bad alleys, then we get "reclaim the night" marches and such, and we increase police patrols in the area of the bad alleys, we install better street lights, and generally try to make life difficult for alley-lurkers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Fair enough, which leads me back to "What actual, practical solutions do you propose to this problem?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It might help to include in the proposed public education good info about the conditions in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is not a joke there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If anyone decides to drop the peaceful limb, it ceases to be an opinion, and society must do all in its power to restrain them.

---

I've no ideological quarrel with that statement, but what actually, practically do you propose we do? Bombs, drones and sanctions don't seem to be working.

---

Pretty much what RAID are doing as we type, just something we shouldn't let up on.

I hope the suspects survive their attentions to experience the joys of la garde à vue dans une enquête pour terrorisme.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
it's a fact that the majority of terrorists are Muslims, at least in the conflicts we get to hear about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
While deploring what has happened, nevertheless I also deplore the actions of people who think it ok to poke fun at other's beliefs whether in cartoons or a film about killing a country's leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the world leaders and holy men of Islam want to show the world that Islam means peace, they need to lance the boil of extremism by emphasising that this isn't what their faith stands for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What you really mean is that no-one ever really emphasised for you the religion of the Tamil Tigers, or the Shining Path, or the Colombian drug gangs, or the Mexican drug gangs, or (surprisingly) the Ku Klux Klan, or Timothy McVeigh, or the North Korean government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
While deploring what has happened, nevertheless I also deplore the actions of people who think it ok to poke fun at other's beliefs whether in cartoons or a film about killing a country's leader. This is nothing to do with the right to freedom of the press etc, but rather an attempt to be deliberately provocative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Any religion, philosophy or ideology which lends itself to that kind of behaviour has something seriously wrong at its very heart, and it needs to be changed from within.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't listen to them doing it. Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem blissfully unaware that a large part of the atheistic secular West views Christianity in exactly the same light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't listen to them doing it. Why not?

---

I do listen, I hear it all the time. But why is it only Muslims who do what happened yesterday, out of all the people lampooned by this publication? Why, after the Pope's Regensberg lecture, did they aggressively picket Westminster Cathedral to try and prove they aren't violent? Why do they knock an old man in his seventies to the ground in Whitechapel because he isn't interested in their leaflets and has the courage to say so? There's something wrong at the heart that needs to change.

---

quote:

---

There are striking parallels between the white supremacists and the religiously motivated Islamic Shi’a fanatics in the Middle East. Both groups transform abstract political ideologies and objectives into a religious imperative. Violence is not only sanctioned, it is divinely decreed. Hence, the killing of persons described as 'infidels' by extremist Shi’a or as ‘children of Satan’ by the white supremacists thus becomes a sacramental act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't listen to them doing it. Why not?

---

I do listen, I hear it all the time. But why is it only Muslims who do what happened yesterday, out of all the people lampooned by this publication? Why, after the Pope's Regensberg lecture, did they aggressively picket Westminster Cathedral to try and prove they aren't violent? Why do they knock an old man in his seventies to the ground in Whitechapel because he isn't interested in their leaflets and has the courage to say so? There's something wrong at the heart that needs to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Any religion, philosophy or ideology which lends itself to that kind of behaviour has something seriously wrong at its very heart, and it needs to be changed from within.

---

You seem blissfully unaware that a large part of the atheistic secular West views Christianity in exactly the same light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Society is becoming far, far too easily offended by satire and humourous mocking. It is essential that we are able to mock leaders, be they political, religious or otherwise.

Along the other route lies dictatorship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Any religion, philosophy or ideology which lends itself to that kind of behaviour has something seriously wrong at its very heart, and it needs to be changed from within.

---

You seem blissfully unaware that a large part of the atheistic secular West views Christianity in exactly the same light.

---

The point is that this is okay as far as Christians are concerned. It's a matter for debate with grumpy atheists and secularists. The belligerence of Islam should similarly be up for debate. A telling case can be made against Islam that in significant parts of its history and theology it is predisposed towards violence. That is not to say that Muslims are violent.

---

Yes, it can be up for debate, so long as it's not treated like some kind of special case. Which is exactly what happens when the conversation starts as "there must be something particular about Islam...", as if Christianity doesn't have to face a history of conquering vast swathes of the globe.

For starters, some people managed to take the words of Jesus and find in them a justification for their ambitions to almost completely wipe out the native cultures of the Americas.

[ 08. January 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Ship’s resident Parisian here, reporting in safe and well. I was out at a work dinner last night, so missed a lot of the goings-on on the street, but it is being talked about everywhere, not least because we are now on the highest state of terrorist alert. This will directly impact on us going about our daily business until the perpetrators are apprehended.

People here are deeply shocked. Paris intra muros is a relatively small place in geographical terms, so it feels rather risky at the moment. There’s really no way to avoid getting on the public transport, but I think a lot of us are looking over our shoulders.

I too am wondering where the hell these people got AK47s from. I mean, AK47s? In the middle of Paris? Firearms are pretty rare in France, even in the dodgier suburbs, although many police are indeed armed (not all of them I don’t think). On the whole in Paris, around major security targets like railway stations and the Eiffel Tower, you are more likely to see armed soldiers patrolling than armed police. Nonetheless, I agree that using this incident as a basis to discuss mass gun ownership is very much missing the point. Like I said, AK47s?

Beyond that, I think people do see it as an attack on the values of the French Republic itself, rather than just an attack on a particular magazine. I get a general feeling from people of “this sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen in France”. Satire has a long history in France, and as Boogie pointed out, a publication like Charlie was just as likely to take a pop at the Pope as at the Islamic State. I wasn’t surprised to see everyone taking to the streets last night. Taking to the streets is just what French people do.

Generally this morning I’m feeling rather depressed about the state of the country. AFAICT, Marine Lepen and her odious National Front have at least had the decency to keep their mouths shut for the time being, but I can’t see it lasting. She’s too much of an opportunistic populist for that (and by the way I despise her very much). Down our way in the South-West, the National Front is very popular, and I would say the major reason is economic depression and especially unemployment. In a very confused sort of way, I feel like France’s big problem on all sides of the fence is disaffected young men of all ethnicities who can’t find a job.

#jesuischarlie
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
There are a lot of issues here - one I don't see mentioned much is that democracies are remarkably vulnerable to this kind of attack - in that the temptation is always to expand the police state to protect citizens, and very soon we gravitate towards a police state. This was one pillar of communist policy in the cold war, intending to make the state so despised that people wanted to have a revolution. Wrt so-called islamic terrorists, they don;t need to make everyone despise the state - only to make the state (and its citizens) despise moslems enough so that they recruit more and more people who normally would not have been radicalised. There is no goal other than perpetual war. It's a nihilist doctrine based on a distorted reading of "jihad".

Also, "free speech" seems to be devoid of any sense of concomitant responsibility. Just because responsibility and reasonable behaviour are difficult to write into Law doesn't mean they no longer matter.

Somewhere behind all that is also a lot of oil money from the Wahabists. I believe, rightly or not, that America doesn't tackle this because Oil has bought out a substantial proportion of the US economy (to whom is the $trillion US debt owed to?), and an ugly pointless phoney war is preferable to economic meltdown. There's probably some quasi-Christian apocalyptic millennialism in there somewhere too for good measure. It's a mess.

Love is the answer. The question will take far too long to unravel, and is somewhat snake-like.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Good to hear from you, LVER.

I'm afraid I very much get the impression automatic weapons are relatively easy to come by here.

I broadly agree with the rest of your analysis, except to say I'm most depressed by how many Christians on French evo websites (you can guess which ones) are taking the "this is what happens when you let the Muslims in" line even before any politician does. This is playing into the terrorists' hands. I repeat my contention that this is primarily political, in much the same way the Northern Ireland question is.

Off now to observe the minute's silence with the staff of the prison where I'm chaplain. It takes courage to be wearing a uniform in France right now.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Random thought while making dinner: Christians handle mockery of Christians fairly well, but things get far more heated if Christians think that Jesus is being mocked.

All of the major controversies I can think of relate specifically to depictions of the religion's founder.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem blissfully unaware that a large part of the atheistic secular West views Christianity in exactly the same light.

---

I don't defend the history of Christianity. It can at least rival Islam in its evil treatment of dissenters. Nor do I have any more sympathy for Christian fundamentalism than I have for Islam, except that we're unlikely to get bombed or shot by anyone from the local evengelical church! But the values that France, the UK and many other Western countries espouse, democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law are, to me, centuries ahead of any Islamic country I can think of, where democracy and their way of life are incompatible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Also, "free speech" seems to be devoid of any sense of concomitant responsibility. Just because responsibility and reasonable behaviour are difficult to write into Law doesn't mean they no longer matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, it can be up for debate, so long as it's not treated like some kind of special case. Which is exactly what happens when the conversation starts as "there must be something particular about Islam...", as if Christianity doesn't have to face a history of conquering vast swathes of the globe.

For starters, some people managed to take the words of Jesus and find in them a justification for their ambitions to almost completely wipe out the native cultures of the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I missed the bit asserting that Islamic countries can't be democracies, which is just flat out wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
The constant comparisons to Christianity’s past (and even to contemporary examples of non-violent Christian fundamentalism) is to evade the point and ignore responsibility.

---

quote:

---

So let’s get it out of the way – everyone behaves badly, every single ideology and belief system however peaceful and harmonious can be abused, and misused for political and other reasons.

---

quote:

---

And now can we talk about Islamism and its own brand of terrorism which in some respects is unique and particularly atrocious.

---

quote:

---

We should be asking searching questions of Muslim scholars in the light of these events? Including specific questions. Does the taboo on images of Muhammad apply to non-muslims as a limitation on free speech? If yes, what other aspects of sharia law apply to non-muslims? If no, can we see some pressure on Muslim states to stop persecuting non-muslim minorities with blasphemy laws.

---

quote:

---

And there are more general issues. There is a relationship between belief/theology and violence as well as other factors which come into play in Islamist terrorism. The theological includes the Qu’ran’s violent verses. But also the alliance of faith with power in the blueprint of the Islamic state. There are very few resources in Islamic theology for separating mosque and state or clerics and the judiciary. I tend to think that’s generally a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

It’s silly, in my opinion, to ignore the theological basis to violence. The end to Islamist violence lies both in effective policing but also in a change of hearts and minds - politics, theologies and spiritualities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I missed the bit asserting that Islamic countries can't be democracies, which is just flat out wrong.

---

Just to be clear that you aren't referring to any of my posts. I've never said that a muslim-majority country can't be democratic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sure it's unique, because there's always a bit of a flavour of the underlying worldview that manages to seep through the basic disdain for one's fellow human beings that's required to be a terrorist. I'm not sure why you think it's particularly atrocious, other than because it's the one currently gaining our attention and worry.

---

quote:

---

I already know the answer to some of those questions in the case of some countries. It's well established in Malaysia, for example, that there are sharia laws that only apply to the Muslim Malay population and not to the Chinese population.

---

quote:

---

General issues which, of course, took Christianity just as long to solve. You do realise you're living in a country where the head of the state and the head of the church are one and the same person? She might not wield that much personal influence these days, but that position is an indication of the legacy where the monarch had state power on the grounds of being divinely appointed.

---

quote:

---

No argument there, which is why I think it's so important that there are theologically based deradicalisation programs the world over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
This atrocity was committed by muslims because they were muslims - we know that because they shouted 'Allahu akbar'.

Don't invent 'reasons' for this murderous binge: the people killed were shot because they weren't muslim, the people who did the killing did so because they are muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't invent 'reasons' for this murderous binge: the people killed were shot because they weren't muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Responsibility and reasonable behavior are irrelevant here unless your intention is to react to an attack on free speech by limiting free speech. We all have to live with the fact that satire and criticism is sometimes vile, vicious, and over-the-top. There are already laws which deal with incitement, defamation/libel etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't invent 'reasons' for this murderous binge: the people killed were shot because they weren't muslim, the people who did the killing did so because they are muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
This atrocity was committed by muslims because they were muslims - we know that because they shouted 'Allahu akbar'.

Don't invent 'reasons' for this murderous binge: the people killed were shot because they weren't muslim, the people who did the killing did so because they are muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sure it's unique, because there's always a bit of a flavour of the underlying worldview that manages to seep through the basic disdain for one's fellow human beings that's required to be a terrorist. I'm not sure why you think it's particularly atrocious, other than because it's the one currently gaining our attention and worry.

---

The point I was making about evading the point is that by always saying 'it's not anything to do with Islam', or look at what Christians have done, you don't actually resolve the problems because you don't ever admit that there are any. Clearly there are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Are you seriously saying there isn't anything particularly atrocious about beheadings, massacres, crucifixions, suicide bombings on public transport and aiming airliners into buildings? That's like saying there wasn't anything atrocious about the gas chambers, or the use of machetes in the Rwandan genocide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Are you seriously saying there isn't anything particularly atrocious about beheadings, massacres, crucifixions, suicide bombings on public transport and aiming airliners into buildings? That's like saying there wasn't anything atrocious about the gas chambers, or the use of machetes in the Rwandan genocide.

---

I'm saying that there's no basis for characterising beheadings by Muslims as somehow particular atrocious as compared to Christians running gas chambers or using machetes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Are you seriously saying there isn't anything particularly atrocious about beheadings, massacres, crucifixions, suicide bombings on public transport and aiming airliners into buildings? That's like saying there wasn't anything atrocious about the gas chambers, or the use of machetes in the Rwandan genocide.

---

I'm saying that there's no basis for characterising beheadings by Muslims as somehow particular atrocious as compared to Christians running gas chambers or using machetes.

---

I never made such a characterisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

This is completely false logic. How does saying "Islam is not the problem" equate with saying "there's no problem"?

It's the utterly simplistic nature of declaring that Islam IS the problem that I'm arguing against here. Because, as I've said, declaring that Islam is the problem doesn't explain why terrorism isn't equally distributed across the Muslim world. It just ISN'T. You simply don't get these sorts of people generated across the length and breadth of the Muslim world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
This atrocity was committed by muslims because they were muslims - we know that because they shouted 'Allahu akbar'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
But to ignore connections between some strands and interpretations of Islam and terrorism is stupid.

---

My problem is with asserting that those connections are somehow meaningfully causative. You have acknowledged that "every single ideology and belief system however peaceful and harmonious can be abused, and misused for political and other reasons".

So where is the basis, when looking at the connections between an ideology or belief system and the terrorism connected with it, for blaming the ideology or belief system for the terrorism?

That's my problem. If it's possible to twist any belief system to abusive and violent ends, the problem isn't the particular belief system, the problem is the desire to twist belief systems.

Replace one belief system with another and, if the motivation to twist the beliefs is still there, you'll just get twisting with a different flavour to it.

We've all met people, including here on the Ship, who are fervent dogmatic believers in one religion or ideology, and then switch to another religion or ideology and hold it just as fervently. I seem to recall we used to have one Shipmate who switched between being a pain-in-the-butt know-it-all atheist and a pain-in-the-butt know-it-all Greek Orthodox. I honestly can't remember which of those 2 phases came first, because the specific content of his beliefs had absolutely no bearing on his capacity to be disdainful and intolerant of anyone who didn't share the beliefs he had at a given time.

It's not the beliefs that are the problem. The problem is a mindset that views alternative beliefs as something to be violently opposed. The problem is an attitude that other people who are 'wrong' are not entitled to co-exist in their wrongness. The actual content of someone's beliefs are secondary to the question of how they handle the fact that not everyone sees the world through their eyes.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Something which consistently fails to come up in these conversations about "why don't the moderates get the extremists under control?" is that moderate Muslims, throughout the world, are in much, much more danger from Islamist extremists than anyone else is. These are the people throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women, flogging rape victims, closing down schools, stealing away people's sons for brainwashing. In many countries, the extremists are the local thugs and the ordinary Muslims who are the nonviolent majority are terrified of them. These ordinary people face danger both from the extremists within, and from foreign military interventions to target the extremists. If they manage to get away and start a new life in another country they'll likely face a lot of prejudice about why they're not managing to control the people they were fleeing from in the first place. Does that sound by any stretch fair?

And then let's not forget how crazy-making it must be when the media consistently screams WHY DON'T YOU CONDEMN THE EXTREMISTS! and then consistently fails to report it when people do, desperately, at the top of their lungs, over and over again.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I second that and do the same for irish_lord99, orfeo, bib, Alan, Johnny English, Gamaliel et al.

Isn't it odd that we find it easier to love our formal enemies than our actual ones here though ...
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I think there’s a whole other side to this that is very much ignored, and that is the unholy great mess that was (in this case French) colonialism.

The two suspects in this case are both of Algerian descent, as was Mohamed Merah, the lone wolf who attacked a Jewish school and French soldiers in the South a while back, killing seven people. On the whole, and generalising wildly, Algerians are rather less well integrated in French society than their Moroccan and Tunisian counterparts.

The French venture in Algeria ended in the 1960s with a very bloody colonial war that resulted in the collapse of the Fourth Republic, and I think in many ways we are still experiencing the fallout. There is still a massive taboo surrounding said bloody colonial war, and French society isn't ready to talk about it yet. Which explains why it’s so much easier to blame Islam.

Citing the fact that there are so many Muslims in France seems very contradictory to me. First up, and coming back to colonialism, the peoples of North Africa never asked us to invade their countries back in the day. Furthermore, the fact that 10% of the French population comes from a Muslim background means that they aren’t some mysterious Other to many of us. They are our colleagues and neighbours. Less so in small towns in the provinces, but in large cities like Paris, where this attack was carried out, we all know any number of (more or less devout) Muslim people and most of them are perfectly nice, law-abiding citizens. Yes, some of the scarier suburbs have high North African populations, but like I said earlier, I believe that the social problems there have a lot less to do with Islam than they do with the problem of unemployed, disaffected young men.

[ 08. January 2015, 13:38: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I just came across this very interesting and thought-provoking commentary on the nature of satire, and an argument that not all cartoons are created equal.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
But does Islam bring you shame? That's the major paradigm shift between western culture and Muslim/Middle Eastern culture: right vs. wrong in the west and honor vs. shame in the ME.

This publication shamed Mohammed, the attackers thought they were restoring honor to him.

---

Wow. I doubt I could get my head around such a thought process where doing something like that would bring honor to something I valued.

The Amish look better every day.

---

Indeed.

But the sad truth is that there are a lot of people in the ME who still consider murder to be an acceptable form of restoring honor: hence the honor killings that still take place.

---

Then fuck 'em

[ETA - apologies for the doubtless 'unreasoned response' but right now I'm too angry and upset for anything else]

[ 08. January 2015, 14:20: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Something which consistently fails to come up in these conversations about "why don't the moderates get the extremists under control?" is that moderate Muslims, throughout the world, are in much, much more danger from Islamist extremists than anyone else is. These are the people throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women, flogging rape victims, closing down schools, stealing away people's sons for brainwashing. In many countries, the extremists are the local thugs and the ordinary Muslims who are the nonviolent majority are terrified of them. These ordinary people face danger both from the extremists within, and from foreign military interventions to target the extremists. If they manage to get away and start a new life in another country they'll likely face a lot of prejudice about why they're not managing to control the people they were fleeing from in the first place. Does that sound by any stretch fair?

And then let's not forget how crazy-making it must be when the media consistently screams WHY DON'T YOU CONDEMN THE EXTREMISTS! and then consistently fails to report it when people do, desperately, at the top of their lungs, over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think there’s a whole other side to this that is very much ignored, and that is the unholy great mess that was (in this case French) colonialism.

The two suspects in this case are both of Algerian descent, as was Mohamed Merah, the lone wolf who attacked a Jewish school and French soldiers in the South a while back, killing seven people. On the whole, and generalising wildly, Algerians are rather less well integrated in French society than their Moroccan and Tunisian counterparts.

The French venture in Algeria ended in the 1960s with a very bloody colonial war that resulted in the collapse of the Fourth Republic, and I think in many ways we are still experiencing the fallout. There is still a massive taboo surrounding said bloody colonial war, and French society isn't ready to talk about it yet. Which explains why it’s so much easier to blame Islam.

Citing the fact that there are so many Muslims in France seems very contradictory to me. First up, and coming back to colonialism, the peoples of North Africa never asked us to invade their countries back in the day. Furthermore, the fact that 10% of the French population comes from a Muslim background means that they aren’t some mysterious Other to many of us. They are our colleagues and neighbours. Less so in small towns in the provinces, but in large cities like Paris, where this attack was carried out, we all know any number of (more or less devout) Muslim people and most of them are perfectly nice, law-abiding citizens. Yes, some of the scarier suburbs have high North African populations, but like I said earlier, I believe that the social problems there have a lot less to do with Islam than they do with the problem of unemployed, disaffected young men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course I'm aware that there are other "causes" in the world. I lived in London throughout Northern Ireland's "troubles" which spilled over several times into my city! I'm just saying that in the years since 9/11, you can be almost certain that any terrorist attack on a Western city will have an Islamic motive in there somewhere. Any religion, philosophy or ideology which lends itself to that kind of behaviour has something seriously wrong at its very heart, and it needs to be changed from within. All we can do from without is stay vigilent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Society is becoming far, far too easily offended by satire and humourous mocking. It is essential that we are able to mock leaders, be they political, religious or otherwise.

Along the other route lies dictatorship.

---

Totally agree with this. We must assert the freedom to deride and mock without being bound by cultural taboos from elsewhere.

I'd like to see the risk spread around by publishers. Those publications with a taste for sensationalism should republish cartoons of Muhammad from Charlie Ebdo. Other publications could publish historical and more respectful depictions of Muhammad drawn by Muslims. The taboo on images of the so-called prophet have not always been universal or absolute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I just came across this very interesting and thought-provoking commentary on the nature of satire, and an argument that not all cartoons are created equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Islam is a dangerous alien culture and should be recognised for what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Islam is a dangerous alien culture and should be recognised for what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
O God, the self-loathing victim-blaming. It burns, it burns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If nobody had been killed, would you defend this publication tooth and nail?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say things that are offensive, it's virtually meaningless. People are constantly saying ugly and stupid things about Christianity, but to suggest that they ought to be murdered for it, or even put in jail for it, would be grotesque.

Rational human beings do not commit murder in response to being offended. I am not in favor of making Muslims a protected class around whom we all must tiptoe so that we don't set off the powder keg. I am not in favor of curtailing liberties in order to protect the sensibilities of people who do not value liberty. We may as well just give them the whip hand and have done with it.

I am aware that the action at Charlie Hebdo had antecedents. The French government has a lot to answer for, as do nearly all Western governments. The first world's meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern governments has helped to create the climate in which this attack took place, without question--and that meddling has to stop immediately.

But at the end of the day, it is the murderers, and they alone, who bear responsibility for their actions--whatever the traumas in their childhoods, whatever the injustices suffered by their forbears at the hands of the French. The forces of history didn't pick up AK-47s to shoot unarmed cartoonists and journalists. Human beings did. And human beings are accountable for their actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If nobody had been killed, would you defend this publication tooth and nail?

---

Yes, of course. Wouldn't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I wouldn't give them (as a publication and business) the time of day. I don't believe that the right to Free Speech automatically confers the right to use it vindictively. Just as having a religious doctrine doesn't (ever) automatically confer the right to kill on its behalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I wouldn't give them (as a publication and business) the time of day. I don't believe that the right to Free Speech automatically confers the right to use it vindictively. Just as having a religious doctrine doesn't (ever) automatically confer the right to kill on its behalf.

---

Those two things can't be equated. It's your perfect right to choose not to support the magazine, of course--and I doubt whether I'd want to pick it up myself. But mockery, however nasty, simply isn't in the same moral category as murder.

---

So we support something on principle because it isn't as bad as murder? How about GBH? Extortion? Minor theft? Trespass? I'm not sure where you draw a line - an ability to recognise that all human beings are deserving of (mutual) respect is the bottom line. Whether our mundane legal system can cope with the distinction adequately or not. After that, it's just a matter of degree. I would rather be mocked than murdered, but I'm not sure how the defence of any form of human unpleasantness gets us anywhere. The sympathy is for the families and the individuals. Lets not get so mushy that we keep the bathwater and put it in the cot with the baby.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I have spent quite a lot of today musing on #jesuischarlie.

You know, in most meaningful respects I am not Charlie. I find much of what they publish distasteful at best, and downright offensive at worst. They’re a fairly equal opportunity offender, FWIW. In the tradition of the satirical French left, religions of all stripes are a target. But the point of “jesuischarlie” is to say that this is an attack on all of us. When I came home tonight, the Paris Mairie information boards were displaying “Nous sommes tous Charlie” (We are all Charlie) which is a more forceful way of saying the same thing. I find Charlie Hebdo offensive, but in a democratic country under the rule of law people don’t get arbitrarily shot for publishing things that are offensive. People here very much feel that this is a (I keep fishing for the word here – in French it would be “atteinte” – attack? strike? violation?) of our fundamental democratic principles. If something is so offensive as to be illegal then there are channels for that. But no one gets to murder someone because they disagree with them.

This incidentally, is also why I am not nursing murderous revenge fantasies. Assuming the suspects are as guilty as they look, I don’t want them dead or abused. I want them to be arrested, given a fair trial with access to appropriate legal representation and then sent to jail for a very long time. Because that’s what happens in a democracy under the rule of law. Anything else is to descend to their level and help them in their aim of undermining the principles that make this a (albeit imperfectly) free and democratic country.

I think my new hashtag is #jesuischarliemêmesijenesuispasd’accordaveclui (I am Charlie even if I don’t agree with him). It might be a bit long.
 

---

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
Superb post, wonderfully expressed.

 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
]So we support something on principle because it isn't as bad as murder? How about GBH? Extortion? Minor theft? Trespass? I'm not sure where you draw a line

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to say things that are offensive, it's virtually meaningless. People are constantly saying ugly and stupid things about Christianity, but to suggest that they ought to be murdered for it, or even put in jail for it, would be grotesque.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
As to the part that Islamic notions of martyrdom play in suicide bombings I'll leave to your imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Several attempts have been made on this thread to see this atrocity in the light of the Israeli/Palestinian problem, or the involvement of the US and its allies in the affairs of the Middle East.

---

Oh but it is. The West/ colonial powers has made enemies. Take British involvement for example: Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, adventures in Afghanistan. Lots of other trouble spots on the map that used to be shaded in pink.

Violence begets violence. Our nations have been violent. Our missionaries went out with the musket, and lo and behold, some of the natives can't distinguish between imperialism and the gospel (because it didn't come in a package of peace and goodwill to all men).

And what will the right wing rags do? Say that foreign aid should be cut and immigration draw bridges should be hauled up to keep the 'enemy' out, little realising that these things are a way of redressing centuries of cockups.

Re-education is needed. Starting with what collateral damage done by a 'smart' drone strike really pisses the victims families and friends off. We just don't see what is being done in our name. It is a lot more than 12 people.

The world is a screwed up and unjust place. It must make God angry. How do we work out a theology that isn't just hand wringing or taking over from God in acts of vengeance? I can't sort one out for Islam as I don't believe it. I bet it starts with humility, repentance and forgiveness on our/ my part. I expect it is starts with something about dealing with our own visual impairments before attempting ophthalmology on someone else.
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
This has nothing to do with Islam. The offenders
bring sham on their faith by their actions. Fortunately the faith of 1.2 billion people can not be so easily tarnished .
We need to pray for the victims 12 dead and 11 wounded . And that we don't start an Islamaphobic reaction . Let us love our neighbor of all faiths, or of none.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re images and Islam: "Aniconism in Islam" (Wikipedia).
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The Midge.

Radical.

Jesus agrees.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Several attempts have been made on this thread to see this atrocity in the light of the Israeli/Palestinian problem, or the involvement of the US and its allies in the affairs of the Middle East.

---

Oh but it is. The West/ colonial powers has made enemies. Take British involvement for example: Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, adventures in Afghanistan. Lots of other trouble spots on the map that used to be shaded in pink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
As to the part that Islamic notions of martyrdom play in suicide bombings I'll leave to your imagination.

---

You don't have to leave it your imagination. As already referred to, I'm aware of the studies of Robert Pape that show how suicide bombing was invented by non-Muslims and employed by people of all religious backgrounds as a tactic to drive out occupying forces, and completely ignored by Muslims in parts of the world that had no occupying forces to drive out.

But don't let facts and data get in the way of a good myth about religious fanatics and martyrdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Several attempts have been made on this thread to see this atrocity in the light of the Israeli/Palestinian problem, or the involvement of the US and its allies in the affairs of the Middle East.

---

Oh but it is. The West/ colonial powers has made enemies. Take British involvement for example: Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, adventures in Afghanistan. Lots of other trouble spots on the map that used to be shaded in pink.

---

I think you have to be careful about lumping all Western countries together here. On the whole, French foreign policy towards Arab countries has been more friendly than is the case for many other Western powers. Large numbers of ethnically Arab people live in France (mostly North Africans, and some Syrians and Lebanese).

To wit: France famously did not join in the Iraq war (cheese-eating surrender monkeys etc. etc.). Basically, IMO, faced with a choice between pissing off the Americans or pissing off the Arabs, Jacques Chirac decided that he had more to lose by pissing off the Arabs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
As to the part that Islamic notions of martyrdom play in suicide bombings I'll leave to your imagination.

---

You don't have to leave it your imagination. As already referred to, I'm aware of the studies of Robert Pape that show how suicide bombing was invented by non-Muslims and employed by people of all religious backgrounds as a tactic to drive out occupying forces, and completely ignored by Muslims in parts of the world that had no occupying forces to drive out.

But don't let facts and data get in the way of a good myth about religious fanatics and martyrdom.

---

Seriously? I'm well aware of the use of suicide in terrorism more widely but do you honestly think that the belief that martyrdom will be rewarded plays no part as an immediate motivation? Why don't we ask the perps? Just a slight problem - they killed themselves

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel ashamed to be taking part in a forum where something so vile could be written; and a weird kind of shame that I had to read it. However, I guess that God may forgive such inhuman and inhumane sentiments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Responsibility and reasonable behavior are irrelevant here unless your intention is to react to an attack on free speech by limiting free speech. We all have to live with the fact that satire and criticism is sometimes vile, vicious, and over-the-top. There are already laws which deal with incitement, defamation/libel etc.

---

Presumably you know that this publication's originated after a previous publication was banned. For making comments about Charles De Gaulle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Tell me who else behaves that way when subjected to the same treatment. The answer to the second question is no-one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. So there were never any disappearances in Chile or Argentina, because, you know, non-Muslims just never react to press freedom by killing the press?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

The Committee To Protect Journalists might be useful in your arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
All that anyone is claiming is that Islam is not some magic special ingredient that makes monsters out of an otherwise peace-loving species

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The "right" to kill people who insult the prophet, for example, is a purely Muslim concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are things which, at least today, are purely Islamic. FGM, honour killings, fatwas for insulting the prophet (es Salman Rushdie).

---

quote:

---

Nigeria, due to its large population, has the highest absolute number of female genital mutilation (FGM) worldwide, accounting for about one-quarter of the estimated 115–130 million circumcised women in the world. [...] Practice of FGM has no relationship with religion. Muslims and Christians practice it, but it is more widely spread in Christian predominated parts of Nigeria

---

quote:

---

Similar to honor killings, crimes of passion often feature the murder of women by a husband, family member, or boyfriends and the crime is often condoned or sanctioned. In Peru, for example, 70 percent of the murders of women in one year were committed by a husband, boyfriend or lover, and most often jealousy or suspicions of infidelity are cited as the reasons for the murders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveW:
Oh really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
And the right to kill Jews because they killed Jesus is a purely Christian concept. So what

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If we want to stamp out FGM in the UK, we will be dealing exclusively with the Islamic community.

---

quote:

---

Honour killings, often daughters who get attracted to the wrong man, are another problem peculiar to the Asian community, mostly Islamic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
You're missing my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously. I honestly think that, because it's based on FACTS, not on memes thrown about on social media. The FACTS are that suicide bombers are usually middle class, better educated than their peers, and don't have a history of intense religiosity. The FACTS are that they're consistently angered by the presence of occupying forces.

These are the FACTS gathered from extensive research of hundreds upon hundreds cases. At the time that I first heard Professor Pape in a lecture quite some years ago, and he presented the FACTS, he and his team had researched every case of suicide bombing in the entire world up until the point where the incidence skyrocketed to unprecedented proportions in Iraq (almost entirely Muslims killing other Muslims). I haven't kept up to find out whether he's caught up since then.

But in every case, they had found out identities, backgrounds, religious history, economic status, social status.

It is simply not true that suicide bombers are a bunch of religious fanatics eager for paradise. No matter how fervently you believe that it's true, the FACTS don't agree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveW:
Oh really?

---

. If we want to stamp out FGM in the UK, we will be dealing exclusively with the Islamic community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
As that what Jesus says Matt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Look. It doesn't matter whether these two men did this because they are Muslims, Algerian patriots, or for that matter (though unlikely) agents of the Third Reich, the former Argentinian Junta or the Front National. What they did is appalling and indefensible. There are many human acts that motive does not excuse. Tout comprendre is not tout pardonner. Any reason they might claim or others might attribute, is irrelevant and doesn't change that.

Nor does any argument that only Moslems, or not only Moslems have done horrible things, that it is or is not in some way specifically Moslem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Spawn, basically you're telling me that the only person (as far as I'm aware) who's done a comprehensive study on that very specific question can be dismissed if he doesn't fit a previous set of assumptions.

---

quote:

---

Quasi-papal authority? Hardly. It's called respect for analytical skills. I sat through a long discussion of his methods and his findings. I didn't just have some kind of oh wow religious conversion, I had an academic carefully explain the patterns he identified in his research. I repeat his findings because they were so convincing - to me. Do you understand that I'm one of the most rigorously analytical and sceptical people around? How much emphasis I put on logical connections?

---

quote:

---

If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan. You're going to have to explain why some of the most fanatically religious regimes in the world don't create terrorists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Sudan hosted Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist camps and still hides camps to this day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And the SPLA was the army of the predominantly Christian South of Sudan. It is now the actual army of the country of South Sudan. These were the people fighting against the Islamic government of the country.

If you want to say that Sudan is synonymous with terrorism, you could at least check a basic fact like whether the terrorists you're nominating are Muslim!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveW:
Oh really?

---

You're missing my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I was assuming in this thread there was some understanding of the distinctions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.

---

Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Horseshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...

BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...

BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...

BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.

---

Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Horseshit, doubled.

Nice use of the term 'certain interpretations' to denigrate without justification. I must remember that trick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...

BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.

---

Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.

---

If by 'Radical Islamist belief' you mean a mindset that supports terrorism then can you accept that'Radical Christian belief' drove the Ku Klux Klan and South African apartheid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Please read the thread before you call horseshit,out of the blue, on perfectly reasonable posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
a clear desire of various Shipmate to turn it into a Muslim-blaming exercise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.

---

No apology needed, as far as I'm concerned - I honestly wasn't (and still aren't) sure exactly what you were objecting to.

Hope your RL issues get better soon, friend.
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hi All,
especially Spawn and jbohn

It has dawned on me that my recent posts have both in tone and content been more suitable for Hell. My only excuse is that there's been similar stuff going on in RL.

I'm sorry, I haven't helped the debate and I'll stick to That Place for this topic in future.

Please accept my apologies and forgive me.

Sioni

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.

---

No apology needed, as far as I'm concerned - I honestly wasn't (and still aren't) sure exactly what you were objecting to.

Hope your RL issues get better soon, friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Citing French colonialism in North Africa, Israeli action in Gaza, and US and its allies (including the UK) actions in Afghanistan and Iraq may put a historical perspective on why these Muslims are so angry, but it doesn't de-Islamise the atrocities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...

BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.

---

Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel ashamed to be taking part in a forum where something so vile could be written; and a weird kind of shame that I had to read it. However, I guess that God may forgive such inhuman and inhumane sentiments.

---

OK so tell me what affinity you feel for people who react to press freedom with mass murder, just because the message offends them. Tell me who else behaves that way when subjected to the same treatment. The answer to the second question is no-one. What these people did is certainly alien to how I believe we should live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Trying to pretend that violence has nothing to do with Islam seems a hard sell given that Mohammad was involved in many violent wars to spread its belief system.

There is big difference between Jesus' life and Mohammad's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Suspects of the Charlie attack have apparently just been killed in an assault by the French security forces. Some hostages have been freed in Paris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Suspects of the Charlie attack have apparently just been killed in an assault by the French security forces. Some hostages have been freed in Paris.

---

So, and this is a serious point and not just a distasteful one, they've fulfilled exactly half of their aspiration to die as martyrs.

---

quote:

---

However, I am genuinely puzzled why 'free speech' should be guaranteed for an offensive portrayal of another's religion, while statements or cartoons expressing racism, anti-semitism, homophobia etc should be taboo.

---

quote:

---

Well, there's punching up, and there's just punching.

Depicting the pregnant rape-slaves taken by Boko Haram as welfare queens isn't satirical. It's just foul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No. They didn't die as martyrs. That is offensive to the memory of those innocent martyrs who have been killed for holding on to their faith.

These are murderers who preferred to be killed rather than to be taken alive, like the baddies in the old Westerns. Ironic.

---

If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs. That they did despicable things is a different issue.
The failure to understand and address the mechanisms which factor into the recruitment of such people is one part of the failure to stem these incidents.
To fail to recognise what they believe to be valid to them also contributes to our failure and their sense of victory.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.

---

That is not sufficient within the Christian understanding of the word 'martyr'. Those crusaders who refused to surrender to Saladin are not I believe recognised as martyrs.
Since 'martyr' is derived from the Christian theological term, one can argue that its use to describe people who die in combat is a mistranslation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.

---

That is not sufficient within the Christian understanding of the word 'martyr'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
To be a martyr, first one is required to have tried to avoid martyrdom, not to have sought it. Also, one has to be killed specifically because of one's faith, not for some other reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Presumably you know that this publication's originated after a previous publication was banned. For making comments about Charles De Gaulle.

---

Interesting point in one sense, but in another, So What?

---

quote:

---

Even if the French government had suppressed or even imprisoned the editors of either Charlie Hebdo or its predecessor, even if the French government were to limit freedom of speech or allow it, that is of a minimal order in comparison with randomly killing a collection of people some working there and some not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Obviously this is not directly relevant to France, but it does make me wonder if the same issue exists there.

---

On French radio tonight the pundits were going on about how much better our European neighbours deal with this issue, which gives you some idea of the scale of the problem here.



[ 09. January 2015, 19:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I keep on misreading #jesuischarlie.
Splitting after four letters instead of two.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It is perhaps typical of France that arguments are already raging on the Intertubes, especially among Christians, about whether we are Charlie or not.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--Re problems with South Asians brought in to lead mosques: It sounds like a Christian version might be to have a nightmare pastor/priest forced on the congregation (perhaps kept there by major donations by Concerned Individuals); to not be able to fire them; and to have this repeated in many churches in the area.

--Re historical influences: Maybe, somewhere in the deep background, the Crusades and the Moorish invasion of Europe both still cast a shadow?

ETA: I *don't* mean to blame any victims. Was just thinking that those things might make a difference to some people, in the back of their minds.

[ 09. January 2015, 20:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
ETA: I *don't* mean to blame any victims. Was just thinking that those things might make a difference to some people, in the back of their minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.

---

Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.

---

Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?

---

This shows every sign of you not reading what I wrote, AT ALL. Did I not already mention Hezbollah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Trying to pretend that violence has nothing to do with Islam seems a hard sell given that Mohammad was involved in many violent wars to spread its belief system.

There is big difference between Jesus' life and Mohammad's.

---

Well, good point. Next time I meet a Muslim neighbour or friend, I shall certainly be on the look-out for that hidden revolver or grenade. The ones with beards merit particular scrutiny - perhaps a full body search?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
I'm sick and tired of being told that even to mention historical facts about the life of Mohammad is in some way an insult to Muslims. IT ISN'T !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.

---

Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?

---

This shows every sign of you not reading what I wrote, AT ALL. Did I not already mention Hezbollah?

---

You've made a point that still makes no sense in and of itself. There is Iranian terrorism. Yet Iranian terrorists, because they are Shia, do not play a part in Al-qaeda or ISIL operations.

---

quote:

---

The bombings were scheduled for 7 August, the eighth anniversary of the arrival of American troops in Saudi Arabia, likely a choice by Osama bin Laden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. Something to do with the presence of foreign troops. Now where did I see that come up before?

Nope. I've lost it. It's really all about religious fanaticism. [/sarcasm]

People like bin Laden stated time and time again grievances that were geopolitical. These grievances don't justify terrorism. But neither does it make sense for these grievances to be ignored in favour of declaring that's it all just a religious culture war.

We like making it into a religious culture war, because then it can be all about how crazy these people are and the solution is entirely about them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. Something to do with the presence of foreign troops. Now where did I see that come up before?

Nope. I've lost it. It's really all about religious fanaticism. [/sarcasm]

People like bin Laden stated time and time again grievances that were geopolitical. These grievances don't justify terrorism. But neither does it make sense for these grievances to be ignored in favour of declaring that's it all just a religious culture war.

We like making it into a religious culture war, because then it can be all about how crazy these people are and the solution is entirely about them.

---

I thought one of Bin Laden's objections to the presence of foreign troops was that Saudi Arabia was holy ground and that they were desecrating it in some way? That suggests some religious element to the objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have just been reading a story from The Times, carried by The Australian (the Murdoch-owned national daily broadsheet), which tucked it away on p14.

It describes the slaughter of 2,000 inhabitants of the town of Baga by Boko Haram over the last five days, as part of its effort to establish an Islamic state in northern Nigeria.

At one level this is just another example of the deaths of twelve white Europeans being more important than the deaths of 2,000 black Africans who were killed at the same time, but what will be really interesting will be to read the attempts (assuming anyone can be bothered to comment on the atrocity) to show why it really had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

And yes, I am quite aware the the more than one billion Muslims in the world do not hold homogeneous views on the issue of violence; that the Muslims I know are as horrified as I am at what happened in Paris; and that my friend Youcef is not planning to shoot me.

However, it remains equally silly to pretend that Islam, its record of violence going back to Muhammed, and the potential justifiability of that violence by a certain stream of texts from the Koran, are irrelevant to any discussion of violence by those who themselves claim to perpetrate it out of religious motivation.

---

The situation in Nigeria is primarily political and economic. The people of the North want a government that can deliver basic services to them and does not neglect them. As they are Muslim, they believe that an Islamic government will not discriminate against them in the way the current govt does. One of the roots of the Nigerian conflict is the age-old one between settled and nomadic farmers, but the Western media finds it easier to portray it as simply Christian vs Muslim rather than educating us about the different tribes there.

The two sides in The Troubles were referred to as Catholic and Protestant but that does not mean that the conflict was religious at heart; just that religion was an easy way for the two sides to distinguish themselves from each other. The same in the Balkans (although there there were 3 groups involved). And in Nigeria.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And if we're going to talk about the people of northeastern Nigeria, we can at least start by talking about how they are largely Muslim and not treat their deaths as if it's somehow another example of how those crazy Quran-reading folk are out to get "us". The people of Baga are not "us". The people of Baga are a perfect example of the kind of "them" that can co-exist with "us" just fine.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I also, think, on further reflection, that we need to consider carefully whether we actually have an agreed definition of what "terrorism" is.

Because I think a lot of what Boko Haram do isn't terrorism. It's war crimes. Either that, or we have to redefine what happened in Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.

I don't how much it matters that we set up distinctions between terrorism, guerilla warfare etc etc, it was just something that occurred to me. The field of people invoking something greater than themselves to justify violence is vast and wide. I understand the separatists in eastern Ukraine are given to carrying icons around with them.

[ 10. January 2015, 01:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I never expected to appreciate anything Bill Maher had to say, but he nailed it tonight.

"When there are this many bad apples, there is something wrong with the orchard."


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And yeah, it's just got to be the orchard's soil, right? It couldn't possibly be the neighbour's plane flying overhead spraying chemicals.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
What else do you expect from an anti - religious bigot?

X-post: I meant Maher.

[ 10. January 2015, 02:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yeah, it's just got to be the orchard's soil, right? It couldn't possibly be the neighbour's plane flying overhead spraying chemicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yeah, it's just got to be the orchard's soil, right? It couldn't possibly be the neighbour's plane flying overhead spraying chemicals.

---

So it was western occupation of muslim lands that got the Saudi blogger his first 50 of 1000 lashes today?

Or was it cause he pissed off the Priest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yeah, it's just got to be the orchard's soil, right? It couldn't possibly be the neighbour's plane flying overhead spraying chemicals.

---

So it was western occupation of muslim lands that got the Saudi blogger his first 50 of 1000 lashes today?

Or was it cause he pissed off the Priest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yeah, it's just got to be the orchard's soil, right? It couldn't possibly be the neighbour's plane flying overhead spraying chemicals.

---

So it was western occupation of muslim lands that got the Saudi blogger his first 50 of 1000 lashes today?

Or was it cause he pissed off the Priest?

---

You live in a country that has the death penalty. If you want to talk about whether you agree or not with the laws of another country, you might want to think very carefully about things like that before you attempt me to get me to say "gosh, no, the Saudi legal system is just awful". Because I'm quite willing to add "and the United States legal system is pretty damn appalling as well, when are you going to start behaving like a civilised country?".

Of course I think that's wrong. I also think it has precisely nothing to do with anything other than your desire to turn the world into a bunch of White Hats living in your part of the globe and a bunch of Black Hats living somewhere else. I also think you've got no clue about the fact that Saudi Islam is vastly different to the form of Islam in a hell of a lot of other places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:


The only thing Islam seems to be growing away from is the civilized world. They are badly in need of a reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you want me to start listing Bible verses for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

The situation in Nigeria is primarily political and economic. The people of the North want a government that can deliver basic services to them and does not neglect them. As they are Muslim, they believe that an Islamic government will not discriminate against them in the way the current govt does. One of the roots of the Nigerian conflict is the age-old one between settled and nomadic farmers, but the Western media finds it easier to portray it as simply Christian vs Muslim rather than educating us about the different tribes there.

---

quote:

---

The two sides in The Troubles were referred to as Catholic and Protestant but that does not mean that the conflict was religious at heart; just that religion was an easy way for the two sides to distinguish themselves from each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you want me to start listing Bible verses for you?

---

Yes please.

Show me one verse from the NT which endorses violence on the part of Christians to defend, promote or extend their religion.

---

quote:

---

Luke 22 NIV via Bible Gateway

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You're now going to tell me that it doesn't mean that, and then I'm going to tell you that I don't think it means that either, but that's simply because I'm not the kind of person looking for a justification for violence in the first place. If someone wants to find justifications in the Bible (yes, the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, because do you seriously think someone looking for justification is going to say "damn, suddenly the first 39 books here are off limits because they're Jewish??") they are going to find them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Even today, Rome remains the central authority for the vast majority of Christians.

---

Nope.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope.

---

OK, fine. "Vast" was factually wrong, it is merely the simple majority of Christians nowadays. Anyway, my key point was that a Lutheran Christian is not terribly different from a RC one, and neither is an Orthodox one, though they differ somewhat in their differences. There simply is a clear "mainstream" of Christianity, and historically speaking there is no question that this derives from the central organisation that Christianity used to enjoy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It is simply not true that some Christian could now interpret the bible as straight up advocating aggressive holy war and expect to have his opinion respected as a reasonable expression of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: Actually, I think I might have already found it, because this looks familiar. If you really want to insist on only dealing with New Testament examples of being horrible, then scroll down and you'll find them in items 1,155 through to 1,318. Cheers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Christianity is not merely the New Testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Christianity is not merely the New Testament.

---

I don't know about "merely", but Christianity does undoubtedly involve applying the OT in the light of the NT.

That is why Christians are not required to practise the OT tabernacle/temple/priestly/ sacrificial system - or holy war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: Actually, I think I might have already found it, because this looks familiar. If you really want to insist on only dealing with New Testament examples of being horrible, then scroll down and you'll find them in items 1,155 through to 1,318. Cheers.

---

I didn't ask you for a "New Testament example of being horrible", I asked for one single NT verse calling on (or even merely permitting) Christians to practise violence as part of their religion, and not one single verse of those on this list does so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Trying to pretend that violence has nothing to do with Islam seems a hard sell given that Mohammad was involved in many violent wars to spread its belief system.

There is big difference between Jesus' life and Mohammad's.

---

Well, good point. Next time I meet a Muslim neighbour or friend, I shall certainly be on the look-out for that hidden revolver or grenade. The ones with beards merit particular scrutiny - perhaps a full body search?

---

I stated a fact. Nothing to do with Muslims, just a theological observation on their religion.

Your reply goes to illustrate the problem. To even dare to criticize any aspect of Islam is to be ridiculed with insults. There is NO reason why Islam should be exempt from the same scrutiny that any other religion or philosophy should stand up to.

If Islam is so tolerant why are so many Muslim states so intolerant ? Just this week Saudi Arabia passed the death penalty for anyone caught bringing Bibles into their country ? If we did the same and threatened to publically behead a Muslim for bringing the Koran into Britain imagine the outrage ?

SO WHY NO OUTRAGE HERE ? I'm sick and tired of being told that even to mention historical facts about the life of Mohammad is in some way an insult to Muslims. IT ISN'T !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Well, to clarify, it's not a dangerous endeavor because of Islam proper, but because of the possible response from radical or fundamentalist Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This isn't about whether your view of the Bible is correct. It's about the complete failure of people to recognise that there are other interpretations, good or bad, of both your holy book and of other people's holy books. I've got no real interest in convincing you that the Bible permits violent warfare because I don't particularly believe it myself, but you could at least have the sense to see that other people think the Bible does do that, and historically there have been plenty of Christians who have used the Bible to justify practices that you and I would find abhorrent, ranging from slavery to Crusades to virulent anti-Semitism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
British and American Muslims may well be 'them' too - not 'real' Muslims in some eyes, and therefore they may well be targets too.
In fact, the lines seem far more to do with geography and nationality than with religion. There's more racism in the mix than anything else.

---

Religion is definitely in the mix, but it is the detonator not the main charge.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Added to address the x-post.
Don't need the crusades. We can easily start with the Inquisition, add the genocide in the New World and go from there. Justification of slavery, all sorts of fun stuff.

%€£! Clicked the wrong stupid button.

[ 10. January 2015, 14:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are, of course, pundits who say that eventually Islam will head in the direction that Christianity has largely headed - ie. in a more interiorised and pietistic direction rather than something that carries as much traction in the 'public domain' than it once did.

There are, of course, already Muslims who interpret and apply the more 'violent' and 'jihadist' verses in the Quran to the interior struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil - as it were - rather than some kind of flesh and blood battle with the infidel.

My guess would be that we'll see (and are seeing) more quietist and 'interiorised' forms of Islam alongside the more 'radical' or the more 'fanatical' and fundamentalist.

I'm no expert and am certainly open to correction on all of this, but whilst my gut reaction is to regard Christianity as somehow intrinsically more 'peaceful' than Islam - it's sometimes hard to square that with how things have worked out.

I've mentioned this before, but during the Pequod Wars of the 1630s the 'Separatist' Puritan settlers in what is now New England cited the Book of Joshua to justify - or at least explain - the massacre of Native American non-combatants - the elderly, women and children.

After a series of inconclusive skirmishes, the settlers attacked and destroyed several Pequod villages and killed all their inhabitants. Unused to such 'total war', the Pequod retreated deeper into the forests. Contemporary writers were clearly squeamish about this, but they drew on the Book of Joshua as a precedent.

This is a sobering and salutary check to the kind of view I used to take - gloating that more enlightened Protestant colonists didn't replicate the enormities of those wicked, evil Catholic Conquistadores further south ...

Yeah, right ...



The reason that Christianity is generally more 'peaceful' today is the result of a whole range of influences - the Enlightenment among them - like it or not.

We've had several centuries of more pietistic and interiorised approaches (both Protestant and Catholic), the growth of pluralism and liberalism etc etc.

That's affected all of us. Even the most conservative traditions.

I'm with Orfeo on the 'empathy' thing. To acknowledge that Quran, like the Bible, is subject and open to interpretation isn't to put them on a par or to say that all religions or all religious texts are the same.

It's simply to acknowledge how these things work.

I don't see how Islam should intrinsically and inherently lead to violence - unless it's applied in a particularly literalist and fundamentalist way - and even then not all conservative or fundamentalist Muslims are violent jihadis - any more than all conservative or fundamentalist Christians are Fred Phelps clones or money-grubbing TV evangelists.

Sure - the Quran contains some pretty scary texts. So does the Old Testament .. and the New come to that ... but every text has a context and every text - however holy or inspired (or otherwise) is subject to interpretation.

If we want to find scriptural support for violence, then we'll find it. Just like the Puritans did in New England in the 1630s ... or the kind of mindset that Cromwell had when he wrote, 'God made them as stubble to our swords ...'

We've all got to watch out for the scary stuff.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Christianity only survived by being unchristian?!
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The perspective suggested by Pravda's editorial provides some thoughts

quote:

---

Let us start where we should, namely paying respect to the victims (and their families and loved ones).... terrorist acts anywhere at any time against any target; these must be condemned in the very strongest words possible whether they are perpetrated by some demented fanatic at the end of a Marathon, by Islamist fundamentalist jihadis avenging the Prophet, by some coward flying at 30,000 feet in the sky blasting the faces off civilians at a wedding party or by a Government which takes part in an uprising in a foreign country using terrorists as its tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christianity only survived by being unchristian?!

---

quote:

---

The reason that Christianity is generally more 'peaceful' today is the result of a whole range of influences - the Enlightenment among them - like it or not.

We've had several centuries of more pietistic and interiorised approaches (both Protestant and Catholic), the growth of pluralism and liberalism etc etc.

That's affected all of us. Even the most conservative traditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm referring to IngoB's travesty re Christendom's redemption by violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm quite sure that the Orthodox would reject the notion that Rome was ever the central point of a single Christian organisation.

---

quote:

---

Is that not a central point of schism? That instead of Rome being one of a group of autocephalous churches, it tried to act unilaterally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's the Ottoman Empire of 1683. Yes, it has been over 300 years since, so we can cautiously assume that Muslims may not resume their attempt to subjugate us all, even if given the opportunity. But we really do not need to beat ourselves up over being just a bit cautious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Totally. But a reason so selfish needs noble religious principles to hide behind,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you really believe that it is religion that motivates re empire? Which is a belief that fuels all sorts of problems. It is about econmics. Always has been. Whether Ottoman, British, American, Portuguese, Russian, Roman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Totally. But a reason so selfish needs noble religious principles to hide behind,

---

I've often wondered if the people who actually plan these large-scale selfish enterprises know that the religious rationales are all BS. Or if they themselves are entranced by the same delusions as the people they're propagandizing.

I suspect it's the latter, and something of a feedback loop. I believe that God gives me the right to conquer other people for purposes of "civilization", and since conquering them makes me wealthy, there's no material incentive to question the justifying theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you really believe that it is religion that motivates re empire? Which is a belief that fuels all sorts of problems. It is about econmics. Always has been. Whether Ottoman, British, American, Portuguese, Russian, Roman.

---

Is this targeted at me? Because what I wrote about religion and empire was sarcasm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you really believe that it is religion that motivates re empire? Which is a belief that fuels all sorts of problems. It is about econmics. Always has been. Whether Ottoman, British, American, Portuguese, Russian, Roman.

---

Is this targeted at me? Because what I wrote about religion and empire was sarcasm.

---

I read him as chiming in with you, not rebutting, fwiw.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's the Ottoman Empire of 1683. Yes, it has been over 300 years since, so we can cautiously assume that Muslims may not resume their attempt to subjugate us all, even if given the opportunity. But we really do not need to beat ourselves up over being just a bit cautious.

---

Because it was Muslims, qua Muslims, that built the Ottoman Empire. Not Ottomans. Because it's their religion that matters and the political and tribal aspects of the Ottoman conquest (not all Muslims were happy with the Ottoman conquest of their lands -- at the other end of their rule, there's a reason Lawrence was so easily able to round up armies in the Levant and Egypt) can be completely ignored. It's very much like the racial element of crime in the United States, as reported by the corporate media: when a black person commits a crime, it's because he's black. When a white person commits a crime, it's because he was troubled, or had a difficult home life, or was mentally ill, or whatever. Bit of a double standard.
____
*first among equals

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves

Whereas the Bible gives a progression of thought over several millenia, the Koran is more like an archived issue of a theology journal, dated 622. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusions, I think it is important to recognize the intent of the style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


What truly galls me about Christian attitudes on this subject is the complete lack of empathy. Do you not realise that here on the Ship, people discuss Bible verses endlessly? That people make a claim that the Bible says something, and other people come along to say how ridiculous that claim is?

And yet I rarely see anyone on here who decides to start talking about the Quran have the sheer human decency to acknowledge that it's open to interpretation in precisely the same way. It's always asserted with the force of certainty that the Quran permits and advocates violence, with complete BLINDNESS to (1) the fact that there are Muslims who would say you're interpreting the verses wrongly out of context and (2) that there are people who say the Bible permits and advocates violence, to which you wuld say they're interpreting the verses wrongly and out of context.

This isn't about whether your view of the Bible is correct. It's about the complete failure of people to recognise that there are other interpretations, good or bad, of both your holy book and of other people's holy books. I've got no real interest in convincing you that the Bible permits violent warfare because I don't particularly believe it myself, but you could at least have the sense to see that other people think the Bible does do that, and historically there have been plenty of Christians who have used the Bible to justify practices that you and I would find abhorrent, ranging from slavery to Crusades to virulent anti-Semitism.

---

quote:

---

To my mind, acting as though Muslims view the Koran in the same way that Christians view the bible is misguided on many levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
The situation in Nigeria is primarily political and economic. The people of the North want a government that can deliver basic services to them and does not neglect them. As they are Muslim, they believe that an Islamic government will not discriminate against them in the way the current govt does. One of the roots of the Nigerian conflict is the age-old one between settled and nomadic farmers, but the Western media finds it easier to portray it as simply Christian vs Muslim rather than educating us about the different tribes there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think it is safe to say that modern day anti- Semitism is a direct New Testament byproduct. It was politically expedient for Christians to blame the Jews for Jesus's death, so that is what they did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

To my mind, acting as though Muslims view the Koran in the same way that Christians view the bible is misguided on many levels.

---

To my mind, acting as though Muslims do not view the Koran in the same way that Christians view the bible is misguided on many levels. Burqa to bikini, baby, the approach and application to the Koran is just as varied.

---

quote:

---

There are progressive Muslims who recognize the societal context of the Koran, and are arguing that Muslims should be jettisoning the time- sensitive stuff about an ancient land dispute in favor of the more prevailant Koranic themes of submitting to God, worshiping in body and soul, and allowing the majesty of the earth to teach us about the majesty of the Divine. To refuse them the courtesy we do not hesitate to ask for ourselves is, again, hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
There are also, those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran applied today, should we do them the discourtesy of telling them how they should interpret their sacred texts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
One CANNOT kill in the name of Christ. Although many have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

To my mind, acting as though Muslims view the Koran in the same way that Christians view the bible is misguided on many levels.

---

To my mind, acting as though Muslims do not view the Koran in the same way that Christians view the bible is misguided on many levels. Burqa to bikini, baby, the approach and application to the Koran is just as varied.

---

Boy, don't patronise me. If you bothered to read my post you would see quite clearly that i did not presume to speak for how all Muslims view the Koran.

---

quote:

---

There may be a few

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
There are also, those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran applied today, should we do them the discourtesy of telling them how they should interpret their sacred texts?

---

No but we should do them the courtesy of not lumping them all together as murderers, when a tiny eensy teensy minority of them are murderers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
There are also, those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran applied today, should we do them the discourtesy of telling them how they should interpret their sacred texts?

---

No but we should do them the courtesy of not lumping them all together as murderers, when a tiny eensy teensy minority of them are murderers.

---

So, to dispute that Kelly Alves can speak for the "intent of the style" of the Koran is to lump all Muslims together as murderers. So it's ok for Kelly to say how all Muslims should interpret their sacred texts but if somebody says they know Muslims who don't interpret the Koran that way then THAT is to lump all Muslims together as murderers. Hmmm right ok.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The popular conception of the crusades among Christians, as some kind of foreshadowing of European colonialism and as an aggressive attack on Islam to a large extent motivated by greed for money and power, has been basically debunked by historical research. The crusades were defensive wars in which a devastated Christendom that had already lost two-thirds of its territory to brutal Muslim conquest finally geared up for a defence of its remaining holdings - and yes, to re-take its holy sites. These were mostly idealistic wars fought by comparatively rich people who for the most part lost out economically in doing so. And the lands in the Middle East that Christians occupied - or really re-conquered, for North Africa and the Middle East of course were deeply Christian lands before the Muslim conquest - incidentally gave religious freedom to its Muslim inhabitants. There was no systematic attempt at forceful conversion by Christian troops in the crusades. And with the exception of the first crusade Christians kept on losing grounds to continued Muslim military aggression, which came to a hair's width of invading Rome and occupying central Europe. Europe in the end thwarted Muslim aggression economically and scientifically, not militarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


The fact is, Muslims that interpret their holy book so strictly and literally as to justify the kind of terrorist activity we're talking about are clearly the minority, not the majority, otherwise we'd be completely overrun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being made is about which kind of Muslim is portrayed as the norm and which is portrayed as the exception.

The fact is, Muslims that interpret their holy book so strictly and literally as to justify the kind of terrorist activity we're talking about are clearly the minority, not the majority, otherwise we'd be completely overrun. If they were the majority, we'd either have been all hacked to death by our neighbours or they would have all been arrested/shot by now.

---

quote:

---

KELLY ALVES

the Koran is more like an archived issue of a theology journal, dated 622.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I'm no expert and am certainly open to correction on all of this, but whilst my gut reaction is to regard Christianity as somehow intrinsically more 'peaceful' than Islam - it's sometimes hard to square that with how things have worked out.

I've mentioned this before, but during the Pequod Wars of the 1630s the 'Separatist' Puritan settlers in what is now New England cited the Book of Joshua to justify - or at least explain - the massacre of Native American non-combatants - the elderly, women and children.

After a series of inconclusive skirmishes, the settlers attacked and destroyed several Pequod villages and killed all their inhabitants. Unused to such 'total war', the Pequod retreated deeper into the forests. Contemporary writers were clearly squeamish about this, but they drew on the Book of Joshua as a precedent.

This is a sobering and salutary check to the kind of view I used to take - gloating that more enlightened Protestant colonists didn't replicate the enormities of those wicked, evil Catholic Conquistadores further south ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The author of that website claims that there's plenty of verses justifying or approving violence.

---

quote:

---

And yet I rarely see anyone on here who decides to start talking about the Quran have the sheer human decency to acknowledge that it's open to interpretation in precisely the same way.

---

quote:

---

historically there have been plenty of Christians who have used the Bible to justify practices that you and I would find abhorrent, ranging from slavery to Crusades to virulent anti-Semitism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being made is about which kind of Muslim is portrayed as the norm and which is portrayed as the exception.

The fact is, Muslims that interpret their holy book so strictly and literally as to justify the kind of terrorist activity we're talking about are clearly the minority, not the majority, otherwise we'd be completely overrun. If they were the majority, we'd either have been all hacked to death by our neighbours or they would have all been arrested/shot by now.

---

I wasn't arguing that the majority of Muslims were justifying terrorism on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Koran-that's ludicrous. I was arguing that the versions of Islam/the Muslim people I know do not view the Koran as

quote:

---

KELLY ALVES

the Koran is more like an archived issue of a theology journal, dated 622.

---

---

I was speaking in terms of its time- sensitive nature. As in-- the collected writings of the Bible were collected over milennia, The Koran was compiled in a comparatively short time. But I agree when you strip that remark of all of the context I gave it, it appears reductive.

As for "intent of style," What I meant was, in some writings, Mohammed (or whoever took up the pen to paraphrase him) seems to be adopting the kind of analysis you would expect in the course of theological debate. "Christianity is our true brother, but here's what they got wrong. The Jews are righteous in their acts, but they don't go far enough here and there." It seems like he is asking people to assess ideas they are hearing all around them, and given the eclectic population of the Arabian trade routes at the time, this is not surprising. "Intent of style" just means "Why did M. (or whoever) write this, when did he write it, and who was he writing it to?"

Which, it seems like a sensible thing to asses. See Kerygmania, right?

If what you're saying, is that should take into account that some people genuinely believe that Gabriel physically came down and dictated the contents of the Suras to Mohammed-- well I understand that. However, I was discussing the more progressive versions of Islam that I am much more familiar with, along with what history I have learned. A number of people seem to think Progressive Muslims are unicorns, so I was introducing some of their rhetoric.

(I took a course, OK? I'm not an expert, but did enough reading and writing about Islam to ace the class. I also belonged to
MWU! for a couple of years, before it got hacked to death, and saw Muslim Progressives in action. It seriously was like a Muslim version of the Ship. Seriously.)

[ 11. January 2015, 04:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Christians only seem to denounce the OT when it suites them. If the argument points to something nasty in the OT, Christians jump to Jesus. If Christians want to condemn, they jump to the OT and say Jesus said he did not come to displace the Prophets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


The fact is, Muslims that interpret their holy book so strictly and literally as to justify the kind of terrorist activity we're talking about are clearly the minority, not the majority, otherwise we'd be completely overrun.

---

Not necessarily.

There can be a difference between how someone interprets and believes on the one hand, and how they behave on the other.

There might be Muslims who interpret the Koran in the same way as the extremists, but are too lazy or cowardly or moderate or humane to follow through on their convictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The author of that website claims that there's plenty of verses justifying or approving violence.

---

The author of that website is demonstrably wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
He looks at the situation from several angles, and is for honoring *people*--no matter what.

---

That's also in 1 Peter 2:17 ("honor all people", NASB), which is in the passage I have elected to preach on this morning, and a major reason why I, unsually for me, will be taking to the streets with my compatriots later on today.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

I hope the demonstration does whatever you need it to do. Just be careful, ok?

I don't know about in France; but here, in California, they can take dangerous turns.


 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Sure. There are times, though, when you have to stand up and be counted. It will take more than a minute's silence, a few days of national mourning, or massive marches to get anywhere near resolving any of the issues, but this is a day for national solidarity and I'm move by the huge numbers of people who have already marched (the marches are staggered over yesterday and today).

As La Vie En Rouge said earlier, when the French get roused they take to the streets; it's what we do.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
With all those heads of state being present, the security services will probably amount to about as many as the actual marchers.

Some London landmarks will be lit in the French national colours today out of solidarity while others will go dark.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hundreds of thousands are expected in Paris, security forces are said to number around 5,000.

There is of course some clever political manouvering going on in all this, nevertheless to have Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, if not actually shoulder to shoulder in the march, both expected at it, is not an outcome I would have predicted last Wednesday and not one I suspect the terrorists envisaged either.

I hope it offers the prospect of a defining moment, not just in terms of the parameters of domestic terrorism, but also in how we conceive of religious pluralism and religious belief in the public sphere in France.

On a lighter note, today's march reminds me of the closing pages of the Astérix comic book La Zizanie (Asterix and the Roman Agent) in which, after having been divided by a nasty Roman infiltrator, the village unites; "I'm going" "me too" "I don't know where you're going, but I'm coming too" "we'll all go!". To which druid Getafix says "that's more like it, crazy as ever, but united once again".
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's not a matter of opinion orfeo.

And as long as is there is no meaningful Christianity.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wandered over to Sojourners, followed their blog link, and wound up at the article "9 Points to Ponder on the Paris Shooting and Charlie Hebdo". It's written by Omid Safi, a Muslim and Director of Duke University's Islamic Studies Center. (He's got quite a bio, below the article. I don't know his personal beliefs, but he edited a book on progressive Islam.) He looks at the situation from several angles, and is for honoring *people*--no matter what.

---

That's probably the best single piece of writing I've read on this whole business.
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
An interesting article published years before this recent terrorism about the reasons French Algerians feel alienated.

French-Algerians are still second-class citizens
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I thought Netanyahu had withdrawn for security reasons - or have there been further developments?

Meanwhile ...

@Kaplan, I agree that the NT doesn't offer a blue-print for some kind of concept of 'holy war'. I'm as unambiguous about that as you are.

The point I was making was similar to Orfeo's - if people want to find justification for their practices and beliefs citing chapter and verse then they will do so.

I'm not suggesting that the New England Pilgrim Fathers picked up their Bibles one day and said, 'Oh look, the Israelites Joshua slaughtered non-combatants, men, women and children ... and indeed God appears to have castigated and judged them when they failed to do so ... I know, let's go and do likewise - there's a Pequod village over there ...'

No, what appears to have happened is that the settlers took the 'nuclear option' as it were and went and slaughtered some villages wholesale in order to frighten the others further into the virgin forest.

Arguably, massacres in Palestinian villages by Jewish activists in 1948 served a similar purpose ...

Having done the deed, they then thought, 'Heck ... what have we done? But it was a necessary evil. Look, here's an OT precedent for it ...'

Coming back to the Crusades - yes, I broadly agree with you. Neither side come out of it with any distinction. Atrocities were committed by both sides - the Crusaders and the Saracens. That's the nature of these things.

Just as neither side, the Israelis nor the Arabs have been squeaky clean in any of their conflicts - not in 1948 and not since.

I can see where you are coming from with your suggestion that religious territorialism and ultimately religious violence is - or can be - a corollary of a theology of relics, pilgrimages and holy places.

And yes, there are sensitive pressure-points around all these things to this day - witness the civil wars in the Balkans, witness the mess of the Crimean War which arguably destabilised the whole region for the next 50 years or so and fed into the tensions that erupted in 1914 ...

Witness the squabbles and unedifying fisticuffs between Orthodox, Armenians and Ethiopians etc around pilgrim sites in the Holy Land to this day ...



These days, as you probably know, I'm quite open to the idea of pilgrimages and visits to holy places and so on - even relics (on a good day with the wind in the right direction) ... but I'm well aware of the dangers and difficulties that can accompany these things.

They are equal and opposite - but perhaps not always as deadly - consequences of taking a line where one believes that one's personal - or even idiosyncratic - views on scriptural exegesis can go too far.

It's not a question of 'different interpretations of ambiguous verses' as you put it, but wider than that. Whatever our interpretation or approach to particular texts it doesn't happen in a vacuuum.


It is not a question of Christianity's being intrinsically more peaceful than Islam - obviously, historically it has not been.

The point is that there is no justification whatsoever in NT theology for pursuing any sort of holy warfare, and both the Puritans and the RC conquistadors were wrong in imagining that there is.

It is not a matter of different interpretations of ambiguous verses.

You criticise medieval Popes - with good reason, I would suggest - for not quoting NT verses to support the notion of holy warfare when such a thing wouldn't necessarily have featured in their 'acceptable hermeneutic and exegetical principles.'

Their hermeneutic and exegetical principles would have differed from yours.

That doesn't make them right - indeed, on the 'holy warfare' issue I'd agree that they were wrong.

But what you are effectively saying is that the only 'acceptable' hermeneutical and exegetical principles are those that you yourself use.

Not everyone, of course, will agree with you on that and there lies the rub.

Ok - if that applies even within a Christian paradigm, it's equally going to apply in the way that adherents of other religions use and approach their sacred texts.

You seem to be suggesting that a 'militant' or 'violent' interpretation of the Quran is the most 'sound' of the available interpretations or deductions that Muslims can derive from it.

That the Quran justifies Jihad and there's an end to it ...

Is that what you are arguing here?

That however more 'liberal' or 'moderate' Muslims may cut it, the militant jihadist approach is the only one that can be adopted given the application of 'acceptable' Quranic hermeneutical principles and exegesis?


 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I thought Netanyahu had withdrawn for security reasons - or have there been further developments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


You seem to be suggesting that a 'militant' or 'violent' interpretation of the Quran is the most 'sound' of the available interpretations or deductions that Muslims can derive from it.

That the Quran justifies Jihad and there's an end to it ...

Is that what you are arguing here?

That however more 'liberal' or 'moderate' Muslims may cut it, the militant jihadist approach is the only one that can be adopted given the application of 'acceptable' Quranic hermeneutical principles and exegesis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am arguing that the message of violent jihad is one of the possible interpretations of the Koran, but that approval of religious violence is impossible to derive from the NT except by some species of eisegesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


One could argue that Cromwell's sense of 'calling' - in the Calvinistic sense - was responsible for his propensity to detect Divine leading and Providence in any action that happened to go his way ... 'God made them as stubble to our swords ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[qb]

As to the nihilistic, subjectivist, postmodern and ultimately pessimistic theory that no normative doctrine or ethic can be derived from Scripture ("It only says what an individual chooses it to say to suit their convenience"), I would return to Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

---

Show me where I have argued such a thing and then I might agree that I have mistaken.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Dang ... didn't preview my post again ...

That's a normative Ship of Fools doctrine derived from its 10 Commandments and protocols that I all too often overlook ...



I'm not arguing for a subjectivist, 'the text can mean whatever we want it to mean' approach. Far from it. What I'm saying is that very few decisions any of us actually make in our day-to-day lives are purely based on our exegetical understanding of particular verses.

Rather, as you will undoubtedly agree, our decisions and behaviour are determined by a whole range of responses and ethical considerations that are informed by a whole range of factors. Our particular understanding of the scriptures or Christian doctrine are part of that ... but they aren't the sole criterion.

Of course, some things are so obvious they don't need spelling out. When I married my wife, I didn't try to marry 3 other women at the same time, for instance ...

Not only would this have been going against the NT, it would have been going against the law of the land ...

It's one of these both/and things again.

I know what you're saying. I'm simply saying that these things don't happen in a vacuum. There's nothing necessarily post-modern, subjectivist and what-have-you about that ... it's simply how things are and how people behave.

You, me, everyone else.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
His point was to show that the old village atheist taunt "You can prove anything from the Bible" is true - provided you ignore all reasonable principles of interpretation.

When it comes to what the Bible says, there are three categories: first, things which no reasonable person can deny the Bible teaches (whether or not they think that teaching is inspired, true and authoritative); secondly, things which no reasonable person can claim the Bible teaches; and thirdly, things over which reasonable people can differ as to whether or not the Bible teaches them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
One can only overcome hate with love in Christ. One can and in fact MUST overcome hate with hate in Islam. Muslims MUST fight persecution with violence just as Muhammad did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There's something about this thread that is increasingl troubling. There is no argument that competing atrocities somehow excuses this one, a weirder version of the already pretty weird cry, 'we are all guilty'. So what is the relevance of who sacked Constantinople or 'what about the Spanish Inquisition'? The fact that plenty other people have done bad things, doesn't make what these young men have done slightly less bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I wasn't arguing that the majority of Muslims were justifying terrorism on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Koran-that's ludicrous. I was arguing that the versions of Islam/the Muslim people I know do not view the Koran as

quote:

---

KELLY ALVES

the Koran is more like an archived issue of a theology journal, dated 622.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There's something about this thread that is increasingl troubling. There is no argument that competing atrocities somehow excuses this one, a weirder version of the already pretty weird cry, 'we are all guilty'. So what is the relevance of who sacked Constantinople or 'what about the Spanish Inquisition'? The fact that plenty other people have done bad things, doesn't make what these young men have done slightly less bad.

---

I don't think anyone is trying to make it less bad, I think they are trying to make it less other. Certainly that's what I'm trying to do.

There's a big difference. As much as anything, referring to the fact that other people have done bad things is meant to emphasise that these are still 'people'. Not abstract 'monsters' with which we have nothing in common.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And now I'm going to say something really annoying before I go to bed, but it's been bugging the hell out of me all day.

17 victims of terrorism leads to 40 world leaders gathering and hundreds of thousands of people marching.

Fine.

Except that close to 300 people will die in France this month in motor vehicle accidents, and the world will barely blink.

There is no doubt that the death of these 17 people is wrong. But I can't help thinking we let it affect us far more than we should. We, as a society, examine every detail of how this happened, why this happened, because it's so unusual and rare and because we want a kind of justification that we are in the right.

But there are a myriad other things that cause far more death and misery and which we just treat as a fact of life. And it's not just that things are causing death and misery somewhere else, outside our part of the world. Plenty of it's happening in our part of the world. But it's mundane and uninteresting to us. It's the difference between the frog being boiled slowly and the frog being put straight into hot water.

It's not that I want us to stop caring that people die in terrorist attacks. It's that I wish we cared a lot more about other sorts of death that occur a lot more often and which are just as tragic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not that I want us to stop caring that people die in terrorist attacks. It's that I wish we cared a lot more about other sorts of death that occur a lot more often and which are just as tragic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian apostasy is the norm as is Muslim restraint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
...'Je ne suis pas Charlie'.

But that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to murder its staff.

<snip>

There's no point discussing this with anybody who has any equivocation about that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There's something about this thread that is increasingl troubling. There is no argument that competing atrocities somehow excuses this one, a weirder version of the already pretty weird cry, 'we are all guilty'. So what is the relevance of who sacked Constantinople or 'what about the Spanish Inquisition'? The fact that plenty other people have done bad things, doesn't make what these young men have done slightly less bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And now I'm going to say something really annoying before I go to bed, but it's been bugging the hell out of me all day.

17 victims of terrorism leads to 40 world leaders gathering and hundreds of thousands of people marching.

Fine.

Except that close to 300 people will die in France this month in motor vehicle accidents, and the world will barely blink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But there are a myriad other things that cause far more death and misery and which we just treat as a fact of life. And it's not just that things are causing death and misery somewhere else, outside our part of the world. Plenty of it's happening in our part of the world. But it's mundane and uninteresting to us. It's the difference between the frog being boiled slowly and the frog being put straight into hot water.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wandered over to Sojourners, followed their blog link, and wound up at the article "9 Points to Ponder on the Paris Shooting and Charlie Hebdo". It's written by Omid Safi, a Muslim and Director of Duke University's Islamic Studies Center. (He's got quite a bio, below the article. I don't know his personal beliefs, but he edited a book on progressive Islam.) He looks at the situation from several angles, and is for honoring *people*--no matter what.

---

That's probably the best single piece of writing I've read on this whole business.

---

Agreed.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
My first thought regarding the traffic death comparison was that it was apples and oranges, and it mostly is.
However, there is one point of real comparison.
What are we willing to surrender to gain protection?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Just reporting back from our local march, to which the equivalent of over half the city's population turned out. France hasn't seen mobilisation like this since the Liberation. Extraordinary scenes. Let's see where we go from here. My daughter stuck in the Paris one somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A lot of sense on display in this reflection too:

http://paper-bird.net/2015/01/09/why-i-am-not-charlie/

Meanwhile, why are we seeing so many 'talking past one another' or 'missing the point' posts? - which is what seems to me is happening here to some extent.

An attempt to understand something isn't necessarily an attempt to condone or justify.

Nobody here seems out to condone or justify these barbarous acts.

Equally, I don't see how the acknowledgement that our exegesis or understanding of particular texts are inevitably contextualised and shaped by whatever influences and tradition/s we are part of/subject to amounts to a nihilistic and subjective attempt to undermine the authority and currency of such texts.


 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
No kidding. It's kind of a mind bend to address the argument that Islam us intrinsically violent by talikng about progressive, non literal ideas in Islam, only to be told by the same person that discussing progressive Islam insults literalists.

[ 11. January 2015, 16:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Je su[i]s.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye orfeo, we must not other those who other us.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not that I want us to stop caring that people die in terrorist attacks. It's that I wish we cared a lot more about other sorts of death that occur a lot more often and which are just as tragic.

---

Are you saying all deaths are tragic? In which case "tragic" just means "death." People dying in automobile accidents are not the same kind of thing as people dying from terrorist acts. The former deaths are an unfortunate byproduct of a useful tool, and we as a society are constantly trying to minimize those numbers, through changes in laws, road design, car design, and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And now I'm going to say something really annoying before I go to bed, but it's been bugging the hell out of me all day.

17 victims of terrorism leads to 40 world leaders gathering and hundreds of thousands of people marching.

Fine.

Except that close to 300 people will die in France this month in motor vehicle accidents, and the world will barely blink.

There is no doubt that the death of these 17 people is wrong. But I can't help thinking we let it affect us far more than we should. We, as a society, examine every detail of how this happened, why this happened, because it's so unusual and rare and because we want a kind of justification that we are in the right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, the better answer is that the world would blink if there were a concerted campaign by French motorists to go out and kill as many people as they could in the month. And given the horrors of last week in Paris, no jokes about the driving of French motorists please.

---

The interesting question is, how many motorists would it take to make it a concerted campaign, and how successful would they have to be.

I suppose these terrorists were fairly successful as far as these things go, and I'd note that their goal was not simply to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure it was even to kill as many men as possible.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Gamaliel, if you and Orfeo are making the commonplace observation that some people misinterpret the Bible idiosyncratically in order to find support for their subjective, bizarre, and sometimes dangerous beliefs and activities, then obviously neither I nor anyone else can disagree with you.

In the same way, some people derive justification for loony and violent behaviour from pop song lyrics, the pattern in a wall-paper, or the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.

We can respond to this by either taking the attitude, “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, which is as good as anyone’ else’s, and I’m all too aware that I myself sometimes interpret things to suit my personal needs”, or by at least making the effort to get as close as possible to the real and objective truth, quaintly retro as such a concept might appear these days.

If we choose the latter, we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).

[ 12. January 2015, 05:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Supposing you're right, why care? Suppose that a book written a great many centuries ago does contain a stream of violence. If the vast majority of readers disregard that stream and don't put it into practice, why is the existence of the stream important?

I'm just asking for the sake of argument, because I don't find your blanket assertions in either direction all that convincing. We end up with a general tenor that most Christians are peaceful people because of their religion but most Muslims are peaceful people in spite of it. But let's assume for the moment this is true. Surely the most important point is that most Muslims are peaceful.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't see how what I've posted leads away from a desire to get at the truth - the Truth (which is a Person of course).

Rather, it is an attempt to tackle these things in a 3D way rather than a binary and 2D one. I don't think these things neatly boil down to a bald 'Your holy book justifies religious violence but mine doesn't.

Even if this were the case - and I agree that the NT doesn't provide a blue-print for religious violence, the fact remains that none of us approach the NT in glorious isolation - and the same applies with Muslims and the Quran.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The more I think about the claimed respective stances of the two religions, the more disturbing I find it.

Because a whole series of related propositions spiral off of it.

Aren't we lucky that so few Christians are poor at following Jesus' non-violent example.

Aren't we lucky that so few Muslims are good at following Mohamed's violent example.

Christians are consistent. Muslims are inconsistent. Christians have strong attachment to their moral principles. Muslims have weak attachement to their moral principles.

And so it goes on. This set of propositions about the teachings of each religion coupled with the observation that, in practice, the fanatics that make everyone's life hell are not the majority in either religion just heaps a double set of judgements upon Muslims. It ends up being a claim that not only is their religion crappy, they're crappy at following it. Instead of celebrating peaceful Muslims, we can look down at them in moral judgement for being poor disciples.

Meanwhile, the actual terrorist who reportedly smoked pot and slept with his girlfriend is held up as being closer to a true Muslim.

This just strikes me as sickeningly arse-backwards. At times in this thread there's been a suggestion that I'm trying to validate the actions of the terrorists. To me, this line of thinking validates them far more. It argues that they have more integrity than a billion other members of the same faith who didn't have the guts to obey the call to violent struggle.

What are we trying to do here? Make an ISIS recruiting video?

[ 12. January 2015, 07:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To clarify ...

On re-reading that post I can see that it might look as if I am accusing Kaplan of binary or 2D thinking and making some kind of exalted claim to more rounded, 'three-dimensional thinking'.

I hope it isn't taken that way as that isn't my intention.

FWIW, I am still pretty conservative theologically.

I'm certainly 'retro' enough to believe in the Resurrection as a reality beyond the merely symbolic or metaphorical ('the resurrection was simply the way the disciples carried the memory of Christ with them in their lives and in their minds ...' type of thing) ... and to happily take on board, 'five impossible things before breakfast' ...

All I am suggesting is that whatever weight and authority we place on our sacred texts, we none of us approach them in glorious isolation from other influences.

There were a whole raft of reasons why the Puritans were inclined to apply biblical verses and incidents to contemporary events in a rather literal or over-realised way - and there are plenty of examples that could be given in addition to those provided by Kaplan and others so far.

It's not as simple as saying, 'well, they were operating with a faulty hermeneutic ...'

The same with the Crusades or any other incident - good, bad or indifferent - from the past.

I certainly don't intend my comments to imply:

- That there's no such thing as truth (or Truth) and that everything is relative.

- That we can't know anything with conviction and certainty this side of the Parousia.

Still less that all religions are the same - that's a patronising stance to adopt towards each of them.

However, it is to acknowledge that we all operate within particular paradigms and with a whole range and raft of influences - cultural, historic, theological etc

That doesn't mean that we can't know the truth, but it does mean that we all 'see as through a glass darkly.'

But we can still see ... however unclearly at times.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cross-posted with Orfeo

- No, but I suspect that there is a mindset - whether conscious or unconscious - among 'conservative' Christians that they are honour bound to defend the veracity of their scriptures and tradition by drawing attention to the weaknesses of other people's.

Consequently, a belief that Christ is the pinnacle of divine revelation and that the NT is the authoritative testimony to that (none of which I'd disagree with) has to be defended.

So anything that apparently relativises this - and which acknowledges some value or merit in someone else's prophet or sacred texts is viewed with suspicion.

I can understand this.

I've seen Orthodox posters on another board complaining that the media refers to 'the Prophet Mohammed' and that, if the media wants to be consistent it should always refer to Jesus as 'the Lord Jesus Christ' ...

And so on.

I can understand the point they're making and the truths they are trying to defend, but I don't particularly like the way they are going about it ...

If I referred to Mohammed as the 'Prophet Mohammed' it doesn't necessarily follow that I accept him as a prophet whose message I follow and whom I accept on a par with the Apostles and the OT Prophets etc.

No, I'm simply acknowledging that this is how he is regarded by those who follow the religion he founded.

If I acknowledge that President Obama is President of the USA it doesn't follow that I'm acknowledging that he has personal and direct authority over me as a UK citizen.

I'm sure there are equal and opposite tendencies over on the more liberal side of things - indeed I'm sure there are - some liberals can be decidedly illiberal when it comes to dealing with people or viewpoints at variance with their own.

In some ways, it's difficult to get around this ...

If you have something called the Orthodox Church, for instance, then it follows that there are others around who are not considered part of it or not fully Orthodox.

Same with a concept of Catholicism ... ie. this is Catholic, that over there isn't ...

Or if you operate with a particular view of what constitutes sound biblical exegesis (ie. ultimately, whatever accords with you own view, give or take a bit of wiggle-room here and there) then that's going to be ultimately divisive too.

All of which may be fair enough. The truth is out there, as they say and some or other traditions and approaches are going to be closer to it than others.

When it comes to Islam and Christianity, then obviously I believe that Christianity is the Truth. Otherwise, I wouldn't consider myself a Christian, I might pursue some other path as imperfectly as I'm pursuing this one ...

Nevertheless, I think your point is well made, that the kind of approach apparently adopted by some posters here can lead to very black-and-white binary divisions which could - under the right circumstances - actually feed the problem rather than help resolve it.

I think what you're saying is that such an approach leads to a 'they're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't' view of these things.

They are either condemned for following their own scriptures or condemned for not following them closely enough.



I'm not sure this helps or even gets us anywhere.

Nor do I think such an approach is necessary to a 'high' view of the integrity of our own beliefs or scriptures.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what you're saying is that such an approach leads to a 'they're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't' view of these things.

They are either condemned for following their own scriptures or condemned for not following them closely enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).

---

There is a great deal of it in the OT, though. For Christians, that is equally inspired scripture alongside the NT. So what do we do about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I caught part of Radio 4's Beyond Belief where they were discussing fundamentalism. A Muslim contributor insisted that the term couldn't be applied to Islam as the Quran was different to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures it that it wasn't possible to take literally. Be that as it may, he made a good case for not approaching these scriptures as of they were all directly comparable - they each have different contexts and functions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Interesting.

On not understanding "Charlie:" Why many smart people are getting it wrong.

---

quote:

---

That reminds me of Johnny Speight's character Alf Garnett; a working-class right-wing bigot from the 1960's comedy "Till Death Us Do Part". Speight wrote this primarily to expose and ridicule racism but he and Warren Mitchell, the Jewish actor who portrayed Garnett, got any amount of criticism from people who didn't look beneath the surface.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).

---

There is a great deal of it in the OT, though. For Christians, that is equally inspired scripture alongside the NT. So what do we do about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Which one are you Johnny?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Raptor Eye,

What do you mean by 'attacked' for opening our mouths? When we go beyond criticism of individuals for a criminal act and attempt to extend the blame to associates of those who carried out the act, whether temporal, spiritual or ethnic, are you surprised that we are attacked?

The majority of the population, certainly in the UK, is at best sceptical of religion, regarding it as anti-science, sexist and homophobic, so every opportunity to attack any faith is seized upon gladly and gratuitously. Christians are split between those who feel it their duty to speak out plainly (and sometimes offensively) and those who want to keep the peace (and shy away from the real issues) Both consider Christ is on their side while He probably sits saying "No, no, no: you're missing the point!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

Though I suspect that if Breivik had been a Muslim killing supposed enemies of Islam, public opinion would not have settled quite so effortlessly on the "lone nut" verdict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...

The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map

Mostly what you'd expect, but a few surprises as well. Basically, a mass illumiation of western Europe and the anglosphere, but also outposts(slightly less active) in the the Gulf and East Asia.

I'm guessing the non-western, non-South American hotspots are being driven by expat communities. Or maybe it's just anywhere in the world with widespread cell phone access?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...

The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.

As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.

It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.

It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.

And that IS hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.

As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.

It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.

It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.

And that IS hypocrisy.

---

If a Christian were saying that all Muslims should be condemned as they're violent and all Christians are the greatest peacemakers and would never do such a thing, I'd agree.

How it seems to me is like this:

"How dare you hit that woman! That's not the right way to behave."

"She deserved it, she offended me."

"Who are you to tell him not to hit her? Your own cousin hit his wife once! Your family can't crow about the right way to behave."

"Yeah, you hypocrite, keep your nose out of it, your family isn't innocent, it's well known for wife beating! Maybe she did offend him, she shouldn't have done that. Of course, he shouldn't have hit her......"

---

No, how it actually starts is: "How dare YOUR FAMILY HIT WOMEN".

That's exactly the problem. Christians DON'T walk up to the particular Muslim "hitting women" and tell him not to do it. They walk up to the whole Muslim world, any Muslim within reach, and start talking about the Muslims that "hit women".

Starting your analogy with the idea of walking up to the actual perpetrator and telling the actual perpetrator to stop is simply not an accurate reflection of what happens.

So yeah, if you walk up to any old member of the other family and start talking about the problem of their family hitting women, it's perfectly sensible for the response to be "your family does it to".

[ 13. January 2015, 21:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The response to someone like Breivik is basically "he's not one of us".

The response to a violent Muslim is basically "he's one of THEM!".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...

The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map

---

It would be more meaningful if it was normalized by total number of tweets in each area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.

A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.

About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.

---

quote:

---

Some, or all, of this was received in an email
I find all this high-minded talk about freedom of speech and conscience ironic when Muslims have more limits on speech and conscience than any other group of people - both in France and in North America.

Obviously the burqa and Halal meat bans were passed specifically to target Muslims and impinge on their religious beliefs in a way that these laws wouldn't for any other religious group. But apart from that, Muslims have been imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting non-violent so-called "jihad" videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even for including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or critiquing Judaism or Christianity in harsh terms. Muslims in Islamic dress get pulled off planes and detained in airports for misconstrued comments with depressing regularity throughout the west.

Apart fro that according to surveys almost 2/3rds of Americans want to see Congress pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing the burning/desecration of the U.S. flag as a form a protest. And in Europe many countries have holocaust denial laws.

Freedom to offend seems to work in certain directions but not in others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.

A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.

About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.

---

Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.

---

Maybe the brothers were acting out their own personal drama/issues/mythology? They could have reinforced each other, or one manipulated the other. I don't know how often siblings do this kind of thing, but the guys who bombed the Boston marathon were brothers, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The response to someone like Breivik is basically "he's not one of us".

The response to a violent Muslim is basically "he's one of THEM!".

---

This has been confirmed in surveys:

Public Religion Research Institute: The American Double Standard on Religious Violence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It almost makes more sense as a desperate copycat, but then where's the driver? Or possibly of him panicking, but after being relaxed enough to go home and still feeling safe to go out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What we have heard here is that CCTV has shown he scoped out the supermarket the week before and he was closely and systematically in contact with the other two in the time leading up to the attacks, and (as I understand it) during the sieges.

The idea of a two-pronged hostage action strikes me as typical Al-Quaeda, who seem to go in for multiple actions, and complicated the situation by an assault on one immediately having an effect on the other. There is little doubt in my mind that the attacks were coordinated in some fashion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.

A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.

About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.

---

Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.

---

Since 2002? 100 deaths?

Hate to break it to you, but on a global scale that really doesn't make Indonesia a hotbed of danger. Nigeria suffered 20 times as many deaths last week.

The post you were quoting said Indonesia had the least problem. It didn't say that no-one ever died in Indonesia. It's about perspective, not absolutes.

Meanwhile, how many murders do you think were committed in Australia since 2002? How many of our citizens died at our own hands? Is an Australian visiting Indonesia statistically in any more danger than an Australian staying at home?

You've got to ask these kind of comparison questions to get a meaningful answer. You can't just say "100 Australians have died in Indonesia since 2002" as if, since 2002, everyone who stayed inside the borders of Australia was magically rendered immortal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.

---

Here's another stat: virtually all ethnic minorities are under-represented in the Australian forces.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.

---

Here's another stat: virtually all ethnic minorities are under-represented in the Australian forces.

---

No doubt, but I can't see what that's got to do with comparing the number of a particular group who are in the ADF with the number who have gone to fight with ISIL. Do enlighten me...... is there some sort of discrimination in the ADF recruiting process that means those disappointed applicants decide they want to be in the army anyway, so they go join up with another force who are recruiting?
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, of course, that leaves about 476,000 Muslims (as of the last census) sitting on the sidelines, failing to join either ISIS or the Australian Defence Force.

Seriously? We're going to start saying you're un-Australian if you don't sign up? I must be un-Australian to my bones, then.

---

quote:

---

... it's about perspectives not absolutes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
No doubt, but I can't see what that's got to do with comparing the number of a particular group who are in the ADF with the number who have gone to fight with ISIL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But apart from that, Muslims have been imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting non-violent so-called "jihad" videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even for including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or critiquing Judaism or Christianity in harsh terms.

---

It would be a lot easier for people to evaluate your statements if you'd supply a link to the page from which you lifted them.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
It came to me in an email and the language is a bit different, but if that is where it's from then there you go.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Taking someone else's words and claiming them as one's own is a rather serious thing in a world of words.

If you know you haven't written them yourself, attribute them!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've just gone back and attributed the post to something received by email. I might have attributed more to the author of the email who'd lifted stuff from Glenn Greenwald than necessary, but without access to ToujoursDan's email I don't know what are his words and what's from the email.

The quote function makes it very easy to distinguish between your words and the words of someone else. It's easy to keep on the safe side of copyright laws and courteous behaviour.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
I believe Thailand is a fairly popular spot for medical trips and even according to the article lots of Aussies retire there so a fair number of deaths there might be of elderly or ill people who would have died anyway (though one might want to check the safety of the medical care).
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Apologies.


 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It's a bit difficult for non-Australians to evaluate what's being said about 100 Australians getting murdered in Indonesia since 2002 without knowing whether Indonesia is a popular holiday and business destination for Australians, or whether hardly any Australians go there.

By comparison, if one were told that 100 British subjects had been murdered on Kerguelen since 2002, that would probably be considerably more than both the number of British subjects who have been to Kerguelen in that time and the number of murders ever committed there. On the other hand, if one were told, say, that 100 British subjects had been murdered in the USA since 2002, that is a country that a lot of British people visit. So it would be a worrying but possibly not particularly significant statistic.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
nerd-sniping tangent for avid Googlers/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
if one were told, say, that 100 British subjects had been murdered in the USA since 2002, that is a country that a lot of British people visit. So it would be a worrying but possibly not particularly significant statistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It's a bit difficult for non-Australians to evaluate what's being said about 100 Australians getting murdered in Indonesia since 2002 without knowing whether Indonesia is a popular holiday and business destination for Australians, or whether hardly any Australians go there.

---

Bali, which is in Indonesia (and which is where the bombings occurred), is probably the single most popular overseas holiday destination for Australians. It's close, it's exotic and it's cheap.

The only country that more people travel to is New Zealand, but a somewhat lower percentage of trips to NZ are for leisure.
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
Every bogan Australian (and yeah that's a lot) goes to Bali-it's crawling with Dazzas and Kylies. I don't see how that's relevant to what was being discussed, unless somebody had said that terrorism was rampant in Indonesia and a significant number of Australians had been killed.

The fact is terrorists exist and are operative in Indonesia which was being disputed. I didn't say that terrorism was a common activity amongst Indonesians, just that it is not unknown.

I can't see how the fact that plenty of Australians die overseas is in anyway relevant to the fact that there are active terrorists in Indonesia. Frankly Al-Quada would have a better murder rate if they just sold goon and hired out mopeds rather than going to the trouble of orchestrating co-ordinated bombings of nightclubs frequented by westerners.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What you actually said was that Indonesia "wasn't a bastion of peace".

How are we supposed to interpret that? If you're saying simply that from time to time violent deaths occur in Indonesia, this is pretty trite. Even if what you're saying is that from to time religiously motivated deaths occur in Indonesia, this is still pretty trite.

Which is why people took you to be suggesting that more religiously motivated deaths occurred in Indonesia than elsewhere. That it was relatively violent. That it was more violent than the 'background' level of violence to be found in "peaceful" countries. Hence the interest in statistics.

You're in fact now basically admitting that the terrorists DON'T have a significant impact on the death rate. In that case, why exactly were you pointing out Indonesia as "not a bastion of peace" in the first place? Why were you providing figures?

[ 15. January 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
It's a question of proportionality and perceived risk. For instance how many Australians get killed every year as a result of "normal" crime in Indonesia - or Australia of that matter - compared to "Islamic Terrorists". I'm not saying that any death in this way is good in any way, but that we spend hours, days, weeks, lifetimes agonising over terrorism and whether islam is good but ignore the other stuff that actually has a larger effect because it somehow is more normal or less scary - or something. And we also allow these events to erode our democracies and drive our politics. Why?
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What you actually said was that Indonesia "wasn't a bastion of peace".

How are we supposed to interpret that? If you're saying simply that from time to time violent deaths occur in Indonesia, this is pretty trite. Even if what you're saying is that from to time religiously motivated deaths occur in Indonesia, this is still pretty trite.

Which is why people took you to be suggesting that more religiously motivated deaths occurred in Indonesia than elsewhere. That it was relatively violent. That it was more violent than the 'background' level of violence to be found in "peaceful" countries. Hence the interest in statistics.

You're in fact now basically admitting that the terrorists DON'T have a significant impact on the death rate. In that case, why exactly were you pointing out Indonesia as "not a bastion of peace" in the first place? Why were you providing figures?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
The fact is terrorists exist and are operative in Indonesia which was being disputed.

---

quote:

---

[T]he least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I said Indonesia wasn't a bastion of peace-that's not the same as saying it's less peaceful than Syria or Afghanistan.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0