Je Suis Charlie

[Random Gamer]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

This is a steaming pile of absolute unadulterated bullshit.
I've no idea who wrote that shitty article, but he sure sounds like a vile human being. And that's without even going about him relying on bloody Gawker. I mean, just the fact this fucker picked a handful of cartoons to "prove" his point is despicable - just pick a full year and check how many times they bash Muslims and how many times they go after Socialists, far right, Jews or Catholics.

CH is pure equal opportunity - everyone gets trashed, whatever the creed or political position. When you draw the recently deceased Pope sodomizing kids - a quite frequent portrayal of the Catholic Church in the magazine -, you can hardly be considered racist/islamophobe; they had a profound loathing for all religions, obviously, but Islam was far from their primary target. Ironically, they even once campaigned to have the far-right National Front party banned because of fascistic tendencies and dubious or downright illegal activities.
As for using racist stereotypes, that's part of the game. It's satire and caricature, using stereotypes is expected at times - though there were several cartoonists and only a few used that style.

Now, if you want the position of someone who really gets it, here it is:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/

 

[webkilla]

Did you read the article? Or any articles or writings on Islamaphobia? If you want to start, I would highly recommend Edward Said's Orientalism, as it has a great description of why the idea of "racism" in that context doesn't make sense.

The point is that when Charlie Hebdo draws "muslims" what they actually draw are caricatures for Arabs. The dress, the hair, the beard; all scream "negative image of Arab male" But actually I can't begin to explain the reality of created race discourses, I will really have to direct you to someone that knows better.

So what?

Gamergaters are being flamed to hell and back - but none of them have started murdering people for being caricatured as monsters.

Bloody hell - try reading an arab newspaper and see what they're writing about the jews. It'll make your toes curl.

 

[Product Placement]

Regarding the can of worms that has been opened here, about the good ol' subject called religion, allow me to contribute my point.

It's easy to understand why certain people find it easy to rally against Islam. After all, most of the major terrorist acts of the 21st century have been done in its name. But consider for a moment that centuries before, these same acts were committed in the name of Christianity. And before that in the name of Judaism. And before that the almighty Apollo or Zeus or Ra or what have you.

The problem isn't religion; it's extremism. At the risk of invoking the infamous Godwin law, everything is susceptible to extremism. even Social centric nationalism [http://www.whenhumanityfails.com/images/destruction/nazism/nazism_05.jpg].

To fight Islam is to divert your energy in the wrong direction, because you're most likely gonna be spending it on some perfectly normal people who live in your community. And when you create the Us vs Them scenario, more people are backed into a situation where they are more susceptible to extremism. Hatred begets hatred. Hate those who don't deserve it and they'll learn to hate you in return.

 

[tzimize]

Racism. I hear you keep saying that word but I dont think it means what you think it means. Racism means treating a race poorly because of that. Its not racism to say that religion is bad. Muslims are not a race. Its not racism to say something is bad. Its racism to say something is bad because of nothing. If I say black people are inferior because they are black, THAT is racism. If I say religion is BAD because it makes people do BAD THINGS, then that has NOTHING to do with racism. My world view is based upon rationality. Rationality is the polar opposite of religion. Religion is blind faith. Blind faith makes people shoot other people because of drawings. Nothing else can.

He's not saying they're racist because they railed against Muslims, he's saying they're racist because the means by which they did it used stereotypical and exaggerated features of Arabic men. It's not 'racism' against Muslims he's concerned over, it's racism against Arabs.

I don't know that I personally agree with Immsys, though he does raise a point I'm having to take into consideration, but if you're going to argue with him, at least argue against the point he's actually making, and not what you've decided you want to argue.

Good point. I still dont think its racism though. Caricatures are not making arab muslims look bad, they do that fine on their own. The caricatures would not exist without the abundant source material. Does that mean all arab muslims are bomb toting madmen? Of course not. However...when you look at the majority voting of some arab countries regarding for example death penalty for leaving islam and such...well...it can make you wonder. And I still claim that its not racism. I dont think they have awful twisted opinions because they are arabs or muslims, I think they have that because of their twisted religion. Which has nothing to do with racism. Depicting arabs with certain physical traits its not racism. That would be the same as saying depicting blacks with black skin is racism. Blacks have black skin. Pointing it out is not racism.

I am not strawmaning Islam to be bad, I am saying religion is poisonous shit. Not because I simply THINK so...but because it is MAKING PEOPLE SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF DRAWINGS. RELIGION does that. You cant rationalize with that. How would anyone have a discussion about values when the other persons values are handed down from heaven? You cant. There is no argument. There is only absolutism. This is the difference between science/rationality and religion. Science is open to argument, and being proven wrong. Religion is NOT. It is about faith. BLIND faith. Thats why it is BAD. I'm not sure if this has been verified but as far as I know, the guys shouted Allauh Akbar or whatever the spelling is when firing on the elderly, unarmed people. Yes people did this, but they did it because of RELIGION.

Yeah, you kinda are and no, no it really isn't. PEOPLE are making people shoot other people because of drawings. Actually, scratch that. People are deciding to shoot other people because of drawings. Religion can't make people do anything, it's not some pervading consciousness buried within a book dominating those who come too close, or some controlling hive mind assimilating everyone who steps into a mosque.

Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say 'at the start of 2015 some dudes in Paris are gonna talk shit about our Prophet, go shoot him with AKs (you'll know what they are) or else we'll get you'.

People chose to do this. People who have chosen to let their warped interpretation religion replace their rationality. People who have chosen to let religion annihilate their humanity rather than enhance it. Awful fucking people.

Religion can and has been abused, yes, I will grant you that. But all those traits you seem to value, rationality, free thought etc don't just evaporate the minute they come into contact with religion. They can and do exist side by side.

How many eminent, accomplished scientists do you think believe in God? How many do you think are practicing Christians, or Jews or, yes, Muslims? If you really think the answer is none, you may need to get a reality check.

OT: Nicely done Grey and Cory. It's nice to see solidarity simply being its own message.

People in general are very proficient in doublethinking. Its quite possible to delude yourself into believing in god and still be a scientist. However, secular christianity for example is not so much a religion as it is a moral pointer for your life. And I'm not sure I would call that religion per se. What would be more interesting is to see for example how many scientists are creationists. I'd think the number of that would be tellingly small.

People that look at for example the bible as a metaphorical book, with moral guidelines (through the new testament of course, not the madness that is the old testament...) are people that have not managed to completely shake of the shackles of their upbringing. It can be challenging to look at life and eternity and acknowledging that your time in it might not span more than a hundred years, when you've been taught from infancy about the hope of life eternal. Most people would need to cling to their faith in some form or another, and for any even mildly educated individual it is a hell of a lot easier to look at the bible as a metaphorical book than a literal truth.

The moment you start to interpret the bible or any holy book as metaphorical or do something similar....you are starting to rationalize your own faith. In addition you are breaking it down and transforming it to fit the way YOU want to live. At that moment I would say it ceases to be a religion and starts to be a lifestyle. You dont have to be a christian to celebrate christmas.

Religion on the other hand is the faith that what is in your holy book is the truth. You dont have to be a gun toting madman to believe this. But if you do...you really are in the same boat as them. You believe in something explicitly and without evidence and most important of all, without questioning it. THAT is religion. Religion does not question. A secular lifestyle is not the same as religion, and I'm pretty sure the amount of "real scientists" that take whatever holy book literally is very, very small.

Edit: Bolded out one of my answers since I'm not a superman of forumposts :<

 

[Darth_Payn]

Well said, Grey. What happened in France is despicable no matter what you believe in. The animals who did this have to be caught and punished as much as The Law will allow. And throw the book at them! IF they need a real book for that, they can borrow my Captain America Omnibus. AFAIK, France doesn't do executions anymore, but that can be changed...

The response to this whole thing is irony at it's finest.

I've seen right-wing people, who in a heartbeat would restrict the freedom of speech of people they disagree with, pretend they stand up for freedom of speech. I've seen left-wing people, who go on day in day out about people victim-blaming women, start victim blaming the satirists and calling them racists. Yes... because satirizing a religion and the crazies that follow it is racism...

You all disgust me.

Weirdly, I'm more disgusted about the left in your comment than the right.

 

[Verlander]

Regarding the can of worms that has been opened here, about the good ol' subject called religion, allow me to contribute my point.

It's easy to understand why certain people find it easy to rally against Islam. After all, most of the major terrorist acts of the 21st century have been done in its name. But consider for a moment that centuries before, these same acts were committed in the name of Christianity. And before that in the name of Judaism. And before that the almighty Apollo or Zeus or Ra or what have you.

The problem isn't religion; it's extremism. At the risk of invoking the infamous Godwin law, everything is susceptible to extremism. even Social centric nationalism [http://www.whenhumanityfails.com/images/destruction/nazism/nazism_05.jpg].

To fight Islam is to divert your energy in the wrong direction, because you're most likely gonna be spending it on some perfectly normal people who live in your community. And when you create the Us vs Them scenario, more people are backed into a situation where they are more susceptible to extremism. Hatred begets hatred. Hate those who don't deserve it and they'll learn to hate you in return.

Again, in the last ten years in Europe, ONE white Christian attack claimed more lives than all of the Islamic attacks on the period combined.

 

[This Place is DEAD]

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

QFT.
Remember: No One Murdered Because Of This Image [http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/]

vive la liberte *tiphat*

Truth? That's a laugh. No one was murdered for an image of Mohammad either. These are fringe lunatics, who are actively seeking reasons to commit atrocities. There is no one drawing cartoons of Mohammad in Iraq - has that stopped ISIS? Of course not, because it's not about that. These idiots (and that's what they are) know full well that their actions will bring about a rise in kneejerk Islamophobia. That's their intent, to divide the community. People will react, blame "all muslims" and say it's a "muslim thing" and their hate will radicalise the moderates. It keeps happening again and again, but morons are still playing their game and blaming Islam.

Of course, it's worth remembering that the deadliest terrorist attack in the last ten years in Europe was by a white Christian man, who killed more than every single Islamic murder in the last ten years combined... and that's including the Paris attack yesterday and the London bombings.

Sorry, but "10 years" is a bad choice of time period. It allows you to conveniently leave out the Madrid train bombing in which 191 persons were killed. And Breivik's worldview is that of a small minority in Europe, but Islam has the death penalty for laughing at the prophet in its scripture, just look at all the "they got what they deserved" reactions on twitter.

It's time to speak openly about the problems islamic migration brings into our western societies. After Paris we are again being told that "Islam is a religion of peace" immediately followed by "don't let the bad deeds of some reflect on the whole religion". On the other hand the same defenders of Islam in the west are quick to point out how whole populations are misogynysts (Japan) or warmongers (Russia).


'Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury
Raise the double standard'

(The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy)

 

[Casual Shinji]

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

QFT.
Remember: No One Murdered Because Of This Image [http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/]

vive la liberte *tiphat*

People like to keep saying 'Oh it was just three idiots', but the fact is that it was three more idiots from an ever increasing idiotic crowd. A crowd that finds its roots in Islam.

And this is most definately an Islamic problem, not just some isolated incidents perpetrated by some random nutjobs. There's a culture at work here of control and dominance, something of which entire Islamic countries are guilty of. Countries like Turkey and Morocco are constantly keeping tabs on Muslims living in Europe. They see these communities not as part of Europe, but as their own (Islamic) colonies.

Islam needs to go through an enlightenment, like Judaism and Christianity, where the practitioners can see their faith as a guide and not the one law that tops all others.

 

[Amir Kondori]

What happened in France really sucked. Not only was it a heinous attack, but it has inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment across the west. I've read some really disturbing things online. I'm not Muslim, but I am half Iranian with an Iranian name and now as I put in applications for work I wonder if my name will count against me.

EDIT: And now I see these same things posted in this thread.

 

[Product Placement]

Regarding the can of worms that has been opened here, about the good ol' subject called religion, allow me to contribute my point.

It's easy to understand why certain people find it easy to rally against Islam. After all, most of the major terrorist acts of the 21st century have been done in its name. But consider for a moment that centuries before, these same acts were committed in the name of Christianity. And before that in the name of Judaism. And before that the almighty Apollo or Zeus or Ra or what have you.

The problem isn't religion; it's extremism. At the risk of invoking the infamous Godwin law, everything is susceptible to extremism. even Social centric nationalism [http://www.whenhumanityfails.com/images/destruction/nazism/nazism_05.jpg].

To fight Islam is to divert your energy in the wrong direction, because you're most likely gonna be spending it on some perfectly normal people who live in your community. And when you create the Us vs Them scenario, more people are backed into a situation where they are more susceptible to extremism. Hatred begets hatred. Hate those who don't deserve it and they'll learn to hate you in return.

Again, in the last ten years in Europe, ONE white Christian attack claimed more lives than all of the Islamic attacks on the period combined.

...

So out of all the posts ranting about Islam, you pick the one guy saying "don't blame religion" to blame Christianity for what I'm assuming is the Iraq war (since you're being vague about it).

I find it so disgustingly typical that it doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I absolutely realize the irony of it, but the main difference is that I would not shoot another person for what they believe. I want the destruction of a set of beliefs. Not a set of people. And while I realize that this will not happen, at least not in my lifetime, I'm allowed some hope. A few hundred years ago people believed in Zeus and Thor. Maybe a few hundred years from now yahwe, jesus, muhammed and any other such name will be just that...superstition. I would never go about this with a gun in hand, I dont want the destruction of people, I want the destruction of ignorance and superstition. The only way to go about that is education. It seems however that not everyone WANTS education...and its leaving me a bit stumped to the solution to be honest.

Hopefully after a few generations of muslims in western society they will realize that freedom is better than oppression and slowly be secularized. Its impossible to convince religious people of anthing, but hopefully as the generations go...the need of faith will lessen, and secular muslims will become the norm....and further down the line...atheism or at the very least agnosticism. This will be the slow destruction of religion, it is what I want. Not by violence...but by the slow and steady education and spread of rationality. I will not experience it, it will take several hundred years more (provided we dont nuke ourselves into orbit by then)...but hopefully, in time...it will happen. And no one will ever think of names like jesus or muhammed again without shaking their heads in disbelief.

Intro to Inorganic Chemistry. First day. Looking for hot women, as I'm wont to do. In comes the professor, a Rolly Polly Sort. Seems legit. Did his speech about why some people take the course and what we'll be covering during the course. And then he said something that stuck with me for a while.

"Over the end of the course, I'm going to show you how structured the universe, How flawlessly it all is connected... And it will probably make those who do not believe in a higher power question it. Because no mistake can be that perfect."

I doubt he converted anyone to... any religion. I don't even know if he was religious. But it stuck with me that even people who learn about the very structure of perceivable reality can be floored by how absolutely immaculate everything is and how the randomness of it all. Maybe it made some atheists agnostic. Maybe it converted some theists to agnostic. I don't know. But it was interesting to me.

Tzimize, I don't know you. Haven't a clue about you. I like to hope your name means you love Vampire the Masquerade, because damn that was a good tabletop rpg. I do know you're passionate about something that you think will make the world a better place. And that's admirable. But many people are passionate. And if one thing that the Jedi and the Sith taught me, it's that Passion leads to anger. What form that anger will take is always completely up to the individual.

And that very notion, that very truth of all truth of humankind... that's why broad, general statements about how "THIS PART OF HUMAN HISTORY CAUSES THE MOST PROBLEMS" is basically just useless. It's useless. If someone is violent, they will find a reason to do whatever they want. If someone is easily led, they will always allow people to convince them that seem more sure of themselves. That's just how some humans are.

Cho Seung-hui, the Virgina Tech gunman, was seen bashing his parents' devout Christian beliefs. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) didn't care about birthdays and refused religion in his home, keeping his mother from Christmas Trees in. Harris and Klebold from Columbine were Nihilist, believing more in Darwinism and how they were genetically superior than mystical stuff. James Eagan Holmes, The Aurora Movie Theater Shooter, put down Agnostic as his religion.

Religion didn't drive them to shoot. Who knows what drove them to shoot? But the point is there will always be a reason. And people who are violent and easily led will always find it. To blindly blame religion, ideology, social standing, race, sexuality, abuse... ANYTHING... and to say everything in life will just be better if we stamp this out... it will kill us. It will lead us blindly into the security of our ideals and convictions rather than just stopping and looking at someone and trying to understand that person. Every Person. We need more relation and acceptance than we do labeling and judging inferior.

Some people use religion to find peace in one's self, and some people use atheism to target people different and spread anger.
Some people use religion to target people different and spread anger, and some people use atheism to find peace in one's self.

Both sides are capable of the same thing.

P.S. There were no hot women in the class. I was sad.

 

[Verlander]

Sorry, but "10 years" is a bad choice of time period. It allows you to conveniently leave out the Madrid train bombing in which 191 persons were killed. And Breivik's worldview is that of a small minority in Europe, but Islam has the death penalty for laughing at the prophet in its scripture, just look at all the "they got what they deserved" reactions on twitter.

It's time to speak openly about the problems islamic migration brings into our western societies. After Paris we are again being told that "Islam is a religion of peace" immediately followed by "don't let the bad deeds of some reflect on the whole religion". On the other hand the same defenders of Islam in the west are quick to point out how whole populations are misogynysts (Japan) or warmongers (Russia).


'Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury
Raise the double standard'

(The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy)

What would be a good time period? 50 years? 100 years? 1000? That "you're conveniently missing out this event" mantra cuts both ways. In the last 50 years there have been more Christian terrorist attacks as well. It's only in the relatively strange period of 15 years that the sides switch.

Breivik's worldview was extremist, and a minority, but hardly a quiet one. There are politicians, far-right groups and all kinds of loudmouths who espouse the same world view. Who else are minority extremists? These radicals. Muslim extremists of this kind represent the tiniest parts of the religion. Also referring to "reactions on Twitter" is a strange measure - why don't you reference all of the institutions loudly and publicly denouncing it - including the most influential of them all. Here's a list:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2015/01/08/Muslim-unions-leaders-condemn-barbaric-Paris-attack-.html

Even the totalitarian state of Saudi Arabia is condemning it! A bit fucking rich, I'll grant you, but when even they're saying it's wrong, people sit up and listen.


Finally, when you say things like "on the other hand the same defenders of Islam in the west are quick to point out how whole populations are misogynysts (Japan) or warmongers (Russia)", you prove that actual facts or reality don't mean much to you. You look for confirmation bias on Twitter, and then project your opinion on others. You have no idea what my opinion on Japan or Russia is, or even if I refer to Islam as a religion of peace. You've just assumed, because it's convenient.

 

[Verlander]

So out of all the posts ranting about Islam, you pick the one guy saying "don't blame religion" to blame Christianity for what I'm assuming is the Iraq war (since you're being vague about it).

I find it so disgustingly typical that it doesn't surprise me anymore.

Erm, no. Pointing out a statistic isn't the same as blaming anything. You've added your own context to my post, and admitted that you have to boot. Congratulations.

The point of the statistic is that it actually reinforces your original point. You fight the wave of anti-Islam by saying that religion isn't at fault, and my point fights the false impression that Islam is the leading cause of violence or terrorism in Europe. It wouldn't matter if Breivik was atheist, odalist, taoist, buddhist or anything. He wasn't Muslim, and yet no one with the same religion as him had to suffer the same indignities that Muslims have to in the wake of his crimes.

 

[JennAnge]

snip

I do not want to enter the debate about the consequences of this for Muslims in France, which, sadly, are going to be bad. In fact, if you can catch a french news channel, you will see that they already are. Right-wing extremists who borderline on facism are already jumping on this excuse to desecrate mosques, and act like their usual hate speech is justified.

However, I feel like you lack context on the topic of CH itself. Yes, their cartoons look very aggressive, and may even seem hateful. This is true, but CH has always provided an equally aggressive treatment to each and every topic of their caricatures. They aim low and hit low on purpose, because their very "raison d'être" is to stretch the limits of the free press - a bit like the slightly more mainstream "Canard Enchaîné", but with more liberties in their tone.

A journal such Charlie Hebdo has usually been regarded as something that is on the boundaries of what you're allowed to publish. This is on purpose on their part, the editorial board has always been made of very smart people, who felt that such an organ of press was necessary to ensure that our democracy, well... stays one.

They enjoyed a reliable number of readers over time, which, I can assure you because I know a few, were *not* people who took the contents of the magazine at face value. It is what it is - a caricature of a journal, that acts like a canary in a coal mine : as long as they stand, it means that there is still free press in France. This is also true, to a large extent, of the Canard Enchaîné, but it looks like CH might not make it. Given how large a fraction of their team they have lost, it is by no means certain that they will keep going further.

Which makes me, personally, quite worried.

Canary in a coalmine, that's well put. It's a bad sign for the freedom of people to take the piss out of lunatics of any stripe or color - not in the immediate, but in a few months when the first wave of reaction has passed and people start to think of the real life consequences of publishing a scathing article about the situation in Syria, or IS, or the shit going down in Pakistan - or North Korea. Or Putin. Take your pick.

I'm also worried about my family in France, and for the innocent Muslim population, and for the people of Arabic origin - some of whom are no longer or never have been Muslims, but that wont stop them from being targetted.

The thing that depresses me the most, however, is that on the same day Charlie Hebdo was attacked, 33 people were killed in Yemen in a bombing by other extremist nutters, and that's on the second or third page of any site I checked, if it's talked of at all. I don't dare imagine how many people Yemen have lost this past year to terrorism, and Nigeria, and of course the ongoing clashes in Syria...I understand that the attack on the Hebdo hits very close to home for journalists, and that's fair enough, but...but...

Happy 2015. Let's hope this is not the year Terror wins.

 

[Product Placement]

So out of all the posts ranting about Islam, you pick the one guy saying "don't blame religion" to blame Christianity for what I'm assuming is the Iraq war (since you're being vague about it).

I find it so disgustingly typical that it doesn't surprise me anymore.

Erm, no. Pointing out a statistic isn't the same as blaming anything. You've added your own context to my post, and admitted that you have to boot.[footnote]What does that mean? Admitted that I have to boot?[/footnote] Congratulations.

The point of the statistic is that it actually reinforces your original point. You fight the wave of anti-Islam by saying that religion isn't at fault, and my point fights the false impression that Islam is the leading cause of violence or terrorism in Europe. It wouldn't matter if Breivik was atheist, odalist, taoist, buddhist or anything. He wasn't Muslim, and yet no one with the same religion as him had to suffer the same indignities that Muslims have to in the wake of his crimes.

Ok. I'm starting to understand what you're going at (but seriously, your statement was so vague that I was very hard pressed to realize what attack you were referring to).

In that case, my question is to you is, what do you gain from playing the blame game? Breivik is a lunatic who believes himself to be an agent of the Templar order. He even made a suit [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/24/article-2018148-0D227EF300000578-119_634x506.jpg]. You're pointing out the one white and Christian guy, who hated Muslims so much that he decided to attack predominantly white and Christian children that were affiliated with a political party he deemed had too relaxed immigration policy and were thus letting all the Muslims in. How's that gonna stop people from being islamophobes?

Edit: And yes, you were blaming Christianity for the attack, when all you were telling me that there was this one attack committed by a Christian white guy (even managed to sprinkle it with a side of racism).

 

[tzimize]

I absolutely realize the irony of it, but the main difference is that I would not shoot another person for what they believe. I want the destruction of a set of beliefs. Not a set of people. And while I realize that this will not happen, at least not in my lifetime, I'm allowed some hope. A few hundred years ago people believed in Zeus and Thor. Maybe a few hundred years from now yahwe, jesus, muhammed and any other such name will be just that...superstition. I would never go about this with a gun in hand, I dont want the destruction of people, I want the destruction of ignorance and superstition. The only way to go about that is education. It seems however that not everyone WANTS education...and its leaving me a bit stumped to the solution to be honest.

Hopefully after a few generations of muslims in western society they will realize that freedom is better than oppression and slowly be secularized. Its impossible to convince religious people of anthing, but hopefully as the generations go...the need of faith will lessen, and secular muslims will become the norm....and further down the line...atheism or at the very least agnosticism. This will be the slow destruction of religion, it is what I want. Not by violence...but by the slow and steady education and spread of rationality. I will not experience it, it will take several hundred years more (provided we dont nuke ourselves into orbit by then)...but hopefully, in time...it will happen. And no one will ever think of names like jesus or muhammed again without shaking their heads in disbelief.

Intro to Inorganic Chemistry. First day. Looking for hot women, as I'm wont to do. In comes the professor, a Rolly Polly Sort. Seems legit. Did his speech about why some people take the course and what we'll be covering during the course. And then he said something that stuck with me for a while.

"Over the end of the course, I'm going to show you how structured the universe, How flawlessly it all is connected... And it will probably make those who do not believe in a higher power question it. Because no mistake can be that perfect."

I doubt he converted anyone to... any religion. I don't even know if he was religious. But it stuck with me that even people who learn about the very structure of perceivable reality can be floored by how absolutely immaculate everything is and how the randomness of it all. Maybe it made some atheists agnostic. Maybe it converted some theists to agnostic. I don't know. But it was interesting to me.

Tzimize, I don't know you. Haven't a clue about you. I like to hope your name means you love Vampire the Masquerade, because damn that was a good tabletop rpg. I do know you're passionate about something that you think will make the world a better place. And that's admirable. But many people are passionate. And if one thing that the Jedi and the Sith taught me, it's that Passion leads to anger. What form that anger will take is always completely up to the individual.

And that very notion, that very truth of all truth of humankind... that's why broad, general statements about how "THIS PART OF HUMAN HISTORY CAUSES THE MOST PROBLEMS" is basically just useless. It's useless. If someone is violent, they will find a reason to do whatever they want. If someone is easily led, they will always allow people to convince them that seem more sure of themselves. That's just how some humans are.

Cho Seung-hui, the Virgina Tech gunman, was seen bashing his parents' devout Christian beliefs. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) didn't care about birthdays and refused religion in his home, keeping his mother from Christmas Trees in. Harris and Klebold from Columbine were Nihilist, believing more in Darwinism and how they were genetically superior than mystical stuff. James Eagan Holmes, The Aurora Movie Theater Shooter, put down Agnostic as his religion.

Religion didn't drive them to shoot. Who knows what drove them to shoot? But the point is there will always be a reason. And people who are violent and easily led will always find it. To blindly blame religion, ideology, social standing, race, sexuality, abuse... ANYTHING... and to say everything in life will just be better if we stamp this out... it will kill us. It will lead us blindly into the security of our ideals and convictions rather than just stopping and looking at someone and trying to understand that person. Every Person. We need more relation and acceptance than we do labeling and judging inferior.

Some people use religion to find peace in one's self, and some people use atheism to target people different and spread anger.
Some people use religion to target people different and spread anger, and some people use atheism to find peace in one's self.

Both sides are capable of the same thing.

P.S. There were no hot women in the class. I was sad.

Beautiful speech. And while I agree with a lot of it, there is what I at least perceive as a fundamental flaw in it. The assumption that the other side will be willing to listen.

Madmen will always do mad stuff, there is no questioning that. But there is a very definite difference in a lone psychopath gunning down random people for NO reason and a very sane person gunning down another person because of a very specific reason (drawing for example).

I assume you are familiar with the term kafir. When a religion contains such a term...how can there be a resolution? When a religion literally defends deceiving the other side, treating them like lesser beings because of their lack of faith, how can there be a middle ground? When a religion defends terrorizing your enemies, how can we meet? I've discussed a lot of things, with a lot of religious people. And even if I have not met any "real" extremists...the common denominator has been their absolute unwillingness to compromise on anything with connection to their religion. In the end their views are rooted in the faith that a higher power has dictated their life. Just because some religious people are not interested in blowing themselves up as part of their faith doesnt mean that they are not totally deluded. And when you are totally deluded, the road towards an extreme solution (such as christian fundamentalists gunning down abortion clinic doctors in the US) is a LOT shorter than when you suffer no delusions.

I abhor all religions, and I am convinced they contribute nothing good to the world. I am not in ANY way of the belief that the eradication of all religion would miraculously make the world PERFECT, but I am certain it would make it BETTER.

If people cant fall back on "god wills it so", they will have to find other arguments for their convictions. This leads to rationality and is 100% a good thing. When we argue from rationality it is possible to compromise and understand each other.

Passion is dangerous, but as long as we are human beings we will have passion. And passion tempered with rationality is a lot less dangerous than passion fueled by religion. Passion can also be an extraordinary force for good. And as long as passion is joined by rationality, it will be possible to simmer it down and present an argument. The cornerstone of rationality is the willingness and ability to change. Religion is the opposite. It only changes when it absolutely HAS to to survive.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are not many (if any, I'd be interested to know) atheists that have gunned down other people for their convictions or because they themselves were atheists. And I really dont think people use atheism to spread hate.

And yes, I love Vampire the Masquerade :>

 

[Casual Shinji]

Religion didn't drive them to shoot. Who knows what drove them to shoot? But the point is there will always be a reason. And people who are violent and easily led will always find it. To blindly blame religion, ideology, social standing, race, sexuality, abuse... ANYTHING... and to say everything in life will just be better if we stamp this out... it will kill us. It will lead us blindly into the security of our ideals and convictions rather than just stopping and looking at someone and trying to understand that person. Every Person. We need more relation and acceptance than we do labeling and judging inferior.

Some people use religion to find peace in one's self, and some people use atheism to target people different and spread anger.
Some people use religion to target people different and spread anger, and some people use atheism to find peace in one's self.

Both sides are capable of the same thing.

I'm pretty sure religion did drive them to shoot. No, not religion as a concept, but because of in what religious culture they were raised. There's a pervasive mindset in Islam to not accept criticism of any kind. You can call it a sect within that religion, but it is there and it's spreading its tendrils throughout Europe.

We can never solve the problem of someone just snapping and going on a killing spree, but when there's a clear ideology at the centre of many of these attacks and threats, one that is followed and applauded by a good number of others, than it'd be crazy to ignore that.

 

[This Place is DEAD]

*snip*

What would be a good time period? 50 years? 100 years? 1000? That "you're conveniently missing out this event" mantra cuts both ways. In the last 50 years there have been more Christian terrorist attacks as well. It's only in the relatively strange period of 15 years that the sides switch.

Breivik's worldview was extremist, and a minority, but hardly a quiet one. There are politicians, far-right groups and all kinds of loudmouths who espouse the same world view. Who else are minority extremists? These radicals. Muslim extremists of this kind represent the tiniest parts of the religion. Also referring to "reactions on Twitter" is a strange measure - why don't you reference all of the institutions loudly and publicly denouncing it - including the most influential of them all. Here's a list:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2015/01/08/Muslim-unions-leaders-condemn-barbaric-Paris-attack-.html

Even the totalitarian state of Saudi Arabia is condemning it! A bit fucking rich, I'll grant you, but when even they're saying it's wrong, people sit up and listen.


Finally, when you say things like "on the other hand the same defenders of Islam in the west are quick to point out how whole populations are misogynysts (Japan) or warmongers (Russia)", you prove that actual facts or reality don't mean much to you. You look for confirmation bias on Twitter, and then project your opinion on others. You have no idea what my opinion on Japan or Russia is, or even if I refer to Islam as a religion of peace. You've just assumed, because it's convenient.

Sorry, but I don't agree with what you said about my fact-finding technique. I read/watched/listened to many sources on the Ukraine conflict. State-owned german media, Magazines, Blogs, Radio. Almost everywhere I went the message was: "Putin is evil", "The separatists are monsters" etc.. Even when some "Democrats" burned 40 separatists alive in Odessa it was blamed on the victims or not reported on.

Regarding Japan, just look at how Japanese culture is belittled by journalists in nearly every news outlet that calls itself progressive. Just think of the "Used-slips-in-vending-machine" stereotype, the misunderstanding of manga/anime culture or the outrage of feminism against the traditional gender roles that the Japanese just don't want to give up.

Saudi Arabia condemning it? While still financing ISIS? As does Katar? Lipservice doesn't mean anything to me. When the wall fell, there where huge problems with antiimmigrant stances in eastern Germany at first. A lot of people in the 'old' west stood up and said: 'That's not the way we want it to be in Germany'. I've personally been at a gathering of 250.000 in Frankfurt. I'd like to see something like this from the muslim community. We stood up because we saw something wrong coming from our fellow Germans. Not because we felt guilty. We stood up to tell them: Stop that bullshit, it ruins our image in the world. Why can't muslim organisations organize such a symbolic protest? I always read statements that they don't have to, because they did not shoot anybody. That's a lazy excuse. They should send their nutcase brethren a message: 'We will not tolerate that you destroy our public image'. Simple thing to do. But it would show the haters on both sides that they are wrong.

 

[Erttheking]

You know, really I'm surprised people can't seem to understand the basic principles to follow after this.

Censorship, bad.

Fear and hatred towards a a billion people, also bad.

 

[Aroddo]

The only good muslim is an atheist former muslim.
Same goes for every religion.