Je Suis Charlie

[Lunar Templar]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

 

[weirdee]

antilgbt hate crimes in russia, fueled by putin's law and backed by the church as one single, massive powerbase

attacks weekly, if not daily, against strangers, their own family members, property, firebombings, driveby shootings, using social media to trick people into what they think is a safe meeting, mob beatings, gangrape, murder, even on camera, proudly posted online, with almost no repercussions (every once in a while the police actually have to look like they're at least trying to do something, but it's always after the fact, and have been employed, many times, to uphold putin's law instead)

people randomly surveyed in the streets of russia either actually believe all the lies, or claim to in order to avoid being destroyed by their society

but nobody's jumping up to claim that the russian orthodox church represents the majority viewpoint of christianity, despite that russia is a pretty big nation

you don't see this stuff posted in all of the news sites, you don't see citywide vigils for the countless deaths and suicides

and then

what if i told you about all of the OTHER nations this is happening in, also in the name of christianity, who spout lines like "not adam and steve" even though none of them even knows what that means, as if somebody fed them lies about western demons even though those people wear their own masks to hide their intent

what if one of those nations was the us

I think an important distinction needs to be made here. What happens in Russia is propagated by russian Officials (putin in particular), upheld by law enforcement, is flat out made illegal and the Orthodox church is merely used as an excuse due to aligning ideals. Majority of people that commit these acts are not doing so in the name of Orthodox church (i never saw even one claim to) but instead they are doing it for other purposes.

In contrast, people that act like in this shooting are doing it excplicitly for their religion with the reasoning that their religion does not allow caricatures like that. They are doing it because of Islam.

That is why i think Islam is blamed in this case whereas Orthodox Church is not being blamed as much in the Russian case.

look, when people kill other people on the basis that those people are "immoral" and then start listing the same, highly specific reasons over and over, don't even try to pretend that it's not connected back to religion somehow, none of this shit happened as much as it did after the church took over, same as radical islam when they forced progressive leaders out of power, before that it was pretty normal

of course people have their own agenda, but they feel more empowered as part of a mob mentality and find it easier to propagate their goals when they have religion behind them, just think of how hard it has been for civil rights all these years, do you really think that religion just had a minor role in that, where do these ideas come from and how do they tie back into the present day

how do you think putin rose to power, and why is it that his campaign to solidify his power specifically focuses on weeding out made up corruption from people that the church singles out for condemnation

 

[epthorn]

It's a lot easier to express solidarity than actually join the fight for free expression.

 

[MrMan999]

It's a lot easier to express solidarity than actually join the fight for free expression.

For a lot of us, expressing Solidarity is really all we can do. A lot of us are in different countries, various financial situations. A lot of us can't even afford to donate anything. So showing solidarity is all we can do.

 

[dalek sec]

All I have to say is the following:

If you need a fucking AK to defend yourself against some cartoons, you have massive problems.

I hope their next issue sells out just to spite these monsters.

Je Suis Charlie.

 

[Arluza]

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.

Islam is a religion, not a race. Being a Muslim is a choice. You can not choose to be born black, Asian, white, or whatever.

Solidarity with CH is exactly what the world needs, because 10 years is half a lifetime to the Muslim Extremist morons who killed Denmark cartoonists in 2005. The same thing happened then too. The world solidified its idea that radical muslims are a cancer to this world. The difference between this event and Denmark is mostly which country we're talking about. It's a shame Hitchens is dead and can't call bullshit when people like you call this a race thing and defend Islam's extremists.

 

[chikusho]

I suppose you're right. Can't draw any conclusions about underlying sympathies or feelings, nope, none at all. Just like you can't claim that there was underlying anti-semitism in Germany when the nazis were voted into power. I mean, it was like, their third or fourth election? No conclusions can be drawn. Too many variables.

Exactly my point. When the Nazis were voted into power, they got around 18 percent of the votes, during a time of great turmoil known as the great depression. At most, before banning parties and passing laws that turned Hitler to a dictator, they got around 30 percent voter support. And they got many of those votes by promising to fix the economy, to save Germany from communism and to restore law and order from military skirmishes in Germany (that his party actually instigated). That is, not necessarily because the German people wanted to kill the jews. The anti-semitic rhetoric was rarely stated outright, but implied and insinuated throughout their campaign.
Hitler did, in fact, not have the support of most of the German people. Most of the German people were ordinary people just like you and me who just wanted to get through the day.
Funnily enough, Hitler has many times outright stated that the Nazi part is a Christian party, and that he would not tolerate attacks against christianity. By your logic, the Vatican should probably have tried to change christian culture to make sure people weren't attracted to the nazi army..

Of course Islam can inspire some people to power through hard times and help people. Just as it can inspire people to take up the sword and slay the infidels. Things are not always all bad or all good. Islam has potential for good - but it (currently) has far more potential for harm.

That's simply inaccurate. You can't actually be saying that a belief system held by way over a billion peaceful people has "far more potential for harm". Because if you do, you might as well say that western society can both inspire people to lead good productive lives as well as to pick up the drone and slay the 'terrorists'.

Muslim culture = how religion is viewed in society, how the holy scripture is interpertated, how non-muslims are viewed... That may not be constant across all muslim nations(far from it!) but most have serious enough problem(20-99% support sharia) that a culture change is neccesary.

So, by that reasoning, it might just as well be political, national, international, socio-economic or other problems. Not necessarily religious ones. Besides, 'Sharia law' means different things in different places, and "islamist" is nothing even bordering on a united movement. Besides, an expression of passive support far from militant extremism.

What's preposterous are your wild accusations. He got one number wrong, a number that's very easy to get wrong if you're compiling statistics. He used those numbers, combined with many others, to prove that the issue is not related "to a small minority", because IT ISN'T.

I broke it down for you a few posts ago. If you have put together the details of his statements like a puzzle to even understand what he's talking about, he's basically gotten everything wrong.
Wrong numbers attributed to the wrong thing for the wrong election. All to support an point and an insinuation that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

There are many thing that permeate almost the entire muslim world. The approval of Sharia, for example. And the like of Muhammed. And the importance of god, etc etc. The reason he didn't say that, was because they were talking about Islam, and that Islam still hasn't fully abandoned the whole "women below men" thing(not that we have), but in muslim countries it's more pronounced. That's what he means.

Exactly, he's singling out a global aspect, attributing it to 'scary foreigners', insinuates a connection between them and then lets paranoia and confirmation bias do the rest. Classic propaganda technique.

The Islamic Golden Age is not at all comparable to the Enlightenment. Where, in the Islamic golden age, did they arrive at the conclusion that secularism is the best? Point me to a muslim philosopher from 1000 B.C who said that women should be equal to men, that religious influence in the civic life needed to be limited, and that democracy was a superior system of government.

It's right there in the link:

"Perhaps the most significant feature in the Fatimid era was that freedom which was given out to the people and liberty was given to the minds and reasons. Man may believe in whatever he likes provided that he may not infringe other rights. Fatimids reserved separate pulpits for different Islamic sects, where the scholars expressed their ideas in whatever the manner they liked. Fatimids gave patronage to scholars and invited them from every place, spending money on them and neglecting what they believed in, even though it was against the beliefs of the Fatimids."


Also, there's this guy called Muhammad that maybe you've heard of.
"And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed."
http://quran.com/4/124

Pedophilia and christianity is not related. That seems to be difficult to understand.

Not anymore than extremism and Islam. They are separate things that occur separately for different reasons.

Being against abortion and being a christian, IS related. Being an islamist and being a muslim, IS related.

But being against abortion is not exclusive to being a christian. And being an extremist is not exclusive to being a muslim. Ergo, the problem is not with the religion, but with the extremism.

There sure is. Those people are dumb. Tell me an organisation in Sweden which has a similar motive, and consists of more than 1% of the population. And no, saying "Those dang racistfascistislamophobe Sweden Democrats", isn't going to cut it.

Oh, so THOSE people are just "DUMB"? NOT caused by a set of beliefs shared by billions of people? Interesting...

So a racist party in parliament isn't good enough for you for some reason? Even though their electorate is most obviously signified by being xenophobic? And also, for an equally strange reason, only in Sweden?
Fine, how about the fact that about 14 percent of people in Sweden support government sanctioned murder.
http://fof.se/tidning/2013/3/artikel/dodsstraff-pa-fallrepet

 

[Draconalis]

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

This article is so fucking stupid... I don't even know where to begin.

I wanted to comment on how stupid it was on the actual page, but I couldn't figure out how... so now I'm making myself content with making this comment no one will read.

Fuck that Jacob guy. He's an idiot.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'd really rather not be Charlie, except in the very broadest sense of the term. Sure, it's necessary to support them as far as "free speech" and all that, and any loss of life is tragic. But after seeing their work, I can safely say that in any other circumstances, they'd strike me as a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic, racist assholes. Being a "satirist" who "makes fun of everyone" doesn't insulate you from being that, and kind of makes you a terrible satirist besides.

Sure, they weren't doing anything that deserved death, but there is no inherent conflict between "I think you're horrible" and "you didn't deserve to be victimized." Frankly, even seeing this as a "free speech" thing is kind of missing the point. 12 satirists weren't killed by Islamic extremists over cartoons. They were killed to try to make the extremists look like a necessary evil to a group of Muslim civilians who otherwise consider them nothing but violent lunatics.

 

[NeutralDrow]

4. The quran calls to kill anyone who insults the prophet Mohammad. Bukhari (4:241)

...what are you citing? I have a Qur'an in front of me, and Surah 4 only goes up to 176.

 

[ZiggyE]

To all these people saying that muslim extremists are a minority and, for this reason, it isn't a problem with Islam are being ridiculous.

There have been three terrorist attacks in three different western nations in the past few months, Canada, Australia and now France. Here are some fun statistics as well.

Spoiler

Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/31/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression/
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/poll-nearly-half-of-us-muslims-believe.html

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.

http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda?s attitude toward the U.S.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Informal poll of Saudis in August 2014 shows 92% agree that Islamic State (ISIS) "conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law."

http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/92-of-saudis-believes-that-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-and-islamic-law-survey/

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.

http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp

NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06

So, is it a minority? Yes. But it is a significant minority. We can't close our ears and say "it's just a few extremists, it has nothing to do with actual islam", because it DOES have to do with Islam. It is a significant portion of muslims who are committing these actions or believe these actions to be justified because of their religion. The very act of trying to distance Islam from Islam-inspired terrorism committed by Muslims is ridiculous. Sure, there's nothing wrong with being a muslim and holding moderate views, and the majority of muslims in the west are moderates, but we can't pretend that extremism isn't relevant to muslim culture.

 

[Strazdas]

look, when people kill other people on the basis that those people are "immoral" and then start listing the same, highly specific reasons over and over, don't even try to pretend that it's not connected back to religion somehow, none of this shit happened as much as it did after the church took over, same as radical islam when they forced progressive leaders out of power, before that it was pretty normal

of course people have their own agenda, but they feel more empowered as part of a mob mentality and find it easier to propagate their goals when they have religion behind them, just think of how hard it has been for civil rights all these years, do you really think that religion just had a minor role in that, where do these ideas come from and how do they tie back into the present day

how do you think putin rose to power, and why is it that his campaign to solidify his power specifically focuses on weeding out made up corruption from people that the church singles out for condemnation

I dont agree. deah sentence for mass murderers is a highly specific reason that is punishment for immoral act (murder) over and over again. yet it has nothing to do with religion. Not all killing is religion based.

Im not one to defend religion (i believe all religion should go away as it is damaging to society) but lets not blame it for things it hasnt done. Plenty of "this shit" happened even before Putins law or churchs help. they are not the initiators here. Meanwhile when it comes to radical islam - thier religion is the reason.

Putins rise to power is very simple really - corruption. Russia is a plutocracy, and putin is the face of all the oligarchs. The reason he stays in power is due to fraud elections. last elections, remmeber the tolley? 60% voted for Putin. 60% out of 140%. yeah, if you added all of % up you would get 140%.

So, is it a minority? Yes. But it is a significant minority.

Thank you for this post and sources.

 

[awesomeClaw]

I suppose you're right. Can't draw any conclusions about underlying sympathies or feelings, nope, none at all. Just like you can't claim that there was underlying anti-semitism in Germany when the nazis were voted into power. I mean, it was like, their third or fourth election? No conclusions can be drawn. Too many variables.

Exactly my point. When the Nazis were voted into power, they got around 18 percent of the votes, during a time of great turmoil known as the great depression. At most, before banning parties and passing laws that turned Hitler to a dictator, they got around 30 percent voter support. And they got many of those votes by promising to fix the economy, to save Germany from communism and to restore law and order from military skirmishes in Germany (that his party actually instigated). That is, not necessarily because the German people wanted to kill the jews. The anti-semitic rhetoric was rarely stated outright, but implied and insinuated throughout their campaign.
Hitler did, in fact, not have the support of most of the German people. Most of the German people were ordinary people just like you and me who just wanted to get through the day.
Funnily enough, Hitler has many times outright stated that the Nazi part is a Christian party, and that he would not tolerate attacks against christianity. By your logic, the Vatican should probably have tried to change christian culture to make sure people weren't attracted to the nazi army..

Of course Islam can inspire some people to power through hard times and help people. Just as it can inspire people to take up the sword and slay the infidels. Things are not always all bad or all good. Islam has potential for good - but it (currently) has far more potential for harm.

That's simply inaccurate. You can't actually be saying that a belief system held by way over a billion peaceful people has "far more potential for harm". Because if you do, you might as well say that western society can both inspire people to lead good productive lives as well as to pick up the drone and slay the 'terrorists'.

Muslim culture = how religion is viewed in society, how the holy scripture is interpertated, how non-muslims are viewed... That may not be constant across all muslim nations(far from it!) but most have serious enough problem(20-99% support sharia) that a culture change is neccesary.

So, by that reasoning, it might just as well be political, national, international, socio-economic or other problems. Not necessarily religious ones. Besides, 'Sharia law' means different things in different places, and "islamist" is nothing even bordering on a united movement. Besides, an expression of passive support far from militant extremism.

What's preposterous are your wild accusations. He got one number wrong, a number that's very easy to get wrong if you're compiling statistics. He used those numbers, combined with many others, to prove that the issue is not related "to a small minority", because IT ISN'T.

I broke it down for you a few posts ago. If you have put together the details of his statements like a puzzle to even understand what he's talking about, he's basically gotten everything wrong.
Wrong numbers attributed to the wrong thing for the wrong election. All to support an point and an insinuation that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

There are many thing that permeate almost the entire muslim world. The approval of Sharia, for example. And the like of Muhammed. And the importance of god, etc etc. The reason he didn't say that, was because they were talking about Islam, and that Islam still hasn't fully abandoned the whole "women below men" thing(not that we have), but in muslim countries it's more pronounced. That's what he means.

Exactly, he's singling out a global aspect, attributing it to 'scary foreigners', insinuates a connection between them and then lets paranoia and confirmation bias do the rest. Classic propaganda technique.

The Islamic Golden Age is not at all comparable to the Enlightenment. Where, in the Islamic golden age, did they arrive at the conclusion that secularism is the best? Point me to a muslim philosopher from 1000 B.C who said that women should be equal to men, that religious influence in the civic life needed to be limited, and that democracy was a superior system of government.

It's right there in the link:

"Perhaps the most significant feature in the Fatimid era was that freedom which was given out to the people and liberty was given to the minds and reasons. Man may believe in whatever he likes provided that he may not infringe other rights. Fatimids reserved separate pulpits for different Islamic sects, where the scholars expressed their ideas in whatever the manner they liked. Fatimids gave patronage to scholars and invited them from every place, spending money on them and neglecting what they believed in, even though it was against the beliefs of the Fatimids."


Also, there's this guy called Muhammad that maybe you've heard of.
"And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed."
http://quran.com/4/124

Pedophilia and christianity is not related. That seems to be difficult to understand.

Not anymore than extremism and Islam. They are separate things that occur separately for different reasons.

Being against abortion and being a christian, IS related. Being an islamist and being a muslim, IS related.

But being against abortion is not exclusive to being a christian. And being an extremist is not exclusive to being a muslim. Ergo, the problem is not with the religion, but with the extremism.

There sure is. Those people are dumb. Tell me an organisation in Sweden which has a similar motive, and consists of more than 1% of the population. And no, saying "Those dang racistfascistislamophobe Sweden Democrats", isn't going to cut it.

Oh, so THOSE people are just "DUMB"? NOT caused by a set of beliefs shared by billions of people? Interesting...

So a racist party in parliament isn't good enough for you for some reason? Even though their electorate is most obviously signified by being xenophobic? And also, for an equally strange reason, only in Sweden?
Fine, how about the fact that about 14 percent of people in Sweden support government sanctioned murder.
http://fof.se/tidning/2013/3/artikel/dodsstraff-pa-fallrepet

So the book, in which Hitler wrote down all his plans for both Germany and the jews, and which everybody(granted, after they were voted into power, but you could still read it before that) were forced to own, was not enough for us to conclude that German culture may have had a problem with Anti-semitism? There's still "too many variables" for any conclusion to be drawn from this?

Also, when Hitler said he was a christian, that was a big fat lie to get public support. He several times stated that christianity was "a religion of the weak", and that he was "a strong believer, but not christian"

Of course Western Culture can inspire people to do horrible deeds? But that's significantly more rare, at least in Europe(America is still fucked in this respect, what with the religious extremism and biblethumping)

It doesn't matter what they think Sharia actually means, you do realize that? They're saying they want the holy scripture to be law. It doesn't matter what they believe the holy book says, what matters is that THEY DON'T WANT STATE AND RELIGION TO BE SEPERATE. THEY WANT AN ISLAMIC STATE.

He was obviously referring to the 2012 election. That 50% voted has no real bearing on anything, and he didn't say anything that would conflict with that - he said, ordagrant: "Eller Egypten, där 50% röstade på muslimska brödraskapet." He didn't say "50% of the population" he said 50%, which I interpertate as 50% of the voting populace. Granted, he made a slight error, and that was a mistake on his part, which makes things seem worse than they are.

E-hum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Super secular state, bro.


Abortion was a poor example. Let's take the crusaders as an example instead. Are you saying that christian culture didn't contribute to creating the holy warriors of old? It was just middle-age extremism, completely unrelated to christianity?

Of course those people are a result of christian culture! I've said nothing else. Their hatred for gays and abortion are directly caused by the potential for harm in christian culture.

I don't think the Sweden Democrats are racist. Therefore, I have no objection to them being in parliament. You don't have a sole right to define things you don't like.

Limiting it to Sweden was stupid. I apoligize. There are more than enough Christian Extremist Factions in the world, and those are caused by christian culture. But most of the really bad extremism is in unenlightened countries, Uganda and the like. The good old fashioned "moderate" christian extremism in the form of anti-abortion and the like, is pretty weak in Europe. With exceptions, of course, Spain is currently considering very harsh anti-abortion laws. And that's terrible, and an expression of faults in christian culture.


P.S You can base an argument for the death penalty on other things than "cuz the bible says so". You can't base an argument for Sharia/Islamism on anything else but "the quran says so" or, maybe, "The quran is such an amazing book we should all follow it", which is basically just the first argument in a secular disguise.

 

[cathou]

I'd really rather not be Charlie, except in the very broadest sense of the term. Sure, it's necessary to support them as far as "free speech" and all that, and any loss of life is tragic. But after seeing their work, I can safely say that in any other circumstances, they'd strike me as a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic, racist assholes. Being a "satirist" who "makes fun of everyone" doesn't insulate you from being that, and kind of makes you a terrible satirist besides.

Sure, they weren't doing anything that deserved death, but there is no inherent conflict between "I think you're horrible" and "you didn't deserve to be victimized." Frankly, even seeing this as a "free speech" thing is kind of missing the point. 12 satirists weren't killed by Islamic extremists over cartoons. They were killed to try to make the extremists look like a necessary evil to a group of Muslim civilians who otherwise consider them nothing but violent lunatics.

what exactly did you saw about their work ? you look upon a bunch of front pages without the context ? Have you actually read Charlie Hebdo once ? You say that you look upon their work ? when ? today ?
you know that Charlie Hebdo exist Under this current form since 1992, and before that in the 60's and the 70's ? three of the cartoonis that have been murdered were above 70 years old and have been doing this for several décades. You do know that it's a roughly 16 pages newspaper, with about half text, half cartoons, that they highly critize religion for opposing homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. that they go more often after politician than religion. They have been sued 14 times by the catholic Church and they have won 14 times.

They didnt not make fun of everyone just for the sake of it, they had a message Under that. they were taking position against religious intervention into politics, against the politician when they messed up, for the people in general. in no way they were misogynistic, racist or homophobic, unless you base your opinion on someone who didnt knew charlie hebdo a week ago, and that decide from a bunch of drawing what Charlie was...

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, I don't always like what you guy put out (and sometimes it's a little too left wing extremist for my taste) but this one was perfect. Absolutely perfect. No words were needed other than the ones on Erin's shirt. Nothing else needed to be said. This cartoon was perfect. Perhaps the best you guys ever did in a way.

Great work, guys!

snip

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

snip

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Aw, man, you were doing so well in the fist response and then you had to go on and ruin it. Let me point it out for you:

Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit ... it should be destroyed

See the hypocite you made yourself out to be? Religion is not the problem. Ignorance, hate and needless violence are the problem. You CAN argue with the religious - a lot of people converted from one religion to another. Augustinus, one of the most influential Christian thinker, actually went through many religions before settling for christianity. Who you can't argue with are the ignorant, the fantatical and those of sick mind. Following a religion implies none of it and if you belive so, you are the same as those you hate. Want to know what religion gave us? Ethics. The western culture is basically christian ethics filtered through Descartes. It also gives art, culture, sense of belonging and hope. Not for everyone, but there are those who can't get it anywhere else.

One last thing: if you think religion was the REASON for wars and without it there would be no confilct, you are sadly mistaken. Religion only ever served as a flimsy justification, because "go die so I can haz moar moniez!" is not the best of rallying calls. As long as humans are greedy, hateful, violent and suscetible to mental instability, there will be war and there will be crazed assholes with guns shooting innocent people.

Apologies for making this look like a post in RnP.

+1

I am so glad you said this. I really wanted to say the same thing. And I think you said it as well, or even better than, I would have. Thank you. Too many people spout out that sort of nonsense without seeing their own prejudices and hypocrisy. So thank you for showing that there are some of us who are not blind and are reasonable people.

 

[webkilla]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

 

[Lunar Templar]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

First, it's 'blasé' not 'brazen'

Second, your posturing about a 'cycle of hate' rings a bit hollow when you seem to be finding any way you can of being combative and aloof.

 

[Lunar Templar]

First, it's 'blasé' not 'brazen'

Second, your posturing about a 'cycle of hate' rings a bit hollow when you seem to be finding any way you can of being combative and aloof.

It's Brazen over here. I've also been said to have a 'cavalier' attitude.

And I'm kinda of an asshole by nature, so its to be expected.

Asshole or not though, doesn't change that he's missing the point, like a lot of people seem to be. Which I'd say is sad, but 'missing the point' seem to be every one's issue these days.

 

[chikusho]

So the book, in which Hitler wrote down all his plans for both Germany and the jews, and which everybody(granted, after they were voted into power, but you could still read it before that) were forced to own, was not enough for us to conclude that German culture may have had a problem with Anti-semitism? There's still "too many variables" for any conclusion to be drawn from this?

You can draw plenty of conclusions. One of them, for instance, is that the majority of the German people were ordinary people who did not want to partake in any conflict or exterminate any people. People who simply wanted to find a way to survive and protect their families. Just like every other place in the world, the Islamic nations included.

Also, when Hitler said he was a christian, that was a big fat lie to get public support. He several times stated that christianity was "a religion of the weak", and that he was "a strong believer, but not christian"

Exactly! He didn't even need to be christian. He just needed to say that he was christian so that people would follow him. If only the christian church had changed their ways so that people weren't attracted by the nazis!

Of course Western Culture can inspire people to do horrible deeds? But that's significantly more rare, at least in Europe(America is still fucked in this respect, what with the religious extremism and biblethumping)

Yeah, it's quite common that countries that aren't ravaged by war have way lesser horrible deeds taking place in them. Western countries just exploit the poorer countries which leads to horrible situations, where poverty and desperation leads people to do horrible deeds. Ultimately, western culture has the possibility to do some good but (currently) they have far greater potential for harm.

It doesn't matter what they think Sharia actually means, you do realize that? They're saying they want the holy scripture to be law. It doesn't matter what they believe the holy book says, what matters is that THEY DON'T WANT STATE AND RELIGION TO BE SEPERATE. THEY WANT AN ISLAMIC STATE.

So what you're saying is that if a utopian system was created from religious law where everyone was happy and prosperous, you'd want to stop them purely out of principle?

Abortion was a poor example. Let's take the crusaders as an example instead. Are you saying that christian culture didn't contribute to creating the holy warriors of old? It was just middle-age extremism, completely unrelated to christianity?

Yeah, exactly. Christianity was not the cause of the crusades, it was an excuse to wage war. To gain military, political and economic power as well as conquer enemies and gain territory.

Of course those people are a result of christian culture! I've said nothing else. Their hatred for gays and abortion are directly caused by the potential for harm in christian culture.

So, even though the pope himself has welcomed gay people into the church, it's still christianity's fault that those people hate homosexuals? People all over the world has hated homosexuality for all sorts of reasons, including (but not limited to) completely different faiths, yet that's what's at fault.
I guess you also think it's christianity's fault that people join christian based suicide cults, like Heaven's Gate and People's temple? I mean, it couldn't possibly be the sociopathic and manipulative people using dogma to exploit other peoples weaknesses, it has to be the bible.
The Rwandan genocide? Couldn't possibly be a cause of colonialism, poverty and increased ethnification of the population. Has to be bible.
The Irish war of independence? That was a war between mainly catholics and protestants. So, naturally, the Bible.
Palestinian terrorism? Couldn't possibly be Israeli occupation and the loss of their homeland. Has to be the quran.

Etcetera, etcetera. Don't you see how utterly nonsensical it is to pin conflicts on one single (at best) tangentially related aspect? An aspect that has also proven by a large margin to be a greater force of good, and has produced a huge amount of incredible people who are working every day to make the world a better place?