Je Suis Charlie

[webkilla]

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.

Nah - it was actually "blasé" I was looking for. My french isn't that good.

That said, I think you missed the point as well: You seem very calm about the fact that there are people out there who think "If you offend my sensibilities, then its ok for me to murder you"

That's the larger picture.

Now answer my question: Your blasé attitude towards the deaths of these people offend me. Does this mean I get to murder you?

 

[Lunar Templar]

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.

Nah - it was actually "blasé" I was looking for. My french isn't that good.

That said, I think you missed the point as well: You seem very calm about the fact that there are people out there who think "If you offend my sensibilities, then its ok for me to murder you"

That's the larger picture.

Now answer my question: Your blasé attitude towards the deaths of these people offend me. Does this mean I get to murder you?

ah, French, that would explain it.

Actually it's not.

You and every one else are so stuck on 'being able to do something' that not a single one you have even stopped to think if you 'should be doing it' to begin with.

That, and your mistaking what amounts to 'trolling' as 'heroism'. A real hero is some one who actually goes over to some place like the Middle East, or parts of Africa to teach, or bring medical aid. Some one actually DOING something in these places to make a REAL difference, and improve the quality of life in those area's even though they could very well end up dead because of it.

 

[awesomeClaw]

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?

Alright, I can sort of see what you're getting at.

Let me rephrase myself -

Islam is not the sole cause of the problems in the middle east. I didn't think this before, I don't think it now. But it is a significant part of the problems and especially the extremism. The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in the Quran tells us that. You couldn't, for example, become a Human Rights extremist and commit genocides and find support for this in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It isn't possible.

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence. Thereby not said every muslim is violent, or that Islam is the only problem - it is, however, part of the problem, and perhaps a very central part.

Also - I am always opposed to religious law becoming the law of the land. A secular state will always be superior to a non-secular.

 

[webkilla]

ah, French, that would explain it.

Actually it's not.

You and every one else are so stuck on 'being able to do something' that not a single one you have even stopped to think if you 'should be doing it' to begin with.

That, and your mistaking what amounts to 'trolling' as 'heroism'. A real hero is some one who actually goes over to some place like the Middle East, or parts of Africa to teach, or bring medical aid. Some one actually DOING something in these places to make a REAL difference, and improve the quality of life in those area's even though they could very well end up dead because of it.

You do not consider it brave to ignore death threats and keep up doing political and religious satire?

Here's a protip: You say its useless simply making fun of stuff. I fundamentally disagree.


Satire, criticism, and being able to question the logic, validity and reasoning behind things like politics, religion or any kind of organized system that institutes policies that can function like dogma, is incredibly important.

In the early 20th century people who questioned the fairness of business tycoons paved the way for more fair more worker conditions, the abolition of child labor, and the legalization of workers unions in the west.

If you weren't allowed to question these things - as well as make fun of those who did cruel things in that period - you wouldn't have had that change happen.

And yes: I do conflate the right to question those with power to making satire and parody. Satire and parody is basically asking the question "doesn't this look silly?" - hell, the Daily Show with John Steward is the very essence of that, especially since its often played painfully straight without even twisting facts or reports to make them sound more funny: The humor comes in looking at what politicians, businesses and even religious individuals did and then simply asking the question "Wait, isn't that a bit silly?"


You say the only truly heroic thing would be to take up arms and shoot the people take offense to your actions. Right. How has that US foreign policy worked out for getting peace in the middle east for the last 12 years? Worked out great, right?


The whole bloody point of satire and parody is to reveal the folly of those who do stupid things. When it comes to political or religious satire the point is often "Isn't this silly? Are you sure you want to support this kind of dogma or political philosophy?"

When I draw prophet pictures - and I do once a year, may 20th - I do it for that very reason: I do to subtly show "I can do this - and you might not think you can, but you can see that I can, and I'm living quite happily... maybe your life choices could stand to be re-evaluated"

I don't need to take up arms and shoot people to change things. I can do it through satire, parody and simply making people think. If you think you can only change people through violence... then I pity you even more than I did to begin with.

 

[chikusho]

Islam is not the sole cause of the problems in the middle east. I didn't think this before, I don't think it now. But it is a significant part of the problems and especially the extremism.

So, again, the problem isn't Islam, it's extremism. And extremism is caused by many things, like for instance oppression. Or having your home destroyed and family murdered. Or having yourself, your skin color, your people, your faith, and the faith of your entire homeland attacked and demonized by the rest of the world. Because such attacks, and such demonization (like, for example, the Sweden Democrats creating Islamophobia through disingenous statements and twisting facts) clearly show you that the world is against you. So why should you care about the rest of the world?

The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in the Quran tells us that. You couldn't, for example, become a Human Rights extremist and commit genocides and find support for this in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It isn't possible.

The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in X tells us that people will use whatever means necessary to find support to kill others/themselves. The fault is not and has never been the quran. Most everyone who kills another does so because they think it's the right thing to do. If they don't interpret scripture in a way that supports their actions, they will interpret according to the constitution, ethical codes, social norms or twist the situation into a perspective where their actions make sense. That has nothing to do with Islam; it has to do with people.
The bible, the quran and your average law book contains both explicit rules against killing as well as situations when killing is justified.

Also, sure you can. You just have to convince yourself and other using a utilitarian code of ethics that a group is bad enough that they have to die if Human Rights are to succeed.
By the way, ever heard about Sam Childers?
https://handswideopen.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/why-supporting-sam-childers-aka-the-machine-gun-preacher-is-a-very-bad-idea/

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence.

Nope, not Islam. People. Here's proof: people who are completely disconnected from Islam kill each other and justify those acts with things outside of the quran. Therefore we can conclude, the quran is not what is causing people to kill each other.

 

[Lunar Templar]

sniped for being to damn long.

Yes, because the Teachers and Medical experts I was talking about, the ones that are actually more dangerous to these kinds of people then any standing army are totally armed and shooting back. *slow clap for twisting words*

And, hows all that Satirical blasting of politics going in the US? oh wait ...

Poking fun at something will never be nearly as effective as some one going in and addressing the real problem. Not with a gun, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, that's only good for the assholes that are to far gone, but by actually taking the time to discover the root of the problem and go after that. Kinda hard to convince some one that there's nothing else for them but to die for their god, when they have options to the contrary.

and being a smart ass in some studio some where isn't going to get those results, anybody that really cares about the issue at hand will have already know about it and started taking steps to actually make potent and lasting changes for the better.

 

[maninahat]

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.

How is it stupid? I think it is a legitimate point to make that, although no one should be murdered over cartoons, the cartoons in question were racist (or at least xenophobic, if you're the pedantic sort who points out that islam isn't a race, whilst ignoring how Muslims in these cartoons are always depicted as a stereotype Arabs). Therefore, replicating the racist art work as an act of solidarity isn't a good idea; it accidentally condones racism.

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

 

[lionsprey]

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence.

Nope, not Islam. People. Here's proof: people who are completely disconnected from Islam kill each other and justify those acts with things outside of the quran. Therefore we can conclude, the quran is not what is causing people to kill each other.

technically thats bad logic as the assertion isn't that only the quran causes killing. a better counter argument would be pointing out the people that read the quran and don't kill others.

OT
too bad about the deaths but i can't say it came as a huge shock, muslims killing people over satire ain't exactly a new thing.

 

[maninahat]

I wanna drop this here: Not all Muslims are terrorist, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslim.

Is that a fact? I don't think so. [http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/] Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Islamic terrorists get a disproportionate amount of media representation, which is largely responsible for this view that most terrorists are muslim.

 

[webkilla]

sniped for being to damn long.

Yes, because the Teachers and Medical experts I was talking about, the ones that are actually more dangerous to these kinds of people then any standing army are totally armed and shooting back. *slow clap for twisting words*

And, hows all that Satirical blasting of politics going in the US? oh wait ...

Poking fun at something will never be nearly as effective as some one going in and addressing the real problem. Not with a gun, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, that's only good for the assholes that are to far gone, but by actually taking the time to discover the root of the problem and go after that. Kinda hard to convince some one that there's nothing else for them but to die for their god, when they have options to the contrary.

and being a smart ass in some studio some where isn't going to get those results, anybody that really cares about the issue at hand will have already know about it and started taking steps to actually make potent and lasting changes for the better.

You seem to imply that poking fun at something isn't the same as addressing the real problem. Again, I point to the Daily Show.

They were pretty damn good at raising awarenses of anything from political, to enviromental, to religious topics - by making fun of it.


Hell, thanks to the daily show a whole generation of young men and women have basically learned about politics and all kinds of things - in a time where there's basically nothing else trying to educate common teenagers about such otherwise boring topics and succeeding.

Tell me that's not effective. We can argue what its effective at - but I need only remind you of my previous points that satire can have profound, far-reaching and thought-provoking topics... the trick is that by presenting them in a humorous way people are more open to taking such information to heart.

information presented in a fun way is remembered far better than information presented in a standard news format. Satire and parody falls under that - and is often used to shine a light on idiosyncratic things in life. As a means of political commentary, or commentary on arcane religious dogma, this is a perfectly valid way of spreading such ideas and views.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

And we're just going in circles now ...

 

[cathou]

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.

How is it stupid? I think it is a legitimate point to make that, although no one should be murdered over cartoons, the cartoons in question were racist (or at least xenophobic, if you're the pedantic sort who points out that islam isn't a race, whilst ignoring how Muslims in these cartoons are always depicted as a stereotype Arabs). Therefore, replicating the racist art work as an act of solidarity isn't a good idea; it accidentally condones racism.

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

that article does not make a valid point in any way. You can like what they were doing or not, it doesnt matter it's your personal tastes. However, judging a 30 years old newspaper that have 16 pages that are at least 50% text news articles, by only looking upon a bunch of front page cover, without even reading it once, is stupid. Islam was just one of their target, and not even the target they picked on the most.

the cartoon you say always depicted a stereotype arab. well, the cartoon depicted mostly extremist, which more than often look like a stereotype arab when they post videos of beheading on the net...

When you draw a picture of Muhammad, you are not insulting all muslims, you are only insult, maybe half of them, just to clarify. and a good chunk of this half can overcome that. Hey i've been insulted more than once on this forum when people say that people from quebec are all xenophobic, crazy french, and should learn English, but nobody never said that people are were racist because of that.

Also, we live in a society of law, not in a religious state. there's no way that any religion can say : you have do not have the right to draw our prophet/god/idol/whatever because we think it's offencive. the only people who can say that is the court, by interpreting the laws, and in several occasion, the French courts have declare that Charlie habdo had the right to publish that, that drawing Muhammad didnt fall under hate speech

 

[senordesol]

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.

How is it stupid? I think it is a legitimate point to make that, although no one should be murdered over cartoons, the cartoons in question were racist (or at least xenophobic, if you're the pedantic sort who points out that islam isn't a race, whilst ignoring how Muslims in these cartoons are always depicted as a stereotype Arabs). Therefore, replicating the racist art work as an act of solidarity isn't a good idea; it accidentally condones racism.

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

My problem with the article is that it basically raises a moot point in the wake of something all the more important.

Do I find images of Jesus having anal sex with God distasteful? Offensive even? Of course I do, and if -IF- these people were still around for me to say so; then that'd be one thing. But they're not.

However racist or xenophobic Chuck and his ilk were or weren't; what must be acknowledged that they only had to do one thing to get on the shit list and that's dissing the prophet.

THAT is the most salient point. THAT is why I'm absolutely fine with encouraging people to draw the prophet, because whatever disrespect is intended; that it can get you killed makes doing so a far more powerful statement: "We are not afraid of you."

However disgusting you may find their work (and it IS disgusting) their deaths prove it was not idle meaness.

 

[cathou]

However disgusting you may find their work (and it IS disgusting) their deaths prove it was not idle meaness.

you have the right to dislike their art, but but far too much people have made an opinion on a few drawing instead of actually try to at least see one edition of the newspaper. it's pretty much like only looking at trailers of movies, instead of looking them.

By the way, all my respect to the team, since they decided to publish the next edition wednesday despite all the drama

 

[JMac85]

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

When you fight extremists, the innocent get caught in the crossfire. Luckily, when your ammunition is drawings and jokes, the only thing that gets hurt are people's feelings.

Parody doesn't have to be poignant or nice. All that matters is you be able to freely express it. You call it casual intolerance of their beliefs? So what? Why is it wrong to make fun of or criticize someone's beliefs? I find people who believe the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old to be stupid, I find people who believe vaccines cause autism to be stupid, and I find people who believe the image of some asshole that's been dead over a thousand years is worth more than human life to be stupid.

Frankly, I'm disturbed with this attitude that justifies restricting people's ability to express themselves because it might hurt someone's feelings. And it's not just when it comes to criticizing religion, it's being applied to just about every facet of society. Physicists being harassed for their shirt, law professors being told they need to issue trigger warnings for their lectures. To paraphrase Steven Fry: "Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"

 

[Sanderpower]

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

snip.

snip

snip.

That might be, but there is a few very important differences. I do not want to kill people, I just want to be rid of superstition. I would never go out gun in hand to do it. Saying religion is not going anywhere soon is just giving up. Its NOT going anywhere if we dont try to DO something about it. There is a very specific difference in attacking someones beliefs verbally and attacking them with a Kalashnikov, I hope you understand that.

Everyone have the right to believe what they want. People can believe the earth is flat if they prefer, but everyone also have to be prepared to have pointed out the error of their ways. Especially without shooting anyone.

While I agree that there are probably other excuses that could be used to execute something like this, none of them are holy. All the other reasons you mentioned can be discussed, can be educated. Enlightenment is slowly taking care of racism. Its is by NO means perfect yet, but its a lot better. People in general dont think of people of another color as lesser humans anymore. That was the norm, not long ago. Religion is a lot more difficult to shake off, because while you can educate someone about race, its more difficult to educate someone about their deity.

That people will get bombed in the future is pretty certain. However I find it hard to imagine another reason that would be used to bomb people drawing cartoons than religion. Especially in the future. Humanity as a whole is slowly getting more educated, which should make the loophole for doing crazy stuff ever smaller.

First off, a large majority of evangelists don't want you dead. They want you converted. Terrorists are of course an exception. But Many bible-thumpers and religious right wingers don't want anybody to die, get hurt, killed, or anything like that. What they want for you to do is to accept that their religion is the truth.

Also they have the exact same thinking as you. They know that secularism and atheism is on the rise. But they refuse to give up. Especially since they believe their on a mission for God. Your stubborn thinking isn't unique at all. If I put you in a room with an evangelical Christian or Muslim, you guys would talk each others heads off and get literally nowhere.

Now I don't personally know you, but it seems to me that you believe that if you somehow talk people down hard enough, they will become enlightened and realize how silly their religion is. Well first off, evangelists believe the EXACT same thing. They believe if they just try hard enough, believe strong enough, and preach as much as possible people will finally realize that their religion is the truth and start believing in God.

The fact of the matter is however, that the harder you attack somebody's beliefs (especially if they have the backing of a group which organized religion does have), the more likely they are to believe even more. Especially if you attack them with an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Simply put it, your idea of fighting religion won't work at all. The only thing you'll do is make people feel defensive and attacked, which only result in more conflicts.

Also the reason you don't believe that people won't get bombed like this in future for reasons other then religion, is because you already have this bias against religion. I don't want to pretend like I know you or that I'm a psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that you believe that if we get rid of religion that the world will be a better, happier place. When in reality, even if you by some weird miracle all religion was wiped out from world. The world itself wouldn't automatically get better. People are still bitter about gender issues, race issues, political issues, nationality, resources, etc.

Many of the world's most devastating wars didn't start because of religion, they started because of politics, nationality, and resources. I know the Croatian and Serbian war was started not because of religion, but because of ethnicity. World War 1 was started because of nationality and politics. The same thing for World War 2.

At the moment, most terrorists in the world are religious extremists. But that's because of the various issues that compounded in the Middle East that gave rise to them. I can imagine a scenario happening in the future where nationalist terrorism or ethnic terrorism become the norm. Hell there is already powder kegs being made right now in the present. People are becoming more divided when it comes to gender issues, and politics. The ever increasing gaps between the rich and the poor are starting to make people bitter. People are also becoming more sharply divided in politics, with our politicians and citizens becoming more and more polarized. All you need now is a bit more gunpowder and lighting a couple of matches at the right time, and you could have yourself an explosion of new non-religious terrorist cells rising up.

 

[senordesol]

However disgusting you may find their work (and it IS disgusting) their deaths prove it was not idle meaness.

you have the right to dislike their art, but but far too much people have made an opinion on a few drawing instead of actually try to at least see one edition of the newspaper. it's pretty much like only looking at trailers of movies, instead of looking them.

By the way, all my respect to the team, since they decided to publish the next edition wednesday despite all the drama

That's a bit of a moot point in itself isn't it? It wasn't their articles that got them killed.

 

[Erttheking]

I wanna drop this here: Not all Muslims are terrorist, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslim.

While horrible people can say the deaths of the satirists are their own fault, what about the jews who were slaughtered? Did they deserve it because muslim fanatisicm is at an all time rise? People blaming religion, are jews also at fault for being jewish? Should all religions suffer? It's a single religion at fault, and it's far worse outside europe (like a 10 year old girl being a suicide bomber today in Nigeria if the source's right). Are jews need (again) to be sacrificed to appease the rising muslim majority in europe? We can't even have a country for ourselves without europe selling parts of it off to get muslims happy.

I would just like to point out that there have been around fifteen acts of terrorism since this event happened, all of them AGAINST Muslims.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731/french-muslims-attacks-charlie-hebdo

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150108/muslim-targets-attacked-after-magazine-killings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/mosque-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6436224.html

 

[tzimize]

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

snip.

snip

snip.

That might be, but there is a few very important differences. I do not want to kill people, I just want to be rid of superstition. I would never go out gun in hand to do it. Saying religion is not going anywhere soon is just giving up. Its NOT going anywhere if we dont try to DO something about it. There is a very specific difference in attacking someones beliefs verbally and attacking them with a Kalashnikov, I hope you understand that.

Everyone have the right to believe what they want. People can believe the earth is flat if they prefer, but everyone also have to be prepared to have pointed out the error of their ways. Especially without shooting anyone.

While I agree that there are probably other excuses that could be used to execute something like this, none of them are holy. All the other reasons you mentioned can be discussed, can be educated. Enlightenment is slowly taking care of racism. Its is by NO means perfect yet, but its a lot better. People in general dont think of people of another color as lesser humans anymore. That was the norm, not long ago. Religion is a lot more difficult to shake off, because while you can educate someone about race, its more difficult to educate someone about their deity.

That people will get bombed in the future is pretty certain. However I find it hard to imagine another reason that would be used to bomb people drawing cartoons than religion. Especially in the future. Humanity as a whole is slowly getting more educated, which should make the loophole for doing crazy stuff ever smaller.

First off, a large majority of evangelists don't want you dead. They want you converted. Terrorists are of course an exception. But Many bible-thumpers and religious right wingers don't want anybody to die, get hurt, killed, or anything like that. What they want for you to do is to accept that their religion is the truth.

Also they have the exact same thinking as you. They know that secularism and atheism is on the rise. But they refuse to give up. Especially since they believe their on a mission for God. Your stubborn thinking isn't unique at all. If I put you in a room with an evangelical Christian or Muslim, you guys would talk each others heads off and get literally nowhere.

Now I don't personally know you, but it seems to me that you believe that if you somehow talk people down hard enough, they will become enlightened and realize how silly their religion is. Well first off, evangelists believe the EXACT same thing. They believe if they just try hard enough, believe strong enough, and preach as much as possible people will finally realize that their religion is the truth and start believing in God.

The fact of the matter is however, that the harder you attack somebody's beliefs (especially if they have the backing of a group which organized religion does have), the more likely they are to believe even more. Especially if you attack them with an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Simply put it, your idea of fighting religion won't work at all. The only thing you'll do is make people feel defensive and attacked, which only result in more conflicts.

Also the reason you don't believe that people won't get bombed like this in future for reasons other then religion, is because you already have this bias against religion. I don't want to pretend like I know you or that I'm a psychologist or anything, but it seems to me that you believe that if we get rid of religion that the world will be a better, happier place. When in reality, even if you by some weird miracle all religion was wiped out from world. The world itself wouldn't automatically get better. People are still bitter about gender issues, race issues, political issues, nationality, resources, etc.

Many of the world's most devastating wars didn't start because of religion, they started because of politics, nationality, and resources. I know the Croatian and Serbian war was started not because of religion, but because of ethnicity. World War 1 was started because of nationality and politics. The same thing for World War 2.

At the moment, most terrorists in the world are religious extremists. But that's because of the various issues that compounded in the Middle East that gave rise to them. I can imagine a scenario happening in the future where nationalist terrorism or ethnic terrorism become the norm. Hell there is already powder kegs being made right now in the present. People are becoming more divided when it comes to gender issues, and politics. The ever increasing gaps between the rich and the poor are starting to make people bitter. People are also becoming more sharply divided in politics, with our politicians and citizens becoming more and more polarized. All you need now is a bit more gunpowder and lighting a couple of matches at the right time, and you could have yourself an explosion of new non-religious terrorist cells rising up.

The alternative is that we do nothing. That we say, "ok, you want to believe in a sky-man, I respect that. You want to shove your beliefs into the defenseless minds of children, thats ok." Only more polite. If we do that, I believe religion will still disappear, but it will go that much slower. The problem is that many kids are taught from a young age that blind faith is a virtue. That believing in god is a good thing. And for Catholics, that hell is real and if you turn from the faith you will burn in hell for eternity. When children are taught this by their significant others, they believe it. Why shouldnt they? Their parents should be the most trusted people in the world, the ones with all the answers.

If we criticize this enough then hopefully some semi-secular parents will turn from religion and realize what they are doing. They are killing their childrens rationality and inserting the norm of blind faith. Blind faith can lead to a life of serving a community, doing good deeds. It can also lead to blowing yourself up for your god. Religion should not be indoctrinated in the young. If they choose to believe when they are adults, its their choice and their developed and informed mind can make an actual choice. If they are brainwashed as young we perpetuate the problem. The problem with religion is not only that its silly. Silly beliefs are not a real problem, its a pity for the uneducated but its not a problem. That they are dangerous as well, IS a problem.

I once again want to point out that I by NO means thing the world would be perfect if religion was gone, but I am CERTAIN it would be better. How many Catholics do you think have a dreadful fear of hell? Living in fear is not a good thing. A lot of people have needed therapy just to rid themselves of religiously instilled fear. And we're by no means talking about religious extremists here (whatever that is). How many religious people write of their neighbors as lost to the devil? Probably a lot. How many people believe that it is the right thing to kill people for turning from their faith? A LOT. Not so many in the west, but in muslim majority countries, it is quite a normal opinion just google some polls if you find that hard to believe. If you cant see that as a problem or negative impact of religion I feel sorry for you. In Saudi Arabia just a few days ago some blogger was sentenced to 1000 lashes because he said people should use their freedom of speech. Seems like a balanced and good response, no?

If I could just press a button to delete religion forever I would. But I cant. The only way I know to fight is with words. If I give up and let religion roam free, I am letting the world stay in the dark age. I am just one person, and its extremely unlikely I'll have some kind of impact on the world, most dont. But if my rants can make just one religious person think about their faith and what its doing and contributing to the next generation...then I guess thats enough.

 

[xdiesp]

Spoken by a supporter of the "too much free speech is hate speech" line of thought, your support of Charlie Hebdo is quite hypocrital. But the party of do-gooders just can't imagine themselves as being in the wrong, by definition.