12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

Where are all the imams across the Muslim world coming forward to condemn this barbarism, because I'm not seeing so many of them. Surely they should be coming forwards in their thousands to say this is not what Islam is all about? Much like the inaction and cover ups of the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland in the past, I for one consider their silence to be complicity.

If there's one great thing we've learned from religion, its that even when its followers know they've done some awful sick twisted things they won't get off their arse to protest against it. At the end of the day they have a god that they believe will forgive them...so that makes it alright.

Hence the lack of massive marches in Ireland over the decades about the sex crimes committed by and covered up by the catholic church.

The followers of ANY religion who fail to speak out about the crimes committed by the religion they claim to be part of are part of the problem.

In Ireland many Catholics knew about the sexual abuse, the selling of baby's etc but they did and said nothing. These people are part of the shame, they are part of the crimes, they are part of the suffering.

When it comes to the Muslim faith, those that fail to speak out about people being sentenced to jail or death for blasphemy in other Muslim country's are no different, they claim to share the same faith and same god....well then act like it!

jank

The above can also be extrapolated to many other things. E.g. the BBC and the Jimmy Savile abuse case, US swimming scandal that has gone on for decades, Chinese communists that refused to believe reports about food shortages and punishing those that wrote those reports (thus they started writing 'good' reports about increase food production).

Humans are very tribal that way, be it religion, an institution, a political ideology. All reason goes out the window when they are deemed under attack and the 'greater' good has to be upheld.

ScumLord

smacl wrote: »

Where are all the imams across the Muslim world coming forward to condemn this barbarism, because I'm not seeing so many of them.

That could be because the media would prefer to show you Muslims that are shouting hate rants and firing machine guns in the air.

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

...and yet its believed it is the word of god by millions and millions of Christians, do you believe they are wrong?

If its not the word of god then everything in it including the 10 commandments are not gods word and it means Christians are merely following some "rules" made up by another human.

Thats not a very good basis for a religion that claims an all powerful god made us all.

You've gotten yourself so tangled up in trying to avoid answering the questions in a straight way you're now just making yourself look foolish

Most Christians don't believe it's the literal word of God. They believe it is divinely inspired; in other words, written by humans who were inspired to write by their faith in God.

I haven't tangled myself up in any way whatsoever. I have consistently repeated the same facts. You have got tangled up in your understanding.

katydid

smacl wrote: »

So you're suggesting the 28.83 million good Muslims of Saudi Arabia that stand behind their government when it tortures and imprisons a man for the crime of blasphemy should be excused on the grounds of insanity? More likely that vast majority live in fear of a despotic theocracy that will give them the same treatment if they should step an inch out of line.

Where are all the imams across the Muslim world coming forward to condemn this barbarism, because I'm not seeing so many of them. Surely they should be coming forwards in their thousands to say this is not what Islam is all about? Much like the inaction and cover ups of the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland in the past, I for one consider their silence to be complicity.

Do you really think the citizens of Saudi have a say in what their government do? You think that half the population there allow themselves to be treated like sub-humans?

oscarBravo

Let's be fair: there has been extensive condemnation from Muslims of this attack. News coverage of the demonstration in Paris showed many, many French Muslims marching in solidarity with the murder victims - disagreeing with what they published, but agreeing with their right to do so.

Hell, even Hamas condemned the attack.

smacl

jank wrote: »

The above can also be extrapolated to many other things. E.g. the BBC and the Jimmy Savile abuse case, US swimming scandal that has gone on for decades, Chinese communists that refused to believe reports about food shortages and punishing those that wrote those reports (thus they started writing 'good' reports about increase food production).

Agreed, but just because the behaviour is not unique to organised religions, it in no way excuses them as one of the biggest sources of such offenders both currently and historically. In many ways, organised religion provides the ideal environment for such miscreants to thrive.

Humans are very tribal that way, be it religion, an institution, a political ideology. All reason goes out the window when they are deemed under attack and the 'greater' good has to be upheld.

Again agreed, but I think modern western society is more aware of, and willing to deal with such behaviour. This ranges from increased transparency in public life, to secularity, down to much smaller things like anti-bullying campaigns in schools. Even in a country such as Ireland, where there is no doubt some corruption still in public life, it is a fraction of what went before it. Civilisation does move inexorably forward, and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity was a clear attempt to stifle this.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's be fair: there has been extensive condemnation from Muslims of this attack. News coverage of the demonstration in Paris showed many, many French Muslims marching in solidarity with the murder victims - disagreeing with what they published, but agreeing with their right to do so.

Hell, even Hamas condemned the attack.

Indeed, but my point (which is slightly off topic to be fair) was to note that as all this goes on, the Saudi regime continues to flog a man who's only crime was promotion of free speech. I'd have a little more respect for Hamas if they were to equally criticise the Saudi's for their behaviour. What exactly separates one barbaric atttack against free speech from another?

katydid

stevejazzx wrote: »

How much barbaric content does something have to contain in order to render any renaming neutral or even positive content meaningless? I reckon the OT has surpassed itself in this regard.

Here are some doozies...


[/LIST]

Way too much stuff there to address each one. People have written books on that kind of thing. Leaving aside the OT quotations, which are clearly anachronistic and are mostly from that part of the OT that is simply written down oral history, without any spiritual value, you have picked two or three from the NT, and specifically from the epistles. The issue of women's place in the early church, slavery, and of homosexuality are very complicated, and can't be answered in a couple of paragraphs. All that I can say here is that you will also find mention of women with leading roles in the early church, you can read the nuanced situation of Onesimus and Philomen and Paul's attitude to slavery; and in the case of homosexuality, it's widely accepted that Paul was referring to the temple prostitution practices, rather than homosexuality in general.

ScumLord

katydid wrote: »

Most Christians don't believe it's the literal word of God.

They probably shouldn't call the bible "the word of god" then. It's a bit confusing.

katydid

ScumLord wrote: »

They probably shouldn't call the bible "the word of god" then. It's a bit confusing.

It's mean to be understood symbolically. God talking through words written by people. Surely that's not too hard to understand?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It's mean to be understood symbolically. God talking through words written by people. Surely that's not too hard to understand?

Clear as day. That's why there's tens of thousands of Christian sects.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Jerry Coyne made that point that christians start off by saying that everything in the bible is true. And as bits get disproved, they turn into metaphors.

katydid wrote: »

It's mean to be understood symbolically. [...] Surely that's not too hard to understand?

I rest my case.

BTW, Coyne also mentioned that, when asked to explain how they know which bits of the bible are true and which are metaphors, christians either explain that it's something they simply "know in their hearts" or they remain silent. One would have expected an omnipotent deity to have clarified an important point like that, so that believers would know what to believe.

ScumLord

katydid wrote: »

It's mean to be understood symbolically. God talking through words written by people. Surely that's not too hard to understand?

Well it's a bit disingenuous. We just have to trust the people that wrote it were actually talking to god and that god had some reason for talking to just that one person instead of just passing on his message directly to everyone so there could be no confusion.

robindch

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League explains that muslims are right to be angry and that printing the cartoons constituted an abuse of liberty.

http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

BD wrote:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction. Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them. Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

AstraMonti

So can we tell to mr Bill that we are offended by his religion and he should stop demonstrating it publicly? Because that's how I see it. He is such a douchebag just by saying that the poor guy deserved it. Religions of peace my hole...

smacl

AstraMonti wrote: »

So can we tell to mr Bill that we are offended by his religion and he should stop demonstrating it publicly? Because that's how I see it. He is such a douchebag just by saying that the poor guy deserved it. Religions of peace my hole...

Nope. Freedom of speech cuts both ways, all the way up to and including allowing this zealot spout the crap that he does. Better to openly criticise it for what it is, although I note the original article doesn't include a comments section. Wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

It's mean to be understood symbolically. God talking through words written by people. Surely that's not too hard to understand?

Are up sure they all think it's just symbolism,

Let's not forget that many Christians believe when they take communion they are actually eating Jesus body.

So bread is actually Jesus bit the words you say are the word of God are not actually gods words and don't mean what they say..... Handy way of getting out of awkward sentences that call for people to be murdered that's for sure.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Let's not forget that many Christians believe when they take communion they are actually eating Jesus body.

I'd be fascinated to see how many catholic believers can accurately articulate Aristotelian Substance Theory as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas, which is the basis for this belief. I rather suspect close to zero since the belief is fairly strange and the church seems to avoid discussing what it is, though they're quite strong on what it means.

recedite

katydid wrote: »

God talking through words written by people. Surely that's not too hard to understand?

So is that "the word of god", or not? Forgive my slow learned-ness.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

..many French Muslims marching in solidarity with the murder victims - disagreeing with what they published, but agreeing with their right to do so.

Hell, even Hamas condemned the attack.

Very sensible words from Hamas there;

A statement in French said Hamas "condemns the attack against Charlie Hebdo magazine and insists on the fact that differences of opinion and thought cannot justify murder."

Also interesting that the French PM asked Netanyahu not to attend the Paris march, but Netanyahu went anyway and did his bit of grandstanding. Probably not helpful to French Jews, conflating them with what Israel has done in Palestine recently. Now Hollande will have to invite a delegation fom Palestine to visit Paris, in the interests of balance.

katydid

recedite wrote: »

So is that "the word of god", or not? Forgive my slow learned-ness.

It depends what you mean by the word of God...

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

Are up sure they all think it's just symbolism,

Let's not forget that many Christians believe when they take communion they are actually eating Jesus body.

So bread is actually Jesus bit the words you say are the word of God are not actually gods words and don't mean what they say..... Handy way of getting out of awkward sentences that call for people to be murdered that's for sure.

No, they don't all think it's symbolism. But most do, to one degree or another. There are very few people out there, for example, that think the world is six thousand years old, or whatever Bishop Usher worked out back in the seventeenth century, or who think the world has four corners, as Ezekiel says.

And I don't know of any Christians who think disobedient children should be put to death.

They know how to distinguish between symbolism or anachronisms, and the essence of a message.

recedite

katydid wrote: »

And I don't know of any Christians who think disobedient children should be put to death.
They know how to distinguish between symbolism or anachronisms, and the essence of a message.

But that's what atheists do, only we do a bit more more pruning.
How do you know which bits of the word of god are "anachronisms" anyway?
Are you doing the same as the rest of us, ie using your inate sense of justice to recognise which bits are reasonable and acceptable, and calling bull$hit on the rest? Is nothing sacred?

katydid

recedite wrote: »

But that's what atheists do, only we do a bit more more pruning.
How do you know which bits of the word of god are "anachronisms" anyway?
Are you doing the same as the rest of us, ie using your inate sense of justice to recognise which bits are reasonable and acceptable, and calling bull$hit on the rest? Is nothing sacred?

Atheists and thinking Christians have more in common than they might realise...

BuilderPlumber

Some people say things carelessly and get into a lot of hot water and cause international incidents. Sometimes, things are said to satisfy a local, parochial, often uneducated audience. Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was famous at this when he spoke in poor rural especially non-Persian parts of Iran. He kept a local audience happy but often got into hot water with the rest of the world by quoting the best of Saddam Hussein's speeches.

That reminds me of that whole Satanic Verses affair. What is unknown is that Salman Rushdie's initial supporters included the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran who gave a prize to one of his earlier books. Relations between him and this then new country were initially excellent but somewhere between 1986 and 1988, they became poor and clearly the fatwa was personal as well as divertionary.

But again it was done less so for Islam than -again like Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel Saddam Hussein quotes later- making an insecure, weakened Persian Shia nation look positive to its more powerful and plentiful Arab and Sunni neighbours who all supported Saddam. SV was unpopular in Pakistan and Arab countries and Iran took a stance to steal the thunder away from Arab and Sunni leaders and make ordinary Arabs have a good impression of Iran and a poor impression of their own regimes (especially Saddam!!). But there was personal anymosity too. Rushdie and IRI were only a few years back great friends and IRI was the only country who honoured his earlier books.

The problem with what happened with the Fatwa is that Iran as early 15th February 1989 regretted the death threat but did not know what to do. Future Shah Ali Khamenei said 'if SR apologised, he could be forgiven' in later 1989 and 1990 while a foreign minister said later that IRI was not going to or not interested in killing him. However, religious law meant that the embarrassing and spur of the moment fatwa (that everyone knew was Khomeini's way of getting one over on the Saddamloving Arabs) was in place forever because Khomeini himself was dying and then died and no one only him could take it back. Khomeini had a history of poor leadership, poor judgement and poor decision making ever since 1979 that included changing his mind on hostage takers he initially hunted out of the embassy to abandoning his plans for a French style republic to prolonging the war with Iraq. Rafsanjani influenced much of this but he seemed to come out and be something else in 1989: Iran's reformist Gorbachev!!

But that's the main problem with Middle Eastern politics. They have restive populations and things are said to appease them but they are heard by the rest of the world and have severe consequences. All ME dictators have played this card from Nasser onwards. Unfortunately, the rhetoric has become ever more violent since then and has extended to the total hatred the likes of Abu Hamza and ISIS engage in. And for the first time, all countries seem to be regarded as total enemies of these groups.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hell, even Hamas condemned the attack.

That is a huge double standard to be honest. A terrorist Islamic group who rules a city via an iron fist of violence and threats, where NO freedom of speech or the press is allowed and where people who step out of line are duly punished by a bullet in the head, condemns a violent action by another Islamic group against the press.

I would rather see more action and less words from groups like Hamas.

jank

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, but just because the behaviour is not unique to organised religions, it in no way excuses them as one of the biggest sources of such offenders both currently and historically. In many ways, organised religion provides the ideal environment for such miscreants to thrive.

Again agreed, but I think modern western society is more aware of, and willing to deal with such behaviour. This ranges from increased transparency in public life, to secularity, down to much smaller things like anti-bullying campaigns in schools. Even in a country such as Ireland, where there is no doubt some corruption still in public life, it is a fraction of what went before it. Civilisation does move inexorably forward, and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity was a clear attempt to stifle this.

Somewhat agreed with this. However, as you said the West has moved on from the dark ages. In much of the Islamic world though, through their treatment of women, gays and non-Muslims they still think its 1515 not 2015. Which is why currently, there is a key difference between the old 'christian' world (the west) and the Islamic world today.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'd be fascinated to see how many catholic believers can accurately articulate Aristotelian Substance Theory as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas, which is the basis for this belief. I rather suspect close to zero since the belief is fairly strange and the church seems to avoid discussing what it is, though they're quite strong on what it means.

Make that zero + 1 as my own Mother (a practicing Catholic) could talk the ears off you regarding Thomas Aquinas and his writings. (She majored in Philosophy back in the early 60's where his writings along with others were taught) before doing a Masters in Languages.

Now whether she 'believes' it or not is another question (I don't know) but could she articulate its basis, most definitely!

robindch

Mainstream media in the Russian corner is wondering out loud whether the USA masterminded the murders (here and here). While over the pond, a woman on Fox news is calling for mass executions of islamic extremists.

Meanwhile, Charlie Hebdo itself shows some serious class in tomorrow's cover which will reportedly appear in sixteen languages, in twenty-five countries, in a printrun of three million copies.

recedite

jank wrote: »

I would rather see more action and less words from groups like Hamas.

+1 but conciliatory words are a start.

clear thinking

Even the indo has the cartoon!! http://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/up-to-3-million-copies-of-new-charlie-hebdo-edition-to-carry-cartoon-of-prophet-mohammad-30902471.html

jank

recedite wrote: »

+1 but conciliatory words are a start.

Call me a cynic but I think its more of a PR attempt by Hamas, in differentiating themselves with ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. Even though they may be the thinnest kid at fat camp.

robindch

UKIP's Nigel Farage urges a defence of "Judeo-Christian Values" and blames -- surprise, surprise -- immigration for the attacks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30776186

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

UKIP's Nigel Farage urges a defence of "Judeo-Christian Values" and blames -- surprise, surprise -- immigration for the attacks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30776186

Karl Stein

I'd like to see Charlie Hebdo satirise all of the 40 'leaders' that turned up and linked arms together in Paris to 'support' freedom of expression/speech. I'm hopeful they'll get around to it at some stage.

smacl

Karl Stein wrote: »

I'd like to see Charlie Hebdo satirise all of the 40 'leaders' that turned up and linked arms together in Paris to 'support' freedom of expression/speech. I'm hopeful they'll get around to it at some stage.

They've been beaten to it by our very own Waterford Whispers

recedite

I was kinda surprised that the Jewish victims of Paris attacks were flown to Jerusalem for burial. This article explains it, and apparently around 40% of French Jews generally are buried there. Add to that the fact that large numbers attend private jewish schools rather than attend the secular state schools.
It strikes me that they are not really participating in that whole liberté, égalitée, fraternité ethos that is the basis of the french republic.

Its more or less the same thing that even moderate Muslims are often accused of; purposely not wanting to integrate into the country that they live in.
I could see a public resentment building up after a while, over the massive security costs to protect jewish buildings.

Quite amusing/interesting to see what one guy says will become of those that are buried outside Israel;

As for those who are buried outside of Israel, Ginsberg says, the resurrection, when it comes, will not be lost on them. The process will just be more arduous and definitely less comfortable. Tunnels will be created underground leading to Israel, he says, “and their bones will roll into Israel.” Those already buried there “will save themselves that pain.”

ShooterSF

katydid wrote: »

No, they don't all think it's symbolism. But most do, to one degree or another. There are very few people out there, for example, that think the world is six thousand years old, or whatever Bishop Usher worked out back in the seventeenth century, or who think the world has four corners, as Ezekiel says.

And I don't know of any Christians who think disobedient children should be put to death.

They know how to distinguish between symbolism or anachronisms, and the essence of a message.

The don't take it literal because they don't agree with it.

"And then man created God, in his image."

katydid

ShooterSF wrote: »

The don't take it literal because they don't agree with it.

"And then man created God, in his image."

Your point being?

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Your point being?

A question which you could well direct to yourself

robindch

No ambiguity from the (islamic) mayor of Rotterdam:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-ahmed-aboutaleb-tells-extremists-who-dont-like-freedom-to-f-off-9975459.html

Independent wrote:

In the wake of last week's tragic Paris terror attacks, the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam has launched a strongly worded attack to Islamist extremists living in the West who “turn against freedom” - by telling them to “f*ck off”. The Labour politician, who leads one of Netherland’s most highly populated cities, made the comments following the brutal murder of 17 people in Paris last week: 12 of whom died at the headquarters of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The Koucahi brothers, who carried out the attack at the Charlie Hebdo office, are believed to have acted in retaliation against controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed featured in the publication. Witnesses reported that the pair shouted: "We have avenged the Prophet Mohamed" during the massacre.

“It’s incomprehensible that you turn against freedom like that, but if you don’t like this freedom, for heaven’s sake, get your suitcase, and leave,” the 53-year-old told the current affairs programme Nieuwsuur. "There might be a place where you belong, and be honest with yourself about that, don’t kill innocent journalists," Mr Aboutaleb continued.

"This is so backwards, so incomprehensible, go away if you can’t find your place in the Netherlands, or accept the society we want to build here, because we only want people, including all those Muslims, and all those well-intentioned Muslims, who may be looked at with suspicion, we want to keep all those people together in what I call the 'We Society'. And if you don’t like it here because you don’t like the humorists who make a little newspaper – if I may dare say so – just f*** off," he declared.

The son of an imam, Moroccan-born Mr Aboutaleb arrived in the Netherlands aged 15 in 1976, according to the Telegraph. Having previously served as the social affairs state secretary, in 2008 he was elected as the first immigrant to become a mayor a city in the Netherlands.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

A question which you could well direct to yourself

I was asking you...

robindch

katydid wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

The don't take it literal because they don't agree with it. "And then man created God, in his image."

Your point being?

A question which you could well direct to yourself

I was asking you...

stevejazzx

katydid wrote: »

The issue of women's place in the early church, slavery, and of homosexuality are very complicated, and can't be answered in a couple of paragraphs. All that I can say here is that you will also find mention of women with leading roles in the early church, you can read the nuanced situation of Onesimus and Philomen and Paul's attitude to slavery; and in the case of homosexuality, it's widely accepted that Paul was referring to the temple prostitution practices, rather than homosexuality in general.

That seems at the very least disingenuous.
I think the Bibles view on homosexuality and women is very definitive.
Not even semantics and retrospectively applied metaphors can save that.

Steve

ScumLord

You've got to love the Dutch. If I could move to another country it would be the Netherlands, they seem to have the perfect balance between rationality and craic.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Not even semantics and retrospectively applied metaphors can save that.

I wonder whether the semantic, metaphorical and contextual defenses might be pushed aside for the "Well, standards were different back then" excuse.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

While over the pond, a woman on Fox news is calling for mass executions of islamic extremists.

This is like some ham-fisted nonsense from a crappy dystopian scifi movie. I cannot believe Fox has gotten this bad. The American right is utterly bonkers.

katydid

ScumLord wrote: »

You've got to love the Dutch. If I could move to another country it would be the Netherlands, they seem to have the perfect balance between rationality and craic.

But they have that medieval anachronism, a monarchy. I can't fathom why rational people like the Dutch accept such a thing.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

But they have that medieval anachronism, a monarchy. I can't fathom why rational people like the Dutch accept such a thing.

An anachronism almost as unfathomable as how one can write off large chunks of one's holy book/guide to faith (such as the bible) as myths and fiction, retain the bits that have a grain of truth to them, claim that other christian denominations aren't in fact christian, and yet insist on respect for whatever this is called.