On 1/12/2015 1:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 January 2015 at 14:48, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/11/2015 4:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Also on the subject
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27987-these-terrorist-attacks-are-not-about-religion
They say it's about their religion when they do it. They cite religious
reasons for
doing it. Of course almost any action has multiple causes; but why should
we
believe the apologists analysis of a co-religionist? Maybe it's not his
sect of the
religion, but he doesn't get to define other people's religion for them.
I agree that they should be pursued and prosecuted as criminals. One can't
prosecute
a religion. But one can oppose the ideas of a religion and criticize its
tenets.
Being rational and liberal doesn't mean believing that every culture is of
equal value.
I hate to violate Godwin's rule but the Nazis cited scientific reasons for what they
did, at least some of the time. Should we therefore persecute science, because the
"apologists" say it wasn't real science?
All he's saying is that these people aren't practicing the same religion as the vast
majority of Muslims.
That's not at all clear though. Throughout the Islamic mideast the prevailing opinion
seems to be "What did they expect? Of course if you insult the Prophet someone will kill
you." Contrast this with Catholics. Charlie Hedbo frequently satirized Catholicism, but
no Catholics so much as even advocated violence against the staff. It's encouraging that
in this case some Islamic leaders have denounced the violence, but I think there are more
that have condoned it.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
