On 13 January 2015 at 11:14, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/12/2015 1:57 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 January 2015 at 14:48, meekerdb <[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." >
Yeah you may be right, although that may just be realism in that they know there are fanatics, rather than agreement with said fanatics. > Contrast this with Catholics. Charlie Hedbo frequently satirized > Catholicism, but no Catholics so much as even advocated violence against > the staff. > Not nowadays, no. You have to go back a way before Catholics and protestants burned each other at the stake, thank - er- whatever. > It's encouraging that in this case some Islamic leaders have denounced the > violence, but I think there are more that have condoned it. > Yes, I don't know, any statistics on that would be welcome. For information purposes here is another article on the same subject, which comes to roughly the same conclusion - that the point was poiltical rather than religious - http://www.thenation.com/blog/194465/whats-real-reason-al-qaeda-attacked-charlie-hebdo? “Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and > totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance > and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted > purposes of a self-styled great leader. > The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand > Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to > resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to > refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals. Compare and contrast something like this with the number of chldren dying each year from preventable diseases. That generally puts similar events into persective for me. The West wails and/or beats its chest when something like this happens, but stays silent on millions of innocent deaths every year. -- 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.
