This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Sat Nov 7, 2015, 09:51 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[NewDeal_Dem]

1. "about the leaders wanting power" applies to a lot of what's going on in the world today.

I always liked kareem.

[KMOD]

20. I really wish I could post the entire article here

So the attack in Paris, as with most others, isn’t about changing Western behavior, it’s about swaggering into a room, flexing a muscle, and hoping to elicit some admiring sighs. In this case, the sighs are more recruits and more donations to keep their organization alive. They have to keep proving they are more relevant than their competing terrorist groups

He makes very good arguments in his article.

[PCIntern]

2. So let me get this straight...

so if your child DIES because he or she is JEWISH or CHRISTIAN or MUSLIM OR FILL-IN-THE-BLANK, then it isn't about religion because YOU say that the perpetrator was really, in fact, in your humble opinion, not performing the act for that reason in their pre-conscious mind. That makes a lot of sense. I can imagine that the families would feel much much better about this if they only could read your post.

After all, just because the scene of the second horrific crime happened to be a KOSHER STORE on a Friday pre-Shabbat, it had NOTHING to do with religion. Got it.

[Fred Sanders]

4. You are missing the point. The terrorists are not Muslim just because they say they are.

[oberliner]

7. Actually, by definition, they are

A person can become a Muslim simply by saying that they are.

How to Convert to Islam - The Testimony of Faith (Shahada)

Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process. All that a person has to do is to say a sentence called the Testimony of Faith (Shahada), which is pronounced as:

I testify “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/204/

[Fred Sanders]

9. That is massive deflection.

[oberliner]

35. It is a basic fact

It is the very definition of being a Muslim.

[Fred Sanders]

37. Please proceed.......the very definition of a Muslim is saying you are one....dig deeper.

[oberliner]

59. Have you heard of the six articles of faith?

If not, here they are:

Muslims summarize their doctrine in six articles of faith:
1. Belief in one Allah: Muslims believe Allah is one, eternal, creator, and sovereign.
2. Belief in the angels
3. Belief in the prophets: The prophets include the biblical prophets but end with Muhammad as Allah’s final prophet.
4. Belief in the revelations of Allah: Muslims accept certain portions of the Bible, such as the Torah and the Gospels. They believe the Qur'an is the preexistent, perfect word of Allah.
5. Belief in the last day of judgment and the hereafter: Everyone will be resurrected for judgment into either paradise or hell.
6. Belief in predestination: Muslims believe Allah has decreed everything that will happen. Muslims testify to Allah’s sovereignty with their frequent phrase, inshallah, meaning, “if God wills.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/Islam.html#ixzz3ORn2LzmP

[AlbertCat]

79. dig deeper.

No one can possibly dig deeper that religious apologists who don't think that religion is involved in religious fundies killing people who insulted their religion.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. What the article is saying is it's like saying one is a Born Again Christian during a rampage.

[oberliner]

77. Understood

I just take issue with saying the acts are "in no way related to Islam". I think they are related at least a little bit.

Just as I think the killing of an abortion doctor by a self-proclaimed Christian fanatic is related a little bit to Christianity.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. We have idiots here claiming to worship the Founders and the Constitution....

They tend to quote a few lines from the Declaration and clutch their heart and close their eyes in prayer.

These are the people who were never invited to any of the cool parties.

[GoneFishin]

160. If a crazy person kills because he says a Beatles song played backwards told him to do it

we don't blame the Beatles.

Unless of course, it was very profitable or politically expedient to do so.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

172. Right, like when they claimed Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine....

You know,...because of The Matrix.

[msanthrope]

8. Yes---they are. Were they excommunicated? Cast out?

Yes--they are Muslim.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Apparently if you just say "I am an alien from a different planet" that makes you obviously an alien from

a different planet.

[PeaceNikki]

16. lol, right. But, tell me this, Fred... how are the actions of these killers so different than those

of the Saudi government... the "home of Islam"?

This is going on right now.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/05/07/world/middleeast/07reuters-saudi-activist-sentence.html?referrer=

DUBAI — A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced the editor of an Internet forum he founded to discuss the role of religion in the conservative Islamic kingdom to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes, Saudi media reported on Wednesday.

...

In a separate ruling on Tuesday, the court also convicted the administrator of a website on charges of supporting Internet forums hostile to the state and which promoted demonstrations, Sabq reported on Wednesday. It said he was sentenced to six years in jail and a 50,000 riyal fine.

...
Also in April, a Saudi court sentenced an unidentified activist to six years in jail on charges including taking part in illegal demonstrations and organizing women's protests.

Another was sentenced to three years in jail for spreading lies against King Abdullah and inciting the public against him.

This is the exact same ideology that spawned the attacks in Paris. Denying the involvement of the ideology is ridiculous and dangerous. The prosecution had demanded he be tried for apostasy, which carries the death penalty.

How vastly different is what fueled these assholes in Paris?

[Fred Sanders]

17. I am not into strawmen analysis.

[PeaceNikki]

21. It's the same fucked up ideology and you know it.

The idea that disrespecting Islam is a crime worthy of death is certainly not universally held by all (or likely even most) Muslims but it's a FAR fucking cry from completely unique.

[msanthrope]

19. Well, don't fault me that Islam and Christianity are self-proclaimed religions. I didn't make up

the rules.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Well so is my alien race, self-proclaiming so it must be true.

[msanthrope]

27. Ahem--race is immutable. Religion is not. Apples and oranges. nt

[KittyWampus]

121. actually race is merely a social construct and absolutely NOT immutable.

[arcane1]

64. An alien would be a non-human species. We're talking about belief systems, not biology.

Lame-ass comparison.

[Marrah_G]

117. yes, yes they are

They are Muslims with an extreme religious view who killed because of their belief system.

Not all or even most Muslims, only a very small number. But are is a growing groups within Muslim countries and communities that are actively seeking young people to bullshit into thinking they are doing something noble. They are sort of like gangs or organized crime in many ways. You never see the leaders doing the dirty work.

I think that Muslim communities need to try very hard to make sure their young people are not swayed into those paths by charismatic leaders. Also, if we got the fuck out of the middle east, then we would not give the zealots recruiting ammunition.

You cannot just say a person is not of a certain religion just because you don't like what they have done.

[Fred Sanders]

140. The KKK are Christian because they say they are? The Westboro Church members...Christians?

I not only "do not like what they have done", I can see wth my own two eyes that their values and Christian vslues are, how should I put it......inconsistent?

The policeman on the ground who was shot to death is a Muslim, the one with the gun is the terrorist.

The Employee who hid customers in a freezer and then went back out is the Muslim, the fellows roaming Hebdo and killing his fellow employees are the terrorists.

I think the problem is that folks see a white person doing terrorist acts and refuse to call them terrorists, but if the folks are brown the connection is instant.

Same with the religious connection, it deflects as an excuse from the underlying cause of this logical confusion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. Yes, of course Westboro Baptists are Christians

Didn't you know that? The word 'baptist' is a clue. As is 'church', for that matter. The KKK too:

KKK Leader Disputes Hate Group Label: 'We're A Christian Organization'

[Fred Sanders]

148. That was very informative of your position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. You admitted in #145 that this is about religion

You seem to be arguing against yourself in this thread.

[Fred Sanders]

150. The KKK and Westboro are true Christians, as you insist, I get it.

Because they insist they are and you agree with them as to that..no further explanation is necessary.

[Marrah_G]

165. Yes, the KKK and Westboro are Christians.

Just because we don't think they are behaving very christianly. What happened is horrible. And I agree, the media does not call white domestic born terrorists, terrorists. It is wrong.

I do not blame all muslims. But I think not acknowledging that there is a problem with some of these Imams. There has to be more of an effort to reach young people before they fall under the spell of these men.

Also like I said above, I believe we need to get out of the middle east and let them solve their own problems. Our intervention has done nothing but give the extremists more things to recruit with. Leave them completely alone. Let the countries work out their own issues. Our meddling does more harm then good.

[Adrahil]

170. Since it's all made up fantasy....

... It hardly matters who is a "real" Muslim. People have been using made up religions as the basis for power for millennia.

[msanthrope]

6. The No True Scotsman Defense is often employed by those who refuse to embrace just how much

violence their religion actually does accept.

[Fred Sanders]

10. The No False Scotsman argument is used to insist the actions of one or a few represent the actions of all.

[msanthrope]

13. Except...no one's claiming that. What I see is people trying to deny the Muslim faith of the

terrorists.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Do you think the KKK is Christian? Why would anyone NOT deny their Christian faith?

"No one is claiming that"...sure, no one except most everyone.

[msanthrope]

18. Yes--because Christanity is self-proclaimed. nt

[Fred Sanders]

22. One poster here vehemently insists you can, only for some religions though, of course. Just

say so out loud, do not even need anyone around to hear you, presto, you are an honored member.

Do you think the KKK is Christian because they say so?

White supremists are devout Christians....so they say.

[msanthrope]

24. Yes--they are Christians because they say so. Take it up with Martin Luther. nt

[Fred Sanders]

29. Yes, I am sure MLK would worship with the self proclaiming Christians of the KKK....

[msanthrope]

31. You are only off by about 500 years, give or take....nt

[JustAnotherGen]

32. ms - I believe is writing about this man

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

[Fred Sanders]

33. And my point is diluted, how? What true Christian would worship with the false asshats of the

KKK. What true Muslim with the asshats of ISIS? Issue avoidance is unbecoming.

ML or the person who took his name, MLK, would either?

[JustAnotherGen]

44. A true Christian

Has to deal with the fact that there are members in their Church/Denomination that may also belong to a white separatist organization.

I'm a UU - I highly doubt KKK types would walk through our door unless its to shoot us for our stance on equality.

[X_Digger]

48. "what true muslim" --- you've just demonstrated the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy to a 'T'.

Folks, I give you dictionary example 1.

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

[tblue37]

122. ML (i.e., the guy who proclaimed the 95 Theses) is NOT MLK. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

102. there is no reason to deny their christian faith. The KKK is explicitly christian.

As usual with the line you are pursuing, you have to conflate "these fuckers were muslims acting on their religious beliefs" with "all muslims are just like these fuckers".

Pointing out the obvious: these fuckers were muslims acting on their religious beliefs, is not the claim that all muslims are just like these fuckers.

Now back to your other theme: Islam is a very decentralized religion, there are several major sects, many minor sects, a vast array of religious authorities each more or less as authoritative as the other, and a significant minority of those authorities openly support and advocate for jihadi terrorism. To attempt to drum all of those authorities and their followers out of Islam, as you and Jabbar are doing, is pathetic and dishonest.

[Fred Sanders]

103. Whereas Christianity is unified and has no sects or divisions...got it.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. where the fuck did I say that Fred?

Christianity is fractured as well, sorry if you misread something I never wrote.

[Fred Sanders]

105. To drum the KKK and all of its followers out of Christianity is dishonest, but if they were Muslims,

they must remain Muslims because......??

Your reasoning is illogical.

But gratuitous swearing and vulgarity make it better, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

106. wtf Fred. You are just making shit up.

there is no reason to deny their christian faith. The KKK is explicitly christian.

Which part of that "drum(s) the KKK - out of Christianity" Fred?\

Huh?

[JI7]

120. that was weird, it was the total opposite of what you said

[Fred Sanders]

141. Not as wierd as some folks not getting obvious sarcasm.

[tblue37]

124. Of course Christianity also has many sects and divisions, which is why Christian Dominionists,

KKK members, and RWers who blow up women's health clinics and murder abortion doctors are also Christian if they say they are, even if they do not follow the same beliefs as Martin Luther--or Martin Luther King. But they do not represent all Christians.

[Fred Sanders]

142. Those are not sects....The KKK is not a sect, they are a cult...apparently Christians who murder

are still Christians if they just say they are...thereby representing all Christians?

Your attempt to equate Protestsnts, Quakers , Mormons, Bsptists, evangelicals, United Church, Catholic, Protestsnt, etc., etc., etc. with the KKK as sects of a religion is what I like to call.....twisted in a Flat Earth Society kind of way.

Free speech I guess.

[tblue37]

171. No--I specifically said they do NOT represent all, just as the terrorists do NOT

represent all Muslims.

[valerief]

30. Bingo

[Fred Sanders]

34. Bongo.

[m-lekktor]

57. this.

[KMOD]

23. It's obvious they targeted

the Kosher Store, for religious purposes.

I think Kareem's point is that the terrorists actions were about power.

[sabrina 1]

50. What would you call the retaliation attacks on Muslims in France since the

murderous rampage of these fanatics? Were they about religion, or were they just Right Wing Extremists who do NOT represent the French or the murdered journalists?

My opinion is they, like all murderous killers, are raging fanatics and no country or religion or group of people are responsible for them.

[jeff47]

52. Religion really had nothing to do with it.

The groups that are resorting to terrorism are seeking power. A very large part of their problem is recruitment. There are just not that many people who are interested in turning their life over to violence on the behalf of power-seeking sociopaths.

So what do they do? Create them.

The attacks in France are designed to create a backlash against all Muslims in France. That animosity and discrimination is the fuel they need for more jihadists, and thus more power. It would be a lot easier to convince French Muslims to "join the cause" if they were a despised and discriminated against underclass.

It's exactly why the 9/11 attacks were carried out. To create the backlash against Muslims, which lets the terrorists gain and consolidate political power, while invasion eliminates their competitors. It worked beautifully, since Republicans are morons and easily manipulated into harming themselves, and they happened to be in power.

So no, it really isn't about religion. It's about power. Religion is being used as a tool to manipulate people into granting them that power. They're counting on you to focus on it being a KOSHER STORE on a Friday pre-Shabbat.

[uppityperson]

61. Good post, thank you for writing that all out. These attacks also were not just about images in a

paper but about broader issues of bigotry, lack of jobs, and creating (I hate to use the word holy war because that has too many connotations attached) like you say backlash which then will not only continue but perpetuate the cycle and get more power.

I am not explaining it well, and appreciate what you write as that is how I have been thinking also.


"Religion is being used as a tool to manipulate people into granting them that power. " The newspaper images were the excuse.

[KMOD]

118. wonderful post jeff47

thank you!

[sendero]

163. Religion is a tool...

... to get useful idiots to work for you. Period.

[m-lekktor]

53. exactly.

[Fred Sanders]

3. The KKK analogy is perfect. Do Christians all have to stand up and shout that these asshats do not

represent their religion? Westboro Chirch, where is the demand for voices from the Christian community? It is just taken for granted these folks say they are Christian but everyone knows they are not, the issue never comes up.

The terrorist is the one that shot the policeman dead in the street on Wednesday, the policeman is the Muslim, you really can not see the difference?

Gunman, terrorist, policeman, Muslim.....

[jberryhill]

86. If a KKK publication were attacked, we'd all be saying "I am the KKK" I gues

[Fred Sanders]

101. Good analogy. And would any one don the KKK white robes and hood in unity with free speech?

"I am the KKK?

[oberliner]

5. "these barbaric acts are in no way related to Islam."

Seriously? In no way?

[Fred Sanders]

11. In no logical way......if you abandon logic you are correct.

Does the shooting of mosques by French Christians make all French Christians terrorist?

Does the KKk saying they are Christians make them Christians?

[oberliner]

14. The objection to the cartoons has nothing to do with Islam?

Muslim groups have sued the newspaper before.

Did the killing of the Danish cartoonist also have nothing to do with Islam?

And the fatwa against Salmon Rushide? Also nothing to do with Islam?

The anger at "everyone draw Mohammed day" - did that have nothing to do with Islam?

The fact that the cartoonist who initiated that is in hiding - nothing to do with Islam?

There is, of course, a major problem in saying "All Muslims are responsible for this" - which is ridiculous and insulting but also a major problem in saying "This has nothing to do with Islam" which also seems to me to be ridiculous.

Those don't have to be the only two options.

[jeff47]

65. No. They have to do with power.

The terrorists acts you list are all about power. Religion is just the tool used to manipulate people into giving them more power.

Just as the "flip side" of those events are also about power. "Look! I can draw Mohammed!" is attempting to show that those sociopaths do not have power.

After all, it's only one of the two major sects that think that a picture of Mohammed is wrong. Pictures and statues are extremely common in Iran. Yet those terrorists are not attacking Iran.

What they're looking for is the backlash. It's hard to find people who will sign up to die for a sociopath's cause. But if you create a despised, discriminated against and angry underclass, you can find a lot more recruits and thus gain a lot more power. So they are trying very, very hard to make it about Islam. That way the ultra-right groups in France will come to power based on anti-Islam rhetoric, and they'll start to repress the Muslims in France. That gives the terrorists a large pool of recruits in France. Leading to more power, more attacks, and continuing the cycle.

[oberliner]

74. Not sure I can agree with that

I mean, I can agree that it has something to do with power also. But I cannot agree that it has nothing to do with Islam. There are a pretty hefty number of followers of Islam who do not believe the prophet should be depicted in cartoon form, and certainly not in the obscene way these cartoons did. There are a smaller number who think the punishment for doing so should be death. This is a feature of that particular religious doctrine.

[jeff47]

95. If it was about religion, they'd be directed at Iran.

Shi'ite Islam does not ban pictures of Mohammed. Only Sunni Islam does. In Iran, pictures and statues of Mohammed are as common as pictures and statues of Jesus in the West.

If the horrific insult is a picture of Mohammed, there's tens of millions of those just across the Persian Gulf.

Religion is just the tool being used to manipulate people. It is not the real cause.

[oberliner]

96. It is a crime punishable by death in Iran to defame the prophet

In response to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005:

Iran amended §224-1 of its penal code (prohibition of apostasy, magic and religious innovation, punishable by death, no evidence or witness testimony required - only "the judge's views and impressions&quot to also cover Defamation of the Prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#.C2.A0Iran

They also ordered contracts to be cancelled with all countries where media have published the cartoons.

[jeff47]

97. The defamation was the bomb hat. Not drawing him at all.

Again, people are manipulating others for power. They're using religion to do so.

You don't have to fall for it.

[oberliner]

98. Understood

And I see we are having this same conversation on another thread, so I will just leave it at that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. Al Qaeda is indeed fighting Shia Muslims in Yemen

At least 37 people were killed and 66 injured by a bomb blast outside a police academy in Yemen's capital, Sanaa. Yemen has experienced a wave of violence in recent months, with militants from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula battling Shia Houthi rebels, who have taken control of the capital

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-30741245

And ISIS is killing Shia Muslims in the area it controls. It is about religion.

[whatchamacallit]

158. We get it

You think the seat of the problem is the Islamic faith itself. So, now what? Anything in particular you'd like to advocate as a remedy?

[oberliner]

159. Encourage secularism and moderation

Much like how I think of Right Wing Repulican-ism as an ideology that is in and of itself problematic, I find the same thing to be true of fundamentalist Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I think the world would be a much better place if people did not embrace those ideologies and so I do what I can to promote what I consider to be more progressive values.

At the very least we should be encouraged to poke fun at ultra-Orthodox Jews for refusing to sit next to women on planes or fundamentalist Muslims who freak out about a cartoon Mohammed or Tea Party Republicans for saying Obama should go back to Kenya.

[KingCharlemagne]

25. Juan Cole had a very interesting take on these Paris attacks -- that the attackers hoped to

provoke France's majority to engage in anti-Muslim pogroms, so as to motivate the largely apolitical and non-observant Muslims in France (some 5 million of them) to become radicalized in reaction. The motivation for the attacks was, in Cole's words, to 'sharpen the contradictions'.

Since the attackers are dead, I don't suppose we will ever be able to verify Cole's assertions regarding this attack. But we can say for certain that bin Laden's attacks on America succeeded beyond his wildest dreams by provoking an imperial over-reaction that led to the radicalization of many Muslims who, one can speculate, might have remained quiescent absent the outrages of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and their like.

In Cole's view, these Paris attackers then, are similarly using Islam as a fig-leaf behind which to conceal their geo-political intentions. Even if one of those intentions is the re-establishment of the Caliphate, that ambition strikes me as largely secular, i.e., non-religious.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Use of figs leafs is common, a lot of folks just look at the fig leaf, deeper looks are avoided.

[oberliner]

40. Re-establishing the Caliphate strikes you as non-religious?

Can you elaborate on that?

[KingCharlemagne]

46. It's sort of like the distinction the German Romantic Schiller

drew between 'Naive' and 'Sentimental' poetry, I would argue. To wit, Caliphs and the Caliphate(s) were creations of the first millennium C.E. Any new Caliphate would 'sentimentally' look back nominally to that era, of course, but would have very little to do with actual Caliphs or their origins in early Islam.

Schiller's essay in translation:

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/transl/Schiller_essays/naive_sentimental-1.html

and a short explication of Schiller's essay:

https://sites.google.com/site/germanliterature/18th-century/schiller/on-naive-and-sentimental-poetry

[oberliner]

47. Interesting

It seems to me, though, that those who are calling for a Caliphate wish to ensure that a very strict version of Sharia law be implemented in said Caliphate. Is that not a fair statement?

[KingCharlemagne]

55. I think yours is a fair statement, but I must also tell you that I don't claim enough expertise to

judge its soundness nor its accuracy. I meant only to annotate the OP's article with Cole's observation that, in his view, the attacks had a political (secular) motive and not an overtly religious one. As your post suggests, though, there are many potential layers to this onion. Peel back a political one only to find a religious one. Peel the religious one back only to find a political one. When one gets to the center, who can still say what the real motivation or nature of the act is or was?

[oberliner]

60. I think Cole is projecting quite a bit

I think the motives of the killers were a lot simpler than he ascribes.

Namely, that (in the minds of the killers) the cartoons that Charlie H had published over the years were an affront to Islam that requires a punishment of death - and in exacting that punishment, they would be rewarded for doing so in the next life.

[KingCharlemagne]

67. That could be. But from what I've understood, at least one of the three claimed

an association with Al Qaeda in Yemen (or the Arabian Peninsula, can't remember which right off-hand) and may have been acting according to its strategic imperatives and not of their own volition.

Reason I mention this is that, when I read Cole's piece, I remembered that al Zarqawi of al Qaeda in Iraq did something analogous, if memory serves, in Iraq after 2004, i.e., claiming to be acting for one set of reasons while arguably acting for an entirely different set of reasons, so much so that he drew a rebuke from bin Laden.

BTW, I'm not sure Cole is 'projecting' so much as 'inferring'. I remember reading his pieces during the Bush Junta and being impressed with his acuity of vision and judgment.

[oberliner]

73. You may be right

In any event, I do think there is a basic visceral reaction among some Muslims (especially the more extreme ones) who do not think it's ok to do what this magazine did. Similar to the reaction to the Danish cartoonist and others.

[KMOD]

41. Thank you for that.

I just read his blog entry. A very thought-provoking piece.

I'm going to add the link here, for those who wish to read it.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html

[freshwest]

45. 'the re-establishment of the Caliphate, that ambition strikes me as largely secular'

That's my view. They can change the name of the cause, but not the results. This is history repeating in front of us.

[uppityperson]

62. I agree, the newspaper images were only the excuse.

[kiva]

28. The KKK is not a religion.

It is a secular organization that uses religion - specifically Protestant sects - to legitimize themselves.

Cross burning explained: "The practice dates back to Medieval Europe, an era the Klan idealizes as morally pure and racially homogenous. In the days before floodlights, Scottish clans set hillside crosses ablaze as symbols of defiance against military rivals or to rally troops when a battle was imminent. Though the original Klan, founded in 1866, patterned many of its rituals after those of Scottish fraternal orders, cross-burning was not part of its initial repertoire of terror." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/12/why_does_the_ku_klux_klan_burn_crosses.html

Although more modern incarnations of the clan try to tie 'cross lightings' to faith, they have traditionally been about power, not religion...and this is where your analogy falls apart. Do Klansmen ask "Is this person a Protestant?" before they terrorize that person? During the 1920s there was an expansion of victims to include non-Protestants, but if you were black your religion didn't matter - only the color of your skin.

Historically people are X faith for one of two reasons - they either self-identify or they are identified by others; you either say "Yes, I'm Hindu" or a member of another group says "Your family is Jewish, so you are a Jew." So yes, people who say they are Muslim are Muslim.

[uppityperson]

63. ISIS is not a religion.

It is a secular organization that uses religion - specifically Islam sects - to legitimize themselves.

In my opinion, and these terrorists fall into this category.

[kiva]

81. I can see why you believe that,

but I think that religion is far more important to Isis than to the KKK. As I said above, targets of the KKK - traditionally blacks and anyone who supports civil rights - are not exempt even if they are Protestant, so race/actions trump religion.

My understanding (which may not be complete) is that Isis is vehemently opposed to Shi'a sects but is not attacking Sunni people because, to them, religion defines their enemies.

[Arugula Latte]

36. Ahh, this again. Religion/god/s must be kept in an impenetrable protective bubble at all times,

immune from criticism, but deserving only of praise.

[Throd]

43. The criteria for criticism is selective. Some religions have a bigger bubble than others.

[B2G]

38. It's about religion for THEM

And not a small percentage of non-violent Muslims condone what they do.

If this wasn't about religion, religion wouldn't be steeped in absolutely everything they espouse and do.

It is about religion. Just because it's not a form of religion you can't comprehend doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Religion is steeped in everything the KKK does, lots of terrorist groups, what is your point?

It is about religion for them, in their twisted minds, it is not twisted minds I would rely upon to define my religion.

[Lobo27]

49. I get it now.

The Oklahoma City bomber wasn't a Christian. Neither was Norway mass murder a Christian, nor were 9/11 attackers muslims.

Each came from a religion don't be a afraid to say it.

[KMOD]

56. Is it about religion, or is it about power?

The France terrorists were not trying to recruit people to their faith.

I believe that is the gist of Kareem's article.

[Lobo27]

58. No they were not recruiting, but weren't they taking revenge for

A prophet that belongs to a religion?

[KMOD]

93. That was certainly their excuse, at least.

It also accomplished giving Al Qaeda a lot of attention, again.

[RandySF]

51. Christians SHOULD have been required to explain the burning crosses.

[uppityperson]

54. Thank you KMOD, very good article and wouldn't that be nice

[MisterP]

66. religion's a dimension to life, intersecting with the others, not a superstate

if you tell a historian that WWI was primarily a war between Anglicanism and Lutheranism just because the fighters were, they'll look at you funny for a long time

but that sort of reasoning still flies when it comes to discussing your "Other" (with a capital O)

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Most of the arguments on DU which claim the attacks were about how offensive the cartoons were

are then utterly bigoted. As were the 'Christians do it to' posts, and all the posts that suggested the victims should have known they were offending a precious religion, for this was not about religion.
Kareem's argument is complex, but it certainly destroys all of those 'blame the heretics for not respecting' arguments if it was not about religion at all then it was not about the comics, but about recruitment and power....
Of course that does not hold up well to the targeting of a Jewish shop, unless we say that was not about religion but just about pure, full tilt bigoted supremacist thinking.

But it if it is not about religion, the content of the cartoons is irrelevant and all those folks gassing off about images of religious figures being disrespected are full of stinking shit.

[KMOD]

99. You bring up some very good points.

I do think the targeting of the Kosher store was pure hatred.

The rest of your points are excellent food for thought.

[world wide wally]

69. We can only do what we are able to do. It is time for the mainstream, moderate Muslims to

step up en masse and condemn these murderers for what they are.
Their silence is complicit in these acts. Their is no honor or reward for this silence. You are not sheep... Don't act like you are.

[bobclark86]

70. Here you go:

[Burf-_-]

71. YOU ARE WRONG KMOD !

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 04:00 PM - Edit history (2)

I'm not afraid to tell you about it either. Stop with the spineless apologetics and wake up to the reality we're actually living and ... dying in.

The religion , which is Islam and it's followers, muslims, is based on a "holy" book called the Quran. Not all Muslims are radicals go's without saying , yet how many more headlines with innocent lives lost have to be made by the radicals in it before it will finally sink into your head that Radicals are farmed from moderates by hardline Imams who advocate and teach the Quran literally.

This here is in their 'holy' book, which unfortunately, wether they liketo admit it to it or not, DOES get taught by most to be taken literally:

* Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered/killed or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

This verse, among many others, in the quran advocates the killing of unbelievers, is the evidence that These Terrorists attacks ARE indeed about the religion. So any of you who like to pretend otherwise are fooling yourselves on the most self-deluded level possible.

Wake up and smell the jihad apologists ! You need to stop capitulating to the religion as a whole when it's at least as guilty for not Unilaterally putting forth fruitful efforts to curb the behavior of the radicals within it. I will not give any quarter until that happens, but i won't holding my breath obviously.


Bill Maher said it best on Jimmy Kimmel the other night:

The Transcipt:


JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST: A terrible thing happened today in Paris.

BILL MAHER: Yes. Tell them.

KIMMEL: People were killed. I know a lot of people are on vacation so maybe they don't know what's going on.

MAHER: You're the host so you have to tell them the bad news.

KIMMEL: The bad news is cartoonists, journalists, some other people, a police officer were killed in Paris.

MAHER: This was really big sh*t.

KIMMEL: Yes, especially in our business in particular. Especially in your business in particular.

MAHER: Right. And we have to not avoid who did this. Who did this, Jimmy?

KIMMEL: Well, we presume, and I think it's safe --

MAHER: No, no, it's not a presume. No, no. It's Muslim terrorists.

KIMMEL: Yes, Muslim terrorists.

MAHER: This happens way too frequently. It's like Groundhog Day, except if the Groundhog kept getting his head cut off. And let's also give some credit to this newspaper. This was a satirical newspaper in Paris. These guys have the balls of the Eiffel Tower. Their balls were bigger than Gérard Depardieu, because they kept doing it.

KIMMEL:Their were firebombed, their offices were firebombed.

MAHER: Absolutely.

KIMMEL: They continued. The editor said he would rather die than change with his right to free speech.

MAHER: For the crime of being satirists, for the crime of drawing cartoons. This has to stop, and unfortunately, a lot of the liberals, who are my tribe, I am a proud liberal

KIMMEL: He's about to turn on you, so.

MAHER: No, I'm not turning on them, I'm asking them to turn toward the truth as I have been for quite a while. I'm the liberal in this debate. I'm for free speech. To be a liberal, you have to stand up for liberal principles. It's not my fault that the part of the world that is most against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world.

There have been studies. We have facts on this. Treatment of women. They studied 130 different countries. 17 of the bottom 20 were Muslim countries. In 10 Muslim countries, you can get the death penalty just for being gay. They chop heads off in the square in Mecca. Well, Mecca is their Vatican City. If they were chopping the heads off of Catholic gay people, wouldn't there be a bigger outcry among liberals? I'd ask you.

So to bring it home to us, because we are are satirists, and I'm a satirist who deals with this subject particularly, it's kind of scary, that some people say you cannot make a joke. That's off-limits. We saw this with Kim Jong-un...

We have to stop saying when something like this that happened in Paris today, we have to stop saying, well, we should not insult a great religion. First of all, there are no great religions. They're all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.

There are certain people in the world who want waivers on free speech. Kim Jong-un in North Korea says you cannot make jokes about our country, and there's a lot of Muslim people in the world. I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this. But here's the important point. Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. What they say is, we don't approve of violence, but you know what, when you make fun of the prophet, all bets are off.

KIMMEL: You really think hundreds of millions of Muslim support this?

MAHER: Absolutely. That is main stream in the Muslim world that when you make fun of the prophet, all bets are off. You get what's coming to you. It's also main stream that if you leave the religion you get what's coming to you, which is death. Not in every Muslim country in majority numbers, but this is a problem in the world that we have to stand up to.

And again, I'm the liberal in this debate. I was brought up in a liberal family. The reason we were liberals is because we were against oppression. I was a little kid when my father told us, we're with Kennedy and against the Southern Governors who stand in the doorways and don't let black kids go to school. And all my life I've been for people who have been the downtrodden, the oppressed, the minorities. I've been for blacks, gays, women, Mexicans, the bully, whoever it is.

[AlbertCat]

88. Bingo!

The divisiveness and harm of believing in ancient superstitions, guesses, and magic cannot be ignored

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. When is Bill Maher going to have Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on his show?

[Burf-_-]

76. has he ever been ?

that would be really interesting to see...would watch. I like Kareem, he's a very thoughtful man.

[KMOD]

80. I agree!

[Burf-_-]

84. Actually he was heres the vid. I thought i had seen it before but i didnt recall.

well here he is KMOD, but you are still wrong.

[KMOD]

92. Thank you for that.

and to return the favor, here you go.

http://time.com/3662152/kareem-abdul-jabbar-paris-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-attacks-are-not-about-religion/

[AlbertCat]

78. Except they are about religion.

Ignoring the religious part of this and 9-11 is as stupid as ignoring the role of Christianity in abortion clinic bombings and murders.

Sorry.... it's religion in this case. Could they have found another reason to murder innocent people? Of course. BUT THEY DIDN'T.

[Burf-_-]

82. except you are not wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. So if it is not about religion, it is also not about 'offending' religion and thus those attacking

the cartoonists as being religiously provocative are incorrect. It can't be both 'not about religion' and also about 'the offensive way religious figures were presented'. So people need to pick one.

Personally, I think religion is an element, just as it was when Christians fire bombed Paris theaters over Last Temptation of Christ. When extremist Christians set people on fire because they were offended at a depiction of Christ, that was in fact about religion. That does not mean 'all Christians' or that those who did it were 'real Christians' but it does mean they did it for religiously presented reasons and acted in the name of their religion. The choice of targets, the reason for the attacks, religious in nature. What do you think it was about, if not Christian religious extremism? Perhaps they just hated Willem Dafoe?

[Burf-_-]

94. sorry bout that

accidentally posted , and corrected with "not"... as you can read a few comments above I know it's defintiely the religion here...sorry for any misunderstanding.

[tblue37]

129. But you put your "not" in the wrong place. You might want to edit that. nt

[AlbertCat]

83. They aren't human either

Just because they CLAIM to be human, look like humans and act like humans doesn't mean they are! They are just animals USING the human moniker as.....




Ignoring the religious elements of this is not only ridiculous and irresponsible, it just plain stupid.

But you may all pat yourselves on the back for appearing oh so compassionate and better than the rest of us.... even if you also appear clueless.

[Adrahil]

85. Religion isn't even about religion.

Religion is also about power and control. Always has been and always will be.

[PassingFair]

168. Yes. That's why these arguments are so ridiculous.

Power over and brainwashing of children.
Power over women.

Giving "believers" intercessory power to influence the great Oz.
Giving believers the conviction that they are the chosen.
Giving believers the step up to everlasting life.

Religion IS power.

Hopefully, we will collectively move away from this ancient meme.

[mike_c]

89. not buying it....

OK, maybe some of those folks are just violent people anyway, but religion nonetheless offers them justification for their violence. So yes, it's still about religion.

[rug]

90. Kareem is exactly right.

[project_bluebook]

91. Its about millions of disenfranchised individuals around the world

who are poor, without a real home or country to call their own and who are vulnerable to evil persuasion. Economy 101 needs to be updated to show what happens when too much power and money is in too few hands.

[PassingFair]

169. Perhaps if they allowed women to be educated they would not be so vulnerable to "evil persuasion".

Perhaps if women were conferred person-hood children would not be so vulnerable to ancient myths.

[longship]

107. Let's see...

1. Islam forbids visual depictions of Mohammed. Check!

2. Charlie Hebdo publishes depictions of Mohammed in satirical ways. Check!

3. Islamics attack and shoot up Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting killing a dozen people. Check!

4. This attack was all about religion.
QED

Now one might claim that correlation does not mean causation, and one may be correct in this case. However, can anybody credibly claim that the reason Charlie Hebdo was attacked had nothing to do with their Mohammed cartoons? I think not. Otherwise, why pick on this satire magazine?

I rest my case.

My best regards.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. There is some disagreement about (1).

(1) might be better phrased as Islam law prohibits blasphemy, specifies finding fault with Muhammad as blasphemy, and proscribes the death penalty for blasphemy.

[longship]

115. Yes, and I've heard that, too. However...

There's also the rest of my argument.

Why pick out Charlie Hebdo offices? The answer is simple... They print satirical Mohammed cartoons.

There is no credible argument that these attacks were not religiously based.

And in spite that people disagree whether portraying Mohammed is forbidden by Islam, it is only necessary that the attackers (and possibly their handlers, if they exist) believe it is forbidden.

Thanks for your response.

[Warren Stupidity]

153. Oh I agree. I just think you could eliminate any objection to your first condition.

Any utterance that finds fault with Mohammad is blasphemy punishable by death. The apologists can only fall back to "but not all muslims follow strict sharia. Which is a true statement but leaves "this was about religion" intact.

[longship]

167. I agree wholeheartedly, re finding fault, apologists. nt

[Burf-_-]

110. Surah 5:33

Can anyone credibly claim that the Quran and Hadith aren't where the basic ideas come from, that encourage assassinating innocent people for free speech, or drawing ? Why aspire to such hateful dogma in the first place ?

You don't have the inherent or "god" given right not to be insulted or offended. No one granted it to you on earth, and since no real empirical evidence has EVER been produced in all of human history to prove any "Diety" exists, you therefore have no "divine" right either.

To be demonstrated indeed ! Stop with your BS.

[politicman]

109. Who cares what religion that attackers think they are, it means absolutely nothing....

After reading these boards, I am stunned at how many ignorant progressives there are out there, especially when I had always thought that progressives chose to be progressive simply because they were able to think in broader terms than Conservative ideas.

This whole argument of whether religion plays a role in terrorist attacks is the dumbest argument I have ever seen made, YES of course it plays a role, BUT WHO FUCKING CARES whether it does.

The Paris attackers proclaimed they were avenging their prophet and their religion, SO WHAT?????



Just because they think they were acting in accordance with what their religion accepts, there are many millions and even hundreds of millions of Muslims that think the attackers were acting against what their religion espouses.


Islam is a decentralised religion, meaning it has no hierarchal structure. Islam is not one big entity, it is a billion different entities that reside in the hearts of a billion different followers. This is the reason Islam can never ever be extinguished from the planet, because you cant just destroy the hierarchy and wait for the religion to peter out, Islam will forever live on simply because Muslim's don't require a higher structure to interpret their religion for them.


Some Muslim's interpret their religion in a way that allows them to carry out terrorist attacks and others interpret it in a way that strictly forbids such actions. One Muslim can interpret their religion as requiring death to anyone that leaves Islam, and another Muslim can interpret their religion as having no problem with people leaving the faith.


For crying out loud, some Muslim's call other Muslim's non-believers simply because they don't want to follow their religion as strictly as the extremists want them to.
Point being, anyone can call themselves a Muslim, anyone can interpret for themselves what the religion accepts and what it doesn't accept. There are people that take the same passage out of the Koran and interpret it in 2 completely different ways.


You can go into one mosque which would be full of people listening to an Imam denouncing terrorists actions, and you can then walk into another Mosque full of people listening to an Imam praising terrorist actions.
How do you then go about deciding which mosque is a true representation of Islam and Muslims?


So as I said above, WHO FUCKING CARES that the attackers in France call themselves Muslim, because as I have demonstrated above, the attackers faith is their own personal faith which should be attributed to them and them only, no other Muslim should be tarred with a brush simply because they also call themselves Muslims but interpret the religion I a completely different way.

And the above reason is why it matters not

[Burf-_-]

111. Really ..... ?

[Fumesucker]

112. Muslims sure seem to have a lot of higher structure that determines their religion

Else those who "insult Islam" wouldn't be getting flogged and worse in some places.

The whole idea of a "fatwa" shows that there is religious authority that can pronounce such a fatwa.

[politicman]

113. try this example....

Sure you have some hierarchy in certain places, but that hierarchy means nothing except to the very people that follow that hierarchy.

For instance, Sunni Muslims have their Imams that they will listen to and follow, and then you have Shia Muslims that have their own Imams that have completely different interpretations of the religion.
Each sect believes that the other sects Imams are fake Muslims and as such that the people that follow them are also fake Muslims.


Not too mention that any tom, dick and harry can proclaim himself to be an Imam and build his own followers without ever getting any permission from any authority to do so.


This following example might be able to explain this a little more clearly:

Imagine you have one Muslim that is gay. All the Imams he speaks to clearly tell him that he is sinning and should change himself because but he doesn't want to accept this because he believes he was born gay and cant change it.
So he keeps looking until he finds an Imam that is way more moderate and modern and eventually he comes upon a self-proclaimed Imam that agrees that homosexuality is not a sin.

Now this Muslim can continue to consider himself a true Muslim, even though very many Muslims consider him to be sinning or even not a true Muslim.


Take that example and adapt it to the terrorists we see nearly every day on the news. They are recruited or find Imams that bend and distort the religion by preaching that terrorist actions are good and that every non-believer and fake Muslim needs to die.
These terrorists continue to think of themselves and call themselves Muslims because that one self-proclaimed Imam told them they were, BUT other Muslims with less extremist Imams think of these terrorists as fake Muslims, etc.

So which one is the true representation of a real Muslim?

[Fumesucker]

114. I live among a lot of stripmall storefront churches, I'm quite familiar with denomination shopping

Around here the denomination shopping takes place mostly among Christians, I seriously doubt it's all that different among Muslims in those places where they get a choice of such things but it seems that there are some places where Muslims get very little choice in regards to which particular flavor of Islam they are going to be allowed to practice.

[politicman]

116. did the 2 paris attackwer not have choice in which flavor of Ilsam they followed.....

Well lets take these Paris attackers as our case study then, you have 2 brothers that were born and raised in a Western country, growing up and doing many things that would be considered a sin in Islam.

These 2 brothers are the ones that did the Paris attacks, so even though they were in a place where they had the choice of which interpretation of Islam to follow, they still chose the extremist interpretation.


A lot of times its about brainwashing, certain characters and self-proclaimed Imams have their own agendas, and so once they get hold of someone who is in a vulnerable state, they 'convert' them to extremist ideas by brainwashing them.

How else can you get a perfectly modernised teenager who drinks, parties and has girlfriends to give up all that in the mis-guided hope that if he commits terrorist actions and martyrs himself, that he will be forgiven for everything and be guaranteed heaven.

[Fumesucker]

119. How do you know that hope is misguided?

Isn't that being disrespectful of the beliefs of some Muslims, to say that their hope for paradise in the afterlife is misguided, that they are being brainwashed?

I read quite a bit in the Religion group here on DU and post occasionally, the consensus among the theists there seems to be that any implication that religious beliefs are delusional or in any way less than completely serious and sane is automatically disrespectful of those beliefs. Thou art Charlie Hebdo apparently, your disrespect for Islamic beliefs has been noted and you may expect the fatwa to be issued posthaste, inshallah.

[politicman]

123. read what i actually worte...

I didn't say that Muslim hope of an afterlife is misguided, I said that the extremists thinking they will go to heaven if they kill as many innocent people as they can, have the mis-guided hope.

Next time read what I write before assuming I said something I didn't.


Nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, in fact it is the atheists on here that are the most disrespectful of all.

I don't see any Christian or Muslim or Jew on here denigrating anyone else's religion, YET I see page after page of atheists denigrating any and all religions.


So in effect, on here at least, it seems like the least tolerable group of people are the ones that claim that they hate religion because religion is intolerable, seems a contradiction to me..

[Fumesucker]

125. I did read that

And I asked how you know that the extremists are misguided?

Who is the arbiter of which religious beliefs are correct and which incorrect?

For all I know the extremists may have it right, or not, in my view it's all equally unlikely.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

[JI7]

127. but since they are all beliefs, how can you judge what is misguided ? it's all based on belief

[politicman]

133. true, but...

I can say that in the beliefs and judgements of million and hundreds of millions of Muslims, that the terrorist beliefs are misguided.

Everyone believes they are right, terrorists believe that their beliefs are the right whilst moderate Muslims believe that their beliefs are right.


Now that we have covered that fact that different people have different beliefs, it only shows that extremist Muslims are not representative of all Muslims, thus all Muslims shouldn't be tarred with the same brush that extremists are simply because they share the same name of the faith they both believe in.

[JI7]

128. as an Atheist let me tell you that we are respectful, and no true atheist would denigrate others

so therefore those who are claiming to be atheist and disrespecting others are not atheists.

[politicman]

130. i completely aaccept and agree with what you say.

And I will accept what you say, you don't believe that those people claiming to be atheists are true atheists because they denigrate others.

It makes perfect sense.


It also makes sense that you would never feel you need to apologise or condemn someone that you feel is not a real atheist, so why people demand that Muslims apologise and condemn every terrorist action when most Muslims don't believe that terrorists are true Muslims.

[JI7]

132. i do condemn those who claim to be atheist when they complain about stupid shit like christmas trees

[politicman]

135. you condemn cause you want to, what would you say if i said you are required to condemn every time

But you condemn them because you want to, not because you are required to.

Am I right?


Imagine if you had to constantly write condemnations on here every time an atheist wrote something intolerable, you'd get to a point where you say to yourself 'f..k it, I'm not responsible for what someone else thinks and says and I don't need to be defending atheists in general from every dickwad that says something stupid'.


Same as Muslims, they are tired of having to condemn and defend their religion every time some one that they obviously don't agree with does some terrorist action, etc.

[JI7]

136. well, it is interesting that Atheists(or those who claim to be) are not doing these things as much

as others.

[Fred Sanders]

143. No true aethiest...watch out, someone will spring the idiotic "no true Scotsman" baloney on you.

[Fumesucker]

152. It's good to know that someone is in charge of who is a true atheist and who is not

[treestar]

161. Doesn't mean they all agree

Now even the Catholics, who are supposed to think what the Church tells them to, believe what they want individually.

[Fumesucker]

164. This is what I was responding to..

Islam is a decentralised religion, meaning it has no hierarchal structure. Islam is not one big entity, it is a billion different entities that reside in the hearts of a billion different followers.

Islam isn't all that decentralized or as I pointed out people wouldn't be getting beheaded and flogged for breaking the rules, the presence of rules presupposes the existence of an authority to enforce those rules. Authority means hierarchical structure because without that structure there are no rules and certainly not rules that lead to official beheadings and floggings.

[treestar]

166. In that area

where ISIS holds some sway.

There are a billion or more Muslims. They aren't beheading anyone in India or Indonesia. It varies, which was the point.

Saudi Arabia is much stricter than Turkey.

Muslims may condemn the actions of ISIS, if they are other Muslims. In fact, it may well be a majority.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Man, there are a LOT of True Scotsmen running around these days, aren't there.

[KMOD]

134. :)

yup!

[m-lekktor]

139. yes. the intellectual discourse on this topic is embarrassing here at DU. nt

[Fred Sanders]

144. Get out the bagpipes, scotch and some more true Scotsman and let's have a logical fail party!

[treestar]

162. So what does it mean?

We are responsible for the opinions of others who identify with some group which which we identify?

One Muslim can disagree with another. Don't know why that's hard for liberals to get. Especially on a board where some claim the title liberal and attempt to deny it to others who think they are liberals, too.

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

Stupid, because being a Scotsman is a condition of birth, out of one's control. And the example just proves no group of any kind is monolithic:

A simple rendition of the fallacy:[3]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Uncle Angus proves there are Muslims who don't think killing over cartoons exist.

[liberal_at_heart]

131. It's about power, not religion. If religion were to some how magically disappear from the

planet we would still have the same problems. We would just use different excuses.

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. The road that led from tough Paris estate to radical Yemen training

Speaking to French TV channel BFM on Friday afternoon, as police commandoes prepared for the final assault, Chérif, 32, said he had travelled to Yemen in 2011. His expenses were paid by the American-Yemeni extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was influential within al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) and one of the most popular radical propagandists in the world. “It was a while ago, before al-Awlaki was killed,” he told BFM. Al-Awlaki died in a suspected US drone strike in September 2011.

Saïd, 34, had also travelled to Yemen, attending the Iman University, which is headed by fundamentalist preacher Abdel Majeed al-Zindani, whose name figures on a US terror blacklist, according to a former Yemeni classmate interviewed by AFP. The classmate said he had lost track of Saïd between 2010 and 2013, when local rebel Houthi militiamen, who are from the Shia minority strand of Islam, overran a religious school in the small town of Dammaj, to the north of the capital Sa’ana, run by conservatives from the Sunni majority. The school, well- known in jihadi circles and to security agencies, was a destination for hundreds of foreigners, former students have said.
...
US officials believe Chérif, a former pizza deliverer, also received training in small arms and basic tactics from Aqap at this time. But the brothers differ from men such as Lindh or Storm in that they had previous deep links with extremists. Chérif was jailed for his role in a network funnelling volunteer fighters to Iraq between 2003 and 2005, and both brothers were investigated for another plot in 2010, around the time they were travelling to the Yemen.
...
Chérif told BFM he had been sent back to France by Aqap to execute attacks, and the organisation on Friday claimed responsibility for “directing operations” against a target “chosen carefully as revenge for the honour of the prophet”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-yemen-connection

It was an explicitly religious motivation, repeated several times by the perpetrators.

Charlie Hebdo attacks background: A network of dissidents stretches from Algeria to Finsbury Park

Amedy Coulibaly, who took five hostages in a kosher bakery in Paris yesterday after the murder of a policewoman on Thursday, knew and was in touch with the Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo murders. He was linked to the brothers through, among others, Djamel Beghal, a senior al-Qaeda member and convicted terrorist. Intercepts on telephone calls by the French security service reportedly showed Coulibaly and the Kouachis had recently planned to visit Beghal in Murat, Cantal, where he is under house arrest, but turned back after fearing they would come under suspicion.
...
Their mentor was Faird Benyettou, who worked as a cleaner in a Paris mosque where, it is claimed, he met Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi.

Coulibaly, 32, was released earlier this year from a five-year jail sentence for a jailbreak plot with Beghal, who is suspected of recruiting shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. Coulibaly and Beghal planned, but failed, to free Smain Ait Al Belkacem, a former member of the Algerian Salafist GIA movement who was sentenced to life for a 1995 attack on a train in Orsay in which eight people died.
...
Beghal supposedly hero-worshipped Abu Hamza and was frequently seen at the cleric’s Finsbury Park mosque in north London where he also met Abu Qatada, who was once described as Osama bin Laden’s emissary in Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attacks-a-network-of-dissidents-stretches-from-algeria-to-finsbury-park-9969253.html

These were people born in France, with ancestors from Algeria and Mali. Why would they get involved with Iraq? Religion. Why would they get involved with Yemen? Religion. Why would they say they were avenging 'the prophet'? Religion. Why would they attack a kosher supermarket? Religion.

[Fred Sanders]

145. Religion, twisted and distorted as the Westobro Church twists and distorts Chrstianity is the truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Personally, I find it false.

Twisted or not, I think religion is false; all the religions make unsustainable claims about the basis of reality.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. you are in the unsustainable pit of defining true religion.

It can't be done.

[Fumesucker]

154. When did God select you as the arbiter of what religion really means?

For reasons too complicated to go into I grew up going to both high Episcopal services and segregationist Southern Baptist services sometimes even in the same week, the stark differences in dogma and rhetoric between the two made it clear to me at a very early age that you can find support for anything you want in the Bible. At that point the Southern Baptist church was still using scripture to defend the practice of slavery.

[Fred Sanders]

155. .....

[Fumesucker]

156. That was my point

The Southern Baptist church is just as much a Christian denomination as the Episcopal church.

http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that Americans, by a 59-31% margin, believe that CIA “treatment of suspected terrorists” in detention was justified.

A plurality deemed that “treatment” to be “torture,” by a 49-38% margin.

Remarkably, the gap between torture supporters and opponents widens between voters who are Christian and those who are not religious. Just 39% of white evangelicals believe the CIA’s treatment of detainees amounted to torture, with 53% of white non-evangelical Protestants and 45% of white Catholics agreeing with that statement. Among the non-religious, though, 72% said the treatment amounted to torture. (The poll did not break down non-Christian religions in the results.)

Sixty nine percent of white evangelicals believe the CIA treatment was justified, compared to just 20% who said it was not. (Those numbers, incidentally, roughly mirror the breakdown of Republican versus Democratic voters among white evangelicals.) A full three-quarters (75%) of white non-evangelical Protestants outnumber the 22% of their brethren in saying CIA treatment was justified. White Catholics believe the treatment was justified by a 66-23% margin.

[KG]

157. um, yeah, they are....