Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[untermensche]

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

It is motivated by the twisted minds of a few isolated individuals.

It could be possible there are people in a religion who don't all share the exact same beliefs.

Could some one check to see if history has any examples of sects or factions of the same religion engaging in violence, even with each other?

Human conflict did not arise with any particular religion.

 

[fromderinside]

Agree to disagree. The reference is very clearly to the particular Islamic Fuckwads who abridged the Charlie Hebdo staff, which is to say performed this specific act.

It takes quite a large stretch away from what was written to take this as a comment about all Muslims.

Agree to disagree. Seems the context is represented by the media audience to which which the statement was made.

 

[Warpoet]

Both are comprised of people who follow a set of beliefs about how other people should live their lives, and neither group is born into it. Both have factions, more or less conservative, more or less dogmatic. Both contain zealous members who make public pronouncements about moral issues. Both are ridiculed by people who know better, either by attacking their ideas or those who are misguided enough to hold them.

Just stop. The levels of ideological cohesion and organization within the Republican Party, versus a billion and a half people spread across every country in the world, are so vastly disparate as to render your comparison ludicrous on its face and not even worth the time I've spent explaining this to you.

And again, the kind of attacks and insults that are hurled against both groups are so different in scale and severity that any comparison there is equally ridiculous. When we regularly see attacks on Republicans that are equivalent to the sort of frequent online, private and even public declarations that all Muslims are subversive, untrustworthy and a blight upon society who should be singled out and discriminated against, or even imprisoned, deported or murdered en masse, let me know.

 

[Warpoet]

It takes quite a large stretch away from what was written to take this as a comment about all Muslims.

Not when you read the chain of posts he was replying to. He appeared to be suggesting that large-scale intrusiveness is justified because of the behavior of "Islamic fuckwads," not limited to them exclusively.

But if the author is reading this, he can clarify what he meant.

 

[dismal]

Agree to disagree. The reference is very clearly to the particular Islamic Fuckwads who abridged the Charlie Hebdo staff, which is to say performed this specific act.

It takes quite a large stretch away from what was written to take this as a comment about all Muslims.

Agree to disagree. Seems the context is represented by the media audience to which which the statement was made.

Honestly, I have no idea what this means. We are talking about a specific post in this thread.

 

[Metaphor]

So wait, you can kill people believing you're an agent for God and doing it for that reason, but that's not religiously motivated?

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

Are you kidding?

Even if the other people who claim the same religion condemn the actions and say the actions are not justified by the religion, how do we know they're right about what the religion justifies, and also, if it's true that all religions are a grab-bag big book of multiple choice, then one interpretation is as good as the next, so you've got no claim on saying someone's interpretation is wrong.

Finally, even if someone's 'interpretation' is wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't motivated by religion. They were clearly motivated by their interpretation of religion, were they not?!

Why are you so desperate to to deny the obvious? What do you gain from it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

<snip> a formerly mostly christian (but forced to accept secularism) society <snip>

care to provide examples? The only societies I know that were, in any strong sense, "forced to accept secularism" are Albania and North Korea, both with their own ersatz-religions (even in other realsoc countries there was always some degree of tacit arrangement with (at least the dominant) religious communities) - and neither of these is "formerly mostly Christian" (Albania is mostly Muslim with a Christian minority of 20-30%, while in NK Christianity has always been insignificant).

Not only that, but the previous "forced-secular" states have had quasi-religions of their own that they're trying to protect.

There's also the sort of thing that we see in China--despite what many people say, China is not anti-religious. What they are is opposed to anything that sets itself up as a higher authority than the state.

 

[Jayjay]

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

Are you kidding?

Even if the other people who claim the same religion condemn the actions and say the actions are not justified by the religion, how do we know they're right about what the religion justifies, and also, if it's true that all religions are a grab-bag big book of multiple choice, then one interpretation is as good as the next, so you've got no claim on saying someone's interpretation is wrong.

Finally, even if someone's 'interpretation' is wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't motivated by religion. They were clearly motivated by their interpretation of religion, were they not?!

Why are you so desperate to to deny the obvious? What do you gain from it?

Indeed. What is religion, if not interpretation?

 

[4321lynx]

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

It is motivated by the twisted minds of a few isolated individuals.

It could be possible there are people in a religion who don't all share the exact same beliefs.

Could some one check to see if history has any examples of sects or factions of the same religion engaging in violence, even with each other?

Catholics vs Protestants all over Europe for many hundreds of years for one example

Unless you argue that either faction was/is not Christian, as some extremists/fundamentalists on both sides are apt to do.

 

[untermensche]

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

Are you kidding?

Even if the other people who claim the same religion condemn the actions and say the actions are not justified by the religion, how do we know they're right about what the religion justifies, and also, if it's true that all religions are a grab-bag big book of multiple choice, then one interpretation is as good as the next, so you've got no claim on saying someone's interpretation is wrong.

Fine. Then nobody can claim the shooters represent the "true" Islam or a reasonable interpretation of Islam.

Finally, even if someone's 'interpretation' is wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't motivated by religion.

They were motivated by something of their own making not the religion.

 

[Metaphor]

Fine. Then nobody can claim the shooters represent the "true" Islam or a reasonable interpretation of Islam.

And nobody can claim they have a false representation. The point is, they were Muslims and they believed their religion justified their behaviour.

They were motivated by something of their own making not the religion.

I'm done, untermensche. If I said going to a mosque to pray was motivated by religion, you'd say it wasn't. You're as deluded as the religionists you protect.

 

[bilby]

Are you kidding?

Even if the other people who claim the same religion condemn the actions and say the actions are not justified by the religion, how do we know they're right about what the religion justifies, and also, if it's true that all religions are a grab-bag big book of multiple choice, then one interpretation is as good as the next, so you've got no claim on saying someone's interpretation is wrong.

Fine. Then nobody can claim the shooters represent the "true" Islam or a reasonable interpretation of Islam.

Finally, even if someone's 'interpretation' is wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't motivated by religion.

They were motivated by something of their own making not the religion.

Religion IS something of the believers' own making.

It comes from within, it is not a model of anything real outside the mind of the believer.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Religion IS something of the believers' own making. It comes from within, it is not a model of anything real outside the mind of the believer.

You're really digging deep!

 

[untermensche]

Fine. Then nobody can claim the shooters represent the "true" Islam or a reasonable interpretation of Islam.

Finally, even if someone's 'interpretation' is wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't motivated by religion.

They were motivated by something of their own making not the religion.

Religion IS something of the believers' own making.

It comes from within, it is not a model of anything real outside the mind of the believer.

It is a combination of things in the world, like books and human minds.

But just because some mind claims to know the religion doesn't mean any other mind agrees.

 

[repoman]

Religion acts as an associative factor, a glue between disparate people. Everybody has emotions, but religion focuses and alters them and most importantly can channel them to a political end especially for the Abrahamic religions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to a friend with an Algerian father, the ethnicity and birth date of the attackers is significant. They were born in the 80'ies, sons to Harkis. Harkis are Algerians who fought on the French side during the Algerian civil war (1954-1962). When France pulled out of the war they refused all Harkis French nationality, and De Gaulle actively prevented them from fleeing the country. Most of them were beaten to death. Numbers vary. Somwhere between 100 000 and 3000 thousand were killed in these revenge killings. Still about 100 000 managed to flee to France. These, naturally, feel betrayed by France and have plenty of resentment against the French government for it. A lot of them left good lives in Algeria and ended up in French slums and working class neighbourhoods. Widespread and flagrant French anti-Islamic racism isn't helping. They aren't welcome in their own country (Algeria) and feel rejected by France. So they're rootless. The kids of the Harkis are either well adjusted productive members of society who can't stand their parents whining or, like these guys, petty criminals with allegiance to no one and nothing. Just the kind of people who are attracted to radical Islam.

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

It's not an excuse. But it is an explanation. Obviously the perpetrators are alone responsible. But it didn't happen out of nowhere. There's a cultural context and France have really done their best to piss this group of people off.

Why did they do that?
I suppose that is like the blacks that fought in American wars only to be shunned upon return. Stupid.

I'm pretty sure they did it for racist reasons. France has had quite a schizophrenic track record when it comes to racism. Since the French revolution their political elects have either being staunch anti-racists fighting against it or in-your-face-blacks-are-monkeys type racists. These have often been found side by side in the same political parties. Bizarre. Sometimes in the same person. Napoleon was famously anti-racist until he found out how much money France was making from the slave trade and then instantly embraced all the racist theories at once.

Worth noting is that no Western country has had more Muslim immigration than France. They've even got more than USA. So they can't be all that racist.

 

[bleubird]

The basic problem is that religion and faith is not logical.It is fear of the unknown after death.Heaven Paradise with 72 grapes or
Why would an all powerful Being change the laws nature that he/she /it created just to prove an asshole point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why did they do that?
I suppose that is like the blacks that fought in American wars only to be shunned upon return. Stupid.

I'm pretty sure they did it for racist reasons. France has had quite a schizophrenic track record when it comes to racism. Since the French revolution their political elects have either being staunch anti-racists fighting against it or in-your-face-blacks-are-monkeys type racists. These have often been found side by side in the same political parties. Bizarre. Sometimes in the same person. Napoleon was famously anti-racist until he found out how much money France was making from the slave trade and then instantly embraced all the racist theories at once.

Worth noting is that no Western country has had more Muslim immigration than France. They've even got more than USA. So they can't be all that racist.

The same guy also told me that the main reason France has had so few terror attacks in general is probably because the French secret police is super effective. Rather than Muslims being less annoyed about France.

Apparently these two guys were already well known to the anti-terror police. They were just viewed as being total clowns incapable of pulling off even the most basic of terror attacks. So they got less attention than they should have had.

 

[dismal]

Fine. Then nobody can claim the shooters represent the "true" Islam or a reasonable interpretation of Islam.

Don't you think that's what the shooters claim?

If we remove religious factors from the story we are left struggling to explain why 2 Frenchmen shot a bunch of French cartoonists. If you say it's "geopolitical factors" I would question whether cartoonists have a great history of violence and oppression directed at the French.

 

[PyramidHead]

Is there ever a case where somebody does something bad because of their religion telling them to?