French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead

[xox]

 

 

 

The 3 terrorists happen to consider themselves muslim, but this attack has nothing to do with xenophobia indeed, nor with Islam. It certainly has to do with stupidity, extremism, fanaticism, French foreign diplomacy in Mali, Syria etc.. and Islamic State calling for attacks against France.

 

I'm atheist myself, despise any kind of religious / spiritual dogmas, but can't help that thinking that most muslims are as shocked as we are by what happened today.

 

What I meant (not sure if I succeeded in making my point earlier) is that more and more people here in France aren't ashamed to be publicly racist and intolerant (they even seem proud about to vote for the Front National etc...), and such tragic event will most likely feed their ignorance / anger / stupidity.

 

how exactly does it have nothing to do with islam when the attackers themselves yelled that they do it to avenge the prophet or something?

it is indeed stupidity, extremism and fanaticism but it is islamic stupidity, extremism and fanaticism.

 

 

 

eugene, better stop with portraying yourself as uber-naive (i mean, how else to explain you logic?)... i guess, it works for you sometimes, somewhere, but not on watmm.

 

you're hinting that this is some sneaky, jewy, zionistic attack on islam in order to justify the glorious nation of israel in the guise of legitimate criticism? well no, that's not that, fuck off.

 

 

ok.ok.ok.ok....my bad, but if it's not that then you're just plain stupid, i mean forrest gump stupid, like when you compared a religion (search oxford dict for a meaning of the word), way of living and law to an abstract term, pacifism. bravo! very NOT biased, just plain stupid, right?

[BCM]

xox, i think you're going to have to face the fact that islam is at the heart of all this. it's a bad and extreme form of islam yes, but islam none-the-less. right or wrong, that fact can't be written off i don't think. i don't think eugene is being stupid - you may disagree and that's fine and all part of a healthy debate, but what he is saying is not dumb. on a wider scale, religion in general is quite problematic - violence is certainly not limited to islam alone... but i just think in recent times it has all got a bit too prevalent within islam. as lane visitor said, we need mass condemnation from the islamic community, ideally from muslim countries - vigils, peacuful protests, major islamic figures speaking out etc. unfortunately i don't see much of that...there is some, but it's too little - or perhaps too little is reported in the western media, i don't know.

[Tricone RC]

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

[xox]

xox, i think you're going to have to face the fact that islam is at the heart of all this. it's a bad and extreme form of islam yes, but islam none-the-less. right or wrong, that fact can't be written off i don't think. i don't think eugene is being stupid - you may disagree and that's fine and all part of a healthy debate, but what he is saying is not dumb. on a wider scale, religion in general is quite problematic - violence is certainly not limited to islam alone... but i just think in recent times it has all got a bit too prevalent within islam. as lane visitor said, we need mass condemnation from the islamic community, ideally from muslim countries - vigils, peacuful protests, major islamic figures speaking out etc. unfortunately i don't see much of that...there is some, but it's too little - or perhaps too little is reported in the western media, i don't know.

 

and i mostly agree with you but what he meant said was something totally different.

[BCM]

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

yeah, good to see. i think the below quote from that article highlights what people find most frustrating about radical islam:

 

Many Arabic Twitter users, however, attacked the terrorists, one pointing out that Charlie Hebdo had made fun of Jews, Christians and Buddhists without its journalists being targeted and murdered.

[cear]

i will have to disagree there bcm.
the core of the problem lies more within the nature of mankind than it does with this more subjective "radicalized form of islam"

as long as we don't fight (in a passive manner) the evil that every human-being is able to fall prey to (aggression, taking away freedom of other beings, etc) history will keep repeating itself. human nature > religion.

 

it's kind of baffling that society still needs to refer to things as generalizing as a religion, descent, etc. these shooters don't share the same view of islam like every other muslim does. they inherited a view of a very conservative islam where there's no place for other ideas. but the core is not islam that is wrong, it's how people perceive a religion (in their own right or taught so by others). if you perceive it in a manner where there's no place for other ideas, well that goes beyond the religion itself doesn't it? perception of religion > religion.

... just adding to the pile of more open-minded comments, really strange to see watmmers of all people share ideas that are in the range of an objective reality. hey i listen to autechre / aphex twin / etc and i also think religion is evil, really? ..

[Lane Visitor]

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

that's encouraging, but im talking on a major scale. civilization-style evolution. what about forming a denomination (like almost all other religions do) to separate the current hijacked Islam from the peaceful non-extremist or even conservative viewpoints?? ya know like how theres Presbyterian, baptist, catholic, greek orthodox in Christianity... orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist in Judaism, etc etc... I think Islam is hundreds of years over due for debate, dialogue, modernity, etc. and I don't mean tribal sunni vs shiite, because both sects are tied to very strict conservative aspects of the religion and politics. For example, there's something called Sufi Islam (an older branch of Islam that seems pretty liberal, secular), they have also been persecuted and have zero voice. Why is that? Why are there not massive communities in the world and especially in the west and the states called __ Islam or xyz Islam? I'm genuinely curious. Is it because of the terribly oppressive regimes and institutionalized suppression that have prevented such outgrowth of new denominations or is it that there's something about the particular religion as a whole that doesn't compliment breaking from tradition? i've always been interested in this question.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

The 3 terrorists happen to consider themselves muslim, but this attack has nothing to do with xenophobia indeed, nor with Islam. It certainly has to do with stupidity, extremism, fanaticism, French foreign diplomacy in Mali, Syria etc.. and Islamic State calling for attacks against France.

 

I'm atheist myself, despise any kind of religious / spiritual dogmas, but can't help that thinking that most muslims are as shocked as we are by what happened today.

 

What I meant (not sure if I succeeded in making my point earlier) is that more and more people here in France aren't ashamed to be publicly racist and intolerant (they even seem proud about to vote for the Front National etc...), and such tragic event will most likely feed their ignorance / anger / stupidity.

 

how exactly does it have nothing to do with islam when the attackers themselves yelled that they do it to avenge the prophet or something?

it is indeed stupidity, extremism and fanaticism but it is islamic stupidity, extremism and fanaticism.

 

 

 

eugene, better stop with portraying yourself as uber-naive (i mean, how else to explain you logic?)... i guess, it works for you sometimes, somewhere, but not on watmm.

 

you're hinting that this is some sneaky, jewy, zionistic attack on islam in order to justify the glorious nation of israel in the guise of legitimate criticism? well no, that's not that, fuck off.

 

 

ok.ok.ok.ok....my bad, but if it's not that then you're just plain stupid, i mean forrest gump stupid, like when you compared a religion (search oxford dict for a meaning of the word), way of living and law to an abstract term, pacifism. bravo! very NOT biased, just plain stupid, right?

 

it's a valid comparison, i don't see any essential differences between ideology and religion. could use communism or liberalism instead of pacifism, as they are more encompassing, but it's not like pacifism can't get their own institutions and "priests" and preach behaviors that prevent violence and so on.

[xox]

 

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

that's encouraging, but im talking on a major scale. civilization-style evolution. what about forming a denomination (like almost all other religions do) to separate the current hijacked Islam from the peaceful non-extremist or even conservative viewpoints?? ya know like how theres Presbyterian, baptist, catholic, greek orthodox in Christianity... orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist in Judaism, etc etc... I think Islam is hundreds of years over due for debate, dialogue, modernity, etc. and I don't mean tribal sunni vs shiite, because both sects are tied to very strict conservative aspects of the religion and politics. For example, there's something called Sufi Islam (an older branch of Islam that seems pretty liberal, secular), they have also been persecuted and have zero voice. Why is that? Why is there not a community in the world and especially in the west and the states called __ or xyz Islam? I'm genuinely curious. Is it because of the terribly oppressive regimes and institutionalized suppression that have prevented such outgrowth of new denominations or is it that there's something about the particular religion as a whole that doesn't compliment breaking from tradition? i've always been interested in this question.

 

 

good points but i have to add something... the real tradition of islam IS sufi islam, the one you're talking about. the form of islam that completely lacks the 'sufi part' ends up being extremist but that's NOT islam any more. that's why we can't call it islamic extremism if we by the term really mean it's about real islamic teachings/tradition. we can only speak about today's geopolitics at that point and sickness of today's world imo.

 

also, i can recommend this: (i liked the book very much)

 

[Audioblysk]

Man, that is absolutely horrifying and sad. I don't feel anger or hate towards either side, just sadness for both. On one hand, it's a shitty magazine that is insulting to some, with ordinary folk trying to make a living and live life working there, and the other hand, very confused and angry people who feel the backing of a book and anger in their hearts translates to senseless killings in the name of their prophet. There is so much more to the universe than blasting each-other over which person is a supreme being. To think with the world we live in, in all its beauty and splendor, can still harbor people with such destructive desires when, if you look, every 5 seconds or less you can see the most beautiful thing we have on this earth - nature and life thriving in an endless ebb and flow and continuing to grow through all the beautiful chaos.

 

Sad.

[eugene]

this thread is going towards the direction of that one we had a while ago: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78338-how-rational-atheists-spread-anti-islam-pro-us-military-propaganda/

[chenGOD]

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

The silence is definitely from lack of publicity:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-big-lie-about-muslim_b_188991.html

(note this article is from 2009!)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/muslims-are-speaking-out-against-isis-to-say-you-do-not-repr#.em8jNvg6W

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/

 

Of course one of the issues is also that the majority of Muslims don't speak English as a first (or probably even second) language, so we don't get to hear their voices as well.

 

Salman Rushdie got it right though: but notice what he said - "Religion is the root of the issue". Not Islam, not Christianity, not zionism, not Buddhism, but religion. And it's true, any time religion is co-opted for nationalist use, that's when it becomes a problem.

[xox]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 3 terrorists happen to consider themselves muslim, but this attack has nothing to do with xenophobia indeed, nor with Islam. It certainly has to do with stupidity, extremism, fanaticism, French foreign diplomacy in Mali, Syria etc.. and Islamic State calling for attacks against France.

 

I'm atheist myself, despise any kind of religious / spiritual dogmas, but can't help that thinking that most muslims are as shocked as we are by what happened today.

 

What I meant (not sure if I succeeded in making my point earlier) is that more and more people here in France aren't ashamed to be publicly racist and intolerant (they even seem proud about to vote for the Front National etc...), and such tragic event will most likely feed their ignorance / anger / stupidity.

how exactly does it have nothing to do with islam when the attackers themselves yelled that they do it to avenge the prophet or something?

it is indeed stupidity, extremism and fanaticism but it is islamic stupidity, extremism and fanaticism.

 

eugene, better stop with portraying yourself as uber-naive (i mean, how else to explain you logic?)... i guess, it works for you sometimes, somewhere, but not on watmm.

you're hinting that this is some sneaky, jewy, zionistic attack on islam in order to justify the glorious nation of israel in the guise of legitimate criticism? well no, that's not that, fuck off.

ok.ok.ok.ok....my bad, but if it's not that then you're just plain stupid, i mean forrest gump stupid, like when you compared a religion (search oxford dict for a meaning of the word), way of living and law to an abstract term, pacifism. bravo! very NOT biased, just plain stupid, right?

it's a valid comparison, i don't see any essential differences between ideology and religion. could use communism or liberalism instead of pacifism, as they are more encompassing, but it's not like pacifism can't get their own institutions and "priests" and preach behaviors that prevent violence and so on.

you don't see differences cause you obviously don't know what religion means (big if), what's islam nor what's pacifism. ok, that would be lack of knowledge and that could be changed if there's will but your shameless persistence in comparing pacifism to islam, what's obviously stupid or trolling of biased, could also be a sign of extremism of your own, your own narcissism and rigidity and imo it's the most probable answer. the world has enough extremists, thank you!

[xox]

this thread is going towards the direction of that one we had a while ago: http://forum.watmm.com/topic/78338-how-rational-atheists-spread-anti-islam-pro-us-military-propaganda/

 

good point lol

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

The silence is definitely from lack of publicity:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-big-lie-about-muslim_b_188991.html

(note this article is from 2009!)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/muslims-are-speaking-out-against-isis-to-say-you-do-not-repr#.em8jNvg6W

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/

 

Of course one of the issues is also that the majority of Muslims don't speak English as a first (or probably even second) language, so we don't get to hear their voices as well.

 

Salman Rushdie got it right though: but notice what he said - "Religion is the root of the issue". Not Islam, not Christianity, not zionism, not Buddhism, but religion. And it's true, any time religion is co-opted for nationalist use, that's when it becomes a problem.

 

 

Like I was mentioning in the previous post, that's encouraging and great, and yes I have seen that. But wouldn't it make sense for the majority of moderates to re-brand their religion, to diversify viewpoints, to create new communities, to change the words/symbols/names? To clearly and poignantly make major moves that help them stand out from the chaos and hijacking? This is what happened with the church in the past. How many sects of Christianity are there now?

 

Here's the thing... Puritanical fanatical literalist beliefs of early Christians were opposed by so many moderate Christians who eventually broke tradition and said fuck this, and created their own versions of the religion by changing the names/sects. Sure, they still loosely called themselves Christians, but there was a new identity....

 

Doesn't that seem like a smart and healthy idea for the general Islamic populous...?

[Guest skibby]

11,000 gun homicides in 2010 in the usa. Terrible when they happen in lump sums. Very sad anyway.

[xox]

 

 

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

The silence is definitely from lack of publicity:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-big-lie-about-muslim_b_188991.html

(note this article is from 2009!)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/muslims-are-speaking-out-against-isis-to-say-you-do-not-repr#.em8jNvg6W

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/

 

Of course one of the issues is also that the majority of Muslims don't speak English as a first (or probably even second) language, so we don't get to hear their voices as well.

 

Salman Rushdie got it right though: but notice what he said - "Religion is the root of the issue". Not Islam, not Christianity, not zionism, not Buddhism, but religion. And it's true, any time religion is co-opted for nationalist use, that's when it becomes a problem.

 

 

Like I was mentioning in the previous post, that's encouraging and great, and yes I have seen that. But wouldn't it make sense for the majority of moderates to re-brand their religion, to diversify viewpoints, to create new communities, to change the words/symbols/names? To clearly and poignantly make major moves that help them stand out from the chaos and hijacking? This is what happened with the church in the past. How many sects of Christianity are there now?

 

Here's the thing... Puritanical fanatical literalist beliefs of early Christians were opposed by so many moderate Christians who eventually broke tradition and said fuck this, and created their own versions of the religion by changing the names/sects. Sure, they still loosely called themselves Christians, but there was a new identity....

 

Doesn't that seem like a smart and healthy idea for the general Islamic populous...?

 

 

please read my respond to you. you have to know more about islam. you'll see that it'd be better exact the opposite for islam.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 3 terrorists happen to consider themselves muslim, but this attack has nothing to do with xenophobia indeed, nor with Islam. It certainly has to do with stupidity, extremism, fanaticism, French foreign diplomacy in Mali, Syria etc.. and Islamic State calling for attacks against France.

 

I'm atheist myself, despise any kind of religious / spiritual dogmas, but can't help that thinking that most muslims are as shocked as we are by what happened today.

 

What I meant (not sure if I succeeded in making my point earlier) is that more and more people here in France aren't ashamed to be publicly racist and intolerant (they even seem proud about to vote for the Front National etc...), and such tragic event will most likely feed their ignorance / anger / stupidity.

how exactly does it have nothing to do with islam when the attackers themselves yelled that they do it to avenge the prophet or something?

it is indeed stupidity, extremism and fanaticism but it is islamic stupidity, extremism and fanaticism.

 

 

eugene, better stop with portraying yourself as uber-naive (i mean, how else to explain you logic?)... i guess, it works for you sometimes, somewhere, but not on watmm.

 

you're hinting that this is some sneaky, jewy, zionistic attack on islam in order to justify the glorious nation of israel in the guise of legitimate criticism? well no, that's not that, fuck off.

 

ok.ok.ok.ok....my bad, but if it's not that then you're just plain stupid, i mean forrest gump stupid, like when you compared a religion (search oxford dict for a meaning of the word), way of living and law to an abstract term, pacifism. bravo! very NOT biased, just plain stupid, right?

 

it's a valid comparison, i don't see any essential differences between ideology and religion. could use communism or liberalism instead of pacifism, as they are more encompassing, but it's not like pacifism can't get their own institutions and "priests" and preach behaviors that prevent violence and so on.

 

you don't see differences cause you obviously don't know what religion means (big if), what's islam nor what's pacifism. ok, that would be lack of knowledge and that could be changed if there's will but your shameless persistence in comparing pacifism to islam, what's obviously stupid or trolling of biased, could also be a sign of extremism of your own, your own narcissism and rigidity and imo it's the most probable answer. the world has enough extremists, thank you!

 

i don't see difference in essence not in practice, you could substitute all of those i mentioned with the word worldview, maybe it'll be easier to grasp the comparison.

something i don't think i ever mentioned on watmm is that my family was religious when i was a kid (from 7-12 y/o i'd say), and actually not jewish but a christian protestant. so i think i do have a grasp of what religion is.

[chenGOD]

lol yeah cause the majority of Christians in the states don't believe that the world wasn't created by an almighty omnipotent being 7,000 years ago. Hey science, fuck you.

Evolution? Go take a flying fucking leap you heathen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

"A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%)."

 

Wouldn't in make more sense to actually just stop believing in fairy tales?

No, let's try and get 1.6 billion people to try and "re-brand" their religion, instead of denounce the tiny percentage that make up the extremists.

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

 

 

but the silence of moderate communities is deafening.

 

After every event like this there normally are a pile of condemnations from Muslim community groups, leaders, nations etc - maybe the "silence" is actually a relative lack of publicity?

 

edit: what BCM said

 

 

The silence is definitely from lack of publicity:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-big-lie-about-muslim_b_188991.html

(note this article is from 2009!)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/muslims-are-speaking-out-against-isis-to-say-you-do-not-repr#.em8jNvg6W

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/

 

Of course one of the issues is also that the majority of Muslims don't speak English as a first (or probably even second) language, so we don't get to hear their voices as well.

 

Salman Rushdie got it right though: but notice what he said - "Religion is the root of the issue". Not Islam, not Christianity, not zionism, not Buddhism, but religion. And it's true, any time religion is co-opted for nationalist use, that's when it becomes a problem.

 

 

Like I was mentioning in the previous post, that's encouraging and great, and yes I have seen that. But wouldn't it make sense for the majority of moderates to re-brand their religion, to diversify viewpoints, to create new communities, to change the words/symbols/names? To clearly and poignantly make major moves that help them stand out from the chaos and hijacking? This is what happened with the church in the past. How many sects of Christianity are there now?

 

Here's the thing... Puritanical fanatical literalist beliefs of early Christians were opposed by so many moderate Christians who eventually broke tradition and said fuck this, and created their own versions of the religion by changing the names/sects. Sure, they still loosely called themselves Christians, but there was a new identity....

 

Doesn't that seem like a smart and healthy idea for the general Islamic populous...?

 

 

please read my respond to you. you have to know more about islam. you'll see that it'd be better exact the opposite for islam.

 

 

No yeah i totally saw your response, and it kinda came across as a weird attempt to try and school someone who doesn't know about religions. But this is not about what the Koran says or about prophets or verses, etc.. I'm talking about political movements. Rejecting the church to embrace secularism was a political movement. I never said that this never occurred in Islam as a whole, because I'm very sure you could inform me that it did on hundreds of occasions. I'm strictly talking creating a brand new sect of beliefs under the branch of Islam that purposely takes out lines from the Koran, changes things, adds things and then empowers the people to OVERTHROW oppressive regimes indefinitely and makes those new reformations a reality to the point when an Islamist extremist murders a classroom full of children in Nigeria, there is zero debate about Islam is this or Islam is that.. because in this hypothetical movement and revolution and age of reform, it's equivalent to the way the world reacts when we see Christian Identity or KKK or Westboro Baptist church in the headlines... people clearly laugh away acts that those said groups get away with because other moderate demoninations (aka the majority of modern day Christians) have CLEARLY distanced from the barbaric aspects of their religion as a whole through..... REBRANDING.

[Lane Visitor]

lol yeah cause the majority of Christians in the states don't believe that the world wasn't created by an almighty omnipotent being 7,000 years ago. Hey science, fuck you.

Evolution? Go take a flying fucking leap you heathen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

"A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%)."

 

Wouldn't in make more sense to actually just stop believing in fairy tales?

No, let's try and get 1.6 billion people to try and "re-brand" their religion, instead of denounce the tiny percentage that make up the extremists.

 

Yeah but those "tiny extremists" have clearly created division and war between civilizations and have put the entire religion on the world stage as something they "own". Not fair or right and it sucks, but it's what the reality is. And im blasting racist bigots as much as extremists here.

 

like when neo nazis stole the identity of original peaceful working class skinheads, and now through the media, the word skinhead is associated with racist boneheads... which is why new sects were created.. like S.H.A.R.P.s.. (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice) to preserve the true and original skinhead movement (even though it was originally an apolitical movement, but thats another point)

[xox]

 

lol yeah cause the majority of Christians in the states don't believe that the world wasn't created by an almighty omnipotent being 7,000 years ago. Hey science, fuck you.

Evolution? Go take a flying fucking leap you heathen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

"A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%)."

 

Wouldn't in make more sense to actually just stop believing in fairy tales?

No, let's try and get 1.6 billion people to try and "re-brand" their religion, instead of denounce the tiny percentage that make up the extremists.

 

Yeah but those "tiny extremists" have clearly created division and war between civilizations for their entire religion. Not fair or right and it sucks, but it's what the reality is. And im blasting racist bigots as much as extremists here.

 

 

but it's about geopolitics + mental illnesses, not religion. those people would interpret any words how that suits them to justify terorism.

also, let me ask you, what do you think is wrong with sufi islam (the traditional islam, the islam of muhammed)? what would you change and how?

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

lol yeah cause the majority of Christians in the states don't believe that the world wasn't created by an almighty omnipotent being 7,000 years ago. Hey science, fuck you.

Evolution? Go take a flying fucking leap you heathen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

"A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%)."

 

Wouldn't in make more sense to actually just stop believing in fairy tales?

No, let's try and get 1.6 billion people to try and "re-brand" their religion, instead of denounce the tiny percentage that make up the extremists.

 

Yeah but those "tiny extremists" have clearly created division and war between civilizations for their entire religion. Not fair or right and it sucks, but it's what the reality is. And im blasting racist bigots as much as extremists here.

 

 

but it's about geopolitics + mental illnesses, not religion. those people would interpret any words how that suits them to justify terorism.

also, let me ask you, what do you think is wrong with sufi islam (the traditional islam, the islam of muhammed)? what would you change and how?

 

 

Oh but it is about religion... and in ways it's not. but i think its more about religion than it's not (if that makes sense haha) It's not black and white, but to pass terrorism and extremism off as simply issues of mental illness mixed with geopolitics is laughable. If that were the case, the number 1 Most Wanted Terrorists list would be replaced by a whole bunch of homeless vigilantes and union workers from random impoverished nations, but it's not. religious fundamentalism is real shit, not about braincells misfiring as a whole or certain countries mad at each other for different political viewpoints.

[melancholera]

Show the actual charicature that led to this? No way. Even worse, some are actually PIXELATING the drawings

 

Showing a policeman get shot at point blank in the head? Sure why not!

 

Fucking shameful "journalism"

 

They terrorized (apparently successfully) one media outlet, so let's give in to the extremists. Europe and the USA need to make a stand against this kind of thing collectively. Anti-free thought/expression? - GTFO, seriously.

[chenGOD]

 

lol yeah cause the majority of Christians in the states don't believe that the world wasn't created by an almighty omnipotent being 7,000 years ago. Hey science, fuck you.

Evolution? Go take a flying fucking leap you heathen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

"A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%)."

 

Wouldn't in make more sense to actually just stop believing in fairy tales?

No, let's try and get 1.6 billion people to try and "re-brand" their religion, instead of denounce the tiny percentage that make up the extremists.

 

Yeah but those "tiny extremists" have clearly created division and war between civilizations and have put the entire religion on the world stage as something they "own". Not fair or right and it sucks, but it's what the reality is. And im blasting racist bigots as much as extremists here.

 

 

 

When moderate muslims publish responses, why do you continue to ignore their ownership of the religion?