Paris: Teacher Beheaded for Using Cartoons for Discussion

[attofishpi]

...sorry for the rush job...my football game is at half time, but here have it:
.
.

too small: how can we enjoy sweet, sweet islamist rage if the bastids can't see the blasphemy?

I do apologise, the game has finished and this is all I could come up with..
.
.

[henry quirk]

...sorry for the rush job...my football game is at half time, but here have it:
.
.

too small: how can we enjoy sweet, sweet islamist rage if the bastids can't see the blasphemy?

I do apologise, the game has finished and this is all I could come up with..
.
.

much better!

I'll see what I can contribute to the cause when I get back

[henry quirk]

...here's some stuff...

https://thesuperjesus.wordpress.com/201 ... n-madness/

[Belinda]

As reported in the New York Times very recently,

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/worl ... ading.html
Oct. 16, 2020

PARIS — A knife-wielding man decapitated a teacher near a school in a suburb north of Paris on Friday afternoon and was later shot dead by the police, officials said, abruptly hitting France with a national trauma that revived memories of recent terrorist attacks.

A police officer and parents with knowledge of the attack confirmed French media reports that the victim was a history teacher at the school who had shown caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a class on freedom of expression, which had incited anger among some Muslim families.

I anticipate some will condemned my posting above as Islamophobia but these people are like ostriches who refuse to see reality as it is.

As responsible citizens of humanity we have a responsibility to research in depth to find the root cause of the above killings instead of shouting 'Islamophobia' and allowing more of such irrational killing in the name of a religion to continue.

Views?

doesn't seem to me that christians (who get a lotta shit lobbed at 'em nowadays) go around cuttin' heads off cuz some teacher or publisher portrayed jesus in an unflatterin' or unsympathetic light

any and every time a religio-nutjob makes the front page, it's an islamist

as I said, in-forum somewhere, islam needs its own martin luther, its own reformation

I agree and wonder why no such person has come along. I wonder if it is because there is no overall authority for such a Martin Luther character to rebel against, as Martin Luther rebelled against the RC Church.

The RC Church admin was decayed and ripe for reformation. But Islam is made up of Islamic cells scattered among disparate nations, not to mention separate Islamic sects.

I think the best way ahead is for Muslims to be peacefully integrated within developed nations so they partake of liberal education and become scientifically enlightened as individuals.

[henry quirk]

As reported in the New York Times very recently,



I anticipate some will condemned my posting above as Islamophobia but these people are like ostriches who refuse to see reality as it is.

As responsible citizens of humanity we have a responsibility to research in depth to find the root cause of the above killings instead of shouting 'Islamophobia' and allowing more of such irrational killing in the name of a religion to continue.

Views?

doesn't seem to me that christians (who get a lotta shit lobbed at 'em nowadays) go around cuttin' heads off cuz some teacher or publisher portrayed jesus in an unflatterin' or unsympathetic light

any and every time a religio-nutjob makes the front page, it's an islamist

as I said, in-forum somewhere, islam needs its own martin luther, its own reformation

I agree and wonder why no such person has come along. I wonder if it is because there is no overall authority for such a Martin Luther character to rebel against, as Martin Luther rebelled against the RC Church.

The RC Church admin was decayed and ripe for reformation. But Islam is made up of Islamic cells scattered among disparate nations, not to mention separate Islamic sects.

I think the best way ahead is for Muslims to be peacefully integrated within developed nations so they partake of liberal education and become scientifically enlightened as individuals.

it ain't muslims who are the problem; it's islamists

[Belinda]

doesn't seem to me that christians (who get a lotta shit lobbed at 'em nowadays) go around cuttin' heads off cuz some teacher or publisher portrayed jesus in an unflatterin' or unsympathetic light

any and every time a religio-nutjob makes the front page, it's an islamist

as I said, in-forum somewhere, islam needs its own martin luther, its own reformation

I agree and wonder why no such person has come along. I wonder if it is because there is no overall authority for such a Martin Luther character to rebel against, as Martin Luther rebelled against the RC Church.

The RC Church admin was decayed and ripe for reformation. But Islam is made up of Islamic cells scattered among disparate nations, not to mention separate Islamic sects.

I think the best way ahead is for Muslims to be peacefully integrated within developed nations so they partake of liberal education and become scientifically enlightened as individuals.

it ain't muslims who are the problem; it's islamists

Islamists is another name for radicalised Muslims. They believe it's a good thing to use the Koran to justify terrorist acts.

Muslims tend to be poorer and more ethnic than , say, people of no religion, Humanists, or Anglicans. The lower status of the ethnic group makes people resentful.

[henry quirk]

I agree and wonder why no such person has come along. I wonder if it is because there is no overall authority for such a Martin Luther character to rebel against, as Martin Luther rebelled against the RC Church.

The RC Church admin was decayed and ripe for reformation. But Islam is made up of Islamic cells scattered among disparate nations, not to mention separate Islamic sects.

I think the best way ahead is for Muslims to be peacefully integrated within developed nations so they partake of liberal education and become scientifically enlightened as individuals.

it ain't muslims who are the problem; it's islamists

Islamists is another name for radicalised Muslims. They believe it's a good thing to use the Koran to justify terrorist acts.

Muslims tend to be poorer and more ethnic than , say, people of no religion, Humanists, or Anglicans. The lower status of the ethnic group makes people resentful.

no shit

no...what gets folks (includin' muslims) stirred up is islamists decapitatin' folks

[Belinda]

it ain't muslims who are the problem; it's islamists

Islamists is another name for radicalised Muslims. They believe it's a good thing to use the Koran to justify terrorist acts.

Muslims tend to be poorer and more ethnic than , say, people of no religion, Humanists, or Anglicans. The lower status of the ethnic group makes people resentful.

no shit

no...what gets folks (includin' muslims) stirred up is islamists decapitatin' folks

It is a right and proper gut reaction which most people share.

[Veritas Aequitas]

doesn't seem to me that christians (who get a lotta shit lobbed at 'em nowadays) go around cuttin' heads off cuz some teacher or publisher portrayed jesus in an unflatterin' or unsympathetic light

any and every time a religio-nutjob makes the front page, it's an islamist

as I said, in-forum somewhere, islam needs its own martin luther, its own reformation

I agree and wonder why no such person has come along. I wonder if it is because there is no overall authority for such a Martin Luther character to rebel against, as Martin Luther rebelled against the RC Church.

The RC Church admin was decayed and ripe for reformation. But Islam is made up of Islamic cells scattered among disparate nations, not to mention separate Islamic sects.

I think the best way ahead is for Muslims to be peacefully integrated within developed nations so they partake of liberal education and become scientifically enlightened as individuals.

it ain't muslims who are the problem; it's islamists

Neither is the real problem.

• Do Not Blame Muslims!
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842

The real problem is the ideology-of-Islam which contain evil laden verses that compelled Muslims who are contracted with Allah to kill non-Muslims as a duty.

If the Quran -containing the contractual terms Muslims signed with Allah DO NOT contain any evil commands to kill non-Muslims, there is no contractual obligations for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. If Muslims kill non-Muslims in this case, they are doing it on a private and individual basis and not driven by Islam.

This the case with Christianity where the Gospels containing the terms of the covenant contain no terms that command Christians to kill non-Christians.
Thus if any person who happened to be a Christian and kill other humans, that has nothing to do with Christianity per se, but rather it is a personal or group issue. We cannot blame Christianity because the doctrines of Christianity explicitly did not permit Christians to kill others even enemies.

[Belinda]

The ideology of Islam , like that of all religions, is based on need for social control.

Muhammad aimed to empower the Arabs, and at that time he needed to set the new Muslims against those who clung to Arabian polytheism. Later on Muslims were persuaded the enemy was not polytheists but national enemies. Monotheism usually degrades into nationalism and hostility against out -groups.

Xianity always has the possibility of reform because Xianity is founded not only on a book of rules but on the myth of a real live man whose message is peace and tolerance. Xianity has evolved through historical stages into Christian Humanism. Islam can't so easily evolve because no scientific Enlightenment affected Islam. If Xianity had been founded solely on a supernatural book of rules then Xianity would not have evolved. Instead Xians have a lived life as exemplar. My point is it's not simply the content of the book of rules that makes Islam inferior to Xianity, it's Islam's lack of a Man-God who exemplified benevolent intentions towards all and who it follows could not commit an atrocity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The ideology of Islam , like that of all religions, is based on need for social control.

Muhammad aimed to empower the Arabs, and at that time he needed to set the new Muslims against those who clung to Arabian polytheism. Later on Muslims were persuaded the enemy was not polytheists but national enemies. Monotheism usually degrades into nationalism and hostility against out -groups.

Xianity always has the possibility of reform because Xianity is founded not only on a book of rules but on the myth of a real live man whose message is peace and tolerance. Xianity has evolved through historical stages into Christian Humanism. Islam can't so easily evolve because no scientific Enlightenment affected Islam. If Xianity had been founded solely on a supernatural book of rules then Xianity would not have evolved. Instead Xians have a lived life as exemplar. My point is it's not simply the content of the book of rules that makes Islam inferior to Xianity, it's Islam's lack of a Man-God who exemplified benevolent intentions towards all and who it follows could not commit an atrocity.

All the history and stories with Muhammad and Arabs are not significant.

What is critical is the CONTENT constituted within an ideology.
So the question is whether the content of the ideology is evil-laden and to what degree.

If the content of any ideology is laden with evil and violent elements, the adopter of the ideology in all cases can voluntarily denounced it when he is rational to realize that evil ideology is not his preference.
In many cases, the ideology can also be changed by the majority of members for the better.

BUT the problem with the ideology of Islam is that it contains loads of evil and violent elements that compelled contracted Muslims to kill non-Muslims and commit violence upon them.

The ideology and membership in Islam is a "Hotel California" once a Muslim signed a contract with Allah, there is no retraction or way out, since all apostates are to be killed and punished in Hell by an all-powerful God.
In addition, the ideology of Islam as commanded by Allah is immutable.

The other fact re the Principles of Normal Distribution is there is a natural percentile of evil prone people, say 20% and that is 300 million evil prone Muslims lurking around the world. Even if we reduce that to 1% that is still 15 millions which despite a very low % is a very significant quantum in terms of numbers of Muslims who are vulnerable to carry out the evil commands in the Quran as their divine duty.

You need to take note of the above critical points.

[Belinda]

The ideology of Islam , like that of all religions, is based on need for social control.

Muhammad aimed to empower the Arabs, and at that time he needed to set the new Muslims against those who clung to Arabian polytheism. Later on Muslims were persuaded the enemy was not polytheists but national enemies. Monotheism usually degrades into nationalism and hostility against out -groups.

Xianity always has the possibility of reform because Xianity is founded not only on a book of rules but on the myth of a real live man whose message is peace and tolerance. Xianity has evolved through historical stages into Christian Humanism. Islam can't so easily evolve because no scientific Enlightenment affected Islam. If Xianity had been founded solely on a supernatural book of rules then Xianity would not have evolved. Instead Xians have a lived life as exemplar. My point is it's not simply the content of the book of rules that makes Islam inferior to Xianity, it's Islam's lack of a Man-God who exemplified benevolent intentions towards all and who it follows could not commit an atrocity.

All the history and stories with Muhammad and Arabs are not significant.

What is critical is the CONTENT constituted within an ideology.
So the question is whether the content of the ideology is evil-laden and to what degree.

If the content of any ideology is laden with evil and violent elements, the adopter of the ideology in all cases can voluntarily denounced it when he is rational to realize that evil ideology is not his preference.
In many cases, the ideology can also be changed by the majority of members for the better.

BUT the problem with the ideology of Islam is that it contains loads of evil and violent elements that compelled contracted Muslims to kill non-Muslims and commit violence upon them.

The ideology and membership in Islam is a "Hotel California" once a Muslim signed a contract with Allah, there is no retraction or way out, since all apostates are to be killed and punished in Hell by an all-powerful God.
In addition, the ideology of Islam as commanded by Allah is immutable.

The other fact re the Principles of Normal Distribution is there is a natural percentile of evil prone people, say 20% and that is 300 million evil prone Muslims lurking around the world. Even if we reduce that to 1% that is still 15 millions which despite a very low % is a very significant quantum in terms of numbers of Muslims who are vulnerable to carry out the evil commands in the Quran as their divine duty.

You need to take note of the above critical points.

Ideologies are themselves false idols, artifices that seduce and lead. When Xianity became an ideology it was at least as bad as any ideological aggressions by Islamist aggressors. In am thinking of the Crusaders and their rationales for invading and plundering Muslim lands. Religions contain components that are not ideological but universal and it is the universality within the religious package that stops the content becoming ideological.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The ideology of Islam , like that of all religions, is based on need for social control.

Muhammad aimed to empower the Arabs, and at that time he needed to set the new Muslims against those who clung to Arabian polytheism. Later on Muslims were persuaded the enemy was not polytheists but national enemies. Monotheism usually degrades into nationalism and hostility against out -groups.

Xianity always has the possibility of reform because Xianity is founded not only on a book of rules but on the myth of a real live man whose message is peace and tolerance. Xianity has evolved through historical stages into Christian Humanism. Islam can't so easily evolve because no scientific Enlightenment affected Islam. If Xianity had been founded solely on a supernatural book of rules then Xianity would not have evolved. Instead Xians have a lived life as exemplar. My point is it's not simply the content of the book of rules that makes Islam inferior to Xianity, it's Islam's lack of a Man-God who exemplified benevolent intentions towards all and who it follows could not commit an atrocity.

All the history and stories with Muhammad and Arabs are not significant.

What is critical is the CONTENT constituted within an ideology.
So the question is whether the content of the ideology is evil-laden and to what degree.

If the content of any ideology is laden with evil and violent elements, the adopter of the ideology in all cases can voluntarily denounced it when he is rational to realize that evil ideology is not his preference.
In many cases, the ideology can also be changed by the majority of members for the better.

BUT the problem with the ideology of Islam is that it contains loads of evil and violent elements that compelled contracted Muslims to kill non-Muslims and commit violence upon them.

The ideology and membership in Islam is a "Hotel California" once a Muslim signed a contract with Allah, there is no retraction or way out, since all apostates are to be killed and punished in Hell by an all-powerful God.
In addition, the ideology of Islam as commanded by Allah is immutable.

The other fact re the Principles of Normal Distribution is there is a natural percentile of evil prone people, say 20% and that is 300 million evil prone Muslims lurking around the world. Even if we reduce that to 1% that is still 15 millions which despite a very low % is a very significant quantum in terms of numbers of Muslims who are vulnerable to carry out the evil commands in the Quran as their divine duty.

You need to take note of the above critical points.

Ideologies are themselves false idols, artifices that seduce and lead. When Xianity became an ideology it was at least as bad as any ideological aggressions by Islamist aggressors. In am thinking of the Crusaders and their rationales for invading and plundering Muslim lands. Religions contain components that are not ideological but universal and it is the universality within the religious package that stops the content becoming ideological.

I believe you have the wrong idea on what is mean by ideology for this discussion.
Note:

An ideology (/ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/) is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, ...
-wiki

Christianity is constituted by its ideology [set and systems of beliefs].
A Christian is one who has entered into a divine contract with Jesus/God conditioned upon the constitution of the Christian ideology within the Gospels. The overriding maxim within the ideology of Christianity is 'love all -even enemies'.
Based on this prohibiting maxim, therefore the Crusaders who killed enemies could not have committed those killings based on the constitutions of the Christian ideology.

Religions contain components that are not ideological but universal and it is the universality within the religious package that stops the content becoming ideological.

You interpreted the meaning of 'ideological' wrongly in this case.

Point is religious ideologies [the complete set of beliefs and doctrines] do contain universal moral elements, e.g. do not kill others as in most religions except Islam with nudges Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
So whatever are universals within religious ideologies are standalones and by themselves they do not stop the content from being malignant nor evil.

It is the ideology itself, if it is overriding good, as in Christianity, that stop the ideology from being evil laden and malignant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Muslims React to Beheading of Teacher Samuel Paty over Muhammad Cartoons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhN-aJ36yVk

Many Muslims condemned the recent beheading of middle school history teacher Samuel Paty, who was brutally murdered for showing some of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons to his students.

However, many Muslims also defended Paty's beheading at the hands of Abdullakh Anzorov, claiming that anyone who displays cartoons of Muhammad should be killed.

In this video, David Wood shares some messages from Muslims on both sides of the issue. Since freedom of speech is at stake, the entire world should be following what happens in France.

[Belinda]

All the history and stories with Muhammad and Arabs are not significant.

What is critical is the CONTENT constituted within an ideology.
So the question is whether the content of the ideology is evil-laden and to what degree.

If the content of any ideology is laden with evil and violent elements, the adopter of the ideology in all cases can voluntarily denounced it when he is rational to realize that evil ideology is not his preference.
In many cases, the ideology can also be changed by the majority of members for the better.

BUT the problem with the ideology of Islam is that it contains loads of evil and violent elements that compelled contracted Muslims to kill non-Muslims and commit violence upon them.

The ideology and membership in Islam is a "Hotel California" once a Muslim signed a contract with Allah, there is no retraction or way out, since all apostates are to be killed and punished in Hell by an all-powerful God.
In addition, the ideology of Islam as commanded by Allah is immutable.

The other fact re the Principles of Normal Distribution is there is a natural percentile of evil prone people, say 20% and that is 300 million evil prone Muslims lurking around the world. Even if we reduce that to 1% that is still 15 millions which despite a very low % is a very significant quantum in terms of numbers of Muslims who are vulnerable to carry out the evil commands in the Quran as their divine duty.

You need to take note of the above critical points.

Ideologies are themselves false idols, artifices that seduce and lead. When Xianity became an ideology it was at least as bad as any ideological aggressions by Islamist aggressors. In am thinking of the Crusaders and their rationales for invading and plundering Muslim lands. Religions contain components that are not ideological but universal and it is the universality within the religious package that stops the content becoming ideological.

I believe you have the wrong idea on what is mean by ideology for this discussion.
Note:

An ideology (/ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/) is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones."[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, ...
-wiki

Christianity is constituted by its ideology [set and systems of beliefs].
A Christian is one who has entered into a divine contract with Jesus/God conditioned upon the constitution of the Christian ideology within the Gospels. The overriding maxim within the ideology of Christianity is 'love all -even enemies'.
Based on this prohibiting maxim, therefore the Crusaders who killed enemies could not have committed those killings based on the constitutions of the Christian ideology.

Religions contain components that are not ideological but universal and it is the universality within the religious package that stops the content becoming ideological.

You interpreted the meaning of 'ideological' wrongly in this case.

Point is religious ideologies [the complete set of beliefs and doctrines] do contain universal moral elements, e.g. do not kill others as in most religions except Islam with nudges Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
So whatever are universals within religious ideologies are standalones and by themselves they do not stop the content from being malignant nor evil.

It is the ideology itself, if it is overriding good, as in Christianity, that stop the ideology from being evil laden and malignant.

There are good ideologies and bad ideologies(sets and systems of belief). Looking around, it seems to me most Muslims are not greatly interested in religious ideology(set and system of belief) but rather in religious practices such as prayers, clothing, and diets.The strong injunctions towards social order in the Koran seem to me to be a lot more important to Muslims than the injunction to kill non-Muslims. These two sets of injunctions are , in a modern democracy, mutually incompatible and Muslims who are normally practical people choose to be social beings as far as killing non Muslims is concerned as that is firmly against the law.

I do agree Xianity is a religion of belief rather than practise, and that this results in the ideology(set and system of belief) of Xianity being more important to Xians than theirs is to Muslims. When Xians have strayed from 'Love all even enemies' an alternative ideology(st and system of belief) has taken the place of 'Love all even enemies'.This is frequently if not always an ideology (set and system of belief) that glorifies and legitimates greed in its various guises. Indeed Xianity is sometimes slated as a religion suited only to the poor and down- trodden.It is actually quite hard to picture any rich man as a good man, at best he is a good man despite his wealth.