Islamists Murder 12 at French Magazine

[Ponder]

Yes. And the Bible is full of evidence of Jews, if not trying to convert non-Jewish people to Judaism, trying to destruct at least aspects of other people's religions.

Well, it's true that in the Second Temple period there were Jews who proselytized, but conversion wasn't a precondition for 'salvation', so not exactly comparable to Christian and Muslim proselytism. I think it's anachronistic to call all the religious perspectives in the Hebrew Bible 'Judaism'. The stuff you find there may or may not have happened and may or may not be taken straightforwardly by the sages (i.e. they found ways to work around stuff they didn't like). You need to take the Talmud into account if you're going to talk about what Judaism commands or encourages or legitimizes.

[MadZealot]

The big question is, why is this front page news but the terrorist bombing of the NAACP isn't mentioned hardly anywhere?

Could be that nobody was hurt or killed there, and property damage was minimal.

[Altair]

Of course by now we've all heard the news of the massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, perpetrated by masked Islamist gunmen (who are still at large) over the magazine's long history of mocking cartoons incl. of their prophet, Muhammad; but I thought I'd start a thread to post various perspectives.

I just learned this; I had no idea:

'He died defending the right to ridicule his faith': France unites behind #JeSuisAhmed on Twitter in tribute to Muslim officer slain by fanatics as he begged for his life

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/Hero-police-officer-executed-street-married-42-year-old-Muslim-assigned-patrol-Paris-neighbourhood-Charlie-Hebdo-offices-located.html

[sailor]

I think many European countries are facing a dilemma that may have to do with the limit of political liberalism and multiculturalism, i. e., whether to tolerate or not the openly intolerant.
 I have a very negative view on Abrahamic religions in general. However, I think Judaism seems to be slightly better nowadays because it stopped proselytizing.

 
What do you consider "nowadays"?  What year, decade or century do you think Judaism stopped proselytizing?

[stephyjh]

Richard Dawkins tweeted: "No, all religions are NOT equally violent. Some have never been violent, some gave it up centuries ago. One religion conspicuously didn’t."  It's easy to blame this on all of Islam, but it seems like people are too afraid to acknowledge that this bloodthirsty expression of the religion is becoming a global epidemic.  Only an idiot would say that religion had nothing to do with this attack.  
One thing I'm certain of, is I side with France on this.  Fanaticism in any form is detestable & should be ground into dust.  And a free press is essential to a free society.

Except that one of the police officers who died in the attack was himself Muslim.

[Darkhawk]

Except that one of the police officers who died in the attack was himself Muslim.

 
Yeah, I'm more of a "Je suis Ahmed" sort than a "Je suis Charlie" sort, given how horrifyingly racist (homphobic, etc.) the cartoons actually are....

[sailor]

Except that one of the police officers who died in the attack was himself Muslim.

 
That doesn't counter Dawkin's point.

[Redfaery]

That doesn't counter Dawkin's point.

 
Well, if you're going to single out Muslims as fanatics, it kind of does put a dent in the argument.

I agree, Islamic extremism is a problem. But you know what is also a problem, and what no one ever seems to want to deal with, especially here in the US? Christian extremists. The ones who bomb abortion clinics, burn crosses, and stockpile guns and ammunition because they think the government is the Antichrist.

I was in Scotland when the attack in Oslo went down. Right away, the media fingered Al Qaeda. I remember having a weird (well...not really weird. Just rational) feeling that this was a rush to judgment. Was it a scary brown Muslim? Nope. Blond haired, blue-eyed Aryan racist who was dismayed at having to put up with people who were different from him.

[carillion]

Well, if you're going to single out Muslims as fanatics, it kind of does put a dent in the argument.

I agree, Islamic extremism is a problem. But you know what is also a problem, and what no one ever seems to want to deal with, especially here in the US? Christian extremists. The ones who bomb abortion clinics, burn crosses, and stockpile guns and ammunition because they think the government is the Antichrist.

I was in Scotland when the attack in Oslo went down. Right away, the media fingered Al Qaeda. I remember having a weird (well...not really weird. Just rational) feeling that this was a rush to judgment. Was it a scary brown Muslim? Nope. Blond haired, blue-eyed Aryan racist who was dismayed at having to put up with people who were different from him.

Oh, I'd say these kind of fanatics are *much* more of a problem. Funny how so many people are not mentioning this (and I have to wonder why):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria

[Nyktipolos]

Funny how so many people are not mentioning this (and I have to wonder why)

Because not everyone watches the news frequently?

Because when news isn't sensationalized by Western media it has a harder time getting out there?

Because there are actually people out there talking about this (whether or not it's in conjunction with the attack in Paris) but they may not be talking about it here?

[Darkhawk]

Well, if you're going to single out Muslims as fanatics, it kind of does put a dent in the argument.

 
Ha, found the thing I was lookng for.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/01/dismantling-prejudice-and-misconceptions.html

From the linked post (which has links to various relevant articles), I quote:

"In the U.S., 94% of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 were carried out by non-Muslims. Around 10% of Americans killed in political violence and mass shootings between 2001 and 2013 were victims of Muslim attacks—and that’s without counting the majority of the country’s mass shootings. Less than 1% of terrorist attacks in the European Union from 2006 to 2oo8 were Islamist in nature; most of the attacks were carried out by separatist groups."

Though while I was trying to track that down I found this one:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html

which notes (among some fascinating and rather surprising statistical analysis that's worth peering at for the couple of "Seriously?  That's what the evidence says?" moments):

"If we look at worldwide attacks – instead of just attacks on U.S. soil – Sunni Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorism.  However: 1. Muslims are also the main victims of terror attacks worldwide; and 2. the U.S. backs the most radical types of Sunnis over more moderate Muslims and Arab secularists.)"

[carillion]

Because not everyone watches the news frequently?

Because when news isn't sensationalized by Western media it has a harder time getting out there?

Because there are actually people out there talking about this (whether or not it's in conjunction with the attack in Paris) but they may not be talking about it here?

But that begs the question: why isn't this as big a story as the attacks in Paris?  Why aren't they talking about it...'here'? For my part I think it's because of *where* it happened. Sorry to be cynical but I suspect people are shocked that an attack can happen in a 'civilized western' city like Paris but don't accord the same status of 'civilized' to places in an African country like Nigeria although the savagery of these acts beggers the imagination.

But I think if one is going to discuss acts perpetrated under the aegis of a belief system, it has to be included.

[Redfaery]

Oh, I'd say these kind of fanatics are *much* more of a problem.

Well, Islamist fanatics haven't made me a second class citizen in my own state. That was the Christians' doing. So...I have a slightly different perspective from you, I guess,

[Nyktipolos]

But that begs the question: why isn't this as big a story as the attacks in Paris?  Why aren't they talking about it...'here'? For my part I think it's because of *where* it happened. Sorry to be cynical but I suspect people are shocked that an attack can happen in a 'civilized western' city like Paris but don't accord the same status of 'civilized' to places in an African country like Nigeria although the savagery of these acts beggers the imagination.

But I think if one is going to discuss acts perpetrated under the aegis of a belief system, it has to be included.

Because racism, mostly, for the reasons you describe and more. What informtion gets out here is due to grassroots work done by people connected back to their country and community.

[Kaio]

What do you consider "nowadays"?

 I don't know. Maybe when Jews stopped trying to destruct the religions of their neighbours? In the Bible there is plenty of evidence of it. It isn't proselytism but it certainly is not respectful either. Anyways, as I stated before on this thread, Jews did proselytize  historically.