-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Reuters: Three dead in knife attack in French church, woman beheaded
- Thread starter It’s Time To Go
- Start date
Never because that should never be the result of such an action.
Rational people will be able to move on with their lives.
The people you condemned were close FAMILY members. I could get shot just by virtue of my skin because some of my people happen to be criminals. It's a big difference because by and large the government and institutions are not holding you responsible for the actions of a few members of your entire group. You are likely to be granted your individuality. People like me are simply skin color and what I happen to be wearing that day.
Yet I'm always expected to be respectful and to act in a certain way to perform like a "good" one if I don't want to be treated like a "bad" one. And as we've seen with the lady in the park, the lady stopping a dude from entering his apartment, and this week with the "no nigger zone" - that shit never will and never does work out for minorities.
So in a world where there are irrational people, how are the dead moving on with their lives?
The outcome of this mindset is that this should just reoccur in perpetuity, and too bad for the innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Pointing out the reality of the core of religion being a brand of irrationality has nothing to do with using it as a soapbox moment. That you think it does is pretty ghoulish to me and speaks to me more about you than anything else. Like what's the alternative? Never talk about where the motivations that drive people to these actions come from? Never discuss it? Never relate that maybe people that have been conditioned to irrationality all their live will probably more suspectible to certain behaviors?
I've said it before to me religion is like an alcohol for the soul. A lot of people manage fine and have it be a positive part of their lives but then you still have drunk drivers, drunk abusers/violents etc. When alcohol accidents happen to stay silent about the alcohol ain't the thing to do in my eyes. You gotta talk about that and point it out. But that also doesn't mean banning alcohol for humanity is a realistic or even good solution whenever any of these incidents happens.
Personally I'd wish religious people would ideally just have inner reflection on their religion. Pretty sure the people that do generally would be part of the people that are having religion be a positive part of their lives and are just normal. My guess the people that never reflect, never question and just hold their dogma as truth are the ones more likely to be the equivalents of drunk drivers.
Tolerance for religion and its atrocities are too high. Religious tolerance allows hate to simmer. Hatred for LGBTQ comes stems from and is perpetuated by religious folks. Insane ideology such as killing someone for drawing a cartoon of your prophet exists because of tolerance for religion. Female genital mutilation happens TODAY, often, because of religious tolerance. Women are treated as property because of religious tolerance. Women can't control their own bodies because of religious tolerance. People are having their heads cut off today because of religious tolerance.
Anytime something like this happens there are a huge amount of people that come to the defense of religious institutions, institutions that have tolerated and perpetuated hate for centuries. We should call out the bullshit when we smell it. Religion needs to do more to prevent extremism and they are failing miserably.
To those of us that don't believe in ghosts and devils and spirits - all religious beliefs look equally delusional and they all can lead followers down these paths of intolerance and in extreme - but not uncommon cases - violence. The problem is some cults everyone sees are evil and delusional and other cults are protected because they are religions. I don't have any solutions but i am so sick of seeing violence committed in the name of religion - any religion. It makes me sick to my stomach and I just wish people were focused on living in this world, on this planet, and this life - instead of some hypothetical paradise.
You know you could use that same reasoning to ban the Islam. I think it is a nice showcase of what is wrong with the reasoning. The extremists and the ones heding them on for monetary/political gain are the issue, nobody else.
And the outcome of your mindset is that if anyone is violent enough about something, we should just appease them by letting them win.
Like literally, you're saying that we should let the terrorists win. Fuck that.
I mean this is literally just blatant victim blaming. What you're arguing is no different than "rapists gonna rape, so women should dress conservatively and not go to clubs or have fun".
It is not the responsibility of people to not be beheaded or raped. It's the responsibility of people to not behead or rape, and it's the responsibility of systems (eg government) to prevent people from falling into situations where extremism takes hold. Your post is disgusting.
It seems an opportunistic whataboutism to moralize and whatnot by bringing up other religions when an atrocity is committed by one or another. It conflates. In that confusion the victims and maybe solutions get lost.
That all religious leaders and the followers of all the religious should vociferously, repeatedly and with no equivocation condemn extremist behavior committed by their followers is a statement that shouldn't have to be made in a discussion about the crimes committed by the followers of one. Such a statement appears like it's meant to assuage those that seem to feel they're the real victims and not of those that were murdered and to diminish responsibility. Anyone that condones, minimizes, diminishes the victims or shifts blame should be ostracized by their communities.
RIP to the victims.
That all religious leaders and the followers of all the religious should vociferously, repeatedly and with no equivocation condemn extremist behavior committed by their followers is a statement that shouldn't have to be made in a discussion about the crimes committed by the followers of one. Such a statement appears like it's meant to assuage those that seem to feel they're the real victims and not of those that were murdered and to diminish responsibility. Anyone that condones, minimizes, diminishes the victims or shifts blame should be ostracized by their communities.
RIP to the victims.
Honestly? That's fair. I shouldn't have said that, since it undermines my point.
Silent isn't what anyone is asking for. Silent is what is provided to evangelical conservativism.
Communication and working with communities instead of "crackdowns" is what is being asked for. Crackdowns lead to more radicalization and more atrocities like this.
I thought we are trying to prevent atrocities? Not make more of them?
Again that's why I'm drawing a distinction - ISIS and other groups wear their religion on their sleeve as a tool of recruitment and oppression - they distort the tenets of the religion.
Israel and the US do it in a more subversive, but *again* just as damaging manner. They're just not wearing crosses, etc.. while doing it.
The US uses false patriotism and sports, etc.. as tools of recruitment and imperialism.
I'm not informed enough on how Israeli media portrays Gaza, etc. but I would assume it has a nationalistic slant.
What ... what ... how... how can this be your take?
Imagine saying well "if that woman dresses in a short skirt and causes some sexual deviant to harass her, at what point does responsibility become shared?"
This is some victim blaming horse shit that should really make you ashamed. Just cuz a religion justifies intolerance doesn't make it any less intolerant.
What the hell? No, you just put the violent under strict survelliance so this kind of horror stop happening.
That is obviously not where I was going with my post and if you're equating drawing a cartoon with women's basic autonomy, that's a little concerning.
Drawing IS basic autonomy. You learn to do it at 2 years old.
rest in peace for the dead.
Whatever happens, I hope France can navigate the waters for a freer and more equitable society for all, and refuse to fall into the trap the far-right and extremist islam want, which is one and the same, the destruction of pluralist society.
Whatever happens, I hope France can navigate the waters for a freer and more equitable society for all, and refuse to fall into the trap the far-right and extremist islam want, which is one and the same, the destruction of pluralist society.
Never.
If wearing a short skirt at night, without fail gets you raped by some psycho, then at what point does responsibility become shared?
How is that one working out for you?
This thread is a failure on behalf of the staff. What I'm reading in this thread is not the community I signed up for. For all the Muslim members of this community, I am so sorry that we've failed you.
Props on admitting it, it's not often that people admit that they've made a mistake :)
Fair enough, but I don't quite agree regarding the crackdowns. Crackdown shouldn't be the only solution, but it will have to be part of it. Radical imams have to be rooted out. Wahabist influence has to be cut. If you don't do that, radicalism will persist and all other efforts will be for naught.
I mean the purpose of my post was to point out how benign the act of drawing one particular thing out of infinite other things was.
And the responses to it were to equate that freedom to the freedom to not be raped, and suggestions that the correct solution is mass surveillance of Muslims, so...
If we apply a slippery slope fallacy to my post then I guess sure, at some distant point maybe it's wrong, but that is one hell of an escalation. It was not my intention to victim blame.
A far-right member of "Generation Identity" get shotted by the police in the city of Avignon, and another islamist attack stopped in the city of Lyon. Recently, self-claimed turkish militias established in France have been violent against Armenians and Kurdish people too.
Fascism, fascism everywhere.gif
Fascism, fascism everywhere.gif
Laicite is not discimination against Muslims if thats what you refer to by discrimination. It bans all religious symbols, it doesn't target muslims specifically.
No, this take is just dumb. it's a flat out lie and borderline victim blaming (or at least justification)
Some laws do prohibit religious signs in some circumstances, any religious signs, and those laws have been used against every religion out there (Jews and kip-pas, Sikh and turbans, Christians and crucifix on walls...), not only Islam.
Every idiot saying so always fails at showing the (real) text of a specific law that targets a specific religion.. because they do no exist.. and then usually move the goalposts when asked to do so (ask him to find one if you fancy wasting your time).
That is the things with laws, what matter is the text and then precedents.
That would be, in fact, against the constitution (and the council of the state routinely rejects such propositions and annoy the hell out of elected demagogues from every sides, Thank <Deity> for them.).
While some laws may seem too harsh in rejecting ANY religious signs from some protected places and some criticisms may be valid, no laws target a single religion. This mechanically cannot happen, it would make it void instantly.
Yes some laws were written because of some incidents including muslims, but that does not make the resulting law islamophobic, when it's written so that, in the end, it does not make any differences between religions and ask all of them and every citizen to follow the exact same rule in order to maintain a strict separation of church and state in a specific context (usually a protected place, like a public pre-school or a public service), no exception.
You may not like them and would like to carry whatever are your personal religious signs somewhere it's not allowed, that is fine, but that does not make it a discrimination against your religion when all signs of all religions are equally banned in this specific context.
Discrimination requires the thing to be targeted against you and not others, if everyone is treated the same and has to follow the same rule, sorry sunshine you are not being discriminated against.
Finally, while some local decisions (usually a town's mayor's pandering to local pressure or flat out a racist) were indeed against a specific piece of clothing (like the burkinis) and therefore targeting a specific religion, every one has been declared illegal and broken in the end, as they should have, sanity prevailed.
You cannot wear a cross either on School field trips. Enfirced secularism is public places is not discimination against any particular religion.
But it doesn't really matter what analogy you use, it is never shared responsibility. And even though it is a bit of an escalation, the thought process behind it is quite similar. Conservatives don't blame the victim....buuuuuuut it would have been better if she wasn't out that late, or not wear that clothes.
The problem is you can see people with Kippas or cross and it isn't a problem. But in France when they see a woman with a veil they began to spit heinous comments.
It's hilarious that French TV spend more time talking about the veil than MUCH MORE important things.
What is happening right now in the country is very sad.
That isn't legal discrimination though. You can wear a headscarf too, just not in government/public spaces just like any other religious symbol. You refer to bigotry, which definitely exists, but isn't discrimination under the law, as was implied.
So the suggestion is to give up?
Have you seen the political situation here in the United States?
You keep fighting for what is right, just, and progressive. The opposite of bending over for the bad actors in the world.
Official Staff Communication
If you cannot follow the following guidelines, do not post in this thread.
- Do not generalize Muslims or hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of these individuals. Our own community on this site is diverse and when you generalize Muslims you are speaking about your fellow members.
- It is not the responsibility of Muslim individuals to denounce or answer for actions that they had no hand in. It is not only unfair to demand this, it is also often exploited by the far right to promote hateful policies against a group that is marginalized in the west.
- Do not in any way attempt to excuse or downplay these horrific killings. None of these victims deserved what happened to them, regardless of what else is happening in the country.
When talking about 'copycat' stories like this, please remember to add a source so people can see for themselves how relevant it is. Not so much a big deal here, but definitely if the case were still active to avoid any unnecessary concern. Cheers.
No? This is a damn stupid law but this applies equally to all and any religion.
You know that's ridiculous. Every time there's an incident like this there follows a groundswell of people calling for western countries to ban blasphemy, and in this case they can point to France's stance on Flag desecration to show that the country is not entirely consistent with it's own principles of free speech, after all why are some symbols shielded but not others? Unlike the holocaust-denial comparison that it always seems to pop up in these discussions, I think there's actually a fair point to be made here.
User Banned (2 Months): Victim blaming rhetoric and ignoring staff post; account in junior phase.
More accurate comparison would be a guy for the sake of journalism, intentionally flaunting an expensive rolex, walking home alone evwry night fully knowing that there have been reports of crime in the neighborhood. Sure it is his right but his action makes the neighborhood more dangerous by attracting criminals to the area and accomplishes nothing but proving a point that criminals will react if opportunity is given to them.
