[Republished from Rethinking Religion blog.] Gunmen killed 12 people in the offices of a Paris satire magazine today. It’s widely assumed — and probably true — that the attacks were in retaliation for the magazine’s lampooning of militant Islam, although so far the “perps” have not been identified officially. In response, rightie blogs are having an insufferable self-righteousness orgy, and Richard Dawkins blames Islam. All of it.
Here is a page of cartoonists’ tributes to the magazine, Charlie Hebdo. I thought this one got closest to the truth of it.
Assuming the gunmen are fanatical Islamists seeking to “punish” the magazine — Yes, they assumed their righteousness trumped other peoples’ lives. Right now a lot of not-Islamic people are going to the same place. It ain’t the religion, folks, or at least not the religion by itself — see “Religious Violence Isn’t Just Religious.”
.
Heh. Yeah. “Before we had religion, people weren’t selfish and scared and controlling and hateful – then some bozo came up with some sense that there was something more than just the physical world, and *bam* suddenly humans started hurting each other for no good reason.”
If Jesus came back to earth and called his followers to embrace “their Muslim brothers and sisters” he’d be crucified again, with two of his defenders on either side of him, all in his own name.
I haven’t posted in a while due to some protracted veterinary concerns. Regardless, the articles here during the last couple of weeks have been right along the top, so has the commentary.
This event has a strange twist for me in that one of my French language study videos gives a tour of the Charlie Hebdo offices and feature the editor and several of the cartoonists. The video started with a comedic reference to the need for security at the site. In retrospect, it’s pretty chilling, especially when you can put faces, voices and senses of humor with the numbers.
From ABS News, 2010 fifth paragraph
“Four members of David Stone’s family including his wife, Tina Stone, 44, and his two adult sons allegedly conspired with five other members of the fringe Christian militia group to kill a Michigan law enforcement officer and then ambush the officer’s colleagues who would have gathered for the funeral, according to court documents. “
Nowhere in the article is there discussion of Christianity as a violent religion, or this faction of Christianity as a radicalized Christian cult. Five paragraphs into the article they use the word ‘Christian in passing with no discussion that would make normal Christians uncomfortable.
If it turns out that the shooters were radical Muslims, they will be presented – even by the mainstream media – as representative of mainstream Islam – not a radical fringe group whose actions are denounced by Mosques all over the globe.
And FOX, and Ruich-Wing talk radio and Op-ed writers, are full of glee!
Maha, I see you add the caveat, “not the religion by itself”. This brings you pretty much in line with Sam Harris and Dawkins, who never fail to point out that not all Muslims are violent. You all agree that Islam had some influence on these attacks, it’s really just a matter of degree at this point.
//You all agree that Islam had some influence on these attacks, it’s really just a matter of degree at this point.// That’s not at all what I meant, and please don’t put me in the same class as that bigot Dawkins. If you want to have a clue what I meant, read this.
Phaedrus – By their own description, the Hutaree was a Christian conservative militia and the evidence clearly shows they intended to murder a few cops and then follow with more killings at the funeral. So all Christians are inclined to violence and anarchy, it’s really just a matter of degree at this point.
If you follow my snark, it’s pretty obvious that the fallacy is in extending the actions of a few idiots to be representative of a larger group. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, nearly a quarter of the world’s population. If they were all radicalized, rather than a tiny minority, there would be a perpetual global bloodbath. I don’t trivialize the impact of a bloody massacre – I resist the attempt to smear an entire religion for the actions of a radical few.
You guys seem to be playing a kind of game. Maha, you wrote : ” It ain’t the religion, folks, or at least not the religion by itself” – the second part clearly implies that, while it’s not religion by itself, you think religion played a role. An honest reading of Harris and Dawkins shows they say the same, allowing the full explanation certainly includes politics, history, tribalism, economics, etc.
Doug, it’s really not that hard, the steps are this. The founding documents of both Christianity and Islam have God asking for violence from his followers. Hence, both religions are inherently violent to the extent that their believers accept the literal truth of their respective Holy books.
You seem to be conflating criticism of a religion with criticism of it’s adherents. Both Dawkins and Harris say repeatedly and emphatically that not all Muslims are violent. The link that Maha supplies has Dawkins saying this very thing.
I thought of something that might help illustrate the criticism of Islam and Christianity.
I don’t think that any of the Bhudda’s teachings call for someone to be killed. Maha can correct me – I’m no expert – but this is my understanding re-enforced by a quick google search.
A random reading of the Bible or the Koran has a good chance of turning up God asking his followers to kill someone or other. Now, proper interpretations, translations and cultural relativism aside – I hope you can see the critics point that the founding documents of one religion are inherently less violent than the the other two.
Phaedrus — Are you not aware of the ongoing out-of-control violence by Buddhist mobs in Myanmar? There’s been some considerable violence in Sri Lanka as well. In both countries, monks are leaders and perpetrators. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the scriptures those monks follow that justify that violence. And the moral is, it doesn’t have anything to do with the bleeping scriptures or doctrines. It has to do with the political and social factors that drive people to violence, and once driven, they grab their religions to provide a post hoc justification for it. In the case of Myanmar, they’re claiming to be defending Buddhism, even though Myanmar is something like 90 percent Buddhist and really isn’t in any danger. If you want to know why so much violence is being generated in Muslim countries, look at their history, starting about World War I. History, not religion. If you know the history, the reasons become obvious.
Phaedrus, you obviously have a stunningly simple-minded understanding of the dynamics of religion and violence and are unwilling to listen to explanations of those of us with more nuanced understanding, so rather that put up with your kindergarten-level blathering I am bidding you farewell from my blog. I’m not in the mood for arguing with simpletons these days.
A poster on another site included a link to this blog, and I’m very grateful for it. For many years I’ve been an atheist in complete agreement with Dawkins, Maher, Harris et al. But lately, this smug sense of moral superiority (and intolerance) over religionists left me wanting somewhat. When the attack in Paris happened, my first reaction was just like every other time: “Damned religion”…and yet… The nagging feeling that I was missing something important came back. I’ve always known that Bush’s illegal and immoral war in Iraq had a lot of consequences. I’ve studied the geo-political history of the region. I’m a relatively informed guy, but I guess I just couldn’t quite string the pieces together. But after reading maha’s piece (and Barbara O’Brien’s), I feel a peace I haven’t felt for a long time. As if my soul was tired of being mad at all the “ignorant fools” who fall for that religious malarkey. Tired of being intolerant. Thank you for your wise insights, and for taking the time and effort to share them. Peace.
Would this be considered religious violence? Do we attribute something like this to religion or to the ideas that find sanctuary under the cover of religion that are solely the product of individual misinterpretation of that religion. Whoever or whatever holds responsibility, or even passive acceptance for something this barbaric and insane is one sick entity.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-saudi-man-gets-50-lashes-for-insulting-islam-20150109-story.html
http://news.yahoo.com/violence-fuels-debate-among-muslims-over-interpreting-faith-155204524.html