Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

Xordium said:
You are missing the point. Did he do that to just religious people or all enemies of the state. Was his sole purpose to atheism or was it something else. You are trying to compare something that was a component of a design with something that is totality in design. And that's why it's not a valid comparison at all. He also promoted the use of the church during WW2 - guess you forgot that part.
Click to expand...

By 1940 as many as 100,000 clergy had been executed. If this was promoting the Church during WWII then Stalin had a strange way of showing it.

The League of Militant Atheists existed in Soviet Russia and had between 3 and 4 million members. It sole purpose was to persecute and kill Christians in the name of Atheism.
 
Macro said:
The point I was (perhaps badly) trying to make is there's a difference between condemning and actually doing something about these people who continue to do this in the name of Islam. Don't just condemn the act, condemn the people and make it clear as leaders and holy men that the expectation is no muslim should protect or cover up for these people. All this and in the name of building bridges be very visible in doing so leaving others in no doubt this act has no support from any right thinking muslim or foundation in the Islamic faith.

Assuming you know a little more about this than i do from your response, do you have any thoughts on if/how the Islamic leadership could use a Fatwa or something similar to make these lunatics outside the faith and in effect take away their cloak of doing the Prophets work? As I say (and I apologise for the clumsy comparison) but a similarity to being excommunicated - if you do atrocities like this let there be no misunderstanding, you will be individually responsible for your actions and forgo (assuming you have these strong religious beliefs) your place in heaven. No martyrdom, no doing gods work, no forgiveness and you die as an infidel outside of the Islamic faith.

Again, apologies for my poor understanding but I'm sure you can work at what i'm getting at, I'd be interested to get a view if there was a way for Islam itself to make clear to these nutters that these acts are an affront to Islam as well as any kind of common decency?
Click to expand...

What do you expect them to do? Issuing fatwa's has no meaning or authority. Have you seen the whole situation with ISIS? Most of the leading jihadist scholars have condemned them and refuted them, issues fatwas etc, but those who follow ISIS call them heretic and dismiss them.
 
spudbynight said:
By 1940 as many as 100,000 clergy had been executed. If this was promoting the Church during WWII then Stalin had a strange way of showing it.

The League of Militant Atheists existed in Soviet Russia and had between 3 and 4 million members. It sole purpose was to persecute and kill Christians in the name of Atheism.
Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse me for doing a Castiel but:

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[100][101] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia."

So as I was saying it was a component and also a component that was allowed to be removed when expedient. Therefore, it was not the over-riding goal which is stark contrast to the claim and makes the given comparison incorrect.
 
Xordium said:
Er, no he didn't see above point.
Click to expand...

Er yes he did, it is a historical fact he persecuted religious people because of their religiosity, him persecuting other people because of political reasons is just that it was for politics the same he way persecuted religious people because of their religious inclinations. Don't try and rewrite history or gloss over certain facts.
 
These morons have a twisted view of religion. They interpret things in a weird and dangerous way. They are sick. Very sick
 
SPG said:
Yes I know why as well, we have managed to loose our shackles on a belief system and build a productive generally positive society. Sure it's not perfect and it's creaking at the seams due to the wealth disparancy but it has moved humanity forward more than anything else
Click to expand...

Yes all from the back of the medieval Islamic world, whilst Europe later went into these same lands, plundered, pillaged, raped and massacred them with a legacy that still lives on today, yet we wonder why they hate us so much, oh it must be because they hate our freedoms.
 
lemonade said:
Yes all from the back of the medievell Islamic world, whilst Europe later went into these same lands, plundered, pillaged, raped and massacred them with a legacy that still lives on today, yet we wonder why they hate us so much, oh it must be because they hate our freedoms.
Click to expand...

That is a bit far fetched!
 
Xordium said:
You'll have to excuse me for doing a Castiel but:

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[100][101] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia."

So as I was saying it was a component and also a component that was allowed to be removed when expedient. Therefore, it was not the over-riding goal which is stark contrast to the claim and makes the given comparison incorrect.
Click to expand...

It was stopped because the Allies demanded it of Stalin at the tail end of WWII.

Just because Stalin paused his persecution doesn't change the fact that he did persecute and kill millions in the name of Atheism.
 
spudbynight said:
It was stopped because the Allies demanded it of Stalin at the tail end of WWII.

Just because Stalin paused his persecution doesn't change the fact that he did persecute and kill millions in the name of Atheism.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I leave you two to believe that because you haven't thought through the logic of that at all.
 
Show me one murder that was done in the name of atheism.

There is a difference between a muslim murdering someone say for some random reason, like he cheated on my wife or he stole money from me or something like that, or just being a crazy sociopath. Compared to killing in the name of the religion. Just like many atheists commit murder for all types of reasons and sometimes even no reason at all, just plain old sociopathy.
 
Farage on C4 news: "there's a fifth column living in these (European) countries". Think he meant to include us in that.
 
scorza said:
Farage on C4 news: "there's a fifth column living in these (European) countries". Think he meant to include us in that.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that we have a fifth column to promote capitalism, debauchery and excess in many Islamic countries. It just happens that our fifth column is their royal families.
 
Last edited:
Crpwned said:
So because a few extremists from one religion commited this atrocity it means that everyone who follows this religion is also some kind of loony ready to commit mass murder?
If so then surely all Christians are homosexual-hating bigots going by the WBC's examples?

Or are you willing to conceed that the acts of a minority don't reflect the views and thoughts of a majority?

Don't get me wrong, this is a horribly tragic event and I wish nothing but pain and suffering for those who orchestrated it. But to tar a whole religion with the same brush because of it isn't right in my views.
Click to expand...

why not tar the whole religion over this... this isn't some killing of other muslims because they're the wrong sort or some bombing in response to western intervention etc..etc..

this is something fundamental to the religion - death to people who insulted the prophet... it isn't necessarily a minority who support that in principle - that is a part of Islam. That isn't to say that anyone would actually carry out the act and there are other clauses such as obeying the laws of the country you're in. But the actual belief - that belief that people who insult the prophet deserve to die - that isn't actually some fringe view - it is made pretty clear within Islam that that is the case.
 
Derp said:
Indeed. But can we ban Christianity at the same time?



Those are terrible rules to follow, right?
Click to expand...

difference is that Christianity has evolved - you won't find many(or even any) Vicars/Priests who believe that those still apply... New Testament nulls a lot of that etc...

on the other hand what do you think an Islamic cleric is going to answer in regards to a question about the proper punishment within Islam for apostasy? Or for insulting the prophet?

Islam hasn't move on/progressed - it is still a much more violent and backwards religion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom