Slashdot Mirror


Third Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered In As Many Months

An anonymous reader writes: Ananta Bijoy Das blogged about science in Bangladesh, also sometimes tackling difficult issues about religion. He won an award in 2006 for "deep and courageous interest in spreading secular and humanist ideals and messages." He's now been murdered for his writings, the third Bangladeshi blogger to die in the past few months. Four masked assailants chased him down in broad daylight and attacked him with cleavers and machetes. The Committee to Protect Journalists says Das is the 20th writer to be murdered globally so far this year. Arrests have been made in Bangladesh for the murders of the previous two bloggers this year, but no convictions have yet been made. Das's murderers remain at large.

284 comments

  1. Proof by war4peace · · Score: 2

    Shows how "progressive" some countries can be.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The country is run by Islamists. What else did you expect?

    2. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone who understands the difference between Carbonite and Corbomite to be able to discern between Islam and extremists.

    3. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't have anything at all to do with the country. Instead, it has EVERYTHING to do with the religion of the people living IN said country.

      Does anyone suggest that this was not carried out by card-carrying muslim fundamentalists?

      The problem with muslim fundamentalists is the fundamentals of Islam.

      FIX your FUCKING holy book so that it represents REALITY and not some mythical FANTASY.

    4. Re:Proof by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Isn't that valid for ALL holy books?
      They're all fantasies after all.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Proof by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Except that you don't have Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Confucian, Taoist followers murdering people for insulting their religion.

    6. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are doing bidding of the ruling class then they are the right wing, the opposite of extremists. Dictatorships all around the world murder anyone who speaks against them, including press and even bloggers. In the US we don't have a dictatorship so we either arrest them on phony charges or do a cavity search at border crossings. every. single. time.

    7. Re:Proof by righteousness · · Score: 1

      You have been rightly modded flamebait, but I'll just point out that the the country is currently being run by a coalition of secular, liberal, nationalist parties. The Islamists suffered a massive defeat in the last general election in 2008.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    8. Re:Proof by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As we speak Budhists are murdering Muslims on at least 2 islands in a vast religiously driven ethnic cleansing war that's been going on for over a year now.

      You do actually have examples of ALL the above murdering every OTHER of the above for exactly that reason - in fact the single deadliest religious terrorist group on the planet is the Christian Lord's Resistance Army. Islamic extermists could take lessons - those guys kill more people in a month than all Islamic groups combined have managed in a decade !
      You just don't HEAR about the others very much, because they don't make the news, because the places where they happen don't have oil.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Proof by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't know of them but they do exist and have existed in the past in large numbers.
      You ever heard of this thing called The Inquisition?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:Proof by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Cool - pull out something from the 15th century (or thereabouts) to equate to something happening TODAY!!!

    11. Re:Proof by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And you have Christians from all over the world pouring into Uganda to join their ranks, and the LRA getting people on the Internet to commit terror acts in their own countries to further the cause of Christianity. Right?

    12. Re: Proof by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Actually yes. A few years ago a number of gun runners in South Africa we're caught smuggling weapons to the LRA. They defended their actions not by saying "we are greedy gunrunners happy to supply child soldiers" but by saying "we are christians who armed fellow christians in a war against evil Muslims". They got huge public sympathy and people were furious when the fortunately secular court system found them guilty of violation of the countries constitutional prohibition against trading arms to human rights violaters.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Proof by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Give me a logical explanation as to why I shouldn't, then I'll consider it.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    14. Re:Proof by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, b'cos we're talking about atrocities happening today!!! At the time of the Spanish inquisition, Muslims too were busy persecuting non-Muslims from Egypt to India, especially in India. So if you are trying to score who did more, then the Inquisition is cancelled out by that, and we have Muslim atrocities today unmatched by anything done by any other religious group

  2. rather expected by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a Muslim thing, you wouldn't understand.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion of peace! Religion of peace!

      *blows self up in an elementary school*

    2. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Four masked assailants chased him down in broad daylight and attacked him with cleavers and machetes.

      Honestly, do you really think this would have happened anyway?

      Since 2013, at least five bloggers have been attacked by Islamists after another hardline group, Hefazat-e-Islam, publicly sought the execution of atheists who organised mass protests against the rise of political Islam.

      I'm going to assume religion is very much a factor here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Religion is very much the reason. Numerous bloggers in various Islamic countries have been killed for ridiculous things like "apostasy".

    4. Re:rather expected by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The main religion in Bangladesh is Islam (89.7%), but a significant percentage of the population adheres to Hinduism (9.2%). Other religious groups include Buddhists (0.7%, mostly Theravada), Christians ...

      You were saying?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:rather expected by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If radical atheist thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat. And they have. The difference is the founder of Christianity was against killing people unlike Mohammed. There is no founder of atheism to make the same comparison.

    7. Re:rather expected by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.

      Unless you're writing from the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:rather expected by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Local Hindu extremists a few hundred kilometres from that place do pretty much the same thing, only on village level. Wrong religion? Get hacked to death.

    9. Re:rather expected by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Doctors who perform abortions would disagree with you. As would the women who end up dying from miscarriage complications at their Catholic-owned hospital systems. As would the AIDs patients in Africa who were scared away from condom use. There's also the KKK and other white power and militia groups who base their violent rhetoric on fundamentalist Christianity. Or the significant numbers of Christian Dominionists flocking to the military to explicitly wage modern crusade in the Middle East.

    10. Re:rather expected by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.

      Unless you're writing from the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.

      You don't say ?

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    11. Re:rather expected by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's an ignorance thing, you wouldn't understand.

      FTFY.

      And I'm sure most people do understand, even if they purport to decry these occurrences and would never acknowledge that they'd do the same when they're in the same state of ignorance, especially if they thought their lives or the lives of their families were in danger.

      It's a normal distribution, with enlightenment at one end and depravity at the other. Most of us exist somewhere in the center, no matter what we'd like to think about ourselves.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    12. Re:rather expected by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      As would the AIDs patients in Africa who were scared away from condom use.

      This is a nonsensical argument. If the Catholics had as much sway in this arena as you give them, there wouldn't be an AIDS crisis in Africa. The Catholic position on sex is abstinence outside of marriage. If they didn't listen to the Catholics on abstinence, why would they listen to Catholics if they were pushing condoms? There are plenty of valid criticisms against the Catholic church, this is not one of them.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    13. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except there are most definitely religious leaders who advocate this crap.

      It's not merely random depravity, it's systemic.

      Ask Salman Rushdie if this kind of thing is isolated to a few nut jobs.

      On 14 February 1989, the day of the funeral of his close friend Bruce Chatwin, a fatwÄ requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety). A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for several years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

      The publication of the book and the fatwÄ sparked violence around the world, with bookstores firebombed. Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies, burning copies of the book. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.[note 1] Many more people died in riots in some countries.

      This has nothing at all to do with a 'normal distribution', and everything to do with officially sanctioned violence.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:rather expected by jythie · · Score: 2

      "Listening" is a relative concept. People are not going to stop having sex, but they can be scared into avoiding condoms, which is what the Catholic Church was doing in some African regions for quite some time.

      One does not need to follow all doctorin to be influenced by a subset.

    15. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A subset of people from all religions would probably commit murder if they thought they could get away with it.

    16. Re:rather expected by narcc · · Score: 0

      Hefazat-e-Islam, publicly sought the execution of atheists who organised mass protests against the rise of political Islam.

      I'm going to assume religion is very much a factor here.

      Even though there is a clear political motive?

    17. Re:rather expected by narcc · · Score: 1

      You were saying?

      That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.

    18. Re:rather expected by nyet · · Score: 1

      The difference is the founder of Christianity was against killing people unlike Mohammed.

      Deus Vult.

    19. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If by 'political motive' you mean "you disagree with my religion therefore I will kill you", sure.

      But if you think this murder would have happened independent of religion, then I'm afraid I can't buy that.

      For some people, 'politics' are 100% drive by religion, and are indistinguishable.

      But when you have people saying "our religion demands your death", that sure as hell isn't politics. It's religious fanaticism.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people were killed in the name of Islam *today* that were killed in the name of Christianity in the last several decades. It's like saying that Churchill is no better than Hitler, because Churchill's government executed a handful of Jews too.

    21. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job missing the point. Pope Urban in the 11th Century is not the founder of Christianity. But good job proving my point by missing it entirely.

    22. Re:rather expected by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Even though there is a clear political motive?

      Yeah - killing atheists.

      The religious like to pretend this shit doesn't happen, and when it does, you simply reject it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying if Islam had as much sway in Bangladesh as people think, there wouldn't be Atheists with blogs there to get murdered?

    24. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but what ideology are you accusing me of?

      Pointing out that religious extremists of a particular bent feel killing is OK? In which case, sure.

      But if you're somehow pretending that religious extremists among that particular religion don't exist, and that they don't commit acts of violence ... well, you're full of crap.

      Feel free to use actual facts instead of mere innuendo ... or fuck off.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    25. Re:rather expected by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False equivalence. Killers like Eric Randolph are isolated loners, and their actions were justified by almost no one. In some Muslim countries, including Pakistan, more than 90% of the population support killing people that insult Islam. Another 60% support killing the 10% that are willing to allow the blasphemers to live. Most Pakistanis supported the murder of Rashid Rehman, who committed no blasphemy, but, as an attorney, merely agreed to represent someone accused of blasphemy, and stated that there should be a presumption of innocence until the evidence was presented. That was enough for the MAJORITY to approve of his murder.

    26. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But if you think this murder would have happened independent of religion, then I'm afraid I can't buy that"
      because no murders ever happen without religion. fuck off ass hat

    27. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But if you think this murder would have happened independent of religion, then I'm afraid I can't buy that"
      because no murders ever happen without religion. fuck off ass hat

      LOL, fuck you too, princess.

      I never said no murder happens without religion ... but I did say this murder sure as hell happened because of religion, which someone feels the need to couch as "politics".

      Is the poor little baby upset that his god won't make the world stop being mean?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:rather expected by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      For some people, 'politics' are 100% drive by religion, and are indistinguishable.

      This deserves to be doubled. Think of the arrangement that the word "theocracy" was made to describe. In addition to the modern, primarily Islamic theocracies, you have even more examples going down through history. You even had transnational governing bodies like the Catholic church. Like the modern EU, Catholic rules applied to all "member states"... until some of those states got sufficiently pissed and formed, for example the Church of England... another example of the convergence of state and religion.

    29. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is "peace" in the sense of "once you are dead, you are at peace?"

      More likely Muslims, being a large group, disagree with one another, and so some Muslims are all about this wartime violent enforcement business, while others just want to live and let live.

    30. Re:rather expected by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe there was a clear religious motive to this murder, I strongly urge you to setup an atheist blog in Bangladesh and see what happens to you.

    31. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emperor Constantine (the founder of Christianity) didn't have a problem with killing people. He just wanted people to submit to government authorities, and the Christians of his day were happy to do that (especially after the sacking of Jerusalem) and their scriptures even encouraged this, whereas the popular pagan scriptures didn't say much about this.

      Or did you mean Jesus? Study your history.

    32. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TARD.

    33. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emperor Constantine was no pacifist, either. Or did you have some other founder in mind?

    34. Re:rather expected by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you think Constantine is the founder of Christianity. Granted, he is the one who made it legal and stopped throwing Christians to the lions, but the concept was around long before him. Almost 3 centuries before Constantine I.

    35. Re:rather expected by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      No one is getting hacked to death on US streets because Christianity demanded it. Trying to compare the two is a BS argument.

    36. Re:rather expected by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What you are attempting to do is use the classic Marxist And you are lynching Negroes which is an appeal to hypocrisy logical fallacy designed to derail the topic at hand, while ignoring the fact that Islamist fascists kill more in a single month than the Christian nutbars have in the past 5 years.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, catholic here, and I have to say, I'm unaware of any time they were "scaring people away from condoms". The stance has always been they aren't needed because you should abstain from sex until marriage and then only do it monogamously. They do point out that condoms aren't as effective as abstinence, which they're correct on. The problem being that people suck at sticking to abstinence, but that's a different argument.

      I'm sorry, where is this "scare away" part? I believe you are either a) making stuff up or b) grossly misinformed.

    38. Re:rather expected by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Condoms use in Africa is down because birth control is seen as a form of Eugenics which has been in use in Africa well after it fell out of favor in western culture (after WWII).

      The pope or anyone saying don't use condoms, abstinence is better will do nothing to change that. It's about people trying to get them not to reproduce that has them afraid of condoms. Eugenics is something that has happened in Africa within the last few decades.

      http://www.naturalnews.com/047...

      You can look around and see a lot of stories about how there are conspiracies about the US and UN trying to do population control on African countries. Even Martin Luther King JR.'s family is crying the conspiracy over it in the US. Alveda Kind even made the Planned parenthood connection to Eugenics a racial thing when she pointed out there are no PPH Abortion Clinics in any neighborhoods without a significant minority population.

      There simply is a lot more than a religion behind it.

    39. Re:rather expected by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 1

      Fuck you. I am not of that kind but know enough of them to deny any logical right to assert on the basis of your black soul, that they are as they are if only they could be. No doubt there exists in set of radical christian some member who would kill if they could get away with but that is true of almost any set of people and if that's all you meant then your comment is irrelevant to this thread. What you meant is that the radical christians are the same murderous demons as are the radical muslims but lack for opportunity. Fuck you.

    40. Re:rather expected by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      The religious...

      You do realize that if that brush you're using were any broader, you could cover at least the entire Inner Solar System with a single stroke of it... right?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    41. Re:rather expected by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 2

      I apologize for my comment. I shouldn't have made it personal.

      I could not disagree more and hold the view to be completely warped in important ways, but I should not have wrote you the way I did.

    42. Re:rather expected by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Deus Vult.

      You use that term, but I sincerely doubt that you know what it means, let alone the context to which (and why) it was applied. Certainly you can reply with 'Muh Crusades', but you apparently don't know *why* said Crusades were called (hint: it involved a response to 400+ years of Muslim conquests-by-sword throughout first Northern Africa, then Europe itself.)

      As you were...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    43. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity was very diverse before Constantine. Some of the sects were really out there. Constantine not only made it the national religion of Rome, but also ordered the first Ecumenical council in which most of those sects were declared heretical, their books burned, etc. Christianity as we know it today was very much founded by Constantine.

    44. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . and then it was turned on its ear by Martin Luther. If every Christian in the world were Catholic, you might have a point. But they aren't, and you don't.

    45. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me, which group murdered the priests at the temple of Philae, the last group able to read and write hieroglyphs, because they found their existence offensive? Was it a group of muslims?

      No, it was a group from that other religion of peace, Christianity.

      They did that before Islam existed, and they've been doing it since. Don't get high-and-mighty, you'll lose because your faith is a sham.

    46. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original claim was that modern Christianity was founded by Constantine. Which it was. It has changed since them, nobody is denying that. Martin Luther is responsible for one of the major changes. But the Christianity he inherited and the elements of it he kept were still part of what was founded by Constantine.

    47. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you're aware of.

      I think that's the important part you've missed out.

      Also, nice snowjob equating the small group of "Christian nutbars" with what is essentially an extremist medieval religious state. Christianity was there not-so-long ago.

      I wouldn't mind betting if you were to look at the wiki page on Christian terrorism you'd find a few new things that you weren't aware of. Perhaps even "Hi, you're starving so we'll give you food, but you have to convert to Christianity first.... here's your bible. Convert or starve, it's god's will."

      But you go on living in your "My god is the one true god!" world. That's what you'll do, and it's what they'll continue to do. If you're anything like my friend who is a loving peaceful Christian, you still want your guns so you can kill anyone who tries to take your freedom, and you want your non-Christian state to go and kill the evil Muslims who are nothing more than criminal terrorists who follow a false god, you should probably take a nice and long look in the mirror before getting back to hating those evil godless sons-of-bitches.

      They really must die. It's the way of the true religion of peace

    48. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of the Bath School bombings?

      American, blew up schools.

      Why? Taxes. A sick wife. (who he murdered) A foreclosed farm. (which he also blew up) A defeat in an election.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

      Ok, so technically he blew himself up OUTSIDE the school, but still, he did that to kill off the rescuers.

    49. Re:rather expected by jythie · · Score: 1

      What country are you from? This was something specific to catholic groups operating in African nations. They were actively spreading rumors such as condoms being laced with AIDS.

    50. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and burning the Koran was supported by a significant number of Christians in the US as it was intended to cite violence against the one true religion, the real religion of peace, and start a conflict to kill more of the evil muslims.

      So, your point was that Muslims kill just anybody while Christians bait them into attacking a powerful state so they can use that powerful state against them, clearly? One nation under god, and all that.

      To say otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

    51. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can repeat it a million times but it doesn't make it true.

    52. Re:rather expected by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The main religion in Bangladesh is Islam (89.7%), but a significant percentage of the population adheres to Hinduism (9.2%). Other religious groups include Buddhists (0.7%, mostly Theravada), Christians ...

      You were saying?

      Well, the assailants were Muslims, while the victim was most likely an atheist. You were saying?...

    53. Re:rather expected by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Pope Urban II != Mohammed.

      Jesus == Mohammed (both being founders of their religions)

      Pope Urban II == Caliph Umar II (both being religious leaders of their times)

    54. Re:rather expected by Copid · · Score: 1

      I think the poster may be referring to stuff like this. Granted, that's an extreme case--more often it's just plain misinformation about how effective condoms are, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the church hasn't been helping.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    55. Re:rather expected by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You have a rather ignorant view of Christianity if you can equate Jesus and the Pedophile with regards to founding a religion. For one, Jesus may not have existed. Two, if he did, he was preaching to Jews, and not actually trying to form a religion. The Apostles created Christianity. Jesus was no more than a figurehead.

    56. Re:rather expected by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      When I was in HS, I had a math teacher who is black. He, at the time, had 2 women he was paying child support payments to, which is why he was working a second teaching job at a religious private HS. PPH clinics in minority (read: black) neighborhoods makes sense.

    57. Re:rather expected by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Christianity was there not-so-long ago.

      I bolded the keyword for you. Even if Christians were doing this today that would not excuse Muslims. But when the rest of the World's religions have pretty much given up on this kind of behavior, it's really not much to ask that Islam grow up already. Their religion isn't that much younger than Christianity.

    58. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If merely following Islam spontaneously provokes the same effect as sick wife and a foreclosed farm and a defeat in election at the same time then we are all in grave peril indeed.

    59. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right I don't, but I would like to know where it says in the Koran to chop people up with cleavers and machetes for criticizing their religion. I expect a funny over the top Muslimish reply.

    60. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I did say this murder sure as hell happened because of religion, which someone feels the need to couch as "politics".

      violent secular murderer == violent nonsecular murderer

      This murder is no different from a gang hit. Your cynical views of religion are moot. You think if we ban religion it will stop all the violence you see it causing? Stop being so smart, moron. Be tolerant and understanding instead.

      Perhaps if idiots stopped wasting time telling everyone else how stupid they are and instead focused resources on preventing and prosecuting violent crime (no matter what you think caused it), we might get somewhere.

    61. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feed the trolls.

    62. Re:rather expected by zapadnik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Islam there is no separation of Mosque and State. This is different to Christianity, Judaism etc but most people in the West don't understand this. They think Islam is some kind of personal faith, but it is not.

      Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with a sprinkling of badly-plagiarized superstition sprinkled on top. It is political because Islam asserts authority over believers AND kuffar (a derogatory term translated as 'infidel' but closer in intent to 'n*gg3r' and applied to all non-Muslims).

      Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political. This is a bad habit and you should stop it. Please understand that you know very little about Islam and would do well to listen to those that understand it - particularly the Islamic deceptions and political nature (and for real Jedi, the fact that Islamic orthodoxy is completely false and was invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik for *political reasons* [ie. Arab Imperialism] and not Mohammed as Islam falsely claims).

      So I would suggest you understand the limitations of your knowledge and *listen* to those who do understand Islam (which is the most evil and deceptive political ideology that man has ever inflicted on other men ). Thanks.

    63. Re:rather expected by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, because no white guy would ever have children by more than one person or never get a divorce and move on with their life. Just gotta stop or slow down darkie from multiplying right?

      I don't know if you realize how racist that sounded but it also misses and illustrates the point. Even if it wasn't meant to be racist, it has the overtones that someone can recognize.

    64. Re:rather expected by ultranova · · Score: 1

      On 14 February 1989, the day of the funeral of his close friend Bruce Chatwin, a fatwà requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety).

      So Ayatollah Khomeini was butthurt over his portrayal by proxy, and decided to abuse his power to murder his critic. What does that have to do with Islam, or any religion whatsoever?

      This has nothing at all to do with a 'normal distribution', and everything to do with officially sanctioned violence.

      Which, in turn, has nothing at all to do with religion. It's state officials - or someone who wishes to replace them - organizing violence using religion as a smokescreen, since it happened to be handy. But any excuse would have served a tyrant, or those wanting to be them.

      The real enemy is the memetic complex that combines a hierarchy of power with the idea that violence and violations of everyday morality are okay when done in service to a cause. Whether this blood-soaked pyramid is dressed up as Islamic, Christian, nationalistic or ideological decorations is irrelevant. Not perceiving this underlaying structure is what leads people to give up their freedom and their very selves to act it out in a largely meaningless conflict. Thus 9/11 led to Patriot Act and Iraq War, which then led to ISIS. The real enemy is still there, and will remain until someone figures out how to bomb the noosphere. Until then, it would be wise to avoid feeding it by buying in to the lie and newest $ENEMY.

      Violent lunatics - and even or perhaps especially suicide bombers - are not the real enemy. Neither is their nominal cause. What's actually going on is that the idea that this kind of behavior is okay in the service of a cause somehow came to exist and, by an unfortunate accident of cultural evolution, happens to cause behavior that helps perpetuate and escalate conflict, which in turn perpetuates it. Thus we have a cultural virus that basically uses your own power and instincts for self-defence to enslave you. Nasty stuff.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    65. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look everyone! It's the lilly WHITE crusader for the oppressed blacks!

        I love how the most whiny people about black racism is always white.

      Come back when you know what it's like to be black. Try growing up being smart but having all your black peers beat you down for being smart, constantly told I am acting WHITE, etc.

      How about you lilly white fuckers start fixing the Piece of trash cops and make them stop killing us? If you want to do something, force your police to start acting like the public servants they are supposed to be.

    66. Re:rather expected by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Look we have a retard! HI RETARD!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    67. Re:rather expected by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      Don't be a dickhead, this article isn't about Christianity and Christians killing people, stop pulling in other groups and people that did nothing on this.

    68. Re:rather expected by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Total abstinence and having to wear a condom are not the something. For one thing, if you wear a condom, you still get to have sex.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    69. Re:rather expected by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      s/something/same thing/

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    70. Re:rather expected by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      There is no founder of atheism to make the same comparison.

      Sure there is. Everyone is a "founder of atheism" because that's how we're born.

    71. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This murder is no different from a gang hit. Your cynical views of religion are moot. You think if we ban religion it will stop all the violence you see it causing? Stop being so smart, moron. Be tolerant and understanding instead.

      Allow me to make this 100% clear: I will be tolerant and understanding of people who are tolerant and understanding.

      But the drooling morons who kill in the name of religion, and those who support/encourage them ... I most certainly will not be tolerant and understanding.

      This goes for Buddhists, Muslims, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Jain, Sikh, and any other form of religion.

      I am not singling out a particular religion.

      I'm saying if you use your religion to justify crap like this, you are a worthless person. If your religious leaders suggest your religion supports this .. then either your religious leaders, or your religion itself is flawed.

      If people wrap ignorance and stupidity up in religion, then either religion needs to fix this, or it is simply a tool for ignorance and stupidity. And if that's what it is, it is fundamentally evil.

      Again, this applies to all religions.

      So piss off and go hump someone else's leg, asshole.

      But let's not pretend that there exist religious leaders who advocate the killing of people who do not match their specific version of religion. Because that would be complete and utter bullshit.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    72. Re:rather expected by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political.

      Bullshit.

      Islam is completely religious, and to its adherents encompass all aspects of life ... I understand this. I have actually endeavored to read about Islam and educate myself about it ... as I have with several other religions.

      But having religion encompass all aspects of your life does not make it political. It makes it religious.

      So when you use the bullshit argument that "all of life in Islam is Islam, therefore if I kill you in the name of Islam it is political" you are lying through your fucking teeth. Because it is 100% done in the name of religion.

      If the religion is the basis for the 'politics' (which is a white washed way of saying 'religion'), you can't turn around and claim its "political" instead of "religious". The two are completely indistinguishable.

      So until your "politics" are separable from your "religion", let's be fucking honest here and say that you aren't acting out of political reasons, you are acting out of religious reasons, because the religion provides the justification and rules of your politics.

      That someone needs to paint this picture to sound differently isn't my fucking problem.

      But you cannot say "politics not religion" when the politics 100% derive from religion. That's an utterly meaningless distinction, and it's mostly a shell game to make it sound like it's not actually religion when it is.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    73. Re: rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking A. Well said. Someone please mod parent up.

    74. Re:rather expected by zapadnik · · Score: 1
      Islam is political because:
      • 1) We now know it was invented by*politician* Caliph Abd al-Malik, not "Mohammed"
        2) It's goal is to establish the political system of "Sharia", and Muslims don't care about your personal faith (ie. dhimmitude) as long as you are part of their political system
        3) Despite the mythology, Islam is fairly close to a Mafia system. The Mafia may profess to be Catholic but that does not make their crime system religious.

      Islam is NOT a personal faith, and it never claims to be. Because of this, it is a POLITICAL SYSTEM.

      You can get angry all you want and swear your head off to demonstrate how irrational you are when discussing this topic. But you are still wrong.

      Do you know about the *actual* history of early Islam? the political history that involves Caliph Abd al-Malik? would you like me to provide a link for you? (note: Islamic orthodoxy hides the true origins of Islam, because no-one would remain in its totalitarian political system if they understood the superstitious aspects are completely fabricated as part of a POLITICAL system of control).

    75. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol radical Christians. The radical revolution of Christians is God's love not murder. You've been listening to too many crackpots.

    76. Re:rather expected by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The religious...

      You do realize that if that brush you're using were any broader, you could cover at least the entire Inner Solar System with a single stroke of it... right?

      You do realize that if a person is killed for being an atheist, it's a pretty good chance it was done by the religious - right?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    77. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three letters - KKK. They are but one example of "Radical Christians". As a atheist with a keen interest in religion I can assure you - from an unbiased point of view - that the fundamental teachings of Islam are far more peaceful and inclusive that those of Christianity AND if you take a look back at history, without the bias of your religion, you would see this fact played out over and over again.

    78. Re:rather expected by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I am talking about their status in their respective religions, as opposed to whether they were trying to establish one or not. Just like Jesus is #1 in Christianity, Mohammed was #1 in Islam. I was refuting the contention that Mohammed's equivalent in Christianity was Pope Urban II

    79. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm saying if you use your religion to justify crap like this, you are a worthless person. If your religious leaders suggest your religion supports this .. then either your religious leaders, or your religion itself is flawed.

      If people wrap ignorance and stupidity up in religion, then either religion needs to fix this, or it is simply a tool for ignorance and stupidity. And if that's what it is, it is fundamentally evil.

      Again, this applies to all religions.

      But you see the mistake is to even begin to discuss religion. Expose violent criminals, execute good police work in properly collecting the undeniable evidence that must be there, prosecute violent crime swiftly, efficiently, dispassionately, objectively as possible. Forget this business of evaluating persons based on your beliefs of what their beliefs have caused. Evaluate an individual's actions, what they've done. Do not bother projecting, advertising, what you think goes on in the minds of these ambiguous groups of unidentified individuals that may be less educated and not as sharp as you.

      But let's not pretend that there exist religious leaders who advocate the killing of people who do not match their specific version of religion. Because that would be complete and utter bullshit.

      I think you need to chill out about religion. You're wrong, btw. Please let me help you. Religion is like guns. A gun can't kill anything. It is an inanimate object. Sure, there have been many historical reports of scary, terrible death "in the name" of religion. I see stuff on the news, as well. But I don't blame religion because that would be like blaming the gun Dick used for killing John. I blame Dick, instead. Get your head right, you'll feel more secure.

    80. Re:rather expected by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. first, there are more blacks killed by blacks in Chicago since the ferguson incident than all blacks killed by cops in the last 5 years. But hey, perspective is not important is it?

      The comment was about people who think abortion clinics were set up to control the undesirable minority population and the reply was the someone knew a black guy with so many kids that he had work a second job so it was somehow justified. That's racist whether you like it or not so take uppity ass elsewhere and cry about your life.

    81. Re:rather expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head,, there was that one doctor in Kansas that was shot in a church on a Sunday. That was done by a Christian.

  3. opsec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Machetes and cleavers? Holy shit!

    Time to start blogging anonymously, guys. Something tells me ultrareligious people aren't technical enough to track you down.

    1. Re:opsec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Machete and cleaver registration and background checks will solve this problem.

  4. Re:Fuck atheists by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True. We must all worship the son of God the father, born to a mortal woman, who traveled the mid-east several thousand years ago performing miraculous deeds and building a religious following. Lets all worship Hercules.

    Or did you have some other silly myth in mind? You were not very clear on that.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  5. guess what by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess who's behind it. Go ahead, guess without even reading the summary. It's "the religion of peace" again. You know, the one that tells people to cut off other people's heads and enslave them and that everyone is an enemy and most crimes are punishable by death?

    1. Re:guess what by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Kinda like the one that says divorced women should be killed, and stuff?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And stones a woman who gets raped for "adultery".

    3. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And unruly children stoned to death at the edge of town.

    4. Re:guess what by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Kinda like the one that says divorced women should be killed, and stuff?

      Not everything in the bible is a prescription of what should be. Much of it is accounts of the various ways people, governments, and society were horrible.
      If you're having trouble distinguishing between what is a religious tenet and what is an account, you may want to try thinking, or you may want to give up.

    5. Re:guess what by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could try reading the fucking thing.

      http://biblehub.com/john/8-1.h...

      The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

      They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

      Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

      "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

    6. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think you're even a little bit clever?

    7. Re:guess what by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      The actual prescription is to kill both man and woman.

      [Lev 20:10 KJV] 10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

      Adding in, that it takes a couple witnesses to execute anyone, it was highly rare that the biblical standards were met.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:guess what by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians". Until then, GP's point is valid.

    9. Re:guess what by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course the problem with that statement is that it is not uncommon for religious people to treat this as a prescription and a set of rules.

      Not nearly uncommon enough.

      There more certainly are people who want to have a literal interpretation of the bible ... and therefore assert the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that dinosaur fossils are a ruse put there by god.

      Honestly, atheists seldom go around killing people over irrational things in their holy book. Maybe for random irrational reasons, but not because god told them to do it.

      When the religious people start being able to distinguish between what is a tenet and what is an account, awesome.

      But don't blame this on non-religious people who look at some irrational stuff done in the name of religion.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:guess what by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Christian bible says much the same sort of thing, but the correct implementation of God's will is spotty at best.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll do GP a favor and get right on telling all the Christians to stop murdering people for wearing garments with two kinds of fabric, if you'll go tell all the Muslims to stop murdering people for saying/drawing the wrong thing.

    12. Re:guess what by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians". Until then, GP's point is valid.

      The "Old Testament crap" is the Jewish fundamentalist law. Notice that Jesus didn't say "Sorry, that law is crap. Ignore it." He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So the law still stood -- he just believed that it should be applied evenly to all. Of course, that's before the whole "atonement" bit came into play: the second part of the Bible (the stuff that follows the Hebrew books) has a significant part dedicated to early followers who were Jewish figuring out how the Hebraic Law applied now that the associated prophecies had been fulfilled.

      On the flip side, you have the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Inquisition, Bloody Mary, Imperialism, etc.

      People seem to want to be ruled by regulations instead of being responsible for their own actions. They prefer following the Ten Commandments in a literal sense to following Jesus' interpretation of them (in both thought and deed), and prefer both of those to the stipulation of the early church that the one rule from the Jewish law that must be held to was to avoid eating food that had been sacrificed to idols.

      All the bits dealing with Jesus' actual teachings can be summed up with "love God, and love your neighbour."

      So, GGGP's point is valid in a way -- as in, don't follow fundamentalist Jewish law. But anyone calling themselves Christian just because they believe in the (selective) practice of fundamentalist Jewish law and also believe that merely believing that Jesus died on the cross to save people from their sins somehow gave them a "get out of Hell free" card had better do some fundamental re-reading of their Bible. That doesn't keep them out of the Jewish hell, nor does it keep them out of Jesus' hell. It makes them no better than the Samaritans.

    13. Re:guess what by Layzej · · Score: 2

      Who gets to choose which to follow and which to reject? How about these stories about how the early christian church redistributed wealth. Abhorrent or tenet?

      "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”

      Or this:

      And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.

      Or this:

      Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

      Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

      When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

      About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

      “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

      Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

      At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

      The consequence of possessions was death. Jesus even suggested eternal damnation was the ultimate result of wealth. Are these stories an account of how the early church was horrible, or is this religious tenet?

    14. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everything in the bible is a prescription of what should be. Much of it is accounts of the various ways people, governments, and society were horrible.

      And yet that doesn't stop some people from treating it like the former.

      If you're having trouble distinguishing between what is a religious tenet and what is an account, you may want to try thinking, or you may want to give up.

      Why so offended? You aren't one of the people who is treating it like a prescription of what should be, are you? You aren't? Then our disgust does not extend to you. Oh, but you have chosen to call yourself by the same label as those others. Well I don't know what to tell you. You might want to think about choosing a different label.

      "But we had the label first!"

      Then I guess you should step up your game at reclaiming it. At any rate, feigning ignorance over the existence of people who use your label for bad, does nothing to help the situation.

    15. Re:guess what by jythie · · Score: 1

      Religious leaders (official and unofficial) tend to pick and choose which parts of OT they claim people need to keep following and which they do not, I guess depending on the political advantages of it.

    16. Re:guess what by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Old Testament is thrown out when it's inconvenient things like no shellfish, no mixing fibers, etc. The parts that justify bigotry, on the other hand, are perfectly valid in their eyes.

    17. Re:guess what by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      So if the law still stood why do Christians seem to have no issue violating the rules on being kosher, mixing fibers, etc.? They can't have it both ways.

    18. Re:guess what by blackanvil · · Score: 1

      And it's important to note that Peter's Church has sold all the real estate and treasures it owns, so that the revenue can be used to help the poor, and support all the Christians who have also sold all their possessions and so have nowhere to live. Oh, wait, in the real world the Catholic church has, to this day, vast real estate and other assets. Perhaps they should lead by example.

    19. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I heard that story, but there was an alternate ending.

      In the story I heard, Jesus sighed "If you want something done right you have to do it yourself" and being free of sin he picked up the first stone and threw it at her.

    20. Re:guess what by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear about why you talk about "Jewish hell". IIUC the Jews (pre-christian, at least) weren't big on hell of any sort. They "sort of" believed that their spirits wouldn't die with the body, and had a "sort of" abode of those spirits called, IIRC Gehenna. Originally, IIUC, this was a sort of grey and washed out place, as paradise is a sort of garden named after the Persian gardens around the palaces which contained plants from every country that they has conquerored.

      Currently Judianism seems to contain much closer analogs of Heven and Hell than it is my understanding that it originally did. There are verses in the Bible (including in the Old Testament) that can be interpreted as references to such. And, possibly, there was considerable popular belief that never became scriptural. But I believe that the images that they had of the "abode of the dead" trace back to the Babylonian captivity (see the poem "Innana in the underworld"), and few traces became a part of the scriptures. As for the sources of the Babylonian belief, I trace this back to the custom of burying containers of seeds (wheat, esp.) to preserve it for later use. This may also have been done in Egypt, but it doesn't appear to have become understandably a part of their myth. (I have a really hard time understanding Osiris as a grain god...perhaps much longer ago than the funerary cult, though.)

      One would expect the Jews to have incorporated Egyptian beliefs into their religion, but the Egyptians believed that when you died if you were too sinful, your soul was eaten by a monster, whereas if you were righteous you were allowed to work in the fields forever. Not exactly any exhalted heaven, and not much of a hell, either. And IIUC the Jews adapted to this by pretty much ignoring what happened after you died, as least as "official theology". (Remember that Moses was raised as an Egyptian noble, and when he came to power over the Jews he found it necessary to suppress numerous splinter sects by refusing to allow any image of their god to be made [apparently the dominant group at this time worshiped a wind god, though Moses shows signs of worshiping a solar god, like Ikhanaton did]. So he probably handled other religious differences the same way: "It's a holy mystery, and must not be talked about!")

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:guess what by smugfunt · · Score: 2

      There seems to be some argument over the, um, authenticity of those final lines:
      linky

    22. Re:guess what by smugfunt · · Score: 1
    23. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Bible copped out on itself? What a surprise...

    24. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

      How does the latter not refute the former?

    25. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians, like any religious practitioners, believe what they want to believe, whether or not it is actually what their scriptures say. While there is a relationship between the content of holy books and what adherents believe, that relationship is quite fuzzy.

      Christians will quote their favorite scriptures when arguing with each other, which has some sense to it. But quoting the Bible when trying to make a case about "what Christians believe" is pretty silly. They are a diverse group, full of disagreement over just about everything.

    26. Re:guess what by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I'm not clear about why you talk about "Jewish hell"

      I'm referencing Gehenna, although at the time Jesus was alive, the concept of Gehenna was in the middle of a perceptual shift, no longer quite the void that it was in 800BCE.

      "Jewish hell" was to make it easier to reference for cultural Christians who have often totally mixed up the concepts of the OT, NT, Milton's Paradise Lost, Greek mythology and modern Jewish theology.

    27. Re:guess what by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      That was the old testament when rules and policies were different. Things changed at 0AD. We don't sacrifice goats anymore either. If you had even the most basic understanding at all of Christianity, you'd know that but clearly you're just an offensive, ignorant jackass.

    28. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time Jesus was alive, Gehenna was a valley, on the eastern edge of Jerusalem, used as the city dump.

      Some popular (and new) Jewish writings used it as a metaphor for spiritual correction (usually a refining fire that perfects someone by burning the evil away, rarely as an everlasting punishment). Though these writings were never considered scripture by the Jews. They were more like moral inspirational fictions.

      Jesus most likely referenced Gehenna in that light...as an inspirational fiction used to make a point about morality.

    29. Re:guess what by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm not a religious person myself, but I grew up in one of the most backwoods fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christian families you can imagine. Even they viewed the Old Testament as basically "good reading" that was completely superseded by the New Testament.

      You generally can use the Old Testament as a guide (ie, the Ten Commandments), but if it is contradicted AT ALL by the New Testament then the New Testament takes precedence.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    30. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I love how Jesus gets to be the guy who determines that adultery is a SIN.

      I completely reject this notion. It is not a sin, not even a crime, to have sex outside of your marriage. Yes, it may cause problems, and even lead to divorce, if your marriage partner has issues with you having sex with someone else outside of your marriage, but it's NOT against the law, nor should it be.

      Certainly, I can think of a vast number of better, higher moral grounded, ways, of dealing with adultery besides STONING the WOMAN.

      Barbarous. Jesus was a good man in many ways, but he was not perfect, and he certainly was JUST a man.

    31. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of those horrible ways (mass murder, punishment for generations, stoning people to death for adultery, etc) were DIRECTLY ORDERED BY GOD in the bible. Go read the first few books of the bible.

    32. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen a couple of your posts in here.

      In the interest of keeping you from looking like a fool, can I recommend actually learning something about Christianity at a basic level? The old testament is the basis of the religion in that it grew from Judaism. But the new testament supersedes the old. It adjusts the rules of kosher and such.

      I know, I'm asking you to tear down your preconceived notions and actually create an informed opinion about something, which is unreasonable and all. But you really don't know anything about what you're talking about. The old testament just isn't a big part of Christianity. Period.

    33. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I heard it, a stone whistles out of the crowd and strikes the woman.

      Jesus looks up, to determine who threw that first stone. He spies the culprit. "Mother, stay out of this."

    34. Re:guess what by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Likely to some degree but we know that anything repeated in the New Testament is to be followed. The biggest reasons why the old testament is picked through is because most of it has an inner message that they can see illustrating a point of moral contemplation.

      For instance, you hardly ever see people picking the sacrificing of a dove from Leviticus (1:14) but you will see them picking Jeremiah 29:11 for instance in attempting to place hope into otherwise desperate situations. It goes the other way too with trying to control behavior they deem unworthy or improper but that should fall under the political advantages of it you already mentioned.

    35. Re:guess what by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      The New Testament actually covers those specific Hebraic Laws, and goes on to explain *why*.

      The TL;DR version (at least one big reason anyway) is that the Hebraic laws were actually getting in the way of the whole point of worship - that is, folks would be more concerned with keeping their kitchen kosher and not working during the Shabat, than with being righteous before God and with loving one's fellow human being.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    36. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual prescription is to kill both man and woman.

      [Lev 20:10 KJV] 10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

      Adding in, that it takes a couple witnesses to execute anyone, it was highly rare that the biblical standards were met.

      Is Lev 20:10, 'shall surely be pout to death' meant to mean permissions is given for man to put other men to death in God's name or is it an observation that God will 'put men to death' by not granting them eternal life in heaven?

      Earlier in the same book, the 10 Commandments specifically contradict the first interpretation.

    37. Re:guess what by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      By your logic, the ten commandments are null and void.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    38. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's almost funny, given the religious literature my partner received a couple of weeks back.

      This is the Christian literature that claims the Bible is literal truth - that rabbits are ruminants (they're not), that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that people who are witches should die.

      You know, all that peaceful stuff.

      It also clearly states that the Bible is a set of laws and that obeying those laws will bring you closer to god, guarantee entrance to heaven, and eternal bliss.

      Seems like you might be promoting your particular version of Christianity as the one truth faith there.

    39. Re:guess what by magarity · · Score: 1

      So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians"

      Ever notice that to most christians a 1,000 page bible is 900 pages of unread filler around the 100 pages about yeshua?

    40. Re:guess what by magarity · · Score: 1

      "Mother, stay out of this."

      Except his mom was married to a cuckold named joseph while she was knocked up with another guy's baby.

    41. Re:guess what by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      No, only the parts that were specifically altered on purpose by the death of Jesus. THAT'S THE ENTIRE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!

    42. Re:guess what by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Which parts are those? Is there a list somewhere?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    43. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day while walking through town, Jesus came upon a group of loud and animated townsfolk gathered in a circle. Making his way to the middle of the crowd, he found a young woman laying on the ground.

      "Stone her!", one of the townsfolk cried out.

      "Yes!" said another. "She's a prostitute! Put her to death!".

      Kneeling before the woman, Jesus looked at the crowd and spoke, "May he who is without sin cast the first stone." Suddenly a giant bolder came flying in and crushed the woman's skull. Standing up, Jesus said, "Mom, I really hate it when you do that."

    44. Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen! Preach it brother... um... "sexconker"

    45. Re:guess what by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      In the interest of keeping you from looking like a fool, can I recommend actually learning something about Christianity at a basic level? The old testament is the basis of the religion in that it grew from Judaism. But the new testament supersedes the old. It adjusts the rules of kosher and such.

      Oh really? Where did Jesus specifically say that no one had to keep kosher anymore? Or that they could mix fibers, etc.?

      I know, I'm asking you to tear down your preconceived notions and actually create an informed opinion about something, which is unreasonable and all. But you really don't know anything about what you're talking about. The old testament just isn't a big part of Christianity. Period.

      And yet Christians quote Leviticus all the time to justify anti-gay bigotry, but then ignore all the other parts they find inconvenient.

    46. Re:guess what by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Of course, another issue is why many Christians have no issue violating kosher law and mixing fibers, but then suddenly have issues when it comes to the already-mentioned adultery or things such as gay marriage.

      The New Testament covers all this too (including addressing issues at one early church that decided marriage was useless, and they got together for mass orgies). This stuff falls under TL;DR for many people (but I'm not going to give it away).

  6. Lies! Lies! All lies! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million. Other than that, it's mostly moderates, who won't actually go out and jihad, but they'll cheer the jihadists on. You've nothing to fear from Islam, there's just no way that there are more than a three or four hundred million activists and jihadists combined!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  7. East London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cock-sucking pigs. Death is too good for them.

    I have the misfortune of living in London, and I see that a lot of these Bengali Jammat-e-Islami mass-murderers have colonised us here in East London, and the British government are freely allowing them to spread their poison and organise with complete impunity. They have a bolt-hole/colony here, so that if Bangladesh actually manages to clean house, these overgrown rats will still go somewhere. They keep trying to take over the local government, and the decent secular Bengalis live in fear of these animals.

    There are real, bona fide war criminals (many condemned to death in absentia) walking the streets and yet we do nothing.

  8. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...No Tea Partiers or Christians were involved... AGAIN. Who will all the Leftie Slashdotters blame...???

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll just prop up a Christian strawman and claim he is just as bad or worse.

  9. How is killing him Unislamic? by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Guardian shies away from discussing the motivation, but even their description of an earlier attack alludes to it:

    The body of Avijit Roy, founder of the Mukto-Mona (Free-mind) blog site – which champions liberal secular writing in the Muslim-majority nation – was found covered in blood after an attack that also left his wife critically wounded.

    Could some Islamic scholar chime in to describe, how such an attack (as well as that against Charlie Hebdo, or Pamela Geller, or Salman Rushdie) is not in perfect conformance with Koran?

    No, pointing fingers at other religions will not answer the question and will be ignored.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, do your own research. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

    2. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by koan · · Score: 1

      Is reading wikipedia really research? I mean it worked for A&P in college but this might not be the perfect tool to illustrate a religious point (as much as I like wikipedia).

      Just take excerpts directly from the Quran, then all you have to face is "it's a translation and was misunderstood".

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      That whole page is the worst piece of weasel word riddled crap I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

      On the other hand, some scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context, and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Quran prohibits aggression

      Multiculty claptrap straight out of The Guardian. "some scholars argue" and "clearly appears."

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just that portion you quote includes 7 supporting references.

    5. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by mi · · Score: 0

      Fuck you

      Sounds like a fatwa... Please, don't hate.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could sit down a group of scholars and ask them to find a justification for genocide and they will be able to. Regardless of which book they use.

      But your request is the reverse. You request someone find that there is no support in the quran for this act. I believe that is impossible. It is quite probably just as impossible with the bible or any other book. It is simply too easy to pick any line said by any character and use that for justification of anything.

    7. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by koan · · Score: 1

      lulz at the Guardian reference, what a piece of neo-feminist, click baited, reactionary drivel, the Guardian is.

      I strongly suspect that after their adventure with the Snowden material, leading to them destroying the encrypted drive while the GCHQ looked on, they were nuetered, in no uncertain terms.

      Now they are tabloid material and their best reporters (are they called that any longer?) left shortly after they caved to GCHQ request.

      I would have loved to be a fly in that room durign that discussion..

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    8. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I ordered a fatwah for my followers to fuck you because noone else will

    9. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Why AC goddamit?
      This should be upvoted to the Moon.

    10. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      supporting references

      Islamic "scholars" and Islamist apologists opining about the meaning of Jihad. They and Benny Hinn have approximately the same credibility.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    11. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying Islamic scholars who study the Koran have no credibility to opine on what the Koran means?

      In that case, who would tell us what it means?

    12. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Could some Islamic scholar chime in to describe, how such an attack (as well as...) is not in perfect conformance with Koran?

      No, pointing fingers at other religions will not answer the question and will be ignored.

      I'll agree with this statement the day you can't use The Bible or the Torah in your first sentence and justify the exact same attacks.

    13. Re:How is killing him Unislamic? by mi · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with this statement the day you can't use The Bible or the Torah in your first sentence and justify the exact same attacks.

      You can't, but that's a separate topic — your attempt to point finger at other religions is against the "rules" I set in my original request. Fail.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Of course by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Of course you never read about enraged scientists hacking religious zealots apart...

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Of course by narcc · · Score: 1

      Well, there was that nasty bit during French Revolution.

    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin sent thousands of religious zealots to the gulag.

      McVeigh at one point stated that "science was his religion".

      China is notorious for cracking down on religious practice with prison time, the death penalty and "re-education". And that's nowadays, go back in time to Mao and it was no doubt worse.

      Now, you could always claim that those weren't "scientists" doing evil. But if whack-jobs can claim to operate as members of Islam or Christianity, the same is true of Science.

    3. Re:Of course by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The problem is that nobody has shown that those "whack-jobs" weren't following orthodoxly accepted interpretations of the Koran. That some "scholars claim those quotes are taken out of context" is clearly true, but that doesn't mean it's not a reasonable and common interpretation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Of course by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Calling either Mao or Stalin a scientist is so strange as to qualify for wierd. Hitler had some doctors working for him who would meet the qualification, but I haven't been able to think of any other scientists that engaged in multiple murders, though I sure some must have existed. I suspect that this is largely because scientists are rarely in positions of power, and don't like to expose themselves to violent circumstances. But not entirely. The kind of mind that will devote itself to science must of needs be relatively passive and oriented towards careful observation. Such people will only take personally violent action under extreme provocation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler had some doctors working for him who would meet the qualification

      e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

  11. Meanwhile in America... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> Arrests have been made in Bangladesh for the murders of the previous two bloggers this year, but no convictions have yet been made.

    You know, in America it would also be rare for a murder conviction to happen the same year an arrest was made. For example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
       

  12. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 1, Informative

    If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.

    For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.

    Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.

  13. Weakness by chilenexus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a weak god indeed that is needs to be protected by semi-illiterates armed with hatchets and cleavers from a guy asking questions and having discussions. Each act like this done in this "god's" name further convinces me there is no possible way it is worthy of worship, or that it exists at all.

    1. Re:Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just . . . fucking seriously . . . I'm a "respect everyone's religion" kinda guy, but fuck, these asshats are just nutters.

    2. Re:Weakness by koan · · Score: 1

      Why would you respect the spread of ignorance? Which is all religion is, ignorance... that's why Islam is growing so fast, they target uneducated youth.
      When religion gets to shape young minds everyone suffers.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Weakness by koan · · Score: 1

      Yes that's what I have always said about Exodus 34:14

      Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

      What a show of petulant weakness.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    4. Re:Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Why would you respect the spread of ignorance? Which is all religion is, ignorance...

      As an atheist myself, I can tell you that religion is a whole hell of a lot more than that. One might say that such an antagonistic understanding of religion is itself a demonstration of ignorance. I don't blame atheism for your ignorance, it is just a convenient tool that you use to rationalize your aggression. Much like those religionists who say atheists are ethically adrift and morally unanchored.

    5. Re:Weakness by halivar · · Score: 1

      Or, as I like to think: you can agree with the right people and the right ideas, but such agreement is not a serviceable substitute for actual intelligence.

    6. Re:Weakness by bledri · · Score: 1

      Why would you respect the spread of ignorance? Which is all religion is, ignorance... that's why Islam is growing so fast, they target uneducated youth. When religion gets to shape young minds everyone suffers.

      Sadly this is not true. Extremely intelligent people can be and are religious. Assuming otherwise is hubris and ignorance on your own part. The 9/11 hijackers were by and large well educated and successful.

      I agree that religion can be a vector of incredibly bad ideas. Unfortunately intelligence does not inoculate people against bad ideas. It's worse than that, intelligent people are better at constructing complex justifications to support their bad ideas. The sooner that secular people (myself included) admit this and stop talking down to the religious, the better.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    7. Re:Weakness by koan · · Score: 1

      Then, IMO, they are not intelligent, perhaps "well educated" would be a better description, as well educated appears intelligent, but can't think its way out of a wet paper bag.

      I point to people with doctorates to support this idea, never have I met a more helpless, reality challenged bunch of folks than those possessing doctorates.
      Of course, I should offer a qualifier in that it depends on what they got the doctorate in.

      My personal take on "intelligence" is that it is not learned, it exist within the person due to substantially better neural connections, and brain function, or it does not exist.
      There's no "learning to be intelligent", it's a physical brain function thing.

      In other words, genetics, just good genes (as far as intelligence).

      I point to the Ashkenazim Jews for a excellent example of what I refer too.
      A quick primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    8. Re:Weakness by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      "respect everyone's religion"

      There's your first mistake.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    9. Re:Weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a weak god indeed that is needs to be protected by semi-illiterates armed with hatchets and cleavers from a guy asking questions and having discussions. Each act like this done in this "god's" name further convinces me there is no possible way it is worthy of worship, or that it exists at all.

      Tell that to the fricken freaks with the hatchets and cleavers!

  14. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I should add, not all the followers do those things, but the ones that do are pretty shameless about it.

  15. if words could kill.... or even replace deception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we wouldn't be so afraid of our psychopathic genocidal rulers' fear of our textual prowess? good sports with good spirits prevail... real spys like us... in the moms we trust... thanks again.. rock on slashdot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M

  16. slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bastion of tech news!

  17. Re:Fuck atheists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'd rather worship Xena. She's much hotter.

  18. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really love the part where you just compared chasing a guy down with machetes and cleavers to anything that happens in the US.

    You know, hyperbole never helps your case.

  19. Math by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

    I do not think 3 writters is enough to draw any conclusion about the security of Bangladesh. They got 156 million people and 20 writters have died this year out of the 7.125 billion people. That means that 0.5 writters should have died in expecation in Bangladesh. 6 times the expected number does not seem unreasonable.

    To be more precise: If we assume that 0.5 is the real expectation for Bangladesh and each writer dies with equal probability in a given year and are independent (i.e. that one writer dies does not say anything about the probability that another dies), we can given an upper bound on the probability that 3 have died in a year using Chernoff bounds. It says that the probability that 3 writers have died while the mean is only 0.5 is a bit more than 5%.
    Note though that this is an upper bound on the real probability and hence only gives a quite rough estimate. If we assume that it is accurate, we see that if all countries were the sized of Bangladesh (i.e there are 45 countries), then every year more than two countries should have 3 dead writers in expectation (or Bangladesh should have it once every 20 years if it happens only according to chance).

    Note that this is not taking into account the relatively arbitrary choice of time for this article (it is more likely that at some point in a year a country is far from the expecation, simply because there are so many points in time in a year), choice of objective (there are many equally important properties to dead writers this year and it is therefore more likely that some of them are far from the expecation) and that it is in the news (more unusual things are in the news, i.e. it is not news that another country did not have 6 times to many dead writers).

    1. Re:Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A really long post that misses the mark. The article isn't decrying the police in Bangladesh yet you made a giant rant about that fact. You may be smart, but you are pretty dumb.

    2. Re:Math by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about the police. Alot of the highly rated posts are saying that the 3 dead writers is because of Islam. My post is saying that a country the size of Bangladesh would experience something like this with a not extremly low probability, no matter the religion or anything else for that matter. Heck, my own country, Denmark, would just need 1 dead writer and it would be much more unexpected, because the country is so much smaller and I do not think that anyone would comment on one writer having died.

    3. Re:Math by zlives · · Score: 1

      yes people are bad... religion is an convenient excuse....

  20. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

    You should read the prophet's words. Really, you should read his words. Jesus is a forgiving God. Jesus wept. Mohammed never forgives, never forgets, and the only weeping he ever enjoyed was the tears of the widows and orphans as he raped them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  21. Bummer by koan · · Score: 1
    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  22. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    Islam is nothing like christianity. Christ (the new testament) at least teaches love and forgiveness. In islam it is the very prophet that incites and orders followers to commit those atrocities. Those muslims are not ignoring the words of their prophet but acting in accordance with god's command, which is exactly the problem.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  23. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.

    For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.

    This is actually a pretty common misconception about Islam. You're correct in saying that Christians are hypocrites when they do any of those things, because it runs contrary to the teachings of Christ. You can't say the same about Muslims when they commit acts like this, because they are expressly commanded by Muhammed either in the Quran or the Hadith (honor killings, killing apostates, drawing images of the "prophet", etc.).

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  24. Re:Good by koan · · Score: 0

    We will continue to win battles and will convert the world.

    Just like the Crusades did huh.... HUH....

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  25. TRUTH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the sky will get dark, the light will stop, you will not see it coming, you will not be aware of it, the end of existence and revelation of the truth, the deep rabbit hole goes far, far beyond your mortal reach.

  26. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.

    And that some how compares to Islamic practice of running down reporters and meat cleaving them to death, gunning down authors, mass murder of dumping refugees into the ocean, and then the whole sale mass murder of civilians. Yeah, not the same. Being labeled an a**hat is far different than subjugating via murder.

  27. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 1

    I really love the part where you just compared chasing a guy down with machetes and cleavers to anything that happens in the US.

    I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.

  28. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

    You forgot the outright murder of doctors and nurses, seems a very Christian thing to do in the Mid-West.

  29. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Christianity on gays "we don't want gays to be married"
    Islam on gays "We will kill gays"

    Christianity on Minorities "people are people"
    Islam on Minorities "Convert to Islam, pay a tax or die"

    Christianity on Selfish living "Love one another"
    Islam on Selfish Behavior "Kill the Infadel" "Hate the Jew" "Kill the people of the Cross"

    Christianity on Judging "Love the sinner, hate the sin" "Judge not lest ye be judged"
    Islam on Judging "Kill the infadel"

    Yeah, they are completely the same.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  30. Re:Fuck atheists by steelfood · · Score: 1

    Theseus.

    Don't like my choice? We should arrange a bout and see what Vegas thinks.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  31. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 1

    And that some how compares to Islamic practice of running down reporters and meat cleaving them to death, gunning down authors, mass murder of dumping refugees into the ocean, and then the whole sale mass murder of civilians. Yeah, not the same. Being labeled an a**hat is far different than subjugating via murder.

    As I told the other poster, I wasn't trying to compare acts. So, I didn't pick comparable acts. If I wanted to, there is a long history of murder and oppression in the West I could have listed.

  32. Meanwhile in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile in Chicago on average one person is killed every day. I think I'd be safer as a blogger in Bangladesh.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile in Chicago on average one person is killed every day. I think I'd be safer as a blogger in Bangladesh.

      LOL!

  33. But, but by WCMI92 · · Score: 0

    They keep telling me that Christians are violent fascists and islam is the Religion of Peaceâ

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  34. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    The main thing preventing Christians in the U.S. from regularly saying, and acting upon, "We will kill gays", is the protection offered by a secular government.

    But give our U.S. Christians some influence outside our borders, like the American Family Association's encouraging Christian-majority Uganda to pass laws making homosexuality a capital offense, and we find Christian and Islamic fundamentalists to be rather similar.

  35. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    You can't say the same about Muslims when they commit acts like this, because they are expressly commanded by Muhammed either in the Quran or the Hadith (honor killings, killing apostates, drawing images of the "prophet", etc.).

    Honor killings are definitely not prescribed by Islamic law. They tend to be most common in Islamic societies because these societies are - let's face it - relatively primitive and more family-oriented (not in a good way). But I've read about Hindus doing the same thing, and I suspect that was even more common when the caste system held sway. (It's the same deal with female genital mutilation - not at all Islamic, but mostly-but-not-entirely practiced by certain Islamic societies.)

  36. Re:Fuck atheists by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Then again, we could be good progressive people who believe that trees and rocks have souls. If you split atoms or build telescopes or engineer genes, Mother Gaia will unleash Her righteous wrath upon you.

  37. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    The main thing preventing Christians in the U.S. from regularly saying, and acting upon, "We will kill gays", is the protection offered by a secular government.

    Yeah, right.

    American Family Association's encouraging Christian-majority Uganda to pass laws making homosexuality a capital offense

    Citation needed.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  38. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really love the part where you just compared chasing a guy down with machetes and cleavers to anything that happens in the US.

    Well, I don't know about you, but I'd say the Sikh Temple shooting was pretty bad. I'd say that the killing of Mathew Shepherd was pretty bad. I'd say that the murder of James Craig Anderson was pretty bad. The Murder of George Tiller. The brutal attack on Freddie Gray by officers of the alleged peace.

    And hey what about this guy:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/machete-wielding-attacker-breaks-neighbors-door-28332236

    Huh.

    I guess nothing bad at all happens in the US.

  39. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 1

    Hey, I think you have a pretty good summary of what the Bible teaches here, but I personally know Christians who do not live those values at all. That was my point.

    Can't comment on the koran, as I've spent exactly zero time studying it. Something tells me we aren't going to have anybody stick up for islam on this thread.

  40. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by jythie · · Score: 1

    I am sure that gays who have been beaten to death or blown up, doctor who have been shot, etc, would feel this comparison is not exactly off.

  41. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    Was enacted, has since been struck down but only for technicalities: lack of quorum when passed. That is being appealed to Uganda Supreme Court, and if that fails it will be brought up again. Original bill included death penalty, was changed after International pressure to life sentence, but politicians have been working to amend to make homosexuality a capital crime as originally intended.

    Either way, the legislation has also increased vigilante homophobia, Uganda gays "face an atmosphere of physical abuse, vandalism to their property, blackmail, death threats, and 'correctional rape'."

    Bill was introduced following a two-day conference by U.S. Christians on how homosexuality is a threat to families in Africa.

    American Family Association leader praises bill:

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmo...

    Family Research Council supports Uganda anti-homosexuality bill:

    http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/...

  42. Chilling Effect. by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I guess this is a nice visceral example against the argument that "only" government can censor people or affect what people say publically.

  43. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong God. Allah will win this war.

  44. Re:Fuck atheists by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I was always partial to Gabrielle myself. She can be god, so I can "worship" her latex blowup images.

    For science for of course.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  45. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by nyet · · Score: 1

    She's a witch! BURN HER!

  46. Murder them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for people to murder them back.

  47. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.

    I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.

  48. I thought that was Greenpeace. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Then again, we could be good progressive people who believe that trees and rocks have souls. If you split atoms or build telescopes or engineer genes, Mother Gaia will unleash Her righteous wrath upon you.

    I thought that was Greenpeace.

    And isn't their thing these days defacing world heritage sites in more or less irreversible and environmentally damaging ways?

    1. Re:I thought that was Greenpeace. by tiberus · · Score: 1

      I thought that was Greenpeace.

      And isn't their thing these days defacing world heritage sites in more or less irreversible and environmentally damaging ways?

      Since when is Greenpeace spelled ISIS?!?

    2. Re:I thought that was Greenpeace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both organizations use mentally retarded youth to commit criminal acts for a "higher cause".

    3. Re:I thought that was Greenpeace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were referring to the Nazca Lines issue - https://www.google.com/search?q=isis+deface&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=greenpeace+nazca+lines

    4. Re:I thought that was Greenpeace. by spitzak · · Score: 0

      Um, whoosh???

    5. Re:I thought that was Greenpeace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both organizations use mentally retarded youth to commit criminal acts for a "higher cause"

      One more proof that atheism is as bad as the satan worshipping Islam

  49. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bledri · · Score: 1

    If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.

    For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.

    Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.

    The Bible is very vague on whether you should still hate gays, have slaves, stone people, etc... Pretending that

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    obviously means the old law can be ignored is moderate apologetics. All the Abrahamic religions have plenty of fire and brimstone, and killing in the name of God. Ignoring that is just as much an act of cherry-picking as is ignoring the more love and tolerance passages. The fact that it takes a "bible/koran scholar" to make a plausible argument other than "just ignore the old stuff" is problematic at best. Hell, the Bible ends with Revelations, which is seriously lacking in "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor."

    I could be totally wrong, but I'm pretty confident in this. The Bible is easy to use to justify misogyny, hating gays, having slaves, etc... My understanding is that the Koran is more so. Maybe the people doing that are "reading it wrong," but the fact that these "holy books" are so easily misinterpreted makes it hard to say that Christian/Muslim fundamentalists are not following the religion. They are doing what the books say to do.

    Dear God, next time you inspire a holy book please leave out "allegories" that seem to promote killing, enslaving, stoning, beheading and burning people at the stake for victimless crimes. Someone might think you meant it. Actually, please stop being a lazy bastard that outsources all killing, enslaving, stoning, beheading and burning people at the stake do do it yourself.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  50. Re:Fuck atheists by faway · · Score: 1

    The only demonic things that comes to mind is religion and its bigoted adherents.

  51. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by HiThere · · Score: 1

    The Koran actually *is* more viscious than even the Old Testament. Partially this is due to the fact that Mohammed spent much of his life leading an armed struggle against armed opponents, and needed to rally and advise his followers (i.e., armies).

    OTOH, it would be quite interesting to know what the New Testament would be like if we had accurate records rather than third hand accounts written down a century or more later. *Was* JC leading a revolutionary action group against the Romans? (Well, against the governor installed by the Romans.) John the Baptist was, almost without question. You can't believe the words written in the Bible, even if they are phrased as quotes. They weren't quotes. They were written down by someone who never met Jesus, and never met anyone who had seen him within the last 30 years. And the intervening period seems to be filled only with verbal reporting. Calling them "second hand information" is praising them fullsomely.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  52. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christianity on gays "we don't want gays to be married"

    You mean "We don't want gays to be gays, so we'll treat them for their mental illness at our conversion camps" and if that doesn't work...

    Then there's this wonderful idea:

    "I had a way, I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn't get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence, fifty or a hundred mile long, put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified ‘til they can't get out. Feed them, and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce."

    Christianity on Minorities "people are people"

    Try again, after you've learned about the Christian Identity movement.

    Christianity on Selfish living "Love one another"

    Christianity on Judging "Love the sinner, hate the sin" "Judge not lest ye be judged"

    Tell me about Hobby Lobby again, and all the hate campaign there???

    Because employees getting contraceptives was clearly a sign that those sluts weren't living their lives properly.

    Heck, let's see what Mike Huckabee thinks. Oh wait, he says that people who support same-sex marriage are liars, just like the Nazi's before the Holocaust.

    Sorry, but plenty of judging by Christians goes on.

  53. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  54. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Most (many at least) Christians don't have a clue what the bible actually says. They only know what (parts of) the New Testament says. Most only recite what their pastors preach from the pulpit, or single verses (taken out of context)

    Most couldn't explain why Jesus didn't condemn the whore to stoning, because they don't know. But he was 100% biblical (Torah Compliant) in his approach and there are many lessons that could be learned from that.

    Yes, there are some pretty strong prescriptions in the Bible, but most of them are actually hard to fulfill, as most of the accusers would be indicted for their own sins in the process of pointing fingers at others, something most people don't like to face in themselves. It would be like saying "Mr Drug Dealer stole from me (when I was trying to buy drugs from him)".

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  55. Re:Fuck atheists by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

    Recursive bigotry. Great.

  56. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Burz · · Score: 1

    Modding down. Leaders of an organization are not just random rank-and-file members.

  57. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    There is pretty good indication that Matthew was written by an actual witness to the events. These manuscripts copies are within a hundred years of Jesus' life, and are copies of earlier ones. Most scholars view the original manuscript to be closer to 50-60CE, placing it within the lifetime of a contemporary of Jesus, claiming to have known him (20-30 years)

    You can't believe the words written in the Bible, even if they are phrased as quotes. They weren't quotes. They were written down by someone who never met Jesus, and never met anyone who had seen him within the last 30 years.

    That is your opinion. ;)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  58. Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, blogging isn't the safe thing it used to be: https://xkcd.com/369/

  59. Re:Fuck atheists by 228e2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    False. There is only one true being, and we all marvel and one day hope to be embraced in His noodley appendage.

    Ramen.

    --
    Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  60. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well considering the massive support the Kill the Gays bill had in 84% Christian Uganda, I think a few more than 5 Christians supported it.

    Now, if you want to compare Christianity in Uganda and the U.S. in terms of the legacy of exploitation, poverty, and strife, and how those issues are a more important factor in social attitudes and affect the interpretation and execution of a shared religion, be my guest. Just take it up first with the poster who made sweeping statements about Christians and Muslims.

    Oh, right, that was you. Talk about disingenuous.

  61. Chalk up another one for religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion is great indeed. We need much more religion. Like a hole in the head. Religion can give you that.

  62. Expectedly Expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing wrong with Islam guys, nothing to see here, don't mind the slaughtered body of a decent person in the street over some words he wrote.

  63. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but Osama Bin Laden was NOT the Jim Jones of Islam.

    I really wish he was, but what he presented was a very clear concise, and accurate interpretation of Islam.

    To say Islam is a religion of peace is to simply not acknowledge what their holy book and hadiths clearly state numerous times.

    If you want a religion of peace, I suggest you turn and take a look at the Jaines.

  64. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.

    Perspective. Christians over here are greedy, call some people some mean names, and are refusing to make a few gay wedding cakes, whilst Muslims are hacking up and beheading people with machetes and you try to draw an equivalence?

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  65. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by bouldin · · Score: 1

    You're the third person to miss the point of what I wrote. The other two posted as AC, though, so I guess I should give you some credit. Here's what I wrote in reply to the first one:

    I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.

  66. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Sweeping generalizations to counter sweeping generalizations is effective, when exposing the original hypocrisy. I did it to make a point, one that eluded you.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  67. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the outright murder of doctors and nurses, seems a very Christian thing to do in the Mid-West.

    And all those artists murdered over Piss Christ.

    Oh, wait.

    I confused Piss Christ with cartoons of Mohammad.

    My bad. Sorry,

    Bless your heart. It must hurt to be overflowing with that much stupid.

  68. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    No, it's clear the point you wanted to make was that Islam is barbaric while Christianity is not. Rather than own up to that false notion, you've opted for hand-waving.

  69. Re:Fuck atheists by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hate to interrupt a good smug-a-thon, but it should be noted that the assailants were Muslim.

    As you were...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  70. It's the religion of peace ... again by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    Now expect the usual retards to say how its just coincidence that all three were killed by Muslims and it could just as easily been a member of the mormon tabinacle choir. The thing is its not just three it's thousands and thousands. Maybe the retards should think - if you bet against a coin coming up heads and lost several thousand times in a row isn't it about time you took a closer look at the coin?

  71. Re:Fuck atheists by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    How can you call yourself a nerd and not worship Athena, goddess of knowledge? Brilliant, well educated, and with the body of a greek goddess.

  72. Re:Fuck atheists by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They almost always are. But notice how the summary conveniently left that fact out?

  73. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    The main thing preventing Christians in the U.S. from regularly saying, and acting upon, "We will kill gays", is the protection offered by a secular government.

    Bullshit. Complete and utter Bullshit. There are very few non christian members of this secular government and even fewer openly atheist members. This is true nationally and locally. If that was really the only thing stopping it, a simply majority would overrule any opposition. There is more to it than that.

  74. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    You keep chasing that boogieman, and ignore the real threats.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  75. Naw, it's never religion by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    not really. America's got tons of religious loonies and they don't get on to this sort of stuff because when they do the policy drop a hammer from space on them.

    It's about money and control. Always is. The ruling class looks like other way because blokes like this one that got hacked up tend to be progressive. In addition to banging on about atheism they usually want food and medicine for everybody, and that cuts into the budge for private planes and houses the size of skyscrapers.

    Whenever human beings do something truly awful it's always, always about money; and lots of it.

    Oh, and before anyone thinks I'm saying America's better because we don't tolerate this sort of nonsense; it's not out of the kindness of our hearts, we just haven't felt the need to let religious extremists off their lease. We've got other ways of keeping the working man down...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  76. Re:Fuck atheists by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Now, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. This is supposed to be a happy occasion!

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  77. Re:Fuck atheists by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting. You can do this here, but as the article points out, it will get you killed in other areas with other religions.

    |-&

    Look, I just drew a picture of Mohamed fucking the spaghetti monster. But wait, before you yell "blasphemy". I said spaghetti monster not Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's his mentally challenged cousin I'm talking about.

  78. Re:Fuck atheists by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think he was referring to the Son of God, and also God himself (part of the holy trinity), born as a man from immaculate conception, the Savior, the adoptive son of a carpenter, visited at birth by wise men guided by a star, whose human parents fled when angels predicted that the local dictator would attempt to assassinate the child, born without sin, the miraculous healer of disease, followed by disciples, capable of raising the dead, host of one hell of a last supper. He who made the lepers whole! He who was meek, merciful, and forgave his enemies! He who was crucified, and was then resurrected! Ladies and gentlemen, the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head! The Lion Of The Tribe Of Saki! My savior, and yours! Give it up for Krishnaaaaaaaa!

    Sorry, I got confused. I'm talking about the Holy Child, born on December 25th to a virgin and placed in a manger! The traveling teacher who performed miracles! The sacred king of kings killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual of purification! The one who turned water into wine, was crucified, and was resurrected after death! The God of Gods! The Only Begotten Son! The Redeemer, Bearer of Sin, the Anointed One, Alpha and Omega, the Lamb of God! My God of the Vine, and yours! Dionysuuuuuuus!

    Sorry, I was confused. I'm talking about THE ONLY begotten son of God, born of a virgin! His birth heralded by the brightest star in the sky! Threats of death upon his birth, with his mother rushing to hide them! Nothing at all known about him between the ages of 12 and 30! Baptized in a river at 30! The baptizer got beheaded! The one who walked on water! Cast out demons! Healed the sick! Cured the blind! Crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later! My God of the Sky, and yours! Hooooooruuuuuuuus!

    Or maybe someone else. I'm sure their mother claimed to be a virgin too. Suuuuuuure, honey. Whatever it takes to avoid being stoned to death.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  79. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Every book of the New Testament was edited. Matthew is no exception.

  80. Re: Fuck atheists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If You're trying to take a poke at christianity, Jesus didn't travel much of the Middle East, only a tiny sliver of it.

  81. Re:Fuck atheists by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    How can you call yourself a nerd and not worship Athena, goddess of knowledge? Brilliant, well educated, and with the body of a greek goddess.

    Because Eris Discordia's spontaneity is more fun?

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  82. Re:Fuck atheists by unixisc · · Score: 2

    In the context of the country in which this incident happened, he probably meant worshiping the pedophile prophet who got his adopted son to divorce his daughter-in-law so that he could marry her himself, and went on a mission to heaven in a dream to bargain with his imaginary friend the #times his followers would have to pray to him down from 50 to 5.

  83. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics by tal_mud · · Score: 1

    Some quick googling gives 12,000,000 bloggers worldwide out of 7 billion people. There are also around 400,000 murders worldwide each year. So one would expect to see around 700 bloggers murdered each year or 200 bloggers pro-rated to today . But the poster claims "the 20th writer to be murdered globally so far this year". So bloggers are actually doing extremely well!

  84. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. Re:Fuck atheists by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Osiris is a black god.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  86. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million. Other than that, it's mostly moderates, who won't actually go out and jihad, but they'll cheer the jihadists on

    A lot of this is fair, but the same goes for any ideology. You could say the same for Christianity. You could say the same for Protestantism, which kept central Europe awash in blood for hundreds of years after its introduction. You could say the same for political philosophies. The Spanish Civil war, and to a large extent WWII were fought over Republicanism vs. Authoritarianism, and millions slaughtered each other in the most gruesome ways imaginable.

    Yet nobody runs about decrying philosophy in general. That would be stupid. The problem is humans naturally like to think in us-vs-them terms, and like to kill "them" (chimps go to war too. It sucks, but its natural). Religion is just an excuse. Strike it down, and another will be used.

  87. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is pretty good indication that Matthew was written by an actual witness to the events.

    The main source for the Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of Mark out of which the author copied large amounts of text. Nearly half of Matthew is lifted from Mark. Why would an eye witness copy somebody else's account (even on the Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness)?

    These manuscripts copies are within a hundred years of Jesus' life, and are copies of earlier ones. Most scholars view the original manuscript to be closer to 50-60CE, placing it within the lifetime of a contemporary of Jesus, claiming to have known him (20-30 years)

    The consensus is more like 80-100CE for Matt. Not an eye witness.

    You can't believe the words written in the Bible, even if they are phrased as quotes. They weren't quotes. They were written down by someone who never met Jesus, and never met anyone who had seen him within the last 30 years.

    That is your opinion. ;)

    and probably a correct opinion.

  88. Re: Fuck atheists by robbyb20 · · Score: 1

    I found it interesting that it wasn't included. While I can appreciate them wanting to not try and add fuel to flames of hate towards Muslims, it's clear it was an important detail to have included. Otherwise, we are left wondering WHY he was murdered and not that he had been.(going off summary, who has time to read article?!)

  89. Re:Fuck atheists by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Hercules doesn't really offer much. That other middle-eastern miracle worker son-of-god guy is promissing an afterlife, which is quite an appealing offer but Kwankwaka the goat-headed god of mice in Papa New Guinea is offering pigs and all the wheat I can carry ! Bacon and Beer man ! Bacon and Beer !

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  90. Re: Fuck atheists by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    The vast majority of atheists in America, particularly those who live in conservative areas report hiding their beliefs from neighbours (often claiming to be agnostic) for fear of discrimination and reprisal.

    It would appear that even in the US of A atheists feel legitimately scared of religious people who are decidedly NOT Muslims. 3 Atheist murders in a short period is distressing but hardly above average, it COULD be just a random statistically clump which has no deeper meaning. There is nothing to suggest that this happens more frequently there than among Christians in the USA.
    In fact, there isn't even any proof yet that this particular person's murder (or any of them) were even related to their writings - no trials yet, no evidence or motives known. The country is in a state of significant civil upheaval where murders are a frequent ocurrence. That these three victims happen to be atheist may be entirely unrelated to their deaths.
    A good atheist should not form opinions before evidence is available and ought to know about statistical clumping fallacies and selective reporting.

    Of course it's also possible that these WERE religiously motivated murders - we don't have enough evidence ot judge yet, we don't EVEN have a signficant enough statistical clump to consider it an unlikely coincidence
    To get a valid sample you must EXCLUDE the data that originally drew your attention from your data-set, then make a prediction of what would happen if there was a NON-random event, and only if that prediction holds can you rule out randomness. So we now suspect that atheist bloggers may be getting targeted for their writings. We can predict that more deaths will follow, in quick sucession. If another happens -then we can NOT say "4 deaths now" - we say 1 death matching the prediction, if another 3 happen in a reasonable timeframe THEN you've got something MORE than mere coincidence.

    Oh - and Muslim extermists are hardly the most violent religious lot around. That title is actually held by a Christian group. The Lords Resistance Army kills about as many people every month as all the Islamic terrorists in the world combined do in a decade - and that was in the decade that include 9/11, in a typical decade it's about a 5th of what the LRA does monthly.

    The reason you don't HEAR about the LRA murders is because they don't happen where there is oil or, indeed, any resource of importance to America. They just happen somewhere in Africa, which as far as America is concerned is basically this big country full of children with distended bellies where everybody dies by age 10 anyway.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  91. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Regardless - it is an existential war against those radicals, and Brigitte explains exactly why that is.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  92. Re: Fuck atheists by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

    Seriously? You're comparing fear of contempt to fear or public assassination? Fail.

  93. Humanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These secular humanists really are the problem. If they'd just mind their own business rather than trying to shove their unbelief down everyone's throat I think we'd all be better off. Seriously. No one cares what you don't believe. Find something you believe in and focus on that instead.

  94. Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with the idea that fundamentalist Islam is a serious threat to human rights worldwide. I do object to false blanket statements that Islam is inherently barbaric and Christianity is not. For one, starting from a false premise is an impediment to finding solutions. For another, living in the U.S., barbaric fundamentalist Christianity is a far greater threat to my personal well-being than fundamentalist Islam could hope to be.

  95. Re: Fuck atheists by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Where one is found the other is sure to follow.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  96. Re:Fuck atheists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, Gaia will unleash her fury on you regardless, whenever she wants.