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.
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.
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?
The Guardian shies away from discussing the motivation, but even their description of an earlier attack alludes to it:
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.
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.
I should add, not all the followers do those things, but the ones that do are pretty shameless about it.
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.
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.
Well, I guess this is a nice visceral example against the argument that "only" government can censor people or affect what people say publically.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They almost always are. But notice how the summary conveniently left that fact out?
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.
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.