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.

49 of 284 comments (clear)

  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 unixisc · · Score: 2

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

    2. 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 *
  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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."

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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?

    9. 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.

    10. Re:guess what by smugfunt · · Score: 2

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

  5. 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
  6. 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: 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. 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...
       

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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...
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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/...

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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'?
  18. 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.

  19. 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?
  20. Re:Fuck atheists by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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 *