Reader Tom sent me this poignant cartoon, which I verified as genuine from an article in People magazine and other venues. It was drawn in the wake of Friday’s terrorist murders in Paris by well-known French artist Joann Sfar, who drew for Charlie Hebdo.
Well, yes, for the living it’s about life. But for thousands of others—the friends, family, and beloved of the hundreds of dead and wounded—it’s about people who won’t participate in that life. I can only imagine the combination of unbearable pain and the unanswerable “Why him/her/them?” questions that many will be asking themselves.
I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this cartoon, for while it does allude to both the harm religion does and the inevitable question of why a beneficent god didn’t stop this tragedy, the hashtag site isn’t mainly about religion, but compassion for the victims.
But in the end, Sfar’s carton reminds us to make the most of the short lives we have—lives that could end at any time.
Sub
Why should the cartoon be about religion?
This incident is not the time to discuss religion, it is the time to figure out how to stop it from happening again. Speculation on what the world would be like without religion is like thinking about what you would do if your lottery ticket won $50 million.
Not the time to discuss religion? Because religion couldn’t possibly have been involved in this indecent.
Nope. Mustn’t talk about religion. And we shouldn’t talk about easy access to guns whenever another school is shot up.
Too soon.
I never said religion was not involved. As far as this incident goes, discussing religion is just about as effective as saying prayers. A real solution is needed and not one that only looks 50 years down the road.
Do we organize with other countries and go in with 500,000 troops to wipe out Isis? That didn’t work very well for us in a Iraq previously. The enemy just disappears into the civilians or runaway into the mountains. Do we just leave the region and let them fight amongst themselves? This incident proves that it’s not just a local problem.
I don’t know what the answer is, but a serious discussion is necessary.
Serious discussion would acknowledge that Islam is a central motivating factor in violence perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.
You would do well to recognize that long term solutions need to look 50 years into the future, and beyond. Coming to terms with the poison that has been spread by Wahhabi missionaries around the world, funded by our allies in Saudi Arabia, is critical if there is ever going to be an end to this.
This problem will not go away until the religious justification for violence is undermined. What seems to me “as effective as saying prayers” is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Islamist terrorism.
+1
(that means ‘thumbs up’ right?)
👍
Good point. I wonder, now, what it would take to shut down the Wahhabis? Maybe if the West converts to alternatives to oil all the missionaries would lose their funding.
I cannot see what there is to object to in this cartoon. It’s kind, polite and it expresses in a measured, restrained way the unease plenty of non-believers feel when they see that well-meaning but problematic hashtag. I’ve been hoping someone would put the message out there and I can’t really think how it could’ve been expressed any more sensitively.
I’m with you there. And there are plenty of ways of expressing support for Paris without using the word pray. The hashtags #JeSuisParis and #IamParis for example. Tw**t etc Pliny the Inbetween’s cartoon – aujourd’hui nous sommes tous Paris / today we are all Paris.
“this incident is not the time to discuss religion, it is time to figure out how to stop it from happening again”
Those two responses to the attacks are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people, myself included, who would argue that discussion of religion will have to play a fundamental part in figuring out “how to stop it from happening again.”
Religion is at the core of it. This IS the time to discuss religion, and how to stop it’s baleful influence on people.
Here are some similar sentiments which showed up in my twitter feed this morning as nicely illustrated posters:
1. Don’t Pray for Paris – Fight Against Hateful Religious Ideology
2. Pray for Paris? To the god who caused this? Or the god that did nothing to prevent it?
3. While we’re praying, radical Islam is killing. How many more attacks must happen before the world will get off its knees and really do something about this problem?
4. If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
Number four works nicely for me.
Thanks, Janet, those were all spot-on.
Yes, excellent!
#4 is available as a teeshirt from multiple sources. But likely to get much more offence from the g*d squaddies is this “maternity shirt” : http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+religion_worth_killi_long_sleeve_maternity_tshirt,1494322147
If you’re going to be offensive, you might as well be very offensive.
That is a PERFECT slogan!
It reads: “If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.”
(Read up a few messages.)
You’re right: #2 of 4, a few comments up, is equally perfect! Maybe a t-shirt with one of these on the front and the other on the back…
I thought I liked it too. But that is in fact what they do when they pull the chord on their vests.
I considered that and decided they pull the cord not to start with themselves but to target others, and in the process finish with themselves.
The ultimate hiding place from secular law.
/@ / LCA
This is the WORST slogan ever, the suicide bombers do exactly that.
I think it’s a good thing. Yes, the sympathy is appreciated…but, after a bunch of people just committed horrific crimes at the order of an imagined celestial dictator, is it really appropriate to be invoking an imagined celestial dictator as consolation?
Most use of the word, “triggering,” is over-the-top hyperbole. But I think it’s entirely apt here. Gunmen just ran through the streets praying as hard as they could. Thinking that even more prayer is the right thing at this time…is kinda like somebody at the police station offering the kidnap-and-rape victim some rowdy BDSM “action” to help cheer her up — and, hey, he’s even got his handcuffs on him and nobody goes near the evidence room this time of night.
b&
I’ve been criticized on my bl*g for assuming the suicide bombers had thoughts of Paradise as they detonated themselves. Usually I’ll admit I was wrong if I make an unproven assumption, but I’m not backing down on this one.
ISIS devotes huge resources to explaining how everything they do is in furtherance of Islam and the reason they’re doing anything. Now, you could maybe go for some sort of meta-argument that there was some other motivating factor that caused them to embrace Islam so passionately in the first place…but I don’t see how you get around the fact that they do embrace Islam so passionately and that it is their playbook that they follow…well…religiously.
Whatever got them there, they’re there now.
(And they themselves will tell you that it’s Islam itself that they find so convincing, that they’re not simply going through some sort of teenaged rebellion phase as the “They can’t possibly be motivated by religion!” crowd tend to imply.)
b&
One thing I regret as an atheist, is that I know these assholes will never find out how deluded they are. I must admit the concept of hell is very tempting sometimes.
cr
”I’ve been criticized on my bl*g for assuming the suicide bombers had thoughts of Paradise as they detonated themselves.”
Sad, because I think it’s most certainly so. I don’t think most of the suicide bombers blow themselves up if they don’t think they’re doing it for a ”good cause” (how contradictory that might seem).
It’s possible that some suicide bombers are doing it strictly to bring attention to their cause. I think members of DAESH also think they’re getting a heavebly reward for their actions. It’s this belief that makes them so dangerous imo.
I’m quite sure that the case. This is a quote from a DAESH supporter in Sweden (translated from Swedish).
“Muslims that wants to kill you [the unfaithful] are everywhere so they through your blood may enter paradise.”
So sad. So sad that they think this is even remotely true. Poor deluded brains. 🙁
Ben, you’re not going to start a race for the bottom on the nasty but apt simile front are you?
Well, it almost reads to me as if you’re proposing a “Rase for the Bottoms” charity running fundraiser, which would be a really inappropriately triggering activity for a rape survivor support network….
b&
I’m wearing a black tape belt (no martial arts implication there – it’s just a black tape belt), with the free end tied back in a half-hitch at my right illiac arch.
I am actually quite concerned what message I’m sending. (UK dialect of “hanky-speak”, not US ; would that be HKY_GB not HKY_US?)
It has become such a standard, meaningless phrase for many of us – Just after any event that has taken lives — our prayers are with you. Our thoughts, certainly, and any assistance we can be but not prayers.
After any mass shooting in America. From the NRA comes the canned phrase, our prayers go out to the victims. Sure they do.
Is that prayers for the past victims, or for the future victims? Because while there is an NRA, there will certainly be future victims. They’re dedicated to the supply of future victims.
In fact, on that front, shouldn’t the NRA be encouraging ISIS to start attacks in the USA. That will do absolute wonders for sales of guns in the USA. Or am I just being a touch too cynical? A tiny bit? One wafer-thin mint too nasty? Bucket for Monsewer!
Investment in gun manufacturers or stores should be good for a long time here in the U.S.
The only slow down in the past has been saturation. Eventually you have to wait for new people to arrive or be born because you have run out of customers. After everyone has two guns and most only have two hands, they stop buying.
That’s another argument in favour of owner-keyed guns (discussed here recently). You need 4 guns : 2 keyed to you. Draw and present the keyed guns, then let the perp disarm you. The perp then fails to shoot you with the weapons he has just taken from you, AND fails to club you to death with whatever he used to disarm you in the first place. AND FINALLY you can put a boater (or some other headwear, like a chapeau or a cap) on his donkey (or other small equine) and
Traditionally, the last line of these comments is “Step 4 : Profit!”. But I think I’ve got lost in the details somewhere, which should have just been “Step 3 : ….”
OK, I don’t understand guns. My hearing tells me that I have a hard-won understanding of explosives, but guns … not my field.
The main reason I cannot see myself ever getting a gun is exactly as you suggested: That it could be taken from me and used against me. A smart gun is worth considering, but only a smart gun, and the NRA won’t allow them to be sold in the USA. I just watched the recent 60 Minutes clip on that.
Do European gun manufacturers manufacture such “smart guns”?
In view of rising tensions, I am wondering if I’m going to be sent for weapons training to get to and from work. I shall discuss this with the mercenaries, if I get sent.
Having a gun taken from me would be the least of my worries.
Discharging it in a responsible manner would be my big concern.
It takes an awful lot of training, including ongoing education, to know when to shoot and when not to shoot, where to point the gun and where not to point the gun, how to get to it in an hurry and how to make it inaccessible at all other times (your worry)…basically, I wouldn’t even begin to feel okay carrying a gun unless I was fully qualified for active duty on the police force.
(Is that person who keeps advancing on you who’s reaching into his back pocket going for a gun…or is he deaf and going for a notepad to ask for directions to the nearest coffee house? Okay, he’s going for the gun, but how’re you going to shoot him and not shoot the young mother and baby directly downrange? Did you even notice that she’s got headphones on and can’t hear a thing and is completely unaware of the situation?)
Couple all that with the fact that I have never, in my entire life, been in a crisis situation where I wished I had a gun…and, even though I’m pretty sure I could devote the time to gain the competence I’d demand of myself…why on Earth would I do so? I’d much rather take a defensive driving course for security personnel (as in, those who drive around politicians or celebrities or the like) at Bondurant (just down the road from me) — that would at least be applicable in everyday driving and an awful lot more fun. Or, even more practical but less fun, first aid at a serious level, more than just basic CPR. There’re other emergencies much more demanding of preparation than those for which a gun is a suitable tool.
Different times, different places, maybe it might make sense. But it certainly doesn’t make sense for my time and place.
b&
Slightly off topic, but annteresting extract from an article by a French judge who has just finished a 10-year stint in the “war on terrorism”. (Judges in France are civil servants and perform an investigative as well as a judicial role.) The rest of the article is about the failings of French anti-terrorism law.
“Vous affirmez que le jihadisme est devenu « un phénomène de mode » ?
Oui. Ceux qui partent faire le jihad agissent ainsi à 90 % pour des motifs personnels : pour en découdre, pour l’aventure, pour se venger, parce qu’ils ne trouvent pas leur place dans la société… Et à 10 % seulement pour des convictions religieuses : l’islam radical. La religion n’est pas le moteur de ce mouvement et c’est ce qui en fait sa force. C’est pour cette même raison que placer la déradicalisation sous ce seul filtre ne pourra pas fonctionner.”
You claim that jihadism has become a “fashion phenomenon”.
Yes. 90% of those who go off to fight for jihad do so for personal reasons: because they want to experience combat, for adventure, for revenge, because they can’t find a place in society… And only 10% out of religious conviction: radical Islam. Religion is not the driver of this movement and that is what gives it its strength. And it’s also why pursuing deradicalisation through that filter alone will not work.
I cannot agree with your judge. That is certainly not what ISIS says in their recruiting efforts or in their constant dialogue. They say it is religious and the religion tells them what to do.
Based on the judge we should see recruitment such as this — hey, tired, bored and just need something exciting to do. Come to Syria and pick up a gun. It will be great fun. Please give me a break.
On the other hand, recruitment messages such as you suggest would not be as appealing as using religion as a sugar coating. Who wants to admit they are bored and just want something to do. Even if they are bored, they’d rather think of themselves as pursuing some higher principle like following the creator of the universe.
So, whether it’s 10% religion or 50%, religion at least provides the moral justification. Additionally, the religious motive is probably different for each recruit and probably varies throughout a terrorists career. But it is a constant that is there when anyone needs it.
I am going to agree with you, and the judge, at least to a certain extent. It is pretty well established that most of the would be jihadis are pretty ignorant of the subtleties of Islam and I know from personal experience that youthful idealism is another huge factor. In my time it was the “revolution” that was the ideal and I might well have run off to join it had I had the means and the gumption.
Having said that, it is still religion (being the ideology du jour) which is driving terrorism, at least amongst the cadres. It may be the idiom here, and my French is insufficient to tease it out, but I detect a contradiction between “..n’est pas Le moteur” and “c’est ce qui en fait sa force” unless the meaning is that the call to jihad is effective beyond its “natural” constituency of religious believers, a position which has considerable merit.
I can’t say whether he is right or wrong, but he is a secular judge who has spent 10 years working with this particular demographic, attempting to stem the tide of radicalisation in France. I didn’t quote the rest of the article, but his point is that religion is a pretext in 90% of cases, rather than a driving force. France is a tired economy that gives little sense of excitement about the future for young people – those are the conditions that lead to different kinds of rebellion, from mass murder to mass piercings…
But pretext does matter! Esp. one so full of nasty commandments. If the pretext were “freedom fighter,” say, it’d be much harder to justify slavery, rape, honor killings, stonings, beheadings…
And I suspect a confident belief in the afterlife does assuage some suicide bombers.
Nicely put Diane. In America, fundamentalist preachers rage constantly about how LGBT people should be killed as it says in the Bible. Jerry wrote about one the other day (Kevin Swanson) in his post about Ted Cruz’s anti-atheist talk.
Millions of people agree with these a**holes, but they don’t go out and actually do it. They know that killing a fellow human being is wrong, and their Bible commands “Thou shalt not kill.” They know they’d be vilified if they did it even by their co-religionists.
Unlike within the borders of DAESH-controlled territory, no one would be clapping and cheering if he actually threw a gay person off a roof. Even his supporters would be horrified. He could not expect to go to Heaven. Religious beliefs matter.
Thanks, Heather, and same to you!
Nicely done. Don’t blame the Islamist ideology, blame the French economy.
He doesn’t seem as crisp as his name suggests… 😐
That judge is living in fantasyland.
Since this is supposed to be an evidence-based community, I think that we should accept that – as someone who has been investigating and adjudicating cases of terrorism in France for the last 10 years – he knows more about the demographic involved in that movement than we do, just as we would expect a climate scientist to know more about climate than your average man in the bar, or PCC to know more about fly genetics than any of us here. What are your credentials for assuming that he lives in fantasyland?
It’s true there’s a big problem regarding the marginalization of Muslim youth, especially in the outer suburbs of Paris. However, for those who become radicalised as a result, I consider extremist beliefs encourage them to respond in a way others might not consider.
Are they marginalized, or do they marginalize themselves?
I think there’s probably a bit of both. Either way, grievances are fed, and there are always some people who will take advantage of that.
Do they think that mass murder will help their community become less marginalized?
This whole marginalization theory doesn’t add up.
I agree with you. I don’t pretend to know why it doesn’t add up. My brain isn’t connecting the dots on that, yet. I just feel pretty certain that, as a cause for killing, it’s more a bit of projection by those promoting it. I know isolation. It just doesn’t add up.
Marginalization is the route to radicalization for many. Once they’re radicalized, they become ripe for recruitment. Vox put out a video a few hours ago with their reasoning on why DAESH would attack Paris. I agree with them, so I put it on my website: http://www.heatherhastie.com/why-would-daesh-attack-paris/
Makes sense. The music was so loud it was somewhat hard to understand the narrator.
Okay, I think I see why “marginalization leads to radicalization” doesn’t make sense to me:
For centuries and centuries, both in Europe and around the Middle East, Jewish communities (not to mention other minorities) were marginalized. I’m just not aware of any marginalized Jewish communities turning to terrorism or even guerrilla warfare, until WWII.
So, why should marginalized Muslims behave differently?
Even marginalized Blacks in the USA tend to target within their marginalized group, rather than outside the Black communities. “Black-on-Black crime” is not a new expression.
A possible counter-example, though, is the “Men’s Rights” movement, at least some strains of it. There are some very nasty things being proposed by apparently marginalized guys there–they’ve decided they’re “owed” women, they talk about women in the basest manner, they regularly threaten torture and violence…
Then the problem is not marginalization. It’s male domination.
Some MRA crap is. But there’s a particular strain of losers that seem to be mother’s-basement types who come up with the worst vengeance fantasies. I think they’re marginalized even within the MR community.
As to your (probably better) examples–I’m tempted to answer to the first claim by saying that Jews have just always been an atypical minority! No proselytization, no encouragement to increase numbers by multiplying, a tradition of solving problems with reasoning…
And in the 60’s, blacks did rise up; it started out peacefully (on the part of the blacks anyway; whites, not so much) but eventually spawned some militant factions…
Perhaps there are marginalizations of different provenances with varying present-day MO’s.
Or I could just be playing Devil’s Advocate here. It’s a bad habit of mine!
The blacks who became militant not only did so after white on black violence. They did so after re-inventing Islam to go with it.
So there’s that Islamic violence thread, again.
Excellent point!
And downright scary, too.
I watched it with closed captions on.
About the marginalization of French Muslims – I am actually more optimistic about this now than I was before Nov. 13. I mean, the organizers of the massacre couldn’t or didn’t dare to recruit enough French Muslims and had to use men from Belgium and maybe other countries.
I read that three of the Paris attackers were actually French Muslims who were living in Belgium. Not that it matters one bit.
Appeals to authority don’t go far in an evidence-based community.
My credentials entail possessing a reasonable ability to use reason, a reasonably well balanced access to information, and a dash of common sense.
All I need to do is produce someone else who has been working on counter-terrorism with a contrary position and you have no argument. What you’ve done is produce that rare example, a climate scientist who says global warming is a conspiracy. Maybe that is enough to convince you. Not me.
I think it would be more precise to say that only for 10% religion is the only factor. However, I’d suppose that for the other 90%, it is a precipitating factor in a vicious combination with some social or personal troubles. So far, only one Paris bomber has been identified by name, and he was a longtime petty criminal. The Copenhagen shooter earlier this year had a similar record. The Tsarnaev brothers had complex problems with adaptation, career and, for Tamerlan, even mental health. However, there are zillions of people in similar situations. If they cannot save themselves from the path of self-destruction, they usually destroy only themselves. Some who are Muslims get radicalized and find solace in destroying other people. Some who aren’t Muslims first convert to Islam, like the British shoe bomber.
There are many people who dream about living on the outskirts of Paris. And I’m supposed to believe that the living conditions there are so abysmal, so not up to the Muslim standards, that their only response is mass murder of Parisians? Or that they are blowing themselves up because of some inner longing for “adventure”?
I guess, for some people, every explanation is better than coming to grips with the fact that radical Islam is the core problem here.
Very good conclusion this thread. Just as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have said many times. To go into a Concert hall and kill and wound 100s and do this until you are killed or blow yourself up….who else does these things?
The judge may be studying terrorism but that does not mean he knows what he is looking at. Often it seems, people get lost in the weeds and stop paying attention to reality. We don’t need to study the Islamist and their pool of recruits forever to understand this. Listen to them and what they are saying.
I clicked “like” when I saw the pray for Paris initially only because I knew the sender’s intent which was, I think, sincerely sympathetic and nothing deeper. Otherwise, I prefer the cartoon.
Praying doesn’t do anyone any harm, and some of the relatives and friends of the victims will take comfort from it. I’m all for a secular society, but this isn’t the time to be attacking people for their religion.
I’m against politicised religion, but people must be free to practice their faith, so long as they don’t harm others in doing so.
Belief in prayer very often does indirect harm. It leads people to think they have made a positive contribution to solving a problem. Believing thus, they fail to contribute to a solution. Calls for prayer are diversionary and therefore harmful.
How about this idea. If the religious people would pray without advertising it constantly, we who do not belief will stop complaining about it. What do you think are the chances?
Prayer is what convinced the cowards to carry out the attack in the first place; it’s what steeled their nerves beforehand; it’s what gave them the strength to stay the course; and it’s what they used to make the attack as terrifying as possible. And the cowards died convinced that their prayers would inspire others to similar acts of cowardice.
Granted the prayers being offered and declined are from a different branch of the religious tree…but so fucking what? They’re still offensive and insulting — and this cartoon is about as polite and gentle a way of making that point as possible.
France is still bleeding from the wounds of religious violence. Offering to soothe the pain of those wounds with even more religion is like offering to sooth the pain of somebody who’s just been raped with a quick roll in the hay. Even if intended innocently and sincerely, it’s insensitive in the extreme. In the very unlikely case that’s what the rape victim wants, she’ll have no trouble asking for it. But to offer it unsolicited as your best idea of how to help?
b&
For many people it’s natural at times like these to pray for the victims. Those prayers aren’t doing anyone anyone any harm.
Regarding your second para, presumably Muslims will also remember the victims in their prayers (though I’m not familiar with the details of how Muslims pray). I see nothing offensive about that.
The comparison you make in your last para is just bizarre. Praying for the victims is obviously nothing like offering to sleep with a rape victim.
Well, that’s just it.
There’re human cultures where sex is used not unlike as it is amongst the bonobos. If you’re from one of those cultures, you might think it perfectly reasonable to offer sex as the cure-all answer for anything and everything. But, obviously, in my example, it’s most emphatically not going to be welcomed by a rape victim from a less promiscuous culture.
We’re surrounded by religions where prayer is perceived as the cure-all answer for anything and everything. But if you’re not part of that culture, prayer is bizarre at best…and, in this case, where it was the driving force of the attack, prayer is at the very heart of the problem.
Here’s another analogy. You’re an American soldier from the Deep South in WWII who’s just rescued some Jews from a Nazi concentration camp. And, to help lift their spirits, you invite them to watch a movie with you — and you suggest your own personal favorite of all time, The Birth of a Nation. No harm in that, is there? It’s just a fun night at the movies, after all.
b&
There’s shortly going to be a memorial service at Notre Dame cathedral. Prayers will be said. I expect that many French people will take some comfort from them. Not everything about religion is always harmful.
Fantastic. Good for them. And same for the members of the French Voodoo community when they sacrifice some chickens for the cause.
But I’m pretty sure the non-religious in France won’t be at either ceremony.
You know how the French Catholics would feel if the Voodoos said, “We’re soaking ourselves in the blood of livestock for you”? #SoakedInChickenBloodForFrance as the trending hashtag? How awkward that would be, how much inappropriateness would ensue?
Now you know how French atheists are feeling.
b&
It would be a fucking shame, and we (the French)would probably complain about how the blood could have been better used to make some saucisson or black pudding.
Almost certainly not. It’ll be a Pavlovian conditioned response. Almost all of the pray-ers will have been conditioned into prayer as a response to any unusual occurrence by repeated exposure to and reinforcement of the behaviour by their pre-maturity environment (typically parents, or person(s) in loco parentis).
Unless you have a different meaning of “natural” to me, I think the “prayer reflex” is an effect of “nurture” rather than “nature”.
People are free to practice their faith. A very mildly phrased, illustrated objection to religious superstition doesn’t constrain anyone’s rights to believe.
I have spoken to people who see things this way: it’s as though there was a brutal group of fire-worshipping arsonists burning people on pyres across the world and our response was to hold our lighters aloft in tribute to the victims.
You might think it’s an imprecise analogy, you might think it’s not the time – and I certainly won’t personally harangue or criticise people who pray for the victims and their families – but this well-meaning default to religious thinking, even after a spate of attacks by holy warriors, makes some people feel uncomfortable. It makes me feel deflated.
I like your analogy. We probably need to think of a bunch of them to have readily at hand to tailor as suitable for the audience. And I have an hunch that there’s an even better analogy lurking out there, yet to be discovered….
b&
But it’s likely that many of the victims will have been religious, as will be many of their relatives and friends. So they aren’t going to find the idea of people praying for them to be offensive. I doubt anyone but the most radical atheist would find the idea of people praying for the victims at all offensive.
You are absolutely correct. Praying is just fine. But it also accomplishes nothing in terms of reality. Every time someone is gunned down in the U.S. the candles come out and we all have a big cry and pray. It gets extremely boring after awhile and even irritating to some. Nothing wrong with that either.
People do all sorts of weird things for all kinds of crazy reasons. and they’re welcome to do so.
What they’re not welcome to do is brag about their craziness and expect to be thanked for it.
Yes, by all means, those who’re comforted by prayer are entitled to indulge in it. But it’s rude for them to indulge the rest of us in it — and at this, of all times.
b&
In France? There may be a lot who have a nominal attachment to some religion. Actually participating, or giving a shit about religion … far lower.
Here we go : page 381 (from 2010, percentages for France in answer to the question “QB32 Which of these statements comes closest to your beliefs?” and (bracketed) for Ireland, for comparison)
You believe there is a God27 (70)
You believe there is some sort of spirit or life force27 (20)
You don’t believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force40(7)
Hmmm, [DT] and [DD] tags didn’t work. But it’s legible enough.
As long as the prayers are accompanied by legitimately useful action, fine. But prayer enjoys a status as one of the most important things that can be done to solve a given problem. Witness parents who eschew treating their children medically in favor of praying for them. Hopefully the more rational people publicly express their low opinion of prayer the more its influence will wane.
Hmm. There’s a time and there’s a place. This is sort of like ranting because someone sends you a “my prayers are with you” sympathy card.
If you were the victim of a pedophile priest who lured and groomed you with talk about sacred love, I imagine you might feel different about receiving such a card.
France was attacked by religious jihadists. Offering prayers is bizarre and offensive. Rants under such conditions are completely appropriate, IMO.
Your rhetoric sounds just like that of those who demand “a safe place” because of potential offense.
I knew somebody was going to make this comparison.
There’s a stark contrast here.
Christians are making a big deal about commanding Jesus to make people feel better. We’re responding by making a similarly big deal that that’s silly, rude, offensive, and inappropriate.
What we’re not doing is demanding that they be prohibited from praying in public, we’re not disinviting them from speaking engagements, we’re not shouting them down, we’re not calling for their heads on a platter or even their resignation.
We are, in other words, practicing what we’ve been preaching: answering speech with speech.
…and, irony of ironies, telling atheists to just shut up and smile when being sprayed at is the Christians attempting to create a safe space for themselves, and engaging in the same sort of censorship we decry.
The proper response from a Christian to all this would be, “Gee, sorry. I didn’t realize that that’s how you thought about prayer. I’m not sure I understand it, but I’ll respect your wishes and not discuss prayer with you again — though, of course, I’m here if you change your mind.” Instead, we’re told we have to suffer through the insults from our supposed friends on top of the injury from our enemies.
b&
Isn’t that a tautology? Can you have a non-religious jihadist?
Actually, I suppose you can. Given a lot of money, there’s nothing fundamentally to stop (say) a Hindu mercenary from being hired to fight for jihad.
While reporting is certainly that the Paris attackers were shouting religious slogans, whether they actually believed in a theological ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reasoned sense in what they were spouting is a slightly murkier question, as implied by the quote up-thread from a French judge. Plenty of people have been dragged to the stake in front of baying crowds who don’t really give a damn about the theological reasons for the immolation, but are enjoying the day out.
“Can you have a non-religious jihadist?”
Maybe if you expand the definition to include corporations…
I’ll hold the can. You have the can opener.
I expect worms. In serious abundance. And not good, useful earthworms.
Bobbit Worms, I suppose…
Errr, [faint bell ringing]
Oh, Bobbit! The sutured porn star (briefly)!
– Latter-day patron saint of philanderers : “Would you give that a Bobbit?” ;
– “I got Bobbited, but all the wife has was a nail file and I got away with slight abrasions.” ;
– “The corpse appears to have been fed into a log-chipper Bobbit-style, until the machine jammed on his beer belly.”
There’s a big difference between diplomatically keeping the peace with an individual…and a public response to a public posturing of piety.
If I got such a card from a friend, I’d thank them for the kindness.
But if the Pope got on TV and prayed over me, I’d probably hold a press conference in response and, as politely as possible, tell him to go to Hell.
b&
With or without hand gestures? That’s the main amount of politeness I can think of adding to “Go to Hell! It’s a town in Norway. (Or Minnesota?) Use a map, because the answer isn’t in your Buybull.”
What did the Norwegians do to deserve the Poop?
b&
They are ungodly pagans, and freethinkers to boot. The Poop will drop from the heavens and spread his … beneficence … over them from on high. And verily, will the Norwegians communally not give a shit.
Ah – drinkies problem solved – there’s a plastic bottle (literally) of “Fuselfri Aquavit” (also literally). Now, if you’d ever studied the chemistry of distillation, you would appreciate just how slight it’s claims to fame are. But, having been doing better than this since I was 13, I can confirm that this “water of life” is indeed, free of “fusel oils” (which taste foul, and are much easier to exclude from your “poteen” than methanol ; I keep my [methanol] at 1/4 or less of commercial distillates, because I take pride in my work ; fusels are pussycats compared to methanol).
I wouldn’t insult insult Mr Simers’ Aquavit by offering it to a pope. If I offered him (Papa) some of mine, you can be sure that it’s colour would be good and it’s [urea] would be higher than it’s [methanol]. And it’d still be “Fuselfri”.
Mr Simers and I could talk, usefully, while “Papa” got hit by the aquavit.
Ye Ceiling Cats Below, that stuff is ROUGH! WROUGH. RUFF. Woof? Bark. Horse.
Can I have my throat lining back?
Oh, now that I’ve lost my taste buds, there’s a decent hint of aniseed. That’s actually quite pleasant. But still, can I have my throat lining back?
Daily Kos posted the tweets of all the Presidential candidates (both Dems and Repubs) in regards to the Paris attacks. Every single one of them except Bernie Sanders had some version of “our prayers are with you”. Sanders substituted “prayers” with “thoughts”. I found that refreshing.
Refreshing, but if the MSM pick up on it he’s toast.
dreaming, dreaming…
What if MSM did pick it up, and those who heard it and agreed with Bernie out-voiced those who didn’t? Wouldn’t that be beautiful!
Doc, doc–wake up! I think you’ve fallen and hit your head!
(Srsly, I never would have believed Bernie could have come as far as he has, so–who knows?)
The Republican debators keep mentioning Clinton as though to erase any thoughts of Bernie. They’d lose to him, I bet, if he did win the
Democratic primary. If only enough Democrats would get off their duffs and vote!
“If only enough Democrats would get off their duffs and vote!”
Yeah, it seems like it’s been ever thus. What don’t they understand about “we (D’s) outnumber them (R’s)?”
I don’t know. Maybe the big mouths of the loudest Rs intimidate the Ds into thinking they’re in the minority. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the moral majority is neither.
Thoughts are the thinking person’s prayers.
I just found #PrayForParis on the American Express log-in page. I called to protest it, and while I was on hold I clicked on it. It linked to a Twitter page that included an ad for clothing under that same label, #PrayForParis, using the website PrayForParis.com. As if!!!!
When the AmEx rep came back on the line, he said he explained my complaint to his superior who said it was a company decision, meaning that it would not be changed, based on my phone call.
Perhaps others wish to call, too? It suggests to me mounting up more religious ferver to escalate the war on religious grounds. What we really need is exactly the opposite.
The vigil, the prayer walk, the candle lighting and all the other public displays of religiosity are just fine but to us over here in the atheist camp it always looks the same and we believe it accomplishes nothing. What do the Christians think if a group of French Muslims, also grieving, pulled out their rugs and started praying. Probably not going to happen out in public but you get the idea.
That reminds me: The terrorists are surely studying the reactions of the masses, planning to use that knowledge with some future attack. Expect attacks on the groups that run to help and on the groups who gather to commemorate. The former was started in Israel decades ago, usually as double car bombings: One car goes off, injured lie screaming, others rush in to help, and another car bomb explodes. The latter has been popular at Shia funerals, lately.
As they say in Glasgae, “Oh fuck, aye! You just bet your sweet Fanny Adams they’re studying, planning …”
I’m channelling the opening of Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds. Without the “minds immeasurably superior to ours” line.
I’m surprised I haven’t heard yet of cemetery bombings. But you can put a LOT of C5 into a coffin, and a good long-life battery with a receiver … it’s not rocket science. I’m even more surprised I haven’t heard of cemetery bombs. Yet.
Oh, I’d forgotten about Milltown, 1988 (grenades and pistol). So it’s not a new idea. Strabane, 2014 sounds more like a storage depot.
In Iraq, there have been many cases of terrorists first killing a person and then attacking his funeral ceremony.
In my country, secular terrorists did it in 1925, killing 150 people, remarkable for that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nedelya_Church_assault
Yes, like that. Horrible. The example you gave is far more strategic in targeting powerful individuals, rather than common civilians. I don’t know whether jihadis choose to target common civilians instead or whether they do it because they don’t expect to be able to reach targets of leadership level.
So, not a new tactic.
Efficient terrorism.
The US does this with drone strikes, first striking a target and then doing a second strike on the people who come to help the wounded. They’re called “double-taps“.
How weird. When the Israeli Air Force does a double tap (if that’s what it is called), the first knocks on a structure’s roof to tell anyone inside to get out immediately. The second takes the building out. I’m not aware of any follow-ups except to observe outcomes.
praying isn’t about compassion, it’s about claiming that prayer will do something and it does not to bolster your belief with external validation. Real compassion is helping, not pretending that magic telepathy with a fairy will cause the pain to go away.
One can guess that the terrorists were praying for Paris too,, just not in a way that gets positive attention.
Been trying to say that all day…thanks
As it turns out, the cartoon, above, is part of a series, with far more meaning and a finale that is spot on!
It’s here (I hope I did this right): //i100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-what-a-charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-drew-after-the-second-paris-terror-attack-in-a-year–Z1ZZbO3VYx?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100.
Okay, so put http: in front of that string of stuff, and you’ll get to it.
I think the most sensible and sensitive comment is Prof CC’s original post. My thoughts and sympathy are with the people of Paris, and while I won’t be praying for them (because, y’know, I don’t pray), they have my wishes for life and joy in their future after the cloud cast by these evil thugs has passed.
But I certainly wouldn’t, at this time, nitpick the prayers offered by people all over the world. In many cases it’s just a figure of speech, but for those who genuinely pray, their sentiments are also good. Time enough to split hairs some other time.
cr