Charlie Hebdo cover 1 year after attack: Religion is the murderer

[trotsky]

http://mashable.com/2016/01/04/charlie-hebdo-2016-cover/

"The assassin is still at large," reads the first Charlie Hebdo cover of 2016 — nearly one year after two gunmen attacked the magazine's Paris office and killed nearly a dozen people.

The cover shows a depiction of a God-like figure, strapped with an assault rifle, blood covering his hands and beard. Charlie Hebdo artists and staffers published the 32-page edition declaring that the satirical publication is still alive. Rather than depicting the Prophet Muhammad — a subject of many controversial covers the magazine put out before and after the attacks — it's naming religion as the root of recent violence in France.

The edition claims Islamic fundamentalists, organized religion, an irresolute government and intelligence failures are to blame for the attacks that rocked France in 2015.

Seventeen people died in a series of attacks that began on Jan. 7 at the Charlie Hebdo offices, a kosher supermarket and at a warehouse. They were among the first victims in France last year that ultimately left at least 147 people dead and hundreds of others injured.

[libodem]

1. .

[saturnsring]

3. religion didnt didnt fly planes into those buildings people did

what a dumbass graph

[eppur_se_muova]

6. People with their heads full of religion did.

It required science to fly men to the moon; it required religion to fly planeloads of innocent passengers into buildings.

[saturnsring]

7. wrong again people dont need religion to kill each other- so i guess the police killing people

are just innocent victims of racism making them kill? but I guess I just don't get it, correct?

[cleanhippie]

20. No, they don't need it, but they use it as justification all the time.

[libodem]

8. That's not very nice

I thumb my nose at your rudeness.

[saturnsring]

2. really i thought the people pulling the trigger did the murder

if the trigger pullers aren't responsible for murder then who or what killed tamir rice.

[trotsky]

4. I think you're kind of missing the point.

Take care though.

[saturnsring]

5. religion is ultimately responsible for the deaths isnt that the point they are trying to make?

[Cartoonist]

9. Yes!

And yes!

[saturnsring]

11. wrong and wrong - speaking as a religious person i have never nor would kill anyone - it isnt

religion- religion doesn't use killers, killers use religion.

[trotsky]

12. So the parts of the bible where it orders the death penalty for certain crimes...

those are just bits that people made up and put in there?

But all the parts YOU believe in, THOSE are god's real words, right?

[saturnsring]

14. "it" orders? to what it are you refering?god or men claiming to quote god

those are just bits that people made up and put in there? probably, god doesn't need man to kill. be even still people killing in the name of religion is still killers using religion
even with all that that is in the bible "it" has never compelled me and billions other to kill. killers use religion not the other way around.

if religion itself is the cause of murder then there would be billions of murderers, try harder in your search for a scapegoat

[Goblinmonger]

16. How do you know God doesn't need that?

Maybe he put that part in there because he really, really did need it.

[saturnsring]

17. i guess you could be right maybe it's arrogance on my part

[trotsky]

19. So you and you alone know what god really wants?

You are the sole human arbiter of god's word?

Wow. Finally. The human race has been waiting for you. Can you please go and correct everyone who has it wrong? Thanks so much!

[mr blur]

22. Try harder in your search for a smokescreen

You're getting nowhere here, and we've heard it all before.

[Cartoonist]

13. No

They didn't fly the planes into the buildings because they were behind in their car payments. They didn't do it because a cab driver overcharged them. Bin Laden himself said they did it because America had the effrontery to put our military in their Holy land.

These guys weren't thugs or members of the criminal class, they were devout practitioners of a religion doing what they thought would please their God.

What you do and how you practice your religion has nothing to do with how these men acted, or why they did it.

[saturnsring]

15. doing what they thought would please their God. they thought wrong

they were devout practitioners of a religion . they could be that and they could be crazy, or people easily manipulated, misguided and mis-led into killing by people who are not god. killers using religion
in any case god doesn't need people to kill for him.


What you do and how you practice your religion has nothing to do with how these men acted, or why they did it. no it doesn't but the post says religion (it doesn't specify whose hows or whys ) is the murderer and if that were so there would be billions of murderers.

[trotsky]

21. "they thought wrong" - How can you be sure? Did god tell you? n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. I'm pretty sure systemic racism and police culture might have had something to do with it.

Or are we to assume people are simply born bad?

[saturnsring]

18. ahh yes nature versus nuture -

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Sort of, yes.

Without getting technical, I think -- as do an increasing number of scientists -- the nature v. nurture debate has outlived its usefulness and ought to be relegated to the history books. Epigenetics shows nature and nurture aren't in opposition as much as they are in concert, with genetics and environment forming feedback loops that constantly affect each other.

For the purposes of this debate, however, suffice it to say the old "rotten apple that spoils the bunch" anecdote is largely bullshit. Environment must be considered when studying human behavior. Religion, being environmental, should not be overlooked.