Three dead as woman beheaded in France

[shunyadragon]

If we're judging the religion by it's adherents, the Rohingya could attest to the violence of Buddhists. If we're judging the actual texts, neither Judaism nor Christianity have proscriptions for violence outside of the conquering of Canaan. There's a lot of usage of the death penalty but that's largely been done away with the Mishnah. The New Testament focuses more on the spiritual than temporal power and social ordering.

I believe your selectively white washing the scripture of Christianity and the history of Christianity a bit too much. Read 'The Book of Revelation' some time. It is not only the scriptures, but the tribal history of violence against those that believe differently. The history of the relationship between the Christians and Jews is lesson of where scriptures and different religions collide. .

Buddhist in history have been far less violent than the three dominant Abrahamic religions at war between tribal allegiances.. Since humans are all fallible humans a degree of unjust violence is universal with humanity and there are no angels.

[Diogenes]

I believe your selectively white washing the scripture of Christianity and the history of Christianity a bit too much. Read 'The Book of Revelation' some time.

The issue I raised is the texts, not the adherents. Are you attesting to a literal interpretation of Revelation? At best, Revelation is a description of events to come, not proscriptions for adherents, which is the issue I raised.

It is not only the scriptures, but the tribal history of violence against those that believe differently. The history of the relationship between the Christians and Jews is lesson of where scriptures and different religions collide.

I never denied the violence of Christians as Christians are humans too.

Buddhist in history have been far less violent than the three dominant Abrahamic religions at war between tribal allegiances.. Since humans are all fallible humans a degree of unjust violence is universal with humanity and there are no angels.

I agree humans are fallible and humans can be violent for any or even no reason.

[shunyadragon]

The issue I raised is the texts, not the adherents. Are you attesting to a literal interpretation of Revelation? At best, Revelation is a description of events to come, not proscriptions for adherents, which is the issue I raised.

Your missing the fact that The Book of Revelation depicts a black and white good versus evil war with the good triumphing in the name of Jesus.

I never denied the violence of Christians as Christians are humans too.

In all religions it is the works of the believers in history that are the up front issue. It is a matter of fact in history the texts and the history of Buddhism are overwhelmingly non violent when compared to the three dominant Abrahamic religions.

[Diogenes]

Your missing the fact that The Book of Revelation depicts a black and white good versus evil war with the good triumphing in the name of Jesus.

No, I'm not. The fact that is being missed is that the topic I raised was religious proscriptions, not eschatological prophecies. Christianity has none that I can think of and the violence of Judaism was in their conquest of Canaan and legal structure. The latter has been done away with. The Crusades were defensive from due to Turkish invasions. Religion was a common bond between the West and East so it was used as the means to obtain aid against aggressors. The strongest case for Christian religious-motivated violence would be the Inquisition and the enlightened Reign of Terror beats it in terms of documented violence. In 2016, ISIL was responsible for 9,000 deaths alone.

In all religions it is the works of the believers in history that are the up front issue. It is a matter of fact in history the texts and the history of Buddhism are overwhelmingly non violent when compared to the three dominant Abrahamic religions.

I wouldn't deny that. The point was that even Buddhist can be violent despite Buddhist teachings.

[shunyadragon]

No, I'm not. The fact that is being missed is that the topic I raised was religious proscriptions, not eschatological prophecies. Christianity has none that I can think of and the violence of Judaism was in their conquest of Canaan and legal structure. The latter has been done away with. The Crusades were defensive from due to Turkish invasions. Religion was a common bond between the West and East so it was used as the means to obtain aid against aggressors. The strongest case for Christian religious-motivated violence would be the Inquisition and the enlightened Reign of Terror beats it in terms of documented violence. In 2016, ISIL was responsible for 9,000 deaths alone.

First you are missing the very long and brutal history of Christian persecution, and ethnic cleansing of Jews, which the Inquisition and reign of Terror are small change in comparison. Second, the Book of Revelation is a very aggressive violent text of the war of good against evil. Other parts of the NT using Paul's words against the Jews have inspired violence against Jews, Martin Luther used these words in his justification of violence against Jews in On the Jews and Their Lies. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...and_Their_Lies.

I wouldn't deny that. The point was that even Buddhist can be violent despite Buddhist teachings.

You acknowledged that all fallible humans are capable of violence but your example fails, because of the documented fact that the scripture and history of Buddhism is mostly non-violent and far far less violence that the three dominant Abrahamic religions.

[Diogenes]

First you are missing the very long and brutal history of Christian persecution, and ethnic cleansing of Jews, which the Inquisition and reign of Terror are small change in comparison.

I'm not missing out on the brutal history of Christian persecution or the ethnic cleansing of Jews, I'm distinguishing the actions of the adherents from the actual texts.

You acknowledged that all fallible humans are capable of violence but your example fails, because of the documented fact that the scripture and history of Buddhism is mostly non-violent and far far less violence that the three dominant Abrahamic religions.

The example was to show not to judge the texts and the religion by the actions of the adherents. Even peaceful Buddhism has violent adherents. That was the only point.

[siam]

French history with regards to Christianity is bloody.....(Its even more bloodier with regards to non-Christians....)

"In 1685, Louis revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had allowed Protestants to live in peace in France. He demanded that Protestants convert or leave his kingdom under the principle of “Un roi, une foi,”—one king, one faith. To force Protestants to make a choice, Louis billeted undisciplined troops in Protestant houses where they raped, pillaged, tortured, and in some instances even murdered. It was an extensive and effective project of religious cleansing. More than 200,000 Protestants fled France—some estimate the number to be much higher. "
https://newrepublic.com/article/1479...-enlightenment

The French revolution brought with it ideals of freedom to practice religion with these laws---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechri...nch_Revolution
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 proclaimed freedom of religion across France in these terms:

Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article X – No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the laws

...It also brought with it the reign of terror---

Victims of the Reign of Terror total...nevertheless, its somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes.^[25] Of these social groupings, the clergy of the Catholic Church suffered proportionately the greatest loss.^[25]

Anti-Church laws were passed by the Legislative Assembly and its successor, the National Convention, as well as by département councils throughout the country. The Concordat of 1801 endured for more than a century until it was abrogated by the government of the Third Republic, which established a policy of laïcité on 11 December 1905.

By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and several hundred who did not leave were executed.^[26] Most French parishes were left without the services of a priest and deprived of the sacraments. Any non-juring priest faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana.^[1] By Easter 1794, few of France's forty thousand churches remained open; many had been closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses.^[1]

This is what French "Laicite" values. ---radical secularism.

This "radical secularism" has conflicts with Jews (those who practice Judaism) and statistics show high numbers of hate crimes against Jews
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...crimes-france/
In 2018---541 hate crimes of anit-semitism were reported to the police. (596 against minorities and Muslims).
https://knoema.com/atlas/France/Number-of-homicides
There were 779 homicides in 2018.

However...with regards to freedom of speech---France has legal limitation on this freedom:-
https://www.humanityinaction.org/kno...ocial-harmony/
"France’s 1972 Pleven law on racism, for example, built on the 1881 law on freedom of press prohibiting the press from libel, slander, defamation, and writing against a group of people. The Pleven law furthered these restrictions to outlaw racist speech and writing against individuals, and banned provocations of hatred, racial violence, and discrimination. "

The Glayssot act of 1990 criminalized holocaust denial.

In a climate of Islamophobia, the printing of the cartoons is against the spirit of French law---that of inciting hate, racial violence, and discrimination. Yet, the French have chosen to go against their own principles and laws for the sake of political/electoral expediency by highlighting the hate-crime/murder of a French teacher while 1,000 hate crimes against "other" French citizens go unnoticed.

The "Crisis" of the French is that they have no positive, enlightened, vision for the future of France so they need to make up an enemy/scapegoat.