subtle distinctions, Barry, subtle distinctions. It's what for dinner.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : It's refreshing to read someone who actually gets it, as opposed to some of the "They brought it on themselves because they attacked <genuflect> religion" nonsense we've been hearing from some quarters. The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders - The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders - The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders The murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies. View on www.newyorker.com http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders Preview by Yahoo A quote from the article I liked because it says it all (color highlighting mine): Because the ideology is the product of a major world religion, a lot of painstaking pretzel logic goes into trying to explain what the violence does, or doesn’t, have to do with Islam. Some well-meaning people tiptoe around the Islamic connection, claiming that the carnage has nothing to do with faith, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that, at most, the violence represents a “distortion” of a great religion. ... A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents. Islam today includes a substantial minority of believers who countenance, if they don’t actually carry out, a degree of violence in the application of their convictions that is currently unique. Charlie Hebdo had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too—but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism.
