Summary
In October 2020, Samuel Paty, a French teacher, was murdered following a false accusation by a 13-year-old student who claimed he’d shown anti-Muslim bias. The girl had made up the story to cover the fact she had been suspended from school for bad behaviour.
In reality, Paty’s lesson on free speech included optional viewing of Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but he hadn’t excluded anyone. The student’s story triggered a social media campaign led by her father, who, along with others, is now on trial for inciting hatred and connections to Paty’s attacker, an 18-year-old radicalized Chechen.
The school will be named the Samuel Paty School from next year.
jfc when is the human species going to grow up and see religion as the make-believe bullshit that it is
It will be a glorious day in the name of Humans when we finally dump the dumb shit and act like we control our own actions and future
And then people start raping animals because no more rules
Are rules the only thing keeping you from raping animals right now? Because that says more about you than the rest of the world.
If there is no God, then morality doesn’t exist.
And that’s why you are not a good person. Most people don’t need the threat of eternal hellfire to empathize and understand that it’s bad to hurt people.
That’s because there is a God and we have a moral compass that’s divinely designed. But without God, it can still be overridden. Everyone has committed evil at some point in their lives.
Your beliefs are not supported by anything other than an old book. Shit, Newtons theories of gravity have more evidence for them than your boom of fairytale and we’ve still discredited them. Regardless of the prominence of belief in the Christian God and its pervasiveness in western culture, that does not mean that morality does not exist without God unless you come at it from a specifically platonist philosophy. And therein we see the problem: your subscription to one form of ancient philosophy and denial that other ways of thinking even exist.
Nop. In your head only.
Did you read the article? Because I think the person beheading the guy had strong “religious morals”…
That’s Islam
This is the most stupid answer I have ever got in my life
So not only did you weep when you read the bible, but you also promptly forgot everything it said and proceeded to judge others despite Jesus’ words. What a good christian. Please go away.
That’s God
Wow, just tell everyone that you are a sociopath with no conscience or empathy?
If you have no morality without pedophiles and a global child abuse rings threatening you with torture for eternity, then you are a horrible person all around with or without religion.
I do not have paedophiles and child abuse rings threatening to torture me forever, what are you on about
Abrahamic religious organizations are notoriously and with very few exceptions, hosts to child abuse rings and shuffle pedophiles consistently around their organizations when it comes out in their community. See: every Catholic church scandal of the last 100 years and further, and hundreds of protestant church scandals in the past decades.
They threaten that if you don’t follow their book and do what they say that their deity demands, you will be tortured in hell for all eternity.
There is no hate like christian love.
https://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/USCCB_Yearly_Data_on_Accused_Priests.htm
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254393/illinois-attorney-general-report-sexual-abuse
And hundreds more of individual cases here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PastorArrested/
Not even counting the sexual predator pastors and clergy shielded by the church
The religious do not have a monopoly on morality, ethics or the social contract. If they did, the secular people wouldn’t be outraged whenever a religious leader got caught diddling a kid.
If I had a penny for every time someone on here used the sexual abuse of children to try and debunk the resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, I’d have enough to buy a sandwich.
Hypothetically, even if Jesus came back from the dead, what does that have to do with his self described “followers” being child molesters? What does that have to do with non believers being outraged at the various denominations reluctant at confronting the molesters?
It sure does
If you need a make believe story to prevent you from doing that then you are the problem.
… If there were no rules you’d rape animals? Maybe you should go to church, but don’t pretend we’re all like you
No they certainly shouldn’t go to church. The next thing they’ll be doing is beheading people for wearing the wrong color socks. They need a therapist not a preacher.
More like a jail cell.
Now now, we don’t know they’ve committed any crimes, just that they would if they weren’t superstitious.
Besides, even (especially) inmates can benefit from a little therapy.
No, I’m not sexually attracted to animals. But if there’s no objective morality, then what’s wrong with raping animals?
Why does morality have to be objective to keep you from raping animals?
What’s wrong with it if morality is subjective and I’m my own god?
Who told you you were the one deciding what’s moral and what isn’t? Just because objective morality doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean morality at all doesn’t exist. Your argument is flawed from the start. But hey, you do you, if existence of god is the only thing stopping you from being a total psycho then keep on trucking buddy.
Depends on what sort of god you are. Most are harmless, but the malicious ones get Nietzche’d.
I say it’s wrong and I’ll try to stop you.
Who are you to judge?
Me.
The fact that raping animals is illegal is not the reason I don’t rape animals. If the only thing stopping you from committing horrific crimes is a belief in the sky man then I suggest you remove yourself from the general population (become a hermit) so us normal people don’t have to worry about you losing faith in your invisible friend and going berserk at a petting zoo.
Holy shit, your religion is the only thing keeping you from raping animals???
- Not all rules come from imaginary gods
- Most people don’t need rules to keep them from harming others
-
Then where do they come from, if there’s no objective morality.
-
Not true, abortion is becoming rampant because political factions are trying to change a moral fact. Nazi Germany also attacked the Church and started allowing the dehumanisation of Jews through secularism.
Then where do they come from, if there’s no objective morality.
They come from people, of course. Here’s a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence#History
Not true, abortion is becoming rampant because political factions are trying to change a moral fact.
False, abortion rates in the US have been in decline since the 80’s:
His point about Nazi’s attacking the Church is also blatantly false BTW. Nazi’s had a bit of a conflict with the Catholic church at the beginning, but they quickly reconciled and pretty much enabled them. Nazi’s also created their own version of Christianity, the biggest difference to other branches being that they claimed Jesus wasn’t actually jew, but of Aryan descent, and Hitler was the new Messiah:
NAZI Germany was Christian and endorsed by the Pope you absolute clown
The Nazis were absolutely NOT endorsed by the Pope. Romanist bishops were often jailed for speaking out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Such paragons of morality, they started out by trying to ensure they were the state religion and their priests were a protected class while Jews were being persecuted.
Morality comes from the simple shit such as “I don’t like that…maybe I shouldn’t do it to others!” And stuff like “we’re stronger together”. Which even the creatures with tiny brains have managed to figure out before you. Congratulations.
Morality is a product of civilisation and community. It’s the ability of groups to decide on a single set of rules by which they would lime to be treated by, as breach of those rules can cause physical or emotional harm. And then there’s simple evolution, where certain “moral rules” allowed civilisations to survive and thrive better than others.
At no point is “god” required here.
-
are old fairy tales the only thing keeping you from banging goats???
You… you should not be allowed at the petting zoo…
You’re funny. Now, back under your bridge with you.
🫡
Lol make sure to check out this guys posting history for more zany fun, this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this guys animal rape fantasies
Morality is not derived from religion. Society has moved well past that.
If you don’t understand then you lack education, but that’s the only reason. You are not in the right here.
Clearly not since society’s idea of morality keeps changing. So it shows if there’s no God, there’s no morality.
Religious morality keeps changing as well. A few hundred years ago according to Christianity it was morally right to use black people as slaves, because they had no souls. Luckily, society has progressed and gradually it became immoral to enslave people all over the world. In the end, Christianity had no choice but to accept this - although it took some wars to convince them everywhere about it.
Where does the Bible say black people don’t have souls?
This fucking guy.
Humans already rape animals on an industrial scale. That’s what artificial insemination is. Religion didn’t stop that.
I’d hoped this was missed sarcasm then I checked the profile. Its verifiable stupidity.
wow…
Or people commit genocide because of a command from an entity we just assume is the source of all morality and therefore their actions and commands cannot be immoral by definition.
How about committing genocide because genetic science proves that your race has superior genes? The problem is with people’s behaviours themselves, regardless of what excuses someone uses to justify them.
We can have a discussion about the moral frameworks where that would be wrong but an absolute moral giver allows for no such discussion.
Discussion is absolutely possible as to interpretations, specifically amongst those who actually hold the reigns of power.
Interpretation can be possible, but often the driver doesn’t seem to be a genuine seeking of a moral truth but working backwards to avoid morally unpalatable conclusions or outright cherry picking and ignoring certain parts of a text. I see that as a tacit admission that morals don’t actually come from the text itself but maybe there’s something I’m missing as I’m far from an expert.
eh, we’d just make up other reasons to hate each other.
As i always say confront the collective not the individual. If you follow your personal believes i dont have a problem with you but dont force it onto others and dont make it overly structured because it will be used to manipulate people.
The funny thing is that most politicians know it is make believe yet they pretend to be religious just to get the votes. It is also a highly effective mechanism to subdue and control the population and manipulate them.
It wouldn’t really matter, there would be another reason for hate.
Organized religion is a really effective way and tool for brainwashing. Of course there are many other tools as well, but religion is probably the best one. That’s why it’s so popular.
Just like with guns. If you control and ban firerarms, there are still going to be some murders. But much-much less, because you take away the easiest way of commiting one.
I’m of the opinion that a lot of gun control is ineffective, especially given what guns are supposed to mean. Yes places like Australia have been extremely successful in removing guns, but also look at their policing system and governmental overreach which is honestly quite terrible. I’m of the opinion that the most effective gun control is changing the culture surrounding guns. Bring back (optional) shooting classes in schools, teach kids (and adults) gun safety and actual useful knowledge about firearms. Regulate the access, storage, and use of ammunition. Change the culture from people thinking they’ll be John Wick once they get their glock to people who actually understand that firearms are tools that can be used as weapons, and that they require time, effort, training, and a lot of responsibility to use safely. The cat is out of the bag in the US; guns aren’t going away. Acting like we can remove them is silly, but we can change the perception around them.
I also think we need similar movements for a lot of things, like cars.
In most developed countries you don’t even need a gun. Why would you need a gun if you are living in Paris, or Rome for example, or New York.
In Paris and Rome most of the police don’t have automatic rifles.
And I think plenty of people would tell and show you exactly why you need a gun in NYC.
As a counter point, America has fewer gun restrictions and more convicts than Australia. Gun laws and government overreach do not seem connected.
America has a lot of government overreach too, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that American gun laws were originally meant to be modeled after Swiss gun laws and if we had also adopted Swiss gun culture we wouldn’t have the problems we do today.
I understood your point. I was showing that not only does America have “a lot” of government overreach, it has “more” government overreach. An Australian is less likely to be shot by another of its citizens and less likely to be imprisoned, enslaved, or killed by its government.
Sure, I can agree with that. But the amount of police corruption is also quite high in Australia. Not saying the US doesn’t have that, but it’s a lot of the same issues just without guns. I mean look at FriendlyJordies getting firebombed for whistleblowing on politicians.
Why do you need guns in schools? Even if it’s just to teach about them, it’s not the place to bring guns into, and giving them to kids creates this expectation that they should own one, and it’s normal to own one. It’s kind of fucked up. You can have a class discussing them, but they should be expected to handle one. Nobody in the world does that.
The government should just mandate that, to own a firearm, you need a license. This license can be obtained like a car license, after attending a number of classes, passing a written test and a practice test, where you show the examiner you know about gun safety. Then you have to renew every two years or how long it is, pass a medical exam and on you go. If you get caught intoxicated while holding or near an unsafe firearm, your license is taken away from you, with all your firearms, for a period of time, or permanently for repeat offenses, like with cars.
Just make guns act like cars, if it’s fine one way, it’s fine the other too. Putting restrictions instead of giving guns away like you’re Brian from Family Guy trying to buy a carton of milk in Texas will drastically reduce the number of people who even want one. If it’s too much of a hassle to own one, most people will just do without.
Nobody in the world does that.
The Swiss do, which is where our gun laws originate from. The founding fathers were trying to emulate Swiss gun laws and culture, but they only really managed to solidify the laws not the culture. I’m not saying the founding fathers are the end all be all of legal interpretation, but I don’t think they missed with trying to emulate the Swiss here.
Why do you need guns in schools?
Same reason i think we should bring back shop classes, auto classes, home economics, and stuff like that. There are practical skills that are useful to learn that kids should be given the option to explore. Acting like firearms have no purpose, use, or value is silly. And it gives a good and dedicated space to learn how to use them safely, just like other tools should and did have, and just like guns used to have. Shooting classes in schools are not a novel idea and were actually common at point. Sure, in a coty it might not be the most useful but the majority of the population doesn’t live in cities.
Just make guns act like cars, if it’s fine one way, it’s fine the other too.
I don’t actually think the way we handle cars is fine, it’s actually quite fucked. But my issue is mainly with how we view and treat cars, which is a cultural issue. I have the same gripe with firearms, hence why I suggest reforms that target changing gun culture.
Putting restrictions instead of giving guns away like you’re Brian from Family Guy trying to buy a carton of milk in Texas will drastically reduce the number of people who even want one.
No, changing the way we view and frame firearms as a society will. People often want guns because they either have a legitimate need or because it makes them feel strong/tough/cool/secure in their identity. Adding restrictions mainly hurts the former, while the latter will still go to obtain them but with less oversight and control. The way to actually address the second group is with cultural changes on the perception of firearms. Again, we should look to Swiss gun culture for this.
The government should just mandate that, to own a firearm, you need a license.
In most places you do. The places you don’t are mainly Texas. I’m not arguing we become Texas. If you want to own a firearm in most states you need a Firearm Owner’s ID. If you want to carry your firearm you usually need a Concealed Carry License. This is not what I take issue with. However if this were extended to a firearm owner’s registry, I would take issue with that for the same reasons I take issue with forming registries of people who have done nothing wrong.
Then you have to renew every two years or how long it is, pass a medical exam and on you go.
This won’t work for the same reason it doesn’t currently work with cars.
If you get caught intoxicated while holding or near an unsafe firearm, your license is taken away from you, with all your firearms, for a period of time, or permanently for repeat offenses, like with cars.
You really, really don’t see how this can go wrong do you? I understand the sentiment and agree with what you want to accomplish with this, but this is rife for abuse. And not theoretical abuse, but the exact same type of abuse that has been used to incarcerate a lot of black and brown people in the US. It also is somewhat antithetical to the point of citizens being able to possess firearms if the government can just waltz in and take them away.
If it’s too much of a hassle to own one, most people will just do without.
No because like drugs and prostitution people will just find another way. Legalize all of those things because the way to address those issues is with safety regulation and cultural shifts.
My post was actually about religion and I only used gun control as a theoretical comparison.
However, it seems funny to me that you start by stating that ‘gun control is ineffective’, and then proceed to describe gun control in great detail and praise it.
Gun control =/= banning all guns.
Fair, i certainly couldve used better wording
The day you give up fighting your demons is the day your demons win
If religion did not exist, humans would create it.
That’s… exactly what happened.
And let’s not fool ourselves. It is all about controlling the masses.
Right now politics and religion is one dividing factor that fuels enormously the racist views of the population. It simply divides us more than it unites us.
The problem is that it’s not just make believe bullshit, but over thousands of years, and being abused repeatedly by those seeking to derive power from it, the original message/intent gets lost entirely.
Probably never sadly. There’s always going to be something people go towards that gives their life meaning, and that will (almost by requirement) create a group that is against them. Even if it isn’t “religion” it’ll be something like politics or something else, which people don’t actually think about and just believe in.
The most deadly religion isn’t even recognized by those who claim to oppose… As long as people bow down to costumed cops, robed judges, and phony politicians… As long as people worship their slaver “fathers” and swear their lives to defend some slaver’s pact… There will be zero rationality as we regularly see.
Ah yes, so we can murder each other over political ideologies instead
Glad they arent trying to swipe it under the rug and went with the school name change.
Just fyi, it’s “sweep it under the rug.” Swiping is a doing small motion, used mostly for smart phones and sleight of hand, whereas sweeping can be a much larger motion, and often involves a broom or a careless aspect. My husband has the best non-native English I’ve ever heard from someone who didn’t live in an anglophone country as a kid, and he cannot keep those two and swab straight, so I’d consider it a pretty easy mistake to make :)
Yeah i was unsure in the moment tbh. Swish swipe swap sweep swoop
Swish is what you do with something in water, like to rinse it off. Or rinse your mouth out with water or mouthwash. Or the sound those things make.
Swipe is a small hand motion you might perform with an object like a credit card you swipe through a card reader. It can also mean to steal something, since that usually involves a quick hand movement. And of course a gesture on a touch device like a phone or tablet.
Swap is to exchange one item for another item. To trade. In the US we have things called “swap meets” which are like things called “flea markets” where you can trade things. Usually you are trading cash for some type of used item. You swap out old parts for new ones when performing maintenance on a car or machine or computer.
Sweep you do with a broom. Like you might sweep dust under a rug as a shortcut rather than using a dustpan to collect it and properly dispose of it into a garbage can. But it can also refer to a broad approach. For example a police sweep of the area. Or sweeping legislation for broad laws. Or sweeping changes within say an organization.
Swoop is what a bird does when it comes in to grab its prey, or to grab your sandwich. Or what your manager does when out of nowhere he shows up looking over your shoulder to “swoop in.” Or the shape of the path the bird takes when it performs this action could be a swooping motion. Superman might also do this when he flies in to rescue you.
Lol swish swipe swap sweep swoop thats a good one
Good bot
Religion of peace
How old are you to believe peace can achieved by being peaceful?
Do you think they’re trying to achieve peace by beheading teachers for showing cartoons??
No I’m just pointing out the illusion of peace
Illusion of peace when people aren’t killing teachers in the name of religion. Sure seems like an illusion to strive for.
Removed by mod
I don’t care who they believe for if they are so upset about a cartoon that they’ll kill people and commit other violent acts. Fuck those people and anyone defending that shit.
Nobodys defending that just that these same these phrases are usually said by those who later attack the religious people. Just so you know im an athiest but not a douchebag.
And what’s bad about attacking the sort of people who think it’s okay to commit violence in the name of their religion, especially fucking kill people over a cartoon?
Absolutely nothing.
People on the left (myself included) often conflate “recognizing the religion of Islam as harmful brainrot” with “people who follow Islam suck and should be hated.”
I don’t hate the people, but I sure do hate the brainrot. Same with Christianity, really.
Can these people just fuck off with their „religion of peace“ dogwhistle it’s so annoying and obvious
I’m not sure what you think is the dogwhistle, it’s directly mocking the claim of Islam being a “religion of peace”
Yeah honestly go back to 4chan with that intel energy
intel energy
Lol
Autocorrect felt sorry for you. I don’t
I’m devastated
No more mister-nice-guy I see
Why would I be nice to bigots? That’s what got us in the whole mess that is another Trump presidency and Europe sliding into fascism in the first place. If you want to have a taste of what tolerating this ”I‘m just pointing out facts“ leads to go back to any random politics subreddit and see what has happened there. I don’t need this in here. I’m tired of it. I‘m not special, I’m like 99% of people out there, I’m nice if you are. Being a bigot isn’t being nice.
It’s a racist dog whistle because you are indicting the entirety of a religion based on the actions of a single person and their view of that religion. It is bigoted and ignorant, which is not the solution to this problem of religious radicalization.
Nothing racist about it. I don’t care if you’re white, black, or purple. I don’t hate the followers of Islam, but the religion itself is utter trash - as are all religions, and especially Abrahimic ones. Patriarchal bullshit.
Islamic extremism isn’t some one off instance. Even violence over cartoons and such isn’t a singular instance. So fuck off defending that shit.
Of course it’s not a one off instance. It’s the 2nd biggest religion in the world. There’s a lot of people who identify as Muslim. Just because some of them fall to extremism and commit atrocities does not damn the entire faith. If that’s the case then declare your faith or lack of it and I will fill an unlimited count of its crimes.
There’s a difference between a religion having an extremism problem, such as Islam and a religion being inherently extremist. You ever consider why Islam has an extremism problem now in modern day and not say, the Islamic golden age?
Bigoted and ignorant. As much as the extremists you hate. Your just not violent. Yet.
I’m not religious. Have at it.
There’s a difference between a religion having an extremism problem, such as Islam and a religion being inherently extremist.
There’s a saying about bad apples you might’ve heard. Especially true if there’s loads of those bad apples.
Bigoted and ignorant. As much as the extremists you hate. Your just not violent. Yet.
“You’re almost as bad as the fucked up murderous extremists, apart from being murderous.”
I guess calling them out is almost as bad lmao.
Yeah that’s mine actually.
You a Baha’i? Cause with what they’ve done in India and Myanmar, Hinduism and Buddhism are out.
Removed by mod
It’s because, as I’m sure you know, all religions have done the same. Speaking like you are is as hateful as what you’re claiming to be against. Fuck off.
Criticism is valid. Criticism against an entire group of people without also giving voice to those in the group against it is fomenting hatred, which you should be against if you’re logically consistent (which I’m not accusing you of being because I doubt you are).
Christianity is just as much a festering wound on society. Actions like beheading because of some religious zealousy should not be tolerated.
When was the last time a Christian beheaded someone specifically in the name of Christianity? When was the last time you heard of a Jew or a Hindu or Buddhist doing a suicide bombing? When was the last time you saw a Bahá’í or Zoroastrian or Wiccan honor kill a woman in their family for being a rape victim?
This whole all religions argument is bullshit and you all know it including the mods taking down my comments for being offensive even though it’s the truth.
Dr George Tiller came to mind immediately. As well as Operation Rescue’s bombings.
There are lots of African nations who kill gays and other groups in the name of Christianity. I’m not certain on their policies in other religions, but regardless it isn’t good. So yeah, probably yesterday or today is your answer.
So what kind of blasphemous stuff did this teacher show about jesus? Colonialism? Or was it solely an attack on muslims? This is France so I think I know the answer…
You are missing the point that the girl who accused the teacher completely made it up, she was not even having a class with this teacher this day and she lied to her father because she was expelled that particular day for bad behaviour.
It was a lesson on free speech. I’m certain there were plenty of talking points and examples but it really isn’t the point of this story.
Muslims will remain as part of that topic for as long as they react the way they do about drawings of their imaginary friend, or anything else they try to impose onto everyone else.
FYI the french high school curriculum includes lessons on (de-)colonisation, painting it as unjust and racist.
What I see in this story is a question of whether Brahim Chnina ever was actually in contact with Abdoullakh Anzorov, and if he was if he ever instructed or encouraged violence against Samuel Paty. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they are attempting to use this incident to criminalize free speech, which is exactly what it appears Samuel Paty would not have wanted.
Here in the US, would we want the government locking people up for calling Trump a fascist or even a Nazi, especially if one of the alleged assassination attempts had been successful? If I make a video saying I hate Marjorie Taylor Greene and she’s a dangerous sociopath, and the next day they go and kill her, does that mean I should be locked up as well? What if I call Trump the antichrist… afterall, it could be claimed that I participated in a video presenting “false and distorted information intended to arouse hatred.”
The US interpretation of free speech is not what the world considers free speech.
Yeah in may fascist countries you get locked up for saying things like Israel is committing genocide and are behaving like Nazis.
Frankly, I think this is new territory. We have a new kind of phenomenon: stochastic terrorism, that has specifically as a vehicle the virality of social media. I don’t think old absolutes, like the American First Amendment, are useful, sort of like how your Second Amendment was written at a time of muskets, not assault weapons. Social media virality plus algorithms that prioritize engagement at all costs (including via rage) over accuracy are a new thing, causing a new problem. It’s right for courts, legal scholars, and lawmakers to be taking on this problem.
Your concern over balancing the different social goods is of course legitimate and at the centre of this debate.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
- Henry II, exercising his right to free speech.
