Thirteen on trial over online threats to French teen who insulted Islam | Hacker News Reader

Thirteen on trial over online threats to French teen who insulted Islam

theguardian.com

32 pointssofixa30 comments

The Catholic Church once had a leadership position in intimidation. It was strong enough at peak to rule much of Europe by fear. It took several hundred years of wars to put the Catholic Church back in its cage.[1] Islam has never had a Reformation. It's still in "death to infidels" mode.[2] This is a problem.

Intolerance is a means of power projection. See "Paradox of tolerance."[3] Islam is really into this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I'm not really fond of religion, we don't need it anymore, their purpose was made redundant with our increased standards of living.

Some religions seem to induce more hatred and rage then others, and deranged people use religion as a mean to justify what they're doing.

It's not about needing religion. It's about once it's proven to be correct, the only rational decision a rational person can come to is to accept it. In other words, you have it the other way around.

Secondly, the media does a very good job at distorting the truth.

And, how exactly will it be proven to be correct?

You know I hear a lot of people talk about how religion makes people angry and hateful, but I don't hear nearly as much for how religion makes people more loving, more caring, and better; and I know it does because I've seen it plenty of times.

Religion has helped me to be a better father and husband, it pushes me to be more interested in helping other people and constantly push myself to try and be a better person today than I was yesterday, while helping me to forgive others and be more understanding.

I know that doesn't sell headlines as well, and that doesn't make for good internet arguments, but the fact of the matter is that religion does help people become better, help others, and provides plenty of value to society.

I think religious organizations provide an important social connection for a huge number of people in this world. That is invaluable. The problem is with religious leaders. They have repeatedly done terrible things. Falwell. Catholic priests. Many of the religious leaders from my family's past. All of the people supporting DJT and his ilk (supporting someone that literally has the opposite of their views).

This duality is a real problem and I don't see it being address one tiny bit.

That social connection only works for people who haven’t discovered the internet yet. I’m in my late 40s and we mostly lurk on Meetup and through private connections.

On numerous occasions I’ve had nights out with people I’ve never met before who’d be chased out of the village by pitchfork wielding yokels if you took them in the church. And it was great!

This is one thing I hate to hear every two minutes.

Firstly, if you’re better to people because of religion then I am afraid of you. It only takes a moment for the fragile concept of faith to dissolve. I’ve seen it happen.

Secondly, the nature of kindness and altruism is a concept separate to religion. Religion just piggy backs on it and pretends it’s a virtue only because it makes more subservient indoctrinated spawn.

Please be a better person through introspection, thought and communication.

Did you maybe think that you are in fact a more religious person than the parent poster? At least he was not trying to convert you.

Nope. He was putting tits on a coke poster to sell more coke. I don’t have a poster and don’t believe in coke.

Right. You believe in magnetic water and each time you see someone drinking coke you start pushing around the flyers.

My brain's parser couldn't work that sentence out.

But religion is not necessary for any of that. In fact, depending on the exact contents of the religion's teachings, it may go directly against the task bringing up a kind, compassionate individual.

Recall the medieval, Renaissance and early-modern Europe: pretty much everybody was Christian (for the then-definition of "Christian"), and yet the amount of bloodshed is truly staggering. And it's very well documented that the humanization of the European cultures were not really influenced by the churches: on the contrary, they lagged behind pretty hard and opposed it every step, even into the 20th century.

The amount of bloodshed then is responsible for the humanization now by steadily removing the most violent and anti-social from the gene pool. How is a horse or dog domesticated? Humans are no different.

And I think whiggish history needs some correction. Judicial torture (what the US constitution calls “cruel and unusual punishment”) for example was practiced in the secular courts long after they achieved independence from state religions. The story of how compassion became the paramount human virtue (if indeed it has) is a lot less linear than you think.

>I don't hear nearly as much for how religion makes people more loving, more caring, and better

Really? I hear that much more than opinions critical of religion, which seem to me to be the minority opinion. It's a more controversy-adjacent opinion, so it may appear more prevalent and create more noise.

I'm not religions but I wonder how many of the people down-voting you have some externally defined and administrated belief structure (and accompanying in-group out-group membership definitions) that performs the same set of functions in their life but isn't a religion.

> I'm not really fond of religion, we don't need it anymore, their purpose was made redundant with our increased standards of living.

It’s not clear to me that (1) developed societies have dispensed with religion; or (2) there aren’t benefits to traditional religions in the modern age.

Religion, at bottom, is just stuff we believe without proof, and social structures on top of those beliefs to reinforce belief, and foster group cohesion. We have plenty of those ideas in modern society. It’s not clear to me that the replacements are better than mid-20th century Christianity.

The mid-20th century versions of Protestantism and the late-20th century version of Catholicism are pretty humane, no doubt about that. But they are not the only versions of Christianity alive today, never mind all the Islam variants, and those are, well, somewhat less humane, to put it mildly.

You really think that praying and other religious rituals are more effective than evidence-based techniques? If you want to multiply bread and fish, use the Haber process and fisheries.

The social structures are parasitic and shackled our ability to do things. Look at the story you're commenting on: Do you think that the social structures which incited these folks to threaten a teenager with death is "foster[ing] group cohesion" in a way that we want to encourage in our society?

I happen to live in a region where something like three-quarters of all terrorism is Christian, and the rest has been Muslim or various cults derived from traditional religious practices. It is not clear to me that (3) the benefits of religion could outweigh the constant price that members of society pay to appease it.

> You really think that praying and other religious rituals are more effective than evidence-based techniques? If you want to multiply bread and fish, use the Haber process and fisheries.

Science is great for that, sure. But is that the whole of what a society needs to function? Does science give you answers about how to raise families, structure communities, etc?

The answer is that the hard sciences don’t give you answers to those things. In secular society, therefore, we’ve layered on top a lot of the social sciences. In my opinion, those teachings aren’t meaningfully more evidence-based than religion, and have a lot less in the way of proven track record.

I’ve got a degree in aerospace engineering. I certainly know and appreciate the Haber process, etc. But as to other aspects of being a human in society, my kids learn about the golden rule, how the meek will inherit the earth, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, repentance, etc.

When I was an atheist I thought that these things were universal moral norms, overlooking that these ideas aren’t universal and I only felt that way being raised in a Christian society.

> The social structures are parasitic and shackled our ability to do things.

You need social structures to mediate interactions between human beings in a society. The only question is whether your social structures are conducive to a well functioning society or harmful to it. The social structures of Christian societies have the advantage that there are a bunch of successful societies built on them. It’s an existence proof of efficacy.

>Some religions seem to induce more hatred and rage then others

The amount of hatred and rage I see within the Abrahamic religions seems to be somewhat equal, per-capita. I've found that you have to look outside those three to find a difference in that metric.

To quote Bertrand Russell,

    [...] it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct
    which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that
    ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has
    nothing to do with the matter at all. ‘What has human happiness to do with morals?
    The object of morals is not to make people happy.’

I suspect it is this particular trait of all Abrahamic religions that contributes much to the hatred and rage: "the rules were laid out once and for all, they are here to submit to them and follow them, not to discuss them or amend them, or deviate from them. Someone refuses? How outrageous!".

However, Christianity did pull an interesting trick to untie itself from the Moses Law, and it can be repeated again, although that'd require reintroduction of the Holy Ghost's visitations, to soften the rules of conduct even further.

As a votary of a non-Abrahamic religion I like this but I also can’t help but wonder is it really the case that Abrahamic religions are more violent or you (we?) are less familiar with the history of non-Abrahamic religions?

It's a fallacy to group all "Abrahamic religions" together. For example, Islam is not violent, however, it does not shy away from self defense when needed. A perfect balance and harmony.

But well, people can just latch on to other irrational beliefs, like the belief of the existence of a pedophile ring that steals elections. It's a fantasy they're convinced is true.

Religion has a convenience that it's an alternative that can be seen as pure. Alternatively you can brainwash people to "fight" for their country, or their race. Like the people "fighting" for Trump who've convinced themselves that they're the patriots fighting against the country being stolen by the Chinese, or pedophiles...

If you're interested, look up videos featuring the anthropologist Scott Atran, for example this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc

Interesting take to somewhat equalize the mentioned fantasies with religion. Thinking about it the only difference really is scale.

Thanks for your insight.

You are pro are anti religion does not matter. The freedom to quote quoran and say Muhammad is pedo must be protected atleast in non-islamic countries.

Good for her.

Not just her. For the entire non-islamic countries

The irony being that this thread has it's own calls for violence minutes after the article is posted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com