In the news

I'll stand by that typo.

Most atrocities are (physically) committed by ill-educated and angry thugs.

Violence is committed by violent people. Yes.

Religion is used as a political tool to inspire such people into their devilish thuggery.

Sometimes. On other occasions people do just genuinely and deeply believe that this is what some omnipotent omniscienct creator actually wants them to do. I'm not aware of any evidence that this had political motivations (other than "everything's politics mannnnn") and, given France's reluctance to get involved in wars in the Middle East, it seems a questionable assumption.

So religion as political dogma could be held to account, but not religion in a theological sense.

I don't know what you mean by"religion in a theological sense" can't be held to account. Going with the definitions I can find, that means "religion can't be held accountable in terms of the nature of God, God's attributes and relationship to the universe, nor in terms of religious truth". Is that what you meant, or do you want to clarify.

It doesn't really matter, therefore, that religion is involved, because everybody subscribes to a dogma of some kind or another.

If any other dogma was involved we would criticise (or at least scrutinise) that dogma accordingly so the nature of the dogma matters a great deal. Why should religion (or a specific religion) be exempt from that criticism. The notion that "these are just nasty people who would have done nasty things anyway" is just a load of handwavingly unprovable tosh. We are talking about specifically this attack, which, unless you want to go through some amazing mental gymnastics, had a strong religious conviction as a cause and wouldn't have happened if these men subscribed to an different dogma.

This is footage of a live execution - it's entirely different.
Would you happy for it to be shown if it was a small child getting it in the brain, I wonder.

On that first point you understood me correctly: by theology I mean the nature of God, ones relationship with the sublime, the very nature of things, etc.
The rest is doctrine, and it is doctrine that is often politicised, or used for political ends, and is political in its nature (it seeks to instruct).

With regard to the second point, I did not say that religion should be exempt from criticism, just that to criticise a particular religion because it underlines the manifesto of a 'few' fanatics would be to miss the point.
I mean, the people here staunchly defending the right to broadcast this grotesque voyeurism are being dogmatic in their own way - their dogma being the freedom to choose what they watch. If, say, they start gunning down censors, one wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the 'belief in the freedom to choose what one watches' was an ignoble aspiration (even if one did consider it misguided, myopic...).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZpNgSaYWts

Everybody's passing judgement: my judgement is that this material shouldn't be shown (and has only been shown because it makes 'good' television - but that's another matter); your judgement is that it should be shown because to not allow it to be shown would violate some idea of... civil liberty, I suppose.

My retort to that is: at what point does it no longer become acceptable to broadcast images that many people might find disturbing? Paedophilia, the stoning to death of someone found guilty of adultery, acts of torture, somebody trapped in a burning vehicle...?

I find it odd that some people here seem to equate my wanting to deprive them of being able to see something as being somehow more pompous, self-righteous, and almost laughable, than them wanting to allow people to see something.

I'm not happy about it being shown at all, but because I'm not happy it happened. It did happen and it was recorded and it's horrific but that doesn't mean it should not be seen if seeked to be seen. There is worse stuff to see should you choose and most of that is far less worthy of being shown.

Vello, it is also Dying for the career..
Plenty of journalists and photographers have been killed, and they were not keep on challenging, in the name of freedom, a such complicate issue which is held and originate by a little part of men from both sides of politicians and affiliates.

Or suttin.

It was a copper wot got shot on television.

Just because it's been recorded doesn't mean it needs to be shown. What purpose has it served broadcasting that? It generates an even more pointed hate amongst those who already distrust Muslims; titillates idiots of a perverse disposition; makes martyrs of the gunmen from the point of view of those who support them.

But hang about - it's all about human rights, is it?

Of course the cop was a Muslim; RIP Ahmed Merabet.

I didn't post Brassens as an literal reply...
More because Brassens was from the same "barrel" (du meme tonneau) as the journalist who died today.

Of course the cop was a Muslim; RIP Ahmed Merabet.

No doubt they will say that as he was living in a western state he wasn't a real Muslim.

Rest in peace Ahmed.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/heartbreaking-cartoons-from-artists-in-response-to-the-ch?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp&s=mobile#4ldqpgp

@Fox @snottyotter agree with both of you, this bad stuff needs to be seen.

When a bomb goes off in an Iraqi market we see a few burnt out cars on the BBC or ITV, then move on to house prices or whatever like its no big deal. Watch the same story in Spain or France and you see body parts being swept up, and that stays with you the rest of the night. People don't become desensitised to those images the way I believe we do to the way these same stories are reported here.

I like -
Lifting weights prevents degeneration of the muscles we need to be able to lift weights.

#Heavy

It happened, it should be available to be seen. It's fucking horrid and repulsive and I choose to avoid that stuff like the plague because the idea is bad enough for me. Doesn't mean that something recorded should be censored though, it's different than something made on purpose for the reason of shocking, offending or titillating because it is the capturing of awful current events that would happen with or without people recording. The only things I can think of that should be removed from view are things that would not exist unless they are made as things to shock, offend or titillate and that cause direct harm to those involved. Things such as recorded rape, child porn and snuff films, and even then there will be stuff around the edges where arguments can be made. Be disgusted by the act, not by viewing it through someone else's eyes.

I find it odd that some people here seem to equate my wanting to deprive them of being able to see something as being somehow more pompous, self-righteous, and almost laughable, than them wanting to allow people to see something.

I think you would get an even worse reaction if you started posting links to videos of executions. I don't entirely agree with you about the video being posted on this thread, it seems a minor thing to me, but you make a valid point and have not come accross as a self righteous bellend or an estate agent or anything like that. At some point though you'll have to stop replying because this place is full of last word freaks.

When people say that religion itself is the cause of this kind of violent, merciless fanaticism, I immediately think of Maoism, Stalinism, Nazism, the atrocities of the Spanish civil war, the English Defence league, French neo-fascism, the imprisonment and torture of Muslim Brotherhood members by the more secular government of Egypt etc etc. What perhaps sets Islamism apart from these is the way it spans continents and unites much larger groups of people. I would say that religion can make fanaticism more dangerous, but it does not cause it.

"It happened, it should be available to be seen"

That does not follow at all, that because it happened it should be seen. What do you even mean by 'should'? On what moral authority 'should' it be seen?

I wonder if footage of that soldier that got hacked to death with an axe existed, whether you would have agreed for that to be seen. Maybe you would.

I think people here are coming at it from the wrong angle. I can sort of see marcomarcos' point because he thinks maybe we're sheltered from the worst of what goes in this world. I'm not sure that's true. I remember being very disturbed at footage of the Corporals Killings in N. Ireland [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings] on the TV back in 1988, but you couldn't even make out what was really happening - just that it was pretty heavy stuff. You don't have to see explicitly what's happening to be shocked by it, the suggestion can be more than enough.

In any case, like I said, there is no benefit from showing some guy getting shot in the face at point-blank range: it generates an even more pointed hate amongst those who already distrust Muslims; titillates idiots of a perverse disposition; makes martyrs of the gunmen from the point of view of those who support them. And surely that's the yardstick that counts - that by showing something it could help us bear it away.

Or maybe I just didn't watch as many violent films in my teenage years as a lot of you guys on here.

I'll take your advice and leave it be now, thanks.

('...or an estate agent' - lol)

come on. this is jeez or i'll be a monkeys uncle.

#wafb

I just watched a load of people hacking the shit out of each other in the new hobbit film but I chose not to watch the shooting because it is real and awful and I can grasp the horror without it (although I kind of feel like I should watch it if I'm going to argue about it). It has been recorded, people should be able to see it if they choose. If it was imbedded on this page I would be among the first to complain. If it was linked to without warnings I'd do the same. That hasn't happened and everyone who has viewed it from here has had an informed choice, as it should be. Shit stuff happens around the globe and now that we are more able than ever to see it as it occurs we should be able to see what we choose and form opinions based upon it's raw, unadulterated truthiness, if we choose to look at it. As bad as I'm sure this is there is much worse happening in places with much less coverage. I can't help but feel less bad stuff would happen if you could see more of it rather than less.

I watched the video and wished I hadn't. But I don't want to live in a world where we censor the media to protect people's sensibilities. Twelve people lost their lives today to men who want to control what we can say and see. Fuck those cunts. Fuck censorship.

Although I still wouldn't look at it because I have trouble with supermarket meat areas, let alone parts of dead children on my screen. It should all be reported and available to make everyone realise how futile and fucking abhorrent people are, and then hopefully make some of them less so.