The ECHR should be clear about the most elementary aspects of the job: legal protections are for people, not ideas or feelings.
KPFA deplatformed Richard Dawkins. This was entirely predictable and, actually, we know very well who has been paving the way for this.
Mehta failed epically to hold accountable three public servants who are hindering the efforts to fight Muslim terrorism, and made up a shitty excuse for their behavior (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), throwing two fellow secularists under the bus in the process
On Tuesday there was a terrorist attack in London.Compared to the attacks of 2015 and 2016, I think the response of civilization has improved considerably:
The land of Locke, Hobbes, Darwin, Dawkins and Hitchens turned into a feudal pigsty.
Treating Islam as a race, instead of as a religion, hinders the efforts to treat all citizens equally under the law, by way of giving Islam a special treatment, that is religious privilege.
Arch-vulture Glenn Greenwald could not miss the opportunity to exploit the death of six Muslims in Quebec and pin it on atheists
It’s not an attack on Muslim population — the ban only applies to places and circumstances where it is legally required to see the full face of individuals for identification purposes.
The burkini debate is a symptom of the weakness of Europe because it avoids facing the real issues posed by Muslim communities that reject Western values.
Besides the newsworthiness of the truth, there are at least three reasons why it is desirable that politicians and journalists begin to admit the relationship between religion and the terrorist acts it inspires:
hat would happen to the players of both teams if they requested uniforms as those of their opponents?
The interpretation of a text occurs when it is unclear in its literalness, so it is necessary to go to the context or the principles assisting it as motivation. Are they going to argue that god dictated its magnum opus in such a way it would lose consistency over time, or with metaphors that would cause confusion depending on who interpreted them?
farfetched to claim that people who keep denying the relationship between religion and terrorism have blood on their hands?
To carry out such an attack on such short notice, it is plausible to think the terrorist cell altered a previous plan to make a statement yesterday.
At some point Charlie Hebdo chose not to draw Muhammad any longer… or so we were told. But it isn’t true:
Let’s recall the words of Pope Francis exactly a year ago, when he *advocated* violence in the name of god just after the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo:
Do you wonder how would it be if everyone with a YouTube account uploaded their own copy? Just to be sure everyone knows the bullying and intimidation tactics ISOC endorses when someone says something they dislike!
Too many people seem confused about what to do regarding Daesh (IS). The good news is we already have the formula to defeat Daesh:
If, in order to avoid killings for any trifle, the book with instructions on how to treat each other requires longer comments than the very instructions, it isn’t a useful tool in the first place.
I’m sorry, I won’t tiptoe around Islam or any other superstition with a sacred book that literally advocates for the suffering of others, I won’t give any irrational beliefs special treatment — that’s religious privilege, and those who endulge it have a share of responsability in the state of affairs today.