Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[Metahive]

And that's a reason not to shove it in their faces at work or when socializing. Doesn't make a difference when it comes to arguing that hey, maybe the Islamists back in their home countries really ARE a whole lot more diligent at practicing their mutual religion and may actually be on better theological ground than them when it comes to justifying their actions and lifestyle.

Not liking something or finding it painful doesn't make it any less true. We shouldn't have to spell that out here of all places.

EDIT: Aimed at jwl. Quoting is a pain on a tablet.

Missed the editing window.

Listen, there's no such thing as a true Islam, or true Judaism or true Christianity or, fuck me, true Scientology, it's arbitrary make-belief all the way down. A Muslim who thinks it's his duty to murder people in the name of the prophet is no more or less a Muslim than one who rejects this sort of thinking. A Christian who thinks abortion is murder isn't any less or more Christian than one who doesn't. Christian, Muslim, Scientologist or whatever are all self-chosen labels (Judaism is also an ethnic moniker, so somewhat different).

The reason why these accusations, that "true" Islam is necessarily violent and murderous, are painful is because they're bullshit and wrong. That's why they, like any other big lie or falsehood should not be used. Basic human decency. Too much asked for?

ETA:

Okay, is anyone here actually arguing that Islam is inherently evil and the sole cause of these attacks? Because I'm not, I don't think Broomstick is and I'm a little out of it and about to head to bed but I don't think anyone else is either.

If no one's claiming it, why are so many people angrily rejecting the mere notion of more complex issues being behind the Charlie Hebdo murders? Crown's constantly using "WHY WERE THEY KILLED?!?" as some sort of gotcha' after all and there are audible groans whenever the history of the region and the relationship between the fates and nations are brought up. See Simon complaining that the crimes of the West are mentioned at all, even when they do inarguably do play a role in this whole clusterfuck.

[Broomstick]

So no, I don't think being "refugees", or a conservative religious minority, or in a new culture, in any excuses this sort of asshat behavior.

I guess my bad, stupid, ignorant, foreigner Engrish is still not good enough to be understood by real true native English speakers since I never even once made that claim anywhere and in fact condemned the deeds of the CH attackers. Yuck Fou with a heaping-helping of Jape Gruice.

Please point to a direct quote where I criticized your use of English? You can't, because I didn't. I said that maybe you didn't express yourself as you thought you had, but that's not language (or native-language) dependent. What that means is what you thought you were communicating isn't what everyone else took from your words. It says nothing about your grammar, spelling, facility with language, or anything of the sort.

So get off your high horse. Not a goddamned thing wrong with your command of English. Your reasoning I might have issue with, but not your ability to construct an English sentence.

My point is that these things don't happen in a vacuum and that if we stubbornly concentrate only on looking at them in the most superficial way (for example by simply claiming that Islam is evil and makes peple do evil things, so no Islam, no problem) we will not be getting to the actual root of the problem and find solutions that will help to solve these issues in a more permanent way.

So, what was with the "wah-wah-wah just try to imagine how these people feel" bullshit? Did you think no one else here has a history of refugees in the family? That no one else has had to face prejudice?

Yes, I agree, we have to look at the source of the problem - but being a refugee does not explain these actions. It's not the source of terrorism. Being a religious minority does not adequately explain why people become suicide bombers. Being poor with limited opportunities doesn't explain it. You have to ask why Islamist terrorists (as distinct from Muslims who aren't terrorists) are different than all those other refugees/religious minorities/brown/poor people who DON'T do such things.

I'm not willing to say that being a conservative Muslim accounts for it - there are millions of conservative Muslims who do not commit terrorist acts.

There's also the fact that these attacks already happen very rarely so acting is if they're the one Real True Big Problem of our Time(TM) that needs unbound and mindless actionism is hardly justified.

I agree - these attacks are not nearly as common as other forms of death but the consequences have been significant. Partly, it's because they're targeting civilians who, until now, have largely felt safe and insulated. Partly because of the ideological differences: free speech vs. religious constraints.

It's also important because these attacks are having an effect out of proportion to the death tolls they incur.

Also, Yuck Fou, Broomstick for trying to play pity-Olympics, as if people need to compete with each other for who deserves pity and who doesn't. Yuck Fou, you insensitve piece of hardened concrete.

You started it, with the "wah-wah-wah you can't imagine". Like I said, these people are NOT special snowflakes. Arguably, some of them have had it a lot better than some other groups fleeing danger and death. As I said, it's not a dick-measuring contest. These people are like US fundy Christians who are so convinced of an "oppression" that isn't there, or define "oppression" as not being able to inflict their bullshit on other people.

[Metahive]

Do you know what's quite ironic, Broomstick? Years ago, Richard Dawkins in reaction to Elevatorgate, wonder of sensitivity that he is, wrote the "satirical" Dear Muslima letter in which he basically said "Ey, bitches, those Muslim gals have it worse than you, so shut up with your petty first-world problems and make me mah sammich already".".

And here you are now, using his argument, only in reverse. "Ey, refugee dudes and dudettes, other people have problems too, so shut up and let us insult you in peace. Bitch".

*slow clap*

That's us in the first world. That's how we choose to present ourselves. Excuse me while I go into a dark corner to cry.

O sorry, I forgot you don't approve of emotional outbursts like this. Concrete Broom with the heart of rock looks disapprovingly on people who display any sort of empathy. I apologize profusely.

[Broomstick]

If no one's claiming it, why are so many people angrily rejecting the mere notion of more complex issues being behind the Charlie Hebdo murders? Crown's constantly using "WHY WERE THEY KILLED?!?" as some sort of gotcha' after all and there are audible groans whenever the history of the region and the relationship between the fates and nations are brought up. See Simon complaining that the crimes of the West are mentioned at all, even when they do inarguably do play a role in this whole clusterfuck.

Have you considered that part of the problem is that these fuckheads are expansionist?

The World At Large didn't fear the IRA in Ireland because they were in Ireland, with some branching to the UK. They weren't blowing shit up in Moscow or Sydney, or claiming they owned Spain.

The World At Large didn't fear the Basque ETA because they were largely in the Basque regions, some bit in Spain and France. They weren't shooting up New York City coffee shops or bombing the train system in Japan or killing tourists in Bali.

Rinse and repeat for a lot of 20th Century terrorist types. Yes, they killed people, even got foreign funding at times, but their goals and actions were geographically limited.

Why are the modern Islamist Expansionist Asshats scaring people so badly? Because they have gone global. They ARE blowing shit up and killing people all over the world. They DO claim they own Spain. Combine this with propaganda holding up a world-wide Islamist state and advocating DIY lone wolf attacks (like the Boston Marathon bombing and the DC Sniper, as two that come to mind first) and yes, it's going to scare the average Joe because suddenly he might get hurt, and not just the military fighting far away. They want to impose their beliefs and systems on everyone else, and some of them are getting more extreme in how they put that into action (see ISIL's forced conversions, mass executions, and sexual slavery).

Sure, blame the Evil West - except do you honestly expect the west to ignore attacks? To not attempt to stop such things before they happen? What the fuck did you think was going to happen to the people to marched into Charlie Hebdo and gunned down a dozen people? Of course they were going to die after a massive manhunt. What other possible outcome could there be to such a scenario? Were the French supposed to shrug their shoulders, go "meh", and return to business as usual while letting them go?

Yes, this is turning into group A does something, group B does something in response, which causes group A to retaliate, and then group B re-retaliates.... that's how wars get started, that's how wars continue. There are people in the world who want war. Why I don't really understand. I don't "get" it.

Seems to me that the Asshats keep poking the bigger, more powerful nations in the foot or the eye over and over. The Big Guys swing back and forth between ignoring it and over-reacting. None of this is good.

[Broomstick]

And here you are now, using his argument, only in reverse. "Ey, refugee dudes and dudettes, other people have problems too, so shut up and let us insult you in peace. Bitch".

*slow clap*

That's us in the first world. That's how we choose to present ourselves. Excuse me while I go into a dark corner to cry.

So much talk of "cultures"...

You know what MY culture says? Insults are not a justification for violence. It doesn't matter if the insult is directed at you, your spouse, your mother, your country, or your religion. Insults don't justify violence and they sure as hell don't justify killing people.

Yes, other people have problems. Hell, some other people have the SAME problems... but they don't go around killing other people on account of it. Obviously, this is not some sort of reflex or instinct at work. These people are making a choice to kill other people. The excuse you hold up for that doesn't hold water because so many other people - some from the exact same religion and culture! - don't resort to those extremes.

So... what do you think happens when two cultures butt up against each with irreconcilable differences? Free speech vs. watch your mouth or we'll kill you. Equality of women vs. woman as chattel. Religious equality vs. forced conversion or death. Theocracy vs. secularism. This is not going to end well.

[AniThyng]

Yeah look I'm sure the refugees can handle being told that their religion seems harsher than others and is constantly being used to justify atrocity. If they aren't blinkered they'd also realise the reason they can get away with eating pork and drinking wine is because western countries institutionalize freedom of religion and thought and Islamic practice there has adapted, a concept that is not welcomed in the places they left for whatever reason.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Yeah but India is not an Islamic country and probably would allow Charlie Hebdo to exist, so using India as an example, especially using the extreme example of an automatic stoning, is absurd.

Nonsense. A real Charlie Hebdo in India would be mocking Hindus as well and a lynch mob will follow after.

Said lynch mob would be swiftly kettled (and possibly arrested depending on what they do), Charlie Hebdo would get back to operating again.

I doubt many people would read Charlie Hebdo in India, and I don't doubt that people might try to sue it, but I don't think it would be banned and I certainly don't think anything like public stoning is going to happen. India isn't Saudi Arabia, it's a democratic country with free speech and all the rest of it.

Again, give a (good) example of something like this actually happening in India and I might be more willing to believe you.

What? I just gave you 3 instances where an Hindu lynch mob turns up to lead a pogrom against another religion. Either you are deliberately indulging in some form of amnesia, or you are one of those "India is Great" tripe so often caricatured the Goodness Gracious Me sitcom.

India has free speech. HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... s-in-india

Seriously, you have gotta be fucking kidding me. India. Free speech. I have never seen a far worse oxymoron in my life. Fuck, the other damn sacred cow in India is not insulting Gandhi, or insinuating that he had weird sexual tendencies.

[Ralin]

Listen, there's no such thing as a true Islam, or true Judaism or true Christianity or, fuck me, true Scientology, it's arbitrary make-belief all the way down. A Muslim who thinks it's his duty to murder people in the name of the prophet is no more or less a Muslim than one who rejects this sort of thinking. A Christian who thinks abortion is murder isn't any less or more Christian than one who doesn't. Christian, Muslim, Scientologist or whatever are all self-chosen labels (Judaism is also an ethnic moniker, so somewhat different).

No, but there is such a thing as history and what words are generally agreed to mean, which is why if someone said they were a Christian who believed Jesus was a stupid hippy who got what he had coming we'd take him about as seriously as a feminist who said women are dumb and exist to serve men. Islam has a book and traditions that tell Muslims how they're supposed to act, and while different versions of Islam might disagree on details that doesn't mean we can't say that someone who eats pork and drinks wine on Ramadan might in fact not be very good at Muslim-ing

[Simon_Jester]

...The reason there are fewer Muslim denominations is the same reason there are fewer political parties and quite often, only one candidate on the ballot when the rulers are so generous as to let the people vote at all. The region of the world where Islam is most common is made up of the remnants of several colonial empires and has almost zero tradition with democracy, civil rights and so on...

And yet, there were just as few Islamic sects before colonialism.

Are you arguing that Christianity has such a huge number of sectarian denominations because of a rise of tolerance for minority sectarian creeds in the past couple of centuries, which has not yet occurred in the lands of Islam?

Because if so, that tends to actually support arguments along the lines of Crown's. Because it means that when we deal with modern Islam, we are dealing with something unlike Christianity today. And more like Christianity circa 1500-1600. Which could get nasty if you were a heretic, and when separation of church and state was only a thing if it was politically convenient for the monarch to proclaim it.

Like the fundie Muslims, you seem to think the words in their special book have some kind of magical powers, like the Necronomicon. You could swap out the Koran with anything from the Latin bible to Dianetics under the same conditions and you'd have similar results. We had similar issues in America -Fuck Yeah! with Irish Catholics 150 years ago.

Irish immigrants didn't turn into suicide bombers.

It's not that the Koran is magic words. It's that there is something about the Koran, in addition to the usual pressures that act on people from impoverished, marginalized societies, that creates unusual kinds of violence. Suicidal violence. Internationalist violence.

If no one's claiming it, why are so many people angrily rejecting the mere notion of more complex issues being behind the Charlie Hebdo murders? Crown's constantly using "WHY WERE THEY KILLED?!?" as some sort of gotcha' after all and there are audible groans whenever the history of the region and the relationship between the fates and nations are brought up. See Simon complaining that the crimes of the West are mentioned at all, even when they do inarguably do play a role in this whole clusterfuck.

"Why were they killed" is being used as a 'gotcha' because, frankly, the question keeps being sidestepped.

There is no answer to "why were 12 people killed in Paris" that doesn't boil down to "a group of fundamentalist Muslims decided those people's continued existence would be an unacceptable slight against Islam." The history of colonialism, or degraded refugee populations, or the like... that may help explain why they came to that decision. But they still came to that decision.

The history of the region certainly matters- but it takes a willful blindness to not see how fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is the result of interaction between colonialist history and religious history. A system of theocratic norms that worked quite well in the Muslim world when there was no real need to interact with outsiders has... broken down, let us simply say... when it comes to dealing with a world in which the lands of Islam are no longer the dominant pivot point of the civilized world, as they arguably were in 1400 or 1500.

And trying to understand how Islam has come to this does sometimes require thinking of these acts of terrorism as being in large part a 'Muslim thing.' Because calling them a racial thing or an anticolonialist thing really doesn't provide an accurate picture in that sense.

[K. A. Pital]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

[Metahive]

No, but there is such a thing as history and what words are generally agreed to mean, which is why if someone said they were a Christian who believed Jesus was a stupid hippy who got what he had coming we'd take him about as seriously as a feminist who said women are dumb and exist to serve men. Islam has a book and traditions that tell Muslims how they're supposed to act, and while different versions of Islam might disagree on details that doesn't mean we can't say that someone who eats pork and drinks wine on Ramadan might in fact not be very good at Muslim-ing

OK, thought experiment, there's a guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in the cruxifiction and that Jesus was the son of God but is very compassionate and selfless. There's another one who calls himself a Christian and does believe Jesus was the son of God but is also an unrepentant and sadistic mass murderer who kills for the lulz. Which one is or isn't a Christian and what's the reasoning behind your judgement?

ETA:
Simon, I'm not sidestepping the question, it's just that I think the ultimate causes behind the shooting are more deserving of debate than the proximate ones.

[Crown]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

Such a shame they weren't shown pictures of cats on Caturday instead and we could have all been spared this tragedy.

[Grumman]

OK, thought experiment, there's a guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in the cruxifiction and that Jesus was the son of God but is very compassionate and selfless.

He is not a Christian. Thinking Jesus was a nice guy doesn't make you a Christian any more than thinking the current Pope is a nice guy makes you a Catholic.

[salm]

Aren´t most terrorists social outsiders? Perhaps this is the key to decreasing the danger. Have less social outsiders.

If you are of the oppinion that the terrorists religion is at least partially to blame and concentrate on that aspect you leave yourself in quite a powerless situation. After all you can critisize the religion all day long but people will still follow the religion.

If you accept that bad integration and marginalisatzion is at least part of the problem you can actively do something against it by supporting better integration politics and actively integrating people in day to day life. This is the more uncomfortable path but I think the only effective one.

Now, if we got rid of all the terrorist attacks caused by people who were pushed over the edge by not being socially accepted there might still be a couple of attacks by the true fundamentalists but the absolute number would decrease significantly.

It´s like with Columbinesque school shootings. It is obvious that the attacker him self is at fault but we can also agree that the only way of getting rid of such attacks is to fight bullying and similar marginalizing effects which shove people over the edge.

[K. A. Pital]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

Such a shame they weren't shown pictures of cats on Caturday instead and we could have all been spared this tragedy.

Radicalizing a person is much easier when you present him with the photos of his people being subjected to torture, humiliation and horrors of war, believe it or not.

[Metahive]

OK, thought experiment, there's a guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in the cruxifiction and that Jesus was the son of God but is very compassionate and selfless.

He is not a Christian. Thinking Jesus was a nice guy doesn't make you a Christian any more than thinking the current Pope is a nice guy makes you a Catholic.

God told him in his dreams that this was in fact the right way to be a Christian and everyone else got it wrong. Who are you to speak against the word of God? See, that's what you have to deal with when it's all arbitrary make-belief. If I claim that the christian God came to me and told me that it's really all about being a shoemaker and to worship the Holy Shoelace of Addidas, then there's nothing whatsoever that the other christian denominations can do to prove that I'm doing it wrong and they're doing it right. Once "magic", for lack of a better word is allowed to enter the picture all bets are off. BTW, a similar story like that gave rise to Mormonism, just sayin'.

Another example, there are christian denominations out there whose core teaching are diametrically opposed. See Catholicism and Calvinism on the issues of faith, fate, works and usage of scripture. That means either one of them is right or both are wrong but both can't be right. If you allow however both to retain the label of Christianity then you just show how useless it is, because at least one of them is in fact not being Christian. See what I mean?

[Terralthra]

Except both Calvinists and Catholics can cite evidence from the same Bible that both venerate supporting their position on the issue of faith vs. works. It's possible to argue either way from the central scripture of Christianity.

There's a verse of the Bible in which Jesus says "none shall come to Father except through me". There aren't any verses to the contrary.

[Metahive]

Except both Calvinists and Catholics can cite evidence from the same Bible that both venerate supporting their position on the issue of faith vs. works. It's possible to argue either way from the central scripture of Christianity.

There's a verse of the Bible in which Jesus says "none shall come to Father except through me". There aren't any verses to the contrary.

Who cares? Direct divine revelation straight from the mouth of God surely trumps the written word of man only presumed to be divine revelation, right? I mean, is the Bible itself a magical fetish that channels divine power? Most Christians would disagree with that, even the most ardent Sola Scriptura proponents.

Also, while both Catholics and Calvinists can claim to have scriptural support for their doctrines, them being at odds still means that at least one of them got it wrong. Truth is not divisible. One's Christian and the other isn't. Or both aren't.

[Crown]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

Such a shame they weren't shown pictures of cats on Caturday instead and we could have all been spared this tragedy.

Radicalizing a person is much easier when you present him with the photos of his people being subjected to torture, humiliation and horrors of war, believe it or not.

Dress the cats in Arabic garb then?

[Crown]

Behind the scenes at Charlie Hebdo from 2006 just after the Danish cartoons were published;

http://vimeo.com/116362234

Look at those racists cartoonists work! Racisming their way with paper and pen. Those racists racisming insensitive people. How dare they!

[Broomstick]

Except both Calvinists and Catholics can cite evidence from the same Bible that both venerate supporting their position on the issue of faith vs. works. It's possible to argue either way from the central scripture of Christianity.

There's a verse of the Bible in which Jesus says "none shall come to Father except through me". There aren't any verses to the contrary.

Who cares?

They do. Wars were fought over doctrinal issues in Europe.

Direct divine revelation straight from the mouth of God surely trumps the written word of man only presumed to be divine revelation, right?

Wrong.

A lot of Christians view the Bible as, definitely, divine revelation. End of story. No question. Claimed revelation is usually doubted, particularly when said revelation conveniently lines up with mortal desire (like Joseph Smith's polygamy).

I mean, is the Bible itself a magical fetish that channels divine power?

Yep. Quite a few people think that. Hence swearing on the Bible, use of the Bible during exorcisms, etc.

Most Christians would disagree with that, even the most ardent Sola Scriptura proponents.

And you base that on...?

Also, while both Catholics and Calvinists can claim to have scriptural support for their doctrines, them being at odds still means that at least one of them got it wrong. Truth is not divisible. One's Christian and the other isn't. Or both aren't.

You really don't understand religion, do you? Or Christian scriptures which are full of contradiction that allows cherry picking to an insane degree.

[AniThyng]

Aren´t most terrorists social outsiders? Perhaps this is the key to decreasing the danger. Have less social outsiders.

If you are of the oppinion that the terrorists religion is at least partially to blame and concentrate on that aspect you leave yourself in quite a powerless situation. After all you can critisize the religion all day long but people will still follow the religion.

If you accept that bad integration and marginalisatzion is at least part of the problem you can actively do something against it by supporting better integration politics and actively integrating people in day to day life. This is the more uncomfortable path but I think the only effective one.

Now, if we got rid of all the terrorist attacks caused by people who were pushed over the edge by not being socially accepted there might still be a couple of attacks by the true fundamentalists but the absolute number would decrease significantly.

It´s like with Columbinesque school shootings. It is obvious that the attacker him self is at fault but we can also agree that the only way of getting rid of such attacks is to fight bullying and similar marginalizing effects which shove people over the edge.

OK, serious question here, how would you define integration? Where do you draw the line and define a integrated muslim vs a non-integrated one and how do you get from the latter to the former? What do you do about muslims who bring their cultural-religious baggage with them to these societies, anywhere from muslim calls to prayer to refusal to touch pork to harsh social penalties for premarital sex or abortions or ostracisation of homosexuals? And if the answers to these are "islamic culture and its followers need to adapt to the times", how is this not different from calling for a reformation and reexamination of Islamic doctrine?

[Zilkar]

Aren´t most terrorists social outsiders? Perhaps this is the key to decreasing the danger. Have less social outsiders.

If you are of the oppinion that the terrorists religion is at least partially to blame and concentrate on that aspect you leave yourself in quite a powerless situation. After all you can critisize the religion all day long but people will still follow the religion.

If you accept that bad integration and marginalisatzion is at least part of the problem you can actively do something against it by supporting better integration politics and actively integrating people in day to day life. This is the more uncomfortable path but I think the only effective one.

Now, if we got rid of all the terrorist attacks caused by people who were pushed over the edge by not being socially accepted there might still be a couple of attacks by the true fundamentalists but the absolute number would decrease significantly.

It´s like with Columbinesque school shootings. It is obvious that the attacker him self is at fault but we can also agree that the only way of getting rid of such attacks is to fight bullying and similar marginalizing effects which shove people over the edge.

OK, serious question here, how would you define integration? Where do you draw the line and define a integrated muslim vs a non-integrated one and how do you get from the latter to the former? What do you do about muslims who bring their cultural-religious baggage with them to these societies, anywhere from muslim calls to prayer to refusal to touch pork to harsh social penalties for premarital sex or abortions or ostracisation of homosexuals? And if the answers to these are "islamic culture and its followers need to adapt to the times", how is this not different from calling for a reformation and reexamination of Islamic doctrine?

Further to this, how do you enforce this integration, particularly in a multi-cultural society where one of the central tenets of said society is respect for the beliefs and cultures of the minority? Who gets to define what "integration" means, bearing in mind that "integration" is pretty much a synonym for "assimilation" in this case.

[Patroklos]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

Such a shame they weren't shown pictures of cats on Caturday instead and we could have all been spared this tragedy.

Radicalizing a person is much easier when you present him with the photos of his people being subjected to torture, humiliation and horrors of war, believe it or not.

I guess that explains that problem we have with Christian westerners traveling to fight in Syria.

[Ralin]

OK, thought experiment, there's a guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in the cruxifiction and that Jesus was the son of God but is very compassionate and selfless.

He is not a Christian. Thinking Jesus was a nice guy doesn't make you a Christian any more than thinking the current Pope is a nice guy makes you a Catholic.

This, basically. I'm sure the first guy is a very good practitioner of the religion he made up that no one else follows, but it ain't Christianity. Anymore than when I describe Chinese managers in Africa breaking out shotguns and gunning down striking miners as "another victory for Socialism" is a commentary on communism.