Hindu Temples and Homes in Bangladesh Attacked by Rebellion 2017/03/07 17:15
DHAKA, Bangladesh — Crowds of Muslims attacked Hindu homes and temples in eastern Bangladesh this week, raising concerns that the authorities are not taking steps to curb rising religious tensions.
Attacks on Hindus are not unusual in Bangladesh, but it is rare to see multiple crowds targeting temples in an organized way as they did on Sunday and Monday. The country’s human rights commission has initiated an inquiry into the episodes, which the panel’s chairman says appear to have been coordinated.
On Saturday, an Islamic group in Nasirnagar organized a protest against a Facebook post it found offensive. The post included an image of the Hindu god Shiva appearing at a Muslim holy site in the Saudi city of Mecca.
The crowd demanded that the young Hindu man who created the image be put to death. Nevertheless, the group was given permission to hold a rally the next day, and mosque loudspeakers were used to mobilize an even larger group, said Anjan Kumar Deb, the vice chairman of Nasirnagar subdistrict.
On Sunday, hundreds of Muslims entered a Hindu neighborhood, where they ransacked 15 temples and the homes of more than 100 families, Mr. Deb said. He said that the mob “used long, hard sticks and locally made sharp weapons†to assault Hindus they found there, and that at least 20 people, including a priest, were wounded.
The district police chief, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman, characterized the damage as less extensive, saying that eight temples and 22 houses were damaged, and that one person was hurt.
Ten suspects were under arrest, he said. The Hindu youth who is believed to have posted the controversial image was arrested on Saturday.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/world/asia/hindu-muslim-bangladesh.html
DHAKA, Bangladesh — Crowds of Muslims attacked Hindu homes and temples in eastern Bangladesh this week, raising concerns that the authorities are not taking steps to curb rising religious tensions.
Attacks on Hindus are not unusual in Bangladesh, but it is rare to see multiple crowds targeting temples in an organized way as they did on Sunday and Monday. The country’s human rights commission has initiated an inquiry into the episodes, which the panel’s chairman says appear to have been coordinated.
On Saturday, an Islamic group in Nasirnagar organized a protest against a Facebook post it found offensive. The post included an image of the Hindu god Shiva appearing at a Muslim holy site in the Saudi city of Mecca.
The crowd demanded that the young Hindu man who created the image be put to death. Nevertheless, the group was given permission to hold a rally the next day, and mosque loudspeakers were used to mobilize an even larger group, said Anjan Kumar Deb, the vice chairman of Nasirnagar subdistrict.
On Sunday, hundreds of Muslims entered a Hindu neighborhood, where they ransacked 15 temples and the homes of more than 100 families, Mr. Deb said. He said that the mob “used long, hard sticks and locally made sharp weapons†to assault Hindus they found there, and that at least 20 people, including a priest, were wounded.
The district police chief, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman, characterized the damage as less extensive, saying that eight temples and 22 houses were damaged, and that one person was hurt.
Ten suspects were under arrest, he said. The Hindu youth who is believed to have posted the controversial image was arrested on Saturday.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/world/asia/hindu-muslim-bangladesh.html
Xiao Zen 2017/03/27 00:13
"Two religious communities" is non-specific by design. It prevents people from becoming defensive. Once people become defensive they stop listening / reading.
I do not know that simply being blunt as opposed to subtle makes it more "honest". It is, however, non-partisan and it is above all this that makes it "honest".
"Two religious communities" is non-specific by design. It prevents people from becoming defensive. Once people become defensive they stop listening / reading.
I do not know that simply being blunt as opposed to subtle makes it more "honest". It is, however, non-partisan and it is above all this that makes it "honest".
Xiao Zen 2017/04/07 15:05
While I acknowledge your position, in my experience news is rarely (for better or worse) objective. People see, experience and live their lives subjectively and so to then swim against the current (so to speak) and become completely objective and dispassionate is beyond the majority of people.
Thus, while news is rarely truly objective, what it can be is non-inflammatory when it can be avoided. The role of the media is not to judge, although it often takes this role upon itself.
Words are important, they greatly influence how a message is received and whether or not it is accepted. By taking one side against the other you lose the objectivity of neutrality and equal access thus putting you in a worse position in trying to report impartially.
Quote: outlaw:
I have no problem with "two religious communities" wherever it's applicable. In this particular case, it would be neither subtle nor non-partisan. It would seem blatantly biased actually.
Calling targeted violence on minorities a "riot between two communities" is something usually done by politicians. When media does the same they seem hand in glove with those politicians. That might not be their intention but it's not like facts don't reach people in this day and age so i don't see the point. It just makes people more angry.
When media loses its credibility, bad things happen. People start screaming FAKE NEWS and start getting all the "real news" from a crazy guy's twitter account, who then goes on to become the president.
I have no problem with "two religious communities" wherever it's applicable. In this particular case, it would be neither subtle nor non-partisan. It would seem blatantly biased actually.
Calling targeted violence on minorities a "riot between two communities" is something usually done by politicians. When media does the same they seem hand in glove with those politicians. That might not be their intention but it's not like facts don't reach people in this day and age so i don't see the point. It just makes people more angry.
When media loses its credibility, bad things happen. People start screaming FAKE NEWS and start getting all the "real news" from a crazy guy's twitter account, who then goes on to become the president.
While I acknowledge your position, in my experience news is rarely (for better or worse) objective. People see, experience and live their lives subjectively and so to then swim against the current (so to speak) and become completely objective and dispassionate is beyond the majority of people.
Thus, while news is rarely truly objective, what it can be is non-inflammatory when it can be avoided. The role of the media is not to judge, although it often takes this role upon itself.
Words are important, they greatly influence how a message is received and whether or not it is accepted. By taking one side against the other you lose the objectivity of neutrality and equal access thus putting you in a worse position in trying to report impartially.
Xiao Zen 2017/04/09 03:02
I would not rewrite it, as you say, it is a fair enough report. My comment was more general assessment than specific statement.
The lack of tact or careful wording may be problematic but being overly subtle would be to take things too far in the opposite direction.
As with most things, a neutral stance, being neither too far this way or that provides the most consistent (and arguably best) results.
Quote: outlaw:
I think this article is a good example of how it's possible to report all the facts without taking sides. There might be a more subtle way but i can't think of any. How would you rewrite it?
I think this article is a good example of how it's possible to report all the facts without taking sides. There might be a more subtle way but i can't think of any. How would you rewrite it?
I would not rewrite it, as you say, it is a fair enough report. My comment was more general assessment than specific statement.
The lack of tact or careful wording may be problematic but being overly subtle would be to take things too far in the opposite direction.
As with most things, a neutral stance, being neither too far this way or that provides the most consistent (and arguably best) results.
saahir 2017/04/09 14:05
The world is divided in fever of religion. I'm Muslim.. You are Hindu.. He is cristian and that person is Jew.
I'm searching for a true HUMANBEING. I think he is LOST in the crowd of religious madness.
The world is divided in fever of religion. I'm Muslim.. You are Hindu.. He is cristian and that person is Jew.
I'm searching for a true HUMANBEING. I think he is LOST in the crowd of religious madness.
Rebellion 2019/03/20 05:49
Hope you are searching in Islamic countries because non-islamic countries recognize its citizens equally but islamic countries recognize everyone as either muslim or non-muslim and force sharia on Non-Ms
Hope you are searching in Islamic countries because non-islamic countries recognize its citizens equally but islamic countries recognize everyone as either muslim or non-muslim and force sharia on Non-Ms
Rebellion 2019/03/20 05:49
Hope you are searching in Islamic countries because non-islamic countries recognize its citizens equally but islamic countries recognize everyone as either muslim or non-muslim and force sharia on Non-Ms
Hope you are searching in Islamic countries because non-islamic countries recognize its citizens equally but islamic countries recognize everyone as either muslim or non-muslim and force sharia on Non-Ms
saahir 2019/03/20 14:11
The world is divided in fever of religion. I'm Muslim.. You are Hindu.. He is cristian and that person is Jew.Â
I'm searching for a true HUMANBEING. I think he is LOST in the crowd of religious madness.
The world is divided in fever of religion. I'm Muslim.. You are Hindu.. He is cristian and that person is Jew.Â
I'm searching for a true HUMANBEING. I think he is LOST in the crowd of religious madness.
#2 General Area
A forum for life in general. Post about news, social matters, relationships, lifestyle, or anything on your mind.