Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Brenus]

"muslim community is terrified of these guys, rightfully so" Oh, I don't doubt of it. The problem is the "Muslim Community" is as well responsible for it, when the "communities leaders" refused to condemned the various fatwas by extremists, when endorsing hidjab, when refusing to adopt the host countries laws, etc. The term itself of community favoured the emergence of such movement(s).
Let face it: all religions, if should apply to association status law, would be refused on the grounds of their Holly Book(s) as none of them recognise equality in gender, advocate discrimination (by nature, followers/none followers) and violence (even at low level).
You know, the sentence like "they push too far but they have a point", all is in the but. We have/had it in the forum. They shouldn't but... Victims shouldn't tell what they think because it offends, and to offend fanatic criminals is dangerous, and dangerous fanatics have a point as in their view, every one else is offending just by the fact they think and breath.
So, after all these years of soft acceptance of criminal and outlawed concepts and idea, the "Muslim Community" is now paying the price. They can be terrified, their children (some of them) became ISIL, but during years, they though it was all right to oppress and kill (or not condemning) minorities, apostates, females etc. The danger they saw was not religious extremism but laicism, atheism, feminism, freedom of though and choices.
And we let them thinking this. Even now, some think that what we need is more religion, not less religion, as religions allegedly give moral compass(es). Right, it is morally acceptable to push gays from high building, to crucify apostate, to burn alive others because, well, the BOOK allowed it.
I am not saying that we have to let the "Muslim Community" down because they are partially responsible for this. But we have to stop to be blinded to what is written in Holly Books (in general) and start to see the reality of religions, and how it can be interpreted. So we can put preachers advocating against universal Human right in a Court, they can be convicted and sentence for not respecting Constitutions and Laws. And Religions shouldn't be exempted of following the law...

[Fragony]

Oh I don't disagree, two booms in Brussels a few minutes ago

[Papewaio]

To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"

[Gilrandir]

Let face it: all religions, if should apply to association status law, would be refused on the grounds of their Holly Book(s) as none of them recognise equality in gender, advocate discrimination (by nature, followers/none followers) and violence (even at low level).

I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions.

And we let them thinking this. Even now, some think that what we need is more religion, not less religion, as religions allegedly give moral compass(es). Right, it is morally acceptable to push gays from high building, to crucify apostate, to burn alive others because, well, the BOOK allowed it.

To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"

Once again: everyone chooses in any holy book/religion what chimes with his inner soul.

[Pannonian]

I don't have a deep knowledge of buddism, but it seems to differ in all those points mentioned from other major religions.

Once again: everyone chooses in any holy book/religion what chimes with his inner soul.

According to ISIS, paying tax to them is also an important part of their religion, even for countries far away from traditional Muslim heartlands such as Belgium.

[Strike For The South]

To paraphrase "The love of religion is the root of all evil"

This is a false equivalence.

Let me rephrase, your implication is a false equivalence.