Charlie Hebdo: are our leaders taking us for fools?

In answer to the OP, I think it was perfectly reasonable that the world leaders were not in the march with the ordinary people.
It would have been a huge security risk and could also have looked like it was hijacking the efforts of those ordinary people.

Only when it suits, soutra.

I think this has been a big misconception by British governments -and no doubt others- down the centuries. (My enemy's enemy...etc) The Russians in WW II being a prime example and from reading Gertrude Bell, the same applied in the Middle East over 100 years ago.

@Soon - said "There are people in my own area that need help.
There are always people in your own street and neighbourhood that need help."

That, it was explained to me in Muscat, is pretty much the Islamic view of charity - they say your duty is to aid the needy person nearest to you.

I suppose I can see that at one level, but if what'sis name Abramovich was my next door neighbour, it would do no harm to look further afield for the truly needy. No?

And then in some Islamic countries, being needy is a profession - honourable because it gives an opportunity for someone to be charitable!

Perhaps if Abramovich was living next door he would think you were needy and help you out Soutra.

is pretty much the Islamic view of charity - they say your duty is to aid the needy person nearest to you. So should I stop sending aid to the Syrian refugee camps for people who are Muslim or Christian?

"The sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life."
-Vasudev

bags quoted this on another thread, and I think it is quite apt here,a s we discuss beliefs and different approaches to them.

I am unable to change the bible.

soontobe Do you read your bible in the original language in which it was written? Because if you don't, you are changing it, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the translation. And then there have always been different interpretations of even apparently straightforward parts. For example, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has been interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder" but as permitting judicial executions and military action. In previous posts you seem to be have been unaware of church history and the way the content of what we now call the Bible changed at various times, according to decisions made by leading churchmen of the day.

There are different degrees of need and, in any case, isn't it possible to help both those nearby and those far away.

Going back to the OP, obviously world leaders were never going to march in among (or leading) the group of "ordinary" people, given that they normally ride around in bullet-proof cars, led and followed by motorcycle outriders, usually on roads that have been cleared in advance. This was purely a photo op to show their caring side that has come back to bite them in the bum – if such a thing is possible.

Has anybody asked anybody to change the Bible?

If you read enough of the bible you get more than enough idea of what is meant.
Granted, you still end up with little parts of it that have not come down through the ages well.

As I have said before, on a different thread I think, there are many people with additional needs who become christians. Their faith is just as deep and meaningful as any other christian in the congregation. They understand the bible plenty well enough.

And no one is expected to understand fully every single verse in the bible.

So why do so many clergy and theologians differ on their interpretations?

Not again, please.

Have I missed something? How did the Bible come into this conversation?

I made a thread for people to ask me questions on. But many or most posters dont want to ask them on there.
And having enquired of gransnet, they say that posters can ask questions anywhere.

Tresco asked a question Soutra.

There are different degrees of need and, in any case, isn't it possible to help both those nearby and those far away.

I agree, absent but if it is true that the belief of Islam is to help only those who are nearest then people may question why we are trying to help the those in need everywhere.
The religion of a needy child matters not a jot to me, I just want to do my tiny bit to help.

What do you think of Eric Pickles sending a letter to Muslim leaders suggesting Muslims are not British?

www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/jan/19/eric-pickles-right-send-muslim-letter-david-cameron-video

That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/eric-pickles-letter-to-muslim-leaders-the-text-in-full-9987249.html

Here it is in full, which comes across a bit different to the slant the Guardian put on it.
I can't see anywhere where he said that.

|^That's how I interpreted it, anyway.^
We can all put our own interpretation on anything.

It rather begs the question of what constitutes British identity.

Where in the letter does he say, or suggest, that 'Muslims are not British'?

The 'Eric Pickles Letter'. was perfectly in order to some Muslim Leaders and not to others. There has been a lot of debate on this letter on the 24 hour news today and it has been interesting to hear their views. This is media stirring the s--t once again.

I don't think it was in any way shape or form out of order and I will stick with those Muslims who have also said they find no Ill intention in either it's wording nor intention.

Talk about sublime to the ridiculous, let me see now Charlie Hebdo versus Eric Pickles, hmm.