Shootings in Paris

[Always Ali]

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh) . So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

He, Yaya, exists as a human being, I have seen his greatness with my own eyes!
Belief systems are usually nothing more than that, a belief in something you, or no one else has proof of...there is the difference!

 

[vmsuhail]

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

He, Yaya, exists as a human being, I have seen his greatness with my own eyes!
Belief systems are usually nothing more than that, a belief in something you, or no one else has proof of...there is the difference!

Muhammad(pbuh) did exist as a human being too. Religious proofs come in different ways and are subjective in most cases. It is an experience and not necessarily a scientific/analytical process.

I have grown up hearing monkey/donkey calls being thrown at each other so casually from my school days. I don't find it particularly offensive at all, which is probably why I find it conflicting that a monkey chant at few individuals is strongly condemned, but hurting religious sentiments of a billion people is just fine.

I got your point btw.

 

[SWP's back]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

Great post.

 

[hgblue]

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

Great post.

Isn't it just. So we stop the satirist using cartoons to take the piss out of the absurdity of religion. Who's next?

 

[SWP's back]

I din't get it completely. Heaven or hell or predestination or karma may be an idea. Muhammad (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) is not an idea by the way. Most practicing Muslims do love Muhammad (pbuh) . So how is it that the feelings are not hurt.

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

 

[Chris in London]

Okay, you've established that you believe Charlie Hebdo were irresponsible in publishing those pictures. You've said that enough times.

What you're failing to accept is that that sort of viewpoint gives the impression that those murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices were in some small part responsible for their own deaths at the hands of extremists as they should have known it would eventually result in someone unstable taking great offence and acting upon it. Your belief that they must have known that it would anger some extremist nutters and the moment it was published they effectively signed their own death warrants.

That is a view I and others find abhorrent. They are completely blameless for what happened, and none of your opinionated, misguided drivel is going to change mine or many others opinion that "they had it coming and should have known better".

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

And yet you lock your door (I assume) when you leave your house to reduce the risk of being burgled.

It is an interesting, if perhaps dispiriting, argument as to how far we allow our principles and freedoms to be eroded in the name of pragmatism - that is to say, how far we allow the precautions we take to ensure we do not become victims of any sort of crime to start shaping our lives at the expense of our liberties.

What is I think important to remember is that this is a continuum - there is no magic tipping point at which our rights and liberties become more important than the precautions we take to protect our persons and property. Not leaving valuables on display when you park your car is obviously at the other end of the spectrum from self-censorship for fear of reprisals from extremist bigots, but they are both examples of exactly the same thing - living your life to a greater or lesser extent in a way that makes becoming the victim of a crime less likely. How far you allow your personal freedoms to be eroded in order to achieve a quiet life, before you say 'No, I'm taking a stand about this', is a rather personal thing - almost all of us accept that at least to some degree it is necessary to modify your behaviour to reduce the risk of becoming the victim of a crime in some way or other.

I'm not sure that saying 'not wanting to antagonise muslim fanatics is a form of cowardice' is any more valid than saying 'having a password on your internet banking ap is a form of cowardice'.

 

[Metal Biker]

But your argument falls down on the fact that they already had police protection, having been threatened previously. So they did know that there was a clear risk that, in a country containing a number of militant Muslims who had alredy proved themselves capable of killing. They knew that a violent reaction was possible yet still did it.

That's neither here nor there.

I'm arguing against the belief some hold that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is 'understandable' due to the provocation of the drawings and that they themselves were responsible for what happened to them so that the solution in tackling extremism and the prevention of future attacks, should be focussed solely on restricting the actions of what Charlie Hebdo rather than tackling the evil intent of the murderers themselves. As previously stated it's like saying that rape incidents are ''understandable'' as women are aware that some men "are just like that" and dressing in an alluring fashion has been proven to attract the attentions of men who won't take no for an answer, so that when a horrific attack occurs, the victim has to accept in part some of the blame. Therefore in order to tackle rape we should encourage women to dress modestly.

It's ludicrous and deeply disrespectful. It means people are being forced to live in fear and are prevented from expressing themselves and their views freely because of the "fact that we all know" that there are a few oddballs living in the world. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility, we're all aware of this, but whenever that privilege is abused it is NOT the responsibility of any individual to take the law into their own hands. If you believe your rights and sensitivities have been breached or disrespected then you inform the authorities. If they come back and tell you that no crime has been committed, and therefore you feel that the society in which you reside is not protecting or considering your rights, you have the freedom to move to a place which does share your sensibilities, not pick up an assault rifle and commit acts of murder to place fear into the society unless it changes its acceptance of your views and what you find offensive.

I am against the suggestion that combating terrorism means having to alter OUR way of life to accommodate THEIR warped views on respect. I am not a muslim, I am under no legal obligation to appreciate, respect or consider anything about that or any other religion. I use my own sense of moral decency not to go around insulting, victimising or being antagonistic to anyone who is on the basis that I hold respect for the laws which allow freedom of expression. Without wishing to insult you, your view seems to suggest one of cowardice, that the best way of reducing the effect of terrorist acts is to show 'empathy' to their complaints, adjust society to something they would find acceptable to their views, as that is the best way to prevent more attacks on peaceful civilians. But if you "give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk"

And yet you lock your door (I assume) when you leave your house to reduce the risk of being burgled.

It is an interesting, if perhaps dispiriting, argument as to how far we allow our principles and freedoms to be eroded in the name of pragmatism - that is to say, how far we allow the precautions we take to ensure we do not become victims of any sort of crime to start shaping our lives at the expense of our liberties.

What is I think important to remember is that this is a continuum - there is no magic tipping point at which our rights and liberties become more important than the precautions we take to protect our persons and property. Not leaving valuables on display when you park your car is obviously at the other end of the spectrum from self-censorship for fear of reprisals from extremist bigots, but they are both examples of exactly the same thing - living your life to a greater or lesser extent in a way that makes becoming the victim of a crime less likely. How far you allow your personal freedoms to be eroded in order to achieve a quiet life, before you say 'No, I'm taking a stand about this', is a rather personal thing - almost all of us accept that at least to some degree it is necessary to modify your behaviour to reduce the risk of becoming the victim of a crime in some way or other.


I'm not sure that saying 'not wanting to antagonise muslim fanatics is a form of cowardice' is any more valid than saying 'having a password on your internet banking ap is a form of cowardice'.

That isn't what i've stated at all; I and others have stated that appeasing the demands of extremists who wish to kill to have their views heard, as a way of preventing more atrocities, is a form of cowardice. The problem is NOT western society, it is the warped mindset of these individuals.

My response to the threat of burglary should be "Give me a weapon, and allow me the right to defend my home brandishing the level of justice I wish"
Is that the sort of society you want? Well those days are past us, and we rely on the law to persecute and prosecute those who wish to harm us and satisfy the demands the law utilises to keep us all safe. What you're advocating is that when someone is aggrieved to the point they kill others we should listen to their concerns and then, without better judgement, simply appease them. We all live by the same laws, others choose not to, and in that choice they become subject to prosecution of the laws as decided upon by society.

You can become enraged, offended and downright disgusted at many aspects of society but the crux of the discussion is this; YOU CANNOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. If i am burgled and I kill the perpetrator I am committing a crime, regardless of the provocation or cause. Just because you may be offended by something does not mean everyone else will. WHEN everyone is offended, that is when society chooses to amend their laws. Criticism of religion is not considered offensive to everyone. Prejudice and discrimination against someone's religious beliefs is, and that is the difference to the debate.

I could choose to become Christian tomorrow and then the day after choose not to be. But in those brief 24 hours where I could announce my anger at the offensive depictions British media has of Jesus Christ and that they should outlaw any publications of him under pain of death, are you suggesting that this is the way a progressive society operates? Homosexuality was outlawed, then British society realised it was ludicrous to punish people over something they had no control over, no say in becoming nor have any realistic ways of changing, so the law was abolished.

It comes down to two viewpoints; those who feel that religion should be protected from ridicule and placed under the protection of the law, and those who feel religious belief is a choice, one which can be altered instantly and is not based on any factual merit, therefore it is open to ridicule from those who do not share what the doctrine teaches or have a critical viewpoint of the religion as a whole. What is considered 'offensive' is a point of view, and society has already determined what is and what is not accepted as 'ridicule'. If you have a problem with that, then there are over 200 nations and societies around the world for which you can choose to belong.

 

[vmsuhail]

Then they have my sympathies.

Had they been born in India, they would have those feeling perhaps for Ghanesh.
Had they been born in Alabama, they would perhaps have them for Jesus.
Had they been born in Sweden, 1,000 years ago, perhaps for Thor.
That they feel that way Mohammed is a quirk of fate, of their timing and place of birth and their indoctrination, nothing more. His, is just one of 7,000 or so recorded religions in human history and just as likely/unlikely as all of the others.

Religion is just an idea, an idea based on no evidence nor rationalism, hence defaming it is not the same as racism or anti-semitism, which was your question.

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

Ideas can be contested and should be. There is nothing wrong with writing an article on "how heaven/hell is absurd" or "why Quran cannot be divine" or "question the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)". But, does it have to be in the way it was portrayed in "innocence of Muslims". Couldn't it be done in a better way that does not enrage the other side so much ?

 

[foxy]

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

Ideas can be contested and should be. There is nothing wrong with writing an article on "how heaven/hell is absurd" or "why Quran cannot be divine" or "question the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)". But, does it have to be in the way it was portrayed in "innocence of Muslims". Couldn't it be done in a better way that does not enrage the other side so much ?

Again, that's suggesting we 'limit' freedom of speech. This is going round in circles.

 

[Metal Biker]

There lies the difference. To people outside religion, it is just an idea. To practicing followers of the religion, it is life itself and a meaning to their existence. As someone has mentioned, religion has its own rational, be it prophets, holy book, hell, heaven, resurrection whatever...

I got your point though, but I find it awkward when:
a) a monkey chant at Toure is against free speech and racist
b) a movie or a cartoon hurts a billion people and is totally fine and the value of free speech upheld, according to the law.

I am not against criticizing religion. It can be done in a civilized way without character assassination to the extreme levels. In my state (Kerala, South India) , public inter-faith debates and theist-atheist debates are common without provoking any riot/murderous consequences.

Being black, or gay, or Jewish or Pakistani is not a choice.

Choosing to follow any one of a thousand or more (still practised) religions is, by its very nature, whichever way you try and rationalise it.

Ideas are there to be ridiculed. Islam is no worse than Christianity in this regard to its sensitivity, it is just half a millenia behind Christianity is all. 500 years ago, blasphemy was a sin punishable by death in many European countries also.

Ideas can be contested and should be. There is nothing wrong with writing an article on "how heaven/hell is absurd" or "why Quran cannot be divine" or "question the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)". But, does it have to be in the way it was portrayed in "innocence of Muslims". Couldn't it be done in a better way that does not enrage the other side so much ?

Yes it can, that's freedom of expression.

If you are offended you can complain about it to the local authorities. If they feel an offence against the law has been committed they will investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice. If not, as in accordance to what is acceptable in the laws of that society, then you have to accept that your offence at something is not shared by others. You can boycott it, campaign against it even encourage others not to endorse it. But the moment you commit murder against those who made the viewpoint you disagreed with you have proven that you are incapable of dealing with an opposing view, no matter how offensive you, personally, may find it.

This is how moronic it is; two blokes in a pub, one guy spills the others pint and he kills him for it. Society then asks why the pint was spilt and how can we prevent further pints from being spilt to prevent other instances.