In spirit of the thread, some people are looking to be offended. Just can't help themselves. Bad taste joke or not.
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
In spirit of the thread, some people are looking to be offended. Just can't help themselves. Bad taste joke or not.
I think there's a multiple layer in this incident.
People debating 2 extreme whilst everything lies in the middle.
Do I condone the cartoon? If it's up to me I'd shut down hebdo
Do I condoned the boycott? Nope. Feel free to boycott something. Its your money
Do i condone the killing? Hell no
Do i condone beheading? Absolutely no.
Do i approve macron? He shouldnt blame an incident of one killing no matter how gruesome it is in the namr of many that has nothing to do with it. And this goes to all atroicites that an individual do regardless of their religion race etc. Unless it's sanctioned and agreed upon by the society then it's fair game to blame them all. Nazi for instance you can blame all nazi but not the german.
Do i agree with erdogan? Nope. See above. But he did express his opinion on macron alone and not the french to my knowledge. So if you defend hebdo for doing something to appease a fraction of population you cant blame erdogan for doing the same.
Do i agree with moderate muslims saying islam is peaceful? I agree. They see it as so, the live as so, what's the problem. They didn't go around killing people nor advocating for it.
Do I agree in freedom of speech? Not in absolute. People should be free to embrace a religion, they should be free to express their sexual preferences. Mocking someone that has got nothing to do with them and doesn't concern their wellbeing in a crude manner is not a freedom i agree with because that freedom infringe others.
Now we should really be clear on where we stand to avoid getting into pissing contest
People debating 2 extreme whilst everything lies in the middle.
Do I condone the cartoon? If it's up to me I'd shut down hebdo
Do I condoned the boycott? Nope. Feel free to boycott something. Its your money
Do i condone the killing? Hell no
Do i condone beheading? Absolutely no.
Do i approve macron? He shouldnt blame an incident of one killing no matter how gruesome it is in the namr of many that has nothing to do with it. And this goes to all atroicites that an individual do regardless of their religion race etc. Unless it's sanctioned and agreed upon by the society then it's fair game to blame them all. Nazi for instance you can blame all nazi but not the german.
Do i agree with erdogan? Nope. See above. But he did express his opinion on macron alone and not the french to my knowledge. So if you defend hebdo for doing something to appease a fraction of population you cant blame erdogan for doing the same.
Do i agree with moderate muslims saying islam is peaceful? I agree. They see it as so, the live as so, what's the problem. They didn't go around killing people nor advocating for it.
Do I agree in freedom of speech? Not in absolute. People should be free to embrace a religion, they should be free to express their sexual preferences. Mocking someone that has got nothing to do with them and doesn't concern their wellbeing in a crude manner is not a freedom i agree with because that freedom infringe others.
Now we should really be clear on where we stand to avoid getting into pissing contest
In your opinion, which is wrong as cartoons have often done so in the past and it is not on you to decide for everyone else on the cartoons or their intent.
I'm not religious and I don't really have one ideology and certainly not one that leads to shooting. You're the kind of person that prefers accusations over arguments because you didn't think any of it through. Notheless, people like you are Allah's gift to the islamists, helping to advance their agenda by suggesting anyone who speaks out against it is a racist.
It's actually quite bigoted and from a colonial sense of entitlement to assume it's all just about Europe. Look around, muslim leaders from all over the world are competing in condemnation of France to impress their muslim population and gain some authority in their regions. There's muslim infighting in almost all muslim countries and the most agressive are the most radical.
It does not fit with reality, because antisemitism isn't about religion but about race. It's not called anti-judaism for a reason. Hardly anyone bothers to ridicule judaism because it's not an expansive converting religion so it doesn't come with the nasty tendencies that have to be criticized and ridiculed. They have their silly habits of course, but they don't ring my doorbell to talk about Moses or tell me what to wear, what not to drink and eat. But that's what the collaborators of islamisation do, conflate religion and race to let people with their chosen religious beliefs hide from criticism behind race.
I'm sure muslims discriminate against them as they do all infidels and I'm sure there's discrimination on race and ethnicity but their religion does not need a special misleading word to unjustly protect them from criticism. Why is islam always the special needs religion?
I'm not part of the right wing and I don't believe this minority is the weaker in society or on the global scale. It's the most agressive in both. It's a bit like Roy Keane making career ending tackles and then diving and rolling about like Neymar.
No, it's actually quite factual and the opinions are so well argued that you chose to ignore them.
How did your apostasy go down?
As in no 'buts' at all when it comes to Hebdo for example?
Most muslims worldwide do, and with good reason. I believe this is a very difficult subject and I respect the very moderate muslims for the difficult position they're in, but no collective responsability at all seems also a bit too easy to me. Assume you were practicing like your wife, you still have enough in common with the many radicals worldwide to be part of the same faith. Of course you're not responsible for another one's interpretation, but it's still your interpretation that it's all one and the same faith otherwise you wouldn't call yourself muslim.
This is issue is important because the secular society has to deal with muslims as a collective when it suits islam, but when it has to protect secular values, it suddenly has to deal with only individuals with different points of view, which is a secular value in itself. Would it for example be fair to close a mosque a terrorist was visiting regularly, allthough the mosque and it's members (?) aren't radical? Wouldn't it be effective and fair that if muslims attack the freedom of religion of non muslims like they did with Charlie Hebdo, to come back as a boomerang to muslims freedom of religion? Same with headscarfs, of course it's a woman's individual right to wear what she wants, but the women who do are also part of the problem how muslim men often treat women who are not wearing one. It's a bit easy to say it was not me while the muslima in her clothes makes the distinction between herself as chaste vs the ******. allowing for that to happen. Wouldn't it be fair to say it's muslims that are a problem to our free secular society, let's not have any more muslims until that's solved/they have solved that to not make the problem any bigger?
It would certainly have a chance of working and actually solving the issue and it would be fair to secular society. Isn't it a responsability of all muslims to make islam fit into society and get radicalism out themselves? We had a deal that's called freedom of religion and that works both ways, and if muslims aren't keeping their end of the deal as they as a whole clearly don't, don't we as seculars don't have the right to partially suspend or part of the deal until they live up to theirs? Somehow we can't be keeping forced to tolerate the intolerant because there are moderate muslims too.
No, I've seen a few YT videos with him. Seems a reasonable and intelligent fellow, but anyone who properly reasons from some principles he sticks with is a breath of fresh air these days. I guess a lot of people in these discussions aren't stupid or bad, but they just lack a foothold and are lost between what might be parts of reasonable arguments, they take the middle of a reasoning as a starting point and then they end up in silly directions like let's just not offend muslims and everything will be fine.
Plus Greenwald has shown himself to be a hack who now spends his time doing interviews with Tucker Carlson about Biden, so wouldn't pay too much attention to him.
Of course there are many things to be reasonably scared about regarding Islam. I think we all agree Mohammed caricatures should be allowed in a free and civilized country and we also all agree that showing those in a school class for education purposes has to be possible. Anyone who disagrees IMO doesn't live by the values democratic systems are based on. And I guess we also all agree that we would think twice before showing those drawings in a school class as a teacher or publishing them as a journalist now. That's problematic to say the least. Through that fundamentalistic Islam affects our freedom through fear and IMO no religion should be allowed to do that. And yes, those fears are justified and pointing that out isn't Islamophobic.
But that doesn't mean that every fear of islam is justified. And the fear of islamisation (not islam extremism and terror attacks) simply isn't in areas in which muslims make up less than 2% of the population even though what you write avout the demographic ambitions of certain muslim organizations/leaderships is true. Many people walking with Pegida have probably never spoken to a muslim in their life.
And by the way, every phobia has some justification, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Spiders are dangerous, height is dangerous but as long as those things pose no real threat at the moment and you still fear them, it's a phobia. Same with Islam. Fear of islamic terror attacks is justified to a certain degree, fear of islamisation isn't.
Well, yes. I don't preface everything I say as my "opinion" but I wasn't meaning that statement as something that is quantifiably factual.
The UK press decided not to print them and they had in my opinion valid reasons not to do so. And doing that doesn't make them anti-free speech (IMO).
There is a battle between ideas in the west, mocking people for their choices and their thinking is part of that battle. It would be a massive advantage to any ideology to be excluded from the very effective form of critique which humour is. The problems which follow curtailment vastly outweigh the problems which free speech brings.
There is no basis for any religion to claim sanctuary. It is a personal choice and it is not evidence based. Once you grant one group sanctuary all groups will want it. Who decides which jokes are funny or offensive and which are allowed and which banned? It has taken hundreds of years to get rid of blasphemy laws and open religions to fair and open criticism. Religion is a call to a higher power which cannot be questioned and politicians love that, and flock to it like flies around shit.
Its a terrible idea to reduce free speech and the worst reason there ever could be for doing so is to protect religion.
No but it made them cowards and your support for their publishing decision making is duly noted for the future.
And he got proven to be terribly wrong about certain things.
At 0:53 he says "we talk about Iran, but it doesn't invade and occupy other countries (like US does)"
No, they don't. They only fund Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi Rebels and a bunch of other militant groups which they used to create religious proxy wars against KSA, Israel or anyone against their interests in the whole Middle East region. They are clearly better. Bravo, nailed it.
PS. That's not an endorsement of KSA policies. Same shit different wrapping paper. There's evidently no holier-than-thou powerful state in the Middle East. Everyone is working for their own interests and actively engaged in proxy wars against the others.
Then you sure lack awareness. It's the idea someone should be responsible for someone else's actions.
I don’t think we should just purposefully go around publishing Muhammad just to piss Muslims off. I do think it was in the public interest though to see what the fuss was about. I’ve seen the cartoons and really they were not that bad, it was the simple act of actually drawing Muhammad that was the problem.
Douglas Murray has a very questionable stance on many questions. (I get it; he makes a living for himself that way.) But, people should not be proud of reading him.
This final point is a major issue. Who decides what mocking is? Who decides what a "crude manner"? What is the punishment for this mocking? Who polices the criteria and behaviours that qualify? Where does this stop?
You can decide that someone mocking people or a belief as you describe is being an arse. You can call them so.
However, you can't enforce this with law and I can see no reasonable way to do so nor do I think it is ethically sound to try. I would consider any sort of blasphemy laws as entirely unacceptable, for instance, and I would expect no laws to be enacted that protect me from offence caused by my beliefs being mocked, insulted or even just critiqued.
Threats of violence, incitement to violence, etc, etc is a different matter but freedom from insult just can't be a legal right.
When I say it's opinion rather than fact I mean things like the above; professing to "know" the motives of Islamic leaders that condemn France. Throwing around lots of unrelated issues as if it was relevant. What does Muslim infighting have to do with anything?
Antisemitism is well known to be a misnomer. It applies to discrimination against Jews of European descent, but doesn't apply to Arabs, who are technically semites. So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's religious not racial.
Yes, majorities often discriminate against minorities, which is wrong, and is what I'm trying to condemn in this post.
There's no doubt a problem, but making it an "Islamic" issue, rather than a problem with radicalized elements, trying to tar everyonewoth the same brush and make the majority responsible for the acts of a small minority is unfair. Unless you feel comfortable generalizing because you think they're all the same.
Also opinion.
I really did not notice any, and would be glad to respond to any facts you point out.
I really can't be bothered to dissect all your BS as it's all been debunked before. You clearly do have an ideology, many of your points are awfully similar to white supremacist conspiracy theories such as the great replacement. Instead of being a coward and sugar coating it with fancy long paragraphs just come out and say what you really mean.
That's funny. I'd love to know who you're proud of reading. I want to read that
They really are. I actually do think acknowledging there's a problem and looking at leaders of any religion to set the right agenda, but blaming innocent individuals is just awful.
who wrote this, chris or osama edition
In that case we have a problem with the majority of muslims in any European country and with a lot of others who feel like bowing to that intolerant side of islam.
True, but which fear about islam we've seen in the past has turned out to be irrational?
That's not really relevant. In these matters we always get caught up in changing the subject from the society level to the individual level. I do speak with muslism regularly, but the reason I get to speak to them is the same reason they're not the problematic part of the muslim community. You could argue that the fact that many teachers and media don't want to show the cartoons is islamisation. The less than 2% isn't really reassuring with the percentages growing and continue growing even if any influx of muslims was stopped right now. It is true, the muslim community was much nicer when it was still under 2%, when they got up to 5% in any democratic society, they tend to get much more demanding. I believe if people feel the need to bow to islam or accomodate islam like they would not have done with any other religion that's islamization and that happens a lot. Micro-islamizations might be a fitting word in these times. I don't believe anyone fears full islamization any time soon, it's the continuous taking or giving inches that people are getting uncomfortable with and .
No, that's not true. Most phobia's are so weird you wouldn't have thought of it as something people would be phobic about. It's the irrationality that makes it into a phobia and that's why it's a misleading propagandistic term, used to silence criticism. There's also unfair criticism, but also that is no reason to call it anything but unfair. Criticism is something anyone or anyone with some power or behaviour has to deal with and there's no justification to label it beforehand or after.
If you're in a fight with other muslims in a muslim country, it doesn't help to say 'Well, France is France, they have freedom of religion and that's why muslims can practice their religion in the first place, so we can't have our religious rules there'. So a lot of the dynamic of claiming terribly hurt feelings and beeing deeply offended is for credibility as a muslim leader outside France.
Nonsense. There are several reasons why the word antisemitism has come to apply to jews only but it's simply a matter of observing who are and have been targeted by antisemitism. The nazi persecution was purely racial, people that even didn't know they were jew and were in christian or atheist marriages were taken out of their homes. In case of doubt they would measure skulls and noses. Religious Sephardic jews even tried to convince the nazi's they were from a different race than the Azkhenazi jews the nazi's started out with in Germany and scientists come up with the measurements, but the nazi's deemed them jew enough by their racial standards, just like anyone who was 1/8 jew. Are the nazi's antisemitic enough for you?
I hope not to make a controversial statement.
No not at all, but the fact is that islam is the force we have to deal with. You're the one who's broadbrushing here with your small minority, a majority actually wants their religious rule to apply to non believers to, that's pretty radical from a Western democracy perspective because it's an attack on both the freedom of religion and the freedom speech. From a worldwide muslim perspective, that's the norm. It's a pretty radical religion, it's the deradicalized elements we don't have enough of.
I don't hold moslims responsable for what other muslims did. But I'm contemplating, I haven't reached a conclusion yet, holding muslims responsible for making their religion adapt to Western secular society and prevent this tiny minority of radical elements threatening the freedom of religion they all enjoy. 'He was one of our mosque that beheaded a teacher, but I only preached hate like I'm paid for by Saudi's, I'm not responsible' is a bit too easy for me.
No you don't, otherwise you'd taken the opportunity.
I don't believing I held back in any way, and the usual insinuations by the labellers and the but brigade was expected. Anything not to have to come up with arguments. There's nothing secret about the EU plans for continuous mass immigration that, besides it's not the great replacement, it's not a conspiracy theory but just a plan out, in the open by unelected officials with disregard for the people who have to absorb them. That means a substantial demographic change, that wouldn't be a problem if they would all adapt and become like any other German, Frenchman whatever with their own different backgrounds. But we all know from experience that's not going to happen and the plan doesn't assume that, doesn't contain an effort but just don't cares. It's especially not going to happen with muslims the way things are now.
I don't have an ideology, I only have ideas. We've also kept catholicism on a tight leash for centuries because it posed a threat to others and had to be tamed. That was done without much harm and with respecting personal freedom of religion. We must not forget that freedom of religion is a right of citizens, not of the religion. The leas doesn't need to be that tight but the state could make sure the religion allows for the same freedom of religion it's followers enjoy. Freedom of religion can't be anything but reciprocal. I also believe it's justified to stop mass immigration of muslism until this is sorted out, preferably by European muslims themselves. Continuing to tolerate the intolerant makes no sense.
Any questions?
I do appreciate guys like yourself talking sense in here, for a sense of perspective and keeping me sane. Don't know how you stay so calm though when dealing with these chuttiya comments in these debates.
Shut up and do something..have you gone out ans started preaching you lazy nincompoop?
Long paragraphs and fancy sentences can’t conceal bigotry and racism.
I for sure think there is a wider point of discussion around what the Muslim community as a whole can do in rooting out and eliminating the more radicalised views within Islam, and more generally stop the radicalisation of Islam’s teaching. For in reality, no western government or people will be able to change the views of radicalised Muslims - those with the best chance are other Muslims themselves. I do feel the Muslim community as a whole could do more here.
But some of these other posts in this thread are just utterly ridiculous, nonsense and clearly bigoted / racist.
I for sure think there is a wider point of discussion around what the Muslim community as a whole can do in rooting out and eliminating the more radicalised views within Islam, and more generally stop the radicalisation of Islam’s teaching. For in reality, no western government or people will be able to change the views of radicalised Muslims - those with the best chance are other Muslims themselves. I do feel the Muslim community as a whole could do more here.
But some of these other posts in this thread are just utterly ridiculous, nonsense and clearly bigoted / racist.
To be honest it's easy to stay clam when the vile nonsense is not aimed at me.
This thread is just another one in the line of the current event threads on the caf where racists and bigots have happily come out in the open and shown what they truly are. It was the same in the George Floyd and other racism threads earlier. There's no difference in attacking someone due to their skin color or because of their faith and people coming out openly saying that it is okay to hate and put blame on millions of people having absolutely nothing to do with any of these crimes because they follow a particular belief is downright pathetic. There's no sugarcoating over it and it's simply these bigots making sure they tread the fine line in terms of the language being used to avoid any punishment when in reality it is simply no worse than someone saying all Muslims should be wiped out.
Have to imagine that if this is the state on a place like here which runs on multiple filters and quality control standards just how bad it would be out on open social media platforms. You can expect to be met with absolute hatred and vile abuse just by having a Muslim name as your social media handle. And theres people in here actively not just justifying that but literally campaigning for it.
Like @2mufc0 said earlier there's no difference between these guys and the extremists they pretend to fight against. Both simply feed off each other and keep this bloodshed going.
There is no Islamophobia though. It's a valid and rational fear. I'm convinced after reading funkpop
I've reported this post for excessive harmful disinformation, corruption of language for the purpose of discrimination and use of racist language.
For example you shouldn't be able to just say the following because you feel like it:
When referring to a widely acknowledged concept such as Islamophobia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Etymology_and_definitions This way lies racist revisionism. Islamophobia isn't just lefty wordplay, this is a recognised thing.
Furthermore I think these are two clear examples of racist imagery and bigoted generalisation:
I also think the arguments are risible but having a stupid argument is not against the sites policy as far as I'm aware.
If we want to keep the discussion going here, everyone needs to avoid hyperbole. In reality, we all know that people who commit acts of terror in the name of (any) major religion aren't representative of the vast majority of people who practise that religion. So, we're talking about a very small minority here, but nevertheless, it's a topic that obviously deserves debate.
Language is powerful and for some people, religion is a major part of their identity (I include myself in that group). There's no need to set out to offend just for the sake of it. Our disgust should be reserved for the murderers, not for decent law-abiding people who happen to have religious beliefs, even if the idea of religion is ridiculous to some of us.
Language is powerful and for some people, religion is a major part of their identity (I include myself in that group). There's no need to set out to offend just for the sake of it. Our disgust should be reserved for the murderers, not for decent law-abiding people who happen to have religious beliefs, even if the idea of religion is ridiculous to some of us.
There‘s a massive difference between somebody born with a specific skin colour and somebody who can freely choose what to believe in, which club to join, which party to vote for, etc.
You‘re not born a Muslim just as little as you are born a Democrat or a Republican. It‘s your choice, admittedly often forced upon you by your parents, but it‘s still a choice.
So, if I choose to join and follow the KKK, because I believe in their goals and stories, I should be somewhat accountable for their actions, no? Even if I don‘t personally kill somebody.
Pathetic in my eyes is the fact that people think they get to pick and choose for which elements of their religion they are responsible and for which they are not. It‘s the same holy book, isn‘t it? It‘s your religion, so get your shit together or distance yourself.
Your comments are becoming very hectoring on this thread. We've had plenty of Muslims post in this discussion to say they absolutely condemn what the terrorists are doing.
This latest murderer came from Tunisia via Italy, got to France and then immediately decided to kill 3 innocent Catholic worshippers who were minding their own business. What can any random British Muslim do about that, in reality, other than say it's wrong and it's wicked, and follow a peaceful path themselves?
Where I differ is in bringing in "offence" as something that sounds "objective". I don't think this is objective - and that's why I'm all for limitless free speech, regardless of subject. Now, on the religion aspect, my view is that anyone should be allowed to question material that is publicly available. Religious texts are freely available - and in many cases contain a lot of material so objectionable that a book containing such material would face censorship. I feel I'm well within my rights to criticize such content and also to ridicule anyone who then defends such content as the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving (and yet seemingly bigoted, sexist and genocidal) invisible being. I don't see this as "setting out to offend". I see this as simply stating an honest (and logical + factually true) opinion on publicly available and widely-circulated material.
Now, this could offend the less reasonable person. But then, most sane opinions could offend the truly devout. Take Scientologists; easily offended, but I've never heard anyone say we should avoid ridiculing / mocking thetans. I do agree that we should not tar people with a uniform brush. But I definitely defend the right to offend. What is freedom of speech if it does not include the right to offend - specially given that "offence" is so subjective anyway?
There definitely is a need to set out to offend just for the sake of it.
What I don't get is that no one is forcing people to go and buy a Charlie Hebdo magazine or forcing you to watch offensive cartoons of Muhammed. It's there in a obscure french satire magazine that I think barely anyone outside france had ever heard about untill they applied the same standard they have done to other religons which led to callings for them to be killed and they were. Find Charlie offensive? Well boycott them.
Penna, just condemning obviously isn‘t working. Hectoring is a nice way of putting it. I am seriously fed up of — at best — the passive condemnation of religious people — and at worst, the endless defensiveness of religion — that leads to nothing at all. I choose to make you feel unconfortable because nothing is happening. Nothing.
If I just sit back and trust in religions taking care of things themselves, we all know what is going to change. You point out yourself, and I‘m paraphrasing here: what can we do apart from follow a peaceful path ourselves
I claim you should — as a community, as a religion, as people who claim to know that a deity exists — do a — pardon my language — a shitload more. It‘s not enough, not by far.
And just to be clear, I have religious family and friends, who I love and treasure endlessly, who are fantastic, loving and caring people. But even they don‘t get through a meal with me without needing to come up with more than „what are we supposed to do?“
I’ve been reading this thread with interest and I think this needed to be said.
Criticism is one thing, ridicule is another and I would usually associate ridicule, when out in the open, be at the expense of someone or something.
I've been questioned about what I mean by the muslim community when suggesting they are the answer. I suppose I mean active practicing muslims, people who are deeply involved with their religion and peaceful. These people are the solution. I'm not blaming them, it's just me asking the people closest to the problem what can be done, it's the only way, reform from within.