General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11351280/Scorning-the-Prophet-goes-beyond-free-speech-its-an-act-of-violence.htmlHere is an article by the Dean of the Cambridge Muslim College, one of the most influential Muslims in the UK and very much a "mainstream" figure, that I passionately disagree with, linked because I think it illustrates that the comforting suggestion that the way to take on extremist Islam is to encourage mainstream "moderate" Islam is misguided.
For reference, it's from the Telegraph which, while a respectable publication, is fairly far right, at least by UK standards; it's factual reporting is generally good but I would take anything you find in its comment and analysis section with an extreme pinch of salt.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)One thing is definite. If you allow the mocking and insulting of any religion, then you must allow it for all religions. The reaction of the members of the religion should not have a bearing on that decision. To not do so is to turn society over to mob rule.
Some of the images I saw by Charile Hebdo were deeply offensive, and I am not even a Muslim. I agree that in the U.S. they would have the right to publish such images, and I would back that right. I also would also call them out as being hurtful to many, and, at least in my social circle, would lead to ostracism.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Which ones and why did you find them to be deeply offensive?
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Orthodox Jew in a sloppy French kiss, nude Muslim woman, two individual and a triangle engaging in anal sex.
My own personal sentiments do not enter into whether they should be able to publish even in the U.S. You just won't find it on my bookshelf.
I think satire can be accomplished in more subtle and effective ways. Of course since I don't seek French I am only considering the images themselves.
My original question remains though. Is there anything deeply offensive enough to use the power of the state to prevent publishing. Equating Jews to vermin? Showing blacks as violent predators?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The details of the NSA spying program, for starters.
I see your point about the characters used in the cartoons, but I think you might not see or understand the context in which they were used, which were poking the eye of those that use those stereotypes seriously to promote their radical agendas.
Remember, it's satire.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I thought the sarcasm and satire was self-evident.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You raise a good and fair question. I would argue that the government should not prevent the publication of the examples you cited. It seems a dangerous precedent and slippery slope.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)engaged in a three way. Father Son Holy Spirit. It is a commentary on the anti gay actions, teachings and politics of the Catholic Church. Your description indicates that your opinions are not based on anything like an understanding of the cartoons.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Having a religon should be like having a pet dog. It is Ok to let it shed all over your house and crap in your back yard. It is not OK to let it shit on other people's lawns or on public sidewalks.
A human that does not follow a religon, is under no obligation to follow that religon's laws. I don't wear a T-shirt that treats the prophet, or any other religous leader, with disprespect. It is not because I respect these figurs, but because I think crapping on peoples ideologies is rude. I do not insist anyone else follow my ideas.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Moderation?
Hair stands on end. Suddenly ignites. Poof. Explodes with fire. Breaks into a lope. Circles the room. Hands waving wildly. Smoke trails follow. Fire alarms blare. Sprinkler systems rain down. Firemen batter down the door.
Chared remains are discovered.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I have no idea what you are saying, but it is a funny image.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Having my hair on fire over moderation.
Extremists seem the norm these days.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)murdered by the hundreds of thousands and tortured and imprisoned for years?
Do you think that such violent acts should just be accepted or would you expect, if you were to do such a thing, that some might react violently to such violence? And should reasonable people consider that likelihood of a violent reaction before engaging in behavior that is more than likely to evoke violence?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)are criminals of the worst sort who should be hunted down, captured alive if possible, tried, and if convicted, punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I think that people that walk into a store run by peole of a different religon and murder them because they are a different religon are vile criminals with no redemaing qualties. They should be hunted as above.
This is not about legal acts of war or reacting to legal acts of war or even illegal acs of war. It is about using murder to terrorize peole who do not share culture or a religon of the attackers and force them to follow the relgious requiremenst of the murderer's religion.
If such people can not be captured, then I think acts of war can be used to kill them on the battlefield. If a government sacntions such murders of the citiznes of another country, then a government is fully within the laws of war to make war against that country and destory their abiity to comit illegal acts of agression
A non-muslim is not required to show any respect for Islam if that is the non-mulim's choice. The same is true if the religon is Judaism, Christainity, Hinduism, Budhism, or here in America, Capitalism. I will also say aderants of those religons should be in no way, except through individiual choice, be requried to pay respect to their own religon.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Murder is always wrong, whether it is individuals or war criminals who are responsible. We have war criminals in this country but an awful lot of those screaming about murder seem very reluctant to admit that murder isn't excusabel simply because you are a leader of a country who lied to get your country to go murder people in a foreign land.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat the FACT that anyone who murders ANYONE for ANY reason needs to be stopped and tried and punished.
Did you think there was anyone here who didn't know that already?
I am not sure why you are calling Bush's war 'legal'. It was based on lies, all lies and it wasn't legal. Torture is not legal either.
The only way anyone screaming about murder can gain any kind of credibility that they really mean what they say is if they are consistent and admit that leaders of countries who kill for no reason, are murderers also. And that those acts can and do create more violence.
All murder is vile and wrong. Not just some of it.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The murders in France have nothing to do about invasions anywhere. Extremist religious fanatics murdered journalists because they satirized their prophet. Extremist religious fanatics murdered Jews in a Jewish business only because they were Jews.
In your post you made this a reaction to wars in the middle east.
The attack on Charlie was an attack on freedom of expression by would be tyrants that are trying to force people to follow their laws.
The attack on a Jewish store is pure religious bigotry and racial prejudice.
It was not about war, or reacting to war.
It is about far right wing religious extremist fanaticism.
Around here we get righteously pissed off at Republicans trying to create religious laws and force women into servitude and make homosexuality a crime. We should be at least as angry when religious extremist fanatics murder people as a means of terrorizing a population into following their laws.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)innocent Muslim's stores and Mosques though. Were those bigotry also?
Nor was I saying that the murders in France were about War. I have no idea what they were about. We in the US have decided they were about religion, however reading outside of this country where we do not have a real news media, there is doubt that they were about religion.
But that aside, my point was that we are so righteous here when someone else commits murder, but totally BLIND to the great wrongs we have done to millions of innocent people.
Iow, we are not exactly in a position to be that righteous. Not until we show that we are entitled to be righteous by holding our own murderous war criminals responsible. Screaming for justice somewhere while abandoning the Rule of Law here, only makes us look like hypocrites.
There was a bombing in this country of the offices of the NAACP. Few have even mentioned it. Why are we so interested in a mass killing in France when we have dozens of them right here and a Terror Attack on the NAACP?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)If you followed the news, you would know that Rance actually moved police ot guard muslim businesses, neighborhoods and schools, jewish businesses neighborhoods and schools and into many other places.
I am not responsible for reactionary idiots who lashed out at muslims. If they walked into a muslim business and killed people, they should be hunted just like the muslims that killed journalists and Jews.
We should not whitewash it because of what happened int he middle east.
I know about the bombings here and about the reported death of 2000 people in Africa at the hands of a Muslim Extremist guerrilla group, Boko Haram, who also kidnapped and raped school girls. I know about the Saudi's flogging a blogger and about Israel building settlements in the occupied territories and about right wing extremist jews beating women on busses because they are afraid the women will pollute their holiness. All this shit is wrong.
It is my opinion that the correct answer to any of these crimes is to hunt these people down, try them if we can capture them alive, and punish them in accordance with the law.
The wrong reaction, in my opinion, is to say, "But what about the terrible things Charlie said," and what about the support those Jews gave Israel, or what about the wars we pursued in the middle east.
Use the law to hunt down these criminals. If they are guilty punish them in accordance with the law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)criminals period.
Over 2,000 Muslims, they don't even know as they have had to stop counting there are so many bodies, were murdered by a rabid, criminal group. You said 'Muslims murdered thousands' but forgot to add who was murdered.
It is not a wrong reaction to point out how much time and energy is being spent by this country on a murder in another country, while ignoring a terrorist attack right here. France can deal with its own murders. The special interest in this has caused a lot of people to wonder if it is real concern over the tragedy, or another excuse for the warmongers of the world, note they were all there, but not in Africa showing solidarity with the thousands of victims there, to start more wars on 'terror'
So we will point out that while those war mongers were condemning a mass murder in France, they have yet to hold their own war criminals, guilty of many, many more murders, accountable.
Perhaps if they were present at every mass murder in the world, many of them right here, their 'sincerity' wouldn't be so much in question. Especially since those leaders are responsible for the many unnecessary wars for profit that have killed and destroyed so many, many human lives.
If you want to look at one aspect of this, that is your choice, I prefer to look at the whole picture especially when some things are glaringly hypocritical as many around the world are pointing out.
840high
(17,196 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Obviously.
Violence is the responsibility of the perpetrators. Violence as a response to verbal offense is a sign of weakness, in character and in faith.
Coventina
(27,172 posts)How does it harm your precious prophet?
He's dead. No "violence" can be visited upon him.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"Don't say this has nothing to do with Islam"
I found this through Maajid Nawaz's Facebook page. He's the author of "Radical: My Journey Out Of Islamist Extremism" and I have really been interested in his take on this and I just bought his book.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)forget it.
UTUSN
(70,744 posts)sakabatou
(42,176 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It is based on UK law, and cites relevant examples.
I don't agree with the conclusion, but it's not the "no such thing as moderate Islam" elixir.
I'd recommend people read the whole thing.
oneview
(47 posts)Wahhabism IS the Islamic Reformation.
Islam, even moderate Islam, is problematic NOT because there's something wrong with Muslims as people or because somehow Muslims are specially unsuited for progressive thinking and sweet human reason -- the problem comes from the original texts.
If Christianity's texts were are problematic as Islam's, Christians would STILL be burning people at the stake for heresy.
Just one illustration: Christianity sees Jesus Christ as God's Number 1 Special Dude whom we should model ourselves upon (the Imitation of Christ, etc.) Islam sees Muhammad as God's Number 1 Special Dude whom we should model ourselves upon....
With that in mind, look at this extensive Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
I don't think there's an equivalent article out there on the military career of Jesus.
Iggo
(47,571 posts)moondust
(20,006 posts)ChosenUnWisely
(588 posts)mythological IMHO, one is free to mock religion.
At one point in the time not all that long ago either, Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, etc... were all considered off limits to mock because they were gods.
Today Zeus and company are nothing but myths and feely mockable.
Modern religions figures are no different if the religious don't like it TS, get the F over it.
In the USA religion in public is mockable, don't like it one is free to move to a place that enforces religious law like say Saudi Arabia.