Je Suis Charlie

[Strazdas]

look, when people kill other people on the basis that those people are "immoral" and then start listing the same, highly specific reasons over and over, don't even try to pretend that it's not connected back to religion somehow, none of this shit happened as much as it did after the church took over, same as radical islam when they forced progressive leaders out of power, before that it was pretty normal

of course people have their own agenda, but they feel more empowered as part of a mob mentality and find it easier to propagate their goals when they have religion behind them, just think of how hard it has been for civil rights all these years, do you really think that religion just had a minor role in that, where do these ideas come from and how do they tie back into the present day

how do you think putin rose to power, and why is it that his campaign to solidify his power specifically focuses on weeding out made up corruption from people that the church singles out for condemnation

I dont agree. deah sentence for mass murderers is a highly specific reason that is punishment for immoral act (murder) over and over again. yet it has nothing to do with religion. Not all killing is religion based.

Im not one to defend religion (i believe all religion should go away as it is damaging to society) but lets not blame it for things it hasnt done. Plenty of "this shit" happened even before Putins law or churchs help. they are not the initiators here. Meanwhile when it comes to radical islam - thier religion is the reason.

Putins rise to power is very simple really - corruption. Russia is a plutocracy, and putin is the face of all the oligarchs. The reason he stays in power is due to fraud elections. last elections, remmeber the tolley? 60% voted for Putin. 60% out of 140%. yeah, if you added all of % up you would get 140%.

So, is it a minority? Yes. But it is a significant minority.

Thank you for this post and sources.

 

[awesomeClaw]

I suppose you're right. Can't draw any conclusions about underlying sympathies or feelings, nope, none at all. Just like you can't claim that there was underlying anti-semitism in Germany when the nazis were voted into power. I mean, it was like, their third or fourth election? No conclusions can be drawn. Too many variables.

Exactly my point. When the Nazis were voted into power, they got around 18 percent of the votes, during a time of great turmoil known as the great depression. At most, before banning parties and passing laws that turned Hitler to a dictator, they got around 30 percent voter support. And they got many of those votes by promising to fix the economy, to save Germany from communism and to restore law and order from military skirmishes in Germany (that his party actually instigated). That is, not necessarily because the German people wanted to kill the jews. The anti-semitic rhetoric was rarely stated outright, but implied and insinuated throughout their campaign.
Hitler did, in fact, not have the support of most of the German people. Most of the German people were ordinary people just like you and me who just wanted to get through the day.
Funnily enough, Hitler has many times outright stated that the Nazi part is a Christian party, and that he would not tolerate attacks against christianity. By your logic, the Vatican should probably have tried to change christian culture to make sure people weren't attracted to the nazi army..

Of course Islam can inspire some people to power through hard times and help people. Just as it can inspire people to take up the sword and slay the infidels. Things are not always all bad or all good. Islam has potential for good - but it (currently) has far more potential for harm.

That's simply inaccurate. You can't actually be saying that a belief system held by way over a billion peaceful people has "far more potential for harm". Because if you do, you might as well say that western society can both inspire people to lead good productive lives as well as to pick up the drone and slay the 'terrorists'.

Muslim culture = how religion is viewed in society, how the holy scripture is interpertated, how non-muslims are viewed... That may not be constant across all muslim nations(far from it!) but most have serious enough problem(20-99% support sharia) that a culture change is neccesary.

So, by that reasoning, it might just as well be political, national, international, socio-economic or other problems. Not necessarily religious ones. Besides, 'Sharia law' means different things in different places, and "islamist" is nothing even bordering on a united movement. Besides, an expression of passive support far from militant extremism.

What's preposterous are your wild accusations. He got one number wrong, a number that's very easy to get wrong if you're compiling statistics. He used those numbers, combined with many others, to prove that the issue is not related "to a small minority", because IT ISN'T.

I broke it down for you a few posts ago. If you have put together the details of his statements like a puzzle to even understand what he's talking about, he's basically gotten everything wrong.
Wrong numbers attributed to the wrong thing for the wrong election. All to support an point and an insinuation that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

There are many thing that permeate almost the entire muslim world. The approval of Sharia, for example. And the like of Muhammed. And the importance of god, etc etc. The reason he didn't say that, was because they were talking about Islam, and that Islam still hasn't fully abandoned the whole "women below men" thing(not that we have), but in muslim countries it's more pronounced. That's what he means.

Exactly, he's singling out a global aspect, attributing it to 'scary foreigners', insinuates a connection between them and then lets paranoia and confirmation bias do the rest. Classic propaganda technique.

The Islamic Golden Age is not at all comparable to the Enlightenment. Where, in the Islamic golden age, did they arrive at the conclusion that secularism is the best? Point me to a muslim philosopher from 1000 B.C who said that women should be equal to men, that religious influence in the civic life needed to be limited, and that democracy was a superior system of government.

It's right there in the link:

"Perhaps the most significant feature in the Fatimid era was that freedom which was given out to the people and liberty was given to the minds and reasons. Man may believe in whatever he likes provided that he may not infringe other rights. Fatimids reserved separate pulpits for different Islamic sects, where the scholars expressed their ideas in whatever the manner they liked. Fatimids gave patronage to scholars and invited them from every place, spending money on them and neglecting what they believed in, even though it was against the beliefs of the Fatimids."


Also, there's this guy called Muhammad that maybe you've heard of.
"And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed."
http://quran.com/4/124

Pedophilia and christianity is not related. That seems to be difficult to understand.

Not anymore than extremism and Islam. They are separate things that occur separately for different reasons.

Being against abortion and being a christian, IS related. Being an islamist and being a muslim, IS related.

But being against abortion is not exclusive to being a christian. And being an extremist is not exclusive to being a muslim. Ergo, the problem is not with the religion, but with the extremism.

There sure is. Those people are dumb. Tell me an organisation in Sweden which has a similar motive, and consists of more than 1% of the population. And no, saying "Those dang racistfascistislamophobe Sweden Democrats", isn't going to cut it.

Oh, so THOSE people are just "DUMB"? NOT caused by a set of beliefs shared by billions of people? Interesting...

So a racist party in parliament isn't good enough for you for some reason? Even though their electorate is most obviously signified by being xenophobic? And also, for an equally strange reason, only in Sweden?
Fine, how about the fact that about 14 percent of people in Sweden support government sanctioned murder.
http://fof.se/tidning/2013/3/artikel/dodsstraff-pa-fallrepet

So the book, in which Hitler wrote down all his plans for both Germany and the jews, and which everybody(granted, after they were voted into power, but you could still read it before that) were forced to own, was not enough for us to conclude that German culture may have had a problem with Anti-semitism? There's still "too many variables" for any conclusion to be drawn from this?

Also, when Hitler said he was a christian, that was a big fat lie to get public support. He several times stated that christianity was "a religion of the weak", and that he was "a strong believer, but not christian"

Of course Western Culture can inspire people to do horrible deeds? But that's significantly more rare, at least in Europe(America is still fucked in this respect, what with the religious extremism and biblethumping)

It doesn't matter what they think Sharia actually means, you do realize that? They're saying they want the holy scripture to be law. It doesn't matter what they believe the holy book says, what matters is that THEY DON'T WANT STATE AND RELIGION TO BE SEPERATE. THEY WANT AN ISLAMIC STATE.

He was obviously referring to the 2012 election. That 50% voted has no real bearing on anything, and he didn't say anything that would conflict with that - he said, ordagrant: "Eller Egypten, där 50% röstade på muslimska brödraskapet." He didn't say "50% of the population" he said 50%, which I interpertate as 50% of the voting populace. Granted, he made a slight error, and that was a mistake on his part, which makes things seem worse than they are.

E-hum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Super secular state, bro.


Abortion was a poor example. Let's take the crusaders as an example instead. Are you saying that christian culture didn't contribute to creating the holy warriors of old? It was just middle-age extremism, completely unrelated to christianity?

Of course those people are a result of christian culture! I've said nothing else. Their hatred for gays and abortion are directly caused by the potential for harm in christian culture.

I don't think the Sweden Democrats are racist. Therefore, I have no objection to them being in parliament. You don't have a sole right to define things you don't like.

Limiting it to Sweden was stupid. I apoligize. There are more than enough Christian Extremist Factions in the world, and those are caused by christian culture. But most of the really bad extremism is in unenlightened countries, Uganda and the like. The good old fashioned "moderate" christian extremism in the form of anti-abortion and the like, is pretty weak in Europe. With exceptions, of course, Spain is currently considering very harsh anti-abortion laws. And that's terrible, and an expression of faults in christian culture.


P.S You can base an argument for the death penalty on other things than "cuz the bible says so". You can't base an argument for Sharia/Islamism on anything else but "the quran says so" or, maybe, "The quran is such an amazing book we should all follow it", which is basically just the first argument in a secular disguise.

 

[cathou]

I'd really rather not be Charlie, except in the very broadest sense of the term. Sure, it's necessary to support them as far as "free speech" and all that, and any loss of life is tragic. But after seeing their work, I can safely say that in any other circumstances, they'd strike me as a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic, racist assholes. Being a "satirist" who "makes fun of everyone" doesn't insulate you from being that, and kind of makes you a terrible satirist besides.

Sure, they weren't doing anything that deserved death, but there is no inherent conflict between "I think you're horrible" and "you didn't deserve to be victimized." Frankly, even seeing this as a "free speech" thing is kind of missing the point. 12 satirists weren't killed by Islamic extremists over cartoons. They were killed to try to make the extremists look like a necessary evil to a group of Muslim civilians who otherwise consider them nothing but violent lunatics.

what exactly did you saw about their work ? you look upon a bunch of front pages without the context ? Have you actually read Charlie Hebdo once ? You say that you look upon their work ? when ? today ?
you know that Charlie Hebdo exist Under this current form since 1992, and before that in the 60's and the 70's ? three of the cartoonis that have been murdered were above 70 years old and have been doing this for several décades. You do know that it's a roughly 16 pages newspaper, with about half text, half cartoons, that they highly critize religion for opposing homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. that they go more often after politician than religion. They have been sued 14 times by the catholic Church and they have won 14 times.

They didnt not make fun of everyone just for the sake of it, they had a message Under that. they were taking position against religious intervention into politics, against the politician when they messed up, for the people in general. in no way they were misogynistic, racist or homophobic, unless you base your opinion on someone who didnt knew charlie hebdo a week ago, and that decide from a bunch of drawing what Charlie was...

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, I don't always like what you guy put out (and sometimes it's a little too left wing extremist for my taste) but this one was perfect. Absolutely perfect. No words were needed other than the ones on Erin's shirt. Nothing else needed to be said. This cartoon was perfect. Perhaps the best you guys ever did in a way.

Great work, guys!

snip

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

snip

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Aw, man, you were doing so well in the fist response and then you had to go on and ruin it. Let me point it out for you:

Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit ... it should be destroyed

See the hypocite you made yourself out to be? Religion is not the problem. Ignorance, hate and needless violence are the problem. You CAN argue with the religious - a lot of people converted from one religion to another. Augustinus, one of the most influential Christian thinker, actually went through many religions before settling for christianity. Who you can't argue with are the ignorant, the fantatical and those of sick mind. Following a religion implies none of it and if you belive so, you are the same as those you hate. Want to know what religion gave us? Ethics. The western culture is basically christian ethics filtered through Descartes. It also gives art, culture, sense of belonging and hope. Not for everyone, but there are those who can't get it anywhere else.

One last thing: if you think religion was the REASON for wars and without it there would be no confilct, you are sadly mistaken. Religion only ever served as a flimsy justification, because "go die so I can haz moar moniez!" is not the best of rallying calls. As long as humans are greedy, hateful, violent and suscetible to mental instability, there will be war and there will be crazed assholes with guns shooting innocent people.

Apologies for making this look like a post in RnP.

+1

I am so glad you said this. I really wanted to say the same thing. And I think you said it as well, or even better than, I would have. Thank you. Too many people spout out that sort of nonsense without seeing their own prejudices and hypocrisy. So thank you for showing that there are some of us who are not blind and are reasonable people.

 

[webkilla]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

 

[Lunar Templar]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

sniped again

Freedom of expression will endure this, and end with even more staunch support then before, and probably lead to a new wave of Terrorist hunting. Cause you know the authority's are gonna wanna find they're buddy's before they can do anything.

In the end though. Nothing will have changed. Freedom of expression will remain intact, and unmolested. Terrorist will continue to exist, and no one will do anything to actually try and address the issues that lead people to becoming Terrorists, and will instead continue to do things to inspire more Terrorists to be created.

So you'll have to forgive me if I see these deaths not as 'tragic' but 'pointless' and as something that will really only another gear in the cog that keeps this cycle of hate we're stuck in going.

and why shouldn't I laugh at that?

I have a very simple rebutal to your question there:

I find your blaze attitude towards the people who lost their lives offensive. Does this mean I am allowed to murder you?

I'll be sitting here laughing quietly, awaiting your response

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

First, it's 'blasé' not 'brazen'

Second, your posturing about a 'cycle of hate' rings a bit hollow when you seem to be finding any way you can of being combative and aloof.

 

[Lunar Templar]

First, it's 'blasé' not 'brazen'

Second, your posturing about a 'cycle of hate' rings a bit hollow when you seem to be finding any way you can of being combative and aloof.

It's Brazen over here. I've also been said to have a 'cavalier' attitude.

And I'm kinda of an asshole by nature, so its to be expected.

Asshole or not though, doesn't change that he's missing the point, like a lot of people seem to be. Which I'd say is sad, but 'missing the point' seem to be every one's issue these days.

 

[chikusho]

So the book, in which Hitler wrote down all his plans for both Germany and the jews, and which everybody(granted, after they were voted into power, but you could still read it before that) were forced to own, was not enough for us to conclude that German culture may have had a problem with Anti-semitism? There's still "too many variables" for any conclusion to be drawn from this?

You can draw plenty of conclusions. One of them, for instance, is that the majority of the German people were ordinary people who did not want to partake in any conflict or exterminate any people. People who simply wanted to find a way to survive and protect their families. Just like every other place in the world, the Islamic nations included.

Also, when Hitler said he was a christian, that was a big fat lie to get public support. He several times stated that christianity was "a religion of the weak", and that he was "a strong believer, but not christian"

Exactly! He didn't even need to be christian. He just needed to say that he was christian so that people would follow him. If only the christian church had changed their ways so that people weren't attracted by the nazis!

Of course Western Culture can inspire people to do horrible deeds? But that's significantly more rare, at least in Europe(America is still fucked in this respect, what with the religious extremism and biblethumping)

Yeah, it's quite common that countries that aren't ravaged by war have way lesser horrible deeds taking place in them. Western countries just exploit the poorer countries which leads to horrible situations, where poverty and desperation leads people to do horrible deeds. Ultimately, western culture has the possibility to do some good but (currently) they have far greater potential for harm.

It doesn't matter what they think Sharia actually means, you do realize that? They're saying they want the holy scripture to be law. It doesn't matter what they believe the holy book says, what matters is that THEY DON'T WANT STATE AND RELIGION TO BE SEPERATE. THEY WANT AN ISLAMIC STATE.

So what you're saying is that if a utopian system was created from religious law where everyone was happy and prosperous, you'd want to stop them purely out of principle?

Abortion was a poor example. Let's take the crusaders as an example instead. Are you saying that christian culture didn't contribute to creating the holy warriors of old? It was just middle-age extremism, completely unrelated to christianity?

Yeah, exactly. Christianity was not the cause of the crusades, it was an excuse to wage war. To gain military, political and economic power as well as conquer enemies and gain territory.

Of course those people are a result of christian culture! I've said nothing else. Their hatred for gays and abortion are directly caused by the potential for harm in christian culture.

So, even though the pope himself has welcomed gay people into the church, it's still christianity's fault that those people hate homosexuals? People all over the world has hated homosexuality for all sorts of reasons, including (but not limited to) completely different faiths, yet that's what's at fault.
I guess you also think it's christianity's fault that people join christian based suicide cults, like Heaven's Gate and People's temple? I mean, it couldn't possibly be the sociopathic and manipulative people using dogma to exploit other peoples weaknesses, it has to be the bible.
The Rwandan genocide? Couldn't possibly be a cause of colonialism, poverty and increased ethnification of the population. Has to be bible.
The Irish war of independence? That was a war between mainly catholics and protestants. So, naturally, the Bible.
Palestinian terrorism? Couldn't possibly be Israeli occupation and the loss of their homeland. Has to be the quran.

Etcetera, etcetera. Don't you see how utterly nonsensical it is to pin conflicts on one single (at best) tangentially related aspect? An aspect that has also proven by a large margin to be a greater force of good, and has produced a huge amount of incredible people who are working every day to make the world a better place?

 

[webkilla]

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

Nah - it was actually "blasé" I was looking for. My french isn't that good.

That said, I think you missed the point as well: You seem very calm about the fact that there are people out there who think "If you offend my sensibilities, then its ok for me to murder you"

That's the larger picture.

Now answer my question: Your blasé attitude towards the deaths of these people offend me. Does this mean I get to murder you?

 

[Lunar Templar]

first of all

It's 'brazen' not 'blaze'.

Second, kudos on missing the point entirely, that, and still being to hung up on this non issue to see the larger picture.

Nah - it was actually "blasé" I was looking for. My french isn't that good.

That said, I think you missed the point as well: You seem very calm about the fact that there are people out there who think "If you offend my sensibilities, then its ok for me to murder you"

That's the larger picture.

Now answer my question: Your blasé attitude towards the deaths of these people offend me. Does this mean I get to murder you?

ah, French, that would explain it.

Actually it's not.

You and every one else are so stuck on 'being able to do something' that not a single one you have even stopped to think if you 'should be doing it' to begin with.

That, and your mistaking what amounts to 'trolling' as 'heroism'. A real hero is some one who actually goes over to some place like the Middle East, or parts of Africa to teach, or bring medical aid. Some one actually DOING something in these places to make a REAL difference, and improve the quality of life in those area's even though they could very well end up dead because of it.

 

[awesomeClaw]

So the book, in which Hitler wrote down all his plans for both Germany and the jews, and which everybody(granted, after they were voted into power, but you could still read it before that) were forced to own, was not enough for us to conclude that German culture may have had a problem with Anti-semitism? There's still "too many variables" for any conclusion to be drawn from this?

You can draw plenty of conclusions. One of them, for instance, is that the majority of the German people were ordinary people who did not want to partake in any conflict or exterminate any people. People who simply wanted to find a way to survive and protect their families. Just like every other place in the world, the Islamic nations included.

Also, when Hitler said he was a christian, that was a big fat lie to get public support. He several times stated that christianity was "a religion of the weak", and that he was "a strong believer, but not christian"

Exactly! He didn't even need to be christian. He just needed to say that he was christian so that people would follow him. If only the christian church had changed their ways so that people weren't attracted by the nazis!

Of course Western Culture can inspire people to do horrible deeds? But that's significantly more rare, at least in Europe(America is still fucked in this respect, what with the religious extremism and biblethumping)

Yeah, it's quite common that countries that aren't ravaged by war have way lesser horrible deeds taking place in them. Western countries just exploit the poorer countries which leads to horrible situations, where poverty and desperation leads people to do horrible deeds. Ultimately, western culture has the possibility to do some good but (currently) they have far greater potential for harm.

It doesn't matter what they think Sharia actually means, you do realize that? They're saying they want the holy scripture to be law. It doesn't matter what they believe the holy book says, what matters is that THEY DON'T WANT STATE AND RELIGION TO BE SEPERATE. THEY WANT AN ISLAMIC STATE.

So what you're saying is that if a utopian system was created from religious law where everyone was happy and prosperous, you'd want to stop them purely out of principle?

Abortion was a poor example. Let's take the crusaders as an example instead. Are you saying that christian culture didn't contribute to creating the holy warriors of old? It was just middle-age extremism, completely unrelated to christianity?

Yeah, exactly. Christianity was not the cause of the crusades, it was an excuse to wage war. To gain military, political and economic power as well as conquer enemies and gain territory.

Of course those people are a result of christian culture! I've said nothing else. Their hatred for gays and abortion are directly caused by the potential for harm in christian culture.

So, even though the pope himself has welcomed gay people into the church, it's still christianity's fault that those people hate homosexuals? People all over the world has hated homosexuality for all sorts of reasons, including (but not limited to) completely different faiths, yet that's what's at fault.
I guess you also think it's christianity's fault that people join christian based suicide cults, like Heaven's Gate and People's temple? I mean, it couldn't possibly be the sociopathic and manipulative people using dogma to exploit other peoples weaknesses, it has to be the bible.
The Rwandan genocide? Couldn't possibly be a cause of colonialism, poverty and increased ethnification of the population. Has to be bible.
The Irish war of independence? That was a war between mainly catholics and protestants. So, naturally, the Bible.
Palestinian terrorism? Couldn't possibly be Israeli occupation and the loss of their homeland. Has to be the quran.

Etcetera, etcetera. Don't you see how utterly nonsensical it is to pin conflicts on one single (at best) tangentially related aspect? An aspect that has also proven by a large margin to be a greater force of good, and has produced a huge amount of incredible people who are working every day to make the world a better place?

Alright, I can sort of see what you're getting at.

Let me rephrase myself -

Islam is not the sole cause of the problems in the middle east. I didn't think this before, I don't think it now. But it is a significant part of the problems and especially the extremism. The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in the Quran tells us that. You couldn't, for example, become a Human Rights extremist and commit genocides and find support for this in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It isn't possible.

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence. Thereby not said every muslim is violent, or that Islam is the only problem - it is, however, part of the problem, and perhaps a very central part.

Also - I am always opposed to religious law becoming the law of the land. A secular state will always be superior to a non-secular.

 

[webkilla]

ah, French, that would explain it.

Actually it's not.

You and every one else are so stuck on 'being able to do something' that not a single one you have even stopped to think if you 'should be doing it' to begin with.

That, and your mistaking what amounts to 'trolling' as 'heroism'. A real hero is some one who actually goes over to some place like the Middle East, or parts of Africa to teach, or bring medical aid. Some one actually DOING something in these places to make a REAL difference, and improve the quality of life in those area's even though they could very well end up dead because of it.

You do not consider it brave to ignore death threats and keep up doing political and religious satire?

Here's a protip: You say its useless simply making fun of stuff. I fundamentally disagree.


Satire, criticism, and being able to question the logic, validity and reasoning behind things like politics, religion or any kind of organized system that institutes policies that can function like dogma, is incredibly important.

In the early 20th century people who questioned the fairness of business tycoons paved the way for more fair more worker conditions, the abolition of child labor, and the legalization of workers unions in the west.

If you weren't allowed to question these things - as well as make fun of those who did cruel things in that period - you wouldn't have had that change happen.

And yes: I do conflate the right to question those with power to making satire and parody. Satire and parody is basically asking the question "doesn't this look silly?" - hell, the Daily Show with John Steward is the very essence of that, especially since its often played painfully straight without even twisting facts or reports to make them sound more funny: The humor comes in looking at what politicians, businesses and even religious individuals did and then simply asking the question "Wait, isn't that a bit silly?"


You say the only truly heroic thing would be to take up arms and shoot the people take offense to your actions. Right. How has that US foreign policy worked out for getting peace in the middle east for the last 12 years? Worked out great, right?


The whole bloody point of satire and parody is to reveal the folly of those who do stupid things. When it comes to political or religious satire the point is often "Isn't this silly? Are you sure you want to support this kind of dogma or political philosophy?"

When I draw prophet pictures - and I do once a year, may 20th - I do it for that very reason: I do to subtly show "I can do this - and you might not think you can, but you can see that I can, and I'm living quite happily... maybe your life choices could stand to be re-evaluated"

I don't need to take up arms and shoot people to change things. I can do it through satire, parody and simply making people think. If you think you can only change people through violence... then I pity you even more than I did to begin with.

 

[chikusho]

Islam is not the sole cause of the problems in the middle east. I didn't think this before, I don't think it now. But it is a significant part of the problems and especially the extremism.

So, again, the problem isn't Islam, it's extremism. And extremism is caused by many things, like for instance oppression. Or having your home destroyed and family murdered. Or having yourself, your skin color, your people, your faith, and the faith of your entire homeland attacked and demonized by the rest of the world. Because such attacks, and such demonization (like, for example, the Sweden Democrats creating Islamophobia through disingenous statements and twisting facts) clearly show you that the world is against you. So why should you care about the rest of the world?

The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in the Quran tells us that. You couldn't, for example, become a Human Rights extremist and commit genocides and find support for this in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It isn't possible.

The simple fact that so many people kill others/themselves and find support for it in X tells us that people will use whatever means necessary to find support to kill others/themselves. The fault is not and has never been the quran. Most everyone who kills another does so because they think it's the right thing to do. If they don't interpret scripture in a way that supports their actions, they will interpret according to the constitution, ethical codes, social norms or twist the situation into a perspective where their actions make sense. That has nothing to do with Islam; it has to do with people.
The bible, the quran and your average law book contains both explicit rules against killing as well as situations when killing is justified.

Also, sure you can. You just have to convince yourself and other using a utilitarian code of ethics that a group is bad enough that they have to die if Human Rights are to succeed.
By the way, ever heard about Sam Childers?
https://handswideopen.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/why-supporting-sam-childers-aka-the-machine-gun-preacher-is-a-very-bad-idea/

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence.

Nope, not Islam. People. Here's proof: people who are completely disconnected from Islam kill each other and justify those acts with things outside of the quran. Therefore we can conclude, the quran is not what is causing people to kill each other.

 

[Lunar Templar]

sniped for being to damn long.

Yes, because the Teachers and Medical experts I was talking about, the ones that are actually more dangerous to these kinds of people then any standing army are totally armed and shooting back. *slow clap for twisting words*

And, hows all that Satirical blasting of politics going in the US? oh wait ...

Poking fun at something will never be nearly as effective as some one going in and addressing the real problem. Not with a gun, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, that's only good for the assholes that are to far gone, but by actually taking the time to discover the root of the problem and go after that. Kinda hard to convince some one that there's nothing else for them but to die for their god, when they have options to the contrary.

and being a smart ass in some studio some where isn't going to get those results, anybody that really cares about the issue at hand will have already know about it and started taking steps to actually make potent and lasting changes for the better.

 

[maninahat]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

This article is so fucking stupid... I don't even know where to begin.

I wanted to comment on how stupid it was on the actual page, but I couldn't figure out how... so now I'm making myself content with making this comment no one will read.

Fuck that Jacob guy. He's an idiot.

How is it stupid? I think it is a legitimate point to make that, although no one should be murdered over cartoons, the cartoons in question were racist (or at least xenophobic, if you're the pedantic sort who points out that islam isn't a race, whilst ignoring how Muslims in these cartoons are always depicted as a stereotype Arabs). Therefore, replicating the racist art work as an act of solidarity isn't a good idea; it accidentally condones racism.

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

 

[lionsprey]

So Islam must have some elements that can act as a gateway to violence.

Nope, not Islam. People. Here's proof: people who are completely disconnected from Islam kill each other and justify those acts with things outside of the quran. Therefore we can conclude, the quran is not what is causing people to kill each other.

technically thats bad logic as the assertion isn't that only the quran causes killing. a better counter argument would be pointing out the people that read the quran and don't kill others.

OT
too bad about the deaths but i can't say it came as a huge shock, muslims killing people over satire ain't exactly a new thing.

 

[maninahat]

I wanna drop this here: Not all Muslims are terrorist, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslim.

Is that a fact? I don't think so. [http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/] Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Islamic terrorists get a disproportionate amount of media representation, which is largely responsible for this view that most terrorists are muslim.

 

[webkilla]

sniped for being to damn long.

Yes, because the Teachers and Medical experts I was talking about, the ones that are actually more dangerous to these kinds of people then any standing army are totally armed and shooting back. *slow clap for twisting words*

And, hows all that Satirical blasting of politics going in the US? oh wait ...

Poking fun at something will never be nearly as effective as some one going in and addressing the real problem. Not with a gun, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, that's only good for the assholes that are to far gone, but by actually taking the time to discover the root of the problem and go after that. Kinda hard to convince some one that there's nothing else for them but to die for their god, when they have options to the contrary.

and being a smart ass in some studio some where isn't going to get those results, anybody that really cares about the issue at hand will have already know about it and started taking steps to actually make potent and lasting changes for the better.

You seem to imply that poking fun at something isn't the same as addressing the real problem. Again, I point to the Daily Show.

They were pretty damn good at raising awarenses of anything from political, to enviromental, to religious topics - by making fun of it.


Hell, thanks to the daily show a whole generation of young men and women have basically learned about politics and all kinds of things - in a time where there's basically nothing else trying to educate common teenagers about such otherwise boring topics and succeeding.

Tell me that's not effective. We can argue what its effective at - but I need only remind you of my previous points that satire can have profound, far-reaching and thought-provoking topics... the trick is that by presenting them in a humorous way people are more open to taking such information to heart.

information presented in a fun way is remembered far better than information presented in a standard news format. Satire and parody falls under that - and is often used to shine a light on idiosyncratic things in life. As a means of political commentary, or commentary on arcane religious dogma, this is a perfectly valid way of spreading such ideas and views.