It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The only constant I'm aware of with religions is that women and gays are considered as inferior. A "peaceful demonstration" with only men in the picture, actually hides a lot of violence. Because usually it does not mean they're all gays :), but rather that women are not allowed there.
I'm sure some of the people in that video in the audience were intelligent. However when he asked about stoning and death they almost all raised their hands (apart from the fella on the right in the front row). Devout religioius believers indeed.
However, it's quite irrational if they really thought about it. I've wondered how they reconcile this. This is what I'm curious about. I wonder how the speaker himself reconciles this - as he is the one who asked the question
Like the joke says "What is a moderate religious person ? Someone who removes the spare tire when he puts his wife in the truck".
The same applies to homosexuals, given prevalent views during that time.
Again, I'm interested in how otherwise intelligent people reconcile faiths that have these restrictive texts with their common sense. Unless they are conveniently interpreting the texts more loosely in certain cases in order to make sense of the world as it currently is, it is totally illogical to me.
The things religion teaches about communal values, taking care of and being kind to your neighbour and fellow man, being charitable etc. I can understand. Some of these other doctrines do not make logical sense in today's world, when we should know better.
Did I get this right though? Did they say 10 hours of walking? That's a long time. 1 minute (from the start of the first insult) to the last insult. Where was he walking exactly where he received the majority of the comments? Anybody know?
It seems that Paris has not come such a long way since the last big war.
In answer to the original question, yes, I believe it is likely that people belonging to monotheistic faiths have more potential to be intolerable, if their view is of a single god, and if that view is held firmly.
This could in turn cause more conflict with other monotheistic faiths because if one takes one's belief literally, it is really not reconcilable with other faiths of this nature, or with polytheistic faiths for that matter. There is greater potential for misunderstanding therefore.
This to me is a big concern. That is why I question people of this faith system (carefully) and try to probe to see if they can reconcile it. I've found a lot of passionate defense of their views, but an inability to logically explain themselves when probed (again delicately because most people don't like to be questioned on their religious beliefs and because many times I have noticed that they have not asked themselves this question - to consider the internal consistency of their views). Normally, I just ask once, observe the answer and let it go without digging deeper. I'm amazed at the conviction of the views however. People generally really hold to their view, even if it is illogical. I guess that is what it means to have faith.
I have found members of poytheistic faiths, when questioned, to be more able to logically (if that's possible with religion) explain other gods by suggesting that either they are the same god with different names, or that they don't worship them (but not deny them). There is an ability to be more accepting due to the concept of multiple gods within their faith.
So yes, I believe it is possible that monotheistic religions have the potential for more conflict due to the somewhat unyielding interpretation of the 'one god' concept. It depends on how rigidly one interprets it I suppose. I am not suggesting they are conflict driven. Just that greater potential exists. Sadly, I think the conflict statistics do confirm this theory (in that there is correlation if not causation). I can also imagine that the concept of 'chosen few' or 'chosen people' can also be offensive within these faith systems as it establishes a sort of hierarchy.. An outsider/insider thing.
I continue to be fascinated by the whole thing. The human condition and mind is amazing - for better or for worse.
Basically, I am an elitist. I never wanted to see myself that way, but because the world has shown me such stupidity as I could never have imagined, all I can think is that we as a species are 1/3 intelligent, 1/3 functional, and 1/3 dirt stupid. The dirt stupid are easy no matter what. Sway the functional with enough nice-sounding bulls**t, and all manner of control or chaos is possible.
:)) You think I'm being too generous here I take it? What would your ratios be, sir?
Seriously though, an uneducated society cannot possibly be a Democratic one. Which is, of course, precisely what TBTB have always wanted. The best way to maintain control is through the tried & true method of divide & conquer. Religion, threats to our way of life, issues of minority & female rights- these are great tools to those who use them wisely.
No small coincidence then why I hold TND in such high esteem- for all its arguable OTT failings its message is abundantly clear.
So in the end this video shows that if you go near (peaceful ? :) ) muslims with a kippa, you'll have a few antisemitic comment during a 10 hour walk. Big deal, we know religion is a strong basis for stupid behavior. But turning this into something as if Fox News was right about the "no go zones" in Paris, hmm.. ?
Anyway, from what I can see, French jews don't like much being patronized by Israel, I'm afraid such videos won't help.
PS : the paper that he wrote with the video
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/676/488.html
has some outright lies about the fact women in Paris wear the burqua "at every street's corner" !
PPS : in the paper he wrote that he walked not only in Paris, but also in the suburbs. But well it's less spectacular to call a Youtube video "a Jew in some suburbs of Paris" !
PPPS : and the biggest blow that you can check yourself : IMO, the very last "insult" is not "homo" (at 1:18), but ... "Marlboro". I can't hear "homo" anyway (furthermore, it is a weird insult nowadays in French), and I can hear distinctly "Marlboro" several times. These guys are selling illegaly some cigarettes, and propose some to him when he passes by. You can hear "Marlboro, Marlboro ... Marlboro". The fact that he let such an error in the video means he's not really dishonest, but really has some delusion... And well, for many other "insults", we can hear nothing clear. Very weird. I'm afraid he didn't got the insults he hoped for...
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm
That is why I'm always in favour of protection of minority rights. Some people talk about democracy and majority rule too loosely - minorities must be protected within that context.
If I may say, we have seen this concept play out here on this thread as well. The 'Jew in Paris' video for example. At first glance it looked terrible and the first set of comments were expressions of outrage (I hope that it was not because some of the perpetrators of the insults were muslims). Only when questioning did we realize it's a 10 hr scenario, of which we are only seeing 1 minute of insults, and then some were actually not insults. Not as bad as it initially looked, but not excusable either.
What I will add too is that everyone is capable of incorrect judgements and subconscious cognitive biases. That is not only a 'sin' of the religious.
If I say this to you, do you hear it ? If you think it's "homo", do you hear "homo" ?
I'd like to know if the lie/delusion is obvious or not to a non-French ear. Even to a French hear, if you look at the video with no earphones, the sound is so low that it's not obvious it's "Marlboro". Only the fact that "homo" is a super weird insult in French nowadays rings a bell - it's an insult from the 70s ! I'm afraid lots of people share this video without really listening to it. Some are even calling it '10 hours of insults in Paris', while it displays 5 insults mostly outside Paris ! "Funny" to use the propaganda tactics to denounce antisemitism...
Obviously this video would have had less impact if it was a full 10 hrs of playback with these incidents highlighted within that timeframe.
This is the power of video to create perception and impression.
I am not excusing what happened to him, but perhaps there is in fact an agenda here.
Just go at any "peaceful" protest for the Middle-East, you'll have antisemitic insults by the dozen...
For the anecdote, a TV show tried to do a similar experiment with black people in France (by using white actors, filming then, and then using elaborate make-up to turn them into black people, and filming then again), and the participants explained after they felt the producers cheated on them. They asked them to go back and forth at the same location until something happened, up to the point the people in the street thought they were undercover cops.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/18/kidnapped-tanzanian-albino-boy-found-dead-with-limbs-hacked-off
Ultimately we must educate ourselves, keep an open mind and be mindful of subconscious biases. Those who are less educated are more likely to not understand this concept (and are perhaps more likely believe deeply in witchcraft, superstition or religion?), or act, as you say, like babies.
However, even the very educated and mature can become violently passionate for the wrong reasons. I have observed that this is because of how they identify, whether it be with their country (patriotism), their race, their religion, their lack of religion (i.e. avowed atheist), their sex or whatever else. Anything that infringes on this sense of personal or collective identity can cause subconscious personal offense to them - especially if the one who perpetrates it is not like them, or how they self-identify. To those muslim people in the first video in the theatre, what was shown in the video caused them visceral offense because of how strongly they self-identify as muslims (they took it very personally as an offense and insult by an 'outsider').
I think this proves without a doubt that we are descended from the apes - we are essentialy tribal as a species. We must fight against this all the time. Darwin was right for those who believe otherwise.
I try very hard to identify as a 'human'. That's it. For me, this 'tribe' allows me to be as objective as possible when viewing the world, but of course, I will then have a subconscious bias against animals. We can't win :)