CharlieHebdo

1323335373845

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I completely agree that there is a difference between 'organized religion' (which has to some extent been maligned), and 'religion for the individual'.

    In its purest form (for the individual), I think religion has many merits. It attempts to help humans (who let's face it, are just ants in a complex, cruel, irrational world - there is no real way to explain rationally to a child who has lost all their loved ones in the 2004 tsunami, shortly after the devastation took place, for instance) find cathartic comfort and calm in the extremely stormy waters of life. It can be a sort of 'light dimmer' for the nerves if exercised and practiced properly. A pacification or stoicism switch.

    There is scientific rationale for this. A few examples are below:

    For instance, there are numerous studies that show that meditation is good for one's health. If done correctly (and that is a big 'if' because it's not as easy as it seems and takes great concentration and discipline), it can calm nerves, improve physical and mental well being and increase mental clarity. Once I learned more about this, I realized that prayer in its purest sense is a form of meditation. It shouldn't be so much about asking God for help (then it is being done incorrectly imho), but rather about periodically calming one's mind, accepting the inevitable vagaries of life, and looking for peace internally.

    Scientific studies have also shown that a communal belonging (whether marriage at the individual level, family at the slightly broader level, or societal at the even broader level) is also very good for health. People live longer and have happier lives if they have more of a sense of community and people to care for them, as well as people to care for. Again, religion can provide this by giving a kind community spirit.

    So this is where religion scores massive points as it were imho. Especially for those who are less fortunate in life, and don't have the opportunity to have a good education, so that they can understand what we're discussing here (which is reasonably complex and requires analytical minds that have time to contemplate - some people only have the chance to live life just to survive).

    Where it has failed is in the 'organized' and 'dogmatic' (rules based - i.e. do this or else or don't do this and then) element. This is where power comes in, and consequently abuse (in the form of willful misinterpretation and fear mongering). Manipulation also rears its ugly head. The same thing happens with Nationalism (which in its purest form is not a bad thing, and which can also provide that beneficial sense of belonging or community, which is a requirement for human beings).

    It's like any set up that confers absolute power, as @jobo said earlier. Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely, as the saying goes - and that is why religion, politics (also abused often, as noted by @SaintMark) and nationalism are such easy targets for exploitation. People generally have to be more aware of this and notice it when it is happening (which is often). It's not difficult to see when you are aware it can happen.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Then nothing potentially good coming from faith cannot be obtained from non religious means. And even if it does have soothing elements... it doesn't make its supernatural claims true. It's moral claims even less. Even if Jesus did walk on water, that brings nothing to the value of his doctrin.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Then nothing potentially good coming from faith cannot be obtained from non religious means. And even if it does have soothing elements... it doesn't make its supernatural claims true. It's moral claims even less. Even if Jesus did walk on water, that brings nothing to the value of his doctrin.

    I agree with you. He did not walk on water, I'm quite certain of that.

    The doctrine, dogma & rules that have come out of organized religion are problematic and damaging because they are quite likely to close the mind.

    The self-healing elements however are positive, and you're correct that they don't have to come from religion. However, practically speaking, in some societies, religion is the only way to provide anything of substance/wisdom (since education, economic opportunity and hope/sustenance are in short supply).

    As long as we have a capitalist world order where the few benefit themselves at the expense (including by pillaging the resources) of the underprivileged many, there will be a breeding ground for the wrong form or religion/ideologies to take root.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2015 Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    is it too much to ask for an explanation as to why God decided to kill around 3000 people a few days ago in Nepal. I always find it amazing the religion seeks to offer comfort at such times and many people flock to the church (or whats left of it) to pray but no discussion about why God created the earthquake in the first place.

    Lol
    jobo wrote: »

    It is a common myth it seems that religions claim their god controls every action or event on Earth. Some religious people believe this, yes, but not the majority.

    So a God just stands by with his hands in the air saying 'nothing I can do about earthquake'? What sort of god is that? Might as well pray to Michael Fish.
    bondjames wrote: »

    So this is where religion scores massive points as it were imho. Especially for those who are less fortunate in life

    Surely those are the very people who should be the least thankful to god?

    'Yeah nice one I've been served a shitty deal right from the off being born blind in a slum in Bangladesh. Now my parents have both died and I have to struggle to exist as a beggar. But lucky I've got my faith - thanks God for looking out for me. You really are a kind and benevolent guy who deserves my unwavering adulation because without you watching over me I'd be proper f**ked. Oh shiiiit here comes a tsunami!!! But I'm not worried I'm sure God will take care of me like he has so far.'



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »

    So this is where religion scores massive points as it were imho. Especially for those who are less fortunate in life

    Surely those are the very people who should be the least thankful to god?

    'Yeah nice one I've been served a shitty deal right from the off being born blind in a slum in Bangladesh. Now my parents have both died and I have to struggle to exist as a beggar. But lucky I've got my faith - thanks God for looking out for me. You really are a kind and benevolent guy who deserves my unwavering adulation because without you watching over me I'd be proper f**ked. Oh shiiiit here comes a tsunami!!! But I'm not worried I'm sure God will take care of me like he has so far.'


    The problem is if someone is in that position, they are less likely to be educated, have had the opportunity to think for themselves, or have any prospects, if at all.

    Some people who are down on it take to drugs or alcohol, some take to suicide, and others take to religion.

    I personally have no problem with the people in Haiti after the earthquake finding solace in religion for inner spiritual healing. They acted with dignity in the face of their unimaginable plight. I'm not going to judge them for that, and quite frankly, I'm happy I'm not in their position, because I don't think I would have acted so stoically if confronted with such horror.

    That's the 'faith' basis that gives you an inner calm. They're not thinking about it or analyzing anything (including whether Jesus did in fact walk on water) at that point in their lives. They're just existing from day to day and surviving. Religion gives them inner peace. Its value in that case is priceless and I won't take it away from them.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    patb wrote: »
    is it too much to ask for an explanation as to why God decided to kill around 3000 people a few days ago in Nepal. I always find it amazing the religion seeks to offer comfort at such times and many people flock to the church (or whats left of it) to pray but no discussion about why God created the earthquake in the first place.

    Lol
    jobo wrote: »

    It is a common myth it seems that religions claim their god controls every action or event on Earth. Some religious people believe this, yes, but not the majority.

    So a God just stands by with his hands in the air saying 'nothing I can do about earthquake'? What sort of god is that? Might as well pray to Michael Fish.
    bondjames wrote: »

    So this is where religion scores massive points as it were imho. Especially for those who are less fortunate in life

    Surely those are the very people who should be the least thankful to god?

    'Yeah nice one I've been served a shitty deal right from the off being born blind in a slum in Bangladesh. Now my parents have both died and I have to struggle to exist as a beggar. But lucky I've got my faith - thanks God for looking out for me. You really are a kind and benevolent guy who deserves my unwavering adulation because without you watching over me I'd be proper f**ked. Oh shiiiit here comes a tsunami!!! But I'm not worried I'm sure God will take care of me like he has so far.'



    No one ever said that being a Christian or a person of faith would be an easy ride. Quite the opposite in fact. To think of life in those terms is a fallacy I'm afraid. That's why few stick with religion when the going gets tough. There arises the need to blame God for what has happened. We all have our crosses to bear, just like the founding member of Christianity in fact.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I am just so far from religion that whenever I read comments like this, it just raises more questions that are never answered: what is a real religious person ? (as opposed to an unreal one?), why do humans have to do Gods work? why cant God do it himself? and which God? we know from the inspiration of this thread that terrorists are doing Gods work. What is working in the "real" World? I dont think anyone here has attacked individuals right to hold a belief, but there are just endless examples of that beleif impinging on the rights of others.

    like I said talk to religious people that actually have done the stuff they preached, hold the hand of a dying person who finds peace in his believes and faith. I do not have the answers for you neither do I begrudge you criticism as they are even correct, and it is not too difficult to critise the religions in their outward appearances.
    Am I religious, heck no, but I am very fascinated by the role it has played in our human history where a lot has happened due to religious reasons. Even when you consider that people rebelled against the learnings of faith they gave a worthfull addition to humanity's history. I am less interested in who or what God is and what he can do for you.

    Before you can establish what God can do, you'd need to establish if there is a God or not. For all comfort and hand holding, human actions have a direct influence over this world, not prayers. You don't treat cancer with prayers, you don't feed people with prayers. Someone can claim he is inspired by God but that gives us zero clue for God's existence or indeed his nature.

    Not to mention that a religious person is genuinely religious whether he is good or not. The missionary who feeds starving Africans is no more religious than the member of the Westborough Baptist Church. Or the Islamist who kills infidels.

    there is so much we do not know as humans and there is so much we do believe in like the WMD in Iraq, we went to flipping war over it remember.

    Who God is or what he is does not matter, which religion would be right in that case.

    What exactly the power of prayer is I do not know but it must have some power otherwise it would have died out millenniums ago, because people keep doing it.

    I said talk to a person that because of his faith has gone to places and really tried to make a difference, like our current pope he is closer to the people because he has lived with them and understands them even if they have different values. Religion is not all about the book but as well about the choices you make in your life and how you implement them.

    as for the Westborough chapter they are not religious they are haters, they are everything their holy book does despise they themselves are too blind to see it. I would not mind if Obama would send that whole chapter to the middle east to protest IS, I am sure they will make a difference, it would for us.
  • Posts: 15,125
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Then nothing potentially good coming from faith cannot be obtained from non religious means. And even if it does have soothing elements... it doesn't make its supernatural claims true. It's moral claims even less. Even if Jesus did walk on water, that brings nothing to the value of his doctrin.

    I agree with you. He did not walk on water, I'm quite certain of that.

    I don't think he did either, but that is entirely beside the point: even if he had, even if he did all the miracles the Gospels claim he has done, even if he was born from a Virgin and resurrected... It would not give a bit of credibility to his teaching.
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I am just so far from religion that whenever I read comments like this, it just raises more questions that are never answered: what is a real religious person ? (as opposed to an unreal one?), why do humans have to do Gods work? why cant God do it himself? and which God? we know from the inspiration of this thread that terrorists are doing Gods work. What is working in the "real" World? I dont think anyone here has attacked individuals right to hold a belief, but there are just endless examples of that beleif impinging on the rights of others.

    like I said talk to religious people that actually have done the stuff they preached, hold the hand of a dying person who finds peace in his believes and faith. I do not have the answers for you neither do I begrudge you criticism as they are even correct, and it is not too difficult to critise the religions in their outward appearances.
    Am I religious, heck no, but I am very fascinated by the role it has played in our human history where a lot has happened due to religious reasons. Even when you consider that people rebelled against the learnings of faith they gave a worthfull addition to humanity's history. I am less interested in who or what God is and what he can do for you.

    Before you can establish what God can do, you'd need to establish if there is a God or not. For all comfort and hand holding, human actions have a direct influence over this world, not prayers. You don't treat cancer with prayers, you don't feed people with prayers. Someone can claim he is inspired by God but that gives us zero clue for God's existence or indeed his nature.

    Not to mention that a religious person is genuinely religious whether he is good or not. The missionary who feeds starving Africans is no more religious than the member of the Westborough Baptist Church. Or the Islamist who kills infidels.

    there is so much we do not know as humans and there is so much we do believe in like the WMD in Iraq, we went to flipping war over it remember.

    Who God is or what he is does not matter, which religion would be right in that case.

    What exactly the power of prayer is I do not know but it must have some power otherwise it would have died out millenniums ago, because people keep doing it.

    I said talk to a person that because of his faith has gone to places and really tried to make a difference, like our current pope he is closer to the people because he has lived with them and understands them even if they have different values. Religion is not all about the book but as well about the choices you make in your life and how you implement them.

    as for the Westborough chapter they are not religious they are haters, they are everything their holy book does despise they themselves are too blind to see it. I would not mind if Obama would send that whole chapter to the middle east to protest IS, I am sure they will make a difference, it would for us.

    Our current pope is better at PR than the previous one, who was really a despicable man. But our current pope also blamed the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. So as far as I'm concerned... He can clean the feet of people attending mass all he wants, he still talks like a bully and seems to espouse might meets right of religious fanatics, at least to a degree. Oh and he did practice exorcism. So for all his progressist mask, he is pretty much as backward as any other devout Catholic.

    And the Westborough baptist Church are religious. Fred Phelps was actually a very good Biblical scholar, he just took the Bible literally... as the word of God! yes they are haters, but both are not mutually exclusive.
  • Posts: 7,653
    true, one has not to be a religious person to hate.
  • Posts: 15,125
    SaintMark wrote: »
    true, one has not to be a religious person to hate.

    I think this is a dig at me, so let me get this clear: there are good people who are religious. I don't hate an hypothetical, non existent God. I don't hate religious people per se. Not even their faith. But I do think one can be morally justified to hate a few things: obscurantism being one of them, fanaticism too.

    And I will say something controversial, but I don't care, it is backed up by facts: the good people who are religious have to be at some point good people in spite of the dogmas of their respective faith. They have to cherry pick and thus disrespect the tenants of their faith. This is why the Westborough Baptist Church are "good" Christians: they pretty much accept the Bible in its entirety. They are just more rude about it. Their position on homosexuality, for instance, is essentially no different than the one of the Catholic Church. And it is not being hateful to call Christians on that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    I hate the sin, not the sinners.
    But hate is a sin...
    Wait-
    :-S
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    true, one has not to be a religious person to hate.

    I think this is a dig at me, so let me get this clear: there are good people who are religious. I don't hate an hypothetical, non existent God. I don't hate religious people per se. Not even their faith. But I do think one can be morally justified to hate a few things: obscurantism being one of them, fanaticism too.

    And I will say something controversial, but I don't care, it is backed up by facts: the good people who are religious have to be at some point good people in spite of the dogmas of their respective faith. They have to cherry pick and thus disrespect the tenants of their faith. This is why the Westborough Baptist Church are "good" Christians: they pretty much accept the Bible in its entirety. They are just more rude about it. Their position on homosexuality, for instance, is essentially no different than the one of the Catholic Church. And it is not being hateful to call Christians on that.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    true, one has not to be a religious person to hate.

    I think this is a dig at me, so let me get this clear: there are good people who are religious. I don't hate an hypothetical, non existent God. I don't hate religious people per se. Not even their faith. But I do think one can be morally justified to hate a few things: obscurantism being one of them, fanaticism too.

    And I will say something controversial, but I don't care, it is backed up by facts: the good people who are religious have to be at some point good people in spite of the dogmas of their respective faith. They have to cherry pick and thus disrespect the tenants of their faith. This is why the Westborough Baptist Church are "good" Christians: they pretty much accept the Bible in its entirety. They are just more rude about it. Their position on homosexuality, for instance, is essentially no different than the one of the Catholic Church. And it is not being hateful to call Christians on that.

    NO dig at you at all, people do hate and it is not necessary to have religion involved. For instance the more I read about the Nazi movement with Hitler the more I see greed, evil and hate for those that are different [gypsies, handicapped, coloured, Jewish, Arab, different political minded], but mostly blind greed. And there seems to be nothing of religion being involved.
    Like WWI & the Boer wars in South Africa which were cruel and dirty wars and it all had to do with power & money. There was a lot of hate fuelled by gree involved, and in the case of both blind patriotism. You did know about the concentration camps by the British aimed at a systematic killing of Boer families in Africa, I presume. There has never been a real justification or outcry against that happening.
  • Posts: 4,617
    To justify the effectiveness of prayer because people still do it is mind boggling in its "double speak" and is a prime example of how religion or those who support it have zero respect for evidence and will twist any situation an an effort to explain. "Witch burning must work...other wise people wouldn't do it" "Astrology must work..otherwise people would believe in it" "Homeopathy must work otherwise people wouldn't practice it" etc etc. Anyone with any sort of respect for straight forward thinking can see that justifying the effectiveness of prayer because people still pray is double speak. One evidence based experiment that is of value is: comparing the death rates of religious hospitals where the staff, patients and relatives pray for the health of the ill compared to secular hospitals where they rely purely on the skills of the staff and the drugs etc....: no difference! so either God ignores all of the prayers and lets the patients die anyway, he is powerless to help so the prayers are a waste of time or, heaven forbid, there is no God,
    on a personal note , my wife had a friend who is a passionate Christian and used to live in Nepal. One day, she found a baby left on her doorstep. He had been born with brain damage. Local doctors and NHS doctors all agreed that there was nothing that could be done for the poor chap and he had around 2 years to live. A mass campaign was set up to pray for this guy to live. Letters, blogs, website, special gatherings etc. Thousands of friends, colleagues and churchgoers prayed their hearts out for this guy to recover....sadly, he did pass away after around two years. Why did God not answer the prayers? "it was Gods will", go figure
  • Posts: 15,125
    @SaintMark- Not all haters are religious. That said, antisemitism in Nazi Germany was partially based on religious hatred and centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Nazism was not a godless ideology.

    @patb- Like I often say, if prayers worked, we would know about it. Hospitals would be empty and churches full
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    At the end of the day one can have one of two philosophies:

    1. One can believe that there is a master plan and a higher being looking over all of us and guiding us as a people/world, as Abrahamic religions in particular do to varying degrees (some ridiculously so, including believing they are essentially superior to others and even chosen). In addition though, some religions/philosophies are more broad based and not so dogmatic/doctrinarian, but rather more spiritual in the purest form (e.g. Buddhism)

    2. One can believe that life is essentially random and there is no guided plan except what we make for ourselves. However, one realizes still that the world is subject to mathematical truths and probablistic outcomes (e.g. if you walk in front of a car, you're more likely to be hit, but not necessarily so - and certainly not as part of a master plan).

    Now, I can understand the uneducated in the world (including in many underprivileged countries with limited opportunity) gravitating to the former ideology, since they can't understand probability and have not had the opportunity for mathematical training.

    I have a more difficult time comprehending why educated people in Western countries in particular call themselves religious and believe (subconsciously and consciously) in a higher power. Shouldn't we know better after all the advances we have made as a society?

    I have come to the conclusion that it's because we, as humans, really do need to feel that we're special. It's part of the human condition - and the human ego.

    If there was no master plan......if there was no one looking out for and over us.......aren't we all then just irrelevant? An interesting existential question.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 4,617
    spot on, there was a good documentary on BBC last month about the Voyager project. As Voyager 2 left this solar system, it turned it's camera back on Earth and photographed it is a tiny weeny blue dot. Carl Sagan, atheist and all round clever guy and NASA advisor, used this to try to show we are just floating about on a tiny tiny tiny rock that's still cooling (as was confirmed in Nepal this week), we are not the centre of anything, Earth is pretty meaningless and we are pretty meaningless beyond the meaning we allocate ourselves. The human race seeks to "Big itself up" rather than deal with the reality. If, for some reason, we were wiped out, would it make the tiniest of difference on a cosmic scale? no, not one little jot. This basic fact freaks many people out and that's when religion kicks in. "Its all about me, all about us, all about him". Religion is utterly useless in placing us within the real context of the cosmos.
    "If you take a 5p coin and hold it 75 feet away, the space in the sky it would obscure would hold 10,000 galaxies. It's mindblowing." Prof Brain Cox
    Its no co-incidence that no one has managed to establish a new religion within modern times when we know about the cosmos. All the main religions concentrate on us and our relationship with God. They were never accountable to the bigger questions concerning all the other stuff that's out there
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Speaking of prayer. Every Friday in every mosque, imams lead their congregation in prayers for us non-believers to burn eternally in Hell. Why is that not considered hate speech? Calling them out on it is. The absurdity of it all...
  • Posts: 7,653
    Speaking of prayer. Every Friday in every mosque, imams lead their congregation in prayers for us non-believers to burn eternally in Hell. Why is that not considered hate speech? Calling them out on it is. The absurdity of it all...

    We "Christian" society are an odd 50 years away from exactly the same behaviour....... lets have some perspective.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @SaintMark- Not all haters are religious. That said, antisemitism in Nazi Germany was partially based on religious hatred and centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Nazism was not a godless ideology.

    Nazism was a ideology based upon greed, the only God they had was Adolf himself, and they used the Jews like many other societies before them as a scapegoat simply because economical they were a very rich group and despised for it. Not an difficult job to blame them after the economic troubles between the two big wars.
    The amount of self enrichment that went on under Nazi occupation was incredible and the distance the went to get it is sickening. Pulling gold teeth out of dead peoples mouths has nothing to do with religion but with sickening greed.

  • Posts: 15,125
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @SaintMark- Not all haters are religious. That said, antisemitism in Nazi Germany was partially based on religious hatred and centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Nazism was not a godless ideology.

    Nazism was a ideology based upon greed, the only God they had was Adolf himself, and they used the Jews like many other societies before them as a scapegoat simply because economical they were a very rich group and despised for it. Not an difficult job to blame them after the economic troubles between the two big wars.
    The amount of self enrichment that went on under Nazi occupation was incredible and the distance the went to get it is sickening. Pulling gold teeth out of dead peoples mouths has nothing to do with religion but with sickening greed.

    Actually, no, Nazi Germany was a Christian society. Priests were blessing the fuhrer at Mass and praying for him, they had "Gott Mitt Uns" written on the buckles of their belts. Hitler never renounced his Catholicism, although it is debatable whether he was religious or not (Himmler on the other hand was a practicing Catholic.) He may have been the object of a god-like cult, the Church in Germany was sycophantic towards him. And Nazi Germany built their antisemitism on centuries of religious hatred for the Jews. It was not solely religiously motivated, a lot of it was downright racism, but there was religious elements to its antisemitism. As there is now in Islamic antisemitism.

  • Posts: 15,125
    And to avoid turning this into another WWII debate, and to get back to the original topic, I loved Salman Rushdie's recent intervention about PEN's tribute to Charlie Hebdo, which was shunned by some authors, again blaming the victims: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/salman-rushdie-pen-charlie-hebdo-peter-carey
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And Nazi Germany built their antisemitism on centuries of religious hatred for the Jews. It was not solely religiously motivated, a lot of it was downright racism, but there was religious elements to its antisemitism. As there is now in Islamic antisemitism.

    Indeed. Just as there is now racism and centuries of religious elements to Islamophobia. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

    I encourage everyone to closely read the link that @Ludovico posted and form their own opinions. I am personally in agreement with Andrew Solomon's view in that link.

    Also, regarding the authors - it's their right not to participate if they so choose as well. Freedom of expression works both ways and they should not be insulted publicly for it by Rushdie.
  • Posts: 4,617
    It seems strange to me that authors, whose very job it is to express themselves, to not support freedom of expression...but there you go. With hindsight , the original issue re Rushdie and freedom of speech should have been dealt with much better by our government. The threats he received were serious and deadly and an obvious pre-curser to the Hebdo murders.
  • Posts: 15,125
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And Nazi Germany built their antisemitism on centuries of religious hatred for the Jews. It was not solely religiously motivated, a lot of it was downright racism, but there was religious elements to its antisemitism. As there is now in Islamic antisemitism.

    Indeed. Just as there is now racism and centuries of religious elements to Islamophobia. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

    I encourage everyone to closely read the link that @Ludovico posted and form their own opinions. I am personally in agreement with Andrew Solomon's view in that link.

    Also, regarding the authors - it's their right not to participate if they so choose as well. Freedom of expression works both ways and they should not be insulted publicly for it by Rushdie.

    Rushdie called a spade a spade. The authors who refused to give the award to Charlie Hebdo are blaming the victims, plain and simple. It is their right, but they can be criticized and call on.
    patb wrote: »
    It seems strange to me that authors, whose very job it is to express themselves, to not support freedom of expression...but there you go. With hindsight , the original issue re Rushdie and freedom of speech should have been dealt with much better by our government. The threats he received were serious and deadly and an obvious pre-curser to the Hebdo murders.

    They do, they just think there was an excuse for the terrorists to murder. Like, you know, France failed to accept them and made them feel vulnerable or something. CH had the right to make fun of everyone, but you know, they didn't have to trigger the anger of those poor mocked religious minorities. And I will also add that this woman got raped because she showed too much cleavage.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Rushdie called a spade a spade. The authors who refused to give the award to Charlie Hebdo are blaming the victims, plain and simple. It is their right, but they can be criticized and call on.

    I disagree. They can be criticized (that is freedom of expression) but not insulted ("pussies"), as he did. That's crossing the line. His tone is not acceptable. They have their reasons and they are entitled to them. The tone of the discourse is critical to getting your point across without offending and he, as a so-called intellectual, should know that.

    As I said, I agree with Andrew Solomon's point, but let me post it here so it can be seen clearly:

    Solomon said that PEN distinguished between the right of free speech and much of what Charlie Hebdo actually published. “The award does not agree with the content of what they expressed,” he said, “it expressed admiration for that commitment of free speech.”

    He compared the controversy to PEN’s inclusion of Pussy Riot at last year’s gala, saying that the Russian activists’ “content is in many instances juvenile, and many people had felt that remove large parts of your clothing in an Orthodox church was offensive, but in standing up to the Putin regime they did something worth admiration.

    “If we only endorsed freedom of speech for people whose speech we liked that would be a very limited notion of freedom of speech. It’s a courage award, not a content award.”
  • Posts: 15,125
    Rushdie did retract the word "pussies" later. They still blamed the victims. Which is even worse! It certainly is cowardly.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2015 Posts: 9,117
    .
  • Posts: 4,617
    Just watching the news where the Head of the Army is giving a special reward to a mosque in Greenwich for fighting Islamic extremism. Weird, IMHO, they they are being rewarded for doing something that everyone should just do anyway. As though we are relieved, grateful and thankful that more of them have not turned to violence. A strange scenario.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Just watching the news where the Head of the Army is giving a special reward to a mosque in Greenwich for fighting Islamic extremism. Weird, IMHO, they they are being rewarded for doing something that everyone should just do anyway. As though we are relieved, grateful and thankful that more of them have not turned to violence. A strange scenario.

    It's to be commended imho.

    Mainly because they have made the distinction between extreme radical or criminal activity & loyalty to one's religion or faith.

    The perpetrators of extremism in this case are also of Islamic faith, as they are, but the mosque is choosing to fight this extremist element and stand up for the moderate side. Truly commendable.

    Now, if we can just get politicians, nationalists and other religious people to do the same (eg. call out your own when they are clearly wrong) we'd have a better world. Fraternity style loyalty is overrated.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actually, no, Nazi Germany was a Christian society.

    Yes, and for instance they had to swear to God to enter the Nazi administration and so on, etc. The irony is that you can throw "Stalin" at the face of atheists, but no, it's not enough, the Christians want to have the Nazis too thrown at the face of atheists. I'm really surprised by the number of people who think that Nazi were strongly atheists (actually, atheist groups were forbidden, religion was considered a ground of morality). And then once you live in a parallel world were Nazi are atheists, you've got to jump on the mumbo-jumbo bandwagon that negates the religious antisemitism, and justifies it by "the economy stupid". Yeah, nothing to do with "They killed Jesus", nothing irrational !
Sign In or Register to comment.