CharlieHebdo

1353638404145

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    3. Yes, I don't expect religion to have any extra layer of protection against insult. I never said otherwise. However, the discussion needs to be rational and intelligent. I don't count satire as that - not at this point in Islamic history any way. .

    I'm sorry this statement leaves me rather confused. You say you are as 'interested in the next person about reducing the hold of organized religion on society' but you single out Islam not to be made fun of? What is this if not appeasement? As @Ludovico says satire alone cannot change anything but is still a useful tool and dont we have a duty in a free society if we find something unacceptable to hold it up to scrutiny and ridicule?

    There is a time and a place to be satirical and to mock. There is also a time to lecture. You don't lecture someone who is grieving for instance. People are extra irrational at that point (remember how the Dixie Chicks & Bill Maher were lambasted post-911 for things that people will look back on now and say they were right). Remember Freedom Fries (cough!). What about Freedom Toast (puke!).

    So, my point is, for maximum impact, a soft touch is required at this point, since as I mentioned before, muslims the world over (including the non-radical, peaceful ones) may be feeling particularly sensitive at this point in their history, what with oppressive Western backed dictators finally being evicted (Arab Spring - which came from within and they should be very proud of) only to be replaced with others (Egypt), massive Western bombing campaigns and occupations on and off for the last 25 years, looking the other way while that human prison on Earth, Gaza, gets smashed to bits every 3 yrs or so with massive life-loss, and internal strife (Sunni/Shia rivalry) within the religion as it is. There is a time and a place to 'stir the pot' with satirical works, and my suggestion is that now is probably not that time. Simple observation.

    By all means, be critical. However, do it in a smart way if one wants to change people's minds. We don't need to give the radicals something else to coalesce the masses around. We want to separate the radicals from the masses.
  • Posts: 7,653
    bondjames wrote: »
    By all means, be critical. However, do it in a smart way if one wants to change people's minds. We don't need to give the radicals something else to coalesce the masses around. We want to separate the radicals from the masses.

    This is indeed what we must do, and the civil war raging among the various religious fractions in the middle east welcome our Western weapons and our recruitment for them by bombs and blasphemy towards their deity. Which is by all means your right but not always the intelligent way to go.

    The Sovjet Union could not stamp out religion in their country, and believe me they did really try hard. And now the religious power in Russia and their various parts is more powerful than they were before 1917. I concur with @Bondjames when he says that taking the religion out of people is a difficult road that has happened in Europe after a very prosperous economic period that did benefit everybody into schooling and freedom as well. People like religion for some reason and I generally tend not to mock their believes even if I remain skeptical and critical of the institution church.
  • Posts: 15,105
    But "freedom fries" and "freedom toasts"were not satire. They were attempts to apply newspeak. That were mocked and ridiculed by the way. Even if they could be considered satire it's the right to satirize we defend. Not its particular quality. You now say it is legitimate. You said before it was not the way to go as it was an appeal to emotion. Implying I think satire and mockery was fallacious. now it's ok as long as there is a time and place. I think when someone claims to hold a transcendent and universal truth, it's time to mock and satirize. Like when you say you hold the keys to heaven since a Jewish rabbi gave them to a Jewish fisherman two thousands years ago. Or when you say your prophet is so sacrosanct he can't be pictured. If you're as self-righteous as you are petty you deserved to be laughed at.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But "freedom fries" and "freedom toasts"were not satire. They were attempts to apply newspeak. That were mocked and ridiculed by the way. Even if they could be considered satire it's the right to satirize we defend. Not its particular quality. You now say it is legitimate. You said before it was not the way to go as it was an appeal to emotion. Implying I think satire and mockery was fallacious. now it's ok as long as there is a time and place. I think when someone claims to hold a transcendent and universal truth, it's time to mock and satirize. Like when you say you hold the keys to heaven since a Jewish rabbi gave them to a Jewish fisherman two thousands years ago. Or when you say your prophet is so sacrosanct he can't be pictured. If you're as self-righteous as you are petty you deserved to be laughed at.

    You misunderstand me. I was using the example of Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast, as well as the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher incidents to show how a nation in grief, or a people who are suffering/in fear, are not rational. Freedom fries was not intended as satire. It was what politicians wanted to call French fries in anger at the French for not supporting the Iraq War. It was not meant in jest. Same goes for Freedom Toast. They were serious when they came up with those names. It is idiotic upon reflection, but was not so at the time to some intelligent people. I used these examples to show how people (in this case, the US) can overreact when they are feeling threatened and others (in this case, the French) do not cooperate or appear to be combative.

    I've said many times on this thread that context is important. The middle east muslim population is feeling particularly aggrieved at present. I have given examples in my last post. Much is of their own making, but much is not as well. If you think mocking/satire is the right way to address them at this traumatic turning point in their history, and think it's productive, then go ahead. I don't think it is. They are likely to overreact and not get the point.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,622
    @ludovico arrives at the pearly gates

    Saint Peter says, " are we are ever glad to see you, God's in a state, you've convinced him he doesn't exist. But it's ok, in the meantime, we have a capable stand-in, that Sean Connery fellow, we've used him several times in the past, when God takes his annual leave from runing the universe.
    The heavenly throne fits old Sean quite nicely. Grumpy sort, but the faithful are very taken with him, so we've got that covered .
    In the meantime, we have this 2 mile high stack of books for you. God needs you to thoroughly review and refute them all, complete works... of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Chesterton, St Paul's letters, Tolkein, sermons from that Keyvan guy and countless others...take your time we have eternity....in fact...you can join your friend @dragonpol there....he'll be here a while too...God's a Bond fan and he wants those 200 or so essays that Draggers teased on his popular blog - NOW!..........some of those titles very much intrigued the big guy.
    speaking of he seems to be enjoying his state of non-existence....and everyone of course is quite taken with Sean on the throne, so we're good for now.
    Where's @timmer you ask.....you won't be seeing him for a while...seeing..as he disappeared off the radar for so long.....no one quite recognized him when he turned up..........Anyway.....as he seemed real eager about fighting the good fight and all....he wouldn't shut up , as a matter of fact....we gave him a little sword...and some spiritual armour...and kicked him back to earth......we've got him buzzing around,...annoying the hell out of the poor demons trying to do an honest days corrupting......making a real nuisance of himself we hear.....
    Excuse a moment.....Yes?! @nicnac? what would you like?, or sorry, @benny is it? These moderator types all look alike......More Dom you say? Coming up!!
    Benny and nicnac of course were fast-tracked immediately to Heaven VIP area. God, whether, he's existing or not-existing that day, really likes those guys that keep order, and keep the rabble respectful..saves him a lot of work.
    In fact all your old mod friends are hanging out here. They're with the Bond Girls....God's not stupid....the Bond girls have automatic full VIP access, heavenly creatures afterall...except for that Yo Momma one.. Poor God kept telling her it's God the Father, not God the Momma. But Pierce put in a good word for her, so God relented...speaking of the Bond actors......they're all here too...except that Laz guy... he's in and out...what's his deal?....says he had a better thing going at Piz Gloria.....petulant...very high on himself...wants his own digs on top of a moutain with death angels. or something...but minus the Bunt woman. No problem there actually, she's in the other place with the cat guy and the fat bastard gold hoarder...but.we told him...sorry wrong place...no death angels here.
    Oh look at poor Sean, that Dalts and Craig pair keep trying to take his throne....when he wanders off for a round of golf.Not going to happen though.
    Ah, Sir Ian? One of your biggest fans...ludovico...is here...yes of course he'd like an autograph...but he's got to run along...lots of work we have for him, but please do go see Sean,--yes he's on his throne-- he was asking for you, wants to reminisce about the good ole days hanging about on the DN set with Ursula and Sister Rose and Sister Lilly.
    Out of Dom, are you? Go see the mods, they've got lots.
    That Ian! God's a big fan...really liked the few scraps and nods that Ian tossed his way in the books.
    God's always showing off that little bit in LALD, where Bond "prayed to God" when he was dead meat bobbing in the water with Solitaire. God of course answered immediately and blew Big and the big boat to bits. He told Ian, you are not killing him off that easy. Go write some more books. 14 or so should be enough...don't want 007 working beyond mandatory retirement age.
    Ahh, here's @chrisisall....doesn't think we can keep order. Ha! We've got mods to spare!

    All right off you go, Luds! No no, not that Luds....he's over there listening to his devil music...God made an exception for him...being a Mod and all..but normally none of that noise gets past the gates....So off you go. get reading and typing...we know you're fast on that keyboard.
    Ah here's @wiz and @thunderfinger..... feisty as ever....God really doesn't really know what to make of these two .but they'realways good for a laugh.. and on both Existing and Non-existing days.

    "Nic Nac!? More Dom? Again?!...What, Bollinger this time you say?!,, OK,where's Saint Rog and that Saint Mark...the one that reads three books a day.......anyone that reads that much, we had to let in...minimum fuss and muss...anyway Rog liked him...loyal fan of his old show. Those two are always loafing about.....and that @BondJames guy too...tell them to bring over a couple more cases of the good stuff...this is heaven for God's sake...we don't run short.....What? Bondjames is busy writing message board posts...another one? Isn't that 100 already today ..oh never mind...leave him alone....he's happy....let's get that champagne up here...chop chop...we've got a heaven to run!!! O:-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ^ Haha! Is that a genuine prophecy?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    3. Yes, I don't expect religion to have any extra layer of protection against insult. I never said otherwise. However, the discussion needs to be rational and intelligent. I don't count satire as that - not at this point in Islamic history any way. .

    I'm sorry this statement leaves me rather confused. You say you are as 'interested in the next person about reducing the hold of organized religion on society' but you single out Islam not to be made fun of? What is this if not appeasement? As @Ludovico says satire alone cannot change anything but is still a useful tool and dont we have a duty in a free society if we find something unacceptable to hold it up to scrutiny and ridicule?

    There is a time and a place to be satirical and to mock. There is also a time to lecture. You don't lecture someone who is grieving for instance. People are extra irrational at that point (remember how the Dixie Chicks & Bill Maher were lambasted post-911 for things that people will look back on now and say they were right). Remember Freedom Fries (cough!). What about Freedom Toast (puke!).

    So, my point is, for maximum impact, a soft touch is required at this point, since as I mentioned before, muslims the world over (including the non-radical, peaceful ones) may be feeling particularly sensitive at this point in their history, what with oppressive Western backed dictators finally being evicted (Arab Spring - which came from within and they should be very proud of) only to be replaced with others (Egypt), massive Western bombing campaigns and occupations on and off for the last 25 years, looking the other way while that human prison on Earth, Gaza, gets smashed to bits every 3 yrs or so with massive life-loss, and internal strife (Sunni/Shia rivalry) within the religion as it is. There is a time and a place to 'stir the pot' with satirical works, and my suggestion is that now is probably not that time. Simple observation.

    By all means, be critical. However, do it in a smart way if one wants to change people's minds. We don't need to give the radicals something else to coalesce the masses around. We want to separate the radicals from the masses.

    Sorry but I'm not prepared to be so understanding of their whining as you. Probably why I've never made it in diplomatic circles.

    I think there are two different angles here. One is our foreign policy towards Islamic countries and there is certainly much we can improve on rather than our heavy handed tactic of just bombing them into oblivion which is helping no one. The other are things at home like Charlie Hebdo and where that is concerned, I'm sorry, but just grow up. If you are mortally wounded because someone draws a cartoon of your god then he must be a pretty pathetic god and your faith cant be that strong.

    Yes they have a legitimate gripe about the west's foreign policy on things like the war on terror and our blinkered support for Israel. But they dont have a legitimate gripe about a few cartoons because thats just the behaviour of a toddler. If you want to be treated with respect then you can start behaving like a civilised person instead of jumping up and down waving your fists like a 3 year old every time someone does something you dont like.
    timmer wrote: »
    @ludovico arrives at the pearly gates

    Saint Peter says, " are we are ever glad to see you, God's in a state, you've convinced him he doesn't exist. But it's ok, in the meantime, we have a capable stand-in, that Sean Connery fellow, we've used him several times in the past, when God takes his annual leave from runing the universe.
    The heavenly throne fits old Sean quite nicely. Grumpy sort, but the faithful are very taken with him, so we've got that covered .
    In the meantime, we have this 2 mile high stack of books for you. God needs you to thoroughly review and refute them all, complete works... of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Chesterton, St Paul's letters, Tolkein, sermons from that Keyvan guy and countless others...take your time we have eternity....in fact...you can join your friend @dragonpol there....he'll be here a while too...God's a Bond fan and he wants those 200 or so essays that Draggers teased on his popular blog - NOW!..........some of those titles very much intrigued the big guy.
    speaking of he seems to be enjoying his state of non-existence....and everyone of course is quite taken with Sean on the throne, so we're good for now.
    Where's @timmer you ask.....you won't be seeing him for a while...seeing..as he disappeared off the radar for so long.....no one quite recognized him when he turned up..........Anyway.....as he seemed real eager about fighting the good fight and all....he wouldn't shut up , as a matter of fact....we gave him a little sword...and some spiritual armour...and kicked him back to earth......we've got him buzzing around,...annoying the hell out of the poor demons trying to do an honest days corrupting......making a real nuisance of himself we hear.....
    Excuse a moment.....Yes?! @nicnac? what would you like?, or sorry, @benny is it? These moderator types all look alike......More Dom you say? Coming up!!
    Benny and nicnac of course were fast-tracked immediately to Heaven VIP area. God, whether, he's existing or not-existing that day, really likes those guys that keep order, and keep the rabble respectful..saves him a lot of work.
    In fact all your old mod friends are hanging out here. They're with the Bond Girls....God's not stupid....the Bond girls have automatic full VIP access, heavenly creatures afterall...except for that Yo Momma one.. Poor God kept telling her it's God the Father, not God the Momma. But Pierce put in a good word for her, so God relented...speaking of the Bond actors......they're all here too...except that Laz guy... he's in and out...what's his deal?....says he had a better thing going at Piz Gloria.....petulant...very high on himself...wants his own digs on top of a moutain with death angels. or something...but minus the Bunt woman. No problem there actually, she's in the other place with the cat guy and the fat bastard gold hoarder...but.we told him...sorry wrong place...no death angels here.
    Oh look at poor Sean, that Dalts and Craig pair keep trying to take his throne....when he wanders off for a round of golf.Not going to happen though.
    Ah, Sir Ian? One of your biggest fans...ludovico...is here...yes of course he'd like an autograph...but he's got to run along...lots of work we have for him, but please do go see Sean,--yes he's on his throne-- he was asking for you, wants to reminisce about the good ole days hanging about on the DN set with Ursula and Sister Rose and Sister Lilly.
    Out of Dom, are you? Go see the mods, they've got lots.
    That Ian! God's a big fan...really liked the few scraps and nods that Ian tossed his way in the books.
    God's always showing off that little bit in LALD, where Bond "prayed to God" when he was dead meat bobbing in the water with Solitaire. God of course answered immediately and blew Big and the big boat to bits. He told Ian, you are not killing him off that easy. Go write some more books. 14 or so should be enough...don't want 007 working beyond mandatory retirement age.
    Ahh, here's @chrisisall....doesn't think we can keep order. Ha! We've got mods to spare!

    All right off you go, Luds! No no, not that Luds....he's over there listening to his devil music...God made an exception for him...being a Mod and all..but normally none of that noise gets past the gates....So off you go. get reading and typing...we know you're fast on that keyboard.
    Ah here's @wiz and @thunderfinger..... feisty as ever....God really doesn't really know what to make of these two .but they'realways good for a laugh.. and on both Existing and Non-existing days.

    "Nic Nac!? More Dom? Again?!...What, Bollinger this time you say?!,, OK,where's Saint Rog and that Saint Mark...the one that reads three books a day.......anyone that reads that much, we had to let in...minimum fuss and muss...anyway Rog liked him...loyal fan of his old show. Those two are always loafing about.....and that @BondJames guy too...tell them to bring over a couple more cases of the good stuff...this is heaven for God's sake...we don't run short.....What? Bondjames is busy writing message board posts...another one? Isn't that 100 already today ..oh never mind...leave him alone....he's happy....let's get that champagne up here...chop chop...we've got a heaven to run!!! O:-)

    I think youve done the impossible and converted me. I used to think that heaven was the dullest place imaginable, kind of like being trapped in an endless episode of Songs of Praise but getting lashed on Bolly with Laz and a load of Bond girls actually sounds like pretty good fun.
    timmer wrote: »
    the Bond girls have automatic full VIP access, heavenly creatures afterall...except for that Yo Momma one.. Poor God kept telling her it's God the Father, not God the Momma. But Pierce put in a good word for her, so God relented

    You mean he actually let her in? Thats me back in Lucifer's camp then and I wouldnt be surprised if even the most devout abandoned their faith and joined me after that. Its one thing giving babies cancer and wiping out villages of peasants with earthquakes but I think God has crossed a line when he makes you spend all eternity with Jinx.
  • Posts: 15,105
    @timmer-What you are doing mentioning Augustine, Thomas d'Aquin, Tolkien and all is an appeal to authority. That they believed in God and were intelligent people is absolutely meaningless. Especially since many of them believed in god according to the knowledge, or lack of, they had at the time and the cultural environment they were in at the time. I did read at least some of these books, by the way, so God need no bother. If they were such a time when I end up at the Pearly Gate, seeing a man smelling of fish telling me he's St Peter and God was to show up, I would not be an atheist anymore, but that does not mean I would accept his authority as divine or worship him. Neither would I beg for mercy if he was to send me to hell.

    And I know it's meant as a jest but... what's the point for God to ask me to read Augustine, Aquinas and all? Can't he defend himself and the rationale of his own existence? Are these guys smarter than he is? That I would actually find more plausible. And you can add Blaise Pascal to the mix, although I'd ask to meet Pascal in person. His wager was as dishonest as it was cowardly and unworthy of an intellectual and I'd love to tell it to his face.

    That said, I'd rather go to hell. With Darwin, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir (whom I need to thank on behalf of my mother, although I guess my mother will do it herself), Mary Shelley, her dad William Godwin, Anthony Burgess, Dave Gilmour when he shows up down there, Hitchens who of course is already in, and (because I think he is an atheist) Bill Watterson, I'd be in good company.
  • Posts: 15,105
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But "freedom fries" and "freedom toasts"were not satire. They were attempts to apply newspeak. That were mocked and ridiculed by the way. Even if they could be considered satire it's the right to satirize we defend. Not its particular quality. You now say it is legitimate. You said before it was not the way to go as it was an appeal to emotion. Implying I think satire and mockery was fallacious. now it's ok as long as there is a time and place. I think when someone claims to hold a transcendent and universal truth, it's time to mock and satirize. Like when you say you hold the keys to heaven since a Jewish rabbi gave them to a Jewish fisherman two thousands years ago. Or when you say your prophet is so sacrosanct he can't be pictured. If you're as self-righteous as you are petty you deserved to be laughed at.

    You misunderstand me. I was using the example of Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast, as well as the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher incidents to show how a nation in grief, or a people who are suffering/in fear, are not rational. Freedom fries was not intended as satire. It was what politicians wanted to call French fries in anger at the French for not supporting the Iraq War. It was not meant in jest. Same goes for Freedom Toast. They were serious when they came up with those names. It is idiotic upon reflection, but was not so at the time to some intelligent people. I used these examples to show how people (in this case, the US) can overreact when they are feeling threatened and others (in this case, the French) do not cooperate or appear to be combative.

    I've said many times on this thread that context is important. The middle east muslim population is feeling particularly aggrieved at present. I have given examples in my last post. Much is of their own making, but much is not as well. If you think mocking/satire is the right way to address them at this traumatic turning point in their history, and think it's productive, then go ahead. I don't think it is. They are likely to overreact and not get the point.

    I cannot add more that what@TheWizardOfIce said in his last post. You can criticize the West's often appalling way to deal with the Middle East, but not all griefs have the same weight, not all griefs are justified.

    My issue with the US's response to 9/11, Iraq aside (which would need its own thread), is that when Godly madmen committed their terrorist atrocity in New York because (as Rushdie said) they were against sex, against homosexuality, against alcohol, against pork, against free thinking, against freedom in the most secular sense, the people who were in power and who thus rose to defend the West were from an ideology... that had nothing against bacon. And thus who, unable to recognize the obscurantist nature of their own beliefs, did not even bother recognizing that 9/11 was an act of devotion. I think both ideologies can be and need to be denounced and ridiculed.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If they were such a time when I end up at the Pearly Gate, seeing a man smelling of fish telling me he's St Peter and God was to show up, I would not be an atheist anymore, but that does not mean I would accept his authority as divine or worship him. Neither would I beg for mercy if he was to send me to hell.

    Except the beauty of it is God is all forgiving so you just pitch up at the pearly gates and say 'Sorry I didnt believe in you and led a debauched life of drinking, sex and slagging off religion' and he says 'Thats fine in you come'. The face of the bloke behind you who led a pious life and went to church every week would be priceless but thats come from Jesus himself with the parable of the workers in the vineyard. As classic a tale of injustice as you'll ever hear.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    That said, I'd rather go to hell. With Darwin, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir (whom I need to thank on behalf of my mother, although I guess my mother will do it herself), Mary Shelley, her dad William Godwin, Anthony Burgess, Dave Gilmour when he shows up down there, Hitchens who of course is already in, and (because I think he is an atheist) Bill Watterson, I'd be in good company.

    Quite. A few pints with Hitch in the fires of hell or bible study sat on a cloud alongside Mother Teresa? I know which I'd prefer for a saturday night out.

  • Posts: 15,105
    Yes, an eternity in Heaven seems pretty much like hell to me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @timmer. Brilliant satire. I salute you sir. I'll stop providing 100 posts to this thread every day but I promise you I'll stop short of any murderous reprisals for the mocking dig.

    @TheWizardOfice, @Ludivico, I agree that there is no equivalence. However, we are the powerful ones. They are the weak ones (relatively speaking). I'd be a little peeved if my peeps were under a relentless mass air bombing campaign on and off for 25 yrs. To add satire and insult to the mix might be a case of laying it on a little thick imho. No equivalence though and certainly not cause for murder of the satirists.

    If we want to engage them in debate about religion there are other ways to do it. Rushdie's way is not the right way. Neither is Charlie Hebdo's.

    Additionally, we should do our best to get their population educated (they are much younger on average than we are and also much more restless and so more easily radicalized) so that religion's hold can be more easily unlocked (over time). That means reducing our need for their oil (which doesn't look like it will happen as soon as we thought, given the recent US/Saudi strategy to boost oil production, crash the oil price and boost the US petro $ in order to damage Russia and other oil producing competitors). If they weren't so dependent on oil they could modernize (witness Dubai which is a mecca for foreign workers and businesses). There are several modern Islamic states. They are not all backwards. However, we have bee instrumental in manipulating some of them for our interests (including Pakistan where we supported crooks, like Zia-ul-Haq & Musharraf to hold off India for many years) and that has not helped to move them into the 21st Century. Don't get me started on the Shah in Iran.

    Geopolitics is as much to blame as anything for their lack of education and religion's hold. Islam is a very strong ideology to begin with. It needs strong counter forces to unlock its hold on the population.
  • Posts: 15,105
    We are the powerful ones? Charlie Hebdo is the powerful one? Rushdie? Rushdie had to go into hiding for years because some bearded old man had put a bounty on his head! Some power! Some weakness from his poor enemies. CH was always denouncing the powerful, real or imagined, or rather the real powerful who often based their power on an imaginary authority.

    Education is great, essential even, the problem is that the well of knowledge is already poisoned by faith. And education cannot achieve anything if obscurantism is not denounced. And this cannot be done with soft words or by beating around the bush. When ridiculous claims are made about the sanctity of a hypothetical god or a dead prophet, they can be ridiculed. And CH and Salman Rushdie should be praised for their courage and intellectual honesty (because this is what CH satires were), not chastise. Especially not after the terrorist attack in January, or the fatwa on Rushdie. You chastise them, in effect you blame the victims.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »

    Additionally, we should do our best to get their population educated

    Its not like scientific and evolutionary facts are unknown like they were 2000 years ago. Are you suggesting if we airdrop copies of The Origin of Species into Tehran they will suddenly renounce their ways?

    And why is the onus on us to tell people to become civilised? Not only do they seem quite happy living in a society where homosexuals get stoned and people get their hands chopped off for nicking a Twix they go mental if you dare to criticise any aspect of this.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Education and an improvement in prospects (the masses must have the potential to fulfil their dreams, financially and otherwise) is the solution to the concepts from the dark ages.

    It's what got us out of our funk and it will do the same for them.

    Yes, relatively speaking we are the powerful ones. I remember that every time I put gas/petrol in my Mercedes. Lives have been lost to support my lifestyle, and people like me. Until I have the balls to buy a Prius or walk to work, I personally am going to adopt a humbler approach.
  • Posts: 15,105
    Economic improvement may work, to a degree and in some circumstances. Until and if it is achieved, this does not prevent us or forbid us from using other means to fight obscurantists. And mockery and satire can also be a form of education. Sometimes the only one left.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm not disagreeing that it is a means. However, as I said before, given the sensitivity of the times and all the upheaval going on there, as well as the bombing campaigns underway etc., there are better ways at this time in history imho.

    Look at all the press that has been given to satire, and Charlie Hebdo, since the murders. The press is having a field day because it can be easily sensationalized and captured via soundbite, which plays into their hands. I would have preferred if that time was devoted to honest discussion around religion and the role of radical Islam - as well as how it could be rooted from Islamic society.

    All that's happened now is more tension, more radicalization on both sides, more weapons, more surveillance etc. etc.

    Timing is everything when it comes to success vs. failure.

    There should not have a been a Fatwa on Rushdie, but I personally (as part of my freedom of expression) think the man is a self-aggrandizing prick.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If you mock the so called prophet or criticize islam in an islamic country, you are dead. This is why we owe it to our fellow human beings who were involuntarily brought up in those hellholes, to do it for them.
  • Posts: 15,105
    One does not have to, or should not have to, pander to such sensitivites. In essence, the critics of CH whined about the blasphemous nature of their drawings. In essence, they ask to respect an anti-blasphemy rule that should never exist in the first place, in a free democratic society. Nothing will please the Islamists, or indeed any religious zealot, but the complete eradication of any form of skepticism or criticism of faith in the public sphere (and the private one too). They will not settle for anything less, will not accept anything less as reasonable.

    The right to blasphemy is not only important to a free society, it is a sine qua non component to freedom.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm not disagreeing with you. As I've said,the world is the way it is and we have to work within in for the best result.

    I don't think the result we have now (including the murders at CH) is a result we would have wanted. Tensions have increased on all sides. As was said at the end of Batman Begins (one of my all time favourites), we have 'escalation'. The next step is TDK (i.e. 'watching the world burn').

    There are better ways.
  • Posts: 15,105
    Such as...? Do you know the fable of the sheep and the wolves? Or the wold and the lamb? The other ways you have come up with so far can be summed up with appeasement, and we all know how it ends. It is surely not a better way. Confronting the obscurantists may be more difficult, often more painful, but in the end it is the only one that can give a reasonable possibility of victory and can sustain freedom. CH knew what it was doing by mocking the Islamofascists. They paid a heavy price for it. But in the end, they had the laust laugh, in spite of the cowardly reactions some moral relativists. Keeping mum would not have achieved anything.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I never said to keep mum, did I? Or to appease. Just to understand and engage constructively. It's a matter of finesse - something I'm big on.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    timmer wrote: »
    @ludovico arrives at the pearly gates

    Saint Peter says, " are we are ever glad to see you, God's in a state, you've convinced him he doesn't exist. But it's ok, in the meantime, we have a capable stand-in, that Sean Connery fellow, we've used him several times in the past, when God takes his annual leave from runing the universe.
    The heavenly throne fits old Sean quite nicely. Grumpy sort, but the faithful are very taken with him, so we've got that covered .
    In the meantime, we have this 2 mile high stack of books for you. God needs you to thoroughly review and refute them all, complete works... of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Chesterton, St Paul's letters, Tolkein, sermons from that Keyvan guy and countless others...take your time we have eternity....in fact...you can join your friend @dragonpol there....he'll be here a while too...God's a Bond fan and he wants those 200 or so essays that Draggers teased on his popular blog - NOW!..........some of those titles very much intrigued the big guy.
    speaking of he seems to be enjoying his state of non-existence....and everyone of course is quite taken with Sean on the throne, so we're good for now.

    Oh dear, I fear this is my true future. I hope to have new content up very soon. You can still read it here on Earth... :)
  • Posts: 15,105
    So CH could mock the Catholic Church (their religious target of choice, by the way), French politicians, but Islam was a no go? Then they had to tiptoe?

    And how do you engage constructively when someone thinks there's 72 virgins waiting for him if he commits martyrdom? Or that you should have sharia law on the West? Or that you cannot make fun of his beliefs the same way we make fun of the beliefs of others?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited May 2015 Posts: 18,264
    Ludovico wrote: »
    So CH could mock the Catholic Church (their religious target of choice, by the way), French politicians, but Islam was a no go? Then they had to tiptoe?

    And how do you engage constructively when someone thinks there's 72 virgins waiting for him if he commits martyrdom? Or that you should have sharia law on the West? Or that you cannot make fun of his beliefs the same way we make fun of the beliefs of others?

    It's all down to militancy - there is a chance you will be killed if you publicly satirise or even criticise Islam. That does not apply to Christianity though, so there is no threat to mocking Christians; in fact it is seen very much as fair game. There's you difference.
  • Posts: 15,105
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    So CH could mock the Catholic Church (their religious target of choice, by the way), French politicians, but Islam was a no go? Then they had to tiptoe?

    And how do you engage constructively when someone thinks there's 72 virgins waiting for him if he commits martyrdom? Or that you should have sharia law on the West? Or that you cannot make fun of his beliefs the same way we make fun of the beliefs of others?

    It's all down to militancy - there is a chance you will be killed if you publicly satirise or even criticise Islam. That does not apply to Christianity though, so there is no threat to mocking Christians; in fact it is seen very much as fair game. There's you difference.

    So giving up to threats or retaliation is the way to go? Of course it is risky to mock and criticize. But like I said, for the fundamentalist, nothing but shutting up will be acceptable.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited May 2015 Posts: 18,264
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    So CH could mock the Catholic Church (their religious target of choice, by the way), French politicians, but Islam was a no go? Then they had to tiptoe?

    And how do you engage constructively when someone thinks there's 72 virgins waiting for him if he commits martyrdom? Or that you should have sharia law on the West? Or that you cannot make fun of his beliefs the same way we make fun of the beliefs of others?

    It's all down to militancy - there is a chance you will be killed if you publicly satirise or even criticise Islam. That does not apply to Christianity though, so there is no threat to mocking Christians; in fact it is seen very much as fair game. There's you difference.

    So giving up to threats or retaliation is the way to go? Of course it is risky to mock and criticize. But like I said, for the fundamentalist, nothing but shutting up will be acceptable.

    No, certainly not. I'm all for the freedom of the press to criticise or satirise anyone or anything, including Christianity and other religions if it sees fit. A free press is the keystone of a successful democracy and I would fight to keep it that way.

    No, what I was pointing out there in my post above was that militant Islam has to nowadays be considered as a threat (after Charlie Hebdo and earlier attacks, e.g. the Danish cartoonist affair in 2005) to those who seek to show up its rank hypocrisy through satire or criticism in the press and other forms of media. Whereas Christianity is no longer a militant religion - in the sense of killing people in its name. The Crusades were a very long time ago. So, that is the difference - that is why mocking Islam is mostly off-limits and mocking Christianity is fair game.

    For more on this, see here:



    On the difference between those who worship their God in a peaceful and respectful manner and those who kill in the name of their God and religion Brigitte Gabriel boils it all the history of world conflicts down simply to:

    "It is the radicals that kill."

    "The peaceful majority were irrelvant."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't disagree with your notions about the fallacies of certain and all religions. I think you know that by now.

    I disagree with your solutions and way of going about implementing it. We are on your path now. It is not a good one and it will not end well imho. World burning indeed (ISIS reminds me of the Joker).
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    So CH could mock the Catholic Church (their religious target of choice, by the way), French politicians, but Islam was a no go? Then they had to tiptoe?

    And how do you engage constructively when someone thinks there's 72 virgins waiting for him if he commits martyrdom? Or that you should have sharia law on the West? Or that you cannot make fun of his beliefs the same way we make fun of the beliefs of others?

    It's all down to militancy - there is a chance you will be killed if you publicly satirise or even criticise Islam. That does not apply to Christianity though, so there is no threat to mocking Christians; in fact it is seen very much as fair game. There's you difference.

    So giving up to threats or retaliation is the way to go? Of course it is risky to mock and criticize. But like I said, for the fundamentalist, nothing but shutting up will be acceptable.

    No, certainly not. I'm all for the freedom of the press to criticise or satirise anyone or anything, including Christianity and other religions if it sees fit. A free press is the keystone of a successful democracy and I would fight to keep it that way.

    (...)

    On the difference between those who worship their God in a peaceful and respectful manner and those who kill in the name of their God and religion Brigitte Gabriel boils it all the history of world conflicts down simply to:

    "It is the radicals that kill."

    "The peaceful majority were irrelvant."


    But is the peaceful majority really irrelevant? The peaceful majority should in fact be key to this. They are the ones who should be challenging the the radicals with facts about their faith, and not least prevent other muslims from radicalizing and joining their ranks. They should get our support and help doing that, and be given the right circumstances for doing it. They should not however be simply ridiculed for their faith, bombed or colonialized as well as villainized and generalized as part of the fundamentalist problem.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't disagree with your notions about the fallacies of certain and all religions. I think you know that by now.

    I disagree with your solutions and way of going about implementing it. We are on your path now. It is not a good one and it will not end well imho. World burning indeed (ISIS reminds me of the Joker).

    I agree the path we're on is a difficult one. But what path are you advocating exactly? Giving in to threats of violence? This is a path that if we follow will lead to us living in an ISIS fundamentalist religious state. Personally I would rather my wife go to work on the tube and there is a small risk of a nutter blowing her up because someone slagged off Mohammed in a cartoon than her not be allowed to work and have to wrap herself head to toe in a black sheet whenever she left the house - if I decide to let her leave the house that is because under those conditions she would have to actually do what I say or be stoned to death. Actually come to think of it at least she might listen to me for a change.....
Sign In or Register to comment.