CharlieHebdo

1373840424345

Comments

  • Posts: 4,617
    As soon as you go down the route of seeking to limit what you can and cant say about religion, you are going down a dark and dangerous route. Who decides what can and cant be said? who defines what a religion is (can we take the micky out of Jedi's?), where was the comment made (within whose juristiction), why is religion given protection when other groups are not? etc etc, as far as I am concerned, all beliefs and ideas (including atheism) are fair game. If someone wants to claim that all atheists are nutters, that's fine, bring on the discussion,pull up a chair, have a coffee, lets see your evidence, lets advance the thinking. How many religions have a "bring it on" attitude towards debate ? If you cross the line, they shout "I'm offended" or call for regulation and, worse, use violence. Satire, cartoons , plays, movies, they are all forms of communication and should be free. We are not talking porn or racism. We are talking about the ability to comment and possibly offend those who have different ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. If one group cannot react in an adult and grown up way, that is their issue and not the rest of us.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    As soon as you go down the route of seeking to limit what you can and cant say about religion, you are going down a dark and dangerous route. Who decides what can and cant be said? who defines what a religion is (can we take the micky out of Jedi's?), where was the comment made (within whose juristiction), why is religion given protection when other groups are not? etc etc, as far as I am concerned, all beliefs and ideas (including atheism) are fair game. If someone wants to claim that all atheists are nutters, that's fine, bring on the discussion,pull up a chair, have a coffee, lets see your evidence, lets advance the thinking. How many religions have a "bring it on" attitude towards debate ? If you cross the line, they shout "I'm offended" or call for regulation and, worse, use violence. Satire, cartoons , plays, movies, they are all forms of communication and should be free. We are not talking porn or racism. We are talking about the ability to comment and possibly offend those who have different ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. If one group cannot react in an adult and grown up way, that is their issue and not the rest of us.

    Quite. As inane and provocative this stupid ‘Draw Mohammed Contest’ was we should not overlook the key point that it was only done because they knew it would provoke a reaction. For me the onus is more on Muslims and the need for them to stop behaving like children than it is the rest of us to curb our democratic freedoms to prevent causing them offence.

    These are line drawings in crayon for Christ’s sake. This is the sort of thing most people got over in kindergarten. To even acknowledge that you are offended is giving them more airtime than they are worth. Rioting in the streets and burning flags is a batshit mental enough reaction but to think some consider death an appropriate response is so insane it would laughable if people weren’t dying. GROW UP FFS!!!

    Heres a really radical idea – if someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed how about you just ignore it. You will garner way more respect than all this stamping your feet like a toddler and you mind find people actually start to say ‘Those guys organising a ‘Draw Mohammed Contest’ are really dumb just trying to cause offence for offence’s sake. Leave the Muslims be you twats’.
  • Posts: 7,653
    @TheWizardOffice I would agree with you on it being a provocative action and nothing else, and then inviting Geert Wilders, a controversial and anti-Muslim character if there ever was one, is like shining a big light on any event along with the invitation of come-and-do-something-about-it-if-you-dare. If they do they are damned and if they don't they will be called barbarians. The whole event was aimed at purposely being hateful a dark spin off for the freedom of speech.

    Geller and Wilders are both characters that fit very well in the agenda of the anti-muslim crowd they will continue in provoking them until they get a reaction and then they have stated their prove for the Muslims being evil barbarians.

    These people do not represent for me any freedom of speech, like that reverend that had been advertising a Koran burning event, they show how effing childlike we are as a so called free society. And how little respect we have for people that think differently because we know we are right. Not sure on what that is based because I still have not figured out what the truth is and what not. I find my perspective changes with experiences.

  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Its just a very dangerous route - "don't offend them and they will go away", don't upset them, respect them come what may, avoid doing anything that may offend, tip toe around their sensibilities etc etc, its exactly how some would react to a school bully in the playground and the only reason you would bow down is out of fear. I demand the right to pick up a pen and draw any cartoon I like, if it happens to be of someone elses (not mine) God, then thats up to me and everyone else should have that right. Would you have banned The Life of Brian? if not, why not?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Agreed @SaintMark. Geller is stirring the pot and has been for some time. Wilders too.

    This was an invitation to attack. As I said, leave the cartoons to children. Have an adult discussion about religion if you want to (like we, to date, have been doing here) - there's no need to ruffle feathers further as they continue to do.

    Having said that, it's reassuring to see that only 2 fundamentalists showed up. There was not one protest outside the event (according to the news, muslim religious leaders encouraged their followers not to put 'fuel on the fire' so to speak and play into this provocateur's tactics).

    Unfortunately, based on the lack of intelligence displayed in their last tweets, these two fools were more likely to meet a sad end sooner rather than later - walking into a hail of gunfire seemed expected somewhere.
  • Posts: 7,653
    patb wrote: »
    Its just a very dangerous route - "don't offend them and they will go away", don't upset them, respect them come what may, avoid doing anything that may offend, tip toe around their sensibilities etc etc, its exactly how some would react to a school bully in the playground and the only reason you would bow down is out of fear. I demand the right to pick up a pen and draw any cartoon I like, if it happens to be of someone elses (not mine) God, then thats up to me and everyone else should have that right. Would you have banned The Life of Brian? if not, why not?

    That group in Texas did not exactly go the dangerous route they attacked their believes in the hope of soliciting a response, which they got and now they are content in their opinions which have been affirmed through the response of two boneheads with guns.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SaintMark wrote: »
    That group in Texas did not exactly go the dangerous route they attacked their believes in the hope of soliciting a response

    Did they explicitly state that? Perhaps they were just having an innocent 'Draw Mohammed Contest' family fun day? Which is their democratic right after all.

    Once we start making judgements about someone's intentions like that we are treading a very dangerous path.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    That group in Texas did not exactly go the dangerous route they attacked their believes in the hope of soliciting a response

    Did they explicitly state that? Perhaps they were just having an innocent 'Draw Mohammed Contest' family fun day? Which is their democratic right after all.

    Once we start making judgements about someone's intentions like that we are treading a very dangerous path.
    They don't have to explicitly state it.

    They've demonstrated it in their actions, including paying for anti-muslim ads on the NY subway (which have since been banned, because MTA which runs the subway feel it could endanger customer and employees - rather obvious when you think about it).

    Provocateurs, pure and simple.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/pamela-geller-new-york-buses-subways-islam-james-foley
  • Posts: 4,617
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/iran-bans-devil-worshipping-homosexual-hairstyles
    So where does it end,? is it provocative to have the wrong hair cut? this is what happens when you don't draw a line nice and early, freedom of speech, freedom of hair cut etc etc, its our hair, its our pen, our paper,
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Those hairstyles are pretty atrocious imho. Having said that, it's their right to look like that or any way they choose if they want to.

    Regardless, the two should not be equated.

    1. One relates to personal freedom and personal expression (The hair styles).

    2. The other relates to this group's activities, which should be monitored closely because they are being deliberately provocative (especially paying for insulting ads denigrating one particular religion on subways). I don't think anyone but a few thumpers are interested in these sort of religious cartoon contests in the US. This could border on hate speech (particularly the ads on the subway), which is an abuse of freedom of speech.

    As I said, there were absolutely no protests outside the Texas event. Muslims were asked not to add fuel to the fire by playing into this publicity seeking group's hands, and for the most part didn't show up.

    However, two relatively unintelligent individuals (as evidenced by them walking into an establishment monitored by heavily armed private security and shooting) decided to martyr themselves. It's an unfortunate loss of life, but perhaps they should have researched the security that was in place at this event (I think it was publicized before hand).
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote: »
    That group in Texas did not exactly go the dangerous route they attacked their believes in the hope of soliciting a response

    Did they explicitly state that? Perhaps they were just having an innocent 'Draw Mohammed Contest' family fun day? Which is their democratic right after all.

    Once we start making judgements about someone's intentions like that we are treading a very dangerous path.

    Listen if you want to debate their intentions you should first read up on Geller and her friends, if you had you would not make the assumption you just did.

    And did I deny their democratic right or freedom of speech? I only said that they were the darker part of those particular rights as this particular group does preach hatred and does not in any way seek out equality in humans. As Geller has said several times: believers of Islam are barbarians, with no grades of grey involved. And if they could they would gladly deny the democratic rights and freedom of speech to any opposed to their opinions.

    I do not deny their rights I only disagree with the style and presentation of the particular content of their message.

    Freedom of speech does apply to dimwits and hatemongers too.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »

    Listen if you want to debate their intentions you should first read up on Geller and her friends, if you had you would not make the assumption you just did.

    I'm quite sure they were just doing it to provoke and they do seem a rather odious group. But that doesnt change the fact that what they were doing here is far from being a crime and why are they to blame if a simple drawing on a piece of paper is enough to drive people to attempt murder?
    SaintMark wrote: »
    And did I deny their democratic right or freedom of speech?

    Did I suggest you did?
    patb wrote: »

    Some of this is priceless!! They banned the mullet!!!! =)) How can you treat such people with anything but laughter?
    bondjames wrote: »
    This could border on hate speech

    Seriously? A drawing of a man with a beard is hate speech?
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's an unfortunate loss of life, but perhaps they should have researched the security that was in place at this event (I think it was publicized before hand).

    'Unfortunate'? Hmm. Just natural selection isnt it? If you're too stupid to do your research and realise you're going to get mown down before you get a chance to achieve your insane objective of murdering someone because they drew a picture are you really a loss to the human race?
  • Posts: 4,617
    Re the mullet, it would be laughable if it was not for their actions when you breach their own codes. Today saw the funeral of a poor woman in Afganistan who was beaten to death in the street for allegedly burning the Koran. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/dozens-of-afghan-men-on-trial-for-mob-killing-of-woman-accused-of-burning-koran-10221706.html
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Desecrating the ultimate Hate Speech manuscript is a hate crime, you see.
  • Posts: 4,617
    The guy from two doors down came around last night on behalf of Christian Aid collecting for the recent Nepal Earthquakes. I was desperate to enter into debate concern the irony that Christians have to scuttle around door to door asking for tiny amounts of loose change in order to try to help the poor people who have been made victims TWICE by the very God that they choose to worship. The longer term question is why does a religion have to connect itself with the supplying of aid? Why Christian Aid, why not aid? Again, I just don't get it. However, I am under strict instructions from my wife to get on with the neighbours so a handful of change went into the bucket and I bid him farewell (unitil the great man gets bored and creates his next natural disaster and the doorbell will go again for another handful of change).
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    patb wrote: »
    The guy from two doors down came around last night on behalf of Christian Aid collecting for the recent Nepal Earthquakes. I was desperate to enter into debate concern the irony that Christians have to scuttle around door to door asking for tiny amounts of loose change in order to try to help the poor people who have been made victims TWICE by the very God that they choose to worship. The longer term question is why does a religion have to connect itself with the supplying of aid? Why Christian Aid, why not aid? Again, I just don't get it. However, I am under strict instructions from my wife to get on with the neighbours so a handful of change went into the bucket and I bid him farewell (unitil the great man gets bored and creates his next natural disaster and the doorbell will go again for another handful of change).

    534058_10151492474717347_1324407529_n.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I don t recommend any religion to feel comfortable. Empower yourself, those gods will not do anything for you that you cannot do yourself.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,622
    patb wrote: »
    The guy from two doors down came around last night on behalf of Christian Aid collecting for the recent Nepal Earthquakes. I was desperate to enter into debate concern the irony that Christians have to scuttle around door to door asking for tiny amounts of loose change in order to try to help the poor people who have been made victims TWICE by the very God that they choose to worship. The longer term question is why does a religion have to connect itself with the supplying of aid? Why Christian Aid, why not aid? Again, I just don't get it. However, I am under strict instructions from my wife to get on with the neighbours so a handful of change went into the bucket and I bid him farewell (unitil the great man gets bored and creates his next natural disaster and the doorbell will go again for another handful of change).

    "Again I just don't get it"

    Then you are a little thick maybe? You might want to consider raising the IQ levels of your posts.
    The guy obviously represents some Christian group, maybe even one called Christian Aid.
    Are you that petty, small-minded and superior in your thinking that you can't even be socially civil to a guy that is trying to raise funds for fellow humans in need.
    Oi vey. The irony here, is only in your child-like mind.
    Because natural disasters have occurred throughout history, killing people and destroying civilizations etc, and will continue to do so, I daresay, this is some sort of compelling case for child-like feet stamping and railing against the injustice of it all?!

    Maybe you live in a bubble or something, where life need be a bowl of cherries, or you're going to stamp your little feet, but the rest of us have to live in the real world with all its various and sundry challenges, natural disaster or otherwise.
    We get on with it.

    Nobody gives a damn, what you do or don't believe in, but it should be possible for you to civily socially integrate with your fellow human beings. It's a big wide world.
    Good advice from your wife. There is something to be said for politeness or civility.
    My own occasional belligerent tone notwithstanding.

    If you hadn't noticed we are not living in the biblical Garden of Eden, so you are just going to have to make due with the cruel world we do inhabit.
    But why not, blame it all on God, real or imaginary, and none of us need be accountable or face life's challenges, as devastating as they might be.
    What a wonderful world.

    Personally, I wouldn't have given the guy a nickel. I don't give to such causes without a tax receipt, and I would want to be sure of his bonafides too, ie is the money actually going where he says it's going, as opposed to in his pocket.
    But these are legitimate real world practical concerns, that anyone managing money must ponder.
    Sorry, the injustice of it all, just doesn't register. Maybe if I was still 10 , but I'm not. We all get on and grow up.
    But do write your MP, as you are wont to do -maybe not so much about petitioning God, real or imagined, to cut back on the earthquakes, but maybe more about the propriety of door-to-door soliciting.
    I think that's a little dodgy in these more dangerous urban times that we live in.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Thanks for the full reply, dont worry, I was civil. I am not sure I understand all of your points but the issue I was trying to get at was how can you worship an all powerful God who creates a World that, in your own words is "not a bowl of cherries" and then fail to bring your God to account and look to ourselves to sort things out (including those who dont even worship that God). I am sorry if my own little illustration of this point upsets you but the point stands and I would be interested in any forum members who had an answer. I know other posters have claimed that it's out of God's hands but the C of E God is literally referred to as "the almighty" so its a fair question IMHO and cuts to the very essence of religion is all about.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Believe in God all you want, but it is not almighty.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Religion. Meh.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited May 2015 Posts: 45,489
    GOD is so omnipotent he can create something so heavy he himself cannot lift it.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,622
    patb wrote: »
    Thanks for the full reply, dont worry, I was civil. I am not sure I understand all of your points but the issue I was trying to get at was how can you worship an all powerful God who creates a World that, in your own words is "not a bowl of cherries" and then fail to bring your God to account and look to ourselves to sort things out (including those who dont even worship that God). I am sorry if my own little illustration of this point upsets you but the point stands and I would be interested in any forum members who had an answer. I know other posters have claimed that it's out of God's hands but the C of E God is literally referred to as "the almighty" so its a fair question IMHO and cuts to the very essence of religion is all about.

    Trust me I'm not upset. Just bored, as I don't find your questions either interesting or challenging, at least not coming from you, as I don't think the answers even interest you.
    But if by some chance, you really are sincere (and I honestly don't think you are - just my opinion) about how can there be a God worthy of human deference, love, worship etc, if life isn't a bowl of cherries, then I honestly think you should get off the keyboard, talk to someone flesh and blood, sincerely seek, throw in your own two cents, in an honest respectful non keyboard driven, human dialogue.
    There are only about a zillion people in the world that could answer - pm me if you must, but
    it doesn't have to be spewed all over a Jame Bond message board of all things.
    Take a cue from Socrates maybe. He refused to write anything down. He would only discuss, teach, via spoken word, in the flesh, with a full range of physicality and human interaction. Student Plato transcribed his teachings for him later.

    But I think what we can accomplish on a James Bond message board, is that perfectly rational people, and I do include you in that group, can agree that we aren't all going to view "meaning of life" type questions the same way, or even with the same interest.
    As much as you might invite mocking, belittling etc of your own views, and revel in such behaviour, what makes you think others are just as eager to engage such behaviour?
    Some can just respect that you have different views, even if they don't respect the actual views.

    "religion Meh"
    @rc7 is right. It's perfectly understandable that zillions in the world just don't care, and why should they. Understandably not everyone will seek answers to weighty questions and so what?
    We're all busy living, trying to make the the most of this non bowl-of-cherries world. But we do need to civilly co-exist and make our short time on earth as productive as possible, and ideally beneficial to the greater good.
    Beating each other over the head, with our supposed superior world views, accomplishes nothing but discord, potentially even violence, war.

    The thread topic is actually about Charlie Hebdo, not "my views are superior to your views" bs.
    I don't relate to Charlie Hebdo at all. I'm not atheist and I'm definitely not leftist nor neo-Marxist.
    And as much as I like the Sex Pistols - not anarchist either - although Rotten would emerge as a big fat capitalist ( Filthy Lucre Tour :)) )
    I would have been very happy, if natural free-market forces had shut CH down.
    But, I am not happy that murderous assholes, imposing their world view via gun, intimidation and bullying, managed to shut them down.
  • Posts: 6,022
    But, I am not happy that murderous assholes, imposing their world view via gun, intimidation and bullying, managed to shut them down.

    They didn't. Charlie is still running. Here's the new cover :

    oo_20.png
  • Posts: 15,229
    Believe in God all you want, but it is not almighty.

    Or good. Either way, if there was a god one could seriously question or indeed reject his sense of moral. I also find that many believers confuse moral and worship.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Timmer, apologies if you don't find the morality of religion God etc interesting or challenging and that you see my comments as "spewing" , but there are those including myself who do see it as something worth discussing , whether that's face to face or on forums like this. The great thing about debate is that people are free to engage or not, its a good thing. And people are also free to start new debates that they themselves do find interesting and challenging. Its a tribute to the members of the forum here IMHO that discussions outside of the Bond arena can take place and do so in an adult and respectful tone.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I agree there is no discussion only some members who want to show some intellectual prowess to show how easy it is to show that people are dumb for believing in something they consider Hokes pocus.
    There is NO respect whatsoever for other ideas but their own as atheists or whatever they are. They forget that this lack of respect towards other views is what started so many conflicts. They shove to their opinion into other peoples throats without any understanding about other sensibilities in that sense they differ only from IS in that there is no violence involved.

    While I do not believe in any religious idea, beyond that of a majestic mother nature with her balances and checks which is awesome, I have met too many people of various faiths to discard their views. I find them fascinating and insightful in the individual person and it will tell me more about their personal views and state of mind than anything else.
  • Posts: 15,229
    That is one HUGE difference with IS though. Oh this and being actually secular humanists, pro democracy, pro freedom.

    If someone has a faith, he holds something as true without proper evidence. And this belief can and should be criticized. More so when they pretend said beliefs should govern individuals or societies.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If someone has a faith, he holds something as true without proper evidence. And this belief can and should be criticized. More so when they pretend said beliefs should govern individuals or societies.

    And there we go again.......

    By the way I do not compare you with IS in any way, I just found your way of reasoning selfish and devoid of any understanding or respect for people of a different belief system. And fanatics seem to have that in common, they are right because everybody else is wrong.

  • Posts: 15,229
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If someone has a faith, he holds something as true without proper evidence. And this belief can and should be criticized. More so when they pretend said beliefs should govern individuals or societies.

    And there we go again.......

    By the way I do not compare you with IS in any way, I just found your way of reasoning selfish and devoid of any understanding or respect for people of a different belief system. And fanatics seem to have that in common, they are right because everybody else is wrong.

    The definition of faith is to hold something as true without evidence to assess its veracity. It is not my fault if it is the nature of the beast. I respect people. But no idea should be respected and "it is my faith" is not a justification that shields an idea from criticism.

    It is not the lack of respect for other views that lead to violence ("disrespecting faith" often a cowardly accusation), it is the blind adherence to a view in spite of evidence to the contrary. It is the zeal towards holding a view, no matter how backwards or destructive it may be, that leads to violence. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddah, they have all been dead for some time. I don't hold them as sacred. And I would rather show empathy to my fellow primates than some bearded guy dead a few centuries ago, or some hypothetical God. That is not selfishness, that is in fact solidarity towards the human race.
Sign In or Register to comment.