CharlieHebdo

191012141545

Comments

  • Posts: 15,106
    patb wrote: »
    Religion can be dangerous in different ways. Lighting a candle and praying to cure a dodgy hip is a dangerous thing in that it undermines centuries of medical work. There are cases where parents have with held back medical treatment from their kids as they were secure in the knowledge that prayer and a few candles would save their child. Of course it did not and the kids die. IMHO anytime you pass responsibility of your own well being and that of others to an invisible guy in the sky, its getting dangerous.

    That's why faith healers are the most dangerous crooks. And claims of medical miracles by mainstream religions harmful.
  • Posts: 4,603
    jobo, I am a big fan of Harris so grateful if you could point me towards the facts that he has got wrong as mentioned in previous post, thanks
  • Posts: 12,526
    Fair play to the magazine for the latest front cover. Be interesting now to see what happens? Hopefully nothing!!!
  • Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    @TheWizardOflce

    You call that "censor"? ;)) When you write a far too long post repeating yourself several times, I am in mye full right to choose what part of it to higlight, and what part of it to ansver. Making these ridiculously long quotes, and not least reading them, is pretty tiring.

    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He also built a strawman saying Sam Harris was for genocide. Aslan is smart, but sometimes full of himself and often gives islam a free pass.

    When did he say that?

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

    Saw your reply first now. So it was all down to a retweet twitter. Thought so... The most shocking about this link is Harris' statement. Its absolutely no wonder why it caused some reactions.

    The quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.

    But the meaning was essentially the same. Wether it is "believing in a proposition" or just "believing".

    No it was not. Read his post. The meme was slander, plain and simple. And Aslan's accusation as stupid as it was vile.

    I don't really buy that argument. I read the entire post, and I frankly don't see how it was "taken out of context". He wrote simply "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." There it is, fair and square. How is it "taken out of context"? He is basically saying the same thing as the Islamist fundamentalists say, or the very texts in the koran he feels so strongly about. It might be only a bad choice of words (which makes sense as the rest of the text is actually quite badly written for someone with English as his first language...), but that's how modern media works. Bad statements get publicity, and will cause reactions. Harris goes about in the same way in his "lectures" about religion. Simply highlighting every sentence or statement thats innapropriate in the context of the 21st century, and highlighting it as the very essence of the religious text... consisting of thousands of sentences in total...

    And Sam Harris has none of my sympathy. Although his reasearch on religion and its practices is fairly non existant, he still feels he is in a position to lecture religious people about their own beliefs. During his debates he is constantly revealed to state false facts. His message is in essence that Islam is pure evil, and that all the billions of peaceful, moderate muslims out there are so because they don't follow the text properly. Which is not only provocative, but also plain stupid. But I guess everything is just "bad choice of words", "taken out of context"?

    I cannot comment on his English as it is not my mothertongue. But I could not read anywhere that he wanted an entire population to be wiped out through violence, hence he did not advocate genocide. What he said, I think, is that fighting terrorism it may be ethical to kill not only the person who pulls the trigger, but the one encouraging the terrorist murder. Did Bin Laden shot everyone himself, in his life?

    And yes, there is a lot of religious texts that have content inappropriate for 21st century. Then why use them as moral example? If the Koran or the Bible are used by fundamentalist as a moral book, the problem is in the believer... and the book.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    I found again finally the subtitled 5 min New York Times video about Charlie Hebdo :



    In case you've been told all over your local news Charlie Hebdo are not very different from hate press, you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth that there is no hate in their words.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    In case you've been told all over your local news Charlie Hebdo are not very different from hate press
    That's not what I've been hearing at all, thank goodness.
  • Posts: 7,507
    patb wrote: »
    jobo, I am a big fan of Harris so grateful if you could point me towards the facts that he has got wrong as mentioned in previous post, thanks

    Frankly, you are in a perfect position to do that research yourself. If you are such a supporter of Harris, checking his sources (if there indeed are any...) or going through his theorys with a critical eye, is something you can do. Its a pretty cheap tactic to demand that its your counter debattants job to dig up all the information. You are in a perfect position to do so yourself...

    The thing about Harris is that he is a classic intellectual -- he is not an expert. His theories are derived from logic, reason and general impressions. However research and establishing facts and a greater understanding of the subject, is of lesser importance to him. If he indeed does research, its usually only to find the facts that support his original interpretations. Harris' logic and reason isn't necessarily bad, however its a problem when his impressions about the middle east are inaccurate.

    One of his major missteps was during a debate program when he proclaimed that the zionistic idea of a jewish state in Israel were established for religious reasons. Its not true. The Zionistic movement was established by Theodor Herzl in the 19th century for purely political reasons. Religion has later been injected into the conflict for sure (on both sides) but it was not the underlying factor behind the zionistic movement. When you are a self proclaimed expert on war in the Middle East, not knowing the origins of its most central conflict, is pretty embarrasing. But its only one of many examples. Inaccurate statements about the middle east, usually generalyzing on behalf of millions of muslims, is the norm with Harris. He has also stated that religious beliefs is the main motivation behind Al Qaida. Again, its simply inaccurate. Osama Bin Laden stated social and political issues as the main reasons behind his violent actions.

    I would be far more willing to agree with Harris if it wasn't for the fact that his statements are so hostile. When you proclaim that "millions and millions of muslims are part of a death cult", its not only a matter of inaccurate generalisation. Its unecessary harsh statements that in fact can stimulate to racism.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    What race is Islam again? Or the other monotheistic death cults?
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Jobo, thanks for the reply, I have all of his books and really enjoy the debates on youtube that he takes part in. He is not perfect. No one is and if he has got facts wrong in the past, I would like to see them. I did not demand the details re Harris's errors, as all can see: it was a polite request. It would seem condusive to a coherent and civilised debate that if someone claims that a public figure has made errors, they actually point out what those errors are rather than make everyone go off and read all the books again. One thing we can agree on: "his theories are derived from logic and reason" - whether he has made some errors or not, logic and reason is the place to start and I have respect for anyone who uses that as the starting line. Logic and reason are two qualities lacking from any debate coming from the religious side.
    One fact that does need to corrected at every opportunity and I struggle to establish why it is so hard for people to work out: Islam is NOT a race, it is a set of ideas. Anyone who gets side tracked on the race issue has either not worked that out yet (it really is very simple) or is pushing the debate into a more sensitive area in an attempt to avoid a genuine debate.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 7,507
    I never said "Islam is a race" did I? The point though is crystal clear. Racism against arab immigrants is a growing problem through out Europe. Its in fact a much larger issue than antisemitism in the world today (although both of course are serious problems that need to be addressed). Much of that racism is aimed at Islam as a religion, and muslims. That's just the way it is. Ignorance, bigotry and stereotypes concerning the arab community, and especially Islam as a religion, is only accelerating this. Its a major concern, and that's why people in the media, like Sam Harris, should be very careful of how he portrays the Islamic community, which is huge, incredibly versatile and varied. Of course its a problem the other way around too. That does however not justify stupid behavior. Stating theories on the basis of inaccurate or even completely false information is simply not healthy, especially if you have a set of followers who believe what you say and write.

    Logic and reason is a good thing. However logic and reason based on ignorance and false information is not. On the contrary it can be very dangerous. Its as simple as that...
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,603
    "Much of that racism is aimed at Islam as a religion, " - you cant aim racism at a group of people who aren't a race. Religion is a set of ideas , its like aiming racism at Socialists, Jedis or Vegans. You can have an irrational fear or anger against that group, but, by definition, it cant be a racism if the group is not defined/restricted by race.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Honestly… who cares? I could of course have written "irrational hatred aimed at muslims". Or "bigotry towards arab communities for what they believe". Does it make much of a difference? Racism is a much more powerful word to most people. In fact, it puts it into a much better context to call it that. "Irrational hatred" sounds tame by comparison, like if it skims only the surface of what the major problem is. I will continue to call it racism. Its much more fitting.

    Word definitions are really not the main issue here...
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,603
    The is a big difference as with a set of ideas, there is an ideological debate (some would say battle) to be be had and ideas can be reviewed, altered, changed etc etc and have done over the centuries. We no longer burn witches in this country as it was challenged as being a bad idea, as was Earth being at the centre of the universe. Its just not correct to compare that to a set of people who share common genes and, obviously, no amount of debate is going to change that. Its too big an issue to be shrugged off as semantics.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Then we should invent a new word which can be used appropriately and still carry the same significance. Again; "Irrational hatred" doesn't do it for me. It doesn't carry the same weight as "racism" or "antisemitism", although its an equally big problem… at least… Well, I guess "antisemitism" can be used to describe hatred towards the muslim Semites as well, but it doesn't cover all the other peoples that are hurt in this.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    jobo wrote: »
    Then we should invent a new word which can be used appropriately and still carry the same significance. Again; "Irrational hatred" doesn't do it for me. It doesn't carry the same weight as "racism" or "antisemitism", although its an equally big problem… at least… Well, I guess "antisemitism" can be used to describe hatred towards the muslim Semites as well, but it doesn't cover all the other peoples that are hurt in this.
    Religious Hatred?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jobo wrote: »
    Then we should invent a new word which can be used appropriately and still carry the same significance. Again; "Irrational hatred" doesn't do it for me. It doesn't carry the same weight as "racism" or "antisemitism", although its an equally big problem… at least… Well, I guess "antisemitism" can be used to describe hatred towards the muslim Semites as well, but it doesn't cover all the other peoples that are hurt in this.
    Religious Hatred?

    No, that sounds too much like Islam, Judaism, Christianity.
  • Posts: 12,526
    An extra 2 million copies! Amazing!
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yes, It's great to see the terrorists have actually increased the
    Viewers of the very cartoons they were annoyed about. :))
    This surely means that the Jihadists have had a hand in the
    Promotion of them, so by their law should ALL kill themselves.
    ( if only )
  • Posts: 15,106
    Coming to the UK this Friday. I hope I can get my hands on it.
  • Posts: 7,653
    While CHarlie Hebdo was doing a balance act financially the fundamentalists have made sure that they are well funded for the near future. That must annoy them to NO end,
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I recommend reading Samuel Huntingdon's the Clash of Civilizations which was mentioned much earlier in this thread. It will answer most of the questions that have been debated here about racism/bigotry etc. It will also explain the current clash with Russia over Ukraine.

    Ultimately this is a cultural war. It's based on how people innately define themselves. How they associate themselves......and who and what they are most comfortable with.

    It takes education and intellectual rigour to rise above cultural biases and preferences that have been bred since birth. On both sides. That is possibly too much to ask for in developing countries with little opportunity and young populations. Hence we instead have hatred where we should have understanding and compromise. Some have said the problem is not economic. I disagree. It's a combination of economic, cultural and educational. All aspects must be addressed to solve this issue.
  • Posts: 7,653
    @bondjames a nice critical review of your well advised book Samuel Huntingdon's the Clash of Civilizations:

    This is a masterpiece of scare mongering, not recommended for the faint of heart. Sage Huntington can make you groan inside: omg, tomorrow there will be a massive conspiracy between the democracy-hating Sinic and Islamic civilizations (whatever that means) to destroy our democracy, civilized society and freedom and push us back to the Dark Ages. Don’t you see how they’ve already started infiltrating the US government with an African Muslim communist called Obama? And hapless America will heroically fight that struggle against evil and oppression until the end of time and come out gloriously victorious. But before that, we need to fight terror, terror, terror and build more aircrafts, missiles, military bases and bomb the shit out of them if necessary. I’m sorry I can’t pass this test of valor and courage, before this apocalypse happens, I’d rather drive to Mars. A rather depressing thought.

    So much for the ranting. Now the serious stuff.

    Samuel Huntington laid out his analysis of conflicts in the Post Cold War world in his article in 1993:
    It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future

    He divides the world into 8 major “civilizations”: sinic, western, orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Japanese, Latin American, African, and basically says that in the future, when the age of ideology is over, the cultural and civilizational rifts will be the main cause of conflicts. The only way the West can survive is to get stronger both militarily and economically and ally with civilizations sympathetic to itself to fight against the rise of Islamic and Confucian countries (i.e China).

    This line of argument has some major flaws. First, it defines civilization as an all-encompassing and monolithic concept and ignores all the interaction and diversity within one culture. How would you define Islamic civilization? Islam of Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? Iran? Dubai? Similarly for all the rest.

    But more importantly, often I find this kind of confrontational mind-set rather dangerous. It takes conflicts out of context and strips them of their much wider and more complex socio-political backdrop and reduces them to over simplistic terms of “us vs. them”, “cultural differences” or “civilizational faultlines”. But I never believe in such things, I never believe that people have enough time sitting on their ass and hating another group just because their culture and religion are different. If people fight, that must be for a reason, often one group are conquered or oppressed and resist, otherwise, economic reasons such as land, exploitation or resources. Invoking jealousy or ethnic hatred to explain conflict is a chauvinistic and foolish way of looking at it. The Vietnamese did not hate the Americans because the Americans drove cars and watched tv while the Vietnamese slogged behind buffalos. The Palestinians don’t hate the Israelis because the Israelis have swimming pools and have nuclear warheads. The Afghans hated the Russians not because the Russians rode tanks and had an empire. It’s never about jealousy, all about conquest, oppression, injustice and subjugation. Aren't these legitimate things to hate?

    Conflicts are always about the conqueror and the dominated, about power and oppression, never so much about ideology or ethnic hatred. And if there’s an element of ethnic hatred, it often has a lot to do with the way the power structure was distorted to favour a group to oppress another during the colonial period. Need I say any more about Algeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia? But then again, don’t take my word because I might be oversimplifying things as well.

    I find Huntington’s idea dangerous also because it represents a primordialistic world view, in which people are inherently and inevitably different, therefore, conflicts are unavoidable. Once you talk about something grand and presumably rigid and static in this case like civilization and culture as an innate part of human nature and as causes of war, you’re heading for a dead end. If people are inherently irrational, antagonistic, confrontational, aggressive, then what’s the point in preventing war and addressing political issues underlying them? That’s it, we’re doomed.

    So let’s put all this in context because it’s the last thing this book would ever do. After the end of the Cold War, America came out as the sole superpower. So people started asking: ok, now the Russians are gone, why don’t we reduce our military budget and invest more in education, healthcare, aid to the third world, technology, infrastructure? Why do we need this half a trillion dollar military budget when we have massive social problems at home in this most advanced industrialized country? So America needed to invent something to replace the Russians to justify all that. Shush, it can’t be about the humongous profits for the military industrial complex, it can’t be about defending our corporate interests overseas. So voila, that must be the clash of civilization. America is perpetually at war with other rival civilizations, especially Islam. The paradigm of the West vs. the Rest never changed. Gone with the Russians, in with the Muslims. That’s why we need $500b in military spending (6 times the second largest, China, and the Pentagon squeaks) and 700 military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the list goes on.

    After 9/11, this book rocketed in influence because now obviously, the Islamic world is waging war against America. The real civilization clash IS happening. How scary indeed. Huntington even declared:
    "It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power” and hate people “who are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world."

    But the attack led by a group with a couple of thousand members (or say, even a million, still 0.1% of total Muslim population) against a country with a population of 1/4 of the “West” is defined as a civilizational war. Very representative huh? Some of them are Saudi, er but let’s forget that for a moment because that’s our closest friend in the region, although rather nasty bastards…

    So yes, Huntington would easily dust off his hands and say this has nothing to do with US foreign policies in the Middle East at all. They hate us because we love freedom, democracy and we’re more civilized than them. Because this pre-renaissance backward fanatical people hate progress and are jealous of us living in our first world luxury. This rhetoric has been parroted again and again and again by Emperor Bush and his friends to justify his increasingly militant approach in the ME. Oh, there’s no limit to chauvinism and ignorance in this world.

    Truly, I’d be rather upset if Americans buy this lie. The idea of CoC obscures the real grievances and frustration of people in the Middle East at many decades of American dominance in the region. Let’s remind ourselves that America is great friends with the despots of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, the PLO (rather a rocky friendship), the mujahedeen (who gives a shit about Islamic fundamentalism if all we cared about was to kick ass the Russians out of Afghanistan), Jordan and a long time ago, Iran and Iraq. And many other friends that torture its citizens under US auspices (politics jargon: extraordinary rendition). Could anyone still say it has nothing to do with politics at all?

    Finally, is it just me or anyone else that finds the idea of a respected professor writing such provocative arguments seemingly not to mitigate the problem but to aggravate it, to defend “our” superiority at all cost, rather disturbing? Is this honest and balanced historical analysis or is there a hidden agenda behind? I’m not good at conspiracy theory, but mind you, this guy’s book in the 1960s advocating stable dictatorships to achieve economic development over troublesome democracies also had great influence on US foreign policy in Africa and Asia. No wonder why America loved some dictators and overthrew a couple of trouble makers. Expert on democracy and civilization indeed.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @SaintMark I think you miss my point, or I did not make it clearly. I don't subscribe to Huntingdon's views. On the contrary, I hope he is wrong. However, his book has made me understand how the world works for better or worse.

    When I see how the world is unfolding right now, I see that people are behaving in exactly the way he predicted, along civilizational and cultural lines. They may deny it. They may attempt to ignore it. However it is painfully obvious to me...and the unfortunate results are also painfully obvious and apparent. The world is becoming more divided post-Soviet Union along somewhat primitive cultural/religious lines, because there is no idealogical foe to otherwise bind us.

    That is precisely why when The EU started dicking around with Ukraine (a so called cleft state according to Huntingdon) it was pretty obvious that Russia would react. If these idiots had read the book (and I'm sure some of them have) they would have realized that Russia had no choice but to react. So the question then is, did they do this intentionally to antagonize Russia, given their reaction was obvious?

    These are the kinds of issues that have become clear to me after having read this book.

    Some of the simplistic debate on this very thread follows along the cultural and civilizational lines that the book foretells.......and that is not a good thing at all.

    I wish it was not so. However understanding that culture binds people in very primitive ways (beyond intellect in many cases) helps to understand how reactions can occur and to correct for obvious biases. Look at the divisions on the Security Council for instance. Straight down cultural lines.

    As I said, I believe eduction, economic well being, cultural understanding and diversity are the key to elimating these problems. Somewhat naive perhaps, but I think it's the only hope. Education in particular.

    That's why I'm the biggest believer in open societies but I also insist on integration into these societies. If you can't integrate, you're not welcome IMO because you will only inevitably nurture differences rather than similarities..
  • Posts: 15,106
    I can simplify a little bit the debate, if I may: Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for blasphemy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I can simplify a little bit the debate, if I may: Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for blasphemy.

    This debate has gone a little beyond the Charlie Hebdo massacre in the 12 pages.

    Yes, on that note, they apparently were. What about the Jewish shoppers though? Was their crime blasphemy? Or their culture?
  • Posts: 7,653
    @bondJames I disagree about your views in the sense that the Security Council does not vote down cultural lines but along their political and power intentions.

    The Crimea war is sadly a reflection of the first one in motives, only the European nations did not go for a war this time as it would profit nobody. the EU was not dicking around they were trying for an economic cooperation something that did not please Putin and his Russian Oligarchs, not about cultural divide but sheer maritime power [open harbor during the winter] and political power from Russia, who is anything but a large economical player in dire need of western currency. I guess they read Orlando Figes book about the Crimean war and decided that the conflict would be a waste of time and resources. And Russia has not been all that positive about the previous sovjet nations that wanted to step away from Russian control. Oekraine is no diffferent than all previous former Sovjet internal "civil conflicts". The Russian used the old cuckoo's chick tactic, defeding their own. That is about power and nothing cultural about it.

    If anything the Western colonial world failed miserably in their post colonial period when they divided nations and created nations, peoples and such according their so called superior cultural motives and hence laying the seeds of a lot of war.

    The debate about religion in the east is much like in our west about power and with power comes money. And we all know how attractive power is for the love of money, keeping people stupid and/or unschooled so that they will accept the word of their leaders, etc.
    In the last decade there was a law against blasphemy made in Ireland, and guess who was the driving force behind that law, you know it was not the Islam.

    This book states in careful wording that The west has the superior culture, that is were I wanted to throw up.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited January 2015 Posts: 12,480
    CNN has a current article on that. I'll see if I can find it.
    The terrorist who took hostages told them that because they paid taxes, they were doomed because it showed the supported France attacking ISIS.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I can simplify a little bit the debate, if I may: Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for blasphemy.

    This debate has gone a little beyond the Charlie Hebdo massacre in the 12 pages.

    Yes, on that note, they apparently were. What about the Jewish shoppers though? Was their crime blasphemy? Or their culture?

    Not apparently. The murderers shouted they had avenged the Prophet. Plain and simple. The Jewish shoppers were murdered because they were Jewish. Because Islamism is also antisemitic.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    To be honest, I don't think these guys need a reason to kill. Your
    Very existence, is enough to annoy them.
  • Posts: 4,603
    It's hard to say this without sounding patronising but as a relatively new member to the forum and as a member of many other political/current events forums, all involved here should be proud of both the high level of debate and how mature and civil the thread is. A great advert for Bond fans :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.