CharlieHebdo

1356745

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Terrorists can't accept the truth ! So they want to destroy
    Any free thought, speech or expression.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,731
    The reality, in simplified terms, is that individuals such as the ones who committed yesterday's atrocity are certifiably psychotic anyway - they would injure, kill & cause destruction no matter what the 'outlet' for their fury, perceived injustice or hatred might be.
    Sadistic killing without a big propaganda hype behind it just isn't in fashion anymore, there needs to be some ‘higher purpose’- imagined or otherwise. But in the end you’re still just a homicidal brute.

    It just so happens that 'religious extremism', or whatever excuse for a 'cause' you want to call it, is very appealing to the mentally feeble or violently psychotic. People who are mentally stable and not feeble minded (thus less - or not - inclined to indoctrination) with no violent tendencies simply do not go around shooting/beheading people they dislike, or even hate.

    Raging war against these groups is all well and good, but communal ownership & individual follow up is needed - communities, families, societies and the like need to take responsibility, in as far as they can, for the psychotics amongst them. The lack of damnation from within the communities where these psychotics come for the acts we’ve been seeing is disturbing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Good points @Getaflix & @AceHole. As mentioned, I think this was a cowardly and barbarous act, I believe however that it's important to understand the root causes for this. The root causes are not as obvious as needless and violent over-reaction to cartoons and free speech. That's a simplification.

    If we don't understand and deal with the causes, attacks will only continue again and again, and become worse. Over the past 15 years, the instances of these kinds of attacks have increased, and the consequences have become more severe. We are on the cusp of a tipping point imo.

    The only way to solve this in the long run is to ensure that it is extinguished from within......i.e. from within the Muslim community. That requires understanding, addressing and healing any legitimate (and only the legitimate ones) grievances which might be manifesting themselves without validating the attackers or the attacks. It also means not inciting further hatred needlessly.

    You cannot eradicate this any other way without blowing the budget deficit, wasting innocent lives unecessarily on both sides & eventually losing the freedoms which we cherish. If that happens then the attackers have indeed won.

    The causes for people to sympathize or relate to the attackers have to be understood at the root level and fixed. This will then annihilate and expunge the problem from within eventually because there will be nowhere for would be attackers to hide and no support for their actions. It will take years. Now's as good a time to start as any.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended, so I agree with you. I just think you have to pick your battles and this was not the best one to pick for a range of reasons.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended.
    well there's this huge difference between your right to be offended, and committing crimes and proclaiming you're doing that because you're offended.

    The synical thing is they even broke their own law, as the policeman they killed was a Muslim. Under sharia law they ought to be beheaded because of this.

    but that's not the point. The point is they took to violence because they couldn't stand the words or drawings.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended.

    There is no need for provocation, true - if I lived next door to a Muslim family I would not be sending them Christmas cards with caricatures of their prophet on them.

    But then again I do believe that when it comes to nonviolent acts offense is always taken, never given. The punishment should fit the crime, so if you are offended by cartoons or such then react accordingly, ie. protest or boycott. Gunning the cartoonist down hardly seems like balanced retribution.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended.
    well there's this huge difference between your right to be offended, and committing crimes and proclaiming you're doing that because you're offended.

    The synical thing is they even broke their own law, as the policeman they killed was a Muslim. Under sharia law they ought to be beheaded because of this.

    but that's not the point. The point is they took to violence because they couldn't stand the words or drawings.

    They'd probably say he was an apostate and deserved death because he was 'fighting' for the kafirs!

    Any one seen 'Four Lions'? Quite funny in parts.

  • Posts: 7,653
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Terrorists can't accept the truth ! So they want to destroy
    Any free thought, speech or expression.

    I am not sure what the truth is or if anybody would know the truth if it slapped him/her in the face, the truth is often subjective if anything especially when it comes to systems of faith.

    And while we criticize our Muslim fellow believers, lets not forget the bloody history we had with our Christian church and the bloodbaths due to the various schisms within our church. And to be honest the average devoted christian is not very entertained when his her religion gets mocked.

    As for free thought, speech & expression they are an ideal which we aim to achieve, but somehow even in the west it causes problems as we are not always that open and honest.

    For me the attack was a sign of stupidity, stupid in the sense that anybody believes that through violence you can kill any ideas you do not agree with. Thoughts that differ to your believes system always pop up again and as history has shown NO amount of violence can stop them, only delay them for a while. But they are an inescapable force of human nature.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2015 Posts: 45,489
    Blablabla it is all our own fault. I am so sick of hearing this. How do you think Islam spread throughout Africa and Asia? Through terror and mass slaughter. It has been estimated that 270 million people have been killed by Jihad over the last 1200 years. Not including muslims killed by muslims that are holier than themselves. That number is probably even bigger judging by how the Middle East looks today.

    Time to start a MohammadCapCon on this site?
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended.

    There is no need for provocation, true - if I lived next door to a Muslim family I would not be sending them Christmas cards with caricatures of their prophet on them.

    But then again I do believe that when it comes to nonviolent acts offense is always taken, never given. The punishment should fit the crime, so if you are offended by cartoons or such then react accordingly, ie. protest or boycott. Gunning the cartoonist down hardly seems like balanced retribution.

    I think we can all agree on that. And I repeat that I'm not in any way justifying the killers or on a fundamental level saying that people shouldn't have the right to blaspheme Mohammad. I completely defend their right to do so. All I'm questioning is the wisdom of doing it and pondering what it actually achieved.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    For myself, I never blame the victim !
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think, while totally legal, it's inadvisable to blaspheme anyone's prophet or religious beliefs. Debate and logically question, yes, but blaspheme, no, because it really only incites retribution. This was the case here. Such is the power of religion I'm afraid. As @Getaflix says, it has served no purpose. Except perhaps to create an unintended bloodbath.

    As was said in one of my favourite movies (Angels and Demons): "Be careful......these are men of God"
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Getafix wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Charlie Hebdo ridiculed every religion, every public figure and political ideology. They never exclusively took the mickey at islam. And every ideology, especially one that claims absolute and revealed truth, can and should be questioned, criticized and sometimes ridiculed. Blasphemy is not illegal. Charlie Hebdo would have forfeit everyone freedom if they had stopped mocking Mohammed to avoid causing offence. They had the right to be offensive especially towards the vilest of religious devotion. Plain and simple.

    Yes, I agree with you at the end of the day, I just wonder what is really achieved by this specific battle over depicting Mohammad. I'm not aware of Western literature or art going out of its way to present figurative depictions of Mohammad in the past - just seems odd that it's become a bit of an obession with some self-proclaimed defenders of press freedom. I just wonder if there aren't more important and productive battles to be fought, such as over the right of girls to have an education and not have their genitals mutilated, all in the name of 'Islam'. I'm just not sure how the deliberate provocation of the cartoons fits into the wider struggle against extremist Islamic lunacy, and whether it hasn't been overall rather counter-productive.

    The other irony of course is that there are lots of actual restrictions on press freedom in France and the UK - France's privacy laws; the UK's laws against incitement to racial hatred etc. It's not as if the absolute right to freedom to say whatever you want is enshrined in either French or UK law. The US is different, although there may be some excpetions that I'm not aware of. They do have their own odd prohibitions, like not burning the flag.

    I don't think burning the flag is a federal crime in the USA. If it is illegal someone accused of doing it could plea freedom of expression and get acquitted.

    Regarding the battles against Islamism, it is the same for women rights, gay rights or the right to blasphemy. We are confronting the same absolutism. i.

    You're right in principle. I guess I just personally see the 'right to blasphemy' one as less important, and one that needlessly offends when we need to be building bridges and strategic alliances with sensible, moderate Muslims. It makes it easier for the nutters to portray 'the West' as anti-Islamic. But at the end of the day, I would defend someone's right to cause offence over someone's right not to be offended.

    There is no need for provocation, true - if I lived next door to a Muslim family I would not be sending them Christmas cards with caricatures of their prophet on them.

    But then again I do believe that when it comes to nonviolent acts offense is always taken, never given. The punishment should fit the crime, so if you are offended by cartoons or such then react accordingly, ie. protest or boycott. Gunning the cartoonist down hardly seems like balanced retribution.

    I think we can all agree on that. And I repeat that I'm not in any way justifying the killers or on a fundamental level saying that people shouldn't have the right to blaspheme Mohammad. I completely defend their right to do so. All I'm questioning is the wisdom of doing it and pondering what it actually achieved.

    No, no - I understood your argument, and I agree...
    Say you live in a remote community, and your fellow farmer is of religion 'x' - what, exactly, are you achieving by running around shouting that his religion is silly, or mocking his religious symbols? Yes, you have exercised your right to free speech, but meanwhile also alienated yourself from the very people you need co-operate with and exist peacefully.

    It goes without saying that the farmer is not within his right to harm you for saying that, but I think the point is clear enough...

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    SaintMark wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Terrorists can't accept the truth ! So they want to destroy
    Any free thought, speech or expression.

    I am not sure what the truth is or if anybody would know the truth if it slapped him/her in the face, the truth is often subjective if anything especially when it comes to systems of faith.

    And while we criticize our Muslim fellow believers, lets not forget the bloody history we had with our Christian church and the bloodbaths due to the various schisms within our church. And to be honest the average devoted christian is not very entertained when his her religion gets mocked.

    As for free thought, speech & expression they are an ideal which we aim to achieve, but somehow even in the west it causes problems as we are not always that open and honest.

    For me the attack was a sign of stupidity, stupid in the sense that anybody believes that through violence you can kill any ideas you do not agree with. Thoughts that differ to your believes system always pop up again and as history has shown NO amount of violence can stop them, only delay them for a while. But they are an inescapable force of human nature.
    Fellow believers? I have no religion, and perhaps my Grandparents were of a Christian denomination, they never promoted the killing of anyone. Neither did their ancestors. So when you're speaking of 'our'church, you might first want to clarify 'our'.


    There are no problems with freedom of speech in the west, there are problems with the impairment of this freedom because people might get offended, or what have you. The essence is that we can disagree, and that's our right, however elequently we put it.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2015 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think, while totally legal, it's inadvisable to blaspheme anyone's prophet or religious beliefs. Debate and logically question, yes, but blaspheme, no, because it really only incites retribution. This was the case here. Such is the power of religion I'm afraid. As @Getaflix says, it has served no purpose. Except perhaps to create an unintended bloodbath.

    Then shouldnt we be looking at the root cause and trying to eradicate this cancer rather than indulge it? No one seems interested in the slightest in my offence that religion is even in this day some sacred cow that we all have to treat with reverence.

    Through science and enlightenment we no longer think the earth is flat or that we are the centre of the universe yet we are still all ordered by our governments that we must respect people who believe in religion. Why - its utter bollocks?

    Take the story of God: Here's a bloke who creates, if you will, a version of The Sims for his own entertainment. After a while he gets annoyed at the AI (which he programmed and could change if he wanted to) of the people for not behaving as he wants so he puts his own son into the game who is then executed for their sins, which somehow means that they are all saved and if they follow his rules they will get to go and live with him when they die.
    All I can think of to say is why? If you are God what is the point of it all? Why create us and then get the hump when we dont do what you want? You created us you cretin so you know how we are going to behave. Why do you make these beings and give them desire for sex, money, smoking & drinking and then do your nut when they indulge all these vices rather than go to church and help the poor? Here's an idea if you want to help stop the suffering of the poor and disadvantaged, how about tonight you leave a suitcase of £1 million outside their front doors?

    If you conclude that God exists then how can you not think he is just a cruel, self indulgent arsehole?

    Yet half the planet is in thrall to these bullshit stories and the rest of us have to put up with the consequences.

    Here's an idea - how about we divide the earth in half? One half for the religious and one half for the secular. We all just get on with our own business and never have any contact with each other because I'm really sick at having to listen to the bleatings of the intellectually challenged who think all this crap is true.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    DrGorner wrote: »
    For myself, I never blame the victim !

    Totally agree and I am conscious that what I'm saying could come across that way, which it's not supposed to.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The great thing about this forum and others operating in the free world.
    Is we can express ourselves and have different opinions. :) The very
    Thing these terrorists hate.
  • Posts: 4,622
    I understand what you are saying. But ... would you rather they say nothing? I would prefer that they join the voices against this.

    I certainly would. As another organisation that, like Islam, helps to retard human progress with its laughable teachings its part of the problem and I'd prefer if they keep it shut on days like this. This is an atrocity against ridicule of religion so I'd rather they keep their platitudes to themselves.
    Maybe you could do the world a favour and keep your ignorant self shut on some days too!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think, while totally legal, it's inadvisable to blaspheme anyone's prophet or religious beliefs. Debate and logically question, yes, but blaspheme, no, because it really only incites retribution. This was the case here. Such is the power of religion I'm afraid. As @Getaflix says, it has served no purpose. Except perhaps to create an unintended bloodbath.

    Then shouldnt we be looking at the root cause and trying to eradicate this cancer rather than indulge it? No one seems interested in the slightest in my offence that religion is even in this day some sacred cow that we all have to treat with reverence.

    Through science and enlightenment we no longer think the earth is flat or that we are the centre of the universe yet we are still all ordered by our governments that we must respect people who believe in religion. Why - its utter bollocks?

    Take the story of God: Here's a bloke who creates, if you will, a version of The Sims for his own entertainment. After a while he gets annoyed at the AI (which he programmed and could change if he wanted to) of the people for not behaving as he wants so he puts his own son into the game who is then executed for their sins, which somehow means that they are all saved and if they follow his rules they will get to go and live with him when they die.
    All I can think of to say is why? If you are God what is the point of it all? Why create us and then get the hump when we dont do what you want? You created us you cretin so you know how we are going to behave. Why do you make these beings and give them desire for sex, money, smoking & drinking and then do your nut when they indulge all these vices rather than go to church and help the poor? Here's an idea if you want to help stop the suffering of the poor and disadvantaged, how about tonight you leave a suitcase of £1 million outside their front doors?

    If you conclude that God exists then how can you not think he is just a cruel, self indulgent arsehole?

    Yet half the planet is in thrall to these bullshit stories and the rest of us have to put up with the consequences.

    Here's an idea - how about we divide the earth in half? One half for the religious and one half for the secular. We all just get on with our own business and never have any contact with each other because I'm really sick at having to listen to the bleatings of the intellectually challenged who think all this crap is true.

    I'm in complete agreement with you. I have religious friends with PhDs in biology and sciences who, when discussing religion, completely confound me with their lapse in basic reasoning. In fact, I am actually amazed at how otherwise completely logical people can become completely illogical when discussing the origins of the universe or religion.

    So my point is, it's best to tread lightly. At some point they'll come around, when science proves more (which it inevitably will). We've got a ways to go yet, which is why religion still has quite a hold. People need something to hold on to when science has failed to provide an answer.

    Regarding governments asking that we respect religious beliefs: I think it's because they realize this is a way to control the masses. Without religion, I think governments fear that they may not be able to retain moral authority, and anarchy may result. So they co-opt religion if you will, in order to retain some credibility with the masses who respect it above all else.

    I recently saw an interview with Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist. I think he and I are on the same page on this.

    A the end of the day, we're in agreement. I just think those lives were wasted needlessly.

    As I mentioned: it was said best in Angels and Demons: "Be careful....these are men of God"
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Through science and enlightenment we no longer think the earth is flat or that we are the centre of the universe yet we are still all ordered by our governments that we must respect people who believe in religion. Why - its utter bollocks?
    I don't know what alternative universe you live in. Planet Stupid apparently.
    I am not aware of any western country "ordering respect" for those who believe in whatever.
    I am aware though that in western countries we do have constitutional provisions for freedom of expression which naturally includes freedom of religious expression.
    But then there is also that camp, that believes in the inalienable right to "freedom of expression that only agrees with me"

  • Posts: 11,425
    DrGorner wrote: »
    The great thing about this forum and others operating in the free world.
    Is we can express ourselves and have different opinions. :) The very
    Thing these terrorists hate.

    Puts some of the 'disagreements' on here into stark perspective.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    timmer wrote: »
    I understand what you are saying. But ... would you rather they say nothing? I would prefer that they join the voices against this.

    I certainly would. As another organisation that, like Islam, helps to retard human progress with its laughable teachings its part of the problem and I'd prefer if they keep it shut on days like this. This is an atrocity against ridicule of religion so I'd rather they keep their platitudes to themselves.
    Maybe you could do the world a favour and keep your ignorant self shut on some days too!

    The burden of proof is on those of faith. Something a lot of them seem to either ignore or not realise. While the Wizard may be using provocative language, the sentiment is completely valid and in no way ignorant. I'm happy for people of faith to indulge themselves. If it makes their lives better then all power to them, but don't expect the truly enlightened to be a slave to such nonsense.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,622
    There is no burden of proof on anyone. We live in free and pluralistic societies.
    Freedom of expression is intrinsic to our democracies.
    The terrorist attacks aren't even truly an attack on freedom of expression.
    The law actually does protect the cartoonists.
    The terrorist attacks are an act of lawlessness, an act of war even, as we are actually at war with the IS (Islamic State) or whatever they call themselves.
    We are not at war with what they believe so much (Allah is supreme etc) but rather their lawless, war-like actions.
    The appropriate response is to fight back and defend our democracies, just as we did against the Nazis.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    I understand what you are saying. But ... would you rather they say nothing? I would prefer that they join the voices against this.

    I certainly would. As another organisation that, like Islam, helps to retard human progress with its laughable teachings its part of the problem and I'd prefer if they keep it shut on days like this. This is an atrocity against ridicule of religion so I'd rather they keep their platitudes to themselves.
    Maybe you could do the world a favour and keep your ignorant self shut on some days too!

    The burden of proof is on those of faith. Something a lot of them seem to either ignore or not realise. While the Wizard may be using provocative language, the sentiment is completely valid and in no way ignorant. I'm happy for people of faith to indulge themselves. If it makes their lives better then all power to them, but don't expect the truly enlightened to be a slave to such nonsense.

    I think the lesson of fanatical religion is that we should avoid phrases like this and any claims to special knowledge or enlightenment, triumphalism or dogma. Modern Western scientific knowledge is not some revealed truth that explains everything - particularly not in relation to the nature human existence. I'm an atheist, but am repelled by the stupid dogma of people like Dorkins (deliberate mis-spelling) almost as much as I am by fundementalist religion.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Luckily I live in a country were, if I want to believe in Santa Claus I can.
    Also if I don't want to believe in Santa Claus, I can !
    The terrorists want me to live in a country were they'll TELL me what
    I think and what my opinion should be.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    I understand what you are saying. But ... would you rather they say nothing? I would prefer that they join the voices against this.

    I certainly would. As another organisation that, like Islam, helps to retard human progress with its laughable teachings its part of the problem and I'd prefer if they keep it shut on days like this. This is an atrocity against ridicule of religion so I'd rather they keep their platitudes to themselves.
    Maybe you could do the world a favour and keep your ignorant self shut on some days too!

    The burden of proof is on those of faith. Something a lot of them seem to either ignore or not realise. While the Wizard may be using provocative language, the sentiment is completely valid and in no way ignorant. I'm happy for people of faith to indulge themselves. If it makes their lives better then all power to them, but don't expect the truly enlightened to be a slave to such nonsense.

    I think the lesson of fanatical religion is that we should avoid phrases like this and any claims to special knowledge or enlightenment, triumphalism or dogma. Modern Western scientific knowledge is not some revealed truth that explains everything - particularly not in relation to the nature human existence. I'm an atheist, but am repelled by the stupid dogma of people like Dorkins (deliberate mis-spelling) almost as much as I am by fundementalist religion.

    I use the word enlightened ironically, as it is the default response of most faiths. Perhaps it didn't come across that way; I didn't for a minute think anyone would believe I was claiming enlightenment, whatever that is defined as. I also agree on Dawkins. I don't think religion should be expunged from society, but I do think the privileges it demands are unreasonable in this day and age.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I am conflicted as I like a lot of things about religion. The architectural, artistic, musical, moral and intellectual inheritance that Christianity has given us is mind-blowingly rich. I like visiting the odd old church. There is something reassuring about the continuity of the church. Despite all the rhetoric about religion causing war, it was atheist secular dictators who killed far more people in the 20th century than any religion.
  • Posts: 15,106
    DrGorner wrote: »
    Luckily I live in a country were, if I want to believe in Santa Claus I can.
    Also if I don't want to believe in Santa Claus, I can !
    The terrorists want me to live in a country were they'll TELL me what
    I think and what my opinion should be.

    Indeed. The problem is not the offence: anyone has the right to be offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. But nobody has the right to force others to be offended, or to be protected from being offended. Hence, no religion, no religious people, can claim special protection from mockery, ridicule and criticism. And since they make a claim regarding a revealed and absolute truth, they can be challenged on it. And ridiculed.
Sign In or Register to comment.