General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharlie Hebdo, Don't pretend your new issue does not disrespect Islam
Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 03:03 PM - Edit history (2)
Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish what it likes within the confines of French law. I don't dispute their right to free speech, and under no circumstances do I condone or excuse the murders. Pretending, however, that there is something respectful or conciliatory about this second edition is farcical.But he did. First a cartoon that served as "catharsis," and then, after many iterations, he drew a cartoon of Islam's Prophet Muhammad shedding a tear and holding a sign with what's become the slogan of this tragedy: "Je Suis Charlie," or "I am Charlie." Above it all, there's a headline that reads, "All Is Forgiven."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/13/376947103/charlie-hebdos-editor-on-new-issue-were-happy-to-have-done-it
Charlie Hebdo chose to be defiant. They also chose to disrespect Islam and French Muslims. Depictions of the Prophet Mohammad is seen as blasphemous under Islam. Edit: The question of depicting images of Mohammad is more complicated that I originally thought. Oberlinger links to some very interesting articles below, while this article shows that many Muslims were indeed bothered by the second cover. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014989137
http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-reaches-global-audience-dismays-muslims-135610795.html
Titus Burckhardt sums up the role of aniconism in sacred Islamic art as follows:
"The absence of icons in Islam has not merely a negative but a positive role. By excluding all anthropomorphic images, at least within the religious realm, Islamic art aids man to be entirely himself. Instead of projecting his soul outside himself, he can remain in his ontological centre where he is both the viceregent (khalîfa) and slave ('abd) of God. Islamic art as a whole aims at creating an ambience which helps man to realize his primordial dignity; it therefore avoids everything that could be an 'idol', even in a relative and provisional manner. Nothing must stand between man and the invisible presence of God. Thus Islamic art creates a void; it eliminates in fact all the turmoil and passionate suggestions of the world, and in their stead creates an order that expresses equilibrium, serenity and peace."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam
[3]
In the great traditions of Islamic art and architecture, the human figure is rarely depicted, while Allah and Mohammad never appear. Note, for example, the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran in comparison to the Sistine Chapel.
It does not matter if the Prophet is crying or holding a machine gun. All images are seen as blasphemous. Certainly journalists operating in a country with a significant Muslim population know something so basic. In exercising their rights to free speech, Charlie Hebdo chose to disrespect Islam and French citizens of the Muslim faith. Their legal right to free speech even allows them to cloak that disrespect in the language of forgiveness, while my rights to free speech enable me to say I find their explanation disingenuous and willfully ethnocentric. Charlie Hebdo, you are full of shit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)how apologetic do you think they should be?
Great art though - love that ceiling.
Bryant
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)They chose the caption "all is forgiven." What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to pretend there is something conciliatory about that issue, when clearly it is deliberately offensive. They are saying fuck you to Muslims. They should at least be honest about it.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)are being honest about it.
It's pretty much a middle finger to those that attacked them. And deserved middle finger, too.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)who may be offended will feel a moment of offense and then go on and live their lives. It sucks, but there are religious depictions in society that offend all the time.
It's rude, sure, but it's also free speech.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I was quite clear to say I support their right to free speech, as I choose to exercise my own.
cali
(114,904 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)The right to free speech doesn't mean one is immune from criticism. I am criticizing their speech, while acknowledging their right to engage in it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)We're peaches and cream, then.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and at humanity in general, at minority groups, at other faith groups and other nations to affect that they have some high blown standard about how people should speak about others.
To put it bluntly, religious people including Muslims seem to want protections for their own precious right to insult everyone they might wish to insult in unrelentingly vicious and direct terms while whimpering that they themselves must be approached on bended knee and with bated breath.
The pointed hate speech out of religious quarters offends me deeply. The religious should not mistake tolerance for their bigoted ways as any form of endorsement of them. They should realize that their own speech offends masses of people, deeply and personally. They insult our families, our parents. Do they think this is their birth right? I do not agree.
I think once a religion has become known for fire breathing clergy shouting against this group and that group, calling other countries Satanic, calling minority groups of all kinds 'dogs' and 'pigs' and 'filthy' and 'vermin' and 'disordered' and 'sinners' it might be a bit too late for them to sell themselves as Ms Manners. I think it is an offensive joke to claim religion, creator of most hate speech, needs protection from criticism. Nothing could be more dangerous, foolhardy or craven.
I agree with Rushdie, when religion asks for your respect what they really want is your fear. I am not afraid of them, with their insults and invective and deities one can harm with a pencil.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
Scruffy Rumbler
(961 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Religions don't ask. People do. There is no singular spokesman for Islam. We aren't talking about a single hierarchical organization. Most of the adherent to that religion are poor, non-white, half are women, and likely the same percent are LGBT as of any other religious or ethnic group. A religion doesn't ask. It is human beings who ask and deserve respect, and I for one do not think it acceptable to exclude great swaths of humanity from respect because of the little I know based on propaganda in US media, propaganda designed to vilify people in order to justify perpetual war against them. The finger wagging by Americans without the first inclination for self reflection is the height of irony. Americans bomb, torture, and wage endless war, but people here see themselves as superior to the Muslims they look upon with derision, pretending to do so under the guise of opposition toward "a religion," as though that were somehow separable from its ethnic, social, and geopolitical context. The media and US government have taught Americans to despise the enemy, and they have dutifully obeyed.
As for asking for respect for themselves and not caring about respect toward other groups, that is an all too common practice.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
samsingh
(18,426 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is a problem ... TOO.
But are we to address that which we consider wrong by doing it to, and justifying it by say, "Well ... they do it!"?
samsingh
(18,426 posts)
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I find the murder of innocent civilians far more offensive than a religious slight.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I was not contradicting you. Sorry if it appeared that way.
I will say though, I cannot believe that this OP was authored by someone so outspoken on victims rights regarding sexual crimes seems to think we should temper our speech for people who lost their lives.
WTF is up with that?
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Bain's bored.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Based on the interview with the editor on NPR. Also having Mohammad saying "Je suis Charlie" suggests as much. They present the new cover as a statement against radical terrorrists, but the depiction of the Prophet disrespects Islam and Muslims more generally.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)I personally don't give a fuck who is offended by free speech - Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, who cares?
That's the whole point of free speech.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)If what one wants to do is offend, that is also covered. So is criticism of that speech.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)And I'll continue to say "Who cares?"
The point of free speech is up to the speaker, not the listener. In other words, you don't get to determine the point of free speech for others.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)it is all about reception. If it is simply about the speaker, there is no reason to publish it or even say it to another person.
SickOfTheOnePct
(8,710 posts)You don't get to determine what free speech is for others.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What are we to make of that?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Why should that be a problem? Are you the sort of person who changes their core values based on popularity? I am not. Clearly contempt for Islam is popular in the West. We've been subject to a lot of propaganda to make sure we hate those we are at war with. I don't buy into that propaganda.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Hebdo attackers, etc. seem to provide much of that propaganda.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Though I expect ours has also helped form theirs in, perhaps, its antithesis. Yet we aren't talking here about ISIS and Al Quaeda. We are talking about French Muslims. Why do you think those terrorist groups relevant to the conversation? I submit that automatic association is the essence of the problem.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Your intention of avoiding bigotry is admirable but the execution is resulting in just another form of bigotry wherein you assume the worst about a particular group. In this case, non-Muslim Westerners.
You have no reason for the above citation other than you assume the worst about me and my motives because I am part of THAT group and, well, we all know how THOSE people are. You automatically associated my not buying your nonsense with anti-Muslim bigotry.
Yet, a little more situational awareness could spare you further public embarrassment such as in the OP where you were not aware that the prohibition against depictions of Mohammed was not universal or even based on the Koran. To wit:
...
Coulibaly, who called himself "A Soldier of the Caliphate," said "I pledge allegiance to the caliph" in reference to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/01/11/French-terrorist-Amedy-Coulibaly-pledges-loyalty-to-IS-in-video/6291421014119/#ixzz3OzT1nY00
So my association with ISIS and al Qaeda was not unfounded and predicated solely upon the deep-seat bigotry as ascribed by your post.
The point of my post was: The attack in Paris wasn't because eeeeevil Westerners propagandized against poor, innocent, beleaguered terrorists which in turn led Charlie Hebdo and others to vilify poor, innocent beleaguered terrorists which then forced those poor, innocent beleaguered terrorists to defend their most deeply held sentiments. The fact of the matter is, the terrorists have their own propaganda. They WANT to kill those not like them and force the rest into subjugation. They are not reactionaries -- they're assholes and that is all the consideration they should be given.
And, no, I am not referring to Muslims in general. I am strictly referring to the terrorists. In case you were tempted to automatically associate me with bigots simply because I'm one of THOSE people.
cali
(114,904 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why would their be? Why should there be?
get the red out
(14,031 posts)Need a WAAAAAAmbulance.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)on depicting Mohammed. And you do find depictions of Mohammed within the Shia tradition, so it's not absolute.
And it's hardly as if all Muslims are respectful of other religions. I've seen some pretty ugly cartoons out of Muslim countries depicting Jews- not Israelis, Jews.
This cartoon was defiant, yes, but it was not disrespectful.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)
1) you and not Imams determine what is blasphemous in the Islamic faith.
2) since some Muslims have disrespect those of other faiths, they deserve disrepect.
3) but it's not really disrespectful, even though Muslims deserve to be disrespected.
cali
(114,904 posts)has no obligation to adhere to what those in the faith feel is blasphemous. I didn't have a problem with Serrano's Piss Christ, and I don't have a problem with depicting Mohammed. And guess what? Not all Imams are in accord.
Criticizing religion or mocking it is not necessarily the same as mocking those who belong to a religion
I didn't say Muslims deserve to be disrespected.
Oh, and I think the entire concept of blasphemy is deeply problematic.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)I DID have a problem with Piss Christ. I exercised my free speech by not going, shrugging my shoulders, and ignoring it.
I think what Baines Bane is arguing is that Piss Christ should never have been made bc it's insensitive. Or rude. And that's a terrible argument.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)The question of whether images in Islamic art, including those depicting Muhammad, can be considered as religious art remains a matter of contention among scholars.[8] They appear in illustrated books that are normally works of history or poetry, including those with religious subjects; the Qu'ran is never illustrated: "context and intent are essential to understanding Islamic pictorial art. The Muslim artists creating images of Muhammad, and the public who beheld them, understood that the images were not objects of worship. Nor were the objects so decorated used as part of religious worship".[9]
However, scholars concede that such images have "a spiritual element", and were also sometimes used in informal religious devotions celebrating the day of the Mi'raj.[10] Many visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from before about 1500, show his face.[11][12][13] With the notable exception of modern-day Iran,[14] depictions of Muhammad were rare, never numerous in any community or era throughout Islamic history,[15][16] and appeared almost exclusively in the private medium of Persian and other miniature book illustration.[17][18] The key medium of public religious art in Islam was and is calligraphy.[16][17]
http://www.webcitation.org/63BsneOUJ
In certain reference works and books about Islam, we may come across the claim that even if the Prophet Muhammad was represented in pictorial form in earlier times, no pictorial representation of Him is permitted in our times. This reflects the state in Sunni areas, where images of the Prophet are rare. In Shia Islam, however, the situation is different, and pictures of the Prophet are quite common.
These two pictures come from Shia Muslims in Iran and Alevis in Turkey. (Although Alevis emphatically state that they are not Shia Muslims, there are historical and other connections between the two forms of Islam.)
In both pictures, the Prophet is holding the Koran in his hand. The upper picture displays the Creed below his image: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet." His raised index finger in the lower picture underlines the unity of God. (Purchased in Iran and Turkey.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)closer to the mark. Also, religious elements aren't always pictures of humans, they can be represented by birds and flowers and trees.
I used to live in Iran, when it was far more liberal than it is today. I got around alot, and I never saw pictures of Muhamad 'commonly' displayed. It was a rare occasion to see a geometric flower or bird in a masjid and never once did I see a representation of the Prophet--and I've been in a few masjids in that country, some of them places of pilgrimage.
tblue37
(68,436 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)procedure where we can recommend posts.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)NOT SO MUCH! Well said...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It's not actively unethical to respect Islam (although it certainly is misguided to), but it's certainly not unethical not to.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)If Muslims choose to not depict their prophet in image form, that's their choice.
They're welcome to be offended by the actions of non-Muslims, if they so choose.
Too fucking bad.
Sid
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Too bad if they're offended.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You asked the question I was thinking.
beaglelover
(4,466 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They don't get to force their religion on us anymore than Christians get to tell a woman what she and can't do with her body.
Response to SidDithers (Reply #10)
Post removed
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And this whole rant is nonsensical knickers-in-a-twist-over-nothing. Sorry, but you know, considering that 8 members of the magazine's staff were brutally murdered by Islamist fanatics, and the reasons given for that murder? I don't really think that there's any way they would have not run with an image of Muhammad on the cover of this issue. They're saying "fuck you" to extremists, not to Muslims.
1bigdude
(91 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)not to be able to depict the message without a drawing of Mohammad. Centuries of Muslim artists have managed, but somehow they can't.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
cali
(114,904 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and Muslim France is somehow separate and not part of the call for unity expressed under "Je suis Charlie"?
The statement is a call to national unity.
cali
(114,904 posts)not to mention that French Muslim opinion on the cover is hardly uniform. Some are fine with it, others aren't. And living in a multicultural society doesn't mean freedom from being offended. but hey, I love that you think YOU get to speak for all French Muslims. It's just darling of you.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)you claim to speak for all French Muslism. You claim to speakf or everyone therefore your speech is invalid. Weak, that is as weak as an argument gets.
You emphatically insisted that Charlie Hebdo is not Muslim. What are they? Are they also not French? How can one have a call to national unity and exclude part of the nation?
cali
(114,904 posts)which you admirably cop to.
Had Charlie not published a cover with a depiction of Mohammed- and the one they published was not cruel or mean spirited, they would have given in to those who want to shut up "blasphemers" and satirists.
Yes, Charlie Hebdo is French, but as I explained, not all French Muslims think the cover was disrespectful.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"Oh gee, you just killed 8 of our staff members over caricatures of Muhammad. Our bad, here' we won't do that again! Here's something that doesn't show Muhammad at all, you win." Sorry, but I'd have thought less of them if they'd *not* put Muhammad on the cover. "Not offending the sensibilities of Muslims" is absurd; in a secular society, no religion has the right to expect that non-adherents will follow its strictures.
cwydro
(51,308 posts) BainsBane
(57,757 posts)what I find disingenuous is their dressing it up in the guise of national unity.
tblue37
(68,436 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)In certain reference works and books about Islam, we may come across the claim that even if the Prophet Muhammad was represented in pictorial form in earlier times, no pictorial representation of Him is permitted in our times. This reflects the state in Sunni areas, where images of the Prophet are rare. In Shia Islam, however, the situation is different, and pictures of the Prophet are quite common.
These two pictures come from Shia Muslims in Iran and Alevis in Turkey. (Although Alevis emphatically state that they are not Shia Muslims, there are historical and other connections between the two forms of Islam.)
In both pictures, the Prophet is holding the Koran in his hand. The upper picture displays the Creed below his image: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet." His raised index finger in the lower picture underlines the unity of God. (Purchased in Iran and Turkey.)
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)graphic cartoons that CH did since learning the background of what they were referencing, often movies in France that they would know but I have never heard of.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)While I clearly was wrong about their being an absolute prohibition, I didn't invent it from whole cloth. My job sometimes involves outreach to and collaboration with Muslim scholars and community groups, and no way would we ever use an image of Mohammad. Obviously we aren't a satirical magazine, so the terrain is very different, but my core beliefs involve respect for people of all races, genders, religions, ethnicities, sexualities, etc.... I'd make a lousy cartoonist.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)have continued to treat women as second class citizens.
I don't care about their sensibilities.
Cass
(2,600 posts)I am sick of hearing about what offends them.
Thanks.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and the role of women? Because that statement you made about Muslims is every bit as true for Western culture. I'll also point out that half the Muslims on earth are women. They find these sorts of excuses for disrespect of Islam to be hollow and insulting. There are many Muslim feminist groups whose websites and articles you can read.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)But to call on the rest of the world to adhere to stupid and baseless religious directives is just religio-centric nonsense.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Who cares what Moslems have done inside their own cultural expressive frameworks? This isn't about them, it's about the artists and writes at Charlie Hebdo. Moslems are free to publish their own shit in France, too, you know.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)(about the pronunciation of Hebdo, too...)
840high
(17,196 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Tough shit. Last I checked, Charlie ain't Islamic.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Shia Islam has no problem with it at all.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)because Charlie Hebdo fired him in 2008 for merely insinuating that Sarkozy's son had become Jewish. Yes, there are MANY levels of WTF about that fact, but just on the surface of it, you can see how they hold their own double standards.
I agree that there are no circumstances under which this massacre can be rationalized, and also that Charlie Hebdo is not what many right-wing Islamophobes (and CH itself) would have us believe.
It's a paradox, and there you go.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and indeed it is a paradox.
JI7
(93,615 posts)to images of Jesus, Buddha , etc
closeupready
(29,503 posts)born a prince. Mohammed was a merchant (IIRC). Jesus' existence is disputed, but it's entirely possible he was real.
JI7
(93,615 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I do think, though, that the scandal surrounding Sinet's termination juxtaposed against this recent outrageous massacre is a thought-provoking exercise.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
Invent a new excuse.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Fascist salutes everywhere' it says above, basically. The words in the balloon say 'growth nowhere'.
It's funny.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)The issue was the hypocrisy of firing Maurice Sinet.
I responded to the statement/excuse "they probably have different standards when it comes to actual currently living people."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But what is not honest is that you are dealing with matters of law as if they are matters of random choice. It's silly and it has a huge, giant stench of anti Jewish sentiment around it.
It's also nasty to put quotation marks around question implying that my inquiry about your opinion of that carton had some agenda.
So what do you think of the politics in the cartoon? You seem to hate Hebdo, and that cartoon is very much to my liking, it's against right wingers. Are you a right winger, or do you just agree with them a lot?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)as opposed to the poor and disenfranchised, who are fair game. Plus France has laws against anti-semitism. The French government has made 54 arrests for speech violations in the past week. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30829005 "Free speech" is highly selective.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Back in Sunday School, the only way I could rationalize making wine out of water was if he has added sucrose and bacteria and time.
As for infinite breaking of the bread, I looked at it as a simple division math example. Ever onward.
Reality isn't that bad if you understand it.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)Siné refused, saying he would rather 'cut his own nuts off' and was, more or less, fired. Cue outrage, argument, counter argument, argument. Was the original statement anti-Semitic? For Val, there was no doubt. Siné's statements, he said last week, 'could be interpreted as making a link between conversion to Judaism and social success' and that they spread the old stereotype associating Jews and money.
But for his collaborator and founder of Charlie Hebdo, François Cavanna, they were 'one of Siné's more extreme jokes, certainly dangerous but rare'. Other colleagues supported the cartoonist's 'right to provoke'. Many have signed the petition of support.
At Libération, editor Laurent Joffrin has attacked the anti-Semitism. 'Everything is there,' he said. 'The association of the Jew, money and power in one phrase which stigmatises the arrivisme of an individual.' But at Libération, as at Charlie Hebdo, other journalists disagreed. According to Luc Le Vaillant, a senior editor at the newspaper, Siné is a victim of the 'exploitation of anti-Semitism' in the debate between 'the two sides of the left'. 'It is more than unpleasant to be seen as a potential anti-Semite when you attack the excesses of the American Empire, "the best friend of Israel", when you oppose an (economically) neo-liberal Europe or when you want to do something more than just "regulate" capitalism,' he said. For the row over Siné is about much more than the cartoonist. It is about history and politics.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/03/france.pressandpublishing
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the expression "he'll go a long way in life" is very open to interpretation.
But for the sake of this argument, let's everyone say that it WAS anti-semitic to say of Sarkozy's son that 'he'll go a long way in life'. If an employee can be sacked for that, then in light of the extremely bigoted depictions of muslims and Mohammed which were done with complete impunity, there can be no question whatsoever that a double standard is being applied, in which a bigoted remark about Judaism is grounds for termination but a bigoted remark about Islam is rewarded with publication on the cover. To me, there can be no question that they have a double standard.
This still does not rationalize or justify violence, and IMO, no speech (that I can think of at the moment) ever does warrant violent reaction.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)An obscene image of Jesus Christ generates no death threats.
An obscene image of Mohammed - one risks one's life to publish.
Astrad
(466 posts)Cinemas that did show it were picketed by religious groups, and the Pythons – John Cleese, Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam – received death threats.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2046493/Monty-Pythons-Life-Of-Brian-caused-uproar-release-BBC-drama-reveals.html|
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)anti-semitism is off limits while Islamophobia is fair game.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)And it is true that some violent people seem to concentrate around certain ideologies.
Regardless of how many times people bring up the Crusades.
And I'm an atheist, so anyone who wants to argue with me about how bad other religions have been and can be... save it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)sorry for ever causing offence". And I guess if they had done that you would be praising them for being sensitive and responsible.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that would have been crapping all over their dead colleagues. They HAD to prove they wouldn't be cowed by the murderous scum.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)We have this article, which states: "It does not matter if the Prophet is crying or holding a machine gun. All images are seen as blasphemous"
And we have other articles which state:
The short and simple answer is no. The Koran does not prohibit figural imagery.
http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298
Along with many others.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Live and learn.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)it’s not physical depictions of the Prophet that some Muslims find offensive, but rather representations that “desecrate his image.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/prophet-muhammad-images-pictures-reaction_n_6468764.html
This particular cover image does not desecrate his image. The cover presents him in a respectful way (unlike some of their past cartoons). Would you not agree?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Thanks for the links.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)4139
(2,008 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Response to uppityperson (Reply #47)
Post removed
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Talk about doubling down. Wow.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)It really contributed a lot to the thread.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)We are not obligated to live by the moral codes of faiths we are not a part of.
If you're visiting the Sistine Chapel or the Kaabba, you should be respectful of their religious beliefs because you're a guest at one of their religious sites. But in your day to day life? Abiding by the tenets of a religion you don't profess to is a Tea Party ideal, and not one that should be espoused by progressives.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)"fuck that shit" and "FAIL" lol. Thank you for helping shed a bit of light here on what's what.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)
I am saying that the magazine cover is disrespectful rather than unifying. I don't disput their right to disrespect. I am saying I don't agree with it because I believe all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender. Now you are telling me that if I don't actively treat people with disrespect based on religion and ethnicity and support a dominant culture's rights to disrespect a subaltern group, that makes me like the Tea Party. Since when has the Tea Party opposed bigotry? You and I clearly don't share the same version of progressivism. I do not believe that progressivism is about promoting the dominant culture over the subaltern. I call that support for power.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)But you created a thread that slammed Charlie Hebdo by claiming that their cover is insulting and divisive. There is NOTHING in that cover that is even remotely insulting, unless YOU CHOOSE to grant moral authority to the religious orthodoxy that calls the depiction of ANY humans "blasphemy". You can believe anything you want, but YOU posted a thread attacking them because they chose to publish a piece of art that was perfectly acceptable to their own moral code, simply because others find it religiously offensive.
There's a world of difference between insulting a religion, and saying (or doing) something that the religion disagrees with. Christians are horrified by abortion. Many Hindu find meat eating to be repulsive. Orthodox Jews have religious prohibitions against using light switches on the Shabbat. Several faiths believe that vaginas should be stitched shut. Religions around the world are peppered with all sorts of moral and ethical codes that outsiders find to be odd, distasteful, and even horrifying, and the members of those same religions are regularly offended by the "blasphemy" of the world around them.
It is not disrespectful to live your own life in a way that members of another faith or culture find offensive or blasphemous. We are not bound by the moral codes of others. We should not curb our art, or our music, or our speech simply because another persons religious leaders claim that it offends the divine will of their god(s). The only faith that should guide your life is your own.
The writers at Charlie Hebdo created a piece of art that does not insult or denigrate anyone. Charlie Hebdo is a product of western culture, produced by westerners, for western consumption. The fact that some members of a religious minority (and I use "minority" in the loosest sense of the term when referring to Islam) find the drawing blasphemous isn't something that any progressive should have a problem with. The notion that we should bite our tongues and curb our speech to avoid offense to ANY religion is not a progressive principle.
annabanana
(52,804 posts)This sentiment should be as much a part of the public discourse today as any other. Actually, MORE. This gets right to the very heart of what "Freedom of Religion" means in a multi-faith/secular world.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Goddammit!
Desert805
(392 posts)It should be an OP. The rebuttals would be fascinating.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)a culture that colonized North Africa, oppressed Muslims there, and allowed some in its national boundaries to be treated as second-class citizens. Your post demonstrates that you see those whose ethnic origins are not from Western Europe as outside the cultural fabric. There is nothing disrespectful in that magazine to you because it isn't about you. I wonder if your reaction might be different if it had skewered atheists?
On this site we hear endlessly about how using the term white privilege is offensive to white people. We are forbidden to call MRA arguments out for what they are, in both cases because they addresses the privileged. Charlie Hebdo skewers the disenfranchised, an immigrant, colonized minority within France. It's always easy to pick on the weak, and as these responses show, people will line up to support it. (Note, I am not talking about the terrorists and murderers but ordinary, peaceful Muslims). As Bravenak points out below, why not punch up rather than down? There is no challenge to power in skewering Islam. It is an affirmation of Western power over ethnic minorities and the Muslim world.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)western culture in a way that many found offensive? Cartoons that depicted your criticism in cartoon form? Would that be problematic?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)but that would be an example of what Bravenak calls punching up, whereas Charlie Hebdo's cover punched down. So I guess it depends on the particular content and context. For example, I have a problem with anti-Semitic caricatures in the Middle East because they fuel dangerous anti-semitism. A cartoon skewering political figures, I have no issue with, but one that conveys bigotry does bother me. I can imagine being personally unsettled by a cartoon that depicts all Americans as killers due to the war on terror. Mind you I am not saying any of this speech should be prohibited, but rather that I am critical of it. In general, I think it unseemly to single out the poor and disenfranchised, which is the condition of the Muslim minority in France.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)and you don't understand why others don't think it's mean too. I think the distinction comes in because the people who don't think it's mean think that making fun of silly ideas is important. They also think that making fun of the idea of people murdering others in the name of Jesus, is not necessarily making fun of any certain person. I think the magazine in question made fun of religion in general and the fact that so many people throughout time and still today do horrible things because they think their god/prophet/idol wants them to do horrible things. That idea is ridiculous. I think the magazine wishes people could see that their prophet/pope/etc doesn't have to be exalted because if people could see that, they would see that it's OK for gays to marry, for women to have a choice, for girls to go to school, etc.
I do understand you thinking it's just mean spirited, juvenile drivel. Different strokes for different folks.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts) GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)as Jesus saying 'goddamnit'.
Any depiction of the Prophet Mohammad is seen as blasphemous under Islam
Considering that entire concept of "blasphemy" is right wing to the core, I welcome it! World needs more blasphemy and less religion.
And as explained above, your "facts" are also incorrect, unless you don't consider Shia as muslims.
#JeSuisCharlie
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I get full doses of others free speech directed at me often in an ignorant and racist way. Nobody is saying I should kill them, but it gets fucking old. I don't have to like the cartoons. I don't. I'm feee to say I dislike them a whole lot. No religious reason. The pregnant black girls with their hands out for welfare checks was enough to gross me out. I found it racist. And please. I do not wanna hear about how I don't 'get' french humor. They just use the words 'Welfare Queen' over here to make similar points. When I saw that cover, I said to myself, "damn, even in France."
Punch up, not down. If you punch down people will feel oppressed, especially when they are already a minority.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and then everyone defends it as free speech, which they really mean as freedom from criticism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Art should be critiqued. If it cannot stand up to criticism, then is it art? Or just blabber?
Would these same people defend so strongly the same magazine if they published the majority of negative images about Americans? Maybe, maybe not.
To me the cartoons were about Arabs, not necessarily Islam. It was about poking the Arab minority.
There are asian muslims, but they never made it to print with depictions of white or Asian Muslims. Just Arab muslims. My opinion.
cali
(114,904 posts)They published some very graphic and yes, ugly images depicting Christian icons like the Virgin Mary. Is that just as objectionable to you? They published some stereotypical images of hook nosed Jews.
And yes, if some murderous fuckwads burst into any place that published negative images of Americans or Jews or anyone else, I'd strongly defend that publication no matter how offensive I found the images. I find some of the images Charlie published ugly and racist. I find murder far, far, far more offensive.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But lately, commenting on the actual images brings such anger, like somebody is saying the images excuse the murder, and I just don't see why. Nobody here thinks it's okay to murder over images. Some of us just hate the images and understand the anger, but condemn the murder on gp.
The murders were evil and the cartoons offensive. Both things can be said without it meaning the person saying it approves of murder.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)that there was a LOT of racism directed towards North African immigrants (and like almost every other capitol, immigration was most visible in Paris where money is easier to be made than in, for example, Nice or Bordeaux or Toulouse).
I found that quite odd considering how ethnically mixed 'real' French people are. Sort of like Americans discriminating against Canadians.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She could not find work where she wanted, not because of skill, her color didn't fit, they told her. Happens here in ballet, too. Sad. I suppose I just expected France to be different, like in the movie 'The Josephine Baker Story'. Guess movies are just movies. 
I'd still like to go to France, though.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)When has Charlie Hebdo wanted to be free from criticism?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)but responses to the magazine here on DU.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)point they are making is the opposite of that, it is an attack on right wingers in France who are similar to Republicans who say 'Welfare Queens'. That is the simple fact.
I've had a few of these pro religion straight folks show me cartoons that are pro gay and tell me they are homophobic. They are incorrect and working an agenda. They come to try to tell me that strong advocates for my rights are actually bigots. I know better.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But I got welfare queens from it, and I'm not the only one. It's not like it was explained, I read the caption and I saw what it said. If that was drawn by a paper in America, it would be racist. Period.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It is an anti racist, pro welfare cartoon, attacking the racist right savagely. If it was drawn in America, it would have a different context, it would not be the same meaning because of the context. That's inherent to the meaning. 'If pigs could fly angels would give us bacon'.
That magazine is an unrelenting voice for equality and social justice. They defend LGBT people against the religious attackers valiantly. They are of the left. They speak for the poor, the disposed and they destroy the right wing.
But I'm sure you are correct, not the millions of French who you claim are marching in support of a vile racism. Logic itself indicates that World leaders marched for vile racism. And since Le Pen shares your view of Charlie Hebdo, and he is a notorious racist bigot, obviously Charlie is the racist. You and Le Pen must be correct.
So I'm standing by Charlie, you can stand with LePen against us. I think when you figure out the company you are keeping you will not be pleased.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That was a disgusting accusation. I do not have to approve of imagery i find offensive, even if I defend the right to draw such nastiness. For you to accuse me of standing with Le Pen because I find punching down on immigrant groups to be offensive, is wrong and I find it manipulative.
I do not have to clap for the images that give me a nasty feeling inside. Not my job. I am myself.
Funny how white people are always telling me that something is not racist and accusing me of being some form of evil for even thinking my thoughts. I bet people tell you things are not homophobic all the time and it pisses you off. Like they know better than you whats offensive to gays or whats homophobic, huh? It's stupid, right? Then the throw accusations at you that you are trying to bring the left down, right? Why you would do that to me, I'll never know. I don't tell Jews what antisemitism is, I don't tell gays that things ain't homophobic, and I'd appreciate people not telling me what is racist and calling me a right winger and Le Pen supporter. Though better of you since I find you intelligent as hell.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I mentioned to you that straight critics of Hebdo were accusing them wrongly of being homophobic and you did not even address that fact. Dismissed it. So you sure as hell will not discuss the realities of what is and is not homophobic in this context. I made it about LGBT issues, you did not acknowledge that part at all. Because you have a false narrative and the truth about the LGBT cartoons challenges that narrative.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I see that they liked to punch down at a despised minority group. I don't know the story about the straight critics, just your word. If you think it was not homophobic, fine. That has absolutely no impact on how that cartoon made me feel. There is plenty of history between France and africans, slavery and abuses, Haiti, plenty enough for me to feel grossed out by seeing that cartoon. Shit don't always travel well and sometimes even far left liberals can be racist as hell and not seem to know or care. If you tell them ' that's racist!' They seem to think yr a rightwinger. Just recently I found myself telling left liberals here on DU of all places that ' calling black republican's uncle Tom's and Aunt Jemima's and other similar terms is racist."
Seems to me, that even the left has problems with racism. So, attacking a black person for letting you know how it looks from the non white majority perspective is dumb. Not smart.
I try not to speak for people I don't know. I only speak for me. All the black people I showed it to had the same response. That is was the same old recycled racist bullshit. Whatever the joke was, it fell fucking flat with us. But not with white liberals. And only what they think counts. I'm just a Le Pen supporter now since I think the welfare queen shit is played the fuck out and not funny no matter the situation. If I told you that a joke about gays was 'not homophobic' because it's from Russia and you don't understand their humor, I'd hope you'd tell me to fuck off. For real.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)THE END.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I always forget the ending.
REP
(21,691 posts)I can say and write "Fuck the holy spirit" as much as I want. I can touch a torah when I'm menstruating. I can draw Mohammed. Just because certain religions have their rules for their members, they don't apply to everyone.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
?modified_at=1421156725&width=750
The imams condemn the Charlie attack
"It's bad"
"Almost as bad as to draw a cartoon of the prophet"
R3druM
(50 posts)I am curious, BainsBane:
Lets say a female is raped by a bunch of extreme right wing Christians for wearing a skimpy clothes (which they considering "disrespectful" and "offensive"
, then she defiantly wears them next time she walks down the street:
Would you say "In exercising their rights to free speech, she chose to disrespect Christianity and citizens of the Christian faith" ?
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)In our culture and point in history, rape tends to be about the individual pathology of the rapist, exacerbated by certain social factors.
Take a look at history though (or scan the last couple of years of headlines from India), and you will find countless examples (in many cases condoned or even encouraged by the local governing authority) of rape being used as a punishment or retaliation against people seen as having transgressed against social boundaries, including sexual ones.
I agree that the analogy in the post that you are answering is stretched to the breaking point though.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)edhopper
(37,367 posts)It is not a law for a free society.
Worrying about the hurt feelings of imaginary beings belong in the dark ages.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)seriously.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)does not apply.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Or any religion for that matter. They're all a bunch of myths that make people stupid and crazy.
Don't think I'm picking on Islam in particular. I don't respect Christianity or Judaism either.
I respect individuals, whether they're religious or not. But I don't respect religion. I think religion is a bunch of nonsense, and it's my right to say that straight up.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)backscatter712
(26,357 posts)I said I respect individuals, but I don't respect religions.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)particularly in France where most Mulsims are from former French colonies. I get a lot of people here hate religion. That's your issue. However, if you pretend you can separate religion from it's ethnic and socio-economic context, you're not being honest. When you disrespect Islam, you disrespect Muslims. Your hatred of religion may mean it's worth it to you. I myself don't care about religion. I care about human beings, particularly the dispossesed. Many of the poorest French citizens are Muslim. So yeah, it's easy to disrespect the poor and defiled. That's why people do it. It's the performance of power.
cali
(114,904 posts)whether that be Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion. I don't respect those parts of Christianity or Islam that disrespect women, and alas that is NOT insignificant.
You may care about human beings but do you consider women human? How about Gays and Lesbians and transgender folks. Much of religion denigrates and oppresses them and I'll be damned if I respect that.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)proof of indoctrination at an early age which for many of us is repugnant.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)any more than you get to be un-black or miraculously un-poor. The "many of us" you speak of are Westerners, living in great privilege compared to most of the Muslim world, and you evidently have not even a minor inclination to understand what it must be to grow up somewhere where you don't get to simply pick up or abandon ethnic identities as the mood suits you.
Do you really think the Bush administration gave a shit what people believed when they rounded them up for torture? Do the drones distinguish believers from non-believers? The tremendous cultural imperialism and lack of self reflection evident by many is really incredible to me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How do you figure that?
Muslim is not a race or economic status; it is a religion, a matter of conscience and conscience is a matter of free will.
And we should embrace that privilege and make it a universal right so that bigoted hatred like this is relegated to history.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I thought that was an important issue to you.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)who see contempt for their religion as imperialistic rather than helpful. I can dislike the aspects of the branches of Islam that oppress women while still respecting those women and their religious identity.
Prism
(5,815 posts)When are we going to get stirring defenses of that belief here on DU?
Might as well go whole hog on surrendering liberal values if we're so damn determined to go down this road.
It's crazy making.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Is because Islam systematically disrespects women.
Making women wear sacks over their bodies, only able to see through a tiny slit, for example, or forbidding women from driving, or going to school, or being part of religious leadership.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Go figure. I do not consider liberal values to be dumping all over despised minorities, though clearly many do.
Prism
(5,815 posts)And cloaking it in terms of "disrespect".
That is as illiberal as it comes.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)ethnic minority in France? Why must I hate to be a liberal? Why cannot I treat all human beings with respect, regardless of religion or ethnicity? It's easy to pick on the weak. Very few care, as the responses in this thread show.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We're not picking on the weak. We're picking on the bastards that gun people down in the streets.
lame54
(39,758 posts)fuck their ridiculous rule
it's one thing to be muslim and follow the rule - but if you're not muslim
it's not your rule to follow
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Then I will believe that they are truly serious about respecting Islam because for the most fundamentalist Muslims the very existence of non-Muslims is an offense against Islam and Mohammed (pbuh).
Which by the way, the OP did not include the obligatory (pbuh) after the name of the prophet which is another offense against Mohammed (pbuh).
msongs
(73,752 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's really rather amusing watching the OP turn themself into some sort of particularly non-Euclidean rhetorical pretzel time after time.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Serious question.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Response to cwydro (Reply #97)
Go Vols This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)If I am upset about racism in the US, do I need to find a way to change my race and move to a poor neighborhood? Does being a white American mean I must hate people who don't look, think, and pray like us?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And don't deserve respect.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I'm talking about ordinary Muslims who do not commit violence, French Muslims who are an impoverished and disenfranchised minority in France. The problem with the Charlie Hebdo cover is that it conflates the two, just as people here do. That is the nature of Islamophobia.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Of course Islamophobia exists. A self-appointed vigilante killing a Sikh after mistaking him for a Muslim—he wanted to go out and "shoot some towelheads"—is an example of that fear running wild after 9/11.
But satirizing and criticizing the religion itself, pointing out its barbaric tenets, and explaining the penalties for apostasy are not examples of Islamophobia. What DUers are saying is not Islamaphobic. Rejecting the idea that blasphemy is a crime or even morally wrong is not Islamaphobic. We are simply speaking critical truths about a set of cruel, misogynistic ideas.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Some do, some don't. If fact, I haven't seen any discussion of misogynistic ideas. I've seen the assertion that since they believe Islam treats women badly, it justifies disrespect toward the faith and it's people, half of which are women. The assertion that all of Islam is misogynistic (or more so than the West) is false and stereotypical. Certainly fundamentalist Islam treats women horrifically, but that is not the totality of the faith. The fact is we in the US know very little about Islam, and what we do know has come via propaganda justifying the war on terror. While most DUers oppose that war, they have nonetheless imbibed the propaganda.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The way that they treat women, LGBT and those who speak against Islam is abhorrent and not vastly different from the way that the killers in Paris acted.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)It's also clear that much of that is a backlash from the post-colonial and post-Soviet era rather than inherent to Islam itself, or so I've garnered from my very rough understanding of Islamic history.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That doesn't make any sense.
Look, BB, I adore you but I disagree with you quite passionately on this. I know you support women and I am incredibly perplexed as to how you can reconcile your strong feelings for the advancement of women with being so adamant that religion (and Islam, ffs!!) should be handled with kid gloves.
I will stand and scream for human rights, especially when there are large, systematic threats to it. I will demand equality. I will use whatever tools I have to do that - including mockery and satire.
And I would expect my liberal allies and all those who value equality stand and scream with me. Or at least step aside and allow us to demand it without insulting our intelligence or calling us names for doing so.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and beliefs rather than indict an entire religion and it's people? I am more than willing to denounce practices like female circumcision, denying women education, the ability to move freely in public, etc.... That doesn't mean I need to indict all of Islam. How does that help Muslim women whose religion is important to them?
I despise war. Does that mean I need to hate America? Should Muslims who resent war hate all of America? Are all Americans imperialist assholes who deserve what we get? Is America and democracy itself imperialist concepts? It's the broad brushing that's the problem. Yes, America is imperialistic, but that is not all we are. Yes, part or much of Islam is misogynistic, but that is not all it is.
The stereotypes people are repeating in this thread have been carefully inculcated in us by our government and the media. People use religion as an excuse for bigotry against great swaths of the population. It enables us to round them up and detain them, torture them, and bomb them to kingdom come. But they are misogynistic terrorists who practice a barbaric religion, so that makes it okay. No, it doesn't. The indictment of Islam is the ideological arm of the military war against parts of the Middle East. I support neither the propaganda or the war.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)We ARE denouncing a specific act and practice - the (false) Islamic ban on blasphemy which has near universal acceptance amongst believers. You appear to be proposing that the West adopt Islam's values on blasphemy under the guise of not offending the average Muslim.... are you? Because that's where you are hitting the wall here imho. Western culture isn't going to adopt Islamic values on this topic. Its just not.
The Western world's belief in free speech HAS been "inculcated" in us by our government and media, and personally I think that's a good thing.
Obviously there are other specific Islamic acts and practices that will similarly be denounced like restrictions on women's education and freedoms, LGBT abuse etc. And they should be called out, without being labelled as bigotry.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)
To do the latter would require taking time to learn something about the many different religious traditions and peoples that comprise Islam. People have denounced Islam and you have called sickening the very idea that I suggest we respect all peoples. You find it sickening because you have proclaimed "Western culture" as "inculcated by our government and media" as superior. That is a culture of capitalism and war. That is a corporate culture that benefits the few at the expense of the many. That is what is inculcated by our media, the media that has taught you it's acceptable to proclaim yourself superior based on a mere accident of place of birth, religion, and racial-ethnic identity.
For me the question is do we respect ethnic, religious, and racial minorities. You have make clear that you do not, and that when I suggest we think about respect for others who are not part of the dominant culture, you in a previous post call that "sickening." You are very pleased with your European cultural superiority, the kind that has resulted in far more war, deaths and murder than any Muslims have ever contributed. But that's okay because we are the superior people. You show a notion of Western civilization that dropped out of currency among educated people some thirty years ago. Colleges no longer even offer classes on Western civilization because they recognized how narrow and racist the concept was. It's a bit alarming for me to see views I thought died out some half a century ago, particularly by people who claim to be liberals or Democrats, a party that depends on support from Americans of a broad array of cultural backgrounds, not just Western European.
I'm glad you're so pleased with your cultural superiority. You can pat yourself on the back for that culture producing one of the highest murder rates in the world, existing in a constant state of war, reintroducing torture into international relations, and waging war after war in the name of the cultural superiority you so proudly proclaim. Apparently hundreds of thousands of murderers at the hands of superior Western governments is better than a handful by the culturally inferior Muslims who have the audacity to worship a God rather than money. More people will die this year from guns that in all the Islamic terrorist attacks in history. But those deaths are okay because they are the product of a superior culture.
With the exception of tribal peoples, we all descend from immigrants. Yet for some reason you have decided the only culture that is "ours" is that which comes from Europe. We also have Muslim immigrants who are American. We have Muslim families who have lives here for centuries. Yet you have proclaimed it is your Western cultural heritage that makes us (presumably America) what we are. You are wrong about that. We are equally indigenous, African, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Ashkenazi, and countless other cultural contributions. Most educated people know and embrace that. They do not proclaim the "Western" European aspects to be the superior or defining elements because they have been educated to learn about the many cultures that make up America. The cultural right, however, does not. My ancestors may have all come from the British isles, but I live in a community with Somalis, Arabs, Iranians, Kenyans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hmong, Vietnamese, and peoples of countless other ethnic and national origins. All of those influences make up "our" culture. My culture is not the exclusionary, ethnocentric "West" that you proclaim superior. It takes influences from that as well as the other residents of my city, state, region, and country. Europeans are not even the ethnic majority in the US anymore, yet you have decided that "your culture" as "inculcated by the media" is superior. I disagree.
I do not find respect for the multivaried fabric of my community to be "disgusting." It is the absence of respect, the racism and cultural ethnocentrism evident in the refusal to consider them as part of this culture that I find deeply troubling. All cultures have strengths and weaknesses. To proclaim Western culture so unequivocably superior is a view based entirely on FAITH-- faith in ego, power, and might--rather than knowledge.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Furthermore, I have never glorified western culture.
Are you sure you are responding to the right poster? You are so wildly off base on pretty much all of your post, I'm sad for you.
My reference to being "inculcated" was solely about free speech yet you have deliberately glossed over that point and gone on a rant that's not even tangentially connected. You are fabricating strawmen all over the place that aren't remotely addressing my points. Your deliberate fallacies about who I am, or what I believe, without a shred of evidence is grotesque. Step back for a moment Bainsbane. Please.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)cause I kind of doubt Muhammad gives a flying fuck about a magazine cover.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Three men killed their colleagues, not a religion and not the Muslim population of France. But if they want to say fuck you to Islam and Muslims, that is there right. My point is don't pretend it's about national unity when it clearly isn't.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You make sweeping statements like "All images are seen as blasphemous." Really? By whom and where did you get that idea? Did you take a poll and if you did, what's the cut off? If one person thinks it's blasphemous? Maybe 1,000? And following your logic, what if a religious group wants all images of all their profits to be forbidden. Are you saying that everything that anyone thinks is blasphemous should be forbidden? Some think saying "God damn it" is blasphemous. Talk about a slippery slope.
Maybe cartoonists need to have ready contacts for all religions, to get the ok for all their creations.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I said nothing about forbidden. I took great pains to highlight I supported their right to publish whatever they want. I gave my opinion of what they published. But you seem to think free speech extends only to that which you agree with, which is not free speech at all.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It appears you took great pains to denigrate Charlie Hebdo at a particularly sensitive time for them.
And you mention "All images are seen as blasphemous." Really? By all Muslims? And what difference does that make? Seems you might be suggesting that things that are considered blasphemous shouldn't be published. That would include a hell of a lot of stuff. And who should police it? Making sure that it isn't blasphemous to someone.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It is not immoral to depict Mohammed. Muslims who believe that it is immoral are mistaken and so they should change their beliefs.
brer cat
(27,587 posts)It is your free speech right to do so regardless of whether others think it is wrong.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)So it should be absolutely forbidden for its members to read Charlie Hebdo or other offensive material. What they don't see should not offend them. Something ignored is sometimes a better way to diminish its importance.
Trouble is, the shooters have made a martyr of Hebdo, a situation gone haywire, and now the whole world is reading his magazine when very few people ever heard of it before, even in France.
This is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I doubt the shooters will be regarded as heroes or martyrs, and future killings of writers and the press should not be as spectacular or outrageous to countries that allow free speech.
I think someone made a a wise decision not to go after Simon Rushdie full force because they realized it would have him a martyr instead of a villain.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Rushdie and his publisher knew the book would ruffle some feathers, but they figured that the intersection between pious Muslims and readers of dense English-language Magical Realist novels was small enough that there would be a few rounds of angry LTTE, and then it would blow over. Instead, some of the radical British Muslim groups picked up on it and started protests, which spread to India, where it was used as flag-burning style election year fodder. All of this was fairly invisible to Western media until the fatwa turned it into front-page news.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)They could have offered rewards that Rushdie's mother couldn't refuse, much less his grocer or gardener. Somebody with a lot of clout must have been his, for lack of a better word, protector.
I think the fear they gave him over these years was enough punishment because he couldn't lead a normal life.
No martyrdom for Simon, hopefully.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)
To the men and women at Charlie Hebdo the cover was funny. I thought it was funny.
Oh, the irony. You have a lot to say on feminism. Much of it is quite right. You deliver a lot of sharp-tongued barbs against specific men here and sometimes they deserve it. Should you stop if they threaten you, your loved one or other women who post here? No. You know why? Because you're not free if you can be prevented from raising your voice.
The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo demand to be free. They raised their voice in defiance, in the face of violence. They will continue to mock at will. And there's nothing shitty about that.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)that isn't what I am objecting to. It's taking it beyond the terrorists to ordinary Muslims that bothers me.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
ProfessorGAC
(76,693 posts)I see a wide range of opinion here.
Lars39
(26,540 posts)This isn't about respect, it's about forcing non-muslims, non-whatever to believe and act the same as believers. Ain't going to happen.
I get this kind of attitude from Southern Baptists and every other kind of holy roller down here. Fuck that shit.
hunter
(40,688 posts)As a pacifist I won't shoot anyone dead, but I reserve some rights to cut non-pacifists with my art.
Eve, after the war...
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)I'd be Dreamer Tatum the Man With Ten Trillion Motherfuckin' Nickels.
Get over yourself.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)The three great "slave" religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have one thing in common --certain members get all inflamed with righteousness and begin to think their sacred words are more sacred than what the word "sacred" refers to. It's Evil's old trick to get us to worship one idol or another, the monotheists all say, failing to realize that to worship their own sacred texts is the worst idolatry of all.
I once had a numinous experience of divinity in my youth. I can see how someone can become all ate up with it as it were.
But the day I realized Christ was asymmetric carbon, indeed lo and yea, I was in Heaven with him! Kinda. Sorta.
The "Living Word" is our species' Perennial Mystery. Edicts abound, all whirling around poor little Aleph, looking like a swastika spun out of the Singularity.
Tut-Ankh-Amen-Ra -- Cock-Aim-Squeeze-Fire!
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)any religion that is founded on submission will never have my respect.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)to appear to every living person at a certain age and hand out laws for living then surrendering one's will might make sense. However Islam is simply another religion claiming that a deity's will has been "revealed" to one man with nothing to back that up expect for the fact that the Koran is poetic, well written though with many flaws.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)thing most major religions say. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc etc etc down from the large ones to the smaller ones.
Defining "god" is a big issue here. Is "god" a being? Is "god" outside of you or part of you? Is "god" the word for the great whatever?
I wish people would see our similarities and appreciate slightly different ways of looking at the same thing rather than feeling they have to fight over Their Interpretation of "first, do no harm".
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)please don't take any comments I make about Islam against you or your thread.
I simply cannot countenance a religion, a society, a country...whatever...that considers women less than men. In many cases, we are less than dogs.
Sorry. Islam sucks in that regard. As does Orthodox Judaism...no doubt there are Christians with this prejudice against women.....but they are not able to enforce it.
I like your posts. Hope you understand my disagreement.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)most awful Eve so got mankind thrown out of Eden and are here to breed and care for men? Or Mormons with their distinct gender roles? Look at the Repub congressional critters, how many of them consider women equal to men? Or rightwing Christians?
IMO, fundies deserve the hell they fear.
Desert805
(392 posts)What an odd question.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Let's see. The ongoing successful attempts to erode Roe v Wade in the US, Hobby Lobby, abortion being illegal in Ireland and many South American countries, laws against divorce in some Christian countries. That's just off the top of my head. When it comes to child abuse by priests (multiple countries) and anti-gay laws and violence (Uganda), the list gets a fair bit longer...
cali
(114,904 posts)Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)When it comes to scale, there's a big difference...
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)because we sure as hell are treated less than men.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to accept lecturing discourse from you, a woman, in a public place. So to show my respect for Islam, I must not discuss religious matters with you in public. So I will merely say that you make hypocrisy seem easy.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)well said.
thank you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)That's the thing, exercise your free speech as much as you want, say what you want. If you think Charlie Hebdo is full of shit, you have every right to say it, just as they have a right to publish pics of Mohammed.
When people are killed because of their words, feeling disrespected is no justification. NOTHING is.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)...were fucking MURDERED last week by assholes upset over cartoons, I really don't think they give a damn about the delicate sensibilities of certain Muslims.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Like all religions, Islam contains some truism about universal morality.
It also makes mandatory the death to blasphemers and adulterers invented in the Torah.
And then it casts in stone the social prejudices of medieval Arabia (gender inequality)
with a sprinkling of medieval superstitions (angels, djinns, hellfire)
Why would this potentially harmful hodgepodge deserve respect?
get the red out
(14,031 posts)Republicans don't like this religion. The only thing that matters is training "good" liberals to not think but just oppose the right in extreme. We need to get our marching boots on and line up like programmed robots.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In other words, my OP is a total mistake and has no validity.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)rather than Muslims. In the hierarchy of which humans deserve respect, Muslims are at the bottom in Western culture, which makes them an easy target.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But killing or defending killing or rationalizing killing after the fact would not ever happen.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)of Charlie Hebdo give two tugs of a dead dog's dick about being respectful of Islam? Several of their fellows were just murdered in the name of that faith; I'm surprised they're being as measured as they are.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I'm not saying what they should publish. I'm giving my view of what they did publish.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)on the Ed Show earlier, talking about Muslims needing a sense of humor as a result of being offended over these cartoons and to get over it, but the cartoons aren't really funny IMO (even as a non-Muslim) and are moreso in poor taste. Certainly it is the right of the cartoonists to publish them, and I don't condone the killings either, but like you said--people have a right to be critical of their work. What doesn't sit well with me is when people use this situation as a tool to prejudge all Muslims and to disrespect religion, as if millions of people are monolithic.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If so, why?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Cite the text, perhaps? Then you get right down to exactly who is full of shit. If people have a problem with images, they're not just in the wrong century, they're in the wrong species.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I certainly don't.
get the red out
(14,031 posts)The difference between the fucking respect given to this religion and all others is one of the left's biggest hypocracies. How about the treatment of gay people and women? I know someone will claim culture not religion, but claim the opposite regarding Christianity's wrongs. We dismiss human rights as nothing in the face of this, most beloved religion. If Republicans don't like a group they can do no God-damned, fucking wrong in the eyes of way too many myopic, whining, snot-slinging one-trick far, far left ponies who obviously don't give the first shit about women and gays, except where other religions are concerned; then are all over human rights.
Because we know when Christianity is made fun of there are mobs in the streets of many countries and people in the media get shot full of bullets in groups, right?????
Response to get the red out (Reply #186)
Blue_Adept This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Should I dump all over them to make you happy? They don't see it that way. They see the Western liberal contempt for Islam as imperialistic, which is precisely what it is.
In the case of France, Muslims are immigrants from former French colonies. They are the poorest and most disenfranchised French citizens, which makes them an easy target,. My definition of sickening doesn't included justifying contempt for human beings based on religion and ethnicity.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)imperialism, it's the logical extension of modern Western, and especially European, liberal contempt for religion in general, which is a good thing. Islam is no more deserving of respect than Christianity, Judaism, or any other desert-sky-daddy bullshittery.
get the red out
(14,031 posts)I am talking about horrors in Muslim countries and you try to turn it into some kind of screed about individuals. Typical.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)If that person isn't Muslim, they do not need to follow the rules of the faith. Here's an example: Christianity holds that Jesus is the son of God, but Islam doesn't believe that. To a Christian, that's blasphemy. And yet Muslims are not stopped from saying it or calling Christians and Jews "infidels" despite worship of the same God. That's how this all works.
Jews believe the Messiah has yet to arrive and that Jesus was just an influential if misguided teacher.
Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and consider Mohammad to be a false profit.
Muslims believe Mohammad is the final profit and that Christians and Jews are "infidels".
Adopting any one of the above three is going to come with the belief that the others are "full of it". They ALL need to get over it.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Jesus is considered a legitimate prophet by muslims.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)FAIL on your part. I'm well aware they consider him a prophet.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)When I first saw the cover I thought it was a pretty perfect response to the horror of the previous week...
alarimer
(17,146 posts)Not one.
They deserve disrespect and mockery, in fact. They are silly concepts.
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)I think you just don't like cartoons/comics in general.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Next time check your facts.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)I think they are assholes. I also think they give Christianity a bad name. I would have no problem depicting them in crude cartoons. Would other Christians feel it imperative to take my life for doing so? If so, then they are assholes too.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and treated us all as the same because we are part of the same culture? Wouldn't that bother you?
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)because I do sorta think other Christians ought to rein them in a bit. Or condemn them more strongly than this:
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-france-paris-attacks-praise-20150109-story.html
LexVegas
(6,959 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)They have a right to publish what they want.
All religions are shams.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)to give two shits what was "blasphemous" and what wasn't.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)is about unity when it clearly isn't.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Don't buy it, then.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and how perhaps an attempt to understand the motive which drove these criminals to do this can shed light on ways in which French society has failed. Imagine that.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)which is why most of the western world has toilets that flush. Including the author.
This overreaction to a well directed cover and magazine issue is rather funny. I am glad that they had the balls to pick up the stick they dropped, and will continue to poke it in the eye of any religion that threatens modern, civil, and rational society.
Job well done, Charlie.
bris bane? Not so much.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts) ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)All in the name of "free speech" it's pack mentality.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)for not endorsing it.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)There's a breakdown in critical thinking that comes with pack mentality. Over and over in this thread I've seen references to "Muslims" as though all Muslims condone murder. It's disgusting.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think racist stuff is racist no matter the intent and I think punching down is fucked up. Not funny.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)a really useful concept.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)That comes from never being down.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)They are the National Front, with origins in mid-20th century fascism. How would criticism of Islamophobia make you a Le Pen supporter?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm pretty confused and a bit pissed at the accusation. I think he should take it back or we should slap box or something to decide a winner. I'll win.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6088856
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I'm going to follow the old adage that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No slapboxing. I'll just put it in my wtf box with the rest of the shit I see on here.
You are such a nice person. I was about to nut up.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)That member seems not quite right lately.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Such a strange accusation.
JCMach1
(29,201 posts)Religious and cultural nutterism killed their colleagues...
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Not a religion and not a people.
JCMach1
(29,201 posts)The left cannot ignore the facts that there are dangerous religious radicals mainly spawned from the ongoing radicalism promoted for more than a generation by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis continue to feed the beast.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)but it was still three men and not a religion, ideology or people who killed their colleagues. The overwhelming majority of Muslims have never killed a soul.
JCMach1
(29,201 posts)shocked by how many Muslims would agree with what happened in France...
Of course, the MSM is barely even discussing the appx. 2000 people that were killed the same week in northern Nigeria by Boko Haram...
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)But I think you know Muslims don't have the market cornered on violence.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Religion simply cries out for mockery. Those who have faith that respond by laughing, blessing the mockers, and then praying for them are the truly faithful. The rest are faithless.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Not that I'm a cartoonist, but it would have been equal opportunity satire.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)French PM says freedom of speech should not be confused with anti-semitism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=989211
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30829005
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Do yourself a favor and self delete.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You pretend to.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)You think free speech means allowing only what you believe and shutting down criticism of it. This thread has generated some good discussion, but you insist only views that promote your own view be allowed. I was quite clear that I support their right to publish that magazine though I disagree with it, while you insist I delete what you don't like. It's pretty clear to me who has issues with freedom of speech, and it's not me. Don't worry. Anti-Islamic sentiment can survive a lone dissenter or two. The war on terror will go on without my help in perpetuating its propaganda.
Meanwhile, France has made 54 arrests for speech that violates the law since the Charlie Hebdo killings. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30829005
They caution that freedom of speech shouldn't be confused with anti-semitism. Evidently they see the appropriate target as the disenfranchised Muslim minority from the former North African colonies. Lots of hypocrisy to go around.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What is that all about, I wonder.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)The point is the free speech is selective, and France, like many places, seem to be more comfortable attacking the disenfranchised, their Muslim immigrant minority. Now I can think of very good reasons why France would want to be vigilant about anti-semitism, but then don't pretend you have unfettered reverence for free speech when you run around arresting people.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)ONCE you kill because of your own belief system - you become a fanatic. There is no wiggle room there. You either have humility or you are a hate filled fanatic. IT is hard for me to find any middle ground on this issue.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I am not discussing the killers. I am discussing 1/3 of the world's population who has killed no one. Why would you think I was talking about respect for murderers?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)It's not my religion that forbids me to draw a particular historic person. And while I don't think it's polite or considerate to mock other people's religion, a drawing of someone is not mockery or disrespect.
The argument you seem to be putting forward is if someone's religion forbids them something, that thing should be forbidden to everyone or else it's disrespecting that religion. Which is ridiculous.
Further, there's a time to discuss the social acceptance of mocking religion, but discussing it in the context of people's murders as if there could EVER be a justification is NOT the correct time or context.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)speech.
I guess we all have our priorities.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I don't think you read what I wrote at all. In fact, it's not possible to read what I actually wrote and come to that conclusion. It seems to me you can't distinguish criticism from suppression of speech. Free speech does not mean immunity from criticism.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)this is a clear attack on free speech unless i'm missing something.
Charlie Hebdo employees were killed and the point of your piece is that the terrorists should win.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)There is no ambiguity. I am quite clear. Now the question is why you are unable to understand what is clearly stated. You have decided that my criticism is tantamount to a cry for censorship, even when I specifically say the opposite. Free speech does not mean only one side has the right to speak while everyone else must remain silent. It does not mean their choices cannot be questioned. It means they have the right to that speech, even speech I disagree with, whereas I have the right to say what I think about the content of that speech.
As for terrorists winning, my post is not about terrorists. It is about ordinary Muslims who are not terrorists. The terrorists who killed the journalists at Charlie Hebdo are dead. The Mulsim immigrant community from the former French colonies is still very much alive. They are not the same. That problem--that association of Islam and all Muslims with terrorism is what I am addressing. Herein, I suspect, lies the problem. You seem to think only speech that shares your conflation of Islam with terrorism (a product of carefully inculcated propaganda to support the war on terror) is protected speech. Questioning that, asking for respect for Muslims more generally who are not terrorists is somehow "letting the terrorists win""?
I do not believe free speech is restricted to satire of oppressed, minority groups. I do not believe that the dominant culture must be immune from criticism in order for free speech to prevail. I do not believe that to critique power is to stifle free speech. I KNOW that criticism is also protected speech, something you would do well to learn if you are to understand the concept of what free speech actually is.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)not the killers
tblue37
(68,436 posts)But if the RW ever manages to get laws passed that penalize burning or "desecration" of the flag, I will be out there that same day burning flags and stomping on them, just as a matter of principle.
This strikes me as a similar situation. A perfectly good reason for CH to put a picture of Muhammed on the cover is that they have been both threatened with deadly consequences for daring to do so and actually subjected to such consequences. If I were a cartoonist, I would in general have no interest in depicting Muhammed and no reason for doing so. But if someone *ordered* me not to draw Muhammed and threatened me to ensure that I did not draw Muhammed, I would consider that to be an excellent reason for drawing Muhammed all the time. I fear I I would not be brave enough to risk my life for that principle, but I would *hope* that I would find the courage, and I would feel sorrow and shame if I did not find enough courage to stand on principle in the matter.
Many Americans freak out over the idea of someone burning a flag in an act of protest. I truly think it is misguided to sacralize the symbol while attacking the core values the symbol is supposed to represent. That is why a law forbidding flag burning would drive me to burn the flag. But if I did burn a flag to protest such a deeply wrongheaded law, I would *not* care one bit about offending the sensibilities of the people who have invested a scrap of fabric with such inappropriate significance, mistaking the symbol for the reality.
I am an atheist, but I treat the religious beliefs of others respectfully--until they start trying to browbeat me and to order me around because my freedom offends their religious sensibilities. People who feel they have the right to make such demands and to control the behavior of others never stop encroaching. If you let them tell you what you cannot draw or say, then they also want to tell you what you cannot do--and before you know it, what you are permitted to say or do, or draw, becomes extremely limited.
Just as we say to RWers, "If you disapprove of abortion, don't have one," and "If you disapprove of gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex as yourself," and "If flag burning offends you, don't burn one--and don't force yourself to watch if someone else decides to burn one," so too, we should say to religious people, "If a particular action violates your religious beliefs, don't engage in that action--and protect your sensibilities by not forcing yourself to watch when someone else chooses to engage in that action."
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Free Speech also means others might be offended by that speech, but there is no right to go through life without being offended.
"Disrespect" was the excuse used to murder people.
Over words and cartoons.
Fuck anyone who uses the excuse of "I was disrespected!" to commit MURDER. You deserve zero respect as you don't understand a thing about being a person living in a free society.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)so free speech doesn't extend to criticism? It means I don't have a right to express my views? How interesting. I find it fascinating how many people believe free speech only applies to the views they agree with. Since I took great pains to make clear that I supported their right to publish, but that I disagreed with the content of that publication, the only conclusion I can reach based on your post is that you don't believe free speech extends to me. It is limited to the right to offend, but not defend.
I think you people that read my post and argue that I don't support free speech either don't bother to read or have no idea what free speech means. Somehow you think it applies only to power and denigrating the weak, who must sit back and be silent because to question the content of that speech--even as I support their right to express it--offends the delicate sensibilities of the dominant culture that must never be criticized under any circumstances. To ask people not to consider that Islam is not all one thing, that Muslims are not all terrorists violates free speech because it challenges ideas that stereotype the weak, and we all know rights only exist for the powerful.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"You people".
Ugh.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)If you're going to respond to my posts in the future, please read the OP and leave out the insults. particularly when they show not even the most basic understanding of what I have written.
I don't know if you are accusing me of not knowing what it is like to live in a free society or deciding that statement applies to all Muslims, but I do not excuse murder anywhere in my OP. Nor do I worry about offending murderers. I spoke about ordinary, law abiding Muslims, whom for some reason you appear unable to distinguish from terrorists.
Your response is exceedingly rude and entirely non-responsive to my OP.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)This post is not something I expected from you...
Fearless
(18,458 posts)And I say that of all religious and non-religious beliefs as well. If your beliefs are so tenuous that someone constructively questioning them ruins them, then you're really not doing so well believing them in the first place.
That said, hateful stereotyping of any religious belief is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Radical Muslims, with their violence, terror, and oppression, turned Muhammad into a cartoon long before Charlie Hebdo ever did.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Or is it that you can't distinguish Islam and ordinary Muslims from its radical fringe?
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)is that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)but I know that I am not justifying Islamophobia. You yourself have contributed only insults to this discussion, which suggests that you might know even less than I about this subject. Your previous response tells me you think it okay to denigrate an entire people based on the actions of a few. I disagree strongly with such views.
Apparently it's unfashionable to admit one is not infallible. I could always take the position that I already know everything and never acknowledge errors, as is all too common online, but that can only lead to intractable ignorance.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Who knew?
Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension course.
And when someone devotes an entire essay and subsequent thread expressing outrage over the cartoons -- and limiting condemnation of the murders to a solitary sentence, instead -- it's safe to say that they aren't all that bothered by the terror attacks, after all.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)a man.
You cannot testify in a court of law unless a man swears for you.
Working at all outside of the home without permission from your guardian.
Any contact with men in the workplace.
Traveling at all without signed permission from a man
I could go on, but you get my point.