Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[untermensche]

I frankly regard the religion of Islam a pile of hot crap that keeps its adherents enslaved to ideas that in today's world lead to violent conflict....

The ideas of the religion are many and many are self-contradictory.

The books are long and say a lot of things.

It is not the books. They can be used for good or bad.

The question is, why are Muslim leaders using the books to incite violence?

Where are they doing this?

Is this violence just rising up in the middle of nothing?

 

[PyramidHead]

I frankly regard the religion of Islam a pile of hot crap that keeps its adherents enslaved to ideas that in today's world lead to violent conflict....

The ideas of the religion are many and many are self-contradictory.

The books are long and say a lot of things.

It is not the books. They can be used for good or bad.

The question is, why are Muslim leaders using the books to incite violence?

Where are they doing this?

Is this violence just rising up in the middle of nothing?

Because, unlike most Muslims, they actually take the books seriously.

 

[Warpoet]

I frankly regard the religion of Islam a pile of hot crap that keeps its adherents enslaved to ideas that in today's world lead to violent conflict. I personally feel the comic aspects of religion in general should be vulnerable to the criticism of atheists. These are not the first political cartoonists to be assassinated by Islamic maniacs. What appears to keep this kind of thing happening is the fact that we all are related to people of this or that religion or race who passionately react to criticism. Intelligent people are not fundamentalists and do not take any of this religion stuff as a license to murder our fellow men...even if they jeer at us.

I feel the killers here attacked the least of their problems given the Christian law makers who outlaw things that are Muslim...like headscarves. While I find the great mass of Islamic lore and dress ridiculous, I feel these people only attacked the enemies of their Religion and not people who truly were their enemies. In the end however, all aggression is misplaced aggression. Those who attacked this magazine are the greatest enemies of their own people, creating ever rising prejudice and fear.

Killing people for voicing their opinions is abhorrent. But the logic Jolly Penguin is using is simply bad, and I see it suggested every time an incident like this occurs.

And note that he didn't just say "mocking and insulting Islam," he said "mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims." If Davka's link showcasing some of the cartoons the newspaper was running is accurate, that strikes me as nothing more than base racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims -- the sort that is all too common in Europe. And the suggestion that we ought to propagate more of it because some people respond to it violently is ridiculous.

 

[Warpoet]

'Colored folk' are not responsible for the color of their skin. Muslims are responsible for the content of their character. Most people are uncomfortable with mocking something about others that they have no control over; this is why it's usually considered rude to make fun of mentally disabled people. I don't buy that defense for religion. At the end of the day, if you continue to follow a system of beliefs, whatever it may be, you open yourself up to criticism of those beliefs (and the people who hold them).

Utterly irrelevant. Jolly Penguin is saying that the appropriate response when "thugs" try to prevent any expression of free speech is to promote it even more vociferously, regardless of how toxic or inappropriate it is. And that's wrong for reasons that should be self-evident. It does not matter if the people being targeted belong to a religious group or not.

Also, maybe this is news to you -- it seems to be for lots of people around here -- but Muslims do not subscribe to a monolithic set of beliefs.

 

[PyramidHead]

I frankly regard the religion of Islam a pile of hot crap that keeps its adherents enslaved to ideas that in today's world lead to violent conflict. I personally feel the comic aspects of religion in general should be vulnerable to the criticism of atheists. These are not the first political cartoonists to be assassinated by Islamic maniacs. What appears to keep this kind of thing happening is the fact that we all are related to people of this or that religion or race who passionately react to criticism. Intelligent people are not fundamentalists and do not take any of this religion stuff as a license to murder our fellow men...even if they jeer at us.

I feel the killers here attacked the least of their problems given the Christian law makers who outlaw things that are Muslim...like headscarves. While I find the great mass of Islamic lore and dress ridiculous, I feel these people only attacked the enemies of their Religion and not people who truly were their enemies. In the end however, all aggression is misplaced aggression. Those who attacked this magazine are the greatest enemies of their own people, creating ever rising prejudice and fear.

Killing people for voicing their opinions is abhorrent. But the logic Jolly Penguin is using is simply bad, and I see it suggested every time an incident like this occurs.

And note that he didn't just say "mocking and insulting Islam," he said "mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims." If Davka's link showcasing some of the cartoons the newspaper was running is accurate, that strikes me as nothing more than base racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims -- the sort that is all too common in Europe. And the suggestion that we ought to propagate more of it because some people respond to it violently is ridiculous.

If a prominent Republican said something stupid or destructive about gay people, would you object to cartoons lampooning the Republicans as "bigotry"?

 

[dismal]

OK, point me to one.

Someone already suggested it on the second page of this thread.

http://talkfreethought.org/member.php?314-metacristi -- If you have a lot of free time to waste you can read through his posts and get an idea of what he's about. He thinks that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's call to strip Muslims of their right to free speech and close down Muslim schools is too soft. Any time AHA comes up there are also plenty of others ready to fall on the sword for her.

Decypher hasn't put his head above water here in some time, but he's stated that he doesn't view 3rd or 4th generation Muslims as actual British citizens and essentially thinks they ought to be deported.

And that's just off the top of my head, and fulfilling both criteria. Not many people have the balls to come here and call for taking away Muslims' civil rights, but there are tons who have tried to blame Muslims writ large for this kind of behavior, which is what untermensche was talking about.

Can you point me to specific examples? I didn't see one on the 2nd page, and I don't have a great appetite to browse through metachristi's posts. I agree based on what little I did read there was distinct negative sentiment toward the muslim religion.

Keeping in mind this is a atheist website that espouses western secular values. I would expect there to be at least a moderate amount of anti-muslim sentiment as atheists think its beliefs are a big steaming pile of crap, and more than a large amount of anti killing cartoonists because we don't like their cartoons sentiment.

On the one the first one I did see there was a comment "the main problem is that there are too many muslims doing that in the name of islam", which is a comment with which I hope most anyone here would agree.

Or do you think there are not enough Muslims out there committing acts of violence in the name of islam?

 

[Warpoet]

If a prominent Republican said something stupid or destructive about gay people, would you object to cartoons lampooning the Republicans as "bigotry"?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between national political parties and religions encompassing 20-25 percent of the world's population.

 

[PyramidHead]

If a prominent Republican said something stupid or destructive about gay people, would you object to cartoons lampooning the Republicans as "bigotry"?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between national political parties and religions encompassing 20-25 percent of the world's population.

For the purposes of this conversation, when we're talking about cartoons making fun of both, no. I don't. Could you fill me in on the relevant differences?

 

[Warpoet]

Can you point me to specific examples? I didn't see one on the 2nd page, and I don't have a great appetite to browse through metachristi's posts. I agree based on what little I did read there was distinct negative sentiment toward the muslim religion.

Here. A rather tepid suggestion at best, but a clear one.

Keeping in mind this is a atheist website that espouses western secular values. I would expect there to be at least a moderate amount of anti-muslim sentiment as atheists think its beliefs are a big steaming pile of crap, and more than a large amount of anti killing cartoonists because we don't like their cartoons sentiment.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about collective blame and the "otherization" of Muslims. And yes, it's happened more times than anyone cares to count. Most of what I remember was in the Abrahamic Religions subforum, when it still existed. I'm not digging through the archives to find this stuff, but this thread leaps to mind. If you read it in its entirety (I don't expect anyone would) you'd get the idea. It's happened a lot here.

 

[Warpoet]

For the purposes of this conversation, when we're talking about cartoons making fun of both, no. I don't. Could you fill me in on the relevant differences?

Sigh. One is exclusively political in nature, limited in scope to a single country, with clearly defined hierarchy, leadership and at least a somewhat cohesive agenda.

The other is not.

The only commonality I see is that both groups have membership ranging from deeply involved and fanatical to complacent and disinterested, members only in name. That might matter, were the sort of overt bigotry that is hurled against Muslims both in North America and (especially) in Europe regularly employed against Republicans writ large. But it is not, because the two are completely different animals -- different classes of vertebrates entirely, actually, and so the comparison is meaningless.

 

[arkirk]

The ideas of the religion are many and many are self-contradictory.

The books are long and say a lot of things.

It is not the books. They can be used for good or bad.

The question is, why are Muslim leaders using the books to incite violence?

Where are they doing this?

Is this violence just rising up in the middle of nothing?

Because, unlike most Muslims, they actually take the books seriously.

These rickety old books are open to a wide range of interpretations. The violence is due to colonization, destruction of their home country, refuge situation, murdered relatives, and as Pyramidhead came up with..."taking it seriously." I feel I know the angst behind this act and it truly is not religion but a desperate stab at revenge for their displacement and humiliation. That is why I feel this attack was totally misplaced aggression.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, so far my argument is that the particular killers in this case a) were not nuts and b) were motivated by religious beliefs.

Killing people because you are acting as an agent for some god is not sane.

It is about as deluded as one can get.

And how do we say this is motivated by a religious belief when the people of the religion condemn it and say it is not?

So wait, you can kill people believing you're an agent for God and doing it for that reason, but that's not religiously motivated?

 

[dismal]

Here. A rather tepid suggestion at best, but a clear one.

I think when he says "Islamic Fuckwads" he is referring to the specific Islamic Fuckwads that perpetrated this attack, not all Muslims.

Very clear in context.

 

[dx713]

I frankly regard the religion of Islam a pile of hot crap that keeps its adherents enslaved to ideas that in today's world lead to violent conflict. I personally feel the comic aspects of religion in general should be vulnerable to the criticism of atheists. These are not the first political cartoonists to be assassinated by Islamic maniacs. What appears to keep this kind of thing happening is the fact that we all are related to people of this or that religion or race who passionately react to criticism. Intelligent people are not fundamentalists and do not take any of this religion stuff as a license to murder our fellow men...even if they jeer at us.

I feel the killers here attacked the least of their problems given the Christian law makers who outlaw things that are Muslim...like headscarves. While I find the great mass of Islamic lore and dress ridiculous, I feel these people only attacked the enemies of their Religion and not people who truly were their enemies. In the end however, all aggression is misplaced aggression. Those who attacked this magazine are the greatest enemies of their own people, creating ever rising prejudice and fear.

Killing people for voicing their opinions is abhorrent. But the logic Jolly Penguin is using is simply bad, and I see it suggested every time an incident like this occurs.

And note that he didn't just say "mocking and insulting Islam," he said "mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims." If Davka's link showcasing some of the cartoons the newspaper was running is accurate, that strikes me as nothing more than base racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims -- the sort that is all too common in Europe. And the suggestion that we ought to propagate more of it because some people respond to it violently is ridiculous.

Davka link, as I already noted, is nof accurate. The cartoons are real, but misinterpreted and taken out of context.
We have a lot of islamophobes, racists, or antisemites around here who use pseudo humour or a supposed fight against PC to cover their stinky views, but Charlie was NOT part of them.

 

[untermensche]

Killing people because you are acting as an agent for some god is not sane.

It is about as deluded as one can get.

And how do we say this is motivated by a religious belief when the people of the religion condemn it and say it is not?

So wait, you can kill people believing you're an agent for God and doing it for that reason, but that's not religiously motivated?

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

It is motivated by the twisted minds of a few isolated individuals.

 

[dismal]

So wait, you can kill people believing you're an agent for God and doing it for that reason, but that's not religiously motivated?

If the people in the religion condemn it, how do we say it is motivated by the religion?

It is motivated by the twisted minds of a few isolated individuals.

It could be possible there are people in a religion who don't all share the exact same beliefs.

Could some one check to see if history has any examples of sects or factions of the same religion engaging in violence, even with each other?

 

[Warpoet]

I think when he says "Islamic Fuckwads" he is referring to the specific Islamic Fuckwads that perpetrated this attack, not all Muslims.

Very clear in context.

The context clearly suggests that he is speaking about Muslims in general, or at least a large swathe of them, not merely those who carry out the attacks. But I'll let him speak for himself.

 

[Warpoet]

Davka link, as I already noted, is nof accurate. The cartoons are real, but misinterpreted and taken out of context.
We have a lot of islamophobes, racists, or antisemites around here who use pseudo humour or a supposed fight against PC to cover their stinky views, but Charlie was NOT part of them.

I will take your word for it as I do not speak French and you have been level-headed about the issue in the past.

Still, the point I was making is the same. The kind of toxic "discourse" you are describing is all too prevalent, and if these people had targeted someone who was promoting it directly, the rational response would not be to promote said toxic material more widely as though it were suddenly legitimate.

 

[PyramidHead]

For the purposes of this conversation, when we're talking about cartoons making fun of both, no. I don't. Could you fill me in on the relevant differences?

Sigh. One is exclusively political in nature, limited in scope to a single country, with clearly defined hierarchy, leadership and at least a somewhat cohesive agenda.

The other is not.

The only commonality I see is that both groups have membership ranging from deeply involved and fanatical to complacent and disinterested, members only in name.

Both are comprised of people who follow a set of beliefs about how other people should live their lives, and neither group is born into it. Both have factions, more or less conservative, more or less dogmatic. Both contain zealous members who make public pronouncements about moral issues. Both are ridiculed by people who know better, either by attacking their ideas or those who are misguided enough to hold them. Mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims is no different at its core from mocking and insulting the GOP platform and Republicans.

That might matter, were the sort of overt bigotry that is hurled against Muslims both in North America and (especially) in Europe regularly employed against Republicans writ large. But it is not, because the two are completely different animals -- different classes of vertebrates entirely, actually, and so the comparison is meaningless.

Whether bigotry is commonplace or widespread does not change whether it is bigotry, if it is in fact bigotry. Opposing and lambasting a group that defines themselves by their beliefs, as both Muslims and Republicans do, is not bigotry if the opposition stems from disagreement with their beliefs. It does not suddenly become bigotry if practiced on a wide enough scale, or cease to be bigotry if only isolated to a local area.

 

[dismal]

I think when he says "Islamic Fuckwads" he is referring to the specific Islamic Fuckwads that perpetrated this attack, not all Muslims.

Very clear in context.

The context clearly suggests that he is speaking about Muslims in general, or at least a large swathe of them, not merely those who carry out the attacks. But I'll let him speak for himself.

Agree to disagree. The reference is very clearly to the particular Islamic Fuckwads who abridged the Charlie Hebdo staff, which is to say performed this specific act.

It takes quite a large stretch away from what was written to take this as a comment about all Muslims.

I agree, buuuut... Well, let's see if the Islamic Fuckwads (if they in fact were Islamic Fuckwads) have successfully abridged Charlie Hebdo's freedom. They've damn sure abridged their staff. Then we can revisit this question.