Theology discussion split from French Massacre thread

[NegativeCreep]

“To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression.".

- Rowan Atkinson

Edited January 10, 2015 by NegativeCreep

[sam-i-am]

I've locked horns with bazzad on lots of threads about religion but I think it's a bit much to have a go at him about it in a thread where he's essentially defending Islam against a load of reactionary bollocks.

[Hughie Green]

Criticism of religion is valid but criticism of religion based on the actions of those that don't represent it isn't,

saw an article by an atheist saying all are fools fighting for gods that don't exist, he misses the point entirely, it's not about gods or religion

those are just the shields they hide behind to justify their actions, as I've said before a minority of Muslims using religion as an excuse and justification for their crimes does not represent Islam or the majority of Muslims and as I've also said before as have others

the likes of and views of extremists like Westboro baptist church does not represent all Christians, their views or their beliefs,

if you can accept that as true then the example I have given is also true, if not there is some hefty and obvious bias going on.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Hughie Green

[Guest Theokoles]

“To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression.".

- Rowan Atkinson

I guess one of the problems we have to throw into the mix is the law against inciting racial hatred..because so closely linked to religion is race..territory ect and lots history.

Some of the images that stirr emotions, and this is only my opinion, blurr the line between religion and race.

Also it is a Human Right to ridicule Religion, but at the same time respect the believer..so how do we balance this when we have the above to throw into the mix..it all becomes very antiqauted? is that a word

So whats offfensive, i dont mind anyone ridiculing my spiritual beliefs but i would take offence to them ridiculing the reasons i had them because they are personal.. however i would have to tolerate this.

But when a section of society are portrayed in a bad..the harshest of lights because of a minority..thats when the lines become blurred and i guess the State has a responsibility to intervene...when satire goes beyond ridicule and becomes abusive and more than simply offensive?

[NegativeCreep]

I guess one of the problems we have to throw into the mix is the law against inciting racial hatred..because so closely linked to religion is race..territory ect and lots history.

Some of the images that stirr emotions, and this is only my opinion, blurr the line between religion and race.

I think that it is a category error to equate race and religion. With race, and sexuality, you have no choice. Religion is a choice. Now I appreciate that some religions, for example Islam, the relative freedom of there being a choice is narrower (leaving Islam being punishable by death).

Also it is a Human Right to ridicule Religion, but at the same time respect the believer..so how do we balance this when we have the above to throw into the mix..it all becomes very antiqauted? is that a word

It is now

But for me it is about violence. There is a marked difference between ridiculing someone and making them feel physically threatened. Or creating beliefs and laws that damage the group that isn't my group, and or those that benefit my group.

So whats offfensive, i dont mind anyone ridiculing my spiritual beliefs but i would take offence to them ridiculing the reasons i had them because they are personal.. however i would have to tolerate this.

Would you kill someone because they ridiculed you? Would you find it permissible that someone else within your 'group' killed someones because they were ridiculed?

Why are we abstracting the fact that people died over a joke. If you can't see the qualitative difference between humour and the actual expressions of hatred (to its logical conclusion of death), then you are part of the problem.

But when a section of society are portrayed in a bad..the harshest of lights because of a minority..thats when the lines become blurred and i guess the State has a responsibility to intervene...when satire goes beyond ridicule and becomes abusive and more than simply offensive?

That reminds me:

"Religion is like a penis

it's okay to have one

it's okay to be proud of it

however

do not pull it out in public

do not push it on children

do not write laws with it

do not think with it"

NC

Edited January 10, 2015 by NegativeCreep

[Guest bazzad9]

I've locked horns with bazzad on lots of threads about religion but I think it's a bit much to have a go at him about it in a thread where he's essentially defending Islam against a load of reactionary bollocks.

thank you sam

[Guest bazzad9]

That reminds me:

"Religion is like a penis

it's okay to have one

it's okay to be proud of it

however

do not pull it out in public

do not push it on children

do not write laws with it

do not think with it"

NC

never heard that before

[Guest Theokoles]

I think that it is a category error to equate race and religion. With race, and sexuality, you have no choice. Religion is a choice. Now I appreciate that some religions, for example Islam, the relative freedom of there being a choice is narrower (leaving Islam being punishable by death).

It is now

But for me it is about violence. There is a marked difference between ridiculing someone and making them feel physically threatened. Or creating beliefs and laws that damage the group that isn't my group, and or those that benefit my group.

Would you kill someone because they ridiculed you? Would you find it permissible that someone else within your 'group' killed someones because they were ridiculed?

Why are we abstracting the fact that people died over a joke. If you can't see the qualitative difference between humour and the actual expressions of hatred (to its logical conclusion of death), then you are part of the problem.

That reminds me:

"Religion is like a penis

it's okay to have one

it's okay to be proud of it

however

do not pull it out in public

do not push it on children

do not write laws with it

do not think with it"

NC

Sorry NC i fell asleep.

First issue..it is indeed a category error and one people make..not you or i but many do..thats one problem..not helped by political rhetoric or propoganda who aid in blurring those lines for their own political agenda.

The second issue about violence. one cant neccssarily be compared to the other..for example its wrong to assume that a victim of emotional abuse or neglect has or is suffering more or less harm than a victim of physical violence.

..no simply put i would not kill someone over ridiculing my beliefs, i may well join in with them but i dont hold ingrained beliefs that i live my life by. People have died over Humour and expression, im not sure what you mean by abstracting it, ive just woke up and wanted to reply so you didnt think i was being ignorant. Some people cant necissarily see the humour in some satire, when a minority group is allrready suffering unjust media critiscism..eg immigrants, muslims, race ect.Still obviously doesnt justify resorting to any violence.

im not arguing it should,,im simply reading the case law and Human Rights to see what satire is considered offensive and why. Defining whats offensive like i said earlier isnt a static concept, cultural, social norms and values vary and change..

Anayway.. its a sorry state of affairs when satire is used as an excuse by extremists murders to make a point..theres no justification whatsoever..

ETA im going to leave this theological debate to others more capeable.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Theokoles

[Guest Theokoles]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/france-model-stops-muslim-leaders-emerging

France’s political elite never champions virtues of a multicultural nation

My country’s faith in a one-size-fits-all system plays into the hands of radicals

After the attacks that have left Paris soaked in blood, a series of fears and questions now grips France. The attackers – the Kouachi brothers and their ally, Amedy Coulibaly – were killed by the forces of law and order. Their deaths might have brought an end to the climate of anxiety, but just the opposite is happening, with a very unpleasant stench, a gas, hanging over France.

The context, the backdrop, is known. There’s been the very strong advance in recent years of the ideas of the Front National; the economic crisis continues; and in this environment, how does one limit and fight against what we call the amalgames, those infernal shortcuts in public opinion: jihad = Islam = immigration?

Will life carry on as before or are we going to witness huge political and sociological jolts?

First, we must remember that there is, in France as elsewhere, no direct link between Islam and jihadism. My country is home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe (5-6 million). More than half of the 200,000 immigrants arriving in France each year are from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia or sub-Saharan Africa. But it is primarily because many are among the poorest social classes that their children are easy targets for the sectarian movement that is international terrorism.

Another misconception: contrary to analyses too quickly heated, full of emotion, it’s largely the government parties which are benefiting from a surge in popularity, not the Front National. In recent days, French television has shown many images of solidarity between communities – words and gestures that we had not been used to seeing. And another rare thing – Muslim, Jewish and Catholic groups will unite today at a vast gathering in Paris.

The question is: what will happen once emotions have calmed? Will the drive behind “national unity” survive once the terror has passed? Several mosques were damaged last week, in different cities in France, from gun shots or homemade bombs. This is not the first time. But these attacks are usually not so numerous, nor do they normally happen at the same time. Routinely in the polls before the attacks, more than half of French people did not hide their fear of Muslims. Today, many Muslims are understandably worried about being further stigmatised.

With the attack on the kosher supermarket in Porte de Vincennes on Friday, the Jewish community – around 600,000 people – is equally traumatised. It was anxious before the attack on Charlie Hebdo. In 2014, a record number of Jews in France made “aliyah” to Israel. Will this trend increase further still? Will the police again have to ask the Jewish businesses of the Marais and Sentier to close their doors temporarily “for security”, as was the case during the hostage crisis on Friday?

What is certain is that French politicians will struggle to escape a readjustment in their language on issues of Islam, secularism and ethnicity. So far, on both the right and left, a tacit desire to minimise the spread of “multiculturalism” has tended to hold sway. Sure, we can speak about it but as little as possible, or always as a “reversible” phenomenon. But the reality is this: although France has one of the lowest rates of immigration in the OECD, these immigrants are gradually reshaping the French landscape. Mosques are built, halal shops thrive.

During his years in office (2007-2012), Nicolas Sarkozy developed a conventional pragmatic approach to the subject. He insisted on the need to “control” migration flows and made a show of his record number of deportations. But this stance quickly ran into a numbers problem. Not only has immigration into France not fallen, but with the proliferation of conflicts in the world and the rapid increase in makeshift boats crossing the Mediterranean, the number of asylum seekers, protected by international law, has also increased.

Since coming to power in May 2012, the left, for its part, has preferred to emphasise the values ​​of the “republic” and “secularism”; very French concepts that insist on denying ethnic categories, maintain a “colour-blind” system and keep everything concerning religion apart from the state: Muslim officials cannot, for example, wear the veil at work. These ideals are embedded deep in the history of the construction of the French nation. But they are unclear to many French people and hark back to a time when immigration was not an issue.

The problem with the approach of both Sarkozy and Hollande is that it reveals a defensive attitude, never a proactive one. So when the government begins to accept meatless menus in canteens or creates Muslim areas in cemeteries, the impression given to the French public is still that of an “abdication” faced with the claims of Muslim “lobbies”. It doesn’t, as it could, suggest an approach that’s chosen and is beneficial to the French Muslim minority and so, in turn, to the whole of French society.

Similarly, constantly brandishing the idea of a republic “one and indivisible” – as the saying goes – France judges that it is defending itself against Anglo-Saxon “multiculturalism”.

In truth, on the ground, things are very similar. De facto community organisations exist in France, as in the UK. But there’s one key difference: by acting as it does, France prevents the emergence of moderate “community leaders”. Those who manage to emerge in public debate are those who shout the loudest: the radicals.

While failing to review its “model”, France is ignorant of the extent of its mixed relationships and the children born to them. How, without accurate ethnic statistics, can we address properly this grassroots transformation of France? How to measure properly the failures of integration or the success of many immigrants, whether Muslim or not?

The way of speaking of “living together” in France is often too negative, obsessed by the most extreme behaviour, or, alternatively, it is too celebratory, as if it were absolutely necessary to embellish reality to better fight the rise of the Front National. The analyses are often coarse, unnecessarily judgmental. The always subtle, complicated reality of identity and life on the ground is regularly overlooked. All these small shifts in what and how people feel have much more to do with everyday tensions than blind terrorism.

Physicists know that the smell of a dangerous gas is detectable in the air long before becoming harmful and ends in an explosion. There are still two years before the next presidential elections. Two years to prevent French voters massively supporting the Front National , as predicted by many polls. Stopping this leak will not necessarily protect France from terrorism, but it will at least guard against another cataclysm.

[JamieThePainter]

Couldn't think of anywhere else to post this, but I had to share as it made me smile somewhat.

[*DJ*]

this is the most "split" thread iv seen in a age! the butler did it with a lead pipe in the garden!

dj...

[troy]

Posted 09 January 2015 - 03:03 PM

troy, on 09 Jan 2015 - 01:21 AM, said:

What does that mean ? Respecting religion. Respect a bunch of made up bullshit. Are you kidding ?

Its nothing to do with respecting any made up bullshit or anything remotely like that, its about respecting people and religion is a very important thing to many many people in this world. If you ever had to work in a multicultural group you might understand not respecting peoples religion can land you in real hot water in the professional world.

I've taught women with full veils on. I"m talking about the ideas not the people. I wouldn't challenge people at work, that would be unprofessional but if someone starts proselytising outside work I will give full vent to my thoughts. Although often you're asking for hassle so i've quietened down nowadays. I'm still unclear what respecting religion means. If someone is deluded I may feel the need to tell them depending on the circumstances.

Edited January 13, 2015 by troy

[troy]

"First, we must remember that there is, in France as elsewhere, no direct link between Islam and jihadism."

Deluded...

[Hughie Green]

"First, we must remember that there is, in France as elsewhere, no direct link between Islam and jihadism."

Deluded...

Obsessed.