Charlie Hebdo...my take on it (removed by Facebook)

Discussion in 'World Events' started by tablariddim, Jan 13, 2015.

  1. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    I am all for freedom of speech, I have a sense of humour and I love satire but the problem I have with publications such as Charlie Hebdo is that they target the entities and ideals revered and regarded as holy by hundreds of millions of law abiding and peaceful people. Now the last time I looked I noticed that religion is quite legal and people have a lawful right to have their religious beliefs respected.

    The Koran just as the Bible, can and has been interpreted in many different ways not all of them beneficial to mankind. When certain sections of society take it upon themselves to create armies and killers in the name of 'their religion' the results can be murderous and catastrophic. The 'Christians' did it with the Knights Templar and with the Spanish Inquisitions, they did it again as they colonised weak nations using their notions of 'Christianity' to enslave hundreds of thousands of innocent people usurping them from their homelands to sell and treat as the lowest form of animals. It never really ends because they did it again slaughtering millions of Jews in the name of a twisted Christian based ideology. I'm sure I've missed a few examples.

    In the same way we now have a (small) section of Islamists that have interpreted the Koran in a way to suit their own agenda to create armies of indiscriminate killers to fight the infidel in a 'holy war' in retaliation to? Oh yes I remember. In retaliation to the Western 'Christian and Zionist' powers that invaded their lands to save them from the Dictators that the West had put in power in the first place after chopping up their countries into bite size pieces ripe for conflict and exploitation. We all know that the WMD's were just a ploy...don't we? This is not an excuse for murder and I certainly do not in any way condone their actions but you can see how someone can get aggravated. Anyhow I will not attempt to condense hundreds of years of history, struggle and the politics of vested interests into 2 sentences but the thinkers amongst you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

    So now we come back to the satirists. I say by all means satirise the killers that use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities, the religious leaders that stir up hate, the global politicians and vested interest conglomerates that create a climate of confusion and conflict in order to lead the people as sheep. By all means satirise them to kingdom come. But there is no need to be racist about it, no need to insult and upset millions of people that do take their form of religion very seriously indeed but are otherwise peaceful and law abiding. No need to keep poking the dogs of war with snidey remarks and depictions of a god and a prophet that they have hijacked for their own ends and in the process alienating many who probably never thought about it before offering them an incentive to shed reason. Because the snideyness will not make those fanatics change into better people, a rough blasphemous cartoon will not suddenly enlighten a jihadist with a fresh pro-west philosophy. On the contrary, these potential and indiscriminate killers are everywhere, within and without all societies, just waiting for an excuse to bite hard. And I don't actually like the idea that some strange agitators, for the sake of a cheap and ignorantly racist laugh, should provide the excuse for some fanatic to harm me, my family or my friends.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Who's being racist? We actually do need more depictions of the prophet, until it becomes so common that there are no specific targets. Maybe it's not for them anyway, maybe it's for us, so we can assert our freedom and emancipation from religion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Why should satire stop at religion? Politics is legal but it's satirized all the time. Mark Twain satirized religion (and everything else). People need to relax and chill

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Wait just a minute, there’s a law that says we have to respect religious beliefs? Where? What law?

    Why should superstitious ideas hold a privileged position? Why should someone’s religious belief be uncritically accepted and remain forever unchallenged?

    There is no single subject matter that should be excluded from scrutiny or mockery. Challenging a belief is not an act of intolerance. It’s not violating anyone’s rights.

    I love this quote.

    I have no religion and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men. –Al-Ma'arri
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    Or at least so would the terrorists have us believe. In fact I DON'T think these killers are everywhere. I think they are rare and far between, the majority being lone kooks who are simply using religion as an excuse to commit violence. So I refuse to live in the world where we are supposed to walk on eggshells for fear of getting gunned down. I refuse to avoid seeing movies that upset foreign dictators. And I refuse to stop speaking about religion as the insane, hate-inspiring delusion it really is. Noone is going to muzzle us into silence at gunpoint. That's what religion has done for 2000 years. And we're not going back to that.
     
  9. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795

    Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
    are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Apart from the fact that there actually are anti hate speech laws in existence and that it's generally just not nice to mock a person's beliefs just for the sake of it, the point I was trying to make was that the satirists actually went beyond their mandate picking on the 'prophet' Muhammad depicting his image in (to the Muslims) a highly blasphemous parody. I understand that this is aimed against the jihadists, thumbing their noses at them so to speak but where is the wisdom in goading murderers and upsetting millions of otherwise peaceful Muslims to boot? It is men that order the killings and the bombings, men that brainwash other men to become haters and killers. It's not the prophet Muhammad or his millions of peaceful followers, because not all Muslims are jihadist. Freedom of speech or expression should not be used simply as tools to agitate these hornet's nests of Islamist militants that do actually co-exist with us in our Western countries. They are not limited to some far flung desert region and they can cause great harm. To us. Because they are fanatical and they don't care for our freedoms when their belief systems are being attacked.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No they didn't.
    Yeah actually, Mohammed did the same thing.

    And screw the UK's hate speech laws, everyone knows there is no freedom of speech in the UK. I'm not a Muslim, I don't have to follow their laws. These kind of laws approach the implementation of Sharia. What other Islamic laws do I as a non-Muslim have to follow? Should I not eat pig either? Where does it end? Shame on you.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Where was the wisdom in Galileo and Bruno goading torturers and upsetting millions of peaceful Catholics to boot?
    Where was the wisdom in the American colonies writing blasphemous documents that goaded England into war?
    Where was the wisdom in Gandhi upsetting the British and goading them to violence?
    Where was the wisdom in Martin Luther questioning the very basics of the Catholic religion, upsetting millions and dividing a church?
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and earlier, Chief Justice of Massachusetts said:
    The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
    Said from the bench in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (March 3, 1919).

    "State interference is an evil, where it cannot be shown to be a good."

    "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."

    But this last was not original with him. Just made famous by him. Many had used version of it earlier. Oldest known printed version is:
    Unfortunately, in these troubled times, it seems necessary to limit some mocking speech, cartoons and even religious mandated behavior as the French have done (No one can go out in public fully covered by a burka, as AK-47s fit nicely under them etc.)

    Also if it would help save innocent lives, I would hope there is some post death action that could be done to a terrorist's body than might make others not so anxious to die as a martyr. For example, if it would work as a deterrent, cut his penis into tiny pieces, and feed the pieces to pigs and chickens etc. Lets get creative - what is a strong bar to his desired "heavenly rewards."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2015
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The disgust of extremist Islam with the West began long before Iraq. And who will protect, in turn, religious minorities from satire in the Islamic world? No one seems too concerned about it.

    Also, what race is Islam?
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I see no reason to have to tip toe around delusional people. It's time to stop this nonsense about "respecting" religion. Respect individuals but not bad ideas.
     
  15. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Was it hate speech or blasphemy? Charges of blasphemy are still being used even today to violate freedom of religion. Freedom of expression preserves freedom of religion.

    The right to freedom of religion should not impose a duty of States to enact laws to protect believers from insults or offence. Hate speech laws were designed to protect people from discrimination or violence, not forms of mockery or criticism.

    Besides, the doctrines of all of the Abrahamic religions contain some form of hate speech or blasphemy towards one another.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I take it you missed the cartoons depicting the Cardinal anal sex daisy chain/wheel? Or the one where God is having an anal three-some with Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

    Or the one with Marine Le Pen shaving her pubes so that it looked like Hitler (that one was a personal favourite, I must say).
     
  17. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    These are a different breed of people, fanatical, hostile extremists that simply can't tolerate virtually anything that most people in the West see as normal. Also, note that most of the world, except for the Muslim countries, is secular with only very small pockets of fundamental or militant religionists and some of those would certainly have reacted strongly had those cartoons you mentioned been published in their locality. The big problem for Europe and the US is that there are very large communities of Muslims within them who are generally well behaved and peaceful people but some are increasingly feeling alienated and becoming ever more polarized as their holy men pick on anything even vaguely anti Islam to brainwash the impressionable against 'the decadent Islamophobic' rest of society. There's no need to continually tread on eggshells but similarly there's no need to stoke the fires because the backlash can be deadly.
     
  18. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Hung, drawn and quartered yeyy! Way to go Billy T.
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Seems like the OP doesn't understand the difference between insulting Islam and insulting Muslims. Besides, if we were to ban religious criticism seen as offensive to Muslims or some other religious grouping, then we should ban mosques from saying anything that offends atheists or other religions. It's insulting to be expected to believe in something with zero objective evidence in support.

    As for deterring terrorists, I say do something comparably horrible to those captured as they did or attempted to do to others. The only controversy in my mind is how to make sure no innocents end up dunking in those acid baths. It will also help tremendously if countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were cut off from the Western world as punishment for quietly financing these terrorists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes, but where should it end?

    What of the fanaticals who dislike the way women dress, for example? Or those who hate and are offended that homosexuals have the equal rights because their religious ideology demands it?

    It's a cartoon. If people find it offensive, don't buy it. If it isn't advocating violence or classifying as racist hate speech, for example, then really, it's ink on a piece of paper.

    And?

    They were published in a country that allows such cartoons. Were they offensive? Yes. But the question remains the same, "and"? I find politicians to be equally offensive.

    We cannot cater to the few to such an extent.

    The feeling of isolation is not caused by those cartoons. If they were the only religion having such images drawn about them, then you might have a point. But they went after all religious beliefs and political ideology. No one was safe. But it is still a cartoon.
     
  21. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    A new law needs to be set up in E.U. protecting the religious rights and feelings of the people in E.U. from such publications.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Martin Luther statue at Worms

    The fires of freedom are fed by the blood of tyrants or something, innit? Well. Foolery requires confrontation, and deserves satire.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I have a better: a new law in the EU protecting the people of the EU from "religious rights and feelings".
     
    Seattle likes this.

Share This Page