How to teach Muslims about dealing with offense

[Robert Poste's Child]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I say Jeez Christ

> regularly but don't consider myself a Christian.

Fair to say nor would a practising Christian!

[Robert Poste's Child]

I still feel the cartoon was more of a pretext.

I keep thinking about the nature of faith and how the mind handles it. A belief is an idea that you hold to be true: you act as if it is true and invest in it emotionally. As I understand it, once that happens the ego takes over to protect it along with the rest of your meaning structure and no longer differentiates between facts and ideas. Under attack it seems that in many people the ego will go to any lengths to avoid having to revise the meaning structure, so attacking a religion would just entrench it further among those with the strongest convictions, even if it enlightens or dissuades those with weaker beliefs.

In a theocracy, like Afghanistan or Pakistan, this becomes a collective thing and individuals validate and reinforce each other's actions in support of its defence (so a caliphate in Nigeria would be a disaster if shaped and led by Boko Haram extremists), and any attack on the belief system ?justifies? what seems to outsiders like a disproportionate response.

To me, Nazi Germany was quite different. One factor was that in German culture people tend to support a decision once it's made (unlike us in perfidious Albion).

PS: I wonder if some people outside the West look us and feel much the same about the way we think and act? Liberalisation and the effects of post-colonialism have softened things in the UK to the point where we believe it's a secular society, but our legal system is based in Christianity, our head of state is head of the Church of England, the heir to the throne may not marry outside the faith and still rule ? even our literature and art is shot through with Christian themes and motifs.

[Jeremy]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whatever their motives

> there is no religion which could justify their

> actions or would want to.

Again I disagree... religion isn't necessarily limited to what is contained within the holy text. If this attack was considered legitimate by certain preachers or clerics, then surely their version of religion WOULD justify it...

[El Pibe]

"In a theocracy, like Afghanistan or Pakistan,"

apart from neither of them being theocracies....

[Jeremy]

Afghanistan arguably is... certainly was under the Taliban.

[JohnL]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "In a theocracy, like Afghanistan or Pakistan,"

>

> apart from neither of them being theocracies....

With Pakistan it might be 'de facto' rather than 'de jure' I think ??

It seems people certainly get very angry about any sort of blasphemy

[El Pibe]

neither are, arguably, de facto or not.

There are certainly areas in both where the gov't doesnt have much of a say, for sure, but you might as well argue that the UK was republican with a kneecapping judiciary because s armagh was a no go area.

"It seems people certainly get very angry about any sort of blasphemy"

I suspect much of the anger is more down to an army seemingly taking sides with the west against muslims, not to mention allowing bombings, drones and assassinations on their soil with apparent impunity.

Demagoguery becomes an easy thing in those circumstances, and then there's the old pandora's box situtaion. Once you've used something for political gain, it tends to become part of a pattern.

I'm pretty sure Putin wanted no part of Donetsk etc, but once it started you never know when it might come in handy, so he's currently hedging his bets.

Most violence is political at the end of the day. Hell even these parisian tosspots were probably brought up on a diet of the Algerian conflicts 60s & 90s. Nobody really goes postal because of a picture, there's always years of seething resentment and hatred involved.

[david_carnell]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As for Je suis Charlie as a symbol of freedom to

> write what you want, I find that unfortunate. You

> don't have the right to insult anyone even with a

> pencil.

Disagree. You have exactly that right, Alan. That's the whole point of freedoms. You don't have to if you don't want to, but you absolutely have the right to insult people, with a pencil or not.

As long as that doesn't cross the line into inciting hatred, harrasment or other criminality then that right is pretty sacrosanct.

What I find difficult to understand is that many demand the right to practice their religion freely, something western liberal democracies grant, and yet battle against the freedom of speech/press/etc when it criticises said religion. The two have to go hand in hand.

[El Pibe]

agreed d_c

of course just because you can insult, doesn't mean you should. Especially with satire, save the hardest hitting for something that matters.

Some of the controversial cartoons, charlie or non, do seem to me to be just crass for the sake of it.

Whereas someone like jesus & mo has been doing wonderfully intellignet humour for years. But some of you would like him to stop for reasons of sensitivity?

Seems ridiculous to me.

 

[ernesto]

organisms entering their extinction phase embark on massive pork fests and petty scrapping/ squabbling as things get a bit stressed and the reality of their futility hits home

this is what we is seeing here hopefully . we is just organisms after all

[Robert Poste's Child]

The new edition of Charlie Hebdo will be available here when it comes out tomorrow. Will you be buying it?

[JohnL]

On Sky just now

We have a mechanism - Its called The Law.

[red devil]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> These two martyrs...

Martyrs is what they wanted to be known as. Personally I think murdering fuckers is a far more apt description.

Good post d-c...

[Alan Medic]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > These two martyrs...

>

> Martyrs is what they wanted to be known as.

> Personally I think murdering @#$%& is a far more

> apt description.

> Good post d-c...

If you're implying I think they were martyrs then you must not have read more than the first three words of the post.

[StraferJack]

Let's not forget who Tony Blair relied on to help him kill all those people out east...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

It doesn't make Christians repsonible for that either - but when you have the aggressors claiming inspiration from God, you can't say religion doesn't play a part

[Alan Medic]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "You don't have the right to insult anyone even

> with a pencil."

>

> You kind of do. Wether you should or not is the

> "responsibility" bit - but you do have the freedom

> and the right

I would say that depends of your moral compass not on the law of the land.

[Alan Medic]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The new edition of Charlie Hebdo will be available

> here when it comes out tomorrow. Will you be

> buying it?

Not me.

[Alan Medic]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As for Je suis Charlie as a symbol of freedom

> to

> > write what you want, I find that unfortunate.

> You

> > don't have the right to insult anyone even with

> a

> > pencil.

>

> Disagree. You have exactly that right, Alan.

> That's the whole point of freedoms. You don't have

> to if you don't want to, but you absolutely have

> the right to insult people, with a pencil or not.

Who says so........the Government?

>

> As long as that doesn't cross the line into

> inciting hatred, harrasment or other criminality

> then that right is pretty sacrosanct.

Who decides where the line is drawn? In my view it is the individual and not what someone else says I'm allowed to do or not do.

[Alan Medic]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's not forget who Tony Blair relied on to help

> him kill all those people out east...

>

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/T

> ony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-

> fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

>

> It doesn't make Christians repsonible for that

> either - but when you have the aggressors claiming

> inspiration from God, you can't say religion

> doesn't play a part

I'd say it's more delusion than anything else. Call it a religion if you want but that is not why people do evil things. Lack of personal contentment, to choose a very wide ranging type of word, is why.

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > As long as that doesn't cross the line into

> inciting hatred

I don't disagree with you really, but surelly inciting hatred is exactly what they have done? That term is very open to interpretation.

[david_carnell]

Not really Otta - inciting hatred is what an ISIS video does when it implores followers to murder non-believers.

A cartoon of the prophet in a bathrobe doesn't incite anything.

No one has the right in life to wander around and never be offended. I'm offended all the time - normally on public transport. But I don't blow up buses.

It's about reasonable response. You don't like a cartoon Charlie Hebdo publishes? Fine. Don't buy it.

[StraferJack]

"I'm offended all the time - normally on public transport. But I don't blow up buses. "

To be fair I have seen you come close on buses. I mean the guy clipping his nails deserved it but....

[uncleglen]

Last night's Panorama was interesting.

[Jeremy]

Yeah I agree with DC here... not sure how you can say it's inciting hatred. It wasn't deliberately designed to turn one group of people against another.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I find the Daily Mail quite offensive sometimes, and it certainly incites fear and hatred in it's readers (at least as far as I can tell).

I'm not sure that inciting hatred is really an adequate line to draw. As for inciting violence, anything can incite violence in the violent. Perhaps people should be 'allowed' to say what they like - in terms of the law. They can at least then be challenged on the views.