Re "Religions are dying out in the age of psychology as they are no longer 
needed.": 

 Here's a quote from everyone's favourite socialist George Orwell: 
 "The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to 
be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use 
up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed 
in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order 
to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but 
because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of 
swindling and murdering one another." 
 

 I like this quote from Orwell but you won't find many of today's *socialists* 
talking with much conviction about "brotherhood" or "love". 
 

 However, one place where you well might still hear someone talking about  
"brotherhood" and "love" is in a church. Yes, we're all aware of the hypocrisy 
which often (usually?) accompanies such talk but I'd claim we'll have religions 
as long as people feel the need to "witness" to the importance of those ideals.
 

 

  
 

---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote :

 Again I am reminded of the Turkish indie movie I saw a few years back on 
Netflix.  The plot was about a son whose father takes the fall for his boss 
when the boss kills someone while driving drunk.   What I particularly remember 
was the father, released from prison. visits a mosque and finds just a few 
people there for evening prayers.  The film maker was saying that Islam is 
dying out.
 
 Muslims in the west enjoy living and many enjoy the idea of democracy.  Most 
of them were undoubtedly horrified at what happened in Paris. They also have no 
intention of converting their neighbors to Islam.  They look upon the fanatics 
like many Christians and Jews look upon fanatics from those religions as 
"nuts."   Nothing more underscores this more than the Frontline episode a few 
years ago about the Muslim kid living in a suburb of Sacramento who "got 
religion" and ran off to join Al-Qaeda.  Hated it.  Returned through Canada and 
decided not to try to come back in the US or he would be arrested.  For some 
reason the FBI arrested his dad who actually loves living in US and loves the 
country.  The episode covered how badly the FBI handled this case.
 
 Religions are dying out in the age of psychology as they are no longer needed.
 
 On 01/07/2015 04:57 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
 
   Re "Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the 
Muslims don't like it.": 

 
 
 Yes, but they are living in the West not an Islamic theocracy!
 
 
 I'm not opposed to everything you're saying as I myself wouldn't print 
cartoons of Mohammed or gratuitously insult Islam as I wouldn't consider it a 
helpful contribution. But that's because I'm a sensitive soul. (I've never even 
seen Python's Life of Brian.) 
 
 
 Others disagree and enjoy going into attack-dog mode when taking on their 
opponents. My posts are essentially saying that they have the right to be 
offensive. And, as I also indicated, I'd defend the right of a Muslim to argue, 
say, that blasphemers should be executed. He could argue his case; but if he 
takes the law into his own hands he'll have to accept the consequences. Which 
are? "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
 

 

 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote :
 
 Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims 
don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the 
prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. These are the 
cartoons this magazine published:
 The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack 
Against Charlie Hebdo.  “In 2012, the magazine included multiple caricatures of 
the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; one was called “Mohammad: a 
star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beard was the only thing 
covering the lower half of his body. The cover depicted Mohammad in a 
wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” 

 

 I wouldn’t have advised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the 
French government advised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the 
prophet is not depicted. It is considered sacrilegious to do so (see the 
article). No good will come from it. It is just being offensive for the sake of 
it. 

 

 
 
 
 
 The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspi... At least 12 were 
killed in a terrorist attack on the magazine's offices today.


 
 View on thinkprogress.org 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<s3raphita@...> mailto:s3raphita@... wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote :
 
 Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult 
anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. 
 

 Brave for sure. They just paid with their lives.
 

 Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to insult other people's religion. 
They don't like it and it is not helpful to the situation. You should have 
learned that in grade school. 
 

 Lampooning others' beliefs is a time-honoured tradition in the West.
 

 
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<turquoiseb@...> mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote :
 
 From: "s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:s3raphita@...[FairfieldLife] 
<[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]
 
   It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of 
the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply 
offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the 
matter of respecting the faith of others does also. 
 

 Why should anyone *respect* a faith they regard as intolerant of
 gays or women or free speech? Respect has to be earned. I support anyone's 
right to criticize Islam as robustly and satirically as they wish; just as I 
support someone's right to argue that liberal attitudes to sexuality are 
repugnant. Let everyone say what they wish; we can listen to their claims and 
come to our own conclusions. What are you afraid of?

 
 
 
 

 
 

 Thank you for saying this. 
 
 
 There is this terrible meme we have inherited for centuries -- both in the 
East and in the West -- that says, "If we call it 'religious', it's 
*protected*. You can't say bad stuff about it or criticize it."
 
 
 During many of these centuries, the people saying this were IN CHARGE. Their 
religion *ran* things. So if anyone *did* say anything critical of their 
"religious" beliefs, they just killed their asses. Simple as that. 
 
 
 
 What we're seeing today in radical Islam and in the fundamentalist extremes of 
religion such as Hindu Supremacy is a bunch of religious people wishing that 
the world still worked that way. They'd really *like* to KILL anyone who 
doesn't believe the way they think they should. 
 
 
 
 Currently on planet Earth, only one major religion is actually consistently 
claiming to be PROUD of doing that -- killing anyone who doesn't believe the 
way they think they should. 
 
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote :
 
 It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of 
the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply 
offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the 
matter of respecting the faith of others does also. 
 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], 
<s3raphita@...> mailto:s3raphita@... wrote :
 
 Re "That other people don't see the world the same way you do should be the 
first thing they have to teach at these "faith" schools.":
 
 
 Well, yes. But can you imagine a state, secular school teaching kids that some 
people regard homosexuality as an abomination, or that women's place is in the 
home, etc, etc? It cuts both ways.
 
 
 John Stuart Mill in On Liberty argued that we should always have some private 
(non-state) schools otherwise the state would simply use its monopoly to push 
the ideology of the ruling Establishment. He was right then; he's right now.
 
 
 The problem is we have two opposing fundamentalisms: religious versus new 
atheist/PC thinking. I don't subscribe to either as I want people to question 
all authority. But you don't learn to question authority in school! I suspect 
you don't *learn* it at all - you either have an enquiring mind or you don't.
 
 
 Anyway, salutations to those killed at Charlie Hebdo. They died in the line of 
duty.
 
 
 
 









 
 















 



Reply via email to