---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote :
snip You can have your beliefs but if you live in a society where people hold different ones you have to accept that yours aren't special. I figured you'd hit upon all the usual points. with the "self appointed rep intruding on our peaceful site advocating editorial control". Somehow escalating my point of view to advocating that differences of opinion should not be tolerated, etc. That I am a proponent of keeping all religious view sacred. I accept those misrepresentation. What I'd say you may be having a hard time wrapping your head around Sal, is that it is not just "rights" that make a society safe and peaceful. It is much more the attitude, goodwill, and mutual trust of the people in a society that maintain the peace. But those are somewhat intangibles. If you want to play the card that the best way to effect change is to find the basest way to insult and demean someone and their beliefs, then I think it is going to be a rough road. It is somewhat a subtle distinction, but I think there is a better way. ---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote : If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: feste37 <[email protected]> I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the "Blame the victim" bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: feste37 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind 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. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, "Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us." An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. "The prophet" was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are the cartoons this magazine published: The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/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. http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspi... http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ At least 12 were killed in a terrorist attack on the magazine's offices today. View on thinkprogress.org http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ Preview by Yahoo ---In [email protected], <s3raphita@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <[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], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: "s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife]" <[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], <[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], <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.
