Three dead as woman beheaded in France

Wibbs

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Muslims hardly created a religion over 1000 years ago just for now to stave off criticism

Actually Islam's birth and early history was based around just that. Any criticism, even from within was ruthlessly stamped out, to a degree even the Christian church didn't go to. For a a start and unlike Christianity where church and state had a built in division(not always followed of course) in Islam they were one and the same.

Apostasy also exists within Christianity as a concept but of a very different nature and rules of engagement. Lopping heads off was not at the basis of it for a start. Contrary to oft popular belief executing an apostate or heretic was seen as a failure of the clergy involved in the Roman Church(some of the later Protestants saw this differently).

Islam learned from other faiths about how to keep the faithful in line and set rigorous rules that governed everything from politics to basic everyday human activities.

And questions are very tightly controlled. Christians and Jews have been having theological back and forths for a very long time, but in Islam there are far more "Things that must never be questioned".

It also never had an enlightenment, nor reformation. Even with Christianity's oft loose interpretations and internal debate it needed both of those to get us to a liberal west today.

Islam has an incredibly well evolved self preservation and reaction all the way to open aggression to what it sees as threats streak within it. To compare it to Christianity just because that's what is familiar to us is a major mistake.

Now the vast majority of Muslims aren't murderous nutbags, though a fair percentage will tacitly agree with fighting back(sometimes for good reasons as the west has fecked about in Muslim lands a lot), but the faith itself lends itself to more aggression and aggressive acts than most. After all Islam's founder was a general who prosecuted wars, small and large and had people killed and enslaved by his own orders.

deBeauvoir

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said before Democracy is a political system. Society and culture are separate. And again, there are democracies which are conservative, and resistant to change. You're reaching.

Yeah, they do resist change. Society and culture aren't separate they influence each other. Anyway, it looks like the youth of today want a different world and society. We'll have to wait and see how it develops.

John Frank Wilson

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Yeah, they do resist change. Society and culture aren't separate they influence each other. Anyway, it looks like the youth of today want a different world and society. We'll have to wait and see how it develops burns.

FYP !

spoonerhead

The idea we should bend our values of freedom to suit extremism is absurd. We shouldn’t have to change our way of thinking for anyone, the west isn’t perfect by my days it’s so much better than the world BLM and Islam promises us.

Also on identity, I cannot understand why someone says the wants equal rights and then puts forward ways to get ‘more’ rights, for women, LGBT, Muslims etc. Can you not see the complete mismatch with that?

The left is collapsing in on itself across Europe, I’m from a proud working class area and it kills me to think I’ll have to vote more right parties because I’m sick to death of hearing about identity politics

Snake Plisken

It's strange isn't it Charlie Hebdo or any publication can make a cartoon of jesus having sex with his mother and me as a Catholic would sigh and think it was discusting but get on with my life, but dipict the muslim prophet in just a standard cartoon and you will end up with little old ladies losing their heads or school girls mowed down and cut in two by followers of that religon yet you will be tols not to offend that religon and you will have posters on boards defending the actions in a round about way oh it's the French fault for antagonising the poor muslim population. Well I say screw them every Website TV station and newspaper across europe should print the cartoon and if the devote followers of Islam don't like it then off you go to Turkey or Saudi and practice your strict non tollerent religon.

raclle

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I don't justify killing innocent people. But I also don't support agitating people who we are trying to include in our society

Not sure if serious?

These people are welcomed in catholic countries and try to impose their religion and change their laws. What do you think the outcome would be if the reverse happened in a predominantly Islamic country?

I believe I seen somewhere of deportation which at this stage would be welcomed but how do you route out the Islamic fascists?

If this kind of thing happened on these shores I'm pretty sure most people would want them gone

This is not f**king acceptable anymore

Wibbs

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I don't justify killing innocent people.

You say this and then...

Chances are if people didn't draw a cartoon of Muhammad to provoke Muslims and instead developed relationships or just left them be this incident wouldn't have happened.

You say this.

The secular atheists think society should be atheistic and they feel the need to undermine their competitors, so they come up with these methods of ridicule, which I think are cheap shots to turn people including Muslims against their own religion. And then lie and pretend they welcome Muslims into our society and that they embrace a multicultural society.

Personally I don't, or at least think the current notions around multiculturalism are doomed to failure. Failures writ large in every western society it's been tried. Not least for the non natives and generations in with it. And that has been a problem long before 911/"war on terror"/crappy Hebdo cartoons.

I have no problem with an implementation of multiculturalism where it's stated all are welcome in small numbers, but while it's multicultural, the overriding culture is Western European in values and mores and if you don't like that, well kindly bugger off. Thanks and goodbye. Beyond the West that's how every other culture works. You can choose to live in Bahrain or China, or wherever, but you are a living in a culture that has certain values and mores and ways of doing things and if you don't like that then kindly bugger off. And they are dead bloody right. If they let you in in the first place. Not a lot of fellow Syrian Muslims were welcomed into the gulf states.

The happy clappy appeasement that crept into the European psyche post WW2 and gathered pace over the last few decades is a nonsense and any culture or empire who lost that self confidence in their own culture soon enough fell.

Kaybaykwah

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I don't justify killing innocent people. But I also don't support agitating people who we are trying to include in our society. Chances are if people didn't draw a cartoon of Muhammad to provoke Muslims and instead developed relationships or just left them be this incident wouldn't have happened.

The secular atheists think society should be atheistic and they feel the need to undermine their competitors, so they come up with these methods of ridicule, which I think are cheap shots to turn people including Muslims against their own religion. And then lie and pretend they welcome Muslims into our society and that they embrace a multicultural society.

You have missed out on several hundred years of evolution in social mores and political praxis.


This is where the Muslim faith driven countries, be they kingdoms or self described republics are distinctly divergent from Democratic societies;

The caricature debate is one that occurs only in the West, and France was a precursor in that debate. There were many people imprisoned throughout the nineteenth century for bringing attention to the less savory aspects of political and religious power.

In the Muslim countries, in Muslim culture in general, the principal edict about human representation in Art is what is at stake.

So, the measure of critical thought applied to caricature in that cultural sphere is eons behind that of the West. Islamic Art only allows abstraction to occur in visual production. Heck, you only have to look at the Taliban's love of music to realize one is against a whole other ballgame.

It isn't just a question of respecting the religion or thought processes of another fella. It's about defending the right to own your right to expression, artistic or otherwise.

GT89

Make no mistake similar scenes of bloodshed are coming to Ireland in the not too distant future if the current trend of Islamic immigration continues. Multiculturalism has been a failure everywhere including here and it's getting worse there are already numerous no go zones throughout Ireland because of immigration.

Wibbs

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Y
In the Muslim countries, in Muslim culture in general, the principal edict about human representation in Art is what is at stake.

So, the measure of critical thought applied to caricature in that cultural sphere is eons behind that of the West. Islamic Art only allows abstraction to occur in visual production.

Funny enough in the first centuries of Islamic art human representation wasn't circumscribed. That came later. Indeed in Shia Islam it's still in play, though some clerics are against it. In Iran you can find paintings of the Prophet and other figures in Islam for sale.

Frankie Machine

deBeauvoir wrote: »

The people who draw these pictures consciously know that they're provoking muslims hoping that they'll respond violently so as to villify them and promote right wing policies off the backs of these tragedies.

Charlie Hebdo ?

fly_agaric

deBeauvoir wrote: »

No, it's not! It's a sign of arrogance and a sense of superiority. Human beings do these actions to develop in-group bonding and feel better about themselves while contrasting themselves from the out-groups.

The only reason people want to mock stuff is that they are in competition with it and they want push their supremacy over society rather than living in peace with others. Be honest, you'd want to get rid of islam in Europe and have society filled only with atheists because you think it's "ultimately" the right way forward.

Also, religious beliefs as just a much part of people's identities. Using "because of the way it was used historically" is just an excuse to make some people the exception to mockery.




That is true! But we have a social mechanism that shame people to not do it. Mocking ideas isn't an idea, it's just a childish way of criticizing an idea usually to rub it into the faces of the people you're really criticizing and provoke them.

I also didn't have to use blackface as an example! There are many other things we are trying to stop people from mocking and instead take different approaches to these issues. I find it an unproductive way of engagement of ideas especially at this time when we are trying to make our society more inclusive.

I don't like insulting religions or these Charlie Hebdo cartoons or similar.
It is just in poor taste imo, but the bigger picture here is people being executed over them which really is like something out of the dark ages.

Not even for making or publishing them now, which is quite bad enough but just for showing them in a classroom or because France's political leaders (e.g. Macron) say unequivocally people have a right to make & show them.

That is really beyond the pale & don't see why France/the French have to lie down & accept that. You talk about "a sign of arrogance" but the arrogance here is with some muslims and the Islamic world in general who expect all people in Europe + European governments to kow-tow to them + cower in fear of their inflammatory rhetoric & the potential for violence.

It's the same thing, going back to Salman Rushdie & his book. Self censorship, censorship or banning insults to Islam because they upsets muslims & some of them become murderous over it is not the correct answer here. Maybe you believe that would be a positive change to societies in Europe, but I don't think so. Having the threat of extreme violence hanging over people in this way is going to be pretty corrosive & damaging to society, far more than the cartoons insulting Islam IMO.

Wibbs

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Charlie Hebdo ?

Indeed. Shows the ignorance all too common these days. Charlie Hebdo sprung very much from the Left wing French radical movement of the 1960's. They couldn't be any more old style Left if they tried and regularly lampoon and lash out at the French Right as a given. They're about their biggest targets.

deBeauvoir

raclle wrote: »

Not sure if serious?

These people are welcomed in catholic countries and try to impose their religion and change their laws. What do you think the outcome would be if the reverse happened in a predominantly Islamic country?

I believe I seen somewhere of deportation which at this stage would be welcomed but how do you route out the Islamic fascists?

If this kind of thing happened on these shores I'm pretty sure most people would want them gone

This is not f**king acceptable anymore

They're not imposing their religion, they're just not turning into atheists. Their mere existence seems to threaten you, so why pretend you welcome them or are you planning on them to go away?

Nobody really owns this country. Our laws aren't set in stone and atheists of all people should know that considering what they did. Now, they feel threatened by the outsiders - that they won't be able to hold onto hegemony just like the right-wing conservatives.

Realistically, I think our culture will turn into an amalgamation of all others but mostly be driven by technology. For all the other groups that want to preserve their tradition, it's probably best that they're allowed to separate into small region and be left alone like the Amish and don't agitate them! "fences make good neighbors"

The problem is a certain group of people is trying to claim hegemony over society rather than respecting multiculturalism and living in peace with others. Btw, Muslims are way outnumbered - so no it's not them.

kravmaga

GT89 wrote: »

Make no mistake similar scenes of bloodshed are coming to Ireland in the not too distant future if the current trend of Islamic immigration continues. Multiculturalism has been a failure everywhere including here and it's getting worse there are already numerous no go zones throughout Ireland because of immigration.

Nail on the head, its only a matter of time before something like this happens in Ireland, they are here already.

Some of the more radical types are under surveillance by the S.D.U. in AGS.

Take a walk along some parts of SCR, Dublin 4/6 and NCR. They dont mix and keep to themselves.

John Frank Wilson

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Nobody really owns this country.

Well... that's just like... your opinion... man.

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.'.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/bfa965-proclamation-of-independence/

Kaybaykwah

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough in the first centuries of Islamic art human representation wasn't circumscribed. That came later. Indeed in Shia Islam it's still in play, though some clerics are against it. In Iran you can find paintings of the Prophet and other figures in Islam for sale.

Yes, the Muslim world is very wide, and as you say, there are exceptions. The distinction here is that whatever icon that you are up against, it must have been be approved by the ayatollahs.

In my view, the simple fact that there are restrictions to expression in Art, and that these are overwhelmingly respected, on pain of whatever, is as distasteful as it is unproductive. One only has to look at the variety of human expression in European Art, and the conclusion is that an openness to experience was partial to the resulting production.

o1s1n

deBeauvoir wrote: »

.
The problem is a certain group of people is trying to claim hegemony over society rather than respecting multiculturalism and living in peace with others. Btw, Muslims are way outnumbered - so no it's not them.

Not sure if this is a parody account or not.

Did you read the thread title?

myfreespirit

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I don't justify killing innocent people. But I also don't support agitating people who we are trying to include in our society. Chances are if people didn't draw a cartoon of Muhammad to provoke Muslims and instead developed relationships or just left them be this incident wouldn't have happened...

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The above quote was first uttered in 1391, and used again in a speech by Pope Benedict in a speech in 2005, where he debated the relationship between faith and reason.
The reaction from the Muslim world was violent and resulted in murderous attacks on Christians in many Muslim-majority countries.
The point is that the veracity of the 600 year old claim was proven... by Muslims themselves.
Even the slightest truthful criticism results in violence, destruction and murder.

Should we in the West refrain from honest criticism of Islamic behaviour that is at odds with the freedoms and norms that we enjoy, precisely because it might agitate those people? I do not believe we should.

deBeauvoir

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

Well... that's just like... your opinion... man.

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.'.

What? Muslims can't be Irish? Jews can't be Irish? Blacks can't be Irish? Also, the power of a document is only as strong as people's belief in it. If attitudes change and we become an open society

raclle

deBeauvoir wrote: »

They're not imposing their religion, they're just not turning into atheists. Their mere existence seems to threaten you, so why pretend you welcome them or are you planning on them to go away?

I don't believe you understood the meaning of my post.

I don't paint all Muslims with the same brush but religion is only sacred to those who believe in them and does not give them the right to kill.

Of course it spreads fear which is what the extremists are looking for but sure you seem to agree with them

Wibbs

deBeauvoir wrote: »

They're not imposing their religion,

The threat of violence and death by some among their number, including quite the number of clerics with quite widespread tacit support(read the surveys in the UK into Muslim attitudes to Gay people for example) and this threat too often leading to the public execution of fellow citizens seems like quite the imposition to me. Maybe we have different interpretations of the word.

Again to reverse this narrative: If a bunch of Christians, or athiests for that matter living in Dubai were clamouring for special dispensations against the Muslim majority and backing that with threats and actual outbreaks of violence, I would fully 100% support the Dubai authorities if they wanted to stamp that out and throw them out. Same if similar was tried anywhere against any majority culture.

Nobody really owns this country.

A great example of this daft and recent mindset to be found in the West. Oddly popular among some nerds who think Star Trek will be the future.

And then you come out with this...

For all the other groups that want to preserve their tradition, it's probably best that they're allowed to separate into small region and be left alone like the Amish and don't agitate them! "fences make good neighbors"

So further ghettoisation is your plan? It seems you yourself don't buy into the "melting pot" of multiculturalism and agree it doesn't work. Grand so.

jam_mac_jam

deBeauvoir wrote: »

What? Muslims can't be Irish? Jews can't be Irish? Blacks can't be Irish? Also, the power of a document is only as strong as people's belief in it. If attitudes change and we become an open society

How do we become more open by increasing restrictions?

We have listened to religion for long enough. Why listen to a new one.

Wibbs

FyodorD wrote: »

Looks like a troll trying to parody libs

I know and have known people who think like this.

deBeauvoir

o1s1n wrote: »

Not sure if this is a parody account or not.

Did you read the thread title?

Yeah, I'm going to stop now. Not because it's a parody, but because I'm getting too much caught up in the arguments that I'm detracting from the title.

I sincerely didn't want innocent people to be killed by Muslims, but I think if people didn't agitate each other so much for social hegemony and left each other alone we'd have less of these events. Having a multicultural society was going to have its ups and downs, but things would settle better if we agitate so much.

I don't see how people are going to resolve this without admitting to the contradictions in their beliefs!

Galwayguy35

So much for all asylum seekers being vetted before being moved to other European countries.

Another lie we have been told as our own country prepares to take in thousands more of them.

Who's the real enemy: the people who burn down your village, or the people who open the gates and welcome them in?

Wibbs

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I sincerely didn't want innocent people to be killed by Muslims, but I think if people didn't agitate each other so much for social hegemony and left each other alone we'd have less of these events. Having a multicultural society was going to have its ups and downs, but things would settle better if we agitate so much.

I don't see how people are going to resolve this without admitting to the contradictions in their beliefs!

Indeed. Well for me there is little contradiction in that I think multiculturalism has failed and this tragedy and those like it are yet another pointer to it. The only times multiculturalism has worked in history for any length of time was when the "native" culture was very, even aggressively sure of itself and had short patience for any pushback. This includes the early Islamic Caliphate.

I actually have huge respect for the Islamic world over the centuries on a few levels and I have a respect for their conviction and clarity in believing their way is the better one. They're certainly not the wishy washy weak while being two faced apologists that much of European culture has become.

Oh and you mentioned the Amish. When was the last time any Amish went and killed one of the "English" for mocking them, and mock them they often do?

patsman07

deBeauvoir wrote: »

I don't justify killing innocent people. But I also don't support agitating people who we are trying to include in our society. Chances are if people didn't draw a cartoon of Muhammad to provoke Muslims and instead developed relationships or just left them be this incident wouldn't have happened.

The secular atheists think society should be atheistic and they feel the need to undermine their competitors, so they come up with these methods of ridicule, which I think are cheap shots to turn people including Muslims against their own religion. And then lie and pretend they welcome Muslims into our society and that they embrace a multicultural society.

Disgraceful post. Everybody and anybody is free to ridicule whomever they like and any idea they like, including religion. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Jesus too, is that provocation? Did Rushdie provoke these idiots when he wrote a novel?



The blame lies with, as the mayor of Nice said, Islamo-facists and those 'moderates' like Erdogan who excuse this obscurantism. It's nothing got to do with "secular atheists."



Personally, I think the French response has been the correct one. The cartoons should be published far and wide, but unfortunately this won't happen due to fearful editors and publishers, and who could blame them. That's where we are in Europe in 2020, too afraid to publish a cartoon.

lawred2

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

it's awful, but then i completely disagree with showing pictures of Mohammed when it's a clearly a very personal and upsetting thing for any muslim to see. Why purposely try upset people, it's only one image and plenty of ways around it.
Does it mean it's ok to murder, of course not but it's looking for trouble imo

Just no to that