I think you're applying your logic unevenly to different situations.
You and I agree, mostly, I think, on what we don't like and on what final effect we'd like to see happen.
I'm not at all convinced by the logic youre using to get there, which seems half formed and possibly dangerous when applied to everything in society. I also think you're applying a bit of a double standard.
And I don't think you're totally aware of how french Muslim women feel about this. Do you not remember that many women vocally opposed the banning of the hijab, which has none of your negative physical effect problems? And many women still defy the law by wearing the hijab in public.
I also agree with Nobehunter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree with your stance here Dogbreath (my post was to Gaal), perhaps consider that you've gotten angry, and its coloring your posts more than you might otherwise like?
Put more directly: in spite of my agreement, I think 'jackass' was over the top.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Depends if I'm wearing my radical hat or not.
If yes, I'm saying that supporting the burqa ban means supporting policing all sorts of religious expression that would effectively drive it from the public sphere and, ideally, wipe out anything but the blandest of low church episcopalians. If Church anything more than an excuse to show off your butter tarts and nanimo bars, up against the wall you go!
If not, then I'm pointing out the same logic as the burqa ban would allow for the expansion of government authority into regulating all sorts of expression and allow for significant invasion into people's private lives. Given that our society recognizes free expression of religion as one of the cornerstones of a free society, abridging it (particularly in such an uneven fashion) seems like a really terrible idea. And unless you want to argue that no muslim women have agency, even in a secular western society, then a burqa ban does abridge the freedom of religious expression.
There are other examples of cases where religious freedom comes up to - or crosses - the line of actively hurting someone, and most western governments have been pretty even handed about banning those as well.
But as far as Muslim women and agency. Well first, a lot of this is being forced on Muslim girls, who legally *don't* have such agency. But with grown women, I'd argue that the vast majority of those who where burqas live in households where they don't really possess agency in any real sense of the word. I.e, if you're in constant fear of beatings or worse for not doing as the men in your life tell you, then I'm not sure if wearing a burqa could be considered a free choice. Your other options are not wearing it and being beaten/mutilated/killed, or leaving your entire life behind (children, sisters, brothers, in laws, friends, neighbors, religious community) and seeking shelter from the law and hoping your male family members don't come after you. And there are a growing number of agencies that help provide relief for these women, battered women shelters, etc, but it's still a huge problem.
My point is I don't think domestic abuse becomes any more palatable when you dress it up in religious trappings. I.e, if a man forced his wife or daughter to walk around town with a sack over her head and wasn't Muslim, I would still think it was just as bad. (and indeed, France doesn't put any religious distinction in the law either)
quote:What are weekly sermons if not brainwashing?
More seriously, I think there's a line drawn between sitting in a building hearing nonsense being preached, and brainwashing. Like an actual, psychological difference. Brainwashing: screaming at someone for hours on end, sleep deprivation, shock therapy, etc. is a form of torture, and though it's frequently misused, an hour long sermon at a regular church is by no means brainwashing. The pastor grabbing the kid and shaking him and screaming at him for the "gay demons" to come out and having this practice repeated constantly most certainly is. And threatening to beat someone for acting a certain way definitely is. I don't really want to quibble over terminology, but I think the distinction is pretty clear - both legally and morally - and I don't think it's as much of a slippery slope as you make it out to be.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While I agree with your stance here Dogbreath (my post was to Gaal), perhaps consider that you've gotten angry, and its coloring your posts more than you might otherwise like?
Put more directly: in spite of my agreement, I think 'jackass' was over the top.
No, I agree with you, and would like to apologize to Lyrhawn for the "jackass" comment. I'm sorry, it was out of line.
I think I'll step back from this for a few hours, as this is one of the few topics that has really, truly angered me on Hatrack. I have known many extremist Muslim women - probably more than most posters here on Hatrack - and my experience with the abuse they've been subjected to makes this a difficult subject for me.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Is there a small minority of people that are properly giving consent for polygamous marriages? Of course. But the much larger number of abusive cases or cases where consent is coerced outweighs that so we ban polygamy across the board.
But that's a judgement call and I fully understand different societies making their own judgement calls.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between many or most and all. I'm not disputing that a large number of women are coerced into wearing a burqa, but does that justify violating the rights of those that freely choose to? And if you justify violating those rights, I don't there's a bright line of which other rights can't be violated.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you make it out to be. To someone who grows up with it, sermons aren't nonsense. It's probably easier to reject overt coercive assaults than subtle and pervasive preaching.
I also don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: [QUOTE] You completely ignored my point about how the overwelming majority of burqa wearers are coerced into doing so.
And what about the women who wear it voluntarily for religious reasons?
Where and if some women exist outside of an extremely oppressive patriarchal Islamic household that either utilizes physical abuse (and the threat thereof) to enforce wearing the burqa, or verbal and psychological abuse to convince women from an early age that there's so dirty and impure that just the site of them could corrupt a man and make him want to rape them, then I suppose it's not an issue. Realistically, you'll have a very hard time finding them.
Can you back that last sentence up with any facts or evidence? I don't know any Muslim women but I know plenty of educated Jewish women who voluntarily cover their hair with wigs or scarves when out in public because they believe it's God's will. They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism. A burqa is obviously more covering then a head scarf, but it's the same concept.
quote:Pupils at the Madani Girls School in East London, some as young as 11, are all required to wear the burka or a full-face veil and long black coat at all times outside the premises. No choice at all.
Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
Honestly, there are so many articles out there talking about the oppressive nature of the burqa - many written by Muslim women who have been subjected to it - that comparing it to Jewish head covering is a little absurd. How many Jewish women wear their head coverings out of fear of being beating by their husband, father or brother if they don't?
First, I was picturing a hijab when thinking of a burka. But here is a quote from your third link:
quote: Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil.
This is what I meant by my original post. I was not disagreeing that many if not most Muslim women are forced against their will, I was asking how this law affects the women who do so voluntarily, and they do exist.
quote: Can you honestly say you'd have the same reaction if, say, little boys were being forced to go to school with plastic bags over their heads, and all opposition to it or arguments against it - it's dangerous, it'll cause respiratory illness, it'll shorten their lifespan, etc. - were refuted with "it's just their religious expression."? Just because these are girls and women doesn't make them somehow less important or worth protecting.
How is that analogous to what I said? The key word you threw in there is 'forced' that makes it irrelevant to my post.
quote: This would be the religion which includes statements of gender equality as a traditional morning blessing praising God for not being made a woman, gentile, or slave, yes?
As for outright abuse, physical or psychological I would hesitate to go so far as to apply that across the board. As for systemic misogyny taught as being literally built into the university by God's will?
Well, Orthodox Judaism is perhaps not a good point to take a stand in support that this doesn't happen.
Did I say anything about Judaism being the shining example for gender equality? I was merely using it as an example that there are Jewish women who, despite the inequalities present, voluntarily follow these laws, and that perhaps the same could be said for some Muslim women.
I think I'm done posting here, every post I write in these kinds of threads ends up getting mischaracterized before being refuted and then I spend the next several posts trying to clarify my original post. It's not that much fun.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: This is what I meant by my original post. I was not disagreeing that many if not most Muslim women are forced against their will, I was asking how this law affects the women who do so voluntarily, and they do exist.
quote:The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law. The bill also penalises, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.
The entire law is built around penalizing/jailing Muslim men who force their wives/sisters/daughters to wear a burqa, with a particular focus on protecting French minors. If you're wearing it of your own volition, it's a small slap on the wrist. And I won't deny it is sort of crappy for the handful of women who would choose to do so voluntarily, but Mucus made a good analogy to the whole polygamy issue. There's always going to be those exceptions, and the law has to strike a balance between ideals and doing what's best for the most people. I.e, if I belong to a religious that states I need to run around naked to make God happy, the state preventing me from doing so in public isn't an unreasonable impingement of my religious freedom.
quote: How is that analogous to what I said? The key word you threw in there is 'forced' that makes it irrelevant to my post.
Because you're arguing against a law meant to prevent that exact scenario? I don't think it's analogous, to what *you* said, because I don't think you would say that.
quote: I think I'm done posting here, every post I write in these kinds of threads ends up getting mischaracterized before being refuted and then I spend the next several posts trying to clarify my original post. It's not that much fun.
Is it so much your original post was mis-characterized (or misconstrued? characterization already implies some level of distortion...), or that you tried to argue using a scenario largely divorced from reality, and people are trying to show you how your views actually play out when injected into real world situations? I.e, with the voting thread, I know perfectly well (or at least strongly hope) you have no animosity towards or desire to marginalize poor, disadvantaged persons; but your original stance in that thread, along with your mistaken belief that getting a photo ID is easy (class privilege), would do just that when applied to the actual scenario. This is why ideals (gee, it would be great if everyone had a photo ID/gee, it would be great if everyone could freely express their religious beliefs in every possible way) have to be subjected to reality before an informed opinion can be synthesized.
Or to put it another way: being misunderstood, or feeling that people misunderstand you, sucks and I feel your pain man. But it's a great opportunity to learn about the flaws in how you present your beliefs, as well as learn a lot about how other people think and process the same information, and I'd honestly rather post here than somewhere where everybody just agreed with me all the time, or even used the same line of reasoning. I think you're one of the best posters here and I have a lot of respect for you, and I really hope you don't get discouraged and leave. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: There's a difference between many or most and all. I'm not disputing that a large number of women are coerced into wearing a burqa, but does that justify violating the rights of those that freely choose to? And if you justify violating those rights, I don't there's a bright line of which other rights can't be violated.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you make it out to be. To someone who grows up with it, sermons aren't nonsense. It's probably easier to reject overt coercive assaults than subtle and pervasive preaching.
I doubt many of those subjected to "pray the gay away" camps and the like would agree with you. You are right that sermons aren't nonsense. I remember a lot of the stuff I was taught in church as a kid, too, and it does impact the way you think and act.
quote:I also don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
Probably not. Thank you, and you do the same! Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Edit: I see the niqab as a less restrictive but still harmful burqa. I think the hijab is fairly harmless (physically, I mean) and comparable to other head coverings in other religions. Also, plenty of Muslim women wear the hijab willingly and aren't really subjected to the same conditions that women who wear burqas almost universally are.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because you're arguing against a law meant to prevent that exact scenario? I don't think it's analogous, to what *you* said, because I don't think you would say that.
No, I was arguing against the side effect of the women who wear the burka voluntarily for religious reasons being unable to do so. You equated that with a schoolboy scenario where they are *all* *forced* to wear plastic bags over their heads. That scenario is absurd because no schoolboy would have a legitimate reason for wanting to wear a plastic bag over his head, while a Muslim woman who believes it is her religious duty to cover up does have one, regardless of how ill-advised we think that belief is. Also, there's a pretty big difference between school rules and government law. I don't think any sane government would try instituting a dress code in their country and force their citizens to tuck their shirts in.
quote: The entire law is built around penalizing/jailing Muslim men who force their wives/sisters/daughters to wear a burqa, with a particular focus on protecting French minors. If you're wearing it of your own volition, it's a small slap on the wrist. And I won't deny it is sort of crappy for the handful of women who would choose to do so voluntarily, but Mucus made a good analogy to the whole polygamy issue. There's always going to be those exceptions, and the law has to strike a balance between ideals and doing what's best for the most people. I.e, if I belong to a religious that states I need to run around naked to make God happy, the state preventing me from doing so in public isn't an unreasonable impingement of my religious freedom.
I think this is the first time in this thread you've actually addressed my point, and you nailed it. I agree that there has to be a line with whether religious requirements should be allowed to be practiced if it affects the public. I think that line is whether, or how much, it affects other people's freedoms, safety, or in the case of your naked running, mental health.
quote: Is it so much your original post was mis-characterized (or misconstrued? characterization already implies some level of distortion...), or that you tried to argue using a scenario largely divorced from reality, and people are trying to show you how your views actually play out when injected into real world situations? I.e, with the voting thread, I know perfectly well (or at least strongly hope) you have no animosity towards or desire to marginalize poor, disadvantaged persons; but your original stance in that thread, along with your mistaken belief that getting a photo ID is easy (class privilege), would do just that when applied to the actual scenario. This is why ideals (gee, it would be great if everyone had a photo ID/gee, it would be great if everyone could freely express their religious beliefs in every possible way) have to be subjected to reality before an informed opinion can be synthesized.
My issue in that thread was that I had realized I was wrong about ID being a valid requirement and I acknowledged that we should make sure the ability to get an ID was a non-issue before it became a law. I asked a question regarding how a piece of data that was being used could be accurate, not denying that it was, just questioning it out of curiosity and maybe a little bit of skepticism, yet you were harping on it as if I was defending the Republican legislature. It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered after I had already stopped posting, but you were acting as if my question was answered over and over and I was willfully ignoring it before that, which wasn't the case.
quote: Or to put it another way: being misunderstood, or feeling that people misunderstand you, sucks and I feel your pain man. But it's a great opportunity to learn about the flaws in how you present your beliefs, as well as learn a lot about how other people think and process the same information, and I'd honestly rather post here than somewhere where everybody just agreed with me all the time, or even used the same line of reasoning. I think you're one of the best posters here and I have a lot of respect for you, and I really hope you don't get discouraged and leave. [Smile]
I appreciate that and think likewise. That's the main reason I post here; to have my opinions beat up so I can either improve them or change them. But when I feel like the rebuttals of my arguments are going right past what I'm trying to say instead of addressing them, it gets frustrating.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: That scenario is absurd because no schoolboy would have a legitimate reason for wanting to wear a plastic bag over his head
What if his parents believed it was God's will? That's pretty much the exact scenario here - some crazy men who think it's God's will that their daughters wear giant bags over their bodies. If some of those daughters, after a lifetime of brainwashing and abuse, grow up to be independent women who decide that they want to continue wearing bags over their heads, and aren't being coerced into doing by their family (however rare or unrealistic this situation is), then that kind of sucks for them. I knew what you were talking about and wasn't misunderstanding you, I was trying to illustrate to you how absurd and unlikely the scenario you proposed actually is, because it's so far removed from the reality of the situation.
quote:I think this is the first time in this thread you've actually addressed my point, and you nailed it. I agree that there has to be a line with whether religious requirements should be allowed to be practiced if it affects the public. I think that line is whether, or how much, it affects other people's freedoms, safety, or in the case of your naked running, mental health.
Yeah, wouldn't want to make people feel insecure.
quote:My issue in that thread was that I had realized I was wrong about ID being a valid requirement and I acknowledged that we should make sure the ability to get an ID was a non-issue before it became a law. I asked a question regarding how a piece of data that was being used could be accurate, not denying that it was, just questioning it out of curiosity and maybe a little bit of skepticism, yet you were harping on it as if I was defending the [Republican legislature.
Really now? First, I never claimed you were defending the Republican legislature. Second, did you ever consider my "harping" was me trying, in every way possible, to answer your question? The fact that you dismissed sources I shared and completely ignored my explanations and just kept saying "I don't know how you can know that" when you *told* how I could know it doesn't change that.
quote:[It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered
Other posters and I already explained it in detail before Orincoro did. I also shared several links that explained how the study worked pretty comprehensibly. Typically, if I don't understand a simple concept vital to understanding what's being discussed (like statistics), I don't blame the people arguing with me for not doing a good enough job of explaining it to me.
quote:I appreciate that and think likewise. That's the main reason I post here; to have my opinions beat up so I can either improve them or change them. But when I feel like the rebuttals of my arguments are going right past what I'm trying to say instead of addressing them, it gets frustrating.
It it seems to go right past what you're trying to say, what's likely happening is someone has taken a few intuitive steps in their head and is responding to a part of your post - or a preconception you hold that informs your opinion, but that you may not be aware of - that you may not have realized was relevant but is actually critical. For example, the reason Rakeesh and I responded to your post here by addressing the context surrounding your example rather than the example itself, is that the example itself is (near) nonsensical in light of the real world context. You can't take everything used to describe this context as a personal attack on you. For example, if I explain that the Republican legislature is taking advantage of the intersection of the ignorance of very real difficulties poor people face with voting and public ignorance of why voter fraud is a non-issue, it doesn't mean I necessarily think *you* are defending them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really now? First, I never claimed you were defending the Republican legislature. Second, did you ever consider my "harping" was me trying, in every way possible, to answer your question? The fact that you dismissed sources I shared and completely ignored my explanations and just kept saying "I don't know how you can know that" when you *told* how I could know it doesn't change that.
quote: [It wasn't until Orincoro broke down the methodology behind the study that my question was answered Other posters and I already explained it in detail before Orincoro did. I also shared several links that explained how the study worked pretty comprehensibly. Typically, if I don't understand a simple concept vital to understanding what's being discussed (like statistics), I don't blame the people arguing with me for not doing a good enough job of explaining it to me.
-_-
When I get the energy, I'll sort through all the links you posted in that thread prior to Orincoro's post. I didn't dismiss the sources you shared, I agreed with their conclusions, but as far as I recall, none of them gave the answer to my specific question. They gave the answer to a different question that I had already agreed on.
quote: For example, the reason Rakeesh and I responded to your post here by addressing the context surrounding your example rather than the example itself, is that the example itself is (near) nonsensical in light of the real world context.
How was Rakeesh's post pointing out a sexist prayer in Judaism addressing the the context surrounding my example when my example was just to illustrate that there are women who willingly follow certain laws in religions, even if they are unfair to their gender.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you'll probably redefine your question in terms that nothing I offered was quite good enough to answer it. Which is fine, it's a hopelessly broad question anyway, "how can we know this for sure?" pretty much covers all of epistemology and leads to near infinite regression. That's not the point, though. The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some interesting new interviews with the terrorists so we can have concrete insight into their motivations.
For Coulibaly (the one that shot a policewoman and attacked a supermarket)
quote:"My brothers, our team, divided things in two," says the man, speaking in front of an Islamic State flag. “If we did things a bit together and a bit separately it was to have more impact.”
Survivors of the shooting at Charlie Hebdo’s offices have said the attackers told them they were from Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based terror group that has claimed responsibility for the attack.
But in the video, the man identified as Coulibaly says the militants’ motive was retribution for French attacks on Islamic State, seen by many analysts as a rival to Al Qaeda.
“If you attack the caliphate and Islamic State, you will be attacked,” he says. “France is a legitimate target.”
“You bombard there regularly, you invested in forces, you kill civilians, you kill combatants, you kill. Why?” he says, adding: “We are not going to let this happen. We will fight, God willing, until the word of God the great and almighty is supreme.”
quote:Coulibaly called his actions revenge for the French military incursion against Islamist militants in the West African nation of Mali, Western intervention in Syria, airstrikes against Islamic State and a French law banning women from publicly wearing head scarves.
“Each time, they try to make you believe that the Muslims are terrorists. But I was born in France. If they hadn't attacked elsewhere, I would not be here,” Coulibaly reportedly could be heard telling hostages at the kosher market on Friday.
quote:Chérif Kouachi: I just want to tell you that we are defenders of the Prophet. I, Chérif Kouachi, was sent by al-Qaeda in Yemen. I was over there. I was financed by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
Journalist: OK. How long ago, roughly?
Kouachi: A long time ago. Before he was killed.
...
Chérif: We are not killers. We are defenders of the Prophet.
We are not like you. We defend the Prophet. There, there is no problem. We can kill. But we don’t kill women. It is you that kill the children of Muslims in Iraq, in Afganistan, in Syria.
That’s not us. We have a code of honour, us, in Islam.
Journalist: But you took vengeance...
Kouachi: That’s right. We took vengeance. That’s it. You said it all. We took vengeance.
posted
Meanwhile, a German paper that reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed and a Belgian paper was evacuated after a bomb threat.
Like I said, this isn't just a French problem. Anyone that opposes ISIS or Al Qaeda, anyone who participated in the coalition, anyone who reprints the cartoons is a possible target. Hell, even countries who have aspiring jihadis but don't let them out of the country can be a target.
The only good news is that you, specifically you are still statistically much more likely to die of a car accident or obesity than of a terrorist attack. The chilling effects on the media are harder to calculate.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the state of American media, at any rate, I doubt they could manage much in the way of deleterious effects.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: No, you'll probably redefine your question in terms that nothing I offered was quite good enough to answer it.
Man, that's an insulting assumption to make. Is that what you think I did in that thread or this one?
quote: The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
I guess this is where our realities differ. I remember you being condescending, not gracious.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Given the state of American media, at any rate, I doubt they could manage much in the way of deleterious effects.
*nods* I had the misfortune of watching Fox News a little bit after the attacks happened, the anchor somehow managed to turn it into how Obama is leaving America open to attacks. It was incredibly depressing.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Man, that's an insulting assumption to make. Is that what you think I did in that thread or this one?
Yes.
quote: The point is that I tried my best to explain it to you graciously, so it seems a little unfair that I get blamed for you not being able to understand it.
I guess this is where our realities differ. I remember you being condescending, not gracious. [/QUOTE]
I think we already covered that. But this is the sort of thing I'm talking about, you profess ignorance when I'm straight up with you, but claim I'm being condescending when I proceed to break things down and explain them in simple terms. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not an especially dickish person. I think as of late I've had s lot less patience for dishonesty due to dealing with a crazy in-law. But I swear I'm a pretty nice guy. So if you see something I wrote that looks kind of like I'm being a dick, just ask yourself "is he being a dick or is this just the way he writes?" It's hard to convey tone in writing, and it's also hard to be direct and forthright when calling someone out on saying something wrong or illogical without sounding kind of like a jerk. But as I already explained to you, I think forcing someone to aquiesce (I just butchered that, didn't I) to tone policing is a pretty dirty way of trying to wrest control of the terms of a debate, which is why I'm always deeply suspicious of people whose initial response to confrontation is to complain about hostility or tone.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we're finding out that religion just sucks and if there's any differences that make it so that Islam sucks more today than Christianity at this very moment is that a lot of backwards Islamic theocracies managed to hang on and keep whole parts of the globe as backwards crapholes that keep people dumb and violent like other religions can't anymore because their locations modernized on them and cut the balls off of religious power. Christianity is kept on a better leash these days. Maybe there's no other real difference.
That's why the Catholic League released that swillshow saying that the artists brought it on themselves for blaspheming, because they're sitting there stewing and sweating in their own envy of that Islam still has the opportunities to murder people for blasphemy. And they're jealous that the christian world can't do that anymore because all this stupid democracy and secularism keeps them down. They want to and they pine for the days where they could and would torture and kill people just for being the wrong kind of Christian or something.
The solution is obviously to just neuter Islam the same way. Then once all religions are equally neutered, keep neutering.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Also, +1 to your post. I always find it odd that any time I say something negative about Islam someone always asks "well what about Christianity!" (as Lyrhawn and Noble Hunter did), as if being opposed to the extremes of one will make me inclined to defend the other, and I have to pick one. I find this rather baffling. Especially since I usually get in trouble on this forum for denouncing crap Mormons and fundamentalist Christians do.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't go so far as to say they're jealous that they can't kill and murder. I *would* go so far as to say that there are many, of all sorts-though religion with its enormous claims for itself has a special place here-are jealous of those who can stop speech they don't like, or at least try by taking action. It's not a trivial minority of people here in the U.S., after all, who support compulsory pledging of allegiance by students or prohibitions on flag burning. It's a pretty common human impulse to hear something you don't like and either leave or try somehow to get the person to stop speaking. I don't think it's surprising that it's taken millennia of human history to arrive at a point where some societies have begun to seriously protect freedom of speech.
What I do think religious institutions are jealous of is the unchallenged dominance they once had in the Western world. Again this is natural and not uniquely religious-it's just more dangerous due to the power and importance religion claims for itself, which is generally different from other institutions which don't claim to be as important to reality.
One of the things that frustrates me most is when religious institutions attempt to claim credit themselves for their modern, more liberal behaviors and attitudes. As though the growth of secular society had not been at the direct expense of so much of the worst, most superstitious religious nastiness, fought against bitterly and still resented in many cases.
---------
Gaal,
My post to you was in response to this line from yours:
quote:They are not under threat of violence (I know this for a fact, some are close family members) and it's not because they're taught to believe they're "dirty and impure", it's just considered modesty in Orthodox Judaism.
I feel that given that you did say that, did state reasons for this particular behavior-increased 'modesty' requirements for women versus men in a particular religion-I feel my reply was both fair and relevant.
-----
Of course, and it's frustrating to have to qualify things like this but when discussing the claims religion makes for itself it's so often necessary, this kind of shaming from youth isn't unique. Every cultural-every family and individual for that matter has colors and attire they feel embarrassing or unsuited to.
But there is a hell of a difference between 'I don't like it' and 'God doesn't like it (or maybe hates it!'. 'I don't like it' is unlikely to move anyone else. 'God doesn't like it' is frankly a big problem. To paraphrase Hitchens, too, I'll cheerfully be defiant and 'rude' when I say that while I'm happy to have people who agree with me about the freedom of speech, and fortunate to have been born in a society that does make efforts to protect it, it's not necessary that anyone agree. I claim the right, under my own name or an assumed one, to say that it is a waste of time-Islam-and that it's claims are absurd and, when left unchecked, dangerous-like all religions and many institutions. And if anyone takes issue with that, I'm glad to argue it until we're blue in the face. And anyone who doesn't like that can form a line and kiss my ass.
(Said loosely by Hitchens I believe when he spoke in defense of a Holocaust denier, being threatened with hate speech laws).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic League sure did their best to look like simpering troglodytes who want Islam's power to control and punish people. In a sorry sort of "yes yes well that's what happens when you blaspheme, we wouldn't like that either" way
Of course at the same time it is the Catholic League so troglodyte status had been long ago confirmed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wouldn't go so far as to say they're jealous that they can't kill and murder. I *would* go so far as to say that there are many, of all sorts-though religion with its enormous claims for itself has a special place here-are jealous of those who can stop speech they don't like, or at least try by taking action.
Some of one some of the other.
quote: Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads.
"Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day.
"Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction."
The world they want is a world in which the Charlie Hebdo writers "got what was coming to them".
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone see the Charlie Hedbo cover for their upcoming magazine?
Lots of mixed feelings. I can't tell if it's supposed to be at least partially sincere or if the whole thing is just one giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere.
I think it's the sort of thing that will get a huge thumbs up from Fox News, and I see the desire to go there. I feel it a little bit myself.
If printing the Prophet ONLY offended terrorists, then I'd say it was brave and spot on. But since it affects more than a billion people, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, I say it's indicative of more of what's wrong than right in Western society, and I don't support it at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
First off, they're a private magazine that just had quite a few of themselves massacred by small-minded, eager-to-be-offended bigots. They're not representative of 'Western society' as a whole-that particular group is far too large for such a thing anyway.
Second, a glance at their other covers shows this is not particularly, unusually offensive for their covers anyway, so the notion that Muslims anywhere should feel especially offended is nonsense. If the jerk down the street flips me off when I wave hello to him, I might be bitterly offended. If I find out he does that to everyone as a matter of course? Then I'm just a dope for being so upset. Not that CH are jerks, in spite of all the horrible hurt feelings of poor, fragile people everywhere.
As for how it affects the vast majority of Muslims everywhere who aren't terrorists: who cares? Goddamnit, when as a matter of course somewhere on the planet some of those millions of Muslims who aren't terrorists nonetheless do things awful and offensive to ideas of freedom of expression, religion, to women, to homosexuals, so on and so forth, it is somehow unfair for any member of the given group to take offense towards Muslims everywhere.
But if one magazine in one country prints a routinely offensive magazine cover after a slew of their own are murdered, why then it's a sign of something wrong with Western society as a whole and ought not be supported.
I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that. If Fox News were endorsing every subsequent cover of CH for the next five years (insofar as they took any interest at all), that would be some pretty concerning comraderie to say the least. One cover don't cut it.
This isn't just about terrorism. It's not just terrorists who try to stifle freedom of speech. Specifically it's not just Muslim terrorists who try to stifle freedom of speech when someone, even if they're on the other side of the planet, supposedly offends Muslims. We're not just interacting with the tiny fraction who take arms, and that tiny fraction didn't just spring whole and furious from the head of Allah after He got a really wicked headache one day either.
We are also dealing with the much larger number of Muslims* across the world who think that their religion** is sacrosanct, and those who don't pay the proper respect*** for their religion need to be silenced. The degree of nastiness can be measured in the amount of force they support for this silencing.
Well, **** that. You know what? If someone somewhere doesn't like something that someone else says or writes, they are perfectly free to be as upset as they would like about it. But their upset doesn't mean anything special above and beyond anyone else's.
*This is not just Muslims, obviously, and damnit don't I just love having to qualify that in most discussions with liberals, especially since I am one.
**Whatever their particular brand of their particular religion might be.
***And whatever the appropriate respect is for their particular religion, always assuming as well that there is even one agreed amount for one particular sect.
****A fourth asterisk that wasn't there to really emphasize the quagmire this sort of mincing concern with the hurt feelings of people who are really really eager to have hurt feelings can get you.
-----
Angry? Sure. And in fact a little surprised and frustrated at our stance on this, sure, Lyrhawn. But I thought it worth pointing out that the lion's share of the antagonism in this post isn't directed at you, but rather at the sort of people who really do think that hey, freedom of speech, too much of a good thing.;
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that.
You bet.
This kind of reasoning would twist you in knots anyways, because you know who else is in favor of limits on what the French should have satirized? The media wing of the Communist party of China http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/900870.shtmlPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A person walks down the street in revealing clothing. They're raped. People question whether they really should have dressed that way.
Not ok.
An artist creates a cartoon of someone. They're killed. People question whether they really should have drew that.
Ok? Not ok.
My comment had nothing to do with blaming the victim.
No one here disputes what you're saying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It sounded to me like you were advocating whether or not the upcoming Charlie Hedbo should have been created based on how many people it would offend.
Would you advocate whether a person should wear revealing clothing based on how many people it might provoke?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas I would say-and I feel confident you would as well, were the context different-that from a strictly pragmatic stance, one might advise against something such as wearing revealing clothing. But from a moral stance, from one of ethics and civilization, I feel confident you would justly sneer at someone who said, after a rape, 'Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them.'
The trouble is, it is so commonplace for political questions in the Arabic and Muslim world to get facile treatment. Some comfortable talking head might sneer at citizens of some autocracy we've spent decades and billions propping and wonder, with condescending earnestness, why don't they rise up like we did? Etc etc. It's stupid and frustrating.
But that's not what this is. This is a question of religion and freedom of speech and just how much concern we should have over the outrage others feel over our freedom of speech.
Nobody's belief is exempt from people who don't even share it not respecting it enough.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I finally have the time to sit down at a computer for a little bit and work through some of these things. I'll try to answer some of the things I left hanging over the last two pages.
I'll admit, for Dogbreath's sake, that I didn't have a fully formed idea of how I felt about the burqah thing when I started that discussion. I was working it out as we talked and as I read this thread.
I would like to respond to one or two specific things you (Dogbreath) have said during the thread to see if we can reach, if not an agreement, then at least an understanding.
quote:If by religious expression you mean expression of violence, abuse and oppression, then sure. If you seriously think that the vast majority of women are wearing burkhas because they choose to do so, rather than out of fear of severe verbal, physical and spiritual abuse by male family members and religious brainwashing, then you're delusional.
Here's why I had a problem with what you said earlier up this page about Christianity versus Islam. You linked religious brainwashing in with all the other sorts of damage Sharia type law can cause. So as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game. Christianity is religious brainwashing. Yes, most of it is much milder, but it's brainwashing all the same. They get you when you're young. You either attend mass/service every week or multiple times or in many cases you attend bible schools all to learn the catechisms and whatever else is involved with the religion and your particular aspect of it. That's all religion, but it's certainly Christianity. And in the process of doing so, many, MANY people come away with psychological damage from the stuff they internalize.
It's just odd to me how righteous you seemed about psychological abuse at the start of this thread but you backed right off as soon as Christianity entered the picture. Now it's not dangerous, it's "background noise."
Am I doing all this to say the two are the same? No, I'm not. But I'm trying to point out two things (one of them because I think you and Rakeesh both expressed annoyance with one of them):
1. If damage caused by religious brainwashing is a negative side effect worthy of federal intervention, then Christianity is going to require some editing by Congress. Because while it does a lot of good, and it does a lot of benign, it also does a lot of harm. But the idea of it happening is pretty laughable in America. You bent over backwards to explain away why it might even be a legitimate complaint, let alone a worthy prescription.
2. The reason it's fair to bring up Christianity in these conversations is not because of what happened during the Dark Ages and the Crusades or whatever. It's because, at least here in America, and Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other. It really, REALLY requires special care and attention to break out of that mindset and really hold something under a microscope to get perspective on it, otherwise it's all too easy to not only wave away concerns, but to not even think of them in the first place. It's why white privilege is so hard to explain to people, because being white is normative. It's just How Things Are.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, I didn't ignore your point on coercion.
I just don't know if it's particularly relevant.
Are we banning everything that someone is coerced into doing?
Yes!
Also, I don't know if you really meant this way. You think the thing people are coerced into doing, rather than coercion itself, should be banned?
Okay, so, organized religion...banned? Alcohol, banned? A million other things, banned? I'm sure it makes it easier to ban the thing itself, but that's, to me, not a good enough reason to ban it. One person's coercion is another person's free choice.
But at the end of the day, with regards to the veil specifically...I suppose I'm on the fence about the burqah, because while I don't support forcing women to wear it, I'm leery of the logic you're using to justify banning it entirely. I think if applied universally, it opens up a dangerous slippery slope.
As for the hijab, I think you're just being ridiculous. And I think maybe you realized that when I asked you for specifics but were too amped up to admit it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to. It's a scarf. It's the same thing Hollywood starlets wear, they just wear it for a different reason. If someone is forcing them to wear it, that's wrong. But the numbers and the harm there don't add up to banning, in my opinion. And yet in France, it's under the same ban as the burkah.
Apology accepted for the jackass comment. I took no offense in the first place.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're not representative of 'Western society' as a whole-that particular group is far too large for such a thing anyway.
I never said Western Society as a whole. I said they were indicative of problematic aspects of western society. They're a symbol for something wrong. They certainly don't speak for everyone.
quote:Second, a glance at their other covers shows this is not particularly, unusually offensive for their covers anyway, so the notion that Muslims anywhere should feel especially offended is nonsense.
I also never said they should be especially offended. I don't know why they would need to be offended any more than the regular amount, nor do I understand why regular bad behavior is its own excuse for continued bad behavior.
"Oh him? He's a jerk. But it's okay, because he's always a jerk"
I certainly wouldn't buy that excuse, and I doubt you would either.
quote:I reject with emphasis the notion that just because Fox News will endorse it, I ought to be critical. You're capable of much better reasoning than that. If Fox News were endorsing every subsequent cover of CH for the next five years (insofar as they took any interest at all), that would be some pretty concerning comraderie to say the least. One cover don't cut it.
Really? Look, not even because of this, but I take everything that comes out of just about every media outlet's mouth with a grain of salt, but it's many more grains for Fox News. They have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I think they'd much rather be wrong and push an agenda than be right by sacrificing it. In this case, being anti-Muslim is part of their agenda. If that wasn't clear before, it sure as hell was made clear by their awful response to this whole mess. So yeah, this sounds exactly like the sort of "America, F yeah!" crap they'd support that I'd roll my eyes at.
This last part is to address my comments to Mucus and you about clarifying what my real problem is.
I don't think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because it provokes a response. I think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because the only point in printing it is to offend Muslims. It's tantamount to targeted hate speech. That's why Mucus' analogy to a scantily clad woman walking down the street doesn't really add up. She's not walking down the street (probably) wearing skimpy clothes JUST to offend anyone. What they are doing is legal and should stay legal, because I don't want government censors deciding what is and isn't legal free speech. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support targeted offense to a minority within a country.
That sure as hell isn't how we feel in America when someone goes on a misogynistic or homophobic or racist rant. The country goes haywire for a couple days and then we reset the machine and wait for the next offensive thing.
What's the most recent political scandal in American politics? That a recently promoted Republican gave a speech to a white power group. Who cares if he offends some minorities or liberal types? It's free speech!
Is your response for the rest of time to every offensive statement someone ever says going to be: "Quit your bitching?"
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Here's why I had a problem with what you said earlier up this page about Christianity versus Islam.
See, this is where you're mistaken. I actually never made things about Christianity versus Islam. (That was NobleHunter) I said something about Christian "pray the gay away" camps versus Christian church services.
quote:You linked religious brainwashing in with all the other sorts of damage Sharia type law can cause. So as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game. Christianity is religious brainwashing. Yes, most of it is much milder, but it's brainwashing all the same. They get you when you're young. You either attend mass/service every week or multiple times or in many cases you attend bible schools all to learn the catechisms and whatever else is involved with the religion and your particular aspect of it. That's all religion, but it's certainly Christianity. And in the process of doing so, many, MANY people come away with psychological damage from the stuff they internalize.
Absolutely. I don't deny that, either. But once again, you completely miss the point. I'm not in favor of outlawing Islam, nor am I in favor of outlawing Islamic mosques, or Imams, or anything of that nature. If I had, say, proposed making attending services at a mosque illegal, you might have a point here.
I *am* in favor of outlawing the wearing of the burqa, which is dangerous, and which is *caused* by Islamic brainwashing. Just like I'm in favor of outlawing "pray the gay away" Christian camps. Which are dangerous, and *caused* by Christian brainwashing.
This is something I have very clearly delineated several times in this thread. I feel like you're either skipping some of my posts, or cherry picking quotes out of context from them at this point. So please, please read this: what you have to realize is situations posed by NobleHunter - Christian Church services vs. Islamic burqas - are not analogous. An analogous comparison is between Christian church services and Muslim mosque services. (neither of which I want to outlaw) Or as much as possible, between "pray the gay away" camps and burqas, which isn't an exact analogy, but is as close as I can get. (and both of which I support illegalizing)
quote:It's just odd to me how righteous you seemed about psychological abuse at the start of this thread but you backed right off as soon as Christianity entered the picture. Now it's not dangerous, it's "background noise."
A) I never called Christianity "background noise", and I already called you out once for claiming that. You know better, so this is just incredibly disingenuous at this point. Please stop.
B) In what way did I back off? My very first response to Noble Hunter was about stupid shit Christians do I would like to see illegalized too. I merely called him out on a false comparison. And before you ask me how it's false, I already explained in depth earlier in this very post. Please read it.
quote:Am I doing all this to say the two are the same? No, I'm not. But I'm trying to point out two things (one of them because I think you and Rakeesh both expressed annoyance with one of them):
1. If damage caused by religious brainwashing is a negative side effect worthy of federal intervention, then Christianity is going to require some editing by Congress. Because while it does a lot of good, and it does a lot of benign, it also does a lot of harm. But the idea of it happening is pretty laughable in America. You bent over backwards to explain away why it might even be a legitimate complaint, let alone a worthy prescription.
What? Seriously, I legitimately don't understand what exactly you're getting at here. I definitely think harmful and dangerous things caused by Christian brainwashing should be banned, as I have stated numerous, numerous times in this thread. It's not my fault we live in a country where a lot of this shady stuff (by Christians) is still legal, especially considering just how much flak I take on this forum for publicly opposing it.
Again, I feel you're really, really just assigning opinions and/or motives to me that are completely divorced from the reality of who I am and what I actually believe.
quote:2. The reason it's fair to bring up Christianity in these conversations is not because of what happened during the Dark Ages and the Crusades or whatever. It's because, at least here in America, and Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other. It really, REALLY requires special care and attention to break out of that mindset and really hold something under a microscope to get perspective on it, otherwise it's all too easy to not only wave away concerns, but to not even think of them in the first place. It's why white privilege is so hard to explain to people, because being white is normative. It's just How Things Are.
lol. Which of the two of us do you think has lived in a country where Islam is normative and Christianity is other? I'm sorry Lyrhawn, but I highly doubt you have near the personal experience with living in a Muslim culture, or working alongside of Muslims and observing first hand what a Muslim a Islamic worldview looks as I do. Even if you do (which I doubt, due to misconceptions and ignorance you've revealed in this thread), it doesn't matter, because this isn't an argument I would ever use against you.
Or, in other words; get off your high horse. Thanks!
quote:Also, I don't know if you really meant this way. You think the thing people are coerced into doing, rather than coercion itself, should be banned?
What? No. The entire point of the law you're so opposed to is to prevent Muslim men from forcing women (especially girls under 18) from wearing burqas. Obviously I'm opposed to the coercion.
quote:Okay, so, organized religion...banned?
Yes, it's illegal to force someone to convert to your religion.
quote:Alcohol, banned?
It's very illegal to force someone to drink.
quote:One person's coercion is another person's free choice.
Please, please tell me you don't actually believe this statement.
quote:But at the end of the day, with regards to the veil specifically...I suppose I'm on the fence about the burqah, because while I don't support forcing women to wear it, I'm leery of the logic you're using to justify banning it entirely. I think if applied universally, it opens up a dangerous slippery slope.
I don't. It's been enforced pretty effectively against other similar practices (i.e, snake handling) just fine. Especially with the way the law is written.
quote:As for the hijab, I think you're just being ridiculous.
Come again? What exactly did I say about the hijab that you think is rediculous?
quote:And I think maybe you realized that when I asked you for specifics but were too amped up to admit it.
No seriously, what are you talking about?
quote:Hundreds of millions of Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to. It's a scarf. It's the same thing Hollywood starlets wear, they just wear it for a different reason. If someone is forcing them to wear it, that's wrong. But the numbers and the harm there don't add up to banning, in my opinion.
where did I say I support banning the hijab
quote: And yet in France, it's under the same ban as the burkah.
No it's not. It's an entirely different law, applied to entirely different situations (government service jobs), and is enforced differently. It's also applicable to Jewish and Christian women. Seriously, what the heck are you talking about?
quote:Apology accepted for the jackass comment. I took no offense in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Western Society in general, Christianity is normative. Islam is Other.
This is a matter of perspective.
Religion is normative, the non-religious are Other. This attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attempt to intimidate any non-religious artist who fails to treat religious figures with kid-gloves.
As for the rest of this section, if it is the case that Christianity plays by special rules that Islam does not have access to, them advocate for them to be fixed!
Again, two wrongs don't make a right.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think Charlie Hedbo shouldn't print this stuff because the only point in printing it is to offend Muslims. It's tantamount to targeted hate speech. That's why Mucus' analogy to a scantily clad woman walking down the street doesn't really add up. She's not walking down the street (probably) wearing skimpy clothes JUST to offend anyone ...
This is actually irrelevant to the analogy.
For example, imagine that a French woman knows that there is a group of conservative Jewish men who would be offended by her walking down the Champs-Élysées in a perfectly legal, but low cut dress. She does it JUST to offend them, she would not wear that dress otherwise. They assault her.
It would still seem really incongruous for you (to me anyways) to say as Rakeesh put it, "Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That sure as hell isn't how we feel in America when someone goes on a misogynistic or homophobic or racist rant. The country goes haywire for a couple days and then we reset the machine and wait for the next offensive thing.
What's the most recent political scandal in American politics? That a recently promoted Republican gave a speech to a white power group. Who cares if he offends some minorities or liberal types? It's free speech!
I wanted to also elaborate on this. The problem with misogynistic rants is misogyny. The problem with homophobic rants is homophobia. The problem with racist rants is racism.
When we advocate for politicians that make speeches with these characteristics to be defeated in elections, we're not advocating for them to stop speaking! How else are we going to identify the racists and company? Instead, we want them to continue speaking. We also don't want them in power because we don't want them to act on that racism, homophobia, etc.
The thing is, with these cartoons, the problem isn't cartoonism or satirism. I'm not even sure there's even a word for this. The cartoonists are also not in power! The problem is that a bunch of Muslims are iconoclasts. They also have power (power comes out of the barrel of a gun) and are threatening journalists and cartoonists, people whose very jobs should encourage them speaking truth to power.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For anyone interested, this is the magazine cover that may or may not be a giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere. (I think it's rather touching)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Religion is normative, the non-religious are Other. This attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attempt to intimidate any non-religious artist who fails to treat religious figures with kid-gloves.
As for the rest of this section, if it is the case that Christianity plays by special rules that Islam does not have access to, them advocate for them to be fixed!
A Western perspective, yes. And yes, religion itself is normative here, and everywhere on Earth for that matter, which is why going down one level is a fair topic of discussion.
As for as advocating, I thought that's what I was doing.
quote:This is actually irrelevant to the analogy.
For example, imagine that a French woman knows that there is a group of conservative Jewish men who would be offended by her walking down the Champs-Élysées in a perfectly legal, but low cut dress. She does it JUST to offend them, she would not wear that dress otherwise. They assault her.
It would still seem really incongruous for you (to me anyways) to say as Rakeesh put it, "Granted we can't abide this sort of thing. But clothes like that are one of the things wrong with Western society today, and I can't support wearing them."
I think you guys are missing my point then. If she's doing it just to offend them, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. Her clothes aren't the problem. Wanting to be insulting and hurtful just for the sake of being insulting and hurtful is the problem.
When did it become controversial to tell people to stop being douchebags?
quote:I wanted to also elaborate on this. The problem with misogynistic rants is misogyny. The problem with homophobic rants is homophobia. The problem with racist rants is racism.
And in your mind, the problem with Islamophobic rants ISN'T Islamophobia?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: For anyone interested, this is the magazine cover that may or may not be a giant middle finger to Muslims everywhere. (I think it's rather touching)
Again, if depicting the Prophet is considered highly offensive, then it doesn't really matter how nice you think it is. They could have him holding a peace sign with a sign under it that says "coolest guy ever!" and to many it would still be offensive.
Personally, I also think, if you swap out the Prophet with Jesus, and if a village we'd just predator drone bombed and killed a bunch of people published it, I'd breathe a sigh of relief and feel a little better that they managed to find the compassion for forgiveness and with such a flattering religious icon.
The problem being, of course, that Islam doesn't view Muhammad the same way Christians view Jesus, or ANY religious icon, specifically because idolatry is taken pretty seriously (something Moses was pretty amped about too from what I recall) and depicting him, in their minds, symbolizes idolatry.
So if that hypothetical village we'd just bombed depicted Jesus in a compromising position, with an "all is forgiven" sign under it, I'd probably wonder at their mixed messages.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you guys are missing my point then. If she's doing it just to offend them, then I wouldn't be in favor of it. Her clothes aren't the problem. Wanting to be insulting and hurtful just for the sake of being insulting and hurtful is the problem.
When did it become controversial to tell people to stop being douchebags?
In Mucus's example, the 'douchebag' behavior he was supporting was offending some men who believe the female body is particularly sinful. Certainly more sinful than a man's with equal skin showing.
The controversy here is in the question 'at what point does someone's offense not matter as much?' If someone is going to be offended and ask you to stop, certainly, we can have dialogue. Dialogue as opposed to demands. If they're so bitterly offended they cannot bear to hear more, also fine-go your way in peace and we're still sibling hairless apes. When that offense, however, takes the form of being so angry that the offender must be silenced, whether through violence (Charlie Hebdo), threats (Rushdie), economic intimidation (Denmark, which got its share of the first two as well)...
That's the point I stop caring if you're offended. It's not enough that the one offended supposedly has the Creator of the Universe on their side, with all of the certainty of post mortem judgment that carries? It's not enough that in the normal courses of things they don't have to see the magazine at all, and in fact need to go out of their way to see it? No, the very fact that someone somewhere is openly blaspheming against their Prophet is offensive?
No. Hell with that. They don't get to control my speech with force-goodness knows they would like to, perversely thanks in part to us-and I'm not just going to roll over and allow it with cheap emotional blackmail either.
If Unitarians or something had an image that offended them to see portrayed, and a magazine out of nowhere decided to print that and their stated reason was 'we just wanted to make them angry' you might have a case. It's not and you don't, particularly for the impending cover.
Fanatics just murdered some of their colleagues, and it's not easy to find a statement where someone didn't say that of course they deplore it etc etc but gosh it was really offensive too, a sign of what's wrong with Western society today. Ordinarily one might say 'they're hurting, if they lash out it's understandable.' Here, though? Heavens! What about all of those Muslims who might be offended?!
We mustn't hurt their feelings. We must treat them as though they were as fragile and self-righteous and dangerous as the most awful spokespeople among them insist they are, unable to hear unwelcome thoughts without anger and hard to restrain from violence when they do. We ought not offend them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
