Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

Brooks

Oppose the things you find offensive - oppression, female subjugation, homophobia, violence, whatever - in their own right.

Best practice. It lets no one off the hook and avoids slack general comments about a broad cultural and/or ethnic instance.
This doesn't mean resorting to counterproductive ways of expressing your opposition though. Exercise savvy.

dynamiteReady

Kow wrote:

What is our Je suis badger moment?

Half Life 2, Bayonetta, TWD, Journey, 'Games As Art' threads, and newbies advertising.

We are but a simple bunch...

IanHamlett

@Brooks Yeah let's flannel round the periphery. Mind you don't generalise, that's the main thing.

bad_hair_day

We seem to be getting away from the reason why these French nationals murdered the cartoonists. The Prophet was not only depicted but insulted - a capital crime (if I'm not mistaken) so if the Quran is the literal last words from God via Mo his messenger, can this blasphemy be ignored by the truly faithful? It's easy to forget in a secular society a significant number of followers of Islam actual believe Heaven and Hell are real. The willingness of fundos to opt for martyrdom in defense of Mo’s honour is to me chilling but rational if you truly believe it bypasses your day of judgment by Allah, and hello eternal paradise.

cindemon

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

IanHamlett

Quran 1
Ireland 0

Although there are a couple of lines in the Quran that don't sound so great.

Skerret

cindemon wrote:

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

If nothing else that merely reconfirmed my understanding that any extremist group purporting to embody the purity of a particular doctrine does not believe a word of it and merely uses it as justification to gain power, wealth and instil fear under their rule. Anyone think the head honchos of Boko Haram believe word one of the Q'uran? Like fuck they do. Sure does help when trying to amass a following of 'believers' though.

bad_hair_day

cindemon wrote:

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

There are a number of surah in Quran relating to blasphemy, from which Quranic verses 5:33 and 33:57-61 have been most commonly used in Islamic history to justify and punish blasphemers. For example;

'Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

bad_hair_day

Skerret wrote:

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

If nothing else that merely reconfirmed my understanding that any extremist group purporting to embody the purity of a particular doctrine does not believe a word of it and merely uses it as justification to gain power, wealth and instil fear under their rule. Anyone think the head honchos of Boko Haram believe word one of the Q'uran? Like fuck they do. Sure does help when trying to amass a following of 'believers' though.

The head honchos of Boko Haram may or may not believe one word of the Quran, but you can't say they all don't when they say they do.

If a person robs and kills a neighbour and confesses he did it out of greed, bleeding hearts don't rush to say that he was a person of faith and that was his real motivation. You can't have it both ways.

Yossarian

IanHamlett wrote:

@Brooks Yeah let's flannel round the periphery. Mind you don't generalise, that's the main thing.

You've yet to offer a single example of what it is about Islam in and of itself which is the root of the problem. You're just holding up examples of acts by small groups of people who claim to be acting in the name of Islam, the majority of which would be condemned by the majority of Muslims and so which clearly are not representative of the faith as a whole.

The issue here is more down to there being many different interpretations of Islam, and it being quite easy to find parts of the Quran which will justify a previously-held belief or practise that is already present in a society. This, combined with Islam's popularity in poor and therefore poorly educated countries, results in a situation where all kinds of regressive beliefs which spring from small, poor communities are continued under Islam by finding some verse which can be taken to mean that whatever you want to do is supported.

That quote from BHD is a case in point, I wouldn't personally take that to mean that followers of Islam should kill anyone who insults the Mohamed, the vast majority of Muslims don't murder people who insult the prophet. A small number of people who wish to find justification for murder and war do take that to mean just that.

So yes, flannel round the periphery, because that's where you'll find the problems.

GurtTractor

dynamiteReady wrote:

Kow wrote:

What is our Je suis badger moment?

Half Life 2, Bayonetta, TWD, Journey, 'Games As Art' threads, and newbies advertising.

We are but a simple bunch...

Let us not forget the holy war that was the Next Gen Thread...

djchump

GurtTractor wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Kow wrote:

What is our Je suis badger moment?

Half Life 2, Bayonetta, TWD, Journey, 'Games As Art' threads, and newbies advertising. We are but a simple bunch...

Let us not forget the holy war that was the Next Gen Thread...

mistercrayon

Yossarian wrote:

IanHamlett wrote:

@Brooks Yeah let's flannel round the periphery. Mind you don't generalise, that's the main thing.

You've yet to offer a single example of what it is about Islam in and of itself which is the root of the problem. You're just holding up examples of acts by small groups of people who claim to be acting in the name of Islam, the majority of which would be condemned by the majority of Muslims and so which clearly are not representative of the faith as a whole.

The issue here is more down to there being many different interpretations of Islam, and it being quite easy to find parts of the Quran which will justify a previously-held belief or practise that is already present in a society. This, combined with Islam's popularity in poor and therefore poorly educated countries, results in a situation where all kinds of regressive beliefs which spring from small, poor communities are continued under Islam by finding some verse which can be taken to mean that whatever you want to do is supported.

That quote from BHD is a case in point, I wouldn't personally take that to mean that followers of Islam should kill anyone who insults the Mohamed, the vast majority of Muslims don't murder people who insult the prophet. A small number of people who wish to find justification for murder and war do take that to mean just that.

So yes, flannel round the periphery, because that's where you'll find the problems.

I think in addition to this most Muslims aren't okay with depictions of Mohamed. I wouldn't conflate not going on a murdering spree with being okay with something.

I know its easy to mock religions and people with beliefs and so we allegedly don't need to be sensitive about this topic because our secular genius knows gods are false. Actually I think that for many religious people a certain message has been drilled in since age zero and seeing things that mock that code must be totally gross feeling on the inside.

When I was a kid I was super religious but I left my home to go uni and i drifted away from being religious. Amongst my friends the ones who stayed at home for uni have kept their beliefs more than those who went away. So you can see that staying in a belief reinforcing community can make it more difficult to disown beliefs. (Argument to be made: those who went away were more predisposed to drop beliefs)

The other issue is that most people who are religious are good people (and most non Religious). I don't see the gain in mocking mostly good people, especially in the unsubtle and crass way Charlie hebdo do.

Brooks

Personally I take issue with the notion that the things that affect 'the marginal' aren't actually the things that affect us all but for our various fortunes of demographic, income, education.

Greater people than I have said one judges a polity by the fates of its least secure, and I still believe that is a vital determinant of policy at every level.

Kow

Funny that despite the black community in America regularly going on the rampage and burning and killing, you'll rarely get mainstream media saying oh those fucking niggers, and showing cartoons of them as monkeys and savages. Oh wait, that's because the black community in the US actually has a voice. So it is about freedom of speech after all.

Kow

It's telling that we have more knowledge about the problems and motivations of minorities in the US than we do of those in our own countries.

Lord_Griff

Are you comparing pillorying people for their colour with satirising the choice of beliefs?

JonB

IanHamlett wrote:

I don't see why it's so hard to say islam has a problem. It's not a pashtun problem, it's not an afghani, pakistani or yemeni problem, it's not an arab problem. From somalia to indonesia, and almost everywhere in between, there are people taking their imaginary friend way too seriously. Not everyone, not by a long shot, it's not even very many, but it's still a problem.

I don't see how it's not obvious that taking religion too seriously isn't the problem. Like if those same people suddenly got a perspective on their religious beliefs they'd be any less pissed off. Religion here is the form of expressing anger not the cause of it.

Lord_Griff

Religion here, is being used as justification for their actions.

nick_md

IanHamlett wrote:

If you change that to "military interventions by the west that didn't include Donald Rumsfeld" the record is actually pretty good. Sierra Leone, East Timor, Bosnia. Some of what the US does just destabilises the region and ensures more US public money will have to be given to private US companies in a few years time. I suspect that's half the point.

I'd be reluctant to jump to conclusions about East Timor, considering the mess was, once again, created by the West, admittedly largely US (US backing of Suharto's murderous regime in Indonesia, which pushed into ET knowing it had the arms and the unspoken backing of Washington once Portugal moved out) - you say to discount US involved affairs though, fair enough, but a cursory search around Australia's intentions in 2006 paints a far from altruistic picture:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/east-timor-the-coup-the-world-missed

"On 28 April last, a section of the East Timorese army mutinied, ostensibly over pay. An eyewitness, Australian radio reporter Maryann Keady, disclosed that American and Australian officials were involved. On 7 May, Alkatiri described the riots as an attempted coup and said that "foreigners and outsiders" were trying to divide the nation. A leaked Australian Defence Force document has since revealed that Australia's "first objective" in East Timor is to "seek access" for the Australian military so that it can exercise "influence over East Timor's decision-making". A Bushite "neo-con" could not have put it better."

As for Bosnia, that's a mess and I genuinely need to plug a very large gap in my confused understanding of it. That aside, it's clear to see that there are questions to be asked, take the Chomsky link earlier in this thread for example referencing the bombing of a TV station, killing journalists. How far down the Herman-Peterson genocide argument you wish to go after that is open to debate.

Skerret

bad_hair_day wrote:

Skerret wrote:

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

If nothing else that merely reconfirmed my understanding that any extremist group purporting to embody the purity of a particular doctrine does not believe a word of it and merely uses it as justification to gain power, wealth and instil fear under their rule. Anyone think the head honchos of Boko Haram believe word one of the Q'uran? Like fuck they do. Sure does help when trying to amass a following of 'believers' though.

The head honchos of Boko Haram may or may not believe one word of the Quran, but you can't say they all don't when they say they do. If a person robs and kills a neighbour and confesses he did it out of greed, bleeding hearts don't rush to say that he was a person of faith and that was his real motivation. You can't have it both ways.

Of course they don't, that would be ridiculous. It doesn't work both ways anyway, not at the top (according to me and this is speculation, not assertion of indisputable fact). The grunts think they are doing god's work, but I doubt that the string-pullers buy in to the same degree. I'm talking about power and a viable means of acquiring it. As stated in the article, the behaviour of groups like BH is not at all consistent with the source text. BH exhibit behaviour consistent with power-hungry murderers, irrespective of the faith emblazoned on their banners. Their actions speak clearly of their motivations.

Skerret

Lord_Griff wrote:

Religion here, is being used as justification for their actions.

That will do. See televangelists.

Lord_Griff

Give 'til it hurts Skez.

Kow

Belief is not a choice, really. You either believe something or you don't.

Lord_Griff

Haha

Kow

The French Muslim community have been setting parts of Paris on fire regularly for years. Saying this is because of religion is conveniently avoiding the real issues. The current situation is not separate.

Lord_Griff

Kow wrote:

Belief is not a choice, really. You either believe something or you don't.

I love the genius of this... Like, really love it. Can we call it a Kowism?

Brooks

I have nothing against setting shit on fire tbh. I wish it was more of a goer.

Kow

Lord_Griff wrote:

Belief is not a choice, really. You either believe something or you don't.

I love the genius of this... Like, really love it. Can we call it a Kowism?

You come from a reasonably well educated and secular background, so you don't understand why it's true. Core, fundamental beliefs that you are raised with are not something you easily remove by choice.

Lord_Griff

Difficulty of removal does not detract from the fact they are, ultimately, a choice.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories