Charlie Hebdo

ballysmate · January 2015

Tangled Metal wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If these translations are accurate, how can any religion that exhorts its followers to slay unbelievers, condones slavery and treats half the worlds population as chattels be worth a w@nk?
If I formed a political party along those lines, I would quite rightly cause outrage and probably face arrest. So why is it acceptable from religion?
We have put up with this bollox for long enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Koran from about the same time that slavery was common in Christian lands indeed it was a major part of their economy as late as 1700's? Not too far from me there is a farmhouse which was owned by someone involved in slavery back in the day, IIRC the farm was used to store slaves at one point if the stories are true, and they found skulls from slaves used in the building as infill/backfill and even as non-loadbearing bricks within the fabric of the buildings. Then round the coast a bit in Cumbria there is Whitehaven the second most important port back in the day as it was the main port involved in slave trade/triangle. Off topic though but those events were a damn site closer in time than when the Quran was written.

Also, if you want I am sure there is mention of slavery in the religious texts of most main religions that date from times long past. I wonder how many Muslims still consider slavery acceptable even though it seems to say it is in their religious texts?

IIRC Britain has a bit of an issue with slavery right now too. Are we as bad as Muslims too for allowing it to happen?

As far as I am concerned Muslims are just like other religions in that they select the bits of their religious texts that they wish to follow and believe. You want slavery pick those bits, if not then don;t. Same applies for other things like adultery, homosexuality and I am sure some even have things to say about disabled, well wouldn;t surprise me at all. I am a committed atheist but I see good and bad in all religions. Take a look at Alain de Botton;s book called Religion for Atheists, worth a read if you are religious or atheist I think.

I too am an atheist. That is why I regard religious books as bollox.
Surely the Koran is either the word of God or not? You can't pick out bits and disregard others.
You are right that these books show what was contemporary thinking at their time of writing. If these books were actually the words of God, they would be relevant for time immemorial?

Ben6899 · January 2015

byke68 wrote:

sa0u823e wrote:

byke68 wrote:

Do extremistshave a sense of humour?

I gather that the extremists don't but just wondering about muslims in general.

What?

Pross · January 2015

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

Pross · January 2015

Ben6899 wrote:

byke68 wrote:

sa0u823e wrote:

byke68 wrote:

Do extremistshave a sense of humour?

I gather that the extremists don't but just wondering about muslims in general.

What?

He has a point. No muslim has ever laughed or found anything funny FACT

ballysmate · January 2015

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

tangled_metal · January 2015

It used to be an offence to blaspheme in England, which IIRC carried the death penalty at one time. Indeed it is still an offence which is not upheld by the law AFAIK. Christian leaders in England have not been that vocal in defending Christianity but Muslims are mor vocal and do complain about offence to their religion.

Personally I believe in free speech with responsibility. I believe Hebdo has a place. I also believe they have been highly offensive to religions and that I do not agree with. Being offensive to terrorists or extremists (whatever you want to call their likes) is to be commended but I do wonder if offence of religion is justified by religious extremism. One example I have seen is from Hebdo ( a front cover I think) which has a naked God being taken from behind by an naked Jesus who is being taken from behind by a triangle with an eye in it with what I believe is French for Holy Spirit. Are we able to defend that? Please think about and discuss that too when you post about being Charlie Hebdo. I do not believe it justifies this attack in any way shape or form but I do think there should be some way to censure satire that is beyond the pale like that cartoon (my opinon you may differ). This comes back to my belief that with freedoms come responsibilities. That includes responsibility to defend all freedoms but also responsibility to not abuse those freedoms and in doing so affect the freedom of others.

bompington · January 2015

bianchimoon wrote:

bompington wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

shooting dead doctors at abortion clinics,

Can you point out for us which religion / holy book is it that advocates this?

Does it have to be in a book if it's done in the name of religion? end result is the same
Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism.

So presumably, if you're an atheist, you are happy to be identified with the atheist governments of Mao, Hitler and Stalin that murdered tens of millions?

ballysmate · January 2015

Tangled Metal wrote:

It used to be an offence to blaspheme in England, which IIRC carried the death penalty at one time. Indeed it is still an offence which is not upheld by the law AFAIK. Christian leaders in England have not been that vocal in defending Christianity but Muslims are mor vocal and do complain about offence to their religion.

Personally I believe in free speech with responsibility. I believe Hebdo has a place. I also believe they have been highly offensive to religions and that I do not agree with. Being offensive to terrorists or extremists (whatever you want to call their likes) is to be commended but I do wonder if offence of religion is justified by religious extremism. One example I have seen is from Hebdo ( a front cover I think) which has a naked God being taken from behind by an naked Jesus who is being taken from behind by a triangle with an eye in it with what I believe is French for Holy Spirit. Are we able to defend that? Please think about and discuss that too when you post about being Charlie Hebdo. I do not believe it justifies this attack in any way shape or form but I do think there should be some way to censure satire that is beyond the pale like that cartoon (my opinon you may differ). This comes back to my belief that with freedoms come responsibilities. That includes responsibility to defend all freedoms but also responsibility to not abuse those freedoms and in doing so affect the freedom of others.

So the boy in the story of 'The King's New Clothes' should have kept his mouth shut to save causing trouble? (Poor analogy I know) If something is wrong, why not point it out?
Didn't see the front page you referred to but sounds quite apt given what the Catholic church condoned happening to children eh?

thegreatdivide · January 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It used to be an offence to blaspheme in England, which IIRC carried the death penalty at one time. Indeed it is still an offence which is not upheld by the law AFAIK. Christian leaders in England have not been that vocal in defending Christianity but Muslims are mor vocal and do complain about offence to their religion.

Personally I believe in free speech with responsibility. I believe Hebdo has a place. I also believe they have been highly offensive to religions and that I do not agree with. Being offensive to terrorists or extremists (whatever you want to call their likes) is to be commended but I do wonder if offence of religion is justified by religious extremism. One example I have seen is from Hebdo ( a front cover I think) which has a naked God being taken from behind by an naked Jesus who is being taken from behind by a triangle with an eye in it with what I believe is French for Holy Spirit. Are we able to defend that? Please think about and discuss that too when you post about being Charlie Hebdo. I do not believe it justifies this attack in any way shape or form but I do think there should be some way to censure satire that is beyond the pale like that cartoon (my opinon you may differ). This comes back to my belief that with freedoms come responsibilities. That includes responsibility to defend all freedoms but also responsibility to not abuse those freedoms and in doing so affect the freedom of others.

So the boy in the story of 'The King's New Clothes' should have kept his mouth shut to save causing trouble? (Poor analogy I know) If something is wrong, why not point it out?
Didn't see the front page you referred to but sounds quite apt given what the Catholic church condoned happening to children eh?

Indeed.

bianchimoon · January 2015

bompington wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

bompington wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

shooting dead doctors at abortion clinics,

Can you point out for us which religion / holy book is it that advocates this?

Does it have to be in a book if it's done in the name of religion? end result is the same
Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism.

So presumably, if you're an atheist, you are happy to be identified with the atheist governments of Mao, Hitler and Stalin that murdered tens of millions?

To be fair to the Christians, Hitler did his evils because he was Hitler, not because he was Christian.

finchy · January 2015

bompington wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

bompington wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

shooting dead doctors at abortion clinics,

Can you point out for us which religion / holy book is it that advocates this?

Does it have to be in a book if it's done in the name of religion? end result is the same
Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism.

So presumably, if you're an atheist, you are happy to be identified with the atheist governments of Mao, Hitler and Stalin that murdered tens of millions?

They weren't being murdered in the name of atheism - religion was just targeted because of its potential to develop resistance to the totalitarian regimes. And the Nazis had an official religion, accepted the Catholic church and established an approved Nazi Christian church. There is no holy book telling atheists to go out and kill. There are holy books telling the religious to go and kill. That is the difference.

Personally I have no problem with religious people. If it helps them with their lives and gives them comfort in hard times, then good for them. I just want to live in a secular society in which people have the choice to follow a religion or not, as long as their beliefs don't interfere with other people's rights.

Pross · January 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

Not aimed at you, just the tone of thread in general. Starts as condemning Islamic extremist violence, extends to condemning Islamic and then widens to condemnation of all religions. All on the basis of acts of a small proportion of people.

DeVlaeminck · January 2015

Unfortunately it is not a small proportion of religious fundamentalists who are happy to live their own lives and let others live theirs.

bianchimoon · January 2015

Pross wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

Not aimed at you, just the tone of thread in general. Starts as condemning Islamic extremist violence, extends to condemning Islamic and then widens to condemnation of all religions. All on the basis of acts of a small proportion of people.

should we not have an opinion?

byke68 · January 2015

As a Mr M Manson once sang -"I'm not a slave/to a god/ that dosn't exist"!

thegreatdivide · January 2015

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

Not aimed at you, just the tone of thread in general. Starts as condemning Islamic extremist violence, extends to condemning Islamic and then widens to condemnation of all religions. All on the basis of acts of a small proportion of people.

should we not have an opinion?

My post is not off the back of what happened yesterday.

tangled_metal · January 2015

Ballysmate wrote:

I too am an atheist. That is why I regard religious books as bollox.
Surely the Koran is either the word of God or not? You can't pick out bits and disregard others.
You are right that these books show what was contemporary thinking at their time of writing. If these books were actually the words of God, they would be relevant for time immemorial?

You are joking about religion being selective aren't you? They've been selective throughout the history of religion. Every religion that has written text involves their practitioners selecting what parts to believe and follow. It is the nature of us to be selective I think, i.e. we do what we want from laws and religious texts. I speed in car and have done the same on bike. I believe in freedom of speech but I just wish those religious nutters would stop harranging me on the street, doorstep, bridge, etc. despite that being their freedom to do so. I think this is all part of the hypocracy of man. We basically are selfish at heart and do what we want to do. Certain religions calls that free will BTW and use it to explain the unjustifiable like war and pestilence.

Another point, I am an atheist but I do still see relevence in these books. There is a lot of wisdom in the teachings of religions. Even if you don't accept their myths there is still good advice in there for the maintenance of society and social living. As our societies increase in size (we are no longer family units or clans or tribes but nations, continents or even a global society that is highly connected) we need to work out ways to coexist. Some of our secular conivences like laws have been heavily based on the religions of their time. Some more knowledgable than I have said that our laws are based on christian principles.

As I said before people should try to read the Religion for Atheists book. There are some interesting arguments in there I think. Whether religious or Atheist there is good in religion.

bianchimoon · January 2015

Religion / religious teachings do not have a copyright on doing good, they have simply cherry picked and claimed ownership. Once upon a time religious books may have been relevant to bring order and conformity to the dark ages but in the modern world Humans doing good for the sake of doing good are the ones to be held up as an example not archaeic manuscripts.

finchy · January 2015

Pross wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

Not aimed at you, just the tone of thread in general. Starts as condemning Islamic extremist violence, extends to condemning Islamic and then widens to condemnation of all religions. All on the basis of acts of a small proportion of people.

How small is this proportion? Don't forget that we live in a society which, despite being officially Christian, is de facto secular. Head into parts of the world that are more religious and you will see far more intolerance. Not necessarily widespread support for mass murderers, but certainly support for smaller scale discrimination and exclusion. Pakistan (home to more than 10% of the world's Muslims), for example, is a democracy in which people await the noose for blasphemy as we type. The BJP is one of the 2 major parties in India (home to about 1/6 of the population). Homosexuals are being persecuted in Russia. I don't think I even need to mention Africa and the Middle East. I'm struggling to think of a single highly religious country anywhere in the world (maybe some of the Buddhist ones?) in which discrimination and exclusion isn't a massive problem and there must be support in these societies for such policies.

It's my opinion that the basis of this intolerance is primarily economic, and as these countries develop, they will go through a similar religious transformation to the one experienced in the West, but this will be a gradual process. Until then, I don't think dismissing religious persecution as being the activity of a tiny minority is very realistic on the global scale, even if the worst excesses are carried out by a small handful of people.

shindig · January 2015

At the end of the day you live in a country, you abide by its laws. If you don't want to, get out or face the consequences. Simple.

Humaity has evolved over the past 2000 years. It's time for mankind's religious teachings to do the same. Any religion or person that advocates murder, rape and assault are acceptable in the 21st century, is seriously out of touch.

tangled_metal · January 2015

What about states condoning, advocating or carrying out torture, rape, assault, murder, dissappearances, illegal detention without trial, etc.? If Western states don't play nice is it not hypocracy to expect other groups to do the same?

Just devil's advocate here shindig, for discussion. You can just look at extraordinary rendition and CIA black detentions sites by USA. Or Guantanamo, or Abu gharaib (sic) or the UK security forces complicity in this by using torture evidence or by knowingly allowing rendition flights to use British airports. Support for states carrying out those heinous crimes. Correct me if I;m wrong but that has been the norm. From Pinochet;s Chile through to Libya, Jordan, Syria, etc. Western democracies pay lip service to human rights when it serves national interest.

On a purely naive basis, right it right! It is right not to blow people up for speaking with their conscience. But in the modern world it is down to who;s version of what is right. I personally do not agree with extremist religious terrorism, but I also do not agree with freedom of speech that causes harm or offence to others. It all comes down to personal views on responsibility of those with rights. I do however like the cartoon by hebdo which shows an ultra orthodox Jew and a Muslim who looks like one of the ISIS leaders hugging and kissing with some caption that I took as implying they were not too far apart in the abhorrance of their treatment of others. Kind of saying the Jewish state (represented by the U. Orthodox caricature) is as much a problem as the terrorist ISIS caliphate. I do not like the one where the holy trinity are bu**ering each other. Sorry if that offends but to me that is not free speech to make a point using satire that is deliberate offence to a major religion and one that has a large proportion who rightly or wrongly believe in homosexuality as being wrong. The homosexual act in that would cause considerable offence to them. However as an atheist I too found that highly offensive. It was not, IMHO, drawn as a loving act from consensual individuals but looked to me as an assualt. Purely conjecture on my part but it could have been a poorly aimed satirical swipe at abusive priests in the Catholic church (an act of a minority covered up by the leadership of the religious body of course).

thegreatdivide · January 2015

All of this http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 1009293125

RDW · January 2015

pinno · January 2015

Ironic that Hebdo usually have a weekly print run of 60,000 but are preparing for a print run of 1m + next week.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like the culture to which you moved into, don't go there. If you think something is going to offend you, avoid it.

@Tangled metal. It is all very well to cite the hypocrisy of Western Governments and foreign policy but the fundamentalists pick soft targets - they fail (most of the time) at targeting the institutions that carry out these acts.
Hebdo is a magazine with a weekly circulation of 60k copies. Those travelling on buses and the underground in London are just ordinary people. What on earth do the fundamentalists hope to achieve by these sorts of killings apart from turning the world against them? Are they so stupid to think that they are going to coercively change the culture of millions of people?
I am pretty sure that the employees at Hebdo have almost nil influence on Guantanamo bay and have nothing to do with the slave trade nor do they fund the French Government to carry out acts of hypocritical imperialism.

finchy · January 2015

^^^ Not only that, but they actually oppose western acts of aggression.

Pross · January 2015

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's good to see that the extremists are achieving their aim of spreading hatred and enticing otherwise intelligent people into lumping everyone together because of a shared belief. No matter whether or not you believe in a god of some sort or not the fact is that most people who do are peace loving and far more do good than bad.

There will always be bad people who crave power and will use anything as an excuse to get people to give it to them.

I haven't said anywhere that I hate anyone.
Just pointed out that as long as mankind continues following doctrines written by MAN thousands of years ago we will always be in the shite.

Not aimed at you, just the tone of thread in general. Starts as condemning Islamic extremist violence, extends to condemning Islamic and then widens to condemnation of all religions. All on the basis of acts of a small proportion of people.

should we not have an opinion?

I haven't said or even suggested that. I just pointed out that the point of extremist acts is to provoke a reaction which in turn creates a downward spiral.

joelsim · January 2015

Extremists are bad on both sides, on the one hand they are terrorists and on the other side they are doing good. Neither of these attitudes are acceptable. Fundamentalists aren't just Muslims, they just happen to link it to and defend it with their faith.

I abhor both sides of hardliners to be fair, what happened yesterday was a disgrace but it's not hard to understand why the growth of funamentalists/extremists has happened.

I feel very sorry for those at Charlie Hebdo for being caught in the middle. Je suis Charlie.

Pross · January 2015

pinarello001 wrote:

Ironic that Hebdo usually have a weekly print run of 60,000 but are preparing for a print run of 1m + next week.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like the culture to which you moved into, don't go there. If you think something is going to offend you, avoid it.

@Tangled metal. It is all very well to cite the hypocrisy of Western Governments and foreign policy but the fundamentalists pick soft targets - they fail (most of the time) at targeting the institutions that carry out these acts.
Hebdo is a magazine with a weekly circulation of 60k copies. Those travelling on buses and the underground in London are just ordinary people. What on earth do the fundamentalists hope to achieve by these sorts of killings apart from turning the world against them? Are they so stupid to think that they are going to coercively change the culture of millions of people?
I am pretty sure that the employees at Hebdo have almost nil influence on Guantanamo bay and have nothing to do with the slave trade nor do they fund the French Government to carry out acts of hypocritical imperialism.

As I tried to say above, what they aim to do is to incite the more extreme element in western society into a reaction against the more moderate Muslims who in turn become more radicalised / extremist themselves. It's not inconceivable that you could ultimately cause a Yugoslav style civil war or at least major civil racial unrest.

There's also the risk they could force far right extremists into power in some countries, it's not that long ago since such people used racial and religious intolerance to gain power through democratic means and extremists can then sit back and watch the chaos that brings to their enemy.

joelsim · January 2015

Pross wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Ironic that Hebdo usually have a weekly print run of 60,000 but are preparing for a print run of 1m + next week.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like the culture to which you moved into, don't go there. If you think something is going to offend you, avoid it.

@Tangled metal. It is all very well to cite the hypocrisy of Western Governments and foreign policy but the fundamentalists pick soft targets - they fail (most of the time) at targeting the institutions that carry out these acts.
Hebdo is a magazine with a weekly circulation of 60k copies. Those travelling on buses and the underground in London are just ordinary people. What on earth do the fundamentalists hope to achieve by these sorts of killings apart from turning the world against them? Are they so stupid to think that they are going to coercively change the culture of millions of people?
I am pretty sure that the employees at Hebdo have almost nil influence on Guantanamo bay and have nothing to do with the slave trade nor do they fund the French Government to carry out acts of hypocritical imperialism.

As I tried to say above, what they aim to do is to incite the more extreme element in western society into a reaction against the more moderate Muslims who in turn become more radicalised / extremist themselves. It's not inconceivable that you could ultimately cause a Yugoslav style civil war or at least major civil racial unrest.

There's also the risk they could force far right extremists into power in some countries, it's not that long ago since such people used racial and religious intolerance to gain power through democratic means and extremists can then sit back and watch the chaos that brings to their enemy.

^^^This.

What it boils down to is a total lack of tolerance or understanding by extremists on both sides. It's disgusting.

tangled_metal · January 2015

@Pina... - My post was in reponse to a comment at the end of shindig's post about religion advocating murder, rape, etc. I was giving a counterpoint that could be discussed, devil's advocate if you like. I was pointing out that democratic states do despicable and heinous acts in the name of national interest or security. I referenced widely accepted instances from USA involvement in what is abuses of human rights. Perhaps state sponsored terrorism or torture or other abuses of human rights is more insidious. The blowing up of Hebdo is wrong but is not to the same scale as state sponsored human rights abuses. It was however a post to bring up the fact that states do their own brand of terrorism.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Just devil's advocate here shindig, for discussion. You can just look at extraordinary rendition and CIA black detentions sites by USA. Or Guantanamo, or Abu gharaib (sic) or the UK security forces complicity in this by using torture evidence or by knowingly allowing rendition flights to use British airports. Support for states carrying out those heinous crimes.

One more thing I doubt they are looking to turning anyone. I think the hebdo was a simple attempt to shut it down. An epic fail really but I doubt that is about culture change in abny way shape or form. My opinion on islamic extremist terror actions is about promoting their beliefs so that they get more members, power and influence. It is power games at the cost of lives. I think the western governments probably still have a lot to teach them about that sort of "game" as they have been doing it for a very long time.

Charlie Hebdo

Comments

Categories