French Terror Attack

[DJTJ]

@DJTJ why did you downvote this post?

Honestly wasn't aware I did it. Definitely a negative and incredibly ignorant tweet, and it pains me to even read it. Probably negged the fact he said it, rather than the poster themselves.

Apologies.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm breaking this into two parts because it's just too long otherwise.

It's a matter of scale. It's like drawing equivalence between a glass of water and a lake.

Equivalence of scale has nothing to do with the propriety of criticizing a belief system, either secular or religious. Belief systems, religious or otherwise, shouldn't be immune to harsh criticism just because they have a lot of adherents, or just because their adherents tend to be of certain ethnic groups. In fact, I'd say the more widespread a belief system is, the more important it is to be able to criticize that system openly.

Where scale does matter is in examining the severity of the problem presented to ensure that people are drawing false equivalencies in terms of impact/importance. For example, as nutty as the Westboro Baptist Church it, it's adherents don't present nearly the threat as adherents of radical Islamic beliefs such as ISIS, AQ, etc.

To answer the larger question, negative portrayal of an entire people based on their religious beliefs is indeed bigoted and can in fact be considered a form of racism - just in the same way that antisemitism is very often considered a form racism.

Negative portrayal of "an entire people" -- and I assume you mean a racial/ethnic group -- for any reason is bigoted. But attacking a belief system/religion is a criticism that only applies to those individuals who actually hold the belief in question. It is not attacking "an entire people" because of their race or ethnicity.

What I am defending is the propriety of a "shoe fits" argument, which would be criticizing a particular set of beliefs, which applies only to those people who ascribe to that particular belief. And again, I see nothing morally wrong with criticizing (or even mocking)a set of beliefs no matter how many people it offends, if there is a reason for doing so besides the joy of offending others.

When people portray Christians as bible-thumping idiots for their beliefs, and everyone laughs at that, yes that is discriminatory, yes that is prejudiced, yes that is bigoted.

I'd agree that portraying all Christians as "bible thumping idiots" because of the false belief that all Christians are hard-core fundamentalists is prejudiced, though not racist. The same as portraying all Muslims as religious radicals is wrong, though again, not racist.

But there is a difference between mocking a group, and mocking a particular set of beliefs. It is entirely fair and proper to judge people by the specific beliefs they actually hold, regardless of whether that offends them or not. Mocking the doctrine of transubstantiation -- that bread/wine become actual blood/flesh of Christ -- is not bigoted, prejudiced, or discriminatory, and it certainly isn't racist either. Regardless of who it offends.

Mocking 1.2 billion people? How can you mock 1.2 billion people, rationally, and have anything positive or constructive come of that?

What is being (rightly or wrongly) mocked is a particular set of beliefs, and good can come out of that if those specific beliefs deserve to be mocked or criticized. Bad ideas should be slammed, else they won't change.

There's a difference that you don't appear to acknowledge between mocking people and mocking beliefs . The difference is that you are born with certain racial//ethnic qualities that are not the product of any thought, are beyond choice, and cannot be changed. That's mocking someone for how they were born (which is always wrong), rather than for what they believe and how they act, which may be fully justified. Because you can change what you choose to believe, and how you choose to act.

It's the difference between mocking all Germans, and mocking Nazi beliefs. Yeah, you'll probably offend the true believing Nazis, but that isn't a bad thing.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

R

Criticism is one thing. Charlie Hebdo wasn't making any attempt at constructive criticism. You yourself even said you had no clue as to who or what they were prior to this event. Now you carry water for their cause?

You are again mischaracterizing what I've said. I've specifically stated that I am NOT supporting everything they've done. II've said only that I support the particular action of drawing a cartoon of Muhammed. I think an effective way to illustrate/draw attention to violent intolerance is to do whatever it is that is prohibited. It's a tactic that worked pretty well in the civil rights movement.

Again, you're defending Charlie Hebdo's right to publish -- but so am I. I simply stated that I'm not surprised someone took action against them.

Unfortunately -- and this is the problem -- there are too many Muslims who don't agree with the right of Charlie Hebdo (or anyone else, for that matter) to publish a cartoon depicting Muhammed. You're not Muslim, which may explain why you are not as offended as many Muslims seem to be. And the fact that you're "not surprised" someone took action against them illustrates the prevalence of the problem.

This point also ignores that there are over a million Jews who are not of European descent. It also attempts to rewrite history as to who is an ethnic Jew and who is a descendent of Europeans. "Jew" is a religious connotation. And that's my point. It cannot be used to accurately describe any particular race of people as there is no racial majority within the group of Ashkenazi Jews who make up 75% of the Jewish population.

The fact that there are a lot of different ethnic groups that follow Judaism does not eliminate the separate ethnic connotation that has become attached to the word and commonly associated with the Ashkenazi ethnic division. When the Nazis rounded up Jews, they didn't limit it to those with regular attendance at synagogue. They rounded up people based on birth record showing what was commonly understood to be Jewish/Ashkenazi ancestry.

Again, you can keep ignoring the existence of secular Jews -- people who considered themselves Jewish ethnically (technically Ashkenazi) -- but are not religious if you wish. I know some who would beg to differ.

The concept that Jews are a "race" when 75% of the world's Jewish population is "White," a race that for all intents and purposes doesn't really exist. So if someone hates Jews, do they hate Whites? Are neo-Nazis self-hating White people? Again, it's semantics...

You're the one playing semantics with the word "race". There's all sorts of debate among anthropologists/scientists on how useful the term is, but that really doesn't matter because people generally use the term "racist" to include prejudice based on ethnicity. The Nazis talked of the "Master Race", elevating the Nordic/Germanic ethnicity over Slavic ethnicity. And we have no problem referring to that as "racism" even though both ethnic groupings are part of the same "race". Likewise, we use "racism" to describe bigotry against Arabs, Hispanics, etc. even though those aren't "races" either. So I think it is perfectly appropriate to call it "racism" when there is bigotry against Jewish (Ashkenazi) ethnicity as well.

Again, to say "dirty, filthy Jew" is racist by all accounts. But to say "savage terrorist Muslim" is something (greatly) less than racist, acceptable even.

Well, if you're limiting the latter to those Muslims who support/commit violence in the name of their religion, then it isn't racist. It's no different than condemning Nazism and Nazis, because the focus is on the belief system and actions, not the ethnicity. And if "dirty Jew" is being used in reference to Ashkenazi ethnicity, it's racist. If it is being used broadly enough to include Sammy Davis Jr., it isn't.

Criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing Jews.

I am offended by cartoons depicting Muhammad. I am not Muslim. Why? Because I know that the authors are stoking anti-Muslim sentiment and such a sentiment is based usually on nothing more than intolerance and bigotry.

I'd point out that the reason you are offended by that cartoon is different from the offense taken by many Muslims. And I think it is entirely possible to oppose certain aspects of Muslim ideology based on opposition to the beliefs themselves without being bigoted or racist. For example, I think prohibiting proselytizing of Muslims to change their religion, prohibiting adult Muslims from converting, and demanding that non-Muslims restrict their speech so as to not "blaspheme" Muhammed are intolerant beliefs that should be exposed, criticized, and ridiculed. So if you want to say I'm "intolerant" of their intolerance, I'm guilty as charged.

It is bigoted and prejudiced, yes. I hate it when atheists mock Christians, I think it's disgusting.

Well, I'd say that if it is okay for Christians and Muslims to proselytize to seek converts, it should be fair for atheists to do the same. They mock for the purpose of illustrating what they see as the irrationality and lack of factual support for faith-based belief systems. I don't see the point of the overt rudeness all the time, but I don't think that harsh criticism of a religion should be labeled with the "bigoted/prejudiced" perjorative because they are attacking a system of beliefs, not an immutable characteristic.

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

The word from your definition I bolded and underlined is the whole debate, isn't it? I think it is perfectly fair to harshly criticized those aspects of Islam I identified above - prohibitions against blasphemy, proselytizing, and apostasy. I'd add to that the belief that sharia law should be imposed on non-Muslims, or on Muslims against their will. Do you think it is "fair" to criticize those beliefs?

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't reform a religion without offending some people. Martin Luther offended a whole bunch of people, and those who followed him in the Reformation did the same. All the comments about Catholic priests and little boys offended many Catholics, but it also made it more difficult for the Church to sweep those problems under the rug.

The day so many Muslims stop urging free speech bans on blasphemy is the day I'll stop supporting the drawing of those cartoons.

 

[Sebastian]

R

You are again mischaracterizing what I've said. I've specifically stated that I am NOT supporting everything they've done. II've said only that I support the particular action of drawing a cartoon of Muhammed. I think an effective way to illustrate/draw attention to violent intolerance is to do whatever it is that is prohibited. It's a tactic that worked pretty well in the civil rights movement.



Unfortunately -- and this is the problem -- there are too many Muslims who don't agree with the right of Charlie Hebdo (or anyone else, for that matter) to publish a cartoon depicting Muhammed. You're not Muslim, which may explain why you are not as offended as many Muslims seem to be. And the fact that you're "not surprised" someone took action against them illustrates the prevalence of the problem.



The fact that there are a lot of different ethnic groups that follow Judaism does not eliminate the separate ethnic connotation that has become attached to the word and commonly associated with the Ashkenazi ethnic division. When the Nazis rounded up Jews, they didn't limit it to those with regular attendance at synagogue. They rounded up people based on birth record showing what was commonly understood to be Jewish/Ashkenazi ancestry.

Again, you can keep ignoring the existence of secular Jews -- people who considered themselves Jewish ethnically (technically Ashkenazi) -- but are not religious if you wish. I know some who would beg to differ.



You're the one playing semantics with the word "race". There's all sorts of debate among anthropologists/scientists on how useful the term is, but that really doesn't matter because people generally use the term "racist" to include prejudice based on ethnicity. The Nazis talked of the "Master Race", elevating the Nordic/Germanic ethnicity over Slavic ethnicity. And we have no problem referring to that as "racism" even though both ethnic groupings are part of the same "race". Likewise, we use "racism" to describe bigotry against Arabs, Hispanics, etc. even though those aren't "races" either. So I think it is perfectly appropriate to call it "racism" when there is bigotry against Jewish (Ashkenazi) ethnicity as well.



Well, if you're limiting the latter to those Muslims who support/commit violence in the name of their religion, then it isn't racist. It's no different than condemning Nazism and Nazis, because the focus is on the belief system and actions, not the ethnicity. And if "dirty Jew" is being used in reference to Ashkenazi ethnicity, it's racist. If it is being used broadly enough to include Sammy Davis Jr., it isn't.

Criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing Jews.



I'd point out that the reason you are offended by that cartoon is different from the offense taken by many Muslims. And I think it is entirely possible to oppose certain aspects of Muslim ideology based on opposition to the beliefs themselves without being bigoted or racist. For example, I think prohibiting proselytizing of Muslims to change their religion, prohibiting adult Muslims from converting, and demanding that non-Muslims restrict their speech so as to not "blaspheme" Muhammed are intolerant beliefs that should be exposed, criticized, and ridiculed. So if you want to say I'm "intolerant" of their intolerance, I'm guilty as charged.



Well, I'd say that if it is okay for Christians and Muslims to proselytize to seek converts, it should be fair for atheists to do the same. They mock for the purpose of illustrating what they see as the irrationality and lack of factual support for faith-based belief systems. I don't see the point of the overt rudeness all the time, but I don't think that harsh criticism of a religion should be labeled with the "bigoted/prejudiced" perjorative because they are attacking a system of beliefs, not an immutable characteristic.


The word from your definition I bolded and underlined is the whole debate, isn't it? I think it is perfectly fair to harshly criticized those aspects of Islam I identified above - prohibitions against blasphemy, proselytizing, and apostasy. I'd add to that the belief that sharia law should be imposed on non-Muslims, or on Muslims against their will. Do you think it is "fair" to criticize those beliefs?

You can't make an omelot without breaking a few eggs, and you can't reform a religion without offending some people. Martin Luther offended a whole bunch of people, and those who followed him in the Reformation did the same. All the comments about Catholic priests and little boys offended many Catholics, but it also made it more difficult for the Church to sweep those problems under the rug.

The day so many Muslims stop urging free speech bans on blasphemy is the day I'll stop supporting the drawing of those cartoons.

Between the two of you, I think we have as good an exploration of the topic as we could hope from two opposing viewpoints.

Nice to see constructive arguments rather than tired tropes.

 

[Sebastian]

Knife attack against French soldiers guarding a Jewish center in Nice. Three wounded, assailant captured.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31118020

 

[gourimoko]

It's just pure bigotry. I hate when assholes try to act like it isn't.

@TyGuy

Why are you rating (disagreeing) with posts of mine from 2015?

Am I missing something here?

 

[TyGuy]

@TyGuy

Why are you rating (disagreeing) with posts of mine from 2015?

Am I missing something here?

No, I was combing through terror threads and I disagreed heavily with your post. I think it's ridiculous in the first place that Muslims can't draw Muhammad and it's even more absurd to enforce those values on non Muslims. There is a problem with Islam in that we can't talk about it. Muslims cant' speak up in fear of being murdered and western culture can't speak of it without being labeled a bigot. I don't see how anybody can be labeled a bigot over a caricature.

Furthermore it bothers me that Liberals are the ones doing this. If you stand up for liberal values then how can you not criticize what goes on in the Muslim world? Liberals are perfectly fine bashing Christianity, so why does Islam get a pass?

 

[Huber.]

@TyGuy

Why are you rating (disagreeing) with posts of mine from 2015?

Am I missing something here?

 

[DJTJ]

No, I was combing through terror threads and I disagreed heavily with your post. I think it's ridiculous in the first place that Muslims can't draw Muhammad and it's even more absurd to enforce those values on non Muslims. There is a problem with Islam in that we can't talk about it. Muslims cant' speak up in fear of being murdered and western culture can't speak of it without being labeled a bigot. I don't see how anybody can be labeled a bigot over a caricature.

Furthermore it bothers me that Liberals are the ones doing this. If you stand up for liberal values then how can you not criticize what goes on in the Muslim world? Liberals are perfectly fine bashing Christianity, so why does Islam get a pass?

Why does Christianity draw a middle Eastern Jew as Cesar Borgia?

 

[TopGun]

Why does Christianity draw a middle Eastern Jew as Cesar Borgia?

This is a terrible response that has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No, I was combing through terror threads and I disagreed heavily with your post. I think it's ridiculous in the first place that Muslims can't draw Muhammad....

Well, some Jews (and some Christian fundamentalists) believe they can't/shouldn't say the name of God. Of course, the difference is that they generally don't try to kill you if you do.

....and it's even more absurd to enforce those values on non Muslims.

Or anyone, really. But that's the thing that gets me. I have no objection to anyone's religious beliefs as long as they recognize the right of others to believe differently. That's really the only concern I have about Islam. Respect the right of others to worship in their own way, and it's all good.

 

[gourimoko]

No, I was combing through terror threads and I disagreed heavily with your post.

From 2015???

I think it's ridiculous in the first place that Muslims can't draw Muhammad

First off, that's not what my post is about.

Secondly, I think most religions are ridiculous; why single out Muslims?

Third, who gives a fuck about a religious edict outside of the context of that religion?

and it's even more absurd to enforce those values on non Muslims.

Enforce? You mean for nations to enact laws like Sharia Law? Sure, it's ridiculous... Who said it wasn't?

There is a problem with Islam in that we can't talk about it.

There is a problem with Islam, because "we" can't talk about it? That .. doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense because first off We're talking about it right now... and secondly, I'm not really sure if you really mean to suggest there is a problem with a religion that doesn't wish to be criticized... as if all religions don't fall into that category.

Muslims cant' speak up in fear of being murdered

By "Muslims," I think you mean Muslims living in countries were strict and extreme forms of Sharia law are enforced. That's not all, or even most Muslims. My father and step-father are both Muslim, both criticize, openly, Islamic countries. Which, is what I think you are confused about.

and western culture can't speak of it without being labeled a bigot.

Who is "Western Culture" and since when was Islam not part of that culture?

Ty, are you part of Western Culture?

Am I?

I don't see how anybody can be labeled a bigot over a caricature.

Is this bigoted?

Is this bigoted?

You really don't see how someone can be labeled a bigot for this kind of shit? Really?

Furthermore it bothers me that Liberals are the ones doing this.

Wait.. what??

If you stand up for liberal values then how can you not criticize what goes on in the Muslim world?

Because Ty, with all due respect, it sounds as though you really have no idea what goes on in the "Muslim" world. I'm from that "world." If you want to criticize the lack of human rights and freedoms in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, I'm with you... But when you want to make religious arguments, as a rational person, I have to step back and ask where does this go -- and why? What motivates this?

Because I can criticize religion all day; all religions are equally dubious, by definition... So when we start picking winners and losers based on how they interpret 2000 year old books; I think we're exercising something other than "liberalism" and instead, something that looks a bit more like religious intolerance.

Again, you wanna talk about state practices in the Middle East; have at it, I'm with you.

You wanna criticize religion in general? Sure, I'm with that, to an extent.

But if you want to criticize Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or atheists for that matter; because of their beliefs and how they choose to live their lives, then I have a problem with that. That's not liberal progressivism.

Liberals are perfectly fine bashing Christianity,

Which is disgusting. Just as many liberals are fine bashing White people, when that's also disgusting.

so why does Islam get a pass?

Honestly because it's not really a pressing issue in places where liberal progressives exist in large numbers... But if we're talking about hypocrisy, well, progressives are supposed to tolerate all religions, including Christianity and Islam equally. I think the argument here is that many progressives, like many people in general, forget that tolerance includes the classes in power.

 

[TyGuy]

Well, some Jews (and some Christian fundamentalists) believe they can't/shouldn't say the name of God. Of course, the difference is that they generally don't try to kill you if you do.



Or anyone, really. But that's the thing that gets me. I have no objection to anyone's religious beliefs as long as they recognize the right of others to believe differently. That's really the only concern I have about Islam. Respect the right of others to worship in their own way, and it's all good.

I don't have objections to people beliefs either until it infringes upon basic human rights. Which clearly Islam does, but we can't discuss it without being labeled a bigot.

 

[TyGuy]

Goury, my comment about caricature related to the prophet Muhammad. Jesus and other so called prophets have had caricatures, appeared in cartoons, ect without incident. Surely you can draw a racist cartoon, but I see no problem with drawing Muhammad. Certainly doing so should not justify Murder.

 

[DJTJ]

This is a terrible response that has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.

So... Hypocrisy isn't the issue? The characterature of the Mohammed's equivalent in Christianity is white washed and avoids actually depicting correctness.

A Muslim holding their profit to a higher standard sounds like a personal issue when a Christian worships a picture of someone who did not look like an Anglo Saxon.