|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 16:04:07 GMT -5
I don't think it's that people feel they shouldn't be offended, at least that isn't how it is for me. For me it's what they did when they felt offended that I disagree with. They can be offended, they have the right to be offended, they may even have a good reason to be offended, but they do not have the right to kill the people who offended them. That's how I see it. I think we all agree with the point that they killing people who offend you is way beyond the pale. But many do not think that Muslims should even be offended, or have any right to be offended. From what I have read the last couple of days, 90% of the Muslim world is offended by the recent Charlie cover. I would rather see Muslim crowds protesting in the streets in support of the thousands of people who are being murdered in the name of Islam. Were Muslims offended that 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria in the name of Islam? Or that aid workers were beheaded in the name of Islam? Those things do more damage to the prophet than a cartoon could ever do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 16:05:46 GMT -5
I don't know who Ramzan Kadyrov is. However, of course Charlie can voice opinions, et cetera. How does that make me Charlie after all. I don't think they should do what they do, but they have the right to do it. My neighbour might mow his lawn at 6 AM and I don't like it, but I can't stop it. I can certainly complain about it. What I resent is that people tell me I have to LIKE my neigbour mowing his lawn because it's a free country. I reserve my right to dislike it, and furthermore, consider him rude and inconsiderate. I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo. Please let's not get in to religious crazies over-reaction to Muslim cartoons. You're doing what the rabid free speech defenders are doing, lumping anyone who dislikes offensive behaviour in with "religious crazies". I would rather see Muslim crowds protesting in the streets in support of the thousands of people who are being murdered in the name of Islam. Most of the seven million copies of the latest Charlie Hebdo issue will be sold to people who are showing their support for Charlie's right to freedom of expression, and the right to not be murdered for what they draw or write. If religious people want to avoid seeing the cartoons that's fine. No one is forcing them to buy Charlie Hebdo magazines. Perhaps "I support freedom of expression" would be more palatable to you than "I am Charlie"? The reason I find Charlie Hebdo offensive is that I do think there is a line that even satire should not cross. Years ago I frequently read and enjoyed a magazine called the "National Lampoon". One of my favourite satirical bits was an extensive newsletter for the "American Society to Beat the Dutch". That was funny. But I don't find satires of the Holocaust funny, ever. (The National Lampoon did something along that line). I don't find cartoons showing Jesus in a sexual act, funny. I believe that the "Pis Christ" is offensive. Those things cross a line with me, as they do with many Christians. Charlie Hebdo does cross the line, as far I'm concerned. However, I don't think we need to have laws limiting the kind of thing that I, and many Christians, find offensive. But ... I would tell my local variety store owner that I won't shop there if they carry something like 'Charlie Hebdo'. I also would not want my daily newspaper to reprint cartoons from Charlie Hebdo that are offensive to me. I did think initially of expressing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo for the reasons that you say. However, once I saw some of what is in the magazine, I no longer felt that way about it. "I am NOT Charlie".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 16:11:07 GMT -5
I don't think it's that people feel they shouldn't be offended, at least that isn't how it is for me. For me it's what they did when they felt offended that I disagree with. They can be offended, they have the right to be offended, they may even have a good reason to be offended, but they do not have the right to kill the people who offended them. That's how I see it. I think we all agree with the point that they killing people who offend you is way beyond the pale. But many do not think that Muslims should even be offended, or have any right to be offended. From what I have read the last couple of days, 90% of the Muslim world is offended by the recent Charlie cover. Well I guess I'm part of the minority then. I don't have a problem with people getting offended. It is their right and probably isn't even something they can completely control without really consciously making the effort. I thought it was interesting what Pope Francis said about it. He started out saying that violence was not the answer to being offended, and then in his next sentence he pretty much contradicted himself by saying if his friend standing next to him said something derogatory about his mother he would likely punch him in the face. I don't feel violence is the proper response to being offended. I think the reason why religions tend to justify violence for offence is because it usually is directed against their 'God'. They feel they must protect or bring honor to that deity so the stakes get higher? It seems when God is involved in it, we see more that believe they are justified in using violence in response?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 16:14:27 GMT -5
I think we all agree with the point that they killing people who offend you is way beyond the pale. But many do not think that Muslims should even be offended, or have any right to be offended. From what I have read the last couple of days, 90% of the Muslim world is offended by the recent Charlie cover. I would rather see Muslim crowds protesting in the streets in support of the thousands of people who are being murdered in the name of Islam. Were Muslims offended that 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria in the name of Islam? Or that aid workers were beheaded in the name of Islam? Those things do more damage to the prophet than a cartoon could ever do. And did you, as a Christian, protest the activities of Christians in Northern Ireland, the Christians who shot abortion doctors, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda? I didn't think so, so why would you expect moderate Muslims to protest or consider themselves responsible for an outlier terrorist group in Africa or for the actions of ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 16:25:40 GMT -5
I would rather see Muslim crowds protesting in the streets in support of the thousands of people who are being murdered in the name of Islam. Were Muslims offended that 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria in the name of Islam? Or that aid workers were beheaded in the name of Islam? Those things do more damage to the prophet than a cartoon could ever do. And did you, as a Christian, protest the activities of Christians in Northern Ireland, the Christians who shot abortion doctors, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda? I didn't think so, so why would you expect moderate Muslims to protest or consider themselves responsible for an outlier terrorist group in Africa or for the actions of ISIS. I think Christians have a very huge ability to just write off these groups as 'not really Christians'. The Westboro Baptist church is an example of this on our home turf. They are a Christian association that picket gay funerals and are openly offensive in their propaganda. They make Christians look bad, but you don't see too many protesting this church for their offensive and hurtful ways. They just tell me they aren't real Christians when I point out what they do as Christians. In their minds they are Christians every bit as much as the RCC believe they are Christians. In fact, I think it's fair to say, that the Westboro Baptists church probably thinks other Christian churches aren't real Christians because they feel so justified and right about their interpretation. Well it likely isn't any different for ISIS when they strike out against moderate Muslims because in their minds they probably are not 'real Muslims' so therefore it's okay.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 16:27:25 GMT -5
I would rather see Muslim crowds protesting in the streets in support of the thousands of people who are being murdered in the name of Islam. Were Muslims offended that 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria in the name of Islam? Or that aid workers were beheaded in the name of Islam? Those things do more damage to the prophet than a cartoon could ever do. And did you, as a Christian, protest the activities of Christians in Northern Ireland, the Christians who shot abortion doctors, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda? I didn't think so, so why would you expect moderate Muslims to protest or consider themselves responsible for an outlier terrorist group in Africa or for the actions of ISIS. Neither do I protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons about the Christian faith. If Muslims would stop reading Charlie Hebdo then it wouldn't offend them.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 19, 2015 16:56:10 GMT -5
Je ne suis pas Charlie.
I have been trying to grapple with the events in Paris on both an individual and collective (group) level.
The Charlie Hebdo type satire does not appeal to either my sense of humor or my need for social/political activism. I do not support the inflammation of passions for the purpose of personal or political gain. I recognize that many disagree with my perspective and argue persuasively that meaningful social development depends on effective consciousness raising. I do not disagree, I simply prefer the path of intellectual enlightenment and rational persuasion rather than emotional activism.
From the perspective of “group dynamics” the questions raised by the events in Paris become much more complex for me to analyze. In my opinion, deadly reprisals for behavior that offends is well outside the bounds of any social contract and should not/cannot be tolerated by any society.
The behavior of those who would provoke is, on the other hand, considered well within the bounds of normal human behavior. The protection of this behavior is codified by what we call “rights” including the “right of free speech”. My fear is that as our society pushes the frontiers of personal rights, we are failing to emphasize the essential link of personal freedom and personal responsibility. The challenge of forging the link between freedom and responsibility has traditionally fallen to institutions that appear to be waning in our society. As these institutions fade as guide-posts in the public consciousness and as individual rights and freedoms expand without the tethers of responsibility, it is my perception that societies become less stable rather than more tolerant and compassionate.
Two hot button issues confront me as I think about the events in Paris, neither is considered politically correct to discuss. First, I am challenged by the concept of “multiculturalism” as currently envisioned and practiced in Western Societies. Have we been wise in the policies we have erected to advance the cause of multiculturalism? Should we assess progress, benefit and cost to date and course correct as necessary?
The second issue is that of the role of women in cultural change and development. I have been captivated by women such as Ayaan Hirshi Ali and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. We are the products of a long evolutionary process. Our genes provide the framework for the expression of our human nature. Perhaps we have reached a population density where inter-group dynamics should be viewed more from a perspective of reciprocity and less from a perspective of conflict.
So, whathat, you have some of my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 17:30:57 GMT -5
Yes, I'm fully awake. And I'm telling you that satire is impolite and offensive -- to someone. Otherwise it isn't satire, it's just that simple. So by your expectation of political correct, you don't approve of Charlie Hebdo. You also said you don't like it and won't read it. I didn't assume anything you didn't say. You disagree with this. Then tell me who asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo -- certainly not me. What makes you think the Globe and Mail doesn't accept letters to the editor? If they don't like yours, write to some other newspaper. What's wrong with your exercise of free speech? You don't have that freedom if you don't practice it. But the question always is, do you have the courage to say what you believe. And my advice still is, just don't threaten anyone ... I don't think you're the type anyway. Then what's your beef? Would it be better if they changed to a new paper/magazine genre? Human Rights Councils have no power to tell people what they can and cannot say. Only governments can do that. What you don't like is human rights councils that infringe on your areas of disapproval. You're chasing your tail again. Human rights and civil liberties activists are the guardians of "liberal". Ask any conservative. No. I'm telling you that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have free speech and political correctness. The only real purpose of political correctness is salesmanship, anyway. Who the heck asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo? What do you think endorse means? You don't even read it, how can you possibly endorse it? No one said you were Charlie. No one is Charlie until they begin telling people they are Charlie. Who thinks they are expected to identify with every placard carrying demonstrator? You can't be that insecure -- they don't even know you. The part I'm not okay with is that it a lie that you are being asked to endorse Charlie Hebdo. You're a free man -- if someone is harassing you about your freedom, sue them. Otherwise, you have to learn how to live with other people's freedom of speech. You're not a Nazi, are you? You're going way, way off on a tangent. Because you seemed to have missed it, here are my specific objections to specific attitudes voiced around the Charlie Hebdo incident. I've added some commentary over and above the original post. a) The Globe and Mail (and the BBC, CNN and other media) are being vilified and called cowardly for not re-printing the Hebdo cartoons. To my mind, the large dailies with a readership that is part Muslim can well decide not to print the cartoons. That is their right . Free speech does not mean they have to print anything and everything a specific reader wants. b) Some Christians who are the first to cry wolf about how they are characterised in media have expressed no empathy for the Muslim point of view of not wanting Mohammed pictured. They believe that Muslims should not complain and not be offended. They have a right to be offended, IMO. c) Some atheists express the idea that no religion should be entitled to their feelings about various sacred cows.
Why am I concerned about these attitudes? Because they demonstrate insensitivity and result in incivility and bad feelings. a) the Globe and Mail etc. certainly have the right to reprint or not reprint something. No one says that Free Speech means that they HAVE to print something.
b) this is often how one religious group feels about another religious group.
c) what atheists have expressed the idea that "no religion should be entitled to their feelings about various sacred cows.?" Everyone is entitled to their feelings
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 17:56:41 GMT -5
Two hot button issues confront me as I think about the events in Paris, neither is considered politically correct to discuss. First, I am challenged by the concept of “multiculturalism” as currently envisioned and practiced in Western Societies. Have we been wise in the policies we have erected to advance the cause of multiculturalism? Should we assess progress, benefit and cost to date and course correct as necessary? Secular Western society holds sacred the right to freedom of expression. Islamic society holds sacred their blasphemy laws. Are these two positions compatible? Will Islamic society eventually mature and dispense with stop enforcing blasphemy laws as our Western society has?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 18:11:07 GMT -5
Je ne suis pas Charlie. I have been trying to grapple with the events in Paris on both an individual and collective (group) level. The Charlie Hebdo type satire does not appeal to either my sense of humor or my need for social/political activism. I do not support the inflammation of passions for the purpose of personal or political gain. I recognize that many disagree with my perspective and argue persuasively that meaningful social development depends on effective consciousness raising. I do not disagree, I simply prefer the path of intellectual enlightenment and rational persuasion rather than emotional activism. No doubt we all would prefer the path of "intellectual enlightenment and rational persuasion rather than emotional activism."
That indeed is an essential part of effective "consciousness raising."
That problem is that path doesn't always get to all the people who really need to see the absurdity of their actions. Take the sit-com All in the Family.
How many people watching that would ever even read anything along the line of a intellectual & rational discourse?
"All in the Family revolves around the life of a working class bigot and his family.
The show broke ground in its depiction of issues previously considered unsuitable for U.S. network television comedy, such as racism, homosexuality, women's liberation, rape, miscarriage, abortion, breast cancer, the Vietnam War, menopause, and impotence.
Through depicting these controversial issues, the series became arguably one of television's most influential comedic programs, as it injected the sitcom format with more realistic and topical conflicts." wiki
All in the Family was probably one of the most effective "consciousness raising" vehicles of our time.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 20:02:21 GMT -5
I don't like it personally, but I also can choose not to subscribe to it etc. Mainstream newspapers likely will not get so extreme because they need to please a multicultural audience and will likely moderate what they print in order to keep subscribers. But yes, if it's a magazine that you subscribe to if you like that sort of thing, I think it should be allowed. Sometimes satire is what points out the silliness of some ideas and makes people think and that's how changes happen. Degradation for the sake of degradation is only going to attract a certain group of people. I will step up to protect your right to express yourself in a way I may find offensive. I guess I more or less agree, other than there must be a line where it is just simply not acceptable, and where is that line? Child pornography, paraded and twisted somehow as satire is absolutely over the line. Alvin Child pornography is evidence of criminal behavior, i.e. violence against children. That makes the child pornographer either an accomplice or an advocate of criminal behavior -- which is why a child pornographer can be prosecuted in this country. Something akin to selling cocaine to someone, or driving the car for the dealer. Adult pornography is not a crime. But just because it is protected under the free speech principle, doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted. That is, if it presents evidence of a crime. I'm thinking of the wife who discovered her husband was an actor in a porn movie, so she used it of evidence for her divorce. There's really no point in satirizing child pornography anyway. The point of satire is to draw attention to either perceived or real errors of the people depicted, possibly to offend them. Children aren't consumers of child pornography, so it would be a real stretch to claim there was any point in making fun of children.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 20:07:54 GMT -5
Please let's not get in to religious crazies over-reaction to Muslim cartoons. You're doing what the rabid free speech defenders are doing, lumping anyone who dislikes offensive behaviour in with "religious crazies". How about those who want the death penalty for leaving their religion....would you consider them to be "religious crazies"?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 20:26:07 GMT -5
It is legal to offend them, but it is not appropriate to offend them. Yes. Why isn't it appropriate? Because a) they said so, and b) it's not difficult, dangerous or onerous to honour the request. Yes, it is legal to offend them. But that doesn't mean it is inappropriate to offend them. Free speech, offending and insulting a despotic ruler, is (1) the first purpose of free speech, because (2) it constitutes notice given that he is considered immoral, and (3) it informs other citizens of how they are being abused. I expect some convicted people cringe because of the dressing down they sometimes get in court. You cannot make "appropriate" a standard, because "appropriate" is negotiable and the prime weapon of abusers and tyrants. You were the one suggesting the need for appropriateness. I am telling you that defining an appropriate limit is not possible, except for slander and libel. Even then, someone who sues for slander or libel not only has to prove he was offended or embarrassed, but has to prove that he was damaged in some measurable way. If he can't do that, he won't get a conviction even if what was said about him was a lie. That's the way it is. The defendant in a libel suit does not have to prove he did not lie, the plaintiff has to prove damages.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 20:33:10 GMT -5
How about those who want the death penalty for leaving their religion....would you consider them to be "religious crazies"? Absolutely. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids "compulsion in religion", and every moderate Imam I have ever heard of will tell you that. Muslims who tell you the contrary are the crazies. Just like Christians who have done and believed in forcing religion on people.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 20:37:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 20:46:29 GMT -5
Je ne suis pas Charlie. I do not support the inflammation of passions for the purpose of personal or political gain. Was this not how the American independence movement was successful?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2015 20:49:39 GMT -5
I guess I more or less agree, other than there must be a line where it is just simply not acceptable, and where is that line? Child pornography, paraded and twisted somehow as satire is absolutely over the line. Alvin Child pornography is evidence of criminal behavior, i.e. violence against children. That makes the child pornographer either an accomplice or an advocate of criminal behavior -- which is why a child pornographer can be prosecuted in this country. Something akin to selling cocaine to someone, or driving the car for the dealer. Adult pornography is not a crime. But just because it is protected under the free speech principle, doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted. That is, if it presents evidence of a crime. I'm thinking of the wife who discovered her husband was an actor in a porn movie, so she used it of evidence for her divorce. There's really no point in satirizing child pornography anyway. The point of satire is to draw attention to either perceived or real errors of the people depicted, possibly to offend them. Children aren't consumers of child pornography, so it would be a real stretch to claim there was any point in making fun of children. Hi, I hope we all agree, at least, that SOMEWHERE the line needs to be drawn, and the disagreement is only WHERE? Alvin from Huffington post- www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html" Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 21:25:55 GMT -5
Child pornography is evidence of criminal behavior, i.e. violence against children. That makes the child pornographer either an accomplice or an advocate of criminal behavior -- which is why a child pornographer can be prosecuted in this country. Something akin to selling cocaine to someone, or driving the car for the dealer. Adult pornography is not a crime. But just because it is protected under the free speech principle, doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted. That is, if it presents evidence of a crime. I'm thinking of the wife who discovered her husband was an actor in a porn movie, so she used it of evidence for her divorce. There's really no point in satirizing child pornography anyway. The point of satire is to draw attention to either perceived or real errors of the people depicted, possibly to offend them. Children aren't consumers of child pornography, so it would be a real stretch to claim there was any point in making fun of children. Hi, I hope we all agree, at least, that SOMEWHERE the line needs to be drawn, and the disagreement is only WHERE? Alvin from Huffington post- www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html" Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn." Yes, the line IS drawn, but at criminal behavior such as in child pornography not just because someone is offended.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2015 21:40:57 GMT -5
Hi, I hope we all agree, at least, that SOMEWHERE the line needs to be drawn, and the disagreement is only WHERE? Alvin from Huffington post- www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html" Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn." Yes, the line IS drawn, but at criminal behavior such as in child pornography not just because someone is offended.For myself, I think the line is sometimes crossed long before it becomes criminal . For example, Reddick , wrote things like this “In 2001 I thought Americans could fly by the way they were jumping from the twin towers in New York.” Very Very offensive , but perfectly legal. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 21:45:47 GMT -5
How about those who want the death penalty for leaving their religion....would you consider them to be "religious crazies"? Absolutely. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids "compulsion in religion", and every moderate Imam I have ever heard of will tell you that. Muslims who tell you the contrary are the crazies. Just like Christians who have done and believed in forcing religion on people. 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan are "religious crazies"? No wonder they've got a problem.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 21:54:22 GMT -5
Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn." Perhaps the line should be drawn on how insult should be responded to. When Islamic mobs shout "death to Israel", "death to France", "death to America" or "death to the West" I think they mean it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 21:58:34 GMT -5
Yes, the line IS drawn, but at criminal behavior such as in child pornography not just because someone is offended.F or myself, I think the line is sometimes crossed long before it becomes criminal . For example, Reddick , wrote things like this “In 2001 I thought Americans could fly by the way they were jumping from the twin towers in New York.” Very Very offensive , but perfectly legal. Alvin For myself, I think the line is sometimes crossed long before it becomes criminal . For example, Reddick , wrote things like this “In 2001 I thought Americans could fly by the way they were jumping from the twin towers in New York.” Very Very offensive , but perfectly legal. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2015 22:13:29 GMT -5
For myself, I think the line is sometimes crossed long before it becomes criminal . For example, Reddick , wrote things like this “In 2001 I thought Americans could fly by the way they were jumping from the twin towers in New York.” Very Very offensive , but perfectly legal. Alvin Sorry , not sure what you mean, in your last post , dmmichgood. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 19, 2015 22:14:22 GMT -5
Hi, I hope we all agree, at least, that SOMEWHERE the line needs to be drawn, and the disagreement is only WHERE? Alvin from Huffington post- www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html" Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn." Yeah. Where to draw that line? Regina Special Meetings, sometime in the 1980’s. John McCracken (East Coast Canada? Young, idealistic, and somewhat enlightened?) He spoke on the aspects/attributes of (divine) “Love”: One of the aspects was : “Love waits”. I don’t remember the scripture (he did have a reference), but I remember the “filler” story. Some guy fell in love with somebody’s daughter. And asked the father for her hand in marriage. The father said “She’s too young. Come back in x number of years, when she has had a chance to grow up”. And the guy did. The lesson was: “Love waits for another to grow up.” Yeah. This kept me in 2X2ism for a few years longer than what might have otherwise been the case. Waiting. I think of this in connection to the Charlie Hebdo speculations/prognostications/lessons-in-the-learning. Yes, boundaries of taste and decency have probably been crossed... And, yes, both sides should probably know better. But they don’t. At the same time, I am acutely aware of a lesson from The Course in Miracles “In order to forgive you must have blamed. If you don't blame there is nothing to forgive.” In small ways, I have begun to live this in my own life and I think it is what we are all reaching for, “once we grow up” . In the meantime, where to draw that line?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 19, 2015 22:25:54 GMT -5
Absolutely. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids "compulsion in religion", and every moderate Imam I have ever heard of will tell you that. Muslims who tell you the contrary are the crazies. Just like Christians who have done and believed in forcing religion on people. 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan are "religious crazies"? No wonder they've got a problem. I see the root problem as belief in an afterlife (heaven and hell; 82% of some Protestants groups and 80% for Muslims believe in hell). Ones beliefs inform their actions in the here and now which become irrational if based on myth. A true believer is more concerned with afterlife than life. History is replete with true believing martyrs of many kinds. Irrational 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. life today is not the most important thing. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdfSee Page 11 How to fix problems in 2015 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 22:28:51 GMT -5
The West faced down fascism and communism as it crossed the line.
I think the same will happen with militant Islam as it crosses the line.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 22:34:12 GMT -5
That just confirms for me all over again what Robert Fisk writes in his book 'The Great war for Civilization'. You never look at the West the same ever again, nor Israel.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 19, 2015 22:35:39 GMT -5
The West faced down fascism and communism as it crossed the line. I think the same will happen with militant Islam as it crosses the line. So another holy war will FIXIT?
|
|