|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 22:42:27 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? In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 23:08:59 GMT -5
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? In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that. I think what is happening is we are going through another huge shift in awareness and reasoning. There is always turmoil when any huge changes happen.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 23:42:07 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? No. The West is fighting for secular ideals, the separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 0:02:22 GMT -5
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? In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that. Respect should be earned - not demanded. You cannot give people the right to not be offended. No doubt some would be offended by your opinion about the trinity. Sure you can be restrained in how you express your opinion, but there will always be someone who will be offended.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:13:28 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. Sounds something like a sizeable percentage of Americans, with similar opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:16:20 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. I expect so. And as soon as that threat is gone, there will be another, We have to keep the Republican Party in business, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:18:28 GMT -5
In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that. Respect should be earned - not demanded. You cannot give people the right to not be offended. No doubt some would be offended by your opinion about the trinity. Sure you can be restrained in how you express your opinion, but there will always be someone who will be offended. True. Offense is in the mind of the listener/reader. Live for a while with a deaf wife and you will understand.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:21:21 GMT -5
So another holy war will FIXIT? No. The West is fighting for secular ideals, the separation of church and state. The war that is being fought in the US as well. All included in what Americans call their " First" Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:23:09 GMT -5
In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that. I think what is happening is we are going through another huge shift in awareness and reasoning. There is always turmoil when any huge changes happen. More fiercely rages the battle as the enemy gets more desperate.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:47:26 GMT -5
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? In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 0:59:13 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. It's a comforting thought, but in that society it is equivalent to an offhand "shut up or will kill you" in an American household. But come to think of it, a lot of times they mean that too. Oh well, come to America where you have the "right" to have the weapon to accomplish it. Did anyone in America ever think of killing Hitler? ? No? He was killing some of your people, you know. Come on, get your guns and go after him, you lazy good for nothings. And that Osama bin Laden too -- come on, you thought you could get off without killing him? Thank goodness y'all weren't running the world -- they'd have come here instead of us going there -- and what for? Oooops Sorry
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 20, 2015 1:15:43 GMT -5
[quote author=" slowtosee" source="/post/624096/thread" timestamp="1421723609" Well you have done it again, Alvin!
Put what is really your post under my name!
That is why I marked through it.
I don't know how else to get it right. I've tried several things & nothing else works.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 5:33:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 5:37:34 GMT -5
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. So, in effect, you're saying the Muslims should not be offended at all, and this is precisely the attitude I find many people do have, but not all.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 5:50:04 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"? From an objective perspective it truly is one of the worst religions. Certainly one of the two or three worst.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 5:56:31 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. There is no need to define a standard for appropriateness in law, because offence is not addressed or recognised in law. There may be a need to such such standards in specific contexts, such as the editorial policy of a specific newspaper, or practices in a multi-cultural school setting.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 6:07:57 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? There are large internal divisions within the Arabic world, often between moderate and conservative interests. Egypt and Turkey are cases in point. The conflict will likely be along internal lines, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 6:15:47 GMT -5
In law, you can not have freedom of expression and protect sacred cows, that is, give people the right to not be offended. One or the other. However, you can provide for freedom of expression in law, and within civil society protect or nourish peoples' religious ideals. What I lament is the loss of mutual respect. When I was a child, my parents and elders thought the Pope was a demagogue, Catholics had it all wrong, et cetera. And yet, we were taught to respect their beliefs, and not make light of them. We seem to be losing that. Respect should be earned - not demanded. You cannot give people the right to not be offended. No doubt some would be offended by your opinion about the trinity. Sure you can be restrained in how you express your opinion, but there will always be someone who will be offended. My concern is not individual offence, or offence against despots, or political offence, but offence between cultures. That kind of offence can be mitigated. But I do agree no one has a right, in law, to not be offended. That does not mean we have carte Blanche 'to offend' without considering the effect of our provocations. Here I'm not concerned that provocations have made someone angry. We forget that often offence hurts the weak, the poor, the new immigrants, the migrant workers, the unpopular religion, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 6:28:35 GMT -5
There is a post above about 'civil society' that got scrambled up so I won't quote it. Just to clarify that by 'civil society' is meant society outside government and the courts. That includes schools, churches, charities, clubs - anywhere people interact. I think it is accurate to say that courts and the govts define broad, universal rights, but that within civil society we have to work out rules of engagement and governance that can get messy.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2015 8:12:31 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 would guess that depends on who defines crazy.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2015 8:22:55 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." Are you sure that we all believe as you claim? There are tenets in place to deal with the aftermath of problematic events.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2015 8:30:56 GMT -5
My concern is not individual offence, or offence against despots, or political offence, but offence between cultures. That kind of offence can be mitigated. But I do agree no one has a right, in law, to not be offended. That does not mean we have carte Blanche 'to offend' without considering the effect of our provocations. Here I'm not concerned that provocations have made someone angry. We forget that often offence hurts the weak, the poor, the new immigrants, the migrant workers, the unpopular religion, and so on. It does mean we have carte blanche to say what we wish. At some point it becomes a moral/ethical/common decency issue which is up to the individual to manage. If someone speaks out against your dearly held values, your beliefs, your god(s) and you are offended the first question you should ask is "Why am I offended?" Why do I care if you believe god will regenerate your missing limb? Why should you care that I don't believe it will happen?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 20, 2015 8:36:59 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? Indeed it was, Sir. And I am a beneficiary of the fact. Your selected case, the American independence movement, is an excellent example of the point I tried to make: Personally, I would have been moved more by the rational reticence and steely convictions of John Adams than I would have been enticed by the fiery rhetoric and rash actions (all interpreted in the context of the time) advocated by Samuel Adams. That said, I fully acknowledge the contribution of each approach to the successful achievement of their envisioned goals.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 8:40:48 GMT -5
My concern is not individual offence, or offence against despots, or political offence, but offence between cultures. That kind of offence can be mitigated. But I do agree no one has a right, in law, to not be offended. That does not mean we have carte Blanche 'to offend' without considering the effect of our provocations. Here I'm not concerned that provocations have made someone angry. We forget that often offence hurts the weak, the poor, the new immigrants, the migrant workers, the unpopular religion, and so on. It does mean we have carte blanche to say what we wish. At some point it becomes a moral/ethical/common decency issue which is up to the individual to manage. If someone speaks out against your dearly held values, your beliefs, your god(s) and you are offended the first question you should ask is "Why am I offended?" Why do I care if you believe god will regenerate your missing limb? Why should you care that I don't believe it will happen? So, are you saying we have carte blanche to offend others without having to consider the effects of our provocations and taking some responsibility for those effects? How do we distinguish offence, that is purely in the mind of, and the problem of the person taking offence, from offence that is purely provocation for which the offender needs to take responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 20, 2015 9:15:24 GMT -5
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? I wonder if there might be another perspective on the point - “In order to forgive you must have blamed. . . . ". I have always viewed "blame" as a non-constructive expression of frustration. It seems to me that relationships between two or more individuals are grounded in mutual expectations. It is useless for me to hold you accountable for expectations I never expressed. It would be useless for me to hold you accountable for expectations of mine that you never understood (though they had been expressed). It seems that I can only hold you accountable for the expectations that I expressed and you understood. If you fail to meet those expectations then I can hold you accountable for that lapse and make the choice to forgive or not forgive. Further, it seems to me that forgiveness carries with it an implied expectation of "non-repeat of the offense" which should also be mutually understood. My concern with multiculturalism is that mutual expectations between disparate groups/cultures are neither expressed nor understood. "The line" can only be drawn once the expectations of all "stake holders" are clearly understood and agreed too. Much easier said than done. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, one party's expectations are grounded in "an inalienable right" to free expression (without arbitrary limit) while the other party has an expectation of respect for that which is sacred to them. It would be difficult if not impossible for these expectations to be understood and accepted by either party. Without that mutual understanding, it is unlikely that a mutually acceptable line can be drawn. Civility requires accommodation of this fact without violence. Violence compels action. The question remains what action would represent wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 10:21:55 GMT -5
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? I wonder if there might be another perspective on the point - “In order to forgive you must have blamed. . . . ". I have always viewed "blame" as a non-constructive expression of frustration. It seems to me that relationships between two or more individuals are grounded in mutual expectations. It is useless for me to hold you accountable for expectations I never expressed. It would be useless for me to hold you accountable for expectations of mine that you never understood (though they had been expressed). It seems that I can only hold you accountable for the expectations that I expressed and you understood. If you fail to meet those expectations then I can hold you accountable for that lapse and make the choice to forgive or not forgive. Further, it seems to me that forgiveness carries with it an implied expectation of "non-repeat of the offense" which should also be mutually understood. My concern with multiculturalism is that mutual expectations between disparate groups/cultures are neither expressed nor understood. "The line" can only be drawn once the expectations of all "stake holders" are clearly understood and agreed too. Much easier said than done. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, one party's expectations are grounded in "an inalienable right" to free expression (without arbitrary limit) while the other party has an expectation of respect for that which is sacred to them. It would be difficult if not impossible for these expectations to be understood and accepted by either party. Without that mutual understanding, it is unlikely that a mutually acceptable line can be drawn. Civility requires accommodation of this fact without violence. Violence compels action. The question remains what action would represent wisdom? I think in your last post and this one you have expressed a common understanding, or at least an understanding that is common to most reasonable people, and brought forward the conversation to the essential problem. Most people do buy in to freedom of expression but they also understand, although not quite as well, that that freedom carries some responsibility. So that leads to your question "what action would represent wisdom" to which I would add "what action would represent wisdom on the part of" the citizen, the State, the laws, Muslims, Christians, et cetera. I would expect that a Christian would understand that the kind of action 'Charlie Hebdo' took is provocative, inciting and unkind. However, many Christians base their thinking generally on the attitude that Muslims all bad, us all good. Those Muslims better just get used to this kind of thing in the West. Others do understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and that what they don't wish for themselves, sacrilege of their sacred symbols, they should also not wish for those of other persuasions. There is empathy for the Muslims, but only in some quarters. Muslims in the West do need to understand that we allow provocateurs, and those do not represent the thinking of the ordinary person. But I think they are actually going to feel more alienated and unwelcome in the West than ever before with all this 'Je suis Charlie' and the recent 'up yours' Charlie cover. Their hatred of the West is going to increase with the follow on to the Charlie Hebdo incident. Perhaps this is exactly what 'al Qaeda' wanted to do; inciting citizens of the West against Muslims works to their advantage. Political leaders like Obama and Angela Merkl are trying to walk the middle road, but I think the centre is falling apart and cannot hold, and anarchy is being unleashed upon the world. (With apologies to W.B. Yeats). In terms of the Canadian experience, Canada has been a world leader in trying to establish and maintain a multi-cultural society. In some respect, like our Human Rights Tribunals, we may have gone too far. There is also a strong backlash against 'political correctness' and our society is polarized between those who battle for the rights of POC, GLBT, new Canadians and those who think it has all gone too far. Personally, I don't think political correctness has gone too far, generally speaking. Certainly there are cases and incidents where specific groups ask for too much. For example, some Muslims want sharia law, some Sikhs don't want to wear motorcycle helmets, and some atheists don't want Christmas trees in hospital lobbies. But just because someone lobbies for something doesn't mean it becomes a reality. Usually reason does prevail when the court looks at an issue, but the court judgement is never reported, only the sensational case makes the papers. The political decisions made by our Conservative government are all going in the wrong direction, however. Canada is no longer a welcome place for new immigrants; we routinely deport immigrants on specious grounds without a hearing; we are establishing a servant class, temporary foreign workers, who exist purely to work without any route open to becoming citizens. We're also making life more difficult for the prisoner, the homeless, the ill, the impoverished and we're not protecting the environment. And the reason those decisions are being made in this manner, is that this is what the public wants. The Conservatives are very shrewd at determining which way the wind is blowing, and enacting policies that appease the public's indignation, whether those policies relate to any genuine threat or problem. After all, all that Conservative parties want, generally speaking, is to keep the enfranchised feeling safe, and the rich getting richer, and as long as that holds, they will do anything that helps them stay in power.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 11:15:18 GMT -5
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. There is no need to define a standard for appropriateness in law, because offence is not addressed or recognised in law. There may be a need to such such standards in specific contexts, such as the editorial policy of a specific newspaper, or practices in a multi-cultural school setting. I'm beginning to think your only problem with freedom of speech is that you don't like people offending each other - in a nutshell? Unfortunately, we can't ever stop that, not even with the most civilized of means - education. It has long ago been recognized that poorly educated people are not equipped to maintain a democracy, and the greedy destroy democracy even faster.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 11:22:07 GMT -5
Was this not how the American independence movement was successful? Indeed it was, Sir. And I am a beneficiary of the fact. Your selected case, the American independence movement, is an excellent example of the point I tried to make: Personally, I would have been moved more by the rational reticence and steely convictions of John Adams than I would have been enticed by the fiery rhetoric and rash actions (all interpreted in the context of the time) advocated by Samuel Adams. That said, I fully acknowledge the contribution of each approach to the successful achievement of their envisioned goals. Upsetting the status quo is always temporarily more violent than the oppression that brought it on, but the brave wise (both adjectives together) will both (1) choose the least damaging way to get there, and (2) plan in detail how to safeguard freedoms when they win them. I think (most) Americans owe more to James Madison than they realize.
|
|