|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 11:43:02 GMT -5
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. I believe what North Americans do not know, and are largely deprived by our media owners' agendas, in that ""average"" Muslims carried "Je suis Charlie" signs alongside everyone else in France. Muslims in Spain are outraged with what the terrorists are doing to them -- it's worse than what they're doing to non-Muslims because it draws all kind of discrimination and mistreatment on all of them them. The Palestinian leader was there too -- and Benjamin Netanyahu was the one making the complete bully of himself. He embarrassed French Jews as much as the terrorists embarrassed French Muslims. This is why North Americans act so impatiently with Europeans who they think are not doing enough about the "Muslim" problem. They're ahead of us in the sense that they recognize it as a "terrorist" problem, not a Muslim problem. Oh yes, they have their share of blinded rednecks as well, but they are more ready to brand them as ignorant than Americans are. Americans still have their tradition of scorn of education to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 11:52:53 GMT -5
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. I have no issue with 'freedom of speech' at all. I looked at some of your past responses and I think that you're reading some of my declarative statements as complaints, reading in an intonation that I did not intend. Of course, that's mainly my fault and my style is sometimes much too terse given the terrain being covered. But that aside, your comment is substantially correct. This is why we have these dialogues, to tease out the essential elements of the issues, and to sharpen our views. In that respect, I find there is much in the way of offence that I like and of which I approve. As you and rational have mentioned, some kinds of offence are progressive in a democratic society. One of my heroes is Jonathan Swift and what he was able to do in the guise of satire. So offence against the elite, the powerful and the established is often quite admirable. Offence against minorities, the marginalized, the weak, the "other", not so much. And in particular I lament the loss of the idea of sacrilege and some things being held sacred. I don't ask for "the sacred" to be protected in law; that cannot be. But I wish people had more respect for what others hold sacred, and that they even had some things they held sacred themselves.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 12:02:51 GMT -5
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. I believe what North Americans do not know, and are largely deprived by our media owners' agendas, in that ""average"" Muslims carried "Je suis Charlie" signs alongside everyone else in France. Muslims in Spain are outraged with what the terrorists are doing to them -- it's worse than what they're doing to non-Muslims because it draws all kind of discrimination and mistreatment on all of them them. The Palestinian leader was there too -- and Benjamin Netanyahu was the one making the complete bully of himself. He embarrassed French Jews as much as the terrorists embarrassed French Muslims. This is why North Americans act so impatiently with Europeans who they think are not doing enough about the "Muslim" problem. They're ahead of us in the sense that they recognize it as a "terrorist" problem, not a Muslim problem. Oh yes, they have their share of blinded rednecks as well, but they are more ready to brand them as ignorant than Americans are. Americans still have their tradition of scorn of education to deal with. Why do we bear animosity to, and make enemies of, entire nations, ethnicities and religions. Why can't we see that all of humankind has more in common at base, than is different, at base? Which means that not only our so-called enemies feel as we do and aspire to the things that we do, but that we would, given the same stresses and conditions, also act out of our more reprobate instincts in similar circumstances. Why don't we see how we might act if we had lost neighbour, brother, sister or parents to a bomb blast? Why can't we reserve our reprehension for those elements that are genuinely hostile rather than the entire group at large? With respect to the aspirations of Muslims, not only do we miss the things you mention, but in the Arab world, broadly speaking, which consists of Muslims and non-Muslims, there are broad factions, and these are deeply conflicted as well. However, our actions in demonising the Arab world are providing more momentum to the extremist factions in that world.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 12:04:34 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? To disagree to an extent: "Forgiveness is a gift, trust has to be earned." You can forgive someone and not trust them. Battered wives who forgive AND trust frequently do it once too often. In my experience with hundreds of disrespected, and expecting respect, people -- it's never their fault. Not a single kid of probably thousands of my students who were raised in environments where they were respected ever came whining to be respected -- they were first taught to respect themselves. Every human being deserves respect, and needs respect, and they cannot be expected from birth to know what respect is. Furthermore, it cannot be properly taught in any educational method -- they have to have had the experience of being respected first of all, and that will give them an understanding of confidence that comes from being respected -- confidence that is not so starved for respect that they demand it. Having dealt with this kind of kids, you can teach them the veneer of respectfulness, but you are wasting both your time and theirs. First you have to trust them and show them respect, and then build their self-esteem by addressing their virtues and abilities. Until you've done that, they still won't have much reason to trust you. "Trust is earned."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 12:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2015 12:48:38 GMT -5
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? That is almost exactly what I am saying except that we may want to consider the effects our words will make. No, I do not believe that you need to take responsibility for any actions I may take because of the way I react to something you say. The offender is the person who reacted to the speech? They are responsible for their actions. If you want to support the concept of free speech then you also need to embrace the idea that others may voice opinions/thoughts/ideas that will are in direct opposition to yours. Because you do not agree with them or because you take offense should not limit their right to free expression. Because I suspect that you will take offense because of something I say might make me censor what I say but, as my wife would confirm, that does not happen nearly enough! She insists that when people ask me my opinion of things, perhaps regarding a new dress or a new rug, they really just want me to tell them what a great choice they made.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 14:11:45 GMT -5
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. How about those who want the death penalty for leaving their religion....would you consider them to be "religious crazies"? Many in the West are clutching at straws, trying hard to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that only a tiny minority wish to do us harm.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2015 14:19:09 GMT -5
I believe what North Americans do not know, and are largely deprived by our media owners' agendas, in that ""average"" Muslims carried "Je suis Charlie" signs alongside everyone else in France. Muslims in Spain are outraged with what the terrorists are doing to them -- it's worse than what they're doing to non-Muslims because it draws all kind of discrimination and mistreatment on all of them them. The Palestinian leader was there too -- and Benjamin Netanyahu was the one making the complete bully of himself. He embarrassed French Jews as much as the terrorists embarrassed French Muslims. This is why North Americans act so impatiently with Europeans who they think are not doing enough about the "Muslim" problem. They're ahead of us in the sense that they recognize it as a "terrorist" problem, not a Muslim problem. Oh yes, they have their share of blinded rednecks as well, but they are more ready to brand them as ignorant than Americans are. Americans still have their tradition of scorn of education to deal with. Why do we bear animosity to, and make enemies of, entire nations, ethnicities and religions. Why can't we see that all of humankind has more in common at base, than is different, at base? Which means that not only our so-called enemies feel as we do and aspire to the things that we do, but that we would, given the same stresses and conditions, also act out of our more reprobate instincts in similar circumstances. Why don't we see how we might act if we had lost neighbour, brother, sister or parents to a bomb blast? Why can't we reserve our reprehension for those elements that are genuinely hostile rather than the entire group at large? With respect to the aspirations of Muslims, not only do we miss the things you mention, but in the Arab world, broadly speaking, which consists of Muslims and non-Muslims, there are broad factions, and these are deeply conflicted as well. However, our actions in demonising the Arab world are providing more momentum to the extremist factions in that world. Those are all questions I ask too. I think most of it is fear. What we fear we demonize. When we see these things happening the typical knee jerk reaction seems to be 'get rid of them'. I don't know how many times I've heard in the last year 'why don't we just drop a few bombs on the Middle East and just get rid of them all'? It reminds me of the Crusades when the Pope ordered all the 'heretics' to be killed. When asked how to tell them apart, the Catholics from the heretics, in the small towns in Southern France they were raiding and killing, he said if a few Catholics die they will understand that dying for their faith is an honor. Not quite those words, but that was the gist of the response. Just kill them and if you get a few of ours, oh well, it's for a good cause. I hate this mentality because it dehumanizes everyone.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 14:44:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 20, 2015 15:04:34 GMT -5
I would guess that depends on who defines crazy. How about those who want the death penalty for leaving their religion....would you consider them to be "religious crazies"? That is simply their belief. As far as being crazy - I could list a lot of beliefs that I would consider crazy. Believing, expressing your opinion, and acting on your beliefs to the determent of others are all different things.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 15:19:55 GMT -5
Why do we bear animosity to, and make enemies of, entire nations, ethnicities and religions. Why can't we see that all of humankind has more in common at base, than is different, at base? Which means that not only our so-called enemies feel as we do and aspire to the things that we do, but that we would, given the same stresses and conditions, also act out of our more reprobate instincts in similar circumstances. Why don't we see how we might act if we had lost neighbour, brother, sister or parents to a bomb blast? Why can't we reserve our reprehension for those elements that are genuinely hostile rather than the entire group at large? With respect to the aspirations of Muslims, not only do we miss the things you mention, but in the Arab world, broadly speaking, which consists of Muslims and non-Muslims, there are broad factions, and these are deeply conflicted as well. However, our actions in demonising the Arab world are providing more momentum to the extremist factions in that world. Those are all questions I ask too. I think most of it is fear. What we fear we demonize. When we see these things happening the typical knee jerk reaction seems to be 'get rid of them'. I don't know how many times I've heard in the last year 'why don't we just drop a few bombs on the Middle East and just get rid of them all'? It reminds me of the Crusades when the Pope ordered all the 'heretics' to be killed. When asked how to tell them apart, the Catholics from the heretics, in the small towns in Southern France they were raiding and killing, he said if a few Catholics die they will understand that dying for their faith is an honor. Not quite those words, but that was the gist of the response. Just kill them and if you get a few of ours, oh well, it's for a good cause. I hate this mentality because it dehumanizes everyone. One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 15:47:21 GMT -5
One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. The evolution of Western civilisation from Christian to Secular gives me hope that the Islamic world might get there eventually. It's not looking good right now in the Islamic world for separation of church and state though.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 15:48:40 GMT -5
Those are all questions I ask too. I think most of it is fear. What we fear we demonize. When we see these things happening the typical knee jerk reaction seems to be 'get rid of them'. I don't know how many times I've heard in the last year 'why don't we just drop a few bombs on the Middle East and just get rid of them all'? It reminds me of the Crusades when the Pope ordered all the 'heretics' to be killed. When asked how to tell them apart, the Catholics from the heretics, in the small towns in Southern France they were raiding and killing, he said if a few Catholics die they will understand that dying for their faith is an honor. Not quite those words, but that was the gist of the response. Just kill them and if you get a few of ours, oh well, it's for a good cause. I hate this mentality because it dehumanizes everyone. One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. I had not heard that one before, although certainly St. Augustine concluded based on his experience with heretics in northern Africa that the violence perpetrated on them was acceptable, even though many of them died, because life in the here-after won for the vanquished was worth the price of the lives of the rest. This, as xna pointed out above, is the same logic some Muslims use to justify thinking apostates better off dead.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 15:51:32 GMT -5
One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. The evolution of Western civilisation from Christian to Secular gives me hope that the Islamic world might get there eventually. It's not looking good right now in the Islamic world for separation of church and state though. The early experience with secular governments, almost a century ago, with Ataturk in Turkey and the Pahlavi family in Iran, was not good. They were far too repressive, and in fact, Muslim extremism is in part a product of that repression. (From the little I've read on the subject.) But I think we all share the same hope.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2015 16:26:09 GMT -5
Those are all questions I ask too. I think most of it is fear. What we fear we demonize. When we see these things happening the typical knee jerk reaction seems to be 'get rid of them'. I don't know how many times I've heard in the last year 'why don't we just drop a few bombs on the Middle East and just get rid of them all'? It reminds me of the Crusades when the Pope ordered all the 'heretics' to be killed. When asked how to tell them apart, the Catholics from the heretics, in the small towns in Southern France they were raiding and killing, he said if a few Catholics die they will understand that dying for their faith is an honor. Not quite those words, but that was the gist of the response. Just kill them and if you get a few of ours, oh well, it's for a good cause. I hate this mentality because it dehumanizes everyone. One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. The early church didn't show much value for life at all. Between the inquisition, Crusades and witch hunts, that was pretty evident. Modern day version imo is their not allowing birth control or condom use when AIDS is an issue. Telling that condoms don't prevent aids was pretty low ball too.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 20, 2015 16:27:37 GMT -5
Plenty of Muslims around the world are protesting against Charlie. Muslims who attended the Je suis Charlie march do not support Charlie's cartoons they were protesting against terrorism. Muslims do not support cartoons of Mohammad.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 17:01:57 GMT -5
Plenty of Muslims around the world are protesting against Charlie. Muslims who attended the Je suis Charlie march do not support Charlie's cartoons they were protesting against terrorism. Muslims do not support cartoons of Mohammad. True. I think most of the "I am Charlie" support was about the right to freedom of expression - not support for Mohammed cartoons. What has been made clear is that violence will result in more Mohammed cartoons - not less.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 19:37:47 GMT -5
One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. The evolution of Western civilisation from Christian to Secular gives me hope that the Islamic world might get there eventually. It's not looking good right now in the Islamic world for separation of church and state though. I'm thinking it's looking better all the time. It will probably have to get worse before it gets better, because they have a few dictatorships to topple. And right now it doesn't seem that the US is any good at replacing dictatorships.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 19:41:39 GMT -5
One of the church fathers went so far as to say that there was no problem with mistakenly killing innocent people -- God was righteous to recognize the faithful on judgment day. So much for the value of life. I had not heard that one before, although certainly St. Augustine concluded based on his experience with heretics in northern Africa that the violence perpetrated on them was acceptable, even though many of them died, because life in the here-after won for the vanquished was worth the price of the lives of the rest. This, as xna pointed out above, is the same logic some Muslims use to justify thinking apostates better off dead. Well, it's the logic of an awful lot of unenlightened Christians as well. Thankfully those people are running this democracy yet.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 19:55:33 GMT -5
The evolution of Western civilisation from Christian to Secular gives me hope that the Islamic world might get there eventually. It's not looking good right now in the Islamic world for separation of church and state though. The early experience with secular governments, almost a century ago, with Ataturk in Turkey and the Pahlavi family in Iran, was not good. They were far too repressive, and in fact, Muslim extremism is in part a product of that repression. (From the little I've read on the subject.) But I think we all share the same hope. I've not studied Ataturk. But Pahlavi never ran anything resembling a democracy? At the very best it was a dictatorial oligarchy puppet government for Western oil interests. All those governments throughout the Middle East are the real reason there is so much unrest in the region today. The common people have two major struggles on their hands, (1) getting rid of their dictatorships, and (2) getting rid of foreign ownership of their resources. Right now there is more hope for the people in the countries with unrest than there is for the common people in Saudi Arabia. They have the epitome of a dictatorial government, which has the full support of the US government -- and an exemplary peaceful façade.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 19:56:42 GMT -5
Plenty of Muslims around the world are protesting against Charlie. Muslims who attended the Je suis Charlie march do not support Charlie's cartoons they were protesting against terrorism. Muslims do not support cartoons of Mohammad. True. I think most of the "I am Charlie" support was about the right to freedom of expression - not support for Mohammed cartoons. What has been made clear is that violence will result in more Mohammed cartoons - not less. Are you advocating allowing the terrorists to win?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 20:03:06 GMT -5
The early experience with secular governments, almost a century ago, with Ataturk in Turkey and the Pahlavi family in Iran, was not good. They were far too repressive, and in fact, Muslim extremism is in part a product of that repression. (From the little I've read on the subject.) But I think we all share the same hope. I've not studied Ataturk. But Pahlavi never ran anything resembling a democracy? At the very best it was a dictatorial oligarchy puppet government for Western oil interests. All those governments throughout the Middle East are the real reason there is so much unrest in the region today. The common people have two major struggles on their hands, (1) getting rid of their dictatorships, and (2) getting rid of foreign ownership of their resources. Right now there is more hope for the people in the countries with unrest than there is for the common people in Saudi Arabia. They have the epitome of a dictatorial government, which has the full support of the US government -- and an exemplary peaceful façade. Sure, but it was a 'secular' regime.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 20:07:14 GMT -5
I've not studied Ataturk. But Pahlavi never ran anything resembling a democracy? At the very best it was a dictatorial oligarchy puppet government for Western oil interests. All those governments throughout the Middle East are the real reason there is so much unrest in the region today. The common people have two major struggles on their hands, (1) getting rid of their dictatorships, and (2) getting rid of foreign ownership of their resources. Right now there is more hope for the people in the countries with unrest than there is for the common people in Saudi Arabia. They have the epitome of a dictatorial government, which has the full support of the US government -- and an exemplary peaceful façade. Sure, but it was a 'secular' regime. Most dictatorships ARE secular. Secular isn't the sacred word -- it's "democracy".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 20:11:56 GMT -5
True. I think most of the "I am Charlie" support was about the right to freedom of expression - not support for Mohammed cartoons. What has been made clear is that violence will result in more Mohammed cartoons - not less. Are you advocating allowing the terrorists to win? Shutting Charlie Ebdo down would allow the terrorists to win through their violence. I think that would be a mistake. Millions of others think so too, which is why they support "I am Charlie" and buy the magazine.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 20:21:32 GMT -5
The early experience with secular governments, almost a century ago, with Ataturk in Turkey and the Pahlavi family in Iran, was not good. They were far too repressive, and in fact, Muslim extremism is in part a product of that repression. (From the little I've read on the subject.) But I think we all share the same hope. I've not studied Ataturk. But Pahlavi never ran anything resembling a democracy? At the very best it was a dictatorial oligarchy puppet government for Western oil interests. All those governments throughout the Middle East are the real reason there is so much unrest in the region today. The common people have two major struggles on their hands, (1) getting rid of their dictatorships, and (2) getting rid of foreign ownership of their resources. Right now there is more hope for the people in the countries with unrest than there is for the common people in Saudi Arabia. They have the epitome of a dictatorial government, which has the full support of the US government -- and an exemplary peaceful façade. Unfortunately large numbers of Muslims regard the West as their enemy. If "the common people" did manage to elect democratic governments, those governments might be more belligerent than the dictatorial governments they replace. What is needed is an Islamic awakening, an enlightenment that would lead them out of the dark religious hole they are currently digging for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 20, 2015 21:22:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 20, 2015 21:36:00 GMT -5
Sure, but it was a 'secular' regime. Most dictatorships ARE secular. Secular isn't the sacred word -- it's "democracy". That may well be, but the point raised by 'fixit' is the transition from religious to secular. In that regard Turkey and Iran took steps toward modernity almost a century ago, and repressed the religious influence of their past. The effect was to create a more radical or extremist form of Islam in those countries, which is actually a more recent phenomena; it has not always been thus. Many people do not know that burkhas were not common in those two countries 5 or 6 decades ago, for example, although it must be added that women were not allowed to wear the burkha by law.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2015 22:24:07 GMT -5
I've not studied Ataturk. But Pahlavi never ran anything resembling a democracy? At the very best it was a dictatorial oligarchy puppet government for Western oil interests. All those governments throughout the Middle East are the real reason there is so much unrest in the region today. The common people have two major struggles on their hands, (1) getting rid of their dictatorships, and (2) getting rid of foreign ownership of their resources. Right now there is more hope for the people in the countries with unrest than there is for the common people in Saudi Arabia. They have the epitome of a dictatorial government, which has the full support of the US government -- and an exemplary peaceful façade. Unfortunately large numbers of Muslims regard the West as their enemy. If "the common people" did manage to elect democratic governments, those governments might be more belligerent than the dictatorial governments they replace. What is needed is an Islamic awakening, an enlightenment that would lead them out of the dark religious hole they are currently digging for themselves. You don't think much of Muslim people, do you>
|
|