|
Post by What Hat on Jan 18, 2015 20:08:16 GMT -5
Before I begin this post I in no way endorse or approve of the killings of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Let's not even go there, please. I want to talk about something else related to the issue of sacrilege. A few of my Christian friends have expressed the idea that Muslims have no right to be upset at cartoons or caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. I think this is an absurd double standard. I wonder if they are okay with the following cover from Charlie Hebdo. It is a very offensive picture of Jesus. I was going to embed the image here but thought better of it. I do think it is important that people understand the nature of the publication, Charlie Hebdo. pbs.twimg.com/media/B7SjMLdCUAAWiXl.jpg:largeMy fear is that we, as a society, are losing all respect for religion and for people's beliefs. Nothing is sacred anymore. Here in Canada, the Globe and Mail will not publish the Mohammed cover of Charlie Hebdo and are being castigated for it by their readers. IMO, there is no difference between the cover above and the Mohammed cover. That is, there is no objective criteria for deciding what is offensive and what is not. If an entire religion is offended by a thing, then I believe it's only respectful to take account of whatever that "thing" is. It wasn't that long ago, that motion pictures would not physically portray Jesus as this was considered sacrilegious. If you remember the movie 'Ben Hur', Jesus is only shown from behind in silhouette. There have been respectful portrayals of Jesus in movies since, but we're not so very far from Muslims request to not portray Mohammed in pictures. I think we should continue to honour that request. There is the question of 'free speech'. That simply means that it's not against the law in our country to portray Jesus or Mohammed however you wish. But there are many things a given news agency will not say or picture for the sake of being respectful or courteous to their readers. In a multi-cultural country why not honour the cultural sensibilities of the reader, as long as news coverage itself is not impeded. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 18, 2015 20:22:15 GMT -5
1. Free speech should be protected but with some limits ie yelling fire in a theater, inciting to cause violence, etc 2. No thought crimes allowed. All ideas including religious ones should be subject to review and investigation. 3. No one has the right to NOT be offended.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 18, 2015 20:31:58 GMT -5
1. Free speech should be protected but with some limits ie yelling fire in a theater, inciting to cause violence, etc 2. No thought crimes allowed. All ideas including religious ones should be subject to review and investigation. 3. No one has the right to NOT be offended. My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. BTW, I don't understand point 3.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 18, 2015 20:40:47 GMT -5
The other day a Canadian Muslim put up , what could be considered anti-Semite remarks ," jokes" about the Holocaust etc. Complaints and investigation to see if he could be charged etc,., and his defense was that this is what Hebdo is being supported for- free speech. Seems like the saying "don't spit into other people's souls" is still good advice. alvin
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 18, 2015 20:41:38 GMT -5
1. Free speech should be protected but with some limits ie yelling fire in a theater, inciting to cause violence, etc 2. No thought crimes allowed. All ideas including religious ones should be subject to review and investigation. 3. No one has the right to NOT be offended. My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. BTW, I don't understand point 3. I suspect the main reason the media would not publish something that would otherwise be newsworthy, would be the impact on their bottom line. #3. Not sure how else to say that one. You can't please everyone. Consider; what's sacaret to one, may offend another.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 18, 2015 21:42:19 GMT -5
Why is religion out of bounds when it comes to freedom of expression? There is a lot of stuff out there that is offensive to many different groups. But you don't see them coming in and killing because of it. If freedom of speech and expression is being restricted only for certain religions is this right? What makes their beliefs, feelings etc. any more important than all the other groups that have been offended? I think we set a dangerous precedent if we make certain groups special. I would personally prefer that there was nothing offensive said and expressed about any group, but that isn't the case, so I don't see that some groups should be exempt. Religion needs to be open to criticism and questioning just like anything else. I would prefer it not be offensive material and done respectfully, but special privileges for religions doesn't seem right either.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 18, 2015 22:00:36 GMT -5
The other day a Canadian Muslim put up , what could be considered anti-Semite remarks ," jokes" about the Holocaust etc. Complaints and investigation to see if he could be charged etc,., and his defense was that this is what Hebdo is being supported for- free speech. Seems like the saying "don't spit into other people's souls" is still good advice. alvin War graves are sacred to Westerners... War Graves Desecrated in Libya
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 18, 2015 22:08:55 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think this act has started a domino effect. I wonder where it will end and if we will have learned anything.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 18, 2015 22:12:38 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think this act has started a domino effect. I wonder where it will end and if we will have learned anything. An eye for an eye makes the whole village blind.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 22:13:31 GMT -5
1. Free speech should be protected but with some limits ie yelling fire in a theater, inciting to cause violence, etc 2. No thought crimes allowed. All ideas including religious ones should be subject to review and investigation. 3. No one has the right to NOT be offended. My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. BTW, I don't understand point 3. You're kind of chasing your tail here. The only reason there is such a thing as freedom of speech is so that people can say things that others don't like. The minute one begins talking about insulting others or inciting others with your speech, you are yielding to the immature, uneducated, and violent elements of a society. If this were not the case, it would be impossible to prosecute the most serious crimes in a court of law, lest one offend the defendant' Newspapers routinely print satire -- that's what political cartoons are. But Charlie Hebdo is now a newspaper -- it's a magazine devoted to satire. People buy it to see who is getting mocked this week, and Charlie Hebdo mocks EVERYONE. Satire is a perfectly civilized way to conduct a moral revolution. It's worked many times in democracy's favor. We're coming to the point now where a lot of people who are so opposed to political correctness find it difficult to commit to the principle of freedom of speech. Accepting the consequences are the true test of our commitment to the principle.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 22:18:01 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think this act has started a domino effect. I wonder where it will end and if we will have learned anything. I think what we (or many of us) have learned is who exactly the enemy is, and who exactly we can depend upon to help us defeat the enemy. There are more Muslims on our side than there are terrorizing us. That will make the solution much easier, knowing we don't have to cleanse ourselves of ALL of them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 22:25:58 GMT -5
The other day a Canadian Muslim put up , what could be considered anti-Semite remarks ," jokes" about the Holocaust etc. Complaints and investigation to see if he could be charged etc,., and his defense was that this is what Hebdo is being supported for- free speech. Seems like the saying "don't spit into other people's souls" is still good advice. alvin War graves are sacred to Westerners... War Graves Desecrated in LibyaWe don't like it, but we have the same problem in the US -- except it's WASPs who are the perpetrators.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 22:27:43 GMT -5
The other day a Canadian Muslim put up , what could be considered anti-Semite remarks ," jokes" about the Holocaust etc. Complaints and investigation to see if he could be charged etc,., and his defense was that this is what Hebdo is being supported for- free speech. Seems like the saying "don't spit into other people's souls" is still good advice. alvin Was he charged?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 18, 2015 22:43:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 22:50:09 GMT -5
I can dig around a bit. I can't imagine him being charged, but it may have something to do with where it was displayed.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 18, 2015 22:54:01 GMT -5
I can dig around a bit. I can't imagine him being charged, but it may have something to do with where it was displayed. twitter . Still being investigated. He did turn himself in to police when he heard he was being investigated but ?? Alvin He also joked about 9/11. Not so funny now, and helps to point out whathat's concerns. Is NOTHING sacred or if we call it satire, no problem, it's just satire ?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 18, 2015 23:06:24 GMT -5
I can dig around a bit. I can't imagine him being charged, but it may have something to do with where it was displayed. twitter . Still being investigated. He did turn himself in to police when he heard he was being investigated but ?? Alvin He also joked about 9/11. Not so funny now, and helps to point out whathat's concerns. Is NOTHING sacred or if we call it satire, no problem, it's just satire ? oops, I noticed I added to post after you had put a like on it and that could well change things. I should have probably made a separate post instead of editing. sorry
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 18, 2015 23:17:14 GMT -5
twitter . Still being investigated. He did turn himself in to police when he heard he was being investigated but ?? Alvin He also joked about 9/11. Not so funny now, and helps to point out whathat's concerns. Is NOTHING sacred or if we call it satire, no problem, it's just satire ? oops, I noticed I added to post after you had put a like on it and that could well change things. I should have probably made a separate post instead of editing. sorry It sounds like he knew what he was doing. If he's not threatening anyone with anything -- I don't tweet, but it doesn't sound like anything he sent was a personal message to someone.. I wonder if he restricts his sales to beef only?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 0:37:38 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think this act has started a domino effect. I wonder where it will end and if we will have learned anything. I think what we (or many of us) have learned is who exactly the enemy is, and who exactly we can depend upon to help us defeat the enemy. There are more Muslims on our side than there are terrorizing us. That will make the solution much easier, knowing we don't have to cleanse ourselves of ALL of them. I hope you're right. The extremism we're currently seeing may result in the moderates in the Islamic world separating from the extremists. Islamists kill and terrorise more Muslims than Westerners. Islamists are trashing the Islamic world far more than they are damaging the West, so the hope is that the majority of Muslims will realise we are on their side. A big problem is the appalling state of education in the Islamic world. The Islamic world might not be fixed until there's a widespread awakening to the reality that religious extremism has done them no favours.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 0:47:57 GMT -5
My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. BTW, I don't understand point 3. I suspect the main reason the media would not publish something that would otherwise be newsworthy, would be the impact on their bottom line. #3. Not sure how else to say that one. You can't please everyone. Consider; what's sacaret to one, may offend another. I don't understand the point, but maybe other people do. But as far as "what's sacred to one, may offend another". Not really. It's not an individual matter. Unless you've been living under a rock, you should know that Muslims are offended by pictures or portraits of Mohammed. Some things cause offense. Similarly there are depictions of Jesus Christ that would be considered offensive to Christians. I'm not in favour of preventing people from being offensive. I just find it unfortunate that many people do not seem to care if they do cause offence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 0:49:49 GMT -5
Before I begin this post I in no way endorse or approve of the killings of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Let's not even go there, please. I want to talk about something else related to the issue of sacrilege. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is the question of 'free speech'. That simply means that it's not against the law in our country to portray Jesus or Mohammed however you wish. But there are many things a given news agency will not say or picture for the sake of being respectful or courteous to their readers. In a multi-cultural country why not honour the cultural sensibilities of the reader, as long as news coverage itself is not impeded. Thoughts?
The freedom of speech is always a problem in a free society where no one wants to their own favorite subject to be the butt of satire.
It is always OK for another person's belief to be is lampooned, -just not theirs.
It is precisely why satire is important.
Satire has around for a long time.
What should be considered "sacred?"
What maybe considered "sacred' by one person, may well be ridiculous & even offending to someone else .
If you start picking & choosing what political or religious ideology, who gets to sit on the panel to do the judging?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 0:59:17 GMT -5
My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. BTW, I don't understand point 3. You're kind of chasing your tail here. The only reason there is such a thing as freedom of speech is so that people can say things that others don't like. The minute one begins talking about insulting others or inciting others with your speech, you are yielding to the immature, uneducated, and violent elements of a society. If this were not the case, it would be impossible to prosecute the most serious crimes in a court of law, lest one offend the defendant' Newspapers routinely print satire -- that's what political cartoons are. But Charlie Hebdo is now a newspaper -- it's a magazine devoted to satire. People buy it to see who is getting mocked this week, and Charlie Hebdo mocks EVERYONE. Satire is a perfectly civilized way to conduct a moral revolution. It's worked many times in democracy's favor. We're coming to the point now where a lot of people who are so opposed to political correctness find it difficult to commit to the principle of freedom of speech. Accepting the consequences are the true test of our commitment to the principle. To be clear, I'm not in favour of laws that limit expression. I also don't like "human rights" councils and the like. I don't think we should legislate good taste, good manners or common sense. What does concern me though is that we are losing mutual respect and a sense of responsibility for what we say and do, collectively speaking. Your last paragraph sets up a false dichotomy although I think there's a mistake in it. Did you mean to say that people in favour of political correctness find it difficult to commit to the principle of free speech? In fact, it's quite possible to be committed to both civility and free speech. Voltaire said it best, "even though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your liberty to say it". For me that translates as follows. Charlie Hebdo should be allowed, and the killings are horrendous and a crime against the nation. At the same time, I don't like Charlie Hebdo. Never did, and the incident doesn't change that. It should be okay for me to say that, but it does not seem to be okay. It should be okay for the Globe and Mail to say they won't reprint Charlie Hebdo's content. We should be able to stand for 'free speech' without having to endorse the message that Charlie Hebdo is saying. In the same way, I believe 'Mein Kampf' should be available in bookstores even though I'm firmly against much that is in it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 1:04:53 GMT -5
I think what we (or many of us) have learned is who exactly the enemy is, and who exactly we can depend upon to help us defeat the enemy. There are more Muslims on our side than there are terrorizing us. That will make the solution much easier, knowing we don't have to cleanse ourselves of ALL of them. I hope you're right. The extremism we're currently seeing may result in the moderates in the Islamic world separating from the extremists. Islamists kill and terrorise more Muslims than Westerners. Islamists are trashing the Islamic world far more than they are damaging the West, so the hope is that the majority of Muslims will realise we are on their side. Do you seriously think Muslims haven't know this all along? They know perfectly well they're being trashed before the whole world and they also know the rest of the world thinks they are all supportive of the terrorists. What's really happening is that the rest of the world has finally decided to listen to moderate Muslims and help them in their miserable predicament. They should have done that long ago. Appalling as compared to where? Are you thinking of the Islamic State, or the Muslim World. There are lots of highly educated people in the Muslim World -- that the West hasn't recognized. Are you forgetting that they mostly live in tyrannical sectarian dictatorships -- who often supported the radicals AGAINST their own people.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 1:06:11 GMT -5
1. Free speech should be protected but with some limits ie yelling fire in a theater, inciting to cause violence, etc 2. No thought crimes allowed. All ideas including religious ones should be subject to review and investigation. 3. No one has the right to NOT be offended. My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. What if I happen to be one of the readers?
Why can't I see "images of Mohammed, or images of Jesus" just because some of the readers, perhaps even the majority, might consider them "sacrilegious?"
It is often, in fact the reason, that satire helps us see just how stupid & ridiculous some of the follies & abuses of some ideas really are!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 1:11:31 GMT -5
Before I begin this post I in no way endorse or approve of the killings of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Let's not even go there, please. I want to talk about something else related to the issue of sacrilege. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is the question of 'free speech'. That simply means that it's not against the law in our country to portray Jesus or Mohammed however you wish. But there are many things a given news agency will not say or picture for the sake of being respectful or courteous to their readers. In a multi-cultural country why not honour the cultural sensibilities of the reader, as long as news coverage itself is not impeded. Thoughts?
The freedom of speech is always a problem in a free society where no one wants to their own favorite subject to be the butt of satire.
It is always OK for another person's belief to be is lampooned, -just not theirs.
It is precisely why satire is important.
Satire has around for a long time.
What should be considered "sacred?"
What maybe considered "sacred' by one person, may well be ridiculous & even offending to someone else .
If you start picking & choosing what political or religious ideology, who gets to sit on the panel to do the judging?
There's not really any need for a panel to do any judging. Also, I cannot think of any particular or objective way of determining where the lines should be drawn in issues of decorum and civility. It's really just a matter of having some sensitivity and knowledge of the feelings and thoughts of others, and I feel that is lacking today. Context is everything. A daily newspaper serving a community needs to display much more civility than a satire rag catering to a narrow audience, or for that matter, a late night television program. I suppose what triggered my post was a) the Globe and Mail being villified for not 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. And b) Christians who are the first to cry wolf about how they are characterised in media having no empathy for the Muslim point of view. c) Atheists who think no religion should be entitled to their feelings about various sacred cows.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 1:19:15 GMT -5
My concern is not a free speech issue. Sure, we have the right to 'free speech', that is, we have extraordinary freedom not only to say what we want but to express ourselves, and the law will not punish us, and will even protect that right. But with freedom comes responsibility; we need to be aware and mature about the consequences of what we say and what we express. Thus, I think it is reasonable for a newspaper to not publish images of Mohammed, or for that matter, images of Jesus considered sacrilegious by its readers. However, my attitudes, which were common some decades ago, seem to be out of temper with the times. What if I happen to be one of the readers?
Why can't I see "images of Mohammed, or images of Jesus" just because some of the readers, perhaps even the majority, might consider them "sacrilegious?"
It is often, in fact the reason, that satire helps us see just how stupid & ridiculous some of the follies & abuses of some ideas really are!
First of all, seeing an image of Mohammed does not add to the newsworthiness of any story in the paper, and if it offends the sensibilities of a large number of readers, then it's just being respectful. I'm probably old fashioned in that respect but that's how I think we should treat each other in a multicultural society. I'll provide a similar example. A few years ago our local paper printed photos of family grieving at an accident site with a fatality. It was felt by many of the readers that this was an intrusion on the family's privacy. The paper printed an apology and made it a policy to not print such pictures in the future. There is a balance between newsworthiness and people's expectations or feelings. I do think feelings should be considered though.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 1:38:46 GMT -5
I hope you're right. The extremism we're currently seeing may result in the moderates in the Islamic world separating from the extremists. Islamists kill and terrorise more Muslims than Westerners. Islamists are trashing the Islamic world far more than they are damaging the West, so the hope is that the majority of Muslims will realise we are on their side. Do you seriously think Muslims haven't know this all along? They know perfectly well they're being trashed before the whole world and they also know the rest of the world thinks they are all supportive of the terrorists. What's really happening is that the rest of the world has finally decided to listen to moderate Muslims and help them in their miserable predicament. They should have done that long ago. Appalling as compared to where? Are you thinking of the Islamic State, or the Muslim World. There are lots of highly educated people in the Muslim World -- that the West hasn't recognized. Are you forgetting that they mostly live in tyrannical sectarian dictatorships -- who often supported the radicals AGAINST their own people. I'm sure there are highly educated Muslims, but large numbers of children are not in school or in radicalisation schools. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions for how the West could help the Islamic world going forward.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 1:52:39 GMT -5
Do you seriously think Muslims haven't know this all along? They know perfectly well they're being trashed before the whole world and they also know the rest of the world thinks they are all supportive of the terrorists. What's really happening is that the rest of the world has finally decided to listen to moderate Muslims and help them in their miserable predicament. They should have done that long ago. Appalling as compared to where? Are you thinking of the Islamic State, or the Muslim World. There are lots of highly educated people in the Muslim World -- that the West hasn't recognized. Are you forgetting that they mostly live in tyrannical sectarian dictatorships -- who often supported the radicals AGAINST their own people. I'm sure there are highly educated Muslims, but large numbers of children are not in school or in radicalisation schools. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions for how the West could help the Islamic world going forward. Treat them like fellow human beings. Will you be advising governments?
|
|