Yesterday afternoon a history teacher was murdered - decapitated with a kitchen knife - by a Muslim maniac. His 'crime' was to teach part of the French national curriculum about freedom of speech using the Charlie Hedbo cartoons showing images of Mohammed that caused the mass shootings a few years ago as an example.
Muslims in the class were warned in advanced and told that they could leave if they had a religious objection. All but one did. That one went home and told his parents. And then this happened.
I find it hard to maintain a liberal attitude throughout all this. I have thoughts that I would regard as racist in others. Somehow we've allowed these primitive, alien and evil beliefs to exist inside 'our' own culture and been frightened to voice our opposition to them, allowing 'diversity' to prosper. It's sickening and it threatens our democracies by corrupting our view of difference and tolerance of others. We mustn't allow this.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I find it hard to maintain a liberal attitude throughout all this. I have thoughts that I would regard as racist in others.
Ok. You're feeling abhorred, mad and vengeful. You're human.
Somehow we've allowed these primitive, alien and evil beliefs to exist inside 'our' own culture and been frightened to voice our opposition to them, allowing 'diversity' to prosper.
Yeah! And they're so different, too.
But in this case just WHO is trying to excuse this crap as a prospering of diversity?
Or is it the community that spawns the extremists that is being objected to?
There's nothing wrong with different so long as it's not the kind of different that thinks it's ok - even required - to murder people.
But in this case just WHO is trying to excuse this crap as a prospering of diversity? Or is it the community that spawns the extremists that is being objected to?
It's the West's culture of tolerance of extreme difference that has allowed a communities of difference to grow inside it unchallenged and protected. There's been a fear in our institutions to confront really obnoxious practices imported from less developed societies that allowed some of those practices to continue here. Honour killings, repression of women, white girl rape, female circumcision, Shariah law, illegal religious schools. We really should have not turned a blind eye to practices that we would normally abhor just because they're 'cultural'.
Now all that could sound like a racist rant but it doesn't come from that place. Over the last 20 years or so I think we're beginning to understand that we can't let septic differences grow and the decent majorities within those cultures may be - may be - turning against them too but some of these beliefs are deeply ingrained.
In the latest Charley Hebdo killing all but one of the Muslims in the class being taught about free speech left the class because of their religious objections to it. The one that stayed went home, told her parents and her parents tweeted their outrage leading to a minor twitter storm amongst other Muslims and then the avenging angel arrives with his kitchen knife to put things right for God. All that is really difficult to accept. Not just the murder but the general outrage within the Muslim community against a fundamental facet of the host culture.
If whole communities disagree with the fundamental founding beliefs of the country they wish to live in, how can they exist comfortably within it? I used to believe in multiculturalism, but that was before it became clear what it actually really meant.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I find it hard to maintain a liberal attitude throughout all this. I have thoughts that I would regard as racist in others. Somehow we've allowed these primitive, alien and evil beliefs to exist inside 'our' own culture and been frightened to voice our opposition to them, allowing 'diversity' to prosper. It's sickening and it threatens our democracies by corrupting our view of difference and tolerance of others. We mustn't allow this.
There is a fundamental rift in what it means to espouse liberal policies. This inner conflict you seem to be feeling, although well-intentioned, is misguided. There is nothing liberal about defending people who want to saw your head off for free speech. Free speech is a liberal principle (excuse me, used to be), not defending diversity for the sake of diversities sake at the risk of being inclusive to a belief system that emphatically hate your diversity, hate your liberal ideas, and are willing to kill you over it.
You're goddamn right that cannot be tolerated.
This rift in liberal ideology was beginning to blossom at the time the clip below was aired, but now Ben Affleck is becoming more representative of the "Left" than champions of real liberalism, Bill Maher and Sam Harris.
Do you think if Sam was being critical of Christianity, which he often is as an atheist, that Ben would have been incensed the way he was? No, because Ben is of the New Left -- the religion of the Woke Left. In this camp, to be liberal means to be intolerant towards anything that remotely resembles Western Civilization, while being tolerant to literally anything outside of that... up to and including defending a religion that doesn't defend you, at best, and one that wants to eradicate any notion of your belief system.
In the brave new world of the Woke Left, its not at all uncommon to see white agitators attacking a black man because the black man is racist against black people. You can't make this shit up... And these are the people that swear they occupy the moral high ground... There is nothing liberal about this. What a spectacular descent from the Hippies of the 1960's to now. Absolutely disgusting and reprehensible behavior
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
After reading your opening post, I went on a bit of an internet surf to try and understand the story(stories) from France in context. I found an opinion piece from an earlier story where a teenage girl was ostracized and criticized for her own denunciation of Islam.
quote:#JeSuisMilaa simple hashtag that seems to divide France into two main camps: those who are Mila and those who aren’t. Mila is a French teenager, who expressed her views on religion by posting several small videos on Instagram. Once the videos posted, she got a lot of death threats and was targeted by hate speech.
Here is what she says in the video: I hate religionsIslam is just shitthere is hate in itI say what I thinkYour religion is just shitone can not be racist towards a religion.
In France, as in all over Europe, neither hate speech nor death threats are allowed. Nobody has the right to spread hate speech and death threats and therefore Mila is clearly a victim. Any single person who targeted Mila has to be judged and condemned. A lot of people started using the #JeSuisMila (=ImMila) hashtag to support Mila. But a different hashtag has emerged from the social media, which is #JeNeSuisPasMila (=#ImNotMila). These are two very different standpoints and a lot of politicians and public figures expressed their views on the subject. Some support Mila, some don’t.
#JeSuisMila is a hashtag inspired from a different and very important hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, which was used to support the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo after the Paris terrorist attacks that happened on 7 January 2015. People, using the Je suis Charlie expression, support the freedom of expression and the idea that blasphemy is a right, which means that we can say whatever we want against religions. Everybody has the right to satirize religions, a right which is balanced by defamation laws. This right’s existence has a political importance: it helps to neutralize powers, like organized religions, from interfering with individual liberties. Also, the right to blasphemy protects the freedom of expression.
So, it is now clear why people use the #JeSuisChalie and #JeSuisMila expressions: they support and protect the freedom of expression. Does this mean that those who refuse to use the #JeSuisChalie or #JeSuisMila expressions are necessarily supporting terrorism or death threats? The answer is NO, because there are many people who refuse to use these expressions simply because they think that just like Mila or Chalie Hebdo have the right to satirize or criticize religions, Muslims and their supporters have the right to dislike it or to feel hurt by those satirical pictures or harsh criticism.
This means that people, who refuse to use the #JeSuisMila hashtag, prefer some people’s feelings to some others’ rights. The problem is that there isn’t any political or social justification in opposing fundamental liberties, like the right to blasphemy, to basic feelings, like feeling hurt because of someone else’s opinions, because fundamental liberties guarantee the freedoms of individuals representing both camps, while basic feelings guarantee nothing. Moreover, criticizing a religion and criticizing individuals are two different things. How can one be hurt if he/she is not even criticized? What is criticized is a religion and religions are not persons. It is impossible to hurt or to insult a religion.
To conclude, in terms of the protection of fundamental rights there isn’t any valid reason to refuse #JeSuisCharlie and #JeSuisMila expressions. Moreover, using them, means protecting fundamental liberties that belong to everyone, including those who feel hurt.
. In summation, the parts of this commentary that struck me as relevant I underlined.
Tangle writes:
There's nothing wrong with different so long as it's not the kind of different that thinks it's ok - even required - to murder people.
And of course I fully agree. In extreme beliefs, religious figures such as Muhammad or Jesus Christ are believed to be actual living people and thus it is not the religious beliefs being criticized so much as it is personal. Now...for the record, I would NOT get that offended if anyone ridiculed or criticized Jesus. He is quite capable of taking care of Himself.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe. - Criss Jami, Killosophy
The problem with the Left is that they believe in mandating morality and eventually want to forcefully limit the expressiolns of religion.(even if it can be argued that bad ideas flow from religions) I reject that typoe of thinking because i believe that the secular Lefts emphasis on evidence-based thinking, humanistic principles, and freedom from religious expression is itself no better solution and is at its core just as evil. Humans are in a spiritual war whether they believe it or not. Its that absolute.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe. - Criss Jami, Killosophy
If whole communities disagree with the fundamental founding beliefs of the country they wish to live in, how can they exist comfortably within it? I used to believe in multiculturalism, but that was before it became clear what it actually really meant.
There's nothing inherently wrong with multiculturalism. For the most part some of the greatest nations on earth, yours included, have had tremendous success with multiculturalism.
More homogenous nations, like Russia or Japan, have always had some great successes being homogenized.
But both have pro's and con's. Japan has a shocking lack of criminality in their culture, most likely because in their homogenized society there is a cultural pressure to conform. There is a strong social stigma attached to criminality. But their weakness in this regard is their inability to compete in a market of diversity. England, the US, Australia, etc are able to import brilliant minds from a panoply of cultures. Their inclusion makes us, 1. infinitely more interesting as a nation and 2. able to meet challenges that homogenized nations have difficulty competing with
But there is a trade off.... America and Britain's openness, although one of their greatest strengths, is also paradoxically one of their Achilles Heel. If your sub-communities are so large, then there is no incentive to assimilate within the greater culture. There are so many Muslims in England right now that there are large pockets of have intentionally segregated themselves into insular communities -- building up their hatreds and animosities piece by piece.
They also happen to not be very quiet in flatly shouting their long-term plan -- outbreeding you from existence and forever changing the landscape of the United Kingdom. The UK, being a very tolerant society, has rightly wanted to be inclusive and to shun racism. Obviously that is a wonderful ideal, but they have gone so far that to be thought of or labeled as a racist, somehow presents a greater internal danger than actual racist or religiously intolerant people from using that to their advantage.
The only way out of this is by pushing back. Stop being so goddamn afraid of people branding you as a racist. Its a cheap, shitty tactic... If you are in someone else's house and don't have the fucking courtesy to play by their rules; rules infinitely better than the shit holes you fled from, then expect to be sent back.
I wouldn't have the balls to go into Pakistan, start throwing my weight around, and demand that Pakistani's kowtow to my demands... and if inversely you have the balls to do that in our nation, then you don't get to live here. I don't give a fuck if you think its "racist." We both know it isn't. If it were racist you would have never been afforded the opportunity to be here to begin with. So show some fucking respect
Conform or leave. End of discussion. Cuz there are MILLIONS of foreigners who assimilate just fine and contribute wonderfully to our societies. If you can't do that then you can't be here.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
The glaring problem of course is that many are UK or US (etc) nationals having been born here or become citizens. They can't be sent home because they are home and they can't be forced to leave.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
The glaring problem of course is that many are UK or US (etc) nationals having been born here or become citizens. They can't be sent home because they are home and they can't be forced to leave.
You're right, good point, then expect heavy sentencing.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
If they break a law, they should be treated the same as anyone.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
The problem with the Left is that they believe in mandating morality...
Wrong.
Phat writes:
... and eventually want to forcefully limit the expressiolns of religion.
Wrong.
Phat writes:
... i believe that the secular Lefts emphasis on evidence-based thinking, humanistic principles, and freedom from religious expression is itself no better solution and is at its core just as evil.
The results prove you wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the system has its flaws but it's the best system we have.
Phat writes:
Humans are in a spiritual war whether they believe it or not.
There may be a psychological war in your own mind.
"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
I have thoughts that I would regard as racist in others.
It is worth remembering that Islam is a religion, not a race.
Somehow we've allowed these primitive, alien and evil beliefs to exist inside 'our' own culture and been frightened to voice our opposition to them, allowing 'diversity' to prosper. It's sickening and it threatens our democracies by corrupting our view of difference and tolerance of others. We mustn't allow this.
How do we balance freedom of religion while protecting the citizenry? That's a tough one, and always has been. The early liberal philosophers (e.g. Locke, Rousseau) spoke about the struggle between human rights and security, so this isn't a new thing.
Do we go beyond punishing actions and legislate against a religion? I don't think that would work, in the US or in the UK. I wish there was an easy answer, but I don't think there is.
The problem with the Left is that they believe in mandating morality and eventually want to forcefully limit the expressiolns of religion.
The evangelical persecution complex is alive and well:
quote:Persecution has an allure for many evangelicals. In the Bible, Christians are promised by Saint Paul that they will suffer for Christ, if they love Him (Second Timothy 3:12). But especially in contemporary America, it is not clear what shape that suffering will take. Narratives of political, cultural, and theological oppression are popular in evangelical communities, but these are sometimes fiction or deeply exaggerated non-fictionand only rarely accurate. This is problematic: If evangelicals want to have a persuasive voice in a pluralist society, a voice that can defend Christians from serious persecution, then we must be able to discern accurately when we are truly victims of oppressionand when this victimization is only imagined. The Evangelical Persecution Complex - The Atlantic
I reject that typoe of thinking because i believe that the secular Lefts emphasis on evidence-based thinking, humanistic principles, and freedom from religious expression is itself no better solution and is at its core just as evil.
I guess you forgot that freedom of religious expression is one of the cornerstones of humanistic principles.
™ Version 4.2
