Blasphemy ‘is no crime’, says Macron amid French girl’s anti-Islam row

[Altfish]

I hope she has a better life than Salman Rushdie. Look what happened to him.

The Rushdie affair was the opening chapter in a new unhappy book of modern history. The issues haven't gone away.

Looking back at Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses

If our government and the likes of The Archbishop of Canterbury had supported Rushdie instead of condemning him it may have turned out different

 

[HonestJoe]

‘Emmanuel Macron has waded into a row over a schoolgirl whose attack on Islam has divided France, insisting that blasphemy is “no crime”.

Did anyone suggest blasphemy should become a crime again? Surely the issue here is differentiating criticism of a religion and slandering individuals.

The reports says that she was insulted and abused (quite wrongly obviously) by a "Muslim commentator" yet it doesn't make clear whether that person was even claiming to speak on behalf of a religion, let alone whether all of their fellow Muslims would agree with and support them. Attacking all Muslims on the basis of that is no more justified than attacking all on-line commentators would be.

There are Christians and Jews who express similar extreme opinions against homosexuals but the responses rarely attack the entire religions but focus on extreme wings or sects. The key thing to remember here is that Muslims are just human beings, just as varied and just as flawed as all the rest of us.

 

[Notanumber]

If our government and the likes of The Archbishop of Canterbury had supported Rushdie instead of condemning him it may have turned out different

And just as importantly, the media.

 

[danieldemol]

Did anyone suggest blasphemy should become a crime again? Surely the issue here is differentiating criticism of a religion and slandering individuals.

The reports says that she was insulted and abused (quite wrongly obviously) by a "Muslim commentator" yet it doesn't make clear whether that person was even claiming to speak on behalf of a religion, let alone whether all of their fellow Muslims would agree with and support them. Attacking all Muslims on the basis of that is no more justified than attacking all on-line commentators would be.

There are Christians and Jews who express similar extreme opinions against homosexuals but the responses rarely attack the entire religions but focus on extreme wings or sects. The key thing to remember here is that Muslims are just human beings, just as varied and just as flawed as all the rest of us.

I’m not for attacking all Muslims and I don’t think the article is for attacking all Muslims either

 

[Notanumber]

Did anyone suggest blasphemy should become a crime again? Surely the issue here is differentiating criticism of a religion and slandering individuals.

The reports says that she was insulted and abused (quite wrongly obviously) by a "Muslim commentator" yet it doesn't make clear whether that person was even claiming to speak on behalf of a religion, let alone whether all of their fellow Muslims would agree with and support them. Attacking all Muslims on the basis of that is no more justified than attacking all on-line commentators would be.

There are Christians and Jews who express similar extreme opinions against homosexuals but the responses rarely attack the entire religions but focus on extreme wings or sects. The key thing to remember here is that Muslims are just human beings, just as varied and just as flawed as all the rest of us.

Islam is somewhat unique in its ability to whip up a frenzy at the drop of a hat.

 

[danieldemol]

Did anyone suggest blasphemy should become a crime again?

Further to answer your question, I think the people who are sending her death threats most probably consider her blasphemy a criminal act.

 

[HonestJoe]

I’m not for attacking all Muslims and I don’t think the article is for attacking all Muslims either

The article was a decent neutral reporting of the facts. The question is whether the girl was attacking all Muslims rather than those who abuse homosexuals (Muslim or not). It shouldn’t extend to a criminal act either way IMO but that doesn’t mean her reaction can’t have been poorly framed and morally wrong.

Further to answer your question, I think the people who are sending her death threats most probably consider her blasphemy a criminal act.

That kind of depends on why they’re doing it but I’d suggest generally not. There could be trolls who don’t really care either way or people trying to make Muslims look bad (and possibly homosexuals too) who wouldn’t really believe what they’re saying. There are certainly some Muslims who are serious in their desire for her to die but I’m not sure we should treat them with any kind of rational consideration.

There will be people who make rational arguments for making blasphemy a criminal act (though personally I’d strongly disagree with them) but I’m not sure this incident has much relation to them.

Islam is somewhat unique in its ability to whip up a frenzy at the drop of a hat.

In that some people are really quick to take something done by an individual who happens (or is believed) to be Muslim and instantly use that to attack Islam as a whole and by all Muslims by association? I wouldn’t say unique by any stretch of the imagination but it’s certainly very prevalent these days.

 

[England my lionheart]

‘Emmanuel Macron has waded into a row over a schoolgirl whose attack on Islam has divided France, insisting that blasphemy is “no crime”.

The French president defended the teenager, named only as Mila, who received death threats and was forced out of her school after filming an anti-religious diatribe on social media.

Macron’s intervention comes after his justice minister, Nicole Belloubet, was criticised for claiming Mila’s attack on religion was “an attack on freedom of conscience” while saying the death threats were “unacceptable”.’

Read more here: Blasphemy 'is no crime', says Macron amid French girl's anti-Islam row

Vive Macron.

 

[Notanumber]

The article was a decent neutral reporting of the facts. The question is whether the girl was attacking all Muslims rather than those who abuse homosexuals (Muslim or not). It shouldn’t extend to a criminal act either way IMO but that doesn’t mean her reaction can’t have been poorly framed and morally wrong.

That kind of depends on why they’re doing it but I’d suggest generally not. There could be trolls who don’t really care either way or people trying to make Muslims look bad (and possibly homosexuals too) who wouldn’t really believe what they’re saying. There are certainly some Muslims who are serious in their desire for her to die but I’m not sure we should treat them with any kind of rational consideration.

There will be people who make rational arguments for making blasphemy a criminal act (though personally I’d strongly disagree with them) but I’m not sure this incident has much relation to them.

In that some people are really quick to take something done by an individual who happens (or is believed) to be Muslim and instantly use that to attack Islam as a whole and by all Muslims by association? I wouldn’t say unique by any stretch of the imagination but it’s certainly very prevalent these days.

We all know what Islam teaches.

 

[firedragon]

No doubt.
But consider the irony of the name, which according to many means peace.
And yet, some of it's followers are inspired by the religion to commit violence.
Religion doesn't really rein in malefactors, who find justification for wrongdoing
in ambiguous & violence laden scripture anyway.

True. Muslims sometimes just call themselves a name but are hypocrites.

Same as those Christians who murdered William Tyndale. They called themselves Christian which means little Christ. The anointed. The one who said give your other cheek.

But what you said is that "The religion of Peace strikes again", not "Muslims who claim the religion of peace struck again".

Do you see your issue?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What did the girl actually say?

 

[Thief]

You think sexual fetishes are logical..?

...I think Britannica is wrong.

well THAT was quite the leap...…..

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, blasphemy is not an attack on Muslims. it is an attack on some deity.

Second, if it is just blasphemy, then it should not be a crime.

Third, if, instead, it was actually an attack on someone, then it could be assault, but that depends on the specifics.

Fourth, if it is simply anti-islamic bigotry, then it isn't a crime, but it *is* rude and to be condemned socially.

 

[Notanumber]

First of all, blasphemy is not an attack on Muslims. it is an attack on some deity.

Second, if it is just blasphemy, then it should not be a crime.

Third, if, instead, it was actually an attack on someone, then it could be assault, but that depends on the specifics.

Fourth, if it is simply anti-islamic bigotry, then it isn't a crime, but it *is* rude and to be condemned socially.

The problem is that the UK police have taken an overactive interest in non-crimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

But what you said is that "The religion of Peace strikes again", not "Muslims who claim the religion of peace struck again".

Do you see your issue?

The phrase is a common one, sarcastically addressing that
the religion itself does indeed inspire violence. Of course,
this is in some Muslims, but certainly not in all or even the
majority. Muslims, like Christians & other believers can be
fine people. So I allow for individual variation.

It's reasonable to think that someone issuing a death threat
to a blasphemer would be of the faith blasphemed against.
Islam not only failed to make that believer peaceful, It actually
inspired the threat of violence.

 

[firedragon]

The phrase is a common one, sarcastically addressing that
the religion itself does indeed inspire violence. Of course,
this is in some Muslims, but certainly not in all or even the
majority. Muslims, like Christians & other believers can be
fine people. So I allow for individual variation.

It's reasonable to think that someone issuing a death threat
to a blasphemer would be of the faith blasphemed against.
Islam not only failed to make that believer peaceful, It actually
inspired the threat of violence.

Wrong again.

Lets say Hindus commit some stupid and bigoted atrocity, are you gonna blame it on Hinduism?

If that is the case, you can blame a lot of things on a lot of things like atheism, fascism, marxism, humanism, genetics, ideas, blood, race, colour, etc.

Its the definition of bigotry.

Cheers.

 

[HonestJoe]

We all know what Islam teaches.

We know what Christianity and Judaism teach too. Thankfully, most followers of all three faiths are more circumspect in their day-to-day lives.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong again.

Lets say Hindus commit some stupid and bigoted atrocity, are you gonna blame it on Hinduism?

If they were motivated by their religion, then yes...I say the religion bears responsibility.

If that is the case, you can blame a lot of things on a lot of things like atheism, fascism, marxism, humanism, genetics, ideas, blood, race, colour, etc.

Its the definition of bigotry.

Cheers.

Atheism has no scripture or even any philosophical prescriptions
or proscriptions. So it calls for nothing regarding morality.

Christianity & Islam differ in that they have violence in their sacred
books. And this does indeed influence some adherents.

 

[firedragon]

If they were motivated by their religion, then yes...I say the religion bears responsibility.

Well, its the other way around and has been proven by study after study. But of course, you cannot expect honourable thinking from bigoted thinkers.

Atheism has no scripture or even any philosophical prescriptions
or proscriptions. So it calls for nothing regarding morality.

True. But one can blame atheism for an atheists crime. Thats bigotry.

Christianity & Islam differ in that they have violence in their sacred
books. And this does indeed influence some adherents.

Everything influences everyone. You must make an analysis, not make assumptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, its the other way around and has been proven by study after study. But of course, you cannot expect honourable thinking from bigoted thinkers.

Goodness gracious....someone's become angry & abusive.
If you want to discuss this with me, you'll have to regain
your equanimity, & behave yourself.