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

[firedragon]

If they aren't using them, those such as the "Sword Verse," how could I have mentioned them?

This is how you could have mentioned these so-called "Sword Verses".

1. Google them.
2. Copy-paste.
3. Assume "This is what they would have quoted".

Peace.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is how you could have mentioned these so-called "Sword Verses".

I did mention them, and quoted both if I remember correctly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you cant provide evidence to this you have made a bogus claim.

I have provided evidence, I have linked to it, I have furnished additional information, I'm not playing your game if all you want to to do is split hairs and pretend I've provided nothing. You do know who Bagdhadi was, don't you? You know what Wahabbi is? Or what "Boko Haram" actually means? How much do you know of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda? Hezbollah? What if Bin Ladens calls to Jihad against America and the West? Did you miss hearing about all that?

 

[Shad]

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

You are forgetting religion is a personal worldview of an individual. Depending on the blasphemy an attack upon religion becomes an attack on the individual as the individual believes in said religion. If I call a religion stupid this reflects upon the individuals that believe as stupid, gullible, ignorant, etc. Toss in a lot of people find self-worth in religion also means you attack the value perception of those individuals. Ergo Charlie Hebdo and Innocence of Muslim reactionary attacks.

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

Being offended is a crime to many. This is not unique to religion.

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

See the above

 

[Polymath257]

You are forgetting religion is a personal worldview of an individual. Depending on the blasphemy an attack upon religion becomes an attack on the individual as the individual believes in said religion. If I call a religion stupid this reflects upon the individuals that believe as stupid, gullible, ignorant, etc. Toss in a lot of people find self-worth in religion also means you attack the value perception of those individuals. Ergo Charlie Hebdo and Innocence of Muslim reactionary attacks.

I strongly disagree. People try to say the same thing about nationality, but I find it to be just as wrong in that case.

If we cannot criticize religion, if we cannot point out its flaws (as well as its strengths), then we simply do not live in a free society. those who struck out against Charlie Hebdo were criminals, pure and simple. They were striking at a basic freedom.

Being offended is a crime to many. This is not unique to religion.

See the above

Being offended should not be a crime. It is impolite, and anti-social in some cases, but it should not be against the law. Sticks and stones break bones, but names don't. There is a significant and real difference.

Now, if you go further and deny loans based on your biases, or deny legal opportunities, or otherwise deny civil rights, then there may be a crime. But simply being rude should not be. And, at most, blasphemy is rude. Often it is justified criticism that the religious authorities simply want to stop. In that case, it should be encouraged.

 

[Shad]

I strongly disagree. People try to say the same thing about nationality, but I find it to be just as wrong in that case.

Nationality isn't a religion. Other people making such a mistake is not my problem. Religion claims a truth which people believe. If you **** on a claimed truth you also **** on the believer.

If we cannot criticize religion, if we cannot point out its flaws (as well as its strengths), then we simply do not live in a free society. those who struck out against Charlie Hebdo were criminals, pure and simple. They were striking at a basic freedom.

They were reacting to views about their religion which was my point. Those people can not tolerate anything that goes against their religious narratives. Ergo it is personal

Being offended should not be a crime. It is impolite, and anti-social in some cases, but it should not be against the law. Sticks and stones break bones, but names don't. There is a significant and real difference.

Sure. My point is people are unable to accept that as they are indoctrinated.

Now, if you go further and deny loans based on your biases, or deny legal opportunities, or otherwise deny civil rights, then there may be a crime. But simply being rude should not be.

Sure. Again there are people that can not accept anything that goes against their religious narratives.

And, at most, blasphemy is rude.

Due to perception from the believer.

Often it is justified criticism that the religious authorities simply want to stop. In that case, it should be encouraged.

It is about power.

 

[firedragon]

I have provided evidence, I have linked to it, I have furnished additional information, I'm not playing your game if all you want to to do is split hairs and pretend I've provided nothing. You do know who Bagdhadi was, don't you? You know what Wahabbi is? Or what "Boko Haram" actually means? How much do you know of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda? Hezbollah? What if Bin Ladens calls to Jihad against America and the West? Did you miss hearing about all that?

nope. You have not provided evidence.

ciao.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

nope. You have not provided evidence.

ciao.

It's there, no matter how much you wish and pretend otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

Nationality isn't a religion. Other people making such a mistake is not my problem. Religion claims a truth which people believe. If you **** on a claimed truth you also **** on the believer.

Again, I strongly disagree. If we can't criticize religion, or even ridicule it, then we don't live in a free society.

If people are that bothered by it then theyneed to get a thicker skin.

And yes, for some people nationalism is a type of religion.

They were reacting to views about their religion which was my point. Those people can not tolerate anything that goes against their religious narratives. Ergo it is personal

They were *criminally* acting in response to critiques of their views. These people need to realize they don't get to determine what others think or say. They need to *start* tolerating stuff that goes against their views. Otherwise, they *are* criminals.

Sure. My point is people are unable to accept that as they are indoctrinated.

Too bad. they cannot act out on it by *killing other people*. if they do, they are intolerant murderous criminals.

Sure. Again there are people that can not accept anything that goes against their religious narratives.

And if they hurt someone else, they need to be prosecuted and jailed.

Due to perception from the believer.

It is about power.

Yes, the power to lock up intolerant, murderous criminals.

 

[Audie]

Blasphemy! Just gotta love that word.

Tell me, is it not blaspheming every other non-Christian religion in history to say "Jesus is God?" So every time a Christian asserts a central article of his faith, he's a blasphemer to somebody else.

What blasphemy really means is "you say something that I don't agree with about religion, and I have enough power to punish you for it." And that's all it means.

Blasphemy.

A word to be spluttered by an outraged old
man shaknng his jowels.

 

[Shad]

Again, I strongly disagree. If we can't criticize religion, or even ridicule it, then we don't live in a free society.

You misread me. I am not advocating restricting free speech or criticism of religions. I am pointing out a culture clash which is revitalizing values crushed in France centuries ago via immigration.

If people are that bothered by it then theyneed to get a thicker skin.

Which is a personal issue as I was saying. An attack upon the religion also reflects upon the believer.

And yes, for some people nationalism is a type of religion.

That is politics not merely nationalism.

They were *criminally* acting in response to critiques of their views. These people need to realize they don't get to determine what others think or say. They need to *start* tolerating stuff that goes against their views. Otherwise, they *are* criminals.

At the core that is due to religious supremacy and indoctrination



I cut out the rest of the comment as those follow the same misreading. Again I am pointing out a culture clash. I follow an idea of free speech based on America not Europe.

 

[Polymath257]

I cut out the rest of the comment as those follow the same misreading. Again I am pointing out a culture clash. I follow an idea of free speech based on America not Europe.

I don't think it *is* a misreading. I understand that there is a culture clash. And part of the clash has to do with how some cultures promote a notion of 'honor' that is fundamentally repugnant to a free society. Not all people in that culture adopt it to that level, but some do. And those who do may be inspired to go out and kill others. At that point they have committed a crime.

I also agree with the American view of freedom of speech and of religion. But those who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre would be considered criminals on both sides of the pond. They were intolerant, murderous, thugs and nothing less. I have zero concern for their feeling upset by what they consider to be blasphemy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blasphemy.

A word to be spluttered by an outraged old
man shaknng his jowels.

You called?

I love the word, "blasphemy".
It rolls off the tongue with a musical ease.
I even wrote a poem about it once.
(It's not the easiest for rhyming.)

Btw, I looked for a gif of an old man's shaking jowls.
Couldn't find one. But I did find this Shake Weight pic...

 

[Audie]

You called?

I love the word, "blasphemy".
It rolls off the tongue with a musical ease.
I even wrote a poem about it once.
(It's not the easiest for rhyming.)

What are some of your rhyming words?

 

[Revoltingest]

What are some of your rhyming words?

"Blasphemy" & "last for me" are among the few.

 

[Audie]

"Blasphemy" & "last for me" are among the few.

pooey, a false rhymee

 

[Revoltingest]

pooey, a false rhymee

Near rhymes often strike me as the best.
There are greater opportunities with less constraint.
And minor differences look less rigid, forced, & over-designed.

 

[Audie]

Near rhymes often strike me as the best.
There are greater opportunities with less constraint.
And minor differences look less rigid, forced, & over-designed.

You may be a Dylan fan.

How about some more rhymes, lets get new poem going

 

[Revoltingest]

You may be a Dylan fan.

I'd rather be subjected to Chinese opera....or cats fighting.

How about some more rhymes, lets get new poem going

This was a post for a friend (now absent) on RF.
Near rhymes worked best for me in this one.

There once was a fellow, Titanic.
His underwear smelled most Satanic.
He gave the excuse
for odor profuse...
"At least it's completely organic!"

 

[Shad]

I don't think it *is* a misreading.

No it is a misreading via "Again, I strongly disagree. If we can't criticize religion, or even ridicule it, then we don't live in a free society." I never advocated for restricting speech nor withholding criticism of religion. I slam religion here all the time. Just a while ago I posted about the sexism in Islam much to the delight of one user. A few months ago I ran one Muslim poster off when he had to argue females are inferior in mathematics and couldn't do math during their cycle all because one verse must be true.

I understand that there is a culture clash. And part of the clash has to do with how some cultures promote a notion of 'honor' that is fundamentally repugnant to a free society. Not all people in that culture adopt it to that level, but some do. And those who do may be inspired to go out and kill others. At that point they have committed a crime.

Sure. However in many free societies those freedoms only exist because the majority agrees. If that majority changes those freedoms can change as well.

I also agree with the American view of freedom of speech and of religion. But those who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre would be considered criminals on both sides of the pond.

I am talking about the rational for those acts and the intolerance of differing views to a point of violence.

They were intolerant, murderous, thugs and nothing less. I have zero concern for their feeling upset by what they consider to be blasphemy.

Agreed.