Charlie Hebdo Editorial: Really???

[Thanda]

Thanda said:

1 - Religious folks of one religion cannot interfere with another's religion
2 - Religious folks' religious practices cannot break the law of the land.

The second appears quite obvious. Would you mind explaining the first one? Just for clarification.

 

[icehorse]

Well one counter-example would be a country like Turkey, in which non-Muslims have mostly been pushed out.

The more secular the country, the more it's possible for even small religions to be protected.

 

[Thanda]

Well one counter-example would be a country like Turkey, in which non-Muslims have mostly been pushed out.

The more secular the country, the more it's possible for even small religions to be protected.

I see. Okay, in what then is are these two rules under threat in France according to CH. They seem quite basic and I cannot see how any of the examples they used, besides the terrorists, threaten secularism of France.

 

[leibowde84]

I see. Okay, in what then is are these two rules under threat in France according to CH. They seem quite basic and I cannot see how any of the examples they used, besides the terrorists, threaten secularism of France.

It seems that the only way secularism works is if, legally, every subject is fair game for ridicule. I mean, legally speaking, if someone eggs someone on my insulting their mom, whoever throws the first punch will be seen as the aggressor. Culture will probably sort this out over time, as the world is becoming more accepting. So, those who intentionally offend without reason will be ridiculed themselves.

 

[David1967]

Why would anyone read this magazine?

Good point. This magazine, at least from what I've seen, is intentionally hateful to any religion, period. I don't see the point, or any good that comes from it.

 

[leibowde84]

Good point. This magazine, at least from what I've seen, is intentionally hateful to any religion, period. I don't see the point, or any good that comes from it.

I think there is value in calling religious leaders out if the author honestly feels that they deserve ridicule.

 

[David1967]

I think there is value in calling religious leaders out if the author honestly feels that they deserve ridicule.

Sometimes yes. There are certainly those that deserve it. Just don't see the point using such a large brush of ridicule toward an entire group of people just because they don't think like them. Magazines like that ( yes I know, its satire) don't inspire friendly dialogue.

 

[leibowde84]

Sometimes yes. There are certainly those that deserve it. Just don't see the point using such a large brush of ridicule toward an entire group of people just because they don't think like them. Magazines like that ( yes I know, its satire) don't inspire friendly dialogue.

But, did they attack entire groups or did they merely attack specific leaders of said groups?

 

[David1967]

But, did they attack entire groups or did they merely attack specific leaders of said groups?

Not sure as a whole. That is why I put in parenthesis "(from what ive seen) ".

 

[leibowde84]

Not sure as a whole. That is why I put in parenthesis "(from what ive seen) ".

I've only seen them attack specific leaders and historical figures for the most part. Can you provide an example?

 

[Tiapan]

From the article being discussed

Take this veiled woman. She is an admirable woman. She is courageous and dignified, devoted to her family and her children. Why bother her? She harms no one.

I would go further and suggest it also means purity, chastity and religious piousness as well. In Saudi and other Islamic states eg Aceh all women must wear it so it is normal and everyone is happy.

However when it is not the norm such as in the west and usually only occurs within the enclaves of immigrants a danger arises especially with Islam. Teaching and learning in Islamic societies tends to be mostly wrote learned rather than being taught how to think.

So there is Black and White, Good and Bad, Haram and not Haram and not much grey which is the usual reality, but requires deeper thinking.

So when a young boy growing up in a muslim family in a western country sees his pure pious mother in her veil or more dramatically in a Birqua what must he think of women who are not veiled?

I raise this to try and work out if this, in part, is one of the causes of the disproportionate number of rapes against western women, where over 40% of rapes are committed by Islamic men yet who represent only 5% of the population in Sydney, Cologne, Sweden and Holland?

I do not deny peoples beliefs or the right to wear these traditional apparels, but it might be more neighborly to try and fit into the host country better.

"Vive Charlie"

Cheers

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Good point. This magazine, at least from what I've seen, is intentionally hateful to any religion, period. I don't see the point, or any good that comes from it.

Not just religion but also race, I've seen some horrific cartoons published by this so called magazine. It's nothing more than hate porn and should not exist in a so called civilised society.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

From the article being discussed



I would go further and suggest it also means purity, chastity and religious piousness as well. In Saudi and other Islamic states eg Aceh all women must wear it so it is normal and everyone is happy.

However when it is not the norm such as in the west and usually only occurs within the enclaves of immigrants a danger arises especially with Islam. Teaching and learning in Islamic societies tends to be mostly wrote learned rather than being taught how to think.

So there is Black and White, Good and Bad, Haram and not Haram and not much grey which is the usual reality, but requires deeper thinking.

So when a young boy growing up in a muslim family in a western country sees his pure pious mother in her veil or more dramatically in a Birqua what must he think of women who are not veiled?

I raise this to try and work out if this, in part, is one of the causes of the disproportionate number of rapes against western women, where over 40% of rapes are committed by Islamic men yet who represent only 5% of the population in Sydney, Cologne, Sweden and Holland?

I do not deny peoples beliefs or the right to wear these traditional apparels, but it might be more neighborly to try and fit into the host country better.

"Vive Charlie"

Cheers

Those statistics are just not true, especially with regards to Cologne, a lot of which was found to be fabrication and reported widely in much of the media. There's no excuse for not knowing this. But going onto some points you make, which are very important and obviously misinformed. I've emboldened what I will respond to.

In Islam, only a handful of actions, practices, things, etc etc have been labeled as haram. I think this number is a little over 70. Of the all the millions and millions of things human beings can do and take part in and speak and eat etc etc, only 70+ are actually haram. That's a minority, within a minority. Many things are regarded as "makru" meaning permissible but it's better if you stay away from such things and then there are many, many things that are permissible. Any 10 year old muslim child would know that and would not simply be thinking along the lines of "black and white" "right or wrong". This idea of fluid thinking is the central aspect of Islamic thought.

So do not use your own misinformed views to label a religion which is the opposite of what YOU think or maybe what you want.

 

[Tiapan]

Those statistics are just not true, especially with regards to Cologne, a lot of which was found to be fabrication and reported widely in much of the media. There's no excuse for not knowing this. But going onto some points you make, which are very important and obviously misinformed. I've emboldened what I will respond to.

In Islam, only a handful of actions, practices, things, etc etc have been labeled as haram. I think this number is a little over 70. Of the all the millions and millions of things human beings can do and take part in and speak and eat etc etc, only 70+ are actually haram. That's a minority, within a minority. Many things are regarded as "makru" meaning permissible but it's better if you stay away from such things and then there are many, many things that are permissible. Any 10 year old muslim child would know that and would not simply be thinking along the lines of "black and white" "right or wrong". This idea of fluid thinking is the central aspect of Islamic thought.

So do not use your own misinformed views to label a religion which is the opposite of what YOU think or maybe what you want.

Please check out "flies on meat" issue in Sydney 2006

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Please check out "flies on meat" issue in Sydney 2006

That has literally nothing to do with what I posted and neither does it prove your point.