terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks.

Is it just me, or is this statement inconsistent?

yes, i would agree with you PP. If one doesn't agree, one tends to distance oneself from a situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

Amen. This is why even people like Muslima are ultimately contributing to the problem, even if they don't realize it.

No. She has a right to her own opinion and to express it, just as you have yours. The freedom to differ in opinion and express such opinion is a right that should be treasured. To suggest that no one should feel or express Charlie Hebdo published filth is censorship. Your comment ultimately brings us closer to censorship.

[Anonymous]

I've been watching this thread, and actually met a woman wearing a niqab today. I went to Costco after work and got stuck in a line where there was a price check/food stamp issue that lasted for what seemed like forever. The Muslim lady behind me was really nice. We didn't want to get out of the line and go into another really long line, because - murphy's law dictates when we do that the issue will be resolved and we will be stuck in a new crazy long line. I was a bit scared of talking to her, but when I struck up a conversation about how I always seem to get in the line that has "problems", she was super nice. It was a bit strange only seeing her eyes, and she had a small daughter also wearing a veil but we were stuck in the line for a long time so we talked a lot.

I felt weird that the things I were buying were bacon, dog treats, and alcohol, thinking she would judge me, but she was really cool. This is not a troll post. After talking to her for a while the veil didn't really make a difference, I could judge her personality from our interaction. It has made me feel differently about my previous thoughts on niquab.

I still don't really understand it, being an atheist and not liking religion very much, but it definitely bothers me a lot less after interacting with a woman who wears it.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
I think you are confusing two separate things. The free speech case involving Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt was about a cartoon. I am not surprised that the cartoon was published in law school textbooks. But, I pretty sure it was not published by the mainstream media that is now publishing anti-Muslim cartoons. But, I was actually talking about Larry Flynt getting shot, which is separate from the lawsuit. The shooter was upset because of interracial photos in the magazine. Nobody would expect the Washington Post to publish those X-rated photos to show that Larry Flynt's free expression wouldn't be infringed upon by someone with a gun. Ironically, nobody would expect the Post to publish x-rated photos because they would offend the Post's readers. But, apparently, offending Muslims is no big deal.

Also, I would distinguish between publishing the cartoons as a means of demonstrating the type of drawings published by CH and publishing the drawings as an act of solidarity. As a news item, I think a range of drawings -- not only those about Muslims -- should be shown. A full understanding of CH requires knowing how it represents Jews and Christians. Otherwise, a distorted view of the magazine would be presented. But, again, the media wouldn't want to show a cartoon captioned "Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" that illustrates the trinity with a drawing of males engaged in anal intercourse. That would offend someone other than Muslims.

Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.

Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.

As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?

Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.

And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)

Actually, some of the CH cartoons are X-Rated, they have X-Rated pictures of the Prophet (saw) that I unfortunately stumbled upon, distasteful and Very offensive, so your point is moot.

I think you are both comparing apples to oranges. Whether x rated or racist or bigoted work is published is a matter of law. In this case, US law may not be the same as French law. What is the French law on the exceptions to protected speech? Anyone know. I am assuming that CH work on Muslim figures is permissible given the fact that no Muslim has brought a case against them. However, US applies the Miller Test to determine if a work lacks protection. Obscene work is not necessarily prohibited. It is only prohibited if it meets this criteria in the Miller Test:

(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Islam does not apply the Miller Test or anything of the sort. Islam simply prohibits upon the publishing of any defamatory, derogatory, or inaccurate work by anyone and about anyone. However, death is not prescribed to those who violate this rule. If it was, the Quran would have stated that and it did not. The Sharia of many countries might state that, I am not sure, but Sharia is, remember, man made law and does not equate in value and validity with the Quran, which is supposed to be the word of God.

So are all works depicting religious figures in derogatory fashion permissible? I suppose so. But is it wise to publish them? No because I don't believe it has any real value.

[Anonymous]

^^Muslim associations --as well as catholic and Jewish ones -- have sued CH in the past. They lost.

[Anonymous]

^^ I meant, the associations lost.

[Anonymous]

French press reports shootings in the area of manhunt. Possible hostage situation.

[Anonymous]

Hostage situation confirmed in Seine-et-Marne, 45 Km from Paris.

[Anonymous]

Newspaper office in Santa Barbara vandalized for using term illegal. Graffiti: The border is illegal, not those that cross it.

The silencing!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, good point about the insults. Nobody should be insulted in a mean-spirited way. So, how about my points re the open season on Catholics and Wiccans here at DCUM? Why aren't you butthurt on behalf of DCUM's Catholics and Wiccans? You're even in a position to do something about it. (Again, I'm not Catholic or Wiccan.)

I have repeatedly asked for posters to use the "report" button to let me know about anti-Catholic posts. They almost never get reported. I have not read the Wiccan thread and there have been no messages from that thread reported. I can't do anything about posts of which I am unaware. I want to make one distinction between Islam and Catholicism. There is a Catholic Church with a structure and hierarchy and so on. I consider criticism of that institution to be fair game (unless the criticism has no basis in reality). There is not a similar institution within Islam. Therefore, criticism tends to target an amorphous "Islam" or "Muslims" which would be similar to criticizing "Catholics". All such cases are likely to raise my hackles.

If you were the one who asked about Landon, I repeatedly intervene in Landon threads. I even discovered paid sock-puppets in a Landon thread (one of my proudest moments).

You might be right about Muslims and Catholics being amorphous groups with widely varying opinions. But to the extent that Islam is based on a holy book that claims to be the very word of God, parts of Islam are every bit as unyielding and immutable as Catholic dogma. That's why, when Muslima makes broad statements about how "Islam gives equality to women" (NB, she usually says Islam, not Muslims) she gets a lot of pushback about inheritance, divorce, and other laws that are actually in the Quran. (FWIW, I and several others have read the Quran cover to cover.) Or, at least you'd be even-handed about this and call out Muslima when she makes sweeping assertions about how "Islam does this or that" instead of calling out the posters who remind her about what the Quran says. (Yes, I'm pissed not butthurt. Get it right at least.)

The last case I recall, a week or two ago, is when you intervened on a thread about the afterlife. As happens on almost every thread in that forum, there was destructive atheist who destroyed real dialogue by interrupting it with endless taunts about religion being BS, especially Catholucism beibg BS, stated various ways about 5 times on every page. So posters who knew there was no other real recourse, including myself, took to mocking her with jpegs. Your intervention took the form of removing the jpegs. So, thanks a lot, I guess!

[Anonymous]

It's religious fascism. It happens with every religion. Go practice your dumb, medieval religions. Just leave the rest of us alone.

[Anonymous]

I don't get why muslims can't just become agnostic athiests and not be so serious?

I just want to ask them all in my Joker costume, 'WHY SO SERIOUS?!?!?!?!?!"

Bill Maher is bang on right on this. The left needs to put the muslim world on blast even more than we do christians (they are silly too).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why muslims can't just become agnostic athiests and not be so serious?

I just want to ask them all in my Joker costume, 'WHY SO SERIOUS?!?!?!?!?!"

Bill Maher is bang on right on this. The left needs to put the muslim world on blast even more than we do christians (they are silly too).

As are the Orthodox Jews who act like bullies on planes. Nut jobs in every religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty funny to see conservatives cheer on two atheists who mock religion and despise the Republican Party, just because they dislike Islam.

That is a ridiculous comment. Disliking Islam has nothing to do with anything. You're a moron.

I am not PP, but her characterization of Charlie Hebdo's editorial viewpoint is correct: most of all, they despised the Republican Party in the U.S.

The use of insults in the prior post is ironic.

[Anonymous]

I went to catholic service this Christmas. The children did the manger scene and the priest encouraged us to go out into the world and be caring.