Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:[I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

Please quote your sources. I am currently in France and I have not heard anything about a pregnant woman loosing her baby, a car being shot at, or mosques vandalized. There are reports of three facts that happened near mosques since the Charlie Hebdo killing (a shot, and two small explosions), with no victim. Those acts have been strongly crititized by the media, politicians, and other people in France. Do you have any link to the facts that you are quoting? Thank you.

Its all over the news-in the NY times too, if you subscripe
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pregnant-muslim-woman-attacked-in-paris-miscarries-8664060.html

It's dated June, 2013

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 new hostage situations in Paris right now suspected to be related to the Charlie Hebdo attack - 5 hostages taken and a siege going on at a kosher grocery store, and another hostage taking by the airport.

The brothers are saying they are ready to die as martyrs. I just hope the hostages survive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:[I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

Please quote your sources. I am currently in France and I have not heard anything about a pregnant woman loosing her baby, a car being shot at, or mosques vandalized. There are reports of three facts that happened near mosques since the Charlie Hebdo killing (a shot, and two small explosions), with no victim. Those acts have been strongly crititized by the media, politicians, and other people in France. Do you have any link to the facts that you are quoting? Thank you.

Its all over the news-in the NY times too, if you subscripe
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pregnant-muslim-woman-attacked-in-paris-miscarries-8664060.html

French pp here, thanks for the link. I had not heard of the story, this is heartbreaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

I am from Europe and I realize that for Americans may be difficult to understand how people in Europe may have a different approach. Americans are way more prude (and this explains why some posters said that the cartoons were X-rated - while they are certainly not for young kids, and are provocative and may be considered offensive by many even in Europe, in Europe they are not considered porn stuff. they would not fly in the US, but you need to understand that they published in France not in Montana - here people fainted when a nipple was seen for 0,5 seconds on national TV during the superbowl, in Europe nobody would have noticed, no right or wrong simply a different sensibility). also, it seems that somehow Americans have internalized and accepted the type of censorship that the Islamic terrorists were trying to impose on CH and on European press in general, and this may explain, in addition to fear, the reason why the cartoons were not widely published in the US, even the first time around. you talk a lot about freedom of speech and expression, but the truth is that your newspapers shy away from satire about religions, not just Islam but also Christianity. after all, you elected an AA president, but would you ever have elected an admitted atheist? in my coutry nobody has to get the photo take with the prund family leaving Sunday service as part of a political campaign, religion is considered a personal matter and electing an atheist is totally normal. there are profoundly religious people in Europe, there are atheists, agnostics and whatever but mocking religion, any religion is accepted. tons of people don't like it (catholic groups sued CH many many times and always lost) but so far radical Islamists are the ones who reacted with violence. this is why was so important what CH and other magazines did in Europe, they tried to resist against the imposition of a censorship that you Americans have simply accepted and embraced. this same battle has been waged against the Catholic church before, there were times when publishing cartoons or anything else offensive to the church could result in death or imprisonment, and against the political establishment (CH, at that time under published under another name, was banned by the French government decades ago for a cover deemed offensive of Charles de Gaulle). the issues with radical Islamists is that they live in Europe but do not want to accept the rules by which people live there. if you don;t like a cartoon, sue the magazine and if you lose then move on with your life the cartoon can be published. what happened is a tragedy because radical Islam is trying to put a muzzle on our freedom of speech and expression and they are succeeding because not that many people are willing to die for a cartoon. this is why I really admire the CH cartoonists and all others who did not bow.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

This is patently false.

Your argument would have merit if you say muslims and christians are singled out for satirsts.

If you print caricatures of jewish people, you will get flamed like non other.

Try printing a cartoon of a jewish person being hooknosed and conniving with shekels pouring everywhere and it won't even get printed.

there's a double standard.

either flame everyone, or flame no one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

I am from Europe and I realize that for Americans may be difficult to understand how people in Europe may have a different approach. Americans are way more prude (and this explains why some posters said that the cartoons were X-rated - while they are certainly not for young kids, and are provocative and may be considered offensive by many even in Europe, in Europe they are not considered porn stuff. they would not fly in the US, but you need to understand that they published in France not in Montana - here people fainted when a nipple was seen for 0,5 seconds on national TV during the superbowl, in Europe nobody would have noticed, no right or wrong simply a different sensibility). also, it seems that somehow Americans have internalized and accepted the type of censorship that the Islamic terrorists were trying to impose on CH and on European press in general, and this may explain, in addition to fear, the reason why the cartoons were not widely published in the US, even the first time around. you talk a lot about freedom of speech and expression, but the truth is that your newspapers shy away from satire about religions, not just Islam but also Christianity. after all, you elected an AA president, but would you ever have elected an admitted atheist? in my coutry nobody has to get the photo take with the prund family leaving Sunday service as part of a political campaign, religion is considered a personal matter and electing an atheist is totally normal. there are profoundly religious people in Europe, there are atheists, agnostics and whatever but mocking religion, any religion is accepted. tons of people don't like it (catholic groups sued CH many many times and always lost) but so far radical Islamists are the ones who reacted with violence. this is why was so important what CH and other magazines did in Europe, they tried to resist against the imposition of a censorship that you Americans have simply accepted and embraced. this same battle has been waged against the Catholic church before, there were times when publishing cartoons or anything else offensive to the church could result in death or imprisonment, and against the political establishment (CH, at that time under published under another name, was banned by the French government decades ago for a cover deemed offensive of Charles de Gaulle). the issues with radical Islamists is that they live in Europe but do not want to accept the rules by which people live there. if you don;t like a cartoon, sue the magazine and if you lose then move on with your life the cartoon can be published. what happened is a tragedy because radical Islam is trying to put a muzzle on our freedom of speech and expression and they are succeeding because not that many people are willing to die for a cartoon. this is why I really admire the CH cartoonists and all others who did not bow.

I am European as well, and I don't think you understand Americans very well -- and I think you are probably slightly oblivious to the rise of Xenophobia and the treatment of minorities in Europe.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 new hostage situations in Paris right now suspected to be related to the Charlie Hebdo attack - 5 hostages taken and a siege going on at a kosher grocery store, and another hostage taking by the airport.

The brothers are saying they are ready to die as martyrs. I just hope the hostages survive.

I hope they do too. This is getting worse by the minute

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm glad you had this experience and are sharing it. I think usually we are scared of what we do not now. I can understand how the niqab can be intimidating, and many would be surprised that under the veil,is just another woman who is not that much different from us. The more these conversations happen, I think, the better it will be for all of us. We are not that much different after all. Oh and don't worry about what you had in your cart, she would not judge you for that, just like you didn't judge her for her niqab.

I don't like the niqab (or the burka, where you don't even see the woman's eyes), I am not scared by it and I am not intimidated by it. I don't like what it symbolizes, the need for a woman to cover her body completely leaving just two pupils out so she can see obstacles, so men cannot see her. all the explanations I have read about it (are frankly the same explanations are given for the need of separate areas in buses or sidewalk in ultra orthodox areas in Israel, so this issue is not limited to Islam, although with the iqab is more visible) are that no part of the body of the woman should be seen by men who are not her relatives so she cannot "provoque" impure sexual thoughts and desires in random men. even women who wore it and said they did it willingly and happily said that they felt free because they could go aroung without sexually arousing men or getting unwanted sexual advances. I find this profoundly wrong and sad. as we all know, there is absolutely nothing in the Quran that says that women should weak a niqab, so wearing is not a religious requirement. it is not by chance that the countries where the niqab originated in the Arabia peninsula are places where women have no voice, cannot drive, do not leave their homes without a man, have very limited opportunities to work. I am not surprised that under the niqab the poster found a nice woman like her (and found very funnny that the poster was grateful to the niqab clad woman for being "cool" about her bying pork and alcohol - I wonder why she thought the woman was going to judge her). the poster should have asked the niqab clad woman if she waws working and what job. a trial attorney? a federal judge? a surgeon? an airline pilot? even an airline hostess (none of the hostesses of the Saudi Arabia airline I saw at Dulles wore a niqab, they all had a veil on the hair, but otherwise they w3ere normally dressed)? or a mailwoman, the one who walks around your neighborhood putting the mail in mailboxes, or the fed ex person who rings at your door so you can sign for the package? or the metro bus driver, your child school teacher, the one who spends her day with him and his classmates every day and see you at the parents-teacher conference or during the field trip you chaperone. I bet that nice woman is none of these things. failing to see that a hijab does not prevent a woman from having a normal life, but a burka does is disingenous. this has nothing to do with fear of the unknown, this has to do with recognizing reality.

Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

Anonymous wrote:I think its interesting that when Eric Rudolph was on his bombing rampage on behalf of the Army of God, here in the US, killing well over 100 people we did not attack Christianity. Yet, when it comes to religious extremists preforming terrorist acts utilizing their form of Islam we condemn the whole religion. Since there is an estimated 2.8 million Muslims in the US, if violence was the norm then we should be seeing a lot more violence here and, we don't.