General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI do not condone killing ...
for any reason.
I do not condone, under the guise of "free speech", the deliberate denigration of others because you do not agree with their expression of faith.
I, honestly, don't know where I come down on the larger issue of this French tragedy ... does your free speech right mean I have to tolerate your intolerance? (Note, I do not condone killing)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)That's the way they should've made their views known.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)You & MoRokTah below are exactly right.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)
Post removed
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)And you're the one who gets to decide what constitutes "stupidity". So simple.
And just look how well this belligerence is working out so far. Great plan.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'll listen to their arguments, and yours, and be persuaded by the one I think is more logical.
"We should refrain from criticising other people's ideas" is *insane*, especially when those ideas include ones as bad as "women are inherently inferior to men" and "homosexuality and blasphemy should be illegal".
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)And failing to see the context - the bigger picture - and who benefits from this bullshit fearmongering.
I see you've got your talking points all lined up, but you won't get any help from me.
demosincebirth
(12,530 posts)CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Are you actually endorsing viewing world events through a tiny hole in the fence?
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can say that, without denigrating the religions.
Religions advance on those things, too. Look at the Protestant churches that have female ministers now.
Someday Islam might have female caliphs. The point is attack the issue, not the religion. People are born into and raised in a religion, and it is part of their culture. It is not merely the beliefs about God and the religious doctrines.
I see this when right wingers get themselves tied up over Jewishness, where it is religious or ethnic.
Every culture has a religion. Most of them were sexist, homophobic, as society generally was. They may be slower to progress, but they eventually do.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)In doing so, we may have to attack the religion itself. Yes, religions advance, but they rarely do so without large numbers of people raising awareness about their injustices.
But the issue is part of the religion. The idea that the Catholic Church's homophobia is somehow separate from their other beliefs is wrong. Each idea, each belief, is part of a larger set of beliefs that defines the religion. In many cases, there are bigoted and hateful beliefs that are part of a religion's doctrine. When I criticize the Catholic Church for their homophobic practices, I am doing so in the hopes that their set of beliefs will change. However, I do criticize the church--not just homophobia. That's because the church continues to push their bigotry (and this is critical) as part of their religious doctrine. When the Church practices something I find morally repugnant, I will criticize the church--not just each individual idea.
This is not to say that we should attack religion in a manner that is hateful. In reference to the Charlie Hebdo criticism, while I think the points they made were good, I don't like the way they do it. They use stereotypes and caricatures of cultures and people that I think perpetuate ignorance and unbased hatred. (Standard disclaimer, because it's necessary now: they had every right to say it, I do not blame them in any way for the shooting. They are not responsible for stupid people doing terrible things because of their stupidity).
This makes no difference whatsoever in regards to criticizing religion. I don't care how ingrained your belief is; if it's bigoted, I will attack. Full stop.
It does, however, mean that it's necessary to criticize it in such a way that the audience will listen. As pretty much any atheist will tell you, it's very challenging to talk with a believer about their beliefs. Because it's so ingrained, it is hard to communicate with them without angering them. When you tell someone that you think the foundation of their core beliefs about the world are not only wrong, but non-existent and harmful, they tend to shut you off, no matter how politely you phrase it. This is why, in one-on-one conversations with people who are my friends and open to new ideas, I have a discussion. When I discuss religion in a general sense, I attack, because people refuse to listen when you're polite. I am a full advocate for "in your face atheism", just as I am for "in your face homosexuality" or massive protests that shut down highways in response to police brutality and overt racism. Yeah, these tactics piss some people off. But they're often the only way to get people to listen.
That's nice for the religions and their believers. Unfortunately for the rest of us in the meantime, they can and do cause great amounts of harm. We should fight them, loudly and hard, whenever they are injust and bigoted.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)> We can say that, without denigrating the religions.
Yes, we perfectly well could, but we *shouldn't*.
Denigrating religions is a *good* thing to do, provide it's done with thought and nuance.
Religions are not like sex, or skin colour - inherent, value-neutral things about people. Religions are sets of ideas, beliefs and opinions, and many of those ideas, beliefs and opinions are objectively wrong.
Yes, people are born and raised into a religion, making it hard for them to judge it objectively. That's not a reason not to keep explaining that it is wrong.
rug
(82,333 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... denigrating, mocking and ridiculing religion would be - exactly what?
"Religion is a poison preventing democracy and liberal, progressive ideas and values from spreading."
Many liberal/progressive ideas and values are shared by many religions, i.e. caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry. Those who benefit from others embracing those ideals don't care if those principles are rooted in religious belief or otherwise. It is the end result that matters, not what ideology brings the end result about.
Despite your statement that "it is OK to make fun of stupidity", I will resist the temptation to make fun of yours.
QuestionableC
(63 posts)They should do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Religion is stupid.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... who embrace religion are afraid of "burning in hell".
And that right there is a really "stupid" assumption. Many religions have never included the concept of "burning in hell" as part of their philosophy, nor do they embrace the idea that NOT "doing the right thing"
results in consequences in an afterlife.
"Doing the right thing" by one's fellow human beings is, for many religious people, seen as a reward in and of itself.
For someone who thinks "religion is stupid", your knowledge of many religious beliefs seems to be sorely lacking.
phil89
(1,043 posts)they're susceptible to being irrational in all areas of their lives. If someone needs a religion to tell them to be charitable...yeah that is concerning imo. Maybe it's time to put these beliefs in mythology aside?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that people "need a religion" to tell them to be charitable.
Just anecdotal evidence here, but most of my friends are atheists. And, at the same time, most of them are regular donors to food banks, and give more than generously to programs that provide toys for children at Christmas time.
The fact that they don't believe in Santa Claus didn't dissuade them from ensuring that kids who DO believe woke up to some longed-for items under the tree on Christmas morning.
And the fact that they don't believe that they will "burn in hell for all eternity" if they are uncharitable did not stop them from being charitable all the same.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)organizations where they can do the most good, whose philosophy of helping others, appeals to them? What makes sense to one person, 'let's trash everyone we don't agree with, let's mock and deride those who have different opinions' doesn't make sense to others?
I assume you are supporting people's right to free speech. How is 'putting people's beliefs in mythology' aside supportive of free speech?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)They didn't say they wanted to ban people's beliefs; they just want to see the beliefs become no longer a part of society. "Putting people's beliefs in mythology aside" simple means that the poster feels (as I do) that the beliefs are harmful and should be criticized, and that hopefully that will lead to a removal of the belief from the mainstream.
It's much the same way with other things, such as bigotry. I'd like to "put people's beliefs in racism" aside as well, but that doesn't mean people can't be racist assholes all they want.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)putting people's beliefs to rest. The world's history is replete with religious persecutions, persecutions that have led to some of the most horrific reprisals against people of one belief or another.
Our Founding Fathers were aware of that history, see eg, the persecution by Henry V111 against those who refused to give up their beliefs when he changed his. Then the persecutions by his daughter of those who DID, I am talking about Bloody Mary.
I have no problems with anyone's beliefs, so long as they do not try to impose them on the rest of us, as has been the case throughout history.
It is a very dangerous thing. Which is why the FFs specifically did not want religion of any kind to a part of our government. So far, it has worked fairly well, no one in this country should fear practicing their beliefs because the government is going to crack down on them.
But I am seeing shades of history in many comments since these horrific murders, and indeed since the Iraq Invasion, creating an 'other' that needs to 'anihilated'. We on the Left fought against that dangerous bigotry, which was directed specifically at Muslims coming from the Right. 'Ragheads', 'treat them like dogs' etc. Not because we believed what they believe, not even because we thought much of their beliefs, but because we were aware of the dangers of singling out a group and labeling them as the 'other'.
I hope the left doesn't now join that chorus that we fought so hard against back then.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)For example:
:-Gender equality
:-Gay rights
:-Freedom of speech
:-Freedom of religion
*This is not a well-defined statement, it's a shorthand. What I mean is "By many religions as interpreted by some, but not all, of their adherents, and in particular by Islam as interpreted by the majority of Muslims", but that wouldn't fit in the topic.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)However, one must look to the tenets of a religion rather than those who claim to be adhering to those tenets.
For example, Jesus (according to those who look to the New Testament as "the word of Christ"
never addressed homosexuality nor abortion. And yet we are bombarded with statements from Christ's alleged followers that he abhorred both.
It is not "Christianity" that is at odds with gender equality, gay rights, freedom of speech, or freedom of religion - it is the self-serving interpretation of "Christianity" by some so-called Christians.
I doubt that any liberal/progressive would debate the teachings of The Nazarene in terms of caring for the needy, sheltering the homeless, being their brother's keeper, etc. THAT is what true Christianity is about.
The fact that some self-proclaimed "Christians" have twisted those admonitions into "care for the needy - but not the welfare queens who are living in luxury at the taxpayers' expense" should not be taken as a reflection of Christianity, but as a twisting of what was meant as an admonition to care for those not in a position to care for themselves.
Religion is not at fault here - its interpretation by those who don't want to actually practice what it preaches are.
brer cat
(24,525 posts)I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. You have stated it quite well.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)You don't get to decide who is a "true Christian" or not. The Bible contains a whole lot of rather unpleasant morality that, for the most part, is completely ignored today. (And I do mean both the Old and New Testament--there's plenty in both). When someone chooses to follow that, or only follow parts, they are still "Christians". Someone doing something bad does not make them "un-Christian", it means they're following a certain interpretation of Christianity, equally valid. Especially since from the view of an atheist, it's all ludicrous.
Uh...yeah, no. The Catholic Church, probably the most "Christian" sect of Christianity there is, has consistently been on the wrong side of progress for hundreds and hundreds of years now. The fact is, as much as many are not willing to see it, religion DOES cause people to do bad things, just as it can cause them to do good things. How much good or bad is debatable (and I firmly believe it has caused and continues to cause more harm than good), but you cannot deny that religion affects people. In some cases (generally extremist factions, but not always) it can cause people to do horrible things like the Charlie Hebdo shooting.
Religion is not all good, and people doing bad things cannot be just pushed aside as "people not practicing what it preaches".
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... it was the Catholic Church I had most specifically in mind when I referred to "the self-serving interpretation of "Christianity" by some so-called Christians."
Having been raised as a strict Catholic - Catholic school, taught by nuns, the whole nine - I know whereof I speak.
The CC has, since its inception, "interpreted" Christianity in self-serving ways - and their positions on abortion, contraception and homosexuality are a prime example thereof. Jesus never addressed those issues - no less condemned them. It was the CC who 'interpreted' his teachings on those issues - a sort of "what Christ would have said about those things, if had he gotten around to it" philosophy.
The CC has always initiated its own "rules", and then proffered them as being a part of "Christianity". The concepts of indulgences, meatless Fridays, attendance at mass on Holy Days of Obligation, etc., have no basis in the teachings of Christ. By the same token, the condemnation of homosexuality and contraception have no basis in those teachings either. Ergo, such rules and restrictions are not Christian - they are imposed by the CC, not by adherence to Christian principles.
Given the often bloody, violent, and greed-inspired history of the CC, along with its present positions on homosexuality, contraception and abortion, to hold out the Catholic Church as "probably the most 'Christian' sect of Christianity there is" is -- well, if you believe that, I've got a couple of plenary indulgences to sell you.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Honestly, the best way to guarantee that people will say offensive shit is to tell them they can't. Threaten them with violence and they'll say it all the more vociferously.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I tell my daughter not to tell me no, so she yells no!, right in my face. People are just like that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... behind denigrating religious beliefs.
If you think such denigration requires no purpose, that's fine. But that concept leaves one to ponder why anyone would do anything that has absolutely no purpose.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)control over their station in life were denigrated...of what value would satire about them except to inflame hate and notions of superiority?
No one looks good from this tragedy in my mind. I sympathize with the families of those murdered and hope they can find some peace amid the storm surrounding them.
bobalew
(321 posts)from being OFFENDED! You can verbally counter-offend, or DEFEND your position in public argument, but you have NO GUARANTEE, that you won't in some way become offended by someone else's speech, or artistic expression. In other words, Too Bad you don't Like something someone said about your particular thing with which you agree. Express yourself in a cogent conversation about it. As you do here, many times...
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)(aka give freedom of speech protections to that person) is not the same as condoning the message. You are free to boycott, protest, and use your own voice in direct opposition to that speech or even plead that they do not publish/broadcast the speech. You just are not allowed to stop that speech.
"does your free speech right mean I have to tolerate your intolerance?" It depends on what you mean by tolerance. What you cannot do is assault me, kill me, or in any way physically attack me for my intolerant free speech. You CERTAINLY do not have to agree with my intolerant free speech.
Here is an example I wrote about yesterday:
I often thought if the KKK wanted to march in my town and was denied a permit, I would be the first to come to their aid to help get them a permit. However, once that permit was secured, you would see my right in the front row of the counter protest. To me this is not a contradiction. I can see how others would disagree.
Lobo27
(753 posts)I don't know make a petition to get people to not buy the paper. If you don't like something there are other ways to change things that do not result in murder.
I'm a practicing Catholic, and have endured countless threads where DUers go on a frenzy bashing my religion. And yet I respect their opinions, we get into heated debates, egos and perhaps feelings get hurt.
Its their right to express their opinion that they believe my religion sucks. And its my right to express my opinion that they are totally wrong. Simple as that.
Keep in my mind the world has different cultures. What we see as intolerant might not be the same in another country.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)May the most articulate person win!
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)There was an old Lucasarts Game called The Secret Of Monkey Island where you played a young pirate. Combat was "Insult Sword Fighting".. it was hilarious... If only we could settle our differences using only our minds...
dawg
(10,621 posts)like a cow!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)he who yells the loudest or spouts a vicious verbal attack on anything liberal, no matter how illogical and inarticulate, is the winner.
(I am not, by the way, advocating killing, just in case anyone wonders.)
Rex
(65,616 posts)This is a war against fundamentalists imo.
Lobo27
(753 posts)And that is why we can't let those who would deny it ever win.
randys1
(16,286 posts)a war with Iraq in part to have a holy war, as George W Bush did, killing hundreds of thousands, so he is a fundamentalist and out of the main stream.
These killings are done by fundamentalists who are out of the mainstream and in no way represent the Muslim community.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)And I'm equally glad there are many people who are eloquent enough and smart enough to push back voicing their disagreement but never to silence. Many of your OPs are that very thing. And I enjoy it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)So, like the Mormon South Park episode?
Or their mockery of Scientologists?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I had/have a problem with that, too.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #84)
Post removed
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)IO generally don't find humor in the mocking of religion ...period.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I'm always up for a laugh.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are you, also, up for a laugh when you (or your deeply held beliefs) are the butt of the joke?
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I can laugh at myself. Nothing is off limits as far as I'm concerned. You can't go around all day waiting/looking for reasons to be offended. I have lived a very diverse life and have seen a lot, been through a lot. Maybe that's why.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)(they come off...a little strong, shall we say), I do want to say one quick thing.
It doesn't matter how deeply held the beliefs are; they are just as open to criticism and mocking as anything else. Though religion may be a very strongly ingrained part of our culture, that doesn't mean that we cannot or should not criticize, mock (in a critical, not hateful manner), or crack jokes about it. It just means the reactions to the criticism or mocking will be much stronger, which may or may not be something to keep in mind while making the jokes/criticism.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I am extremely strong. I'm a strong powerful intelligent woman, who has lived a very diverse successful life. Even raised a successful black man, (who doesn't get butt hurt). Back in the 70's got equal pay for equal work for all the women in a factory - cost me my job. Outed a congresswoman (R) as a fraud. And lots more. Well done me.
Ignore me because I am strong.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)You were still rude to 1SBM unnecessarily, which is what I meant. Goodbye.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This:
That is what I was trying, rather inartfully, to say ... well ... not the "should not criticize, mock (in a critical, not hateful manner), or crack jokes" part.
And I have arrived, self (rather than, imposed) censorship for the sake of comity.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)With all due respect, I think that's a recipe for censorship.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)which, apparently, is abhorrent to "progressives" on DU and right wingers , alike.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This entire board is filled with many uncivil and intolerant comments directed towards Republicans.
Do you think folks ought to self-censor in that regard so as not to anger/annoy/hurt the feelings of those folks?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I admit I'm all over the map on this as I think this through ... Maybe, my conflict is based in recognition that "religion is different" (even though I am agnostic).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There's definitely a lot to think through with all this, I agree.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)One gets a pass for believing in an invisible cloud being?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)And one other thing: I don't know if you know the difference between atheist and agnostic, and how you can be both or neither at once, but if you're interested in understanding atheism a little better, please take a read through this link:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm
Language matters, which is why many atheists (including myself) find the distinction very important. It changes people's perceptions of atheism strongly when they realize that it is not an absolute.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Because lots of Churches do that. Under the guise of freedom of religion. They do it in front of packed houses, every day. They make press releases to blame gay people for every woe and sorrow that happens. I have tolerated this bigotry all of my life, in print, on TV, in Churches and in politics. If you limit free speech for me but allow the faith community to continue to denigrate and to spew, how is that justice?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What I'm having trouble with is being empathetic with those "using their 1st Amendment right" to do so.
But/and on the same note, I have trouble being empathetic with anyone "using their 1st Amendment right" to intentional denigrate anyone.
When I'm in one of my more dogmatic moods, I think you don't get to complain about how I respond to you intentionally sticking your finger in my eye. If you don't like my reaction, keep your finger out of my eye.
But then, again, that is an unworkable standard, as someone will be offended by anything that is said.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)I think we in the U.S. are not as accustomed to such outrageous forms of religious and political commentary in the public sphere, but people in other countries sometimes are. It reminds me of my first time in Britain many years ago and seeing a copy of The Sun carelessly open to page 3 on the counter at the local market. Really? But to many Brits, it was nothing. "Oh, a topless girl on page 3?" Shrug.
And I suspect that many French feel the same way about their political and religious leaders being satirized in very derogatory and sometimes obscene drawings. Shrug.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Most denominations of Christianity believe in a version of inhereted sin, original sin, and use terms such as "we are all sinners". Frequently the testamonials of the saved use harsh, denigrating language to describe themselves, and many of them will claim that all people deserve to go to hell but for the grace of God. I could go on.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Especially not when those "expressions of faith" are inimical to a tolerant and liberal society. One could in fact go so far as to say that extreme fundamentalism denigrates the civic faith in tolerance and equality that most liberal democracies share. If religious fundamentalists have the freedom of speech to spread misogyny and homophobia and hatred under the guise of "faith" then it cuts the other way and the secular have equal rights to tell them they're full of shit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm coming to ...
With rights comes responsibility ... My right to deliberately piss you off, does/should not protect me when you get pissed off.
It seems many want the right, without having the responsibility of considering others (i.e., watch their tongue or owning the result).
That seems more than a little narcissistic to me.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"With rights comes responsibility ... My right to deliberately piss you off, does/should not protect me when you get pissed off. "
In light of recent events, this is a disgusting comment. 12 people are murdered for free speech and your response is "you shouldn't be protected when you me piss me off and offend me". Flipping pronouns to make it about you, doesn't excuse the intent beneath the message.
Awful, absolutely awful.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)argue against my point that it seems many want the right, without having the responsibility of considering others (i.e., watch their tongue or owning the result).
That seems more than a little narcissistic to me.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If someone says something you find offensive and you ATTACK OR KILL them. You are the asshole. Not them, all you've done is reinforce all the negative things they said about you through the violence you decided to commit.
It is far more narcissistic to think you can enforce your standards or tastes through violence.
Most disgusting thing I've seen on DU in awhile.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)then, you are an asshole.
So is the GLBT Community is attempting to narcissistically enforce their standards or tastes when the oppose westboro's insults? ... are Black folks when we oppose the klan's insults?
Or, does everything turn on the violence?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Yet you're spilling tons of ink attacking one and not the other. Insisting the victims of a terror attack should "own the results"
That is despicable. It is victim blaming and frankly you should be ashamed. In fact I'm offended by it.
I guess that gives me licenses to kill you now (according to your logic)? I think I won't, because I'm not a bloody psychopath.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)When Michael Moore took the Pink Sodomy Bus to Westboro's church (and pissing them off), would the congregants of Westboro been justified in killing Moore and his compatriots?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)than resorting to violence. The vast majority of people respond quite differently on a regular basis.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some acts of violence are not an infringement of rights -- for example, self-defense.
Some nonviolent acts are infringement of rights, some aren't. If a store owner expresses a controversial sentiment (pro- or anti-Muslim, pro- or anti-gay rights, whatever), he has no kick if people who disagree with him drive right past his store to patronize a less convenient but more politically acceptable competitor. If, however, someone wants more emphatic retaliation against the statement that offended him, and starts spreading a false rumor that the store owner is a convicted pedophile, then that is a violation of the store owner's rights.
What if I, too, find myself offended by the store owner's statement? That wouldn't make a difference. Defamation is nonviolent but it's still wrong. There is no level of offensiveness that the store owner could reach that would justify me in lying about him. If that's an example of what you mean by asking whether I have to tolerate his intolerance, then, yes, I do.
As a practical matter, yes, someone who takes a prominent stance that's likely to offend a lot of people does thereby increase his or her chance of being the target of retaliation -- retaliation that might be a peaceful boycott, a smear campaign, or murder. And, as a practical matter, a woman who goes to a party at a fraternity probably does thereby increase her chance of being raped, just as someone who leaves his door unlocked increases his chance of being robbed. I'm not clear on what "owns it" means in this context. It's sensible to criticize a robbery victim for not locking his door but that doesn't exonerate the thief.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)The rest of your post was spot on. However, your last paragraph was nothing but victim-blaming. Yes, leaving your door unlocked statistically increases your chances of getting robbed, and going to a frat party statistically increases your chance of being raped.
Would you criticize a woman for being raped at a frat party? No? Then neither should you criticize a robbery victim (you even said they were a victim) for being robbed. Literally the definition of blaming the victim.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Example: You visit the fourth-floor apartment of a fomerly rural friend who's living in a city for the first time. You notice that a parapet on the neighboring building would enable an intruder standing on it to break and enter one of your friend's windows. Your friend hasn't even considered window security, thinking that the fourth floor was automatically safe. Would you give the friendly advice to get bars on that window? I would.
If the apartment-dweller never gets such advice and is robbed, then "criticize" would be too harsh a word, because I set it up to be non-obvious, as compared with someone leaving the front door unlocked. In the latter case, the post-robbery conversation with the victim would probably include something that could reasonably be called criticism, even if only, "Why did you leave the door unlocked?" in a tone of voice that went beyond mere curiosity.
This actually happened to me: I was staying at a hotel in downtown Detroit. I like to walk around places that I visit, but I was concerned about safety, so I asked the concierge for advice about where to go. (It might have been early evening, I forget.) She told me that none of the area around the hotel was safe for walking around. Therefore, I stayed inside. Suppose instead that I had gone for a walk anyway and had been mugged. Would you criticize me for rejecting the advice of someone who knew the dangers better than I did? I think that criticism would have been valid even though the mugger would still be at fault and I would be a victim.
The frat party is somewhat similar and somewhat different. The college student and I would each like to do something (attend party, take walk) that we would enjoy, but that would increase our risk of becoming the victim of violent crime. One difference is the degree of danger -- one hopes that even a rowdy frat party is less dangerous than a bad urban area. Another difference is the status of the criminal. If I were mugged, everyone would agree that it was a crime and that the mugger should be punished, so people could criticize my recklessness without being read as taking the mugger's side. If a student at a party is raped, there might be dispute about whether a crime occurred, was she asking for it, and many other factors that aren't present with a mugging. Someone who criticized the crime victim for making a risky choice might be seen as aligning with some of those other attitudes, a problem that wouldn't arise in the mugging case. Given these differences, one could reasonably choose to criticize my hypothetical conduct but not hers.
Applying all this to the OP, there does seem to be, in this thread, at least some sympathy for the "provocation" criticism of the victim. If I walk through a bad neighborhood, people might say I was reckless, but no one would say I was provoking an assault. Here, however, some people seem to be pointing to the alleged offensiveness of the speech as being relevant beyond the mere fact of increasing one's likelihood of being attacked. I would not join in any criticism that said or implied that cartoonists or other commentators should restrain themselves from criticizing radical Islam, so as not to provoke violence.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)And what the last sentence of your post said was the timing. There's nothing wrong with precautionary advice--like your experience. It's a good thing to know that it's not safe to walk outside of the hotel. It's good to know that you might get injured if you walk out the door. It's also a good thing to know that you might want to have window security, before something happens. But your post said that it was sensible to criticize someone after the fact.
No, I would not. It might not have been a brilliant decision, but to criticize you for it imparts some measure of responsibility for what happened. Take a look at this post and my response to it, and maybe it will help clarify what I mean: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026057652#post40
I do like what you say in your next paragraph, for the most part. There is nuance to it.
An interesting thought, and something I haven't considered. However, I think that it is still wrong to do so regardless. Perhaps friendly advice ("I wouldn't walk there in the future; it's a bad place and it's likely to happen again."
would be in order, but even then, I would think that if a crime happened, the victim is already aware of the factors that led up to the crime. If you chose to ignore the hotel staff and walk outside anyways, resulting in you getting mugged, you know exactly what happened. All that criticism serves to do is assign guilt and blame to the victim, even if unintentional (and I think you are clearly trying to avoid that).
One thing about the language you use in your post:
I tend to avoid using phrases like "was she asking for it" even if I'm describing what others might say. Using that phrase helps to perpetuate the idea that it is possible to "ask" for being raped. I would instead use the phrase "was there consent".
+1, well said. I completely agree with this. I think we both are on the same side here, just some differences in the little stuff. Thanks for making me think.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)These accusations against the OP for questioning matters surrounding these events are over the top.
Nobody has said that the physical violence was in any way justified.
Nobody, not on this board. Nobody has said that.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)you might have some sort of point. As it is? Not so much. Guess what? You don't have a right to not be offended. Especially not by things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/28/maajid-nawaz-muslim-lib-dem-candidate-cartoon
This is the sort of thing that can trigger death threats. You really need to think about what you're implicitly condoning, here.
840high
(17,196 posts)victim blaming.
OnePercentDem
(79 posts)You don't have the right to touch me or anything else physically even if I hurt your feelings, trash you religion or call you kids names. To anyone that thinks the other way, I feel sorry for you because you just condoned the murder of 12 innocent people and as long as people keep giving them excuses and condoning their actions, more will die in name of 2000 year old beliefs and people with guns with a four year old mentality.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And a lot of it is said in order to be deliberately insulting.
Should conservatives have the right to physically attack us because of what we say on DU?
Bear in mind that I know for a fact my real name and life history have been researched by some conservatives, conservatives I have never met nor spoken to in any way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I keep coming back to "deliberately to piss off/insult." No, they should not be allowed to physically attack you; but then, the insult also might be prevented by not being deliberately insulting ... Right?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)For the most part I don't use deliberately insulting terms like Repuke and Rethuglican but that didn't stop them from trying to come after me. Unfortunately for them I'm retired and there is no employer they can contact to tell of my Pinko Commie tendencies in an effort to get me fired and there isn't much else leverage in my very simple life they can use against me either.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This would make you a less likely victim of an attack, no?
There is a difference being saying, "I disagree with your position on ... well ... everything, because ..." and saying, "You're a f'ing mouth breathing, goat raping, product of a father/daughter tryst because I disagree with your position on ..."
One is likely to promote conversation; the other, an attack. Right?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)As I said, I know for a fact at least one of them went to the the effort of finding out my real identity along with other information about me and then furthermore let me know about it as well.
I can't think of any other reason for someone to do that other than intimidation because they did not like my opinions.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)What's infinitely more narcissistic in the instance that spawned this discussion is the attempt by fanatics to impose their medieval religious values on a secular, liberal society which does not share them.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Gotta have "the responsibility of considering others", after all.
Your thinking on this subject is utterly horrific.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ETA: anymore than my above, "No ... It's not", is mocking you.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Around '68 I was run out of the Meridian MS area for maintaining that blacks were human and just like everyone else...I was threatened with dire circumstances if the sun set on me. I did nothing insulting, said nothing insulting, was not aggressive. In my life experience you don't have to do much to upset radicals. I've been denigrated by fundamentalist preachers because I wouldn't let them in my house, insulted, bad mouthed, lost friends, it doesn't take much and it isn't just radical Muslims...it's anyone with a sense of privilege and a "you don't belong here" mentality.
Blaming the victim of this kind of behavior is abhorrent.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)human race.
When one attacks another, in any manner, expect that the other will become defensive. We must begin to speak and act in the ways of non-violence.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Charlie Hebdo was completely non-violent.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)I must admit, I do not know anything about Charlie other than he was a satirist and murdered for his work.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)There are many things I do that some people find offensive, blasphemous or even threatening. Should I be required to change those behaviors so as to never offend anyone? Or, more in line with your post, does my behavior give those people the right to harm or kill me?
What is offensive is subjective.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)and what would be an appropriate response.
From your username, I'm going out on a limb and assuming you're black. So consider interracial relationships. To hardcore racists, their opposition is genuine visceral disgust born of a cultural tradition that taught them that blacks are morally deficient subhumans. It offends them, and they have a history of expressing that offense ranging all the way up to mass murder and other kinds of violent mayhem. And while that viewpoint is obviously not dead, it is a lot weaker than it was, largely thanks to courageous people that went right on offending them, including people that produced artwork mocking and satirizing their intolerance.
Or look at the struggle for LGBT rights. How many times have you seen the viewpoint expressed: "I'm ok with gay people as long as they're not showing affection in any way in public"? And plenty of them have suffered (up to and including death) for offending the delicate sensibilities of homophobes. Once again, a big part of the strategy for defeating this viewpoint has been to mock and satirize it.
I get your discomfort - most of the cartoons that I've seen have been pretty juvenile shock-value type stuff, and a lot of them straddle the line (and sometimes jump right over) of being racist caricatures. And France definitely does have a problem with nativist types that want to get rid of everyone that isn't a white Christian. But France is also a country like the US that has enshrined free expression of ideas as one of its highest civic virtues, so telling a French citizen that they can't express themselves freely is deeply offensive to them. They also has a long tradition of sticking its tongue out at powerful institutions like governments, churches and corporations. So it's not as if Muslims (or even extremist Muslims) are being singled out. The same publication just as crassly skewers the Catholic Church constantly, even though France is about (nominally) 2/3 Catholic.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)People have said that, well, I'm blaming the victim, and that I would probably blame rape victims for the way they dress.
I've concluded that these people don't listen and/or are not deep thinkers.
IMO, there is an absolute responsibility to appreciate the impact ones words will have.
And, I think it's arrogant to accept these risks without regard to the impact on innocent bystanders.
At least three innocent people were killed because of the very predictable violence that followed the publication of these latest cartoons.
I stand with you 1SBM.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Has NOTHING to do with one's "right" to use those words.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Pretty simple, really.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)I think you're feeling the same visceral disgust many of us are feeling after getting an eyeful of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026058528
I think the author quoted summed it up perfectly.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)You're just edging up to it slowly, is all.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But thinks people who are attacked for offending others need to "own the results" or "hold their tongue" as said up thread.
I think he might have just got there.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And all dogma… religious, political, or scientific… will at times, be denigrated.
Do I denigrate tea bag beliefs? Oh yes I do. Do I denigrate christian beliefs? Oh yes I do.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Pretty much.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Because I know precisely where I "come down" on those awful killings.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I too am outraged, but I wonder how often outrage is expressed over the decade + of awful killings due to our military interventions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)did you miss the part about:
But more, where I said:
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)shut up about it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)We probably don't agree on a lot, but I think I feel you on this one. You and others have been rightfully engaging DU on matters of equality (race, gender...). I've seen your appeals for a more informed and enlightened discourse. So suddenly a tragedy like this happens and DU bursts into a chorus of "Say whatever the fuck you want... nothing should be off limits... there should be more...". While the reaction is somewhat understandable, it must be disconcerting as it kind of flies in the face of the spirit and decorum many would like to see in public forums. Anyhoo, hope I'm not misrepresenting you.
Peace.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It seems that anyone should be able to laughingly call me the N-words and place racist cartoons and stand blameless when I react because it is their free speech that is important.
People want to make it about the killing (the reaction), rather than the "satire" (the first offense). Granted the reaction was way beyond anything approaching civilized, had the "satire" not been made, there would not have been the killing (at least not for the given/suspected reason).
It's like when my daughter was young, she came home crying because a neighbor kid hit her. Upon looking into it, my daughter admitted that she called her a name because she was angry with the girl. I asked her, whether this girl had hit her before, and my daughter told me that she hadn't. I asked her whether she believe that the girl would have hit her had she not called her the name, and my daughter speculated that it was unlikely.
I told her that the girl hitting her was wrong; but, maybe, she should consider her contribution to the confrontation. (I try to teach my daughter to control what she can ... you actions.)
sheshe2
(83,669 posts)The stone that is thrown in the pond will have a ripple effect, the circles widen. Cause and effect. I have to know when I pick up that stone that there will be an answer to what I start. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, yet for every cause the reaction comes. Violence should never be the answer, denigrating ones beliefs should not be the answer.
I grew up in the Episcopal church. I asked questions about issues I felt unfair. The one that stuck in my craw, a child dies unbaptized, they live in limbo. I was young and had many conversations with my mom. An innocent child, in limbo forever. It broke my heart. I moved away from the church many years ago. It would be a lie if I said I believed in nothing. I have my own way. My point, we need a conversation, we need to ask the questions. We need to understand. That is the key for many issues we face. A conversation which you have tried to do here.
Some here say you advocate the violence, I know what you say on the board, they are wrong.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)even, celebrated the killings are lying for effect.
Maybe, it's my cultural experience that colors my view of the 1st Amendment, a "right" that has only been on the books; but, never enjoyed by African-Americans. We have always known that everything that we say (if viewed as offensive), results in a reaction ... sometimes, benign, but other times, violent; but, a reaction none-the-less.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)That's the nature of the beast. We can respond with our own speech or ignore speech that we find offensive.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)Its illegal to deny the Holocaust. We are talking about a country with restrictions on speech we can't fathom here. Bridget Barot herself has had legal issues due to her language towards "others" in France.
JI7
(89,241 posts)people.
things like criticism of religions and figures associated with it would not count. figures like moses,jesus, muhammed etc.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)In 1791 they abolished "blasphemy" as being illegal. Only two departments have articles on the law books today - and those specifically reference "God". There are no records of legal proceedings - civil or criminal - in those two departments.
And many of their restrictions - as well as expansions - Pre date WW II. The Dreyfus affair (Alfred Dreyfus) caused a writer/journalist to bring his colleagues to task. It also shows how deeply anti Semitic France was when Hitler was an unknown little pup.
In 2008 Bridget Bardot took it on the ass after several incidents of her denigrating Muslims in France.
I have to look up the remarks later - but if you replaced "Mexicans" with Muslims in the US with her comments - she would be a VP pick or a Faux news commentator now 
riqster
(13,986 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)There's nothing in their code that shows they could not do this.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)What if the artist had been a Muslim? I wonder if the response by the killers - would have been different?
The illustrator of that cartoon is an artist - should we take it as art for art's sake?
I was very young - but I remember the Mapplethorpe brouhaha . . . Art for art's sake?
I'm just finding some responses on these threads rather odd . . .
I have a right to be offended by caricatures of me - I do not have the right to kill said person portraying or drawing the caricature.
But I live in 'merica where caricatures of me win Grammys!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)See: Monster Ball and Training Day.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)For example, a "Piss Christ" type display might get a few people to protest a building....maybe try to deface the "art" itself, but not resort to murder.
Others seem to have different ideas about how far they'll go to subvert free and "offensive" speech.
JI7
(89,241 posts)non violent ways if you don't like what someone does or says .
but not physically attack people for it.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)It boggles my mind that anyone would ever hold otherwise. The basic notion of freedom turns on open expression of ideas, even inherently revolting views.
The idea that somehow people deserve to be the object of violence because they've made an offensive statement or drawn an insulting picture of some goofy desert pedophile is insane. It's disgusting. It's not remotely fucking acceptable in a civilized society.
"Own it"? Fuck that noise. Normal, decent people counter offensive views with our own, more logical and rational views, not a Kalashnikov and "Allahu akhbar!"
Codeine
(25,586 posts)comes with attendant responsibilities except in the most limited (fire in a crowded theater) of circumstances.
It is the most basic of rights, and the one that has the most egregious follow-on results when abridged.
The idea that I should be afraid to offend someone is fucking absurd. If someone is going to react violently to a thought, a film, a drawing, or a book then the problem is theirs, not mine.
And frankly, if a group of bullies use the threat of imminent violence to attempt to limit speech - offensive or otherwise - then I think the world should step up and offend the living fuck out of them, all day erry day.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Oofensive speech is not valuebale in and of itself, but it is needed because any and all crticism of religion is labeled bigotry by the clergy. Today, the image that they sued as the excuse is the image of Mohammed being killed by isis which is what started this) or the image of Mohammed weeping and saying "it hurts the be loved by idiots" (another Charlie toon).
Now let's put aside debating whether the fellow (peace be upon him) that expressly told his followers to pray for those who mocked him, who said "the ink of the scholar is worth more than the blood of the martyr", whose third wife was a Jew, and who expressly forbade killing women and children would have found himself being beheaded by Isis. Most prophets, were they to come back, woudl probably end up like Jesus in the the story "the grand inqusitor" where the inquistor tells Jesus he is a heretic. But all of that is not relevant, what is relevant is that when you make something beyond criticism, it will be an unrestricted path where it mows down everythingin it's way.
Now,in the modern day, we deify (and to some extent Disney-fy) Martin Luther King, but we all know in his day you had people say he just had no respect for the Southern Way of life. Even know, you have cranks like Morris Berman say that the South was right, and they play to supposedly liberal audiences. Does anything Charlie has done rise to a MLK speech, not likely, I personally think Mad magazine does better Satire, but you cannto surgically kill one type of speech without killing all, even if the onlyreason for that is because Clergy tend to ebnage in duplicity.
So no, I do nto have to tolerate intolerance, just like I do not have to buy anythign that supports hate. However, the minute the folks that kill, or for that matter, even try to sue offensive speechmakers get their way, they cannot, will not stop at just the people that offend. To paraphrase the world war II saying "First they came for the people I hated, then they came for people I did not care about, then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Silent3
(15,152 posts)Fuck people being so sensitive about their religion, thinking it deserves some special extra-sensitive handling by non-believers.
If I don't worry about Republicans getting hurt feelings when I criticize Republican policies, even if I do so harshly, even if I do so through satire or crude humor, then why should I worry the slightest bit more about hurt feelings of Muslims if I criticize Islam or Islamic culture?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Let's drop the bullshit privileged language "expressions of faith" and say what we're really talking about, ideas. Do you think people shouldn't ever be denigrated for ideas they hold?
The fact that people view valid criticism of incredibly misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic belief systems as "intolerant" says a lot about religious privilege.
The same privilege that allows the Pope to be a respected figure on DU to many is the same privilege that allows people to think these cartoonists were intolerant for criticizing ideas.
Otherwise, DU has an intense hatred and intolerance of conservatives.
spin
(17,493 posts)in legitimate self defense? I would.
I don't go around insulting the faith of others but I feel that in a free society others should have that right if they wish.I am one of those who may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it.
Here on DU often Christianity is ridiculed. I consider myself a Christian (because it's the local religion) but i am willing to question my own faith and beliefs and in fact I feel Christianity requires a believer to search for the truth. If criticism was considered "intolerance" I would find it difficult to do so.
swilton
(5,069 posts)I don't like the hypocrisy of how in the West Islamophobia has been normalized. This goes along with making fun of/denigrating other groups that are weaker.....
Anti-Semitism is an entirely different matter - one would for example never see a caricature of Moses and Israel.
I abhor the violence in any form but one has to admit the killing of innocent civilians in France in numbers is miniscule compared to the thousands the US and the West have killed in Muslim countries.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)Are you fucking kidding?
I find it 'revealing' how many jump to "if it was the Jews then..." that, in of itself, says quite a bit!
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)And wasn't there a brouhaha right here at DU over that image? I seem to recall it but can't wrap my head around the thread.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That says it all.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)Can you imagine a person murdering a person because they were "anti-Zionist"? I doubt you'd find the angst and double standards.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you don't like someone's message, counter it with your own speech.
The moment we go down the rabbit hole of censoring speech because someone is offended, everyone claims to be offended.
The moment you claim that someone can't show a cartoon of your religious figure because your silly religion prohibits it- you are forcing your religion on everyone.
Behind the Aegis
(53,921 posts)Yes, it does!
Much the same way I have to tolerate anti-gay BS at any pride parade. It doesn't mean I have to approve of it, like it, or accept it, but I do have to tolerate it. Exceptions would be at websites, such as this.
OnePercentDem
(79 posts)Anyone that kills because of a cartoon does not have the right to breath the air of the rest of us.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)speaks pretty clearly that your moral compass is shattered beyond repair.
randome
(34,845 posts)That seems to be the opinion of a few. But I see your conundrum and I agree, no one should die for being tasteless and stupid.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Nobody deserves to die for stupid cartoons. I think what people are forgetting here is the fact that these murderers are a part of Al Queda, who aren't exactly known for their lucid thinking. I heard earlier this morning that those two have a list of people they wanted to kill. The editor of the magazine was on that list. It is wrong to associate members of Al Queda with all Muslims.
politicman
(710 posts)Finally, I come across your comment and I finally see someone who gets the real picture.
All these people on here and around the western world that want to denigrate Islam don't understand the one main thing, there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world, and denigrating their religion will not bring them over to your side, believe me it will have the opposite effect of making them eventually see you as their enemy, thus ensuring a religious war.
How can people not see this, Islam is a belief that 1.5 billion people CHOOSE to follow, they will not just suddenly drop their beliefs because the western world denigrates their religion.
All denigrating their religion will achieve is to drive more and more of them towards the extremists and eventually that will cause a massive war where many will die.
We have 2 choices, embrace fellow muslims and get them to feel part of our countries by only blaming the perpetrators of violent acts and not the religion as a whole, or denigrate their religion and they end up feeling that the extremists are closer to their side than we are.
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe if people would stop thinking of a magazine as a 'hero', and see the tastelessness for what it is, we'd eliminate one more reason for madmen to go on a killing spree, although 'insulting the Prophet' doesn't appear to have had much to do with what happened, despite what was claimed.
But, sadly, tastelessness seems to be in fashion these days.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Michele Cinema was fire bombed by right wing Christians who saw 'Last Temptation of Christ' as their reason for violence. 14 people were injured, 4 burned critically. Archbishop of Paris said " "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother." Sound familiar?
So is this really, do you think, about 'taste'? I sure as fuck don't think so.
randome
(34,845 posts)But the crap put out by CH was clearly meant to inflame instead of having any salient point to make, satirical or otherwise.
Did The Last Temptation of Christ depict Christ with his naked butt in the air, having a camera pointed up his ass?
I don't condone killing people for tasteless and inflammatory publications but I also agree that the CH 'cartoons' were often tasteless and inflammatory.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And that's sort of the point.
randome
(34,845 posts)Would you think it tasteless to show a Catholic priest torturing a child? Or Jesus doing the same?
'Tasteless' derives from that amorphous conclusion of 'Society In General'. It can't be defined clearly enough for everyone to agree. And it never will.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)Its just taking you a while to come out and say it...but you've started down the path.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as to what I condone deep down somewhere, especially when I have stated, unequivocally that I don't. You lack the capacity to make such a judgment.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)Or additional posts on this thread.
What makes you think he does?
I think - just my little opinion - that DU is trying to wrap our heads around the idea that France does indeed have limitations on speech and journalists and individual citizens . . . although their parameters remain strongly liberal (not in a political sense - but an expansive sense). And yet - there are people so angry and blinded by something as silly as religious fervor that they would walk into a publications office and murder people.
We are used to church's themselves being bombed and shot up. It comes from nowhere - just people worshipping or congregating as a community. A wingnut from cray cray town decides they don't 'like them ones' and all hell breaks loose. The most significant one happend what? 52 years ago?
Walking into a publication and shooting people is just well - foreign.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)We had someone shoot up a UU church for misogyny not long ago....Christians did that. What is the purpose of terrorism?
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)And I attend regularly. I lead circles for interfaith couples who would like to join our congregation and rotate youth leadership (5-8 year olds).
Are you talking about the annie performance shot up by that racist down in Tennessee?
The church I joined initially (Rochester NY) was targeted for flying a rainbow flag a few years ago too.
I always say - if Christians really understood John Adams religion (Abigails father was a UU Pastor) and how she/he brought Jefferson back to some degree from Atheism via the Humanist path -
They'd really explode at the idea that this is NOT a Christian Nation. Far from it . . .
ETA - The knoxville shooter - http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)In my opinion, not at all. The beauty of protecting their rights to free speech means I will also stand up to protect yours. Your right to publish and distribute literature outlining grievances or your own satire/thoughts. Your right to peacefully assemble on public land outside of the offending institution.
"I do not condone, under the guise of "free speech", the deliberate denigration of others because you do not agree with their expression of faith. "
While I might not condone it, I do accept it and feel the deliberate denigration of others because I do not agree with their expression of faith is our right. I actually think it would be pretty terrifying if we couldn't deliberately denigrate others for their expressions of faith or otherwise. I might not be fully understanding your sentence here so I will apologize in advance if I have. Many religious people/groups are denigrated right here on du for the expressions of faith on display here and across the globe.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Even if they meant to offend you. The proper response is in kind, ridicule for ridicule.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Nobody.
Because it's not justified.
But bullies don't follow the rules, so shit happens.
The extremists are bullies, everyone knows this.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)And they are all over the world . . .
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)But the thing is this, there are certain people that you will not shut up without the use of force. So if you forgo the use of force to shut people up, you must perforce let them talk. You don't have to listen, in fact nobody has to listen. Some will get violent to get attention, those you can arrest. The rest you must protect and ignore, lest you give them credibility.
Hate speech laws do not work because you can never get a consensus as to what is and is not hate speech. Even in egregious examples like racism and gender orthodoxy and religious dogmas there is no agreement.
The classic formulation here was the shouting fire in a theater argument, which is related to the terrorist about to blow stuff up argument for torture, it proposes a future subjective hypothetical as justification for present concrete harm now, and this opening will always be manipulated for political reasons.
I think an open and vituperative political debate is preferable to a sanitized one, politics is for grown ups. The Norwegian response. Let them discredit themselves. Bigotry is not really that attractive.
Anyway, that's the argument, and if you want me to get on board with hate speech laws you are going to have to explain how those laws will not be used in the future, as in the past, to suppress forbidden ideas. Governments fear the contagion of ideas, but their fear does not convince me it's a good idea. If your ideas are so hot, you ought to be able to defend them easily in open debate, and that is much less likely to make the problem worse than any unnecessary use of force.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)You certainly have no right to dictate to authors what they do or do not write.
Of course, you're under no obligation to agree with them or to patronize their publications. If you feel strongly about it you can publish or otherwise voice your contradictory opinion in whatever way you deem necessary.
You see, you have the right to criticize ideas. As do cartoonists.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the publishing of racist emails, re: President Obama?
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)you mean I'm not gonna go slaughter people who publish them, yeah.
If you somehow came to the conclusion that I agree with racist ideology, then no.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to make that statement.
that does not mean that we are opposed to freedom of speech. as we do not say, you are not allow. but, as a society, we are allowed thru dollar and voice, to state that cover is over the line. check it.
and that does not advocate violence, and certainly murder. or the threat of either.
i see people on this thread, that you are advocating murder. i have served on juries where people claim a poster is joyous at the deaths. talked about damned offensive.
all of us know better. none of us believes anyone discussing this is joyous at innocents murder. any murder, personally.
yet. people say it. they are exercising freedom of speech. one person told the poster, .... fuck you. i had to vote for a hide because i feel it is against community standard to tell another, fuck you. though i felt the response was tepid, compare to stating that a long time duer, respected, felt joy of the deaths in france. but, there was not a hide there.
i find too often, those demanding their right to be offensive are given a free pass. and those that call them out, exercising their free speech, gets a hide.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Where the hell does anyone get a/the sense that I "felt joy of the deaths in France"?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Happy?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=983268
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Go fuck yourself is acceptable? Rude personal attack
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:03 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Telling another poster to go fuck themselves is unacceptable.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think left has a reason to use, go fuck yourself, but it is against the rules. A poster accusing one of being "happy" with 12 deaths is way more insulting, though would probably stand. I have a tough time hiding this because of the exchange, but "go fuck yourself" is a consistent hide.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yes, this goes too far
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
i felt it too far, saying what that poster said. fuck you was wrong, but even more so, stating someone was happy about others death, was way over the line. in my opinion.
people have stated that you condone murder or getting right up on the line.
this is what i am addressing. no one is happy about murder. and no one is advocating/condoning murder. and we all know it.
JustAnotherGen
(31,783 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Had they blogged saying how bigoted they thought the cartoon was and that they didn't like it.
And we can "get" the distinction between saying the cartoons weren't very nice and obviously were offensive and condoning killing, in spite of DU contentions to the contrary!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)was dealing with the Iranian government under the Shah, the Iranians were as regular as clockwork with their signs and willing to engage all the people who wanted by with respect. They explained all that he was doing and what was wrong, and a number of them were immigrants. There was none of the hostility that we see in demonstrations and no violence. ARAMCO itself did not object to them using the plaza in front of their building, which was one of the high rises, and had a large area. No one stopped them. It was educational and part of how Americans changed their opinion on the Shah. They were also not happy about Khomeini, it ended up like being from the jumping from the frying pan in to the fire. More Iranians came to the USA to escape what was going on there. They were just like anyone else at the time, for the environment, civil rights and unions, etc. Things since have turned so nasty and hateful. I wish these guys and the community had taken that approach long ago. The guys that put out fatwas and things like that aren't doing anything but putting themselves out of the dialogue. And this didn't help what they may have felt was beautiful about Islam.
RobinA
(9,886 posts)Yes.
samsingh
(17,593 posts)and no longer hues.
innocent people are being slaughtered in the name of religion. No tolerance is being shown.
randome
(34,845 posts)They've been doing this for centuries. Maybe someday they'll grow up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Please get off your high horse. We, this country (clearly not the people on DU, but the US is a helpful representation of the West), have slaughtered many more people in the ME then they have. Hell, for a long period of time we had slaves that were treated as badly as humans can be treated. We just recently released a report on torture where we were worse than the Nazis (kind of). We are not that much better than they are as far as morality goes, and perhaps worse: the sheer hypocrisy in the US is astounding.
"They've been doing this for centuries."
Way to attack everyone over there. There's a lot I wouldn't call Islamophobia that's been posted on here; this is a pretty good example of something I think fits the bill (or at least ME-ophobia, close enough).
But clearly they are the childish ones.
randys1
(16,286 posts)a great thing to talk about given the situation.
First, you say "deliberate denigration", and we have our first issue.
If I "lampoon" your belief, is it deliberate? Well, of course it is.
Personally I condone any kind of lampooning of any religion because I think ALL religions are more harmful than good. But I also condone and enjoy lampooning of politicians, rightwing assholes, self-righteous assholes, etc. I just like lampooning 
My point is I dont single out religion to mock and make fun of, but it is one that provides endless opportunities.
And that is speech, and for most of us relatively harmless, maybe it hurts your feelings, but them is the breaks.
I would like to see a magazine like "Charlie Hebdo" attempt equal opportunity lampooning including Christians, and maybe they do, dont know...
But there is NO speech, NO print, NO cartoon, NO visual media that is not to be condoned at some level as it cant harm you or me, I guess child pornography would be an exception but are there any others?
AT the end of the day the Muslim community does NOT condone this reaction or these killings, so they are not demanding this speech be ended, why should anyone else?
The only people demanding so and so not print a cartoon, OR ELSE, are radicals who do NOT represent the Muslim community at all.
Good conversation...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Though I disagree with most of what you wrote. I would particularly note ...
The two propositions do not follow ... not condoning (or even condemning) the killings, is unrelated to criticizing/calling to an end of this offensive speech ... and there is a call of condemnation of this particular brand of speech, as offensive, through much of the Muslim world.
BTW, I have arrived at self (rather than, imposed) censorship for the sake of comity.
randys1
(16,286 posts)conclusion that Ari Rabin-Havt of "The Agenda" Sirius radio show helped me make today, this isnt really about religion, it is about tribalism, and religion is just a symptom.
We all want to be part of a club, the leaders want to control the club if possible so it doesnt get out of hand, and one way to do that historically is with religion.
We use X religion, they use Y, someone else uses W...they all have much in common but mainly a group collective control kind of thing, which isnt always bad but when each one insists it is the ONLY one, well you know how that works out...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Religion is, but, one (very powerful) method of social control ... it promotes intra-group "norming", which is good/necessary.
randys1
(16,286 posts)check him out if you can
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)
(save threats of violence, etc) but that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism for that speech. Their right to free speech doesn't encumber my or your right to criticize that speech or to form conclusions about their character.
And no, speech and murder are not in any way comparable. What i have noticed, however, is some invoke free speech in an effort to silence criticism, which is itself a form of speech.
I think the French situation is complicated because we don't understand the cultural context, neither of the terrorists or of French journalists. I don't feel I can judge that cover as an outsider. But if I did, any judgement I would have would be expressed through my own free speech, certainly not violence.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)In the end, does it matter what sort of speech was exercised? Does it make a difference that you happen to agree or disagree with the expressed views?
Many people have died who had dared to speak out loud about unpopular ideas. I'll bet you can think of one or two examples from our own semi-recent history. Intolerance of ideas, especially when grown out of prejudice, or tradition or religious conviction, is simply, without mitigation, wrong.
When you say "
Note, I do not condone killing)," what I read between the line is [font size="1"] "but maybe they were asking for it."[/font]
On second thought, maybe he was.
