Je suis Charlie

[crfriend]

The day when we cannot use humour and satire to communicate ideas will likely be the day that we die as an intellectual species. So, yes, I am Charlie! So is another grand-master:

asterix-jesuischarlie.jpg

I cry for France, and I cry for satire.

Where will this madness end?

[Couya]

The Charlie Hebdo massacre has really shaken us all, both the non-religious majority that have realized how easily our freedom of opinion and speech can be lost, and the religious moderates who had not realized just what madness can come from dogmas that may possibly not be appropriate in this day and age.
I hope the former will not make the mistake of putting all muslims in the same sack as if they were all potential killers (most north-africans living in France are here to work and live quietly and comfortably with their families). I hope too that the unthinkingly devout will start asking questions about the faith they grew up in and were never allowed to question.
Whether the founders lived 2000 or 1400 years ago, it is high time for reformation. Christians finally admitted that the earth was round and that women had a place in society, but they still have a long way to go. There have been muslim reformers, but the majority knew they were not allowed to think for themselves, and reform never took off.
Unfortunately, the more probable outcome will be a backlash against immigrants in general (there has already been violent action against mosques in France and xenophobic demonstrations in Germany), meaning ever greater difficulty for the young to find work and get out of the low-cost habitat that has bred dissent. Since apostasy is impossible for muslims, it is impossible for them to act even if they disagree with the extremists, so it is impossible for the muslim community to distance themselves from the trouble makers and show that they are ready to adopt the tenets of the republic.
It is difficult to see much hope for a peaceful, safe society for all in the near future. Pulling a trigger is so much easier than sitting down with a book or a computer and learning to think objectively, critically, for oneself.

Martin, who, having lived in a muslim country and loved it, is very very sad.

[Grok]

People have been sending flowers and pencils (symbols of free speech) to the French consulate in Seattle.

[Sinned]

You make a good point Mrtn. I started out as CofE by default and our family was converted to LDS in the sixties. I was pretty much brought up as LDS from about 10 but have had periods of inactivity throughout my life and because my wife is not supportive am not very active now. So I have left the CofE and if I wanted to leave the LDS faith then it would be relatively easy. I would just have to tell the Church leaders not to visit and then start to attend whatever alternative Church I choose. For Muslims, as you say, that choice is a LOT more difficult. Being ostracised would probably be the least of what would happen. Physical assault or even death is entirely possible. They would certainly have to leave the social group that they know and move to somewhere far away where they are not known. So in comparison they are relatively where Christianity was in the Dark/Middle Ages. To clarify I'm not saying that they are unintelligent, far from it only that in early Christianity there was little choice as to which Church you worshipped in and leaving for an alternative was virtually impossible and even non-attendance suspicious and not encouraged.

[crfriend]

I think the real issue here is not mainstream Islam, but rather an entirely kinky -- and fairly modern -- interpretation of it that seems to be spreading like wildfire. Over the years, I have known and worked with many Muslims and to a one they have been kind, decent, and upstanding folks. So, I believe that to tar and feather an entire religion is unintelligent and ultimately hurtful. (Note the powerful parallels in some so-called Christian sects here in the USA with the Taleban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.)

The problem is extremism, not religion. The sooner we can decouple those the better. Call 'em what they are -- terrorists -- not jihadis, freedom-fighters, or soldiers of fortune.

Face it, the overwhelming percentage of the world's population wants pretty much the same thing -- the ability to provide for their family and to dwell in peace and tranquility. It's a pity that those folks are never heard from and it's only the zealots who make the 6 o'clock news.

[dillon]

The terrorist tragedy in Paris should give us all something to think about.

I'm sure I don't need to repeat my rant about theocracy, other than to say that it is the worst threat to human progress that exists, and it keeps rearing its ugly head. At any juncture the name of God is injected into the realm of politics, the unimaginable becomes not only possible, but often destined to be perpetrated. Injecting God into politics allows the evil to commit any offense not only with impunity but with applause from those devotees who, in their blind piety, refuse to think for themselves. And anyone who would assert that it happens because they are Muslim, and it can't happen here because we are Christian and therefore different, is woefully ignorant of history. I'm sure this statement will elicit as much animosity as one of their offending cartoons, but the longer I observe the great faiths of the world, the more convinced I am that the first step toward becoming Godly, by the standards of most theologies, is the complete abandonment of natural intellect.

That being said, the question that must be asked about Charlie Hebdo and other editorial press of that satirical, critical sort is this: Because it is legal to publish any and every opinion, should you actually publish any and every opinion? Charlie Hebdo, as a secular satirical publication, was at least an equal opportunity offender. Had some religious media published such cartoons about another religion, would we not be decrying it as hate speech rather than lauding it as freedom of speech? Perhaps we need to consider whether a media form thus dedicated is not itself simply a godless religion. While I think the secular realm is the best course for humanity, no realm is excused from the diligent exercise of responsibility.

[crfriend]

[...] Injecting God into politics allows the evil to commit any offense not only with impunity but with applause from those devotees who, in their blind piety, refuse to think for themselves.

This is why it's an imperative for the ones who would commit evil in the name of their deity to expunge to power of reason from those who would be under their control. Witness the behavior of all sorts of these types, both offshore (to the USA) and onshore. The tactics are different, but the aims are identical. Remove the power of reason from the individual and you have a slave.

[...] Because it is legal to publish any and every opinion, should you actually publish any and every opinion? Charlie Hebdo, as a secular satirical publication, was at least an equal opportunity offender. Had some religious media published such cartoons about another religion, would we not be decrying it as hate speech rather than lauding it as freedom of speech? Perhaps we need to consider whether a media form thus dedicated is not itself simply a godless religion.

Now that's an interesting thesis! Opinion is an important thing -- even if it is unpopular -- and should have an avenue for expression. Part of what we (as westerners) tend to agree on is that no matter what your opinion on something is you have a right to express it. Yes, that does include opinions that are overtly offensive, and in some lands (e.g. Germany) laws exist to prevent the expression of some opinions.

My own belief is that absent coercive factors fact will prevail in the minds of the populace. Forget "truth" here for a moment, I'm just mentioning fact -- historical fact and scientific fact. We have (attempted) genocide deniers (which is what the aforementioned German law criminalises) and climate-change deniers (Yes, Virginia, it's changing; the prime question is how much we as a species are driving it.). As silly or abhorrent (to use the above) are, they are nonetheless valid opinions for opinions hold little weight without a lot of "buy-in" from the surrounding populace. However, the preponderance of evidence will sway those who can think for themselves -- and that's why those who seek "dominion" want to remove the ability to think from the general population.

The nice thing about the above is that ultimately those who seek to control will remove the ability to use critical thought from their own ranks. This would indicate a new "Dark Age" followed by another "Renaissance" which is what happened the last time 'round. Or, perhaps this time, extinction. Recall that extinction is the rule in evolution not the exception -- and there's really nothing particularly exceptional about Homo Sapies." What's one more species to time?

[Jim]

I'm not so sure that injecting God into politics is always a bad thing. The theme of God's liberation in Exodus was central to the US civil rights movement. I believe God commands we love our enemies. That may remove some fighters from the scene, which might be bad in some folks' eyes, but it is often accompanied by work for peace.

It's evil portrayals of God that is so dangerous.

[crfriend]

I'm not so sure that injecting God into politics is always a bad thing.

The primary problem with theocracies is that everybody not in the "club" is entirely disenfranchised -- second-rate citizens, or worse. This just might work for monolithic societies, but with the sort of diversity present in most developed countries it doesn't stand a chance of working fairly or equitably.

There is a compelling reason why civilized countries are moving away from theocracy and established religions.

[Couya]

Injecting (religion) into politics allows the evil to commit any offense not only with impunity but with applause from those devotees who, in their blind piety, refuse to think for themselves

Not only do they refuse; they are taught from the earliest age to listen, repeat, and not ask questions.
In muslim countries, children of five and more spend years memorizing the Quran. They are however not expected to understand it, and indeed, ancient classical arabic is as foreign a language in all of those countries as latin is for Europeans today, so they cannot understand the texts, and thus they are prepared to go through life repeating what they are told to repeat and never, ever think for themselves.
(Of course, one should never generalize about anything; the fact that I have witnessed the way Moroccans and Senegalese are educated does not mean that every muslim child undergoes the same treatment ... does it?)

How can you argue with anyone who has had the truth drummed into his head from childhood, and never wondered if there were any contradictions and inconsistencies?

So I cannot agree with a

belief that fact will prevail in the minds of the populace. Forget "truth" here for a moment, I'm just mentioning fact -- historical fact and scientific fact.

That change is not coming very fast, because people whose lives are based on beliefs are not interested in facts. They probably can not distinguish between facts and legends.

According to the jihadists, the French journalists' sin was "blasphemy". Have you noticed that westerners seem to agree about this? Could that be because we too have been brought up not to question religious tenets? Not to say anything that is not in line with anyone's religion? Personally, I cannot see how anyone that does not adhere to a religion can be blasphemous. If you are not a christian, how can critical remarks about christian scriptures or rituals be blasphemy? Outside of religion, blasphemy does not exist.

"So, I believe that to tar and feather an entire religion is unintelligent and ultimately hurtful."
Worded as such, I certainly do not agree there, but presumably Carl meant, not abstract "religion", but the whole group of people involved with a religion. In the case of the islamist attacks, yes, it is quite wrong to imply that because a few madmen were murderous, all their co-religionaires must be murderous too. The majority of muslims are as peace-loving as christians, etc. However, it would be pleasing to learn that some of them at least can distance themselves from a religion that encourages criminal acts and reject those parts of the ancient texts that are inconsistent with "liberty, equality, fraternity".

Martin

[Jim]

I'm not so sure that injecting God into politics is always a bad thing.

The primary problem with theocracies is that everybody not in the "club" is entirely disenfranchised -- second-rate citizens, or worse. This just might work for monolithic societies, but with the sort of diversity present in most developed countries it doesn't stand a chance of working fairly or equitably.

The only "theocracy" that I could support is the real one, the kingdom of God. God's "representatives" frequently misrepresent him.

But the teachings that come from a loving God should inform our political views. For example:

• Love your neighbor as yourself

• Do onto others as you would have others do onto you.

• Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

• Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,

• Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

• Honor your father and your mother.

• You shall not murder.

• You shall not commit adultery.

• You shall not steal.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

• You shall not covet.

• You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him

• the earth is the Lord‘s, and everything in it

• There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female

• Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.

I would think the first one or the last one should be enough to prevent anyone from being disenfranchised.

[crfriend]

The only "theocracy" that I could support is the real one, the kingdom of God. God's "representatives" frequently misrepresent him.

The operative question in response to that is, "Whose god?" That's like the nice thing about computing standards: there are so many to choose from. Contemplate what would happen to you if somebody from another religion -- or even sect -- ran the theocracy you happen to live in. Theocracies are great if you're in the ruling class; the issue is that given the number of religions and sects involved the odds are very high indeed that you won't be.

Other than that, there's no way I can answer this and stay within the bounds of decency, other than to recall something said by someone much wiser than I, "Comingling government and religion enhances neither and cheapens both."

[Jim]

The only "theocracy" that I could support is the real one, the kingdom of God. God's "representatives" frequently misrepresent him.

The operative question in response to that is, "Whose god?"

When the Kingdom of God arrives, the answer to the question will be clear to all.

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him.

Until then, you're right that any "theocracy" is bound to be oppressive.

[skirtyscot]

The only "theocracy" that I could support is the real one, the kingdom of God. God's "representatives" frequently misrepresent him.

The operative question in response to that is, "Whose god?"

When the Kingdom of God arrives, the answer to the question will be clear to all.

I fear you have missed Carl's point, maybe deliberately. When the answer is clear, what if it's not your god that has arrived?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X_hcO4N7hM0

[crfriend]

I fear you have missed Carl's point, maybe deliberately. When the answer is clear, what if it's not your god that has arrived?

I was hoping the other shoe would drop at some point. It kind of reminds me of a joke about the matter involving the Pope and a senior Cardinal:

Cardinal: Your eminence, I have good news and bad news.
Pope: Well, let's have the good news first. It's been a rough week.
Cardinal: God has arrived on Earth.
Pope: My word! How can any other news be bad?
Cardinal: She's black, and in Salt Lake City.

If gods exist, it's highly improbable that we'd recognize them if one ever showed up on our doorstep. Even the brightest minds who are now pondering the farthest reaches of space and looking for life aren't opening up their minds to life forms that we cannot understand. There's got to be more ways to do it than with carbon-chemistry and liquid water; but that's all we understand at the moment and apparently don't want to contemplate alternate mechanisms.

Sort of like the "our blood is red, so therefore all blood is red" argument -- which, of course, falls on its face when one nicks an octopus (copper-based blood -- they bleed green).

So, whilst the question of, "Whose god?" is mainly rhetorical it can also be used provocatively. For instance I came in for some heat a few years ago when I got tired of hearing somebody chant "God bless America" a few too many times and mentioned the fact that the country got blessed pretty well by Osama bin Laden's god in 2001.

Be careful of what one asks for. Odds on, you'll not get what you asked for.