Allow me to add that scientologists form a sharp minority, and I hope no one is suggesting we shouldn’t be satirizing them. Power can’t be weighed purely in demographic numbers.
Except the extremists who attacked them were also adhering to principles. They believe their creator wanted them to do this, and so they were fulfilling their role on Earth. Don’t you see the problem here? If everyone follows their principles, we all end up dead.
Besides, if all this does is inflame relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, don’t you see how that would be counterproductive? I mean, if this makes it so moderate Muslims are attacked and liberties for everyone are reduced, then the terrorists win. That’s why it’s just best to not give the extremists a reason to attack, since all they really want is extremism. And what they don’t want is moderation and tolerance.
That’s why they choose extreme tactics, because they know that gets them the results they want. That’s why Bin Laden attacked us, because he wanted us to invade Muslim countries and thus prove that he’s right about us wanting to invade Muslim countries. Our reaction was what he wanted…even if it was perhaps larger than he anticipated. He WANTED us to get bogged down fighting his people. And we gave him what he wanted.
Jesus wasn’t a politician. He was the founder of a strictly religious movement. In general founders of religious movements are respected in the west, and usually even revered, even if they are not respected by journalistic acts. However Mohammed was a politician and a founder of a religion. To the extent he is the founder of a religion, he is respected.
But in the west, Politics and politicians must be lampooned. The system of democratic government without comedic critique simply doesn’t work. Where would we be without the Daily show, SNL skits, and shows like Colbert (RIP) making fund of Republicans so full of themselves that they took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to host the White House dinner?
Muslims want to use politicis to advance Islam religiously and religion to advance itself politicially. Here you are helping them to do the latter: because Mohammed founded a religion, he cannot be lampooned as a political figure.
They could and should abandon political Islam altogether. To Jesus’ credit, he did when he said render to Caesar what is Caesars.
This issue, btw, is the reason why Islam cannot be tolerated in the west in large numbers. It is simply antithetical to western values. Islam cannot separate politics from religion - they think it is one and the same thing. Part of the reason has to do with its history. For the first 12 years of his ministry, Mohammed lived in Mecca without political power and only converted about 150 people. Then he moved to Medina where he obtained some political power. He then learned to mix coercive force into the mix and withing 10 years controled and converted all of Arabia, that which he didn’t convert he enslaved or killed, which is the driving influence upon Jihadist and extreme Islamisist today.
1 Like
Disagree entirely.
More mocking of these violent lunatics, and the very actions these lunatics take can, and almost certainly will decrease support form everyone who is not already predisposed to violent insane beliefs. I posit that when these extremists resort to violin it diminishes their effectiveness in advancing their beliefs, particularly when it isolate themselves other people of faith.
Violence is a losing action ultimately. Their violence validates and amplifies the criticism that “provoked” it.
Really – you’ve checked – I don’t know what plain of existence you live on – but it certainly is not this one.
But go ahead – keep making profoundly ignorant assertions – it can only serve to enhance your credibility in the long run.
In case you’re struggling to find some more – how about this one – no one believes some rape victims weren’t “asking for it”
Or try this one – no one believes that provocative dress doesn’t put some of the responsibility for the rape on the victim
Ok – you go now – I’m sure you can come up with some more rape assertions that no one believes
1 Like
So you embrace an ethos of blaming the victim?
Interesting.
Diplomacy, friendship, moderation, respect: these are all very valuable things. But a satirical magazine, much less one with a tiny readership, is not required, expected, or even should be in the business of being diplomats. They are in the business of making insightful criticisms. Nothing I’ve seen out of Charlie Hebdo has struck me as especially insightful, but they have a right and an expectation to not back down in making them out of fear for their lives. That is what their government is there for.
1 Like
If a universal truth about the purpose of religion could be synthesized, it would most probably be the Golden Rule. Killing in the name of a Prophet is not religion, it is an execration. Muslims should denounce these acts in the strongest possible terms and do everything in their power to alleviate these inconsistent tendencies. Having beliefs challenged by fearless left wingers should be seen as an opportunity to advance human decency not a bludgeon to subvert it. Violence in the name of religion, cannot be justified. Islamists and extreme satirists are not two sides of the same coin, but be careful what you ask for in the name of belief, one of the most damaging conditions of all time.
1 Like
Is it appropriate for followers of a religion (any religion) to seek redress of grievances by slaughtering people who work for a newspaper based on satire? I think not, Eustace. How does an act like this fix anything? It does not. And one of the things about freedom of the press is you’ll get tasteless stuff, obscene stuff, along with great stuff.
Holy Carp, dude. Do I really have to break this down to basic principles?
If someone is using the threat of violence to get their way, then it is a moral imperative to refuse to let them succeed. The entire foundation of human civilization is built on that principle, on the basic Hobbesian social contract.
Natually speaking, we have the right to do anything we are actually capable of doing. Everyone else has that same right. That means I have the natural right to kill you and take your stuff if I want it. And your survivors have the natural right to kill me over it. This is not a functioning society.
Society functions because we all agree to cede that natural right to do anything we like, where our interests conflict with others’ well-being. Those who operate within the framework of a society built on that social contract, but do not themselves adhere to that contract, are a danger to everyone else who does abide by its terms. In order for society to function, those elements must be shown that their behavior will not be tolerated. If they are not, then that anti-societal success will inevitably come easier and faster than success within the bounds of the social contract, and so will quickly appear to be the more attractive avenue for success to many. Beyond a certain point, society ceases to be able to function at all, but well before that point, those individuals who do not abrogate their natural right to anti-societal behavior will succeed to a level that gives them wide-spread dominance over those who do.
In short, sociopathic despots and dictators arise, and everyone suffers as a result.
Every single act of tolerating such behavior provides positive reinforcement, provides a clear demonstration that no matter what the polite people say, yes, beating people up and taking their stuff is a perfectly valid way to get ahead. Every time you do not respond in active opposition to this behavior, you are an enabler.
It doesn’t matter if someone said something mean. KILLING PEOPLE is never an acceptable response. ‘You’ve got no one to blame but yourself’ is not an acceptable response. I have been insulted and mocked and beaten up - as I’m pretty sure everyone here has been. Have you responded by killing someone? Has anyone else here? The only person ‘to blame’ for someone killing someone is the person doing the killing. Period.
2 Likes
Je suis Charlie
Except the extremists WANT you to overreact. They don’t want tolerance for their religion. If they wanted tolerance, they would have protested peacefully, or asked for tolerance. But extremists want extremism. They want you to overreact. They want you to hate their religion, just as they hate you for not being religious. And they want war.
And what they don’t want is tolerance, moderation, and understanding. That weakens them entirely. So they make bold threats and carry through with them, so you hate them as much as they hate you. All you’re doing is giving them what they want. Bin Laden didn’t attack on 9/11 because he thought we’d fold. He attacked because he wanted us to attack right back, assuming we’d get bogged down in a pointless land war like what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan. And that’s pretty much what happened, where we didn’t really lose, but we didn’t win anything either. Instead, we wasted trillions of dollars and made the world a more dangerous place. We gave Bin Laden what he wanted. Similarly, these guys don’t want you to tolerate Islam. They want you afraid of it, or mad at it.
And what would hurt them most is if we treated them like this wasn’t a religious attack, and that they’re just regular old killers like everyone else. And that’s what they are, since they’re no different than if the Mafia or Crips killed a journalist who insulted them. It’s the same damn thing, regardless of what they say their motive is. And the main thing is to separate them from the good Muslims who aren’t attacking anyone. That would undermine them entirely. And that’s the case with extremists everywhere, including in our own country. They insist that Islam is evil and must be destroyed, which is why they pretend there aren’t good Muslims, because they want to kill them all. All they understand is binary situations, and it’s their desire to lump all enemies together and wipe them out. And we need to resist that, no matter how much they try to incite us into hatred.
You do realize you are replying to our resident satirist, yes?
- But without religion, we have no reason to be moral. Right?
- Islam is a religion of peace. Right?
Riiiiight
They had plenty of reason to do it. Mohammed was the founder of a religious movement, yes, but he was also a politician and the founder of a political movement.
In the west, as a founder of a religious movement he can be respected, just like Buddha or Zoroaster or Jesus. But as a politician, as the founder of a political movement he must be lampooned. Western politics does not work without the lampooning of politics. If he didn’t want to be lampooned, he should have stayed out of politics. But his religious movement was largely a failure until he got a hold of political power and learned to mix in coercive force to reinforce his religion. That’s not a problem of the West, that’s a problem for Islam. If he had had a more appealing religion he wouldn’t have needed coercive force and politics in the first place.
Who said anything about “overreacting”?
Five things I need to know? Is TPM aping Vox regularly now, or just when they find it difficult to take a position on islamist extremism for fear of crossing the PC line? So few on the left have any moral courage anymore.
This incident is nothing different from a mob boss ordering the hit of a small business owner who refuses to pay protection. It is a violent, extra-legal flexing of muscle by one group to enforce its own rules. And the more Western liberals find excuses for it, the easier its going to be to make those “rules” permanently enforceable.
1 Like
Well said. Voltaire said, “Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.” Religion in toto has always done and continues to do several things quite well: Separates and categorizes people as it divides them on every level; serves as an extraordinarily effective group control device; and often effectively and wholly obliterates all sane thought and reason.
2 Likes
I supported our resident snark master back when he was just Eustace Tilly. I admire his parody style and have said so on numerous occasions. When he switches to normal typing I take it to mean it’s a serious moment for him. Then again I have said here on these boards that I am prone to missing snark and sarcasm when disguised in normal type. I freely admit to this. And I mean no harm to Eustace.
1 Like
Well – it’s called a Theocracy – a system of government where priests rule in the name of God or a god.
During the course of human history, it has been a very common and popular way for a ruler to keep control of the people under his domain. In Western Europe, see the Divine Right of Kings. To object, was to object to the will of God, and when you object to God, he gets very angry, and he calls upon his followers to kill you - in his name, of course.
See Joan of Arc.
Also, in this country, see the murder of abortion doctors. Always justified by religion, and of course, just like Charlie Hebdo – they were warned – so what did they expect. (Those who make that argument are wankers - and we know how god feels about that)
1 Like