Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:13:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"  (Read 13214 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2015, 01:40:18 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2015, 01:43:50 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.

Atheism is a religion? Huh
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2015, 01:59:54 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.

Atheism is a religion? Huh

Yes.  A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.  While most religions contain some supernatural aspect to them, it isn't a requirement.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2015, 02:13:07 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.

Atheism is a religion? Huh

Yes.  A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.  While most religions contain some supernatural aspect to them, it isn't a requirement.

Given the heterogeneous nature of the beliefs of atheism (apart from generally all agreeing on the God question), it's difficult to say that "atheism" as a broad category fits the definition you give.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2015, 02:14:19 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2015, 02:14:27 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.

Bullsh*t. Jesus, Muhammad etc. are only sacred figures to believers, but nonbelievers may say whatever they want about them. It's not that secularists don't "get" it. They simply understand that their liberty is not limited by other people's beliefs.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2015, 02:42:27 PM »

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I feel the same way in regards to non-thiestic religions such as atheism and humanism.  That said, insulting religious leaders is in general not the same as insulting their religion or their followers.  I say in general because in a very real sense, Muhammad, Jesus, Gautama , etc. have transcended being people who are leaders of a religion to becoming symbols of that religion.  That's a distinction that many secularists have difficulty grasping the concept of, let alone acknowledging the validity thereof.

Bullsh*t. Jesus, Muhammad etc. are only sacred figures to believers, but nonbelievers may say whatever they want about them. It's not that secularists don't "get" it. They simply understand that their liberty is not limited by other people's beliefs.

This. Plus Ernest's definition of 'religion' extends to things such as state Communism. If you have a philosophical worldview, with or without a god head it should be subject to criticism and ridicule because those two observations often overlap; how they are interpreted is often subject to the observer. If I ridicule the fact that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus flew up into the sky, at what point would me saying 'Virgin birth is impossible as is flying literally or metaphorically into heaven' cross the line from criticism to ridicule? I'm belittling that belief either way.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2015, 02:42:31 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.

There is nothing hateful about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. We can argue about the value of mean-spirited sneer and scatological humour in political discourse (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you on that), but the idea that religious symbols should be afforded some kind of special protection against them is disgustingly reactionary.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2015, 03:10:36 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.

There is nothing hateful about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. We can argue about the value of mean-spirited sneer and scatological humour in political discourse (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you on that), but the idea that religious symbols should be afforded some kind of special protection against them is disgustingly reactionary.

Well, then, on this particular issue, call me Joseph de Maistre and pack me off to a hermitage, because the idea that those cartoons 'aren't hateful' strikes me as self-evidently ludicrous.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2015, 03:19:17 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.

There is nothing hateful about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. We can argue about the value of mean-spirited sneer and scatological humour in political discourse (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you on that), but the idea that religious symbols should be afforded some kind of special protection against them is disgustingly reactionary.

Well, then, on this particular issue, call me Joseph de Maistre and pack me off to a hermitage, because the idea that those cartoons 'aren't hateful' strikes me as self-evidently ludicrous.

How is the cartoon in my signature for example, hateful?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2015, 03:21:39 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.

There is nothing hateful about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. We can argue about the value of mean-spirited sneer and scatological humour in political discourse (and I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you on that), but the idea that religious symbols should be afforded some kind of special protection against them is disgustingly reactionary.

Well, then, on this particular issue, call me Joseph de Maistre and pack me off to a hermitage, because the idea that those cartoons 'aren't hateful' strikes me as self-evidently ludicrous.

What differentiates a vulgar cartoon about a religion from, say, a vulgar cartoon about a political view, or about opinion on a movie? Why is the former "hateful" while the others are just expression of a viewpoint?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2015, 03:34:49 PM »

Meanwhile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30856403
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2015, 03:55:02 PM »

How is the cartoon in my signature for example, hateful?

To be honest, I can't really tell what's meant to be communicated in that one, so for all I know it isn't. I mean I'm definitely not claiming they all are.

What differentiates a vulgar cartoon about a religion from, say, a vulgar cartoon about a political view, or about opinion on a movie? Why is the former "hateful" while the others are just expression of a viewpoint?

I'm tempted to just say 'because I've moved towards an admittedly and self-consciously traditionalist-conservative position on this specific issue' and leave it at that, but that's not really a legitimate argument so I won't. One left-oriented argument that springs to mind is that, especially in Europe, while Islam obviously isn't itself a race, it's rhetorically racialized in a way that lends itself to economic marginalization and political repression, and so, while criticism is certainly warranted in many instances, it's kind of unseemly to satirize it insofar as satire should punch up rather than punching down--id est, while I'm actually really offended by some of Charlie Hebdo's anti-Christian material, I don't think it's as problematic for them to be putting out as the anti-Muslim stuff.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2015, 04:27:38 PM »

Wow. A complete and utter milquetoast response at very best on religious violence by the Bishop of Rome. Not surprising, all things considered. 

I see you didn't bother to read what he said:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also liked how he slipped in an admission of guilt for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in there.

I did read it, and found myself eye-rolling throughout. It's an astonishingly weak, apologetic response. It's a step away from, "Well, I don't condone it, but that's what you get." Which is complete b.s.

Killing in the name of God was NOT an aberration, it was a policy. And it currently is with groups like ISIS.

The fact that religionists expect to put up a shield which immunizes religion from criticism is never more obvious than it is here, and I think it's awful. It is literally like a state political system shielding itself from criticism (Soviet, e.g.).
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2015, 04:33:04 PM »

How is the cartoon in my signature for example, hateful?

To be honest, I can't really tell what's meant to be communicated in that one, so for all I know it isn't. I mean I'm definitely not claiming they all are.


Really?

Well, then, on this particular issue, call me Joseph de Maistre and pack me off to a hermitage, because the idea that those cartoons 'aren't hateful' strikes me as self-evidently ludicrous.

I'm not going to stand and see these cartoons as the pinnacle of satire, because they are not. But as far as I recall you are not fluent in French, nor may you understand what social context particular to France they are satirising, so why are you are claiming that the cartoons are 'hateful', if you don't know precisely what they are trying to address, even if they resort to a crude caricature?
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2015, 04:44:43 PM »

Why is this even in this section? Surely this belongs in either International General Discussion or Religion & Philosophy?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2015, 04:54:09 PM »

One left-oriented argument that springs to mind is that, especially in Europe, while Islam obviously isn't itself a race, it's rhetorically racialized in a way that lends itself to economic marginalization and political repression, and so, while criticism is certainly warranted in many instances, it's kind of unseemly to satirize it insofar as satire should punch up rather than punching down--id est, while I'm actually really offended by some of Charlie Hebdo's anti-Christian material, I don't think it's as problematic for them to be putting out as the anti-Muslim stuff.

Some of the worst Islamist fanatics are White converts and a lot of people that come from ethnic minorities with roots in Islamic countries (especially women) are suffering from oppression from Islamists and reactionaries trying to enforce their norms within Muslim communities. It would be wrong to make this about race. Muslims that accept Western norms on gender roles, masculinity and free speech (including critique of their religion) + acknowledge the importance of education and try to integrate generally do fine. Islam needs to adapt to work in Europe and there are people working on that. Protecting the reactionaries within the Muslim community from critique is not a viable path. Europe is a secular and to some extent anti-religious place and if you can not handle that you will be marginalized and ostracized. This is not really something you can change. You are doing Muslims a disservice if you pretend otherwise. There is a limit to cultural pluralism in Europe and the successful minorities are the ones that get this. Europe is based on national cultures that can to a certain degree be opened up to include new groups, but European countries can never develop US style cultural pluralism and Americans tend to ignore this when evaluating these matters.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2015, 04:56:16 PM »

What differentiates a vulgar cartoon about a religion from, say, a vulgar cartoon about a political view, or about opinion on a movie? Why is the former "hateful" while the others are just expression of a viewpoint?

I'm tempted to just say 'because I've moved towards an admittedly and self-consciously traditionalist-conservative position on this specific issue' and leave it at that, but that's not really a legitimate argument so I won't. One left-oriented argument that springs to mind is that, especially in Europe, while Islam obviously isn't itself a race, it's rhetorically racialized in a way that lends itself to economic marginalization and political repression, and so, while criticism is certainly warranted in many instances, it's kind of unseemly to satirize it insofar as satire should punch up rather than punching down--id est, while I'm actually really offended by some of Charlie Hebdo's anti-Christian material, I don't think it's as problematic for them to be putting out as the anti-Muslim stuff.

All I can say about your first point is that this really saddens me. I can only say we are both lucky to not have met half a decade ago, when I was in my fierce anti-clerical phase, because despite our respective goodwill we probably wouldn't have been able to get along at all. It's unfortunate that the drift of your perspective seems to be taking us apart once again.

Your second point (which, due to your presentation of it, I'm not sure if I am supposed to consider it an argument or a pretext) is one I've heard quite often on this forum. It's drawn from the dialectic of "social justice", which, I guess, is the closest thing to a proper ideology that modern American liberalism has been able to produce (and is certainly preferable to the vapid individualism of other American liberals). As a French leftist who was educated in a very different conception of progressivism, this worldview used to puzzle me, but spending a year in San Francisco allowed me to understand it better, and I have espoused some of its tenets.

Still, what I cannot stomach about this perspective its avowed, exacerbated moral relativism. In "social justice" thought (and your post reflects it quite well) it's all about "privilege" and "oppression". Every reflection of the morality of an action or the consequence of a situation is conducted through the lens of these concepts. The division between the "privileged" and the "oppressed" determines everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that social justice views privilege as a binary notion - there has been a lot of great work on the complexity and multidimensionnality of privilege in society. But I'm annoyed by the fact that considering the dynamics of privilege comes at the expense of holding any kind of universal value.

The case of Charlie Hebdo makes this especially obvious. Charlie isn't "racist", anyone with a brain and who actually reads the paper can realize that in fact they're one of the most outspokenly antiracist publications in France. They systematically denounce xenophobic discourse, wherever it comes from, and take the defense of French Arabs/Muslims whenever they are discriminated against. They also happen to not be very fond of religion. They consider religion to be a factor of oppression, so they use satire as a weapon against this oppression. The argument you're making basically means that they should be nicer toward Islam because people who practice it tend to be economically and socially disfavored. But the people of Charlie Hebdo have no reason to make this connection, because, precisely, they have never racialized Islam, and are always careful to distinguish satire of ideas with insults to a group of people. Their struggle is against a vision of society (theocracy and its derivatives), not against one or another segments. Should they drop this principled commitment in the name of strictly material considerations?

Let's put it in another way. When the murderers stormed in the journal's conference room and killed 11 people, who was being oppressed? We can agree that it's the Charlie Hebdo crew. What force was responsible for this oppressive condition? Not a material state of affairs (as the Charlie Hebdo people would count as "privileged" by most metrics), but rather an idea. Oppression is not only a material reality, ideas can, and often are oppressive. Religious fundamentalism is, in itself, oppressive. And you can't combat a universal idea with relativistic notions, you have to develop a principled rebuttal. The Charlie Hebdo massacre is the bloody demonstration that what the journal were doing was noble and right, because until a person can be shot (or flogged, or stoned, etc.) for satirizing religions, satirizing religions will be a way of challenging power.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2015, 05:00:11 PM »

The Pope continues to be annoying. More at eleven....and yes, I read the article and I don't think the thread title is too inaccurate.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2015, 05:07:37 PM »

I'm tempted to just say 'because I've moved towards an admittedly and self-consciously traditionalist-conservative position on this specific issue' and leave it at that, but that's not really a legitimate argument so I won't.

So what's left then? I mean that in all seriousness. If ridicule of religion is for you now 'less acceptable' because you have shifted your position then what are people to do who are under the yoke of religion, or feel it's influence on their daily life? In many cultures or nations there is no opportunity for the non-religious or even people of another religion to engage in critical debate. That platform is not open for them. All you can do is ridicule; not in a gross caricature but in persistently highlighting the absurdities of a faith and it's impact on your life. Ridicule is a low art, but it is a common art and is a tool of the disadvantaged. It's very easy to say 'don't be vulgar' or 'don't be cheap' if you are in a position of relative comfort.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2015, 05:09:30 PM »

What was the pope supposed to say? 'Blatant hate speech is essential to a free society, let 'er rip surviving Charlie Hebdo people'? As little as anybody short of Julius Streicher deserves to die because of a newspaper they put out, I don't think that would have been a morally responsible reaction. Juvenalian satire going out of its way to offend entire religious groups, in a country where at least some of the religious groups in question are already disadvantaged and marginalized, doesn't feature in legitimate political discourse.

There was no need for the Pope to say anything on this. There is no way he can play a constructive role on this issue, so he should simply have avoided commenting on it. The only result will be alienating more Europeans from the Catholic church.

And completely disagree on the hate speech part.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2015, 05:21:05 PM »

Why is this even in this section? Surely this belongs in either International General Discussion or Religion & Philosophy?

It has developed into an IG thread.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,583
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2015, 05:27:38 PM »

Madeline, this reminds me of what the worship band leader said in church Sunday after one song, where he briefly spoke about the Paris attacks and said that while it's safe to assume no one in the room had ever killed someone because they were angry about Jesus or Christianity being insulted, it's likely that most if not all of us had been offended in the past, and might've also expressed this in ways, counter-insulting or whatnot. He then basically just said that this is all unnecessary, Jesus is easily greater than all of us, and there is no need for us to try to "stand up" in cases like this. Got lots of cheers.

I've generally always agreed with that (seriously look at some of the records I own), and that's also why I can't say that I'm offended by the anti-Christian satire of Charlie Hebdo either. It's like getting outraged over the fact that some Tea Party idiot leaves a stupid comment on a site claiming Barack Obama is an evil communist who wants to destroy America. The standard reaction is usually that of amusement rather than anger, and in this case should be even more so, because the power of Jesus to any detractors is infinitely greater than that between Obama and stupid Internet commentators.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2015, 05:38:48 PM »

What differentiates a vulgar cartoon about a religion from, say, a vulgar cartoon about a political view, or about opinion on a movie? Why is the former "hateful" while the others are just expression of a viewpoint?

I'm tempted to just say 'because I've moved towards an admittedly and self-consciously traditionalist-conservative position on this specific issue' and leave it at that, but that's not really a legitimate argument so I won't. One left-oriented argument that springs to mind is that, especially in Europe, while Islam obviously isn't itself a race, it's rhetorically racialized in a way that lends itself to economic marginalization and political repression, and so, while criticism is certainly warranted in many instances, it's kind of unseemly to satirize it insofar as satire should punch up rather than punching down--id est, while I'm actually really offended by some of Charlie Hebdo's anti-Christian material, I don't think it's as problematic for them to be putting out as the anti-Muslim stuff.

All I can say about your first point is that this really saddens me. I can only say we are both lucky to not have met half a decade ago, when I was in my fierce anti-clerical phase, because despite our respective goodwill we probably wouldn't have been able to get along at all. It's unfortunate that the drift of your perspective seems to be taking us apart once again.

Your second point (which, due to your presentation of it, I'm not sure if I am supposed to consider it an argument or a pretext) is one I've heard quite often on this forum. It's drawn from the dialectic of "social justice", which, I guess, is the closest thing to a proper ideology that modern American liberalism has been able to produce (and is certainly preferable to the vapid individualism of other American liberals). As a French leftist who was educated in a very different conception of progressivism, this worldview used to puzzle me, but spending a year in San Francisco allowed me to understand it better, and I have espoused some of its tenets.

Still, what I cannot stomach about this perspective its avowed, exacerbated moral relativism. In "social justice" thought (and your post reflects it quite well) it's all about "privilege" and "oppression". Every reflection of the morality of an action or the consequence of a situation is conducted through the lens of these concepts. The division between the "privileged" and the "oppressed" determines everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that social justice views privilege as a binary notion - there has been a lot of great work on the complexity and multidimensionnality of privilege in society. But I'm annoyed by the fact that considering the dynamics of privilege comes at the expense of holding any kind of universal value.

The case of Charlie Hebdo makes this especially obvious. Charlie isn't "racist", anyone with a brain and who actually reads the paper can realize that in fact they're one of the most outspokenly antiracist publications in France. They systematically denounce xenophobic discourse, wherever it comes from, and take the defense of French Arabs/Muslims whenever they are discriminated against. They also happen to not be very fond of religion. They consider religion to be a factor of oppression, so they use satire as a weapon against this oppression. The argument you're making basically means that they should be nicer toward Islam because people who practice it tend to be economically and socially disfavored. But the people of Charlie Hebdo have no reason to make this connection, because, precisely, they have never racialized Islam, and are always careful to distinguish satire of ideas with insults to a group of people. Their struggle is against a vision of society (theocracy and its derivatives), not against one or another segments. Should they drop this principled commitment in the name of strictly material considerations?

Let's put it in another way. When the murderers stormed in the journal's conference room and killed 11 people, who was being oppressed? We can agree that it's the Charlie Hebdo crew. What force was responsible for this oppressive condition? Not a material state of affairs (as the Charlie Hebdo people would count as "privileged" by most metrics), but rather an idea. Oppression is not only a material reality, ideas can, and often are oppressive. Religious fundamentalism is, in itself, oppressive. And you can't combat a universal idea with relativistic notions, you have to develop a principled rebuttal. The Charlie Hebdo massacre is the bloody demonstration that what the journal were doing was noble and right, because until a person can be shot (or flogged, or stoned, etc.) for satirizing religions, satirizing religions will be a way of challenging power.

Would it be possible for me to get permission to quote portions of this (edited for brevity perhaps) at other parts of the internet?

(I'm pretty sure I'm not as pessimistic as you about the prospect of "[combating] a universal idea with relativistic notions", and I'll openly cop to being a product of that more individualistic American strain of liberalism in general, but this is pretty damn beautiful and I'd love to be able to cite it in a couple of places.)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2015, 05:47:18 PM »

I would be honored if you did so.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 12 queries.