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, 05:45:37 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 13216 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2015, 07:04:39 AM »

I think Antonio's post touched upon one of the big issues I have with the whole social justice, check your privilege stuff. That is, it seems to rest on the notion that horrible things are always done by the powerful against the powerless and that we should therefore only care for the powerless (that is a simplistic version, sure). To me that seems to be an obvious untruth. Charlie Hebdo is an excellent example. Clearly, the cartoon writers had more privilege than the killers. And that's not an isolated incident either. Look at the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Jews in Western Europe before WW2, the Chinese of Southeast Asia. Etc, etc.

Since it constantly happens that the less privileged commit mass murder against the more privileged it strikes me as a very shaky and very dubious basis for some sort of moral framework.
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 #76 on: January 17, 2015, 12:50:06 PM »

Anvi, I disagree with the last bit about not caring about the content.  Within the so called Islamic state people are getting their heads lopped off for all sorts of blasphemy, sorcery and assorted haram activities on a daily basis.  I dont think they are very sophisticated or rational in their tactics and strategy. Al Qaeda 1.0 seems to have been a more rational actor and that was  due to their more centralized command and control.  I think the France attacks are more in line with the new diffuse nature of things.

Keep in mind this attack was very much a show of force (or, if you would, a show of "we're still here") by AQAP and by extension Al-Qaeda.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2015, 01:34:14 PM »

I'll take Pope Francis' take on this issue over Bill Maher's any day. I'm not sure how an abstract, nebulous notion like "freedom of speech" is supposed to negate the far more visceral "I'm going to kill you for what you said about me" reaction. Obviously, the perpetrators of such an offense must be punished, but insulting people for a living is a very, very dangerous career. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the circus performer who sticks his mouth into a lion's maw and has it bitten off.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2015, 02:48:23 PM »

I'll take Pope Francis' take on this issue over Bill Maher's any day. I'm not sure how an abstract, nebulous notion like "freedom of speech" is supposed to negate the far more visceral "I'm going to kill you for what you said about me" reaction. Obviously, the perpetrators of such an offense must be punished, but insulting people for a living is a very, very dangerous career. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the circus performer who sticks his mouth into a lion's maw and has it bitten off.

So you assess the morality of a principle based on the degree to which it takes its roots in a "visceral" reaction? Congratulations, you have just undone civilization.
Logged
Lurker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 765
Norway
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2015, 02:57:47 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 02:59:44 PM by Lurker »

I'll take Pope Francis' take on this issue over Bill Maher's any day. I'm not sure how an abstract, nebulous notion like "freedom of speech" is supposed to negate the far more visceral "I'm going to kill you for what you said about me" reaction. Obviously, the perpetrators of such an offense must be punished, but insulting people for a living is a very, very dangerous career. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the circus performer who sticks his mouth into a lion's maw and has it bitten off.

This ludicrous comparison would be slightly less so if the only motive behind the cartoonists' work was meaningless entertainment (akin to a lion tamer at a circus). This is, of course, not the case.

I don't know what Maher have said, but doubt it is worse than the Pope's pro-censorship views. As for the reactions of a certain minority of leftists, it is quite sadening.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2015, 03:01:14 PM »

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

Antonio: With regards to the last paragraph of your response to my post: I'm inclined to maintain a stance of continued skepticism about whether or not Charlie Hebdo--or any publication coming out of a social environment like the (relative) mainstream of modern European society, really--can fully live up to its self-confessed standards and principles in that regard (not racializing religious arguments, treating different religions with some degree of moral equivalency regardless of the social standing of their adherents--leaving aside entirely for the moment the fact that I think it's stupid and myopic to attempt to treat different religions as morally equivalent or parts of the same 'universally oppressive force' or whatever anyway*). However you're obviously better-informed on what Charlie Hebdo's self-confessed standards and principles actually are in the first place, so...yes, I think the anti-anti-clericalism is what's really worth discussing more here, and I'll respond to your PM about that soon, and maybe post some of it in this thread too if I think I come up with any particularly good arguments or turns of phrase.

*Ask me about my thoughts on the different 'vehicles' of Buddhism some time!
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2015, 03:02:33 PM »

I'm pretty much done with this, but will quote Bernard Levin (as someone pointed this out to me today) who after critically slaughtering the play Perdition which insinuated that 'Zionist' leaders collaborated in the holocaust to secure a Jewish state;

'Free speech is for swine and liars as well as upright and honest men. I have insisted that any legally permissable view, however repugnant, is less dangerous promulgated than banned, and I would defend its promulgation even if the opposite were true...

In all the beliefs I have lived, and I am minded to die in them; how then can I defend the suppression of this play? I cannot, which is not to say that if it had never been written it now should be. But it exists, and ‘He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still.’ With a heavy heart, I yet must say it: Let them have their play.'
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 17, 2015, 03:03:23 PM »

Victim blaming nonsense. Would those defending the Pope's remarks have said the same about the Sony hacks? They had it coming, no? I'm not sure even John Paul II would have been so callous. Perhaps Francis is overcompensating for being seen as a progressive Pope.
Logged
Lurker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 765
Norway
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2015, 03:08:30 PM »

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

It would be interesting to hear you expand on the meaning of the other phrase as well. Who was under "material supression" from Charlie Hebdo (?), and how is this defined?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2015, 03:13:25 PM »

Victim blaming nonsense. Would those defending the Pope's remarks have said the same about the Sony hacks? They had it coming, no? I'm not sure even John Paul II would have been so callous. Perhaps Francis is overcompensating for being seen as a progressive Pope.

'Of course they did.' The Juche effectively consider Kim Il-sung effectively 'god-like'. He is still effectively their perpetual spiritual leader. Therefore the current leader is the grandson of a 'god'. The Interview was clearly an insult on their belief system, as was Team America. And while of course having celebrity puppets explode and have sexual intercourse was freedom of expression, they shouldn't have 'taken it too far.'

HBO should also be very careful about that documentary they are producing on Scientology. Just saying.

(which is all a logical extension of this sort of apologism)
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2015, 03:19:09 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 03:25:42 PM by sex-negative feminist prude »

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

It would be interesting to hear you expand on the meaning of the other phrase as well. Who was under "material supression" from Charlie Hebdo (?), and how is this defined?


Well, after some of Antonio's posts in explanation of what was going on with this magazine I'm no longer sure that anybody was or was in danger of being. I don't really know how it's possible to deny that Muslim minorities are materially disadvantaged, and have this reinforced by ideological agitation, in Europe (and especially France) in general, though...

I think something that's gotten lost in this conversation is the 'free speech/prudent speech' distinction that somebody made up above, and I think that's probably what the Pope was talking about--I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are reacting to this as if he'd said that these people deserved to die when that's clearly not the case, and that's all I was really trying to argue in this thread to begin with.

*Like politicus said, there is literally and figuratively an ocean between (most) Europeans and (most) North Americans on the limits of prudent speech with respect to religious beliefs.
Logged
Lurker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 765
Norway
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2015, 03:23:57 PM »

Victim blaming nonsense. Would those defending the Pope's remarks have said the same about the Sony hacks? They had it coming, no? I'm not sure even John Paul II would have been so callous. Perhaps Francis is overcompensating for being seen as a progressive Pope.

'Of course they did.' The Juche effectively consider Kim Il-sung effectively 'god-like'. He is still effectively their perpetual spiritual leader. Therefore the current leader is the grandson of a 'god'. The Interview was clearly an insult on their belief system, as was Team America. And while of course having celebrity puppets explode and have sexual intercourse was freedom of expression, they shouldn't have 'taken it too far.'

HBO should also be very careful about that documentary they are producing on Scientology. Just saying.

(which is all a logical extension of this sort of apologism)

Don't forget that Americans are very priviledged and that North-Koreans are an oppressed group of people. And as we are constantly reminded, humour should kick up, not down. In other words, there is no excuse for offending a leader that is held so dear by the North Korean people.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2015, 03:31:43 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 03:42:38 PM by afleitch »

I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are reacting to this as if he'd said that these people deserved to die when that's clearly not the case, and that's all I was really trying to argue in this thread to begin with.

Just out of interest, would this be a two way street? I mean, if I show restraint, should religious figures be required to show restraint and not for example caricature gay people as either being sinful, possessed, threats to society, purveyors of vice or have veiled innuendoes made about them comparing them to paedophiles or pedarasts? (all of which the RC has done - we are after all guilty of a 'moral evil')

Or is that 'okay' if it's an expression of one's religious beliefs?

EDIT: I say this with some 'seriousness' as I genuinely think that a preacher preaching against me is actually greatly offensive especially if it's on the basis of my sexuality or a presupposed moral vacuum because I am not religious. The very act of evangelising can be offensive. Offers of prayer are unwanted and often laced with disdain for an inherent part of my character. I really hate that because religion isn't like sex, or colour, or race or sexuality. It's not an immutable characteristic. You can leap from faith to faith and thanks to the inherited enlightenment belief in 'freedom of religion', what rights you have and what rights you have to promote or take offence to can change depending on what faith you are a member of (or none) or what approach you take to having faith (or none). Yet faiths have the right to discriminate towards inherent characteristics. The religious position on women, approached from some spurious pseudo 'spiritual-biological/naturalistic' position to justify women as being 'different' and or grounded by their sex leading to direct discrimination against them is justified on that basis.

And yet, I'm not going to argue that religions should be banned from being 'anti-gay', nor for supremacists to hate black people even though there are sound reasons to actually argue that this should be the case.
Logged
Lurker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 765
Norway
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2015, 03:33:51 PM »

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

It would be interesting to hear you expand on the meaning of the other phrase as well. Who was under "material supression" from Charlie Hebdo (?), and how is this defined?


Well, after some of Antonio's posts in explanation of what was going on with this magazine I'm no longer sure that anybody was or was in danger of being. I don't really know how it's possible to deny that Muslim minorities are materially disadvantaged, and have this reinforced by ideological agitation, in Europe (and especially France) in general, though...

I think something that's gotten lost in this conversation is the 'free speech/prudent speech' distinction that somebody made up above, and I think that's probably what the Pope was talking about--I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are overblown in their reactions to this (although to be honest it's understandable that they would be), and that's all I've really been trying to argue in this thread.

*Like politicus said, there is literally and figuratively an ocean between (most) Europeans and (most) North Americans on the limits of prudent speech with respect to religious beliefs.

Of course, Muslims in France are on average less materially well-off than non-Muslim French people, yes. I had assumed that oppression indicated more than that though. At any rate, I think the connection between that and these cartoons/attacks is tenuous at best.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2015, 03:38:15 PM »

Antonio: With regards to the last paragraph of your response to my post: I'm inclined to maintain a stance of continued skepticism about whether or not Charlie Hebdo--or any publication coming out of a social environment like the (relative) mainstream of modern European society, really--can fully live up to its self-confessed standards and principles in that regard (not racializing religious arguments, treating different religions with some degree of moral equivalency regardless of the social standing of their adherents--leaving aside entirely for the moment the fact that I think it's stupid and myopic to attempt to treat different religions as morally equivalent or parts of the same 'universally oppressive force' or whatever anyway*). However you're obviously better-informed on what Charlie Hebdo's self-confessed standards and principles actually are in the first place, so...yes, I think the anti-anti-clericalism is what's really worth discussing more here, and I'll respond to your PM about that soon, and maybe post some of it in this thread too if I think I come up with any particularly good arguments or turns of phrase.

*Ask me about my thoughts on the different 'vehicles' of Buddhism some time!

This might sound really pretentious and lend itself to a snarky retort, but if someone from "a social environment like the (relative) mainstream of modern European society" is not able to uphold these values, who else would possibly be? There are many legitimate critics that can be made to modern European civilization, but I think that it would be nice if we left-wingers could acknowledge, in a circumstance like this, that there is some good to it. And that, chief among this good, was its ability to develop universal ideals of tolerance and fight against its own prejudice. I think that, in a comparative perspective, Europe has done a fairly decent job, at least from the 1960s onward.

Now, broad generalizations aside, the cartoonists and writers of Charlie Hebdo are progressives who hold these universalistic values particularly dear. The journal basically exists to uphold these values, of which anti-clericalism is a key component. Saying that they failed at treating individuals equally regardless of their race or religion is like saying that they failed at their entire purpose. I will let you be the judge of whether this is the case (after all, some on this forum have expressed the opposite opinion based on the cartoons they've seen), but as a frequent reader of Charlie Hebdo, I think you are mistaken. 90% of their religious caricatures (including, by far, their dirtiest ones) are directed toward Catholicism, anyway.

I look forward to debating that second issue with you.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2015, 03:40:05 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 03:43:40 PM by sex-negative feminist prude »

I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are reacting to this as if he'd said that these people deserved to die when that's clearly not the case, and that's all I was really trying to argue in this thread to begin with.

Just out of interest, would this be a two way street? I mean, if I show restraint, should religious figures be required to show restraint and not for example caricature gay people as either being sinful, possessed, threats to society, purveyors of vice or have veiled innuendoes made about them comparing them to paedophiles or pedarasts? (all of which the RC has done - we are after all guilty of a 'moral evil')

Yeah. Of course. They really, really, really should stop doing that, and I dearly hope I would still think so even I were cis and/or straight. I think both religious and non- or antireligious people should avoid resorting to defamatory innuendo and raucous mockery on these kinds of issues.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2015, 03:58:37 PM »

I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are reacting to this as if he'd said that these people deserved to die when that's clearly not the case, and that's all I was really trying to argue in this thread to begin with.

Just out of interest, would this be a two way street? I mean, if I show restraint, should religious figures be required to show restraint and not for example caricature gay people as either being sinful, possessed, threats to society, purveyors of vice or have veiled innuendoes made about them comparing them to paedophiles or pedarasts? (all of which the RC has done - we are after all guilty of a 'moral evil')

Yeah. Of course. They really, really, really should stop doing that, and I dearly hope I would still think so even I were cis and/or straight. I think both religious and non- or antireligious people should avoid resorting to defamatory innuendo and raucous mockery on these kinds of issues.

The problem is what constitutes mockery? If 'mockery' is what is to be restrained. Because mockery isn't always just a devolved form of discussion. Sometimes it has nothing to do with discussion or position taking at all. A real life and surreal example of this would be a school child taken aside for eating a ham sandwich at Ramadan in a school with a large Muslim population. Eating and what was being eaten was perceived as 'mockery' when all it really was was simply having a sandwich. Why should the person who considers it 'mockery' be empowered because we consider mockery to be a step too far. That argument requires that the 'step before' is actually meant to be an acceptable 'action' against a person. Often that is not the case at all.

A very common argument against SSM for example (and one made by the subject of this thread) is that allowing it 'mocks' religion, or religious beliefs about marriage and what marriage means and who marriage is for. I'm sure for some people it is mockery, but that's only in the view of the person who perceives it. And it makes an assumption that the person who perceives mockery has a reasoned insight into what mockery is.

Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2015, 04:37:40 PM »

Madeline, here's the fundamental problem with your argument on "mockery," in my eyes:

I think afleitch makes a great last point.  The phrase "makes a mockery of..." exists entirely because there are people who think that making them uncomfortable, or casting their beliefs in a poor light, is inherently "mockery," and inherently malicious or wrong.  Speech and conduct has to be analyzed beyond whether it generates offense.  It has to be analyzed because speech can be offensive (and even crude) and yet be very helpful in challenging ideas, practices, etc., that are problematic. 

And, in fact, I think learning to tolerate even maliciously crude statements is very healthy.  There's a natural human tendency to want to avoid cognitive dissonance and people who challenge beliefs that are emotionally important to them.  This tendency is totally unhealthy.  And, when we attach moral importance to the idea that people should avoid offending our beliefs, it becomes easy to morally demand that people stop doing so, even when they're doing so for very constructive reasons.  That is vastly more damaging than any individual defense.  The inability to shake off crude mockery is the sign of an individual or culture who already is already is sanctifying their opinions in a dangerous way.  This is ignoring the fact that many belief systems hold that even intellectual challenges of their beliefs are inherently "crude," or at least inherently improper.

This is also, by the way, where the whole oppressed/non-oppressed analysis falls apart.  Obviously, certain ideas are more associated with certain groups than others.  Obviously, there are some groups likely to really want to hold some ideas.  In some cases, attacking a group's beliefs is a means of being cruel to them.  But questioning or attacking the ideas held by a group is not inherently "oppressive."  Being a socioeconomic or power (or whatever) minority does not mean it is any healthier to sanctify your belief system.  Ideas have incredible power over individuals.  Even within a minority group, an idea can be oppressive.  It is understandable that persecuted groups would be wary of attacks veiled as substantive criticisms or satire.  But that does not mean their belief system should be spared substantive criticism or satire.  It also definitely doesn't mean that group is less prone to wanting to avoid criticism or satire, because every human being -- no matter how oppressed they are or aren't -- feels that impulse.  And it's bad.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2015, 05:17:25 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 05:19:11 PM by sex-negative feminist prude »

I'm going to address afleitch's question first here because I have a ready answer to it. I'm not quite sure what to make of Alcon's point yet. I might have a coherent counterargument. I might lack a coherent counterargument but hold to my original position anyway for emotive reasons, or because we lack a common ethical frame of reference for the value of challenging beliefs, or something. I might also retract 'and raucous mockery' and just limit myself to saying that there's a responsibility to avoid defamatory innuendo, or reverse my position entirely (more sincerely than the last time I claimed to do that). Give me time.

afleitch: Yes, I think the subjective nature of what constitutes ‘mockery’ is indeed the problem with, or at least the difficulty of, holding this position—I think at a minimum I’d say that to constitute mockery something has to be in some way targeted towards addressing whatever the issue is on whose basis it’s claimed to be mocking. The ham sandwich and gay marriage examples are clearly not intended to comment in any way on what they’re purportedly mocking.

I'm aware that this isn't necessarily a sufficient distinction to make and that the question remains subjective and liable to case-by-case judgment calls, in any event. Which, again—the difficulty of holding this position.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: January 17, 2015, 05:32:54 PM »

Victim blaming nonsense. Would those defending the Pope's remarks have said the same about the Sony hacks? They had it coming, no? I'm not sure even John Paul II would have been so callous. Perhaps Francis is overcompensating for being seen as a progressive Pope.

I don't know about you, but I saw the Sony story as one of the most heartening things of 2014. One of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world recklessly published tasteless material and ended up losing a fortune and suffering from public humiliation and ridicule as their unsavory internal workings were revealed, and the worst elements of Hollywood were exposed to daylight. I have no idea who hacked Sony but that group is clearly the protagonist of the story for proving to be the private sector's version of Snowden.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2015, 05:43:40 PM »


afleitch: Yes, I think the subjective nature of what constitutes ‘mockery’ is indeed the problem with, or at least the difficulty of, holding this position—I think at a minimum I’d say that to constitute mockery something has to be in some way targeted towards addressing whatever the issue is on whose basis it’s claimed to be mocking. The ham sandwich and gay marriage examples are clearly not intended to comment in any way on what they’re purportedly mocking.

I'm aware that this isn't necessarily a sufficient distinction to make and that the question remains subjective and liable to case-by-case judgment calls, in any event. Which, again—the difficulty of holding this position.


I think my problem is that you're suggesting (and the Pope obviously) we have this 'distinction' in terms of religious belief systems which I profoundly disagree with (because they are no more than systems of thought/morality/philosophy) That aside, even if I did agree with the need to be 'careful' I can't honestly trust nor expect religious bodies or religious people to properly determine what is 'mockery'. There is no rational/reasonable basis for them to do so, because religious belief does not operate according to those lines. I find it as impossible to 'offend god' as it is to offend pixies (and I make no apologies for a 'cheap' comparison.). It's just not possible for a non-believer to offend some being that cannot express how offended it actually is. People are a different matter of course, but nor can they express their offence on behalf of god for the same reason. And that is essentially what blasphemy is.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2015, 05:52:20 PM »

Anvi, I disagree with the last bit about not caring about the content.  Within the so called Islamic state people are getting their heads lopped off for all sorts of blasphemy, sorcery and assorted haram activities on a daily basis.  I dont think they are very sophisticated or rational in their tactics and strategy. Al Qaeda 1.0 seems to have been a more rational actor and that was  due to their more centralized command and control.  I think the France attacks are more in line with the new diffuse nature of things.

My sense of ISIS and current versions of al-Qaeda is that they are just killing everyone who gets in the way of their rebellion against the likes of Maliki and Assad.  Sure ISIS fighters kill Yazidis and Kurds for their supposed "apostasy" and demand that Shias either convert or die--they would all be hard to keep from rebellion in an ISIS-controlled state.  But they also went after Sunni-populous Mosul as a first steep, and killed Suni security officers in Tikrit without much compunction.  Even Sunnis in the region who sympathize with them do so not because they're on board with their quasi-religious interpretation of Islam, but because their is no one else who even feigns to come to their aid.  And al Qaeda in Yemen, which may will have financed and directed the Paris attacks, is not at war with the Yemen government over sectarian issues, but because the government, at the behest of the U.S., has been going after the organization there since 2001.  If one looks through al Qaeda's strategy documents, they are pretty overt about how to ferment political conflict in both Muslim counties and in the west.  They wanted to provoke the American invasion of Afghanistan and other countries with the 9/11 attacks, to make them overstretch and to widen the theater of hostilities.  Now, before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, there were probably a number of Muslims in France who may have been mildly offended by its satire, but they had bigger problems to solve in their day-to-day lives.  Now, after the killings, whole crowds march through the streets, and posters around the world join them, with the message "Je suis Charlie."  That might represent a great mantra in defense of freedom of speech and progressive values to many on this forum and many more off of it, but it's probably pretty irksome to believers who consider Muhammad the consummation of prophecy, and it will make larger numbers of them amenable to radicalization than there were before the attacks.  

Lest anyone mistake any of the above as apologist rhetoric on behalf of whomever, it's not.  I believe in freedom of speech, wholeheartedly reject the notion that anyone should be killed or suppressed for saying whatever they want and however they want to, and on top of it all, I'm an atheist, and I don't have any sympathy for the way that people are ruled in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Yemen.  But, with regard to these kinds of events, I don't think any of that is exactly the point.  We are not only getting attacked by terrorist groups, we're also getting played by them.  It may be time for us to learn why those groups are, in all honesty, fairly good at accomplishing the latter.  
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2015, 06:38:11 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2015, 06:39:52 PM by The Mikado »


afleitch: Yes, I think the subjective nature of what constitutes ‘mockery’ is indeed the problem with, or at least the difficulty of, holding this position—I think at a minimum I’d say that to constitute mockery something has to be in some way targeted towards addressing whatever the issue is on whose basis it’s claimed to be mocking. The ham sandwich and gay marriage examples are clearly not intended to comment in any way on what they’re purportedly mocking.

I'm aware that this isn't necessarily a sufficient distinction to make and that the question remains subjective and liable to case-by-case judgment calls, in any event. Which, again—the difficulty of holding this position.


I think my problem is that you're suggesting (and the Pope obviously) we have this 'distinction' in terms of religious belief systems which I profoundly disagree with (because they are no more than systems of thought/morality/philosophy) That aside, even if I did agree with the need to be 'careful' I can't honestly trust nor expect religious bodies or religious people to properly determine what is 'mockery'. There is no rational/reasonable basis for them to do so, because religious belief does not operate according to those lines. I find it as impossible to 'offend god' as it is to offend pixies (and I make no apologies for a 'cheap' comparison.). It's just not possible for a non-believer to offend some being that cannot express how offended it actually is. People are a different matter of course, but nor can they express their offence on behalf of god for the same reason. And that is essentially what blasphemy is.

I don't see why the question of if God exists or not is relevant to blasphemy, blasphemy is and always has been about the sensibilities of believers, not their deities. If there were a widespread fairy-believing movement, you could blaspheme against them as well, no need for fairies to exist.

In any practical sense, at least, God is as real as "freedom of speech" or any other nebulous non-physical concept...it exists at least as much as you believe in it.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2015, 08:58:32 PM »

Though the pope left it ambiguous, I wouldn't interpret his comments as saying we should put constraints on free speech or outlaw hate speech, or criticism of religion, etc. I think he was just trying to say we should be nice to people and not insult them or mock them. This isn't any kind of break from the sorts of things he's spent pretty much his whole papacy on. If Charlie Hebdo never published a single thing against Christianity and only mocked Muslims, if Pope Francis were still asked the question, I bet he'd say pretty much the same thing.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2015, 09:15:19 PM »

There seems a tactic to separate individuals and groups out when it comes to ridicule.

A common refrain here is that it is not individual Muslims but their beliefs that they have a problem with.

Religions, like the RCC, conversely make a distinction on homosexuality that it is an action and not an individual that leads them to believe that someone is a sinner. So the gay lifestyle becomes the boogieman based on an argument that it is unnatural.

The big problem is that people operate with their own sets of facts and get very offended or violent when their own person or group is mocked but have little empathy doing the same.

I don't think I really have a point in all this.  I tend to agree with Alcon that people should learn to handle, accept, and be able to laugh or pity crudity.  Then again,I fear that the human race has not progressed much beyond the schoolyard so free speech can be dangerous.
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 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.