|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine. Why
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Gamaliel, if you and Orfeo are making the commonplace observation that some people misinterpret the Bible idiosyncratically in order to find support for their subjective, bizarre, and sometimes dangerous beliefs and activities, then obviously neither I nor anyone else can disagree with you.
In the same way, some people derive justification for loony and violent behaviour from pop song lyrics, the pattern in a wall-paper, or the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.
We can respond to this by either taking the attitude, “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, which is as good as anyone’ else’s, and I’m all too aware that I myself sometimes interpret things to suit my personal needs”, or by at least making the effort to get as close as possible to the real and objective truth, quaintly retro as such a concept might appear these days.
If we choose the latter, we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).
[ 12. January 2015, 05:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Supposing you're right, why care? Suppose that a book written a great many centuries ago does contain a stream of violence. If the vast majority of readers disregard that stream and don't put it into practice, why is the existence of the stream important?
I'm just asking for the sake of argument, because I don't find your blanket assertions in either direction all that convincing. We end up with a general tenor that most Christians are peaceful people because of their religion but most Muslims are peaceful people in spite of it. But let's assume for the moment this is true. Surely the most important point is that most Muslims are peaceful.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't see how what I've posted leads away from a desire to get at the truth - the Truth (which is a Person of course).
Rather, it is an attempt to tackle these things in a 3D way rather than a binary and 2D one. I don't think these things neatly boil down to a bald 'Your holy book justifies religious violence but mine doesn't.
Even if this were the case - and I agree that the NT doesn't provide a blue-print for religious violence, the fact remains that none of us approach the NT in glorious isolation - and the same applies with Muslims and the Quran.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The more I think about the claimed respective stances of the two religions, the more disturbing I find it.
Because a whole series of related propositions spiral off of it.
Aren't we lucky that so few Christians are poor at following Jesus' non-violent example.
Aren't we lucky that so few Muslims are good at following Mohamed's violent example.
Christians are consistent. Muslims are inconsistent. Christians have strong attachment to their moral principles. Muslims have weak attachement to their moral principles.
And so it goes on. This set of propositions about the teachings of each religion coupled with the observation that, in practice, the fanatics that make everyone's life hell are not the majority in either religion just heaps a double set of judgements upon Muslims. It ends up being a claim that not only is their religion crappy, they're crappy at following it. Instead of celebrating peaceful Muslims, we can look down at them in moral judgement for being poor disciples.
Meanwhile, the actual terrorist who reportedly smoked pot and slept with his girlfriend is held up as being closer to a true Muslim.
This just strikes me as sickeningly arse-backwards. At times in this thread there's been a suggestion that I'm trying to validate the actions of the terrorists. To me, this line of thinking validates them far more. It argues that they have more integrity than a billion other members of the same faith who didn't have the guts to obey the call to violent struggle.
What are we trying to do here? Make an ISIS recruiting video?
[ 12. January 2015, 07:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To clarify ...
On re-reading that post I can see that it might look as if I am accusing Kaplan of binary or 2D thinking and making some kind of exalted claim to more rounded, 'three-dimensional thinking'.
I hope it isn't taken that way as that isn't my intention.
FWIW, I am still pretty conservative theologically.
I'm certainly 'retro' enough to believe in the Resurrection as a reality beyond the merely symbolic or metaphorical ('the resurrection was simply the way the disciples carried the memory of Christ with them in their lives and in their minds ...' type of thing) ... and to happily take on board, 'five impossible things before breakfast' ...
All I am suggesting is that whatever weight and authority we place on our sacred texts, we none of us approach them in glorious isolation from other influences.
There were a whole raft of reasons why the Puritans were inclined to apply biblical verses and incidents to contemporary events in a rather literal or over-realised way - and there are plenty of examples that could be given in addition to those provided by Kaplan and others so far.
It's not as simple as saying, 'well, they were operating with a faulty hermeneutic ...'
The same with the Crusades or any other incident - good, bad or indifferent - from the past.
I certainly don't intend my comments to imply:
- That there's no such thing as truth (or Truth) and that everything is relative.
- That we can't know anything with conviction and certainty this side of the Parousia.
Still less that all religions are the same - that's a patronising stance to adopt towards each of them.
However, it is to acknowledge that we all operate within particular paradigms and with a whole range and raft of influences - cultural, historic, theological etc
That doesn't mean that we can't know the truth, but it does mean that we all 'see as through a glass darkly.'
But we can still see ... however unclearly at times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross-posted with Orfeo
- No, but I suspect that there is a mindset - whether conscious or unconscious - among 'conservative' Christians that they are honour bound to defend the veracity of their scriptures and tradition by drawing attention to the weaknesses of other people's.
Consequently, a belief that Christ is the pinnacle of divine revelation and that the NT is the authoritative testimony to that (none of which I'd disagree with) has to be defended.
So anything that apparently relativises this - and which acknowledges some value or merit in someone else's prophet or sacred texts is viewed with suspicion.
I can understand this.
I've seen Orthodox posters on another board complaining that the media refers to 'the Prophet Mohammed' and that, if the media wants to be consistent it should always refer to Jesus as 'the Lord Jesus Christ' ...
And so on.
I can understand the point they're making and the truths they are trying to defend, but I don't particularly like the way they are going about it ...
If I referred to Mohammed as the 'Prophet Mohammed' it doesn't necessarily follow that I accept him as a prophet whose message I follow and whom I accept on a par with the Apostles and the OT Prophets etc.
No, I'm simply acknowledging that this is how he is regarded by those who follow the religion he founded.
If I acknowledge that President Obama is President of the USA it doesn't follow that I'm acknowledging that he has personal and direct authority over me as a UK citizen.
I'm sure there are equal and opposite tendencies over on the more liberal side of things - indeed I'm sure there are - some liberals can be decidedly illiberal when it comes to dealing with people or viewpoints at variance with their own.
In some ways, it's difficult to get around this ...
If you have something called the Orthodox Church, for instance, then it follows that there are others around who are not considered part of it or not fully Orthodox.
Same with a concept of Catholicism ... ie. this is Catholic, that over there isn't ...
Or if you operate with a particular view of what constitutes sound biblical exegesis (ie. ultimately, whatever accords with you own view, give or take a bit of wiggle-room here and there) then that's going to be ultimately divisive too.
All of which may be fair enough. The truth is out there, as they say and some or other traditions and approaches are going to be closer to it than others.
When it comes to Islam and Christianity, then obviously I believe that Christianity is the Truth. Otherwise, I wouldn't consider myself a Christian, I might pursue some other path as imperfectly as I'm pursuing this one ...
Nevertheless, I think your point is well made, that the kind of approach apparently adopted by some posters here can lead to very black-and-white binary divisions which could - under the right circumstances - actually feed the problem rather than help resolve it.
I think what you're saying is that such an approach leads to a 'they're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't' view of these things.
They are either condemned for following their own scriptures or condemned for not following them closely enough.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm not sure this helps or even gets us anywhere.
Nor do I think such an approach is necessary to a 'high' view of the integrity of our own beliefs or scriptures.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what you're saying is that such an approach leads to a 'they're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't' view of these things.
They are either condemned for following their own scriptures or condemned for not following them closely enough.
Pretty much.
Part of the reason it concerns me stems from the lessons that are present in Jane Elliot's blue eyes/brown eyes exercises, which basically show that if you treat people poorly they're more likely to behave poorly. Tell people that they're dumb and lazy and their motivation drops and their test scores with it. People end up believing what they're told about themselves.
Tell people that they're fundamentally aliens within Western society and represent undesirable qualities, and they're more likely to prove you right.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).
There is a great deal of it in the OT, though. For Christians, that is equally inspired scripture alongside the NT. So what do we do about it?
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).
There is a great deal of it in the OT, though. For Christians, that is equally inspired scripture alongside the NT. So what do we do about it?
Well kind of. There are many different types of literature in the Old Testamament. I don't know of many Jews and Christians who'd say that 'historical' depictions of genocide invite us to commit genocide today. As you know the Koran is an entirely different kind of literature. That's one of the things slightly frustrating about this thread - the constant comparisons. On the one hand there are those making these comparisons to illustrate the inferiority of Islam and others doing it to illustrate that they are really just as bad or good as each other. Frankly neither approach is terribly persuasive. They are different.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I caught part of Radio 4's Beyond Belief where they were discussing fundamentalism. A Muslim contributor insisted that the term couldn't be applied to Islam as the Quran was different to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures it that it wasn't possible to take literally. Be that as it may, he made a good case for not approaching these scriptures as of they were all directly comparable - they each have different contexts and functions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I caught part of Radio 4's Beyond Belief where they were discussing fundamentalism. A Muslim contributor insisted that the term couldn't be applied to Islam as the Quran was different to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures it that it wasn't possible to take literally. Be that as it may, he made a good case for not approaching these scriptures as of they were all directly comparable - they each have different contexts and functions.
I'll have a listen to it tomorrow. Literalism and fundamentalism are probably not the most accurate terms to describe this kind of extremism. For example, I've never met a Muslim who doesn't claim to be literalistic about there being no compulsion in religion or a Christian who says they don't insist on a strict interpretation of 'love thy neoghbour etc'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
interesting article by paddy ashdown in the Indie, pointing out that the current situation is almost exactly thesame as the anarchist bombings of the mid 19th to early 20th centuries
And what is heartening is that the mood in france appears to be one of reconciliation and strengthening community. It's not often that such upbeat headlines appear in the papers - enjoy them!
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This article is pretty stern stuff which, predictably, is already generating accusations in the comments that he is justifying the massacre.
He isn't, of course. He's explaining it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And then there's this stinging critique of the whole concept of 'terrorism' and our obsession with the motivations for acts that are unquestionably criminal.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I agree with him that they were primarily political, as I said all the way back here on page one.
I agree with much else he says too, and have said some of it here, but I nurture the hope that he is more pessismistic than I am.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Maybe the difference is in the support for a government with a regular army as opposed to an irregular army of insurgents?
Presumably that there are many Christians and secularists who support the American, British and other governments that have an interventionist policy. We still contribute to the war machine (and therefore violence), through our taxes and the elbow grease we apply to the industrial engine that drives the war machine. Our involvement is insulated by degrees of separation.
We have a history of interpretation of Christian scripture that includes the just war theory and wars fought on behalf of "God, King and Country" even if it the reality of it was country/ ideology, king then God co-opted on to legitimise it.
It sounds like there may be an irregular verb in operation. I live in peace,We cause collateral damage, They terrorise...
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Interesting.
On not understanding "Charlie:" Why many smart people are getting it wrong.
That reminds me of Johnny Speight's character Alf Garnett; a working-class right-wing bigot from the 1960's comedy "Till Death Us Do Part". Speight wrote this primarily to expose and ridicule racism but he and Warren Mitchell, the Jewish actor who portrayed Garnett, got any amount of criticism from people who didn't look beneath the surface.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Sinoi Sais wrote:
quote:
That reminds me of Johnny Speight's character Alf Garnett; a working-class right-wing bigot from the 1960's comedy "Till Death Us Do Part". Speight wrote this primarily to expose and ridicule racism but he and Warren Mitchell, the Jewish actor who portrayed Garnett, got any amount of criticism from people who didn't look beneath the surface.
The American rendition of TDDUP, All In The Family, allegedly had sort of the opposite problem. In addition to left-wingers who misunderstood the character's purpose, there were supposdly right-wingers who wrote in to tell the proudciers how much they loved him.
I used to be pretty skeptical of that, since while, yes, the studio audience would often cheer for Archie Bunker's logical leaps and malapropisms, they also cheered when someone got the better of him, so it seemed to me that they were just cheering for the clever writing moreso than for any particular character.
However, a few years ago I met an American who told me that his racist uncle did indeed cheer non-ironically for Archie, so I guess there might have been some truth to that.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Stetson,
We had that problem with racists who loved that aspect of Alf Garnett too. As with Fawlty Towers, there were some who treated it as a 'How to' guide.
P T Barnum said that "No one lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public". I reckon that's depressingly universal.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
we will find that there is not one single admonition to Christian violence in the NT, but that there is a definite stream of religious violence in the Koran (even if some, probably most, Muslims choose to disregard it or re-interpret it).
There is a great deal of it in the OT, though. For Christians, that is equally inspired scripture alongside the NT. So what do we do about it?
What Spawn said, plus the OT is viewed through the lens of the Incarnation which is the central event of the NT, meaning that we have to ask ourselves the cliched question, "What would Jesus do?" when confronted with situational ethics.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I wonder why we're so often attacked for opening our mouths as Christians. Surely it's OK to criticise and condemn murder and to say openly that as far as we're concerned such action cannot genuinely be carried out in the name of the one living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ who, after all, allowed himself to be killed rather than to give up speaking freely.
As soon as we say anything, our own religion and scripture comes under attack. That's not right. Surely all religions can teach other religions and learn from them. it's OK to see strengths in our own as well as weaknesses. It's OK to learn from history. It's OK to compare, and to champion our own values.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Raptor Eye,
What do you mean by 'attacked' for opening our mouths? When we go beyond criticism of individuals for a criminal act and attempt to extend the blame to associates of those who carried out the act, whether temporal, spiritual or ethnic, are you surprised that we are attacked?
The majority of the population, certainly in the UK, is at best sceptical of religion, regarding it as anti-science, sexist and homophobic, so every opportunity to attack any faith is seized upon gladly and gratuitously. Christians are split between those who feel it their duty to speak out plainly (and sometimes offensively) and those who want to keep the peace (and shy away from the real issues) Both consider Christ is on their side while He probably sits saying "No, no, no: you're missing the point!"
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which one are you Johnny?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Which one are you Johnny?
I suppose like everyone I pick and choose the criminal and terrorist acts I speak out on. For one thing I don't accept that the violence meted out by the armed forces of nation states is always more legitimate than that done by less formally constituted bodies.
That's a political point of view though, and I know it.
[ 13. January 2015, 12:56: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Raptor Eye,
What do you mean by 'attacked' for opening our mouths? When we go beyond criticism of individuals for a criminal act and attempt to extend the blame to associates of those who carried out the act, whether temporal, spiritual or ethnic, are you surprised that we are attacked?
The majority of the population, certainly in the UK, is at best sceptical of religion, regarding it as anti-science, sexist and homophobic, so every opportunity to attack any faith is seized upon gladly and gratuitously. Christians are split between those who feel it their duty to speak out plainly (and sometimes offensively) and those who want to keep the peace (and shy away from the real issues) Both consider Christ is on their side while He probably sits saying "No, no, no: you're missing the point!"
What I mean is that it's become tiresome to me how often conversations become a verbal counter-attack on and defence of Christianity, its history and scriptures, as if speaking out from a Christian point of view is indefensible or hypocritical because some Christians do and have done bad things too, and some have excused them by the use of our scriptures.
I take the point that I'm as fed up of being tarred with the same brush as most Muslims probably are, and agree that Jesus is probably sitting there shaking his head at all of us.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.
As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.
It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.
It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.
And that IS hypocrisy.
[ 13. January 2015, 15:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Shifitng gears here for a bit.
I am not one to posit questionable equivalencies in the name of "contextualizing" Islamic violence(eg. "Islamic extremism? What about Christians who tried to ban the Jerry Springer Opera?!"), but I do see a somewhat illuminating parallel between the reaction to the Hebdo shootings, and the reaction to the racism-tinged massacre at the left-wing youth camp in Norway in 2011.
Maybe my memory is a bit cluttered, but I don't recall hordes of world leaders swooping down on Oslo to memorialize the murdered socialist teenagers. Nor any pandemic of memes expressing personal identification with the dead. Even though those kids were exercising their right to politrical activity just as surely as the Hebdo cartoonists were exercising their right to free speech.
I don't think it likely that many people, even right-wing racists, were in sympathy with Breivik's horrible actions. And, it may very well be the case that we were justified in assuming Breivik to be a lone nut, while the Paris gunmen were at the very least in cahoots with each other, and possibly part of a larger group.
Though I suspect that if Breivik had been a Muslim killing supposed enemies of Islam, public opinion would not have settled quite so effortlessly on the "lone nut" verdict.
[ 13. January 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The response to someone like Breivik is basically "he's not one of us".
The response to a violent Muslim is basically "he's one of THEM!".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
This is interesting...
The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map
Mostly what you'd expect, but a few surprises as well. Basically, a mass illumiation of western Europe and the anglosphere, but also outposts(slightly less active) in the the Gulf and East Asia.
I'm guessing the non-western, non-South American hotspots are being driven by expat communities. Or maybe it's just anywhere in the world with widespread cell phone access?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Though I suspect that if Breivik had been a Muslim killing supposed enemies of Islam, public opinion would not have settled quite so effortlessly on the "lone nut" verdict.
In the same vein: He claimed in his writings to be influenced by the ideas of Geert Wilders - and I don't recall calls for him and his fellow travellers to denounce the shootings.
[ 13. January 2015, 16:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...
The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map
Mostly what you'd expect, but a few surprises as well. Basically, a mass illumiation of western Europe and the anglosphere, but also outposts(slightly less active) in the the Gulf and East Asia.
I'm guessing the non-western, non-South American hotspots are being driven by expat communities. Or maybe it's just anywhere in the world with widespread cell phone access?
Indonesia is an interesting one, especially as it has a vast Muslim population (87% of c240 million).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.
As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.
It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.
It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.
And that IS hypocrisy.
If a Christian were saying that all Muslims should be condemned as they're violent and all Christians are the greatest peacemakers and would never do such a thing, I'd agree.
How it seems to me is like this:
"How dare you hit that woman! That's not the right way to behave."
"She deserved it, she offended me."
"Who are you to tell him not to hit her? Your own cousin hit his wife once! Your family can't crow about the right way to behave."
"Yeah, you hypocrite, keep your nose out of it, your family isn't innocent, it's well known for wife beating! Maybe she did offend him, she shouldn't have done that. Of course, he shouldn't have hit her......"
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's NOTHING like that. Apostatic Christianity spawned Islam in reaction. Apostatic Christianity and her daughters is the dominant global force bar none for 1700 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.
As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.
It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.
It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.
And that IS hypocrisy.
If a Christian were saying that all Muslims should be condemned as they're violent and all Christians are the greatest peacemakers and would never do such a thing, I'd agree.
How it seems to me is like this:
"How dare you hit that woman! That's not the right way to behave."
"She deserved it, she offended me."
"Who are you to tell him not to hit her? Your own cousin hit his wife once! Your family can't crow about the right way to behave."
"Yeah, you hypocrite, keep your nose out of it, your family isn't innocent, it's well known for wife beating! Maybe she did offend him, she shouldn't have done that. Of course, he shouldn't have hit her......"
No, how it actually starts is: "How dare YOUR FAMILY HIT WOMEN".
That's exactly the problem. Christians DON'T walk up to the particular Muslim "hitting women" and tell him not to do it. They walk up to the whole Muslim world, any Muslim within reach, and start talking about the Muslims that "hit women".
Starting your analogy with the idea of walking up to the actual perpetrator and telling the actual perpetrator to stop is simply not an accurate reflection of what happens.
So yeah, if you walk up to any old member of the other family and start talking about the problem of their family hitting women, it's perfectly sensible for the response to be "your family does it to".
[ 13. January 2015, 21:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.
No, it's because the perpetrator is identified as Muslim. Not ISIS. Not one of the two Kouachi brothers.
See the other thread for my commentary on the criminal history of my family. It's actually the criminal history of 2 individual people that are a little related to me by blood, but the point is that, if we're dealing with analogies, people keep mentioning my entire family - right before going back to say "oh, I know you're not ALL bad".
If your analogy was right, we would never have a thread headed Islam and violence. At most we would have a thread headed ISIS and violence - which wouldn't get off the ground because we all know ISIS is violent. Or we'd have a thread about the Kouachi brothers.
We don't. We have threads on how there's just something about Islam. Which sometimes manage to become threads about Islamism, but then we mustn't ignore the religious connection.
[ 13. January 2015, 22:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Seeing Orfeo's commenting on the other thread.
There do seem to be a couple of oddities between the 2 brothers and the 3rd man.
You have the indecision between which terrorist organization they belong too.
There seems a odd difference between the (relative) organization and targeting of the (marginally protected) newspaper attack.
While the (possibly attempted) attack on a Jewish school and the actual whatever-was-intended in the Jewish supermarket seems much more random (apart from the obvious Anti-semitism) and unnecessary.
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
*unnecessary isn't quite right but I can't find the right word.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...
The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map
It would be more meaningful if it was normalized by total number of tweets in each area.
Yeah, some of the places on the map(eg. the interior of Brazil or the Canadian north) are places that probably don't send out a lot of tweets to begin with.
I'm still curious about the Gulf though, and Indonesia as someone else mentioned.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Some countries just don't use Twitter, Facebook or any of 'our' social media platforms because they use their own. China is the example that immediately springs to mind - the Western versions of these things have very little traction compared to Weibo.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Some, or all, of this was received in an email
I find all this high-minded talk about freedom of speech and conscience ironic when Muslims have more limits on speech and conscience than any other group of people - both in France and in North America.
Obviously the burqa and Halal meat bans were passed specifically to target Muslims and impinge on their religious beliefs in a way that these laws wouldn't for any other religious group. But apart from that, Muslims have been imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting non-violent so-called "jihad" videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even for including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or critiquing Judaism or Christianity in harsh terms. Muslims in Islamic dress get pulled off planes and detained in airports for misconstrued comments with depressing regularity throughout the west.
Apart fro that according to surveys almost 2/3rds of Americans want to see Congress pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing the burning/desecration of the U.S. flag as a form a protest. And in Europe many countries have holocaust denial laws.
Freedom to offend seems to work in certain directions but not in others.
[ 14. January 2015, 13:21: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
Maybe the brothers were acting out their own personal drama/issues/mythology? They could have reinforced each other, or one manipulated the other. I don't know how often siblings do this kind of thing, but the guys who bombed the Boston marathon were brothers, too.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.
Since 2002? 100 deaths?
Hate to break it to you, but on a global scale that really doesn't make Indonesia a hotbed of danger. Nigeria suffered 20 times as many deaths last week.
The post you were quoting said Indonesia had the least problem. It didn't say that no-one ever died in Indonesia. It's about perspective, not absolutes.
Meanwhile, how many murders do you think were committed in Australia since 2002? How many of our citizens died at our own hands? Is an Australian visiting Indonesia statistically in any more danger than an Australian staying at home?
You've got to ask these kind of comparison questions to get a meaningful answer. You can't just say "100 Australians have died in Indonesia since 2002" as if, since 2002, everyone who stayed inside the borders of Australia was magically rendered immortal.
[ 14. January 2015, 05:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Heck, now I really want to find some statistics on how many Australians have died overseas in other situations such as muggings, stabbings, and one case in America where an Aussie was just shot by some bored teenagers for fun.
Who knows, maybe 100 Australians out of the huge numbers visiting Bali is statistically significant, but allow me to be somewhat sceptical. Because without any kind of comparison about the 'usual', background rate of misfortune of Australians on overseas holiday, it means very little.
First question is: do I count the Boxing Day tsunami, or not?
I may have mentioned this before, but I'm again reminded about the furore over the government home insulation scheme. FOUR PEOPLE DIED!, the headlines shouted. That's a lot lower than the usual rate of death in the industry prior to the massive expansion caused by government subsidy, knowledgeable people said ever so quietly in a little corner of the media that was interested in comparative analysis.
[ 14. January 2015, 05:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
Maybe the brothers were acting out their own personal drama/issues/mythology? They could have reinforced each other, or one manipulated the other. I don't know how often siblings do this kind of thing, but the guys who bombed the Boston marathon were brothers, too.
Quite possibly, it's the lack of reinforcement to the third member of the 'gang' that seems a bit more lacking than the narrative (both the news and his) suggests.
It almost makes more sense as a desperate copycat, but then where's the driver? Or possibly of him panicking, but after being relaxed enough to go home and still feeling safe to go out.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
