Charlie Hebdo massacre and the West's response

[Santino]

"I know this is a vegetarian café, but I demand my right to ham!"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"I know this is a vegetarian café, but I demand my right to ham!"

Is that equivalent? I don't think it is. I think CH's argument on this point is a bit Londonistan, but their argument isn't equivalent to this.

 

[Santino]

I don't get it. Am I missing something?

"[The] attacks are... the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing...". If you tolerate a baker not selling ham, then someone will blow up an airport?

That's what this editorial says. That allowing headscarves leads to terrorists bombing people.

 

[Pickman's model]

"I know this is a vegetarian café, but I demand my right to ham!"

yeh but you've always been that sort of actor

 

[danny la rouge]

"I know this is a vegetarian café, but I demand my right to ham!"

"I know you're fundamentalist Christians, but I demand a cake decorated with a pro-gay marriage message". Many people who see themselves as progressive took this line.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Why are muslims given as the main reason for the retreat of secularism?

Or put another way, why is it assumed that the once pristine western secularism has been corrupted or we have achieved a deep secular totality rather than replacing rigid christianity with mystical liberal obfuscation? i think that's the issue that people don't want to mention here. Decline of secularism is invoked and people just point the finger at muslims and islam by default, and then the financial/political hardships of muslims are invoked as a kind of guilty get out clause, but secularism itself is never analysed, it's just taken for granted.

As someone who's a stone cold atheist and more steadfast in my disavowal of islam than someone like Namazie I always feel like the criticisms re: secular decline in the west just collapse people from muslim backgrounds into this big amorphous indivisible hole, which is hardly a good roadmap for a secular emancipatory politics.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't get it. Am I missing something?

Yes, their point.

They are arguing that different standards are being applied to religions that wouldn't be applied to other philosophies, and that the fear of offending has led to a situation where rather than making sure we all rub along the opposite has happened. Some people demand that no offence is given, including so-called progressives, and amongst the most reactionary sections of those demanding no offense be given is a violent minority. A minority who maybe never even read the Koran much (they say this quite specifically).

The point is that there is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to (what top down multiculturalism assumes to be) the internal mores of each individual culture. So Muslim women sitting separately in meetings is OK, but segration for non Muslim women isn't.

This refusal to challenge reationary ideas for fear of causing offence over the decades has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).

It is this timidity, this cowardice, this refusal to show that disagreement over ideas is fine, normal, expected, that has led us to where we are now. The retreat of securalism in the face of moral relativism, for fear of giving offence. That's what the piece is saying. Really quite plainly.

 

[Santino]

"I know you're fundamentalist Christians, but I demand a cake decorated with a pro-gay marriage message". Many people who see themselves as progressive took this line.

A cake shop refusing to sell someone a particular kind of cake is different from a business simply not stocking ham. They are actively discriminating against people.

A cake shop that didn't sell any kind of bespoke cake would not be obliged to sell someone a wedding cake of any kind.

 

[danny la rouge]

Why are muslims given as the main reason for the retreat of secularism?

They aren't being. That's what people are misunderstanding. Read it again. Look at the bit about students who will become journalists or local officials. Their fear of "criticising lest they appear Islamophobic" is not due to Muslims, but due to a culture where secularism is in retreat..

 

[Santino]

Yes, their point.

They are arguing that different standards are being applied to religions that wouldn't be applied to other philosophies, and that the fear of offending has led to a situation where rather than making sure we all rub along the opposite has happened. Some people demand that no offence is given, including so-called progressives, and amongst the most reactionary sections of those demanding no offense be given is a violent minority. A minority who maybe never even read the Koran much (they say this quite specifically).

The point is that there is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to (what top down multiculturalism assumes to be) the internal mores of each individual culture. So Muslim women sitting separately in meetings is OK, but segration for non Muslim women isn't.

This refusal to challenge reationary ideas for fear of causing offence over the decades has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).

It is this timidity, this cowardice, this refusal to show that disagreement over ideas is fine, normal, expected, that has led us to where we are now. The retreat of securalism in the face of moral relativism, for fear of giving offence. That's what the piece is saying. Really quite plainly.

It's saying quite plainly that allowing bakers not to sell ham leads to bombing. That's quite an audacious claim. It's also fear-mongering of its own kind. If you tolerate headscarves, your children [being bombed] will be next.

 

[danny la rouge]

A cake shop refusing to sell someone a particular kind of cake is different from a business simply not stocking ham. They are actively discriminating against people.

A cake shop that didn't sell any kind of bespoke cake would not be obliged to sell someone a wedding cake of any kind.

This cake shop did sell bespoke cakes. Do you remember the case? They offered a service: cake decoration to your specifications. Except they didn't want to decorate a cake with a pro-gay marriage message. It was a real case, I'm sure you remember it.

 

[Santino]

This cake shop did sell bespoke cakes. Do you remember the case? They offered a service: cake decoration to your specifications. Except they didn't want to decorate a cake with a pro-gay marriage message. It was a real case, I'm sure you remember it.

Yes, so it's very different from a shop that doesn't sell any ham at all to anyone.

Would you want butchers to be prosecuted for not selling ham?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Or put another way, why is it assumed that the once pristine western secularism has been corrupted or we have achieved a deep secular totality rather than replacing rigid christianity with mystical liberal obfuscation?

I don't see anyone assuming that. In the case of the UK, I see a society that has moved a long way towards secularism over the last century, but was never totally there. And secularism isn't some invocation of the past - far from it, we've only just got rid of specifically Christian blasphemy laws here in the UK. It's also never something that can be taken for granted - it is a process that needs defending/working towards at all time, precisely because there will always be those who want their religion to be privileged.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, so it's very different from a shop that doesn't sell any ham at all to anyone.

Would you want butchers to be prosecuted for not selling ham?

Is that the only level of debate? Either you think it's fine or you think it should be illegal? I don't want to live in a society in which everything I don't like is illegal.

(Danny's already stated, btw, that on balance he doesn't think the shop should be forced to make this cake.)

 

[ManchesterBeth]

They aren't being. That's what people are misunderstanding. Read it again. Look at the bit about students who will become journalists or local officials. Their fear of "criticising lest they appear Islamophobic" is not due to Muslims, but due to a culture where secularism is in retreat..

I understand that but what I'm getting at is a bit different. It is precisely in this plea for democracy and universal liberal values that we can pinpoint secularism's decline.

When communism comes, come it will, you don't believe that we will have a value system that is remotely similar, do you?

 

[Santino]

Is that the only level of debate? Either you think it's fine or you think it should be illegal? I don't want to live in a society in which everything I don't like is illegal.

(Danny's already stated, btw, that on balance he doesn't think the shop should be forced to make this cake.)

Do you agree that tolerating bakers not selling ham leads to bombings? That terrorism is the end result of a process of allowing, or not criticising, the wearing of headscarves?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I don't see anyone assuming that. In the case of the UK, I see a society that has moved a long way towards secularism over the last century, but was never totally there. And secularism isn't some invocation of the past - far from it, we've only just got rid of specifically Christian blasphemy laws here in the UK. It's also never something that can be taken for granted - it is a process that needs defending/working towards at all time, precisely because there will always be those who want their religion to be privileged.

Yes, exactly, and islam and some muslims are just the most recent manifestation of a desire for religion to be privileged. But your idea assumes that given a healthy dose of rationality and tireless work we will minimise the impact of religion. But this never happens, it just becomes sublimated to another system, liberalism, the desire to accrue more capital for the sake of ... well, nothing, etc...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you agree that tolerating bakers not selling ham leads to bombings? That terrorism is the end result of a process of allowing, or not criticising, the wearing of headscarves?

I think lots of things lead to bombings, not least European military action. And most people (the vast majority) killed by ISIS bombs are Muslims.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, exactly, and islam and some muslims are just the most recent manifestation of a desire for religion to be privileged. But your idea assumes that given a healthy dose of rationality and tireless work we will minimise the impact of religion. But this never happens, it just becomes sublimated to another system, liberalism, capitalism, money, etc...

Does it? tbh 'my idea' is little more than a desire for a decent space for me and those like me to live our lives.

I reject your comparison with other systems. I can debate with a liberal or a capitalist.

 

[Santino]

I think lots of things lead to bombings, not least European military action. And most people (the vast majority) killed by ISIS bombs are Muslims.

So do you disagree or agree with the main argument of the editorial? That the retreat of secularism, as directly evidenced in the toleration for non-ham selling bakers and the wearing of headscarves, is the beginning of a process that ends in a bombing?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Does it? tbh 'my idea' is little more than a desire for a decent space for me and those like me to live our lives.

I reject your comparison with other systems. I can debate with a liberal or a capitalist.

I can debate with muslims. I do every day. What's your point?

Debates rarely convince people, they are just facades for existential self-satisfaction and confidence. People are convinced through changing dynamics, not word vomit.

 

[FNG]

Its an odd conceit that Secularism is in retreat throughout Europe when the ECHR recently upheld the french ban on face coverings in public.

The article does that weird Julie burchill thing of taking starting with a reasonable proposition ie that Islamic scholars tendency to ratify or justify fatwas act as a dogwhistle to legitimise acts of terror, then undermines its own position by adding logical fallacies and absurdities such as halal bakers with prayer marks on their foreheads that mark their devotion to faith.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can debate with muslims. I do every fucking day. What's your point?

My point is the same one I made earlier. I can't debate a person's religious belief with them - it's faith-based, what is there to debate?

eg

Muhammad is a prophet.

No, he isn't.

That's pretty much the end of the debate.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

My point is the same one I made earlier. I can't debate a person's religious belief with them - it's faith-based, what is there to debate?

eg

Muhammad is a prophet.

No, he isn't.

That's pretty much the end of the debate.

No it isn't, prophet is just a discoursive signifier. Everyone has their own version of muhammad and allah. It's like postmodernism without even trying.

Like I said, debating is totally surplus to requirements. You're going to get nowhere because understanding of muhammad between one person and another only really involves superficial similarities and edicts. But muhammad's prophethood or allah's godliness amounts to individual passions.

This is why debating is merely existential satisfaction because you're not conversing in the practical language that the religious person requires, instead getting bogged down in semantic relativities. It's useless because your facade of rationality is actually accentuating this passion, not annihilating it. It's not a rational debate on your end to begin with.

 

[Catchit]

Yes, their point.

They are arguing that different standards are being applied to religions that wouldn't be applied to other philosophies, and that the fear of offending has led to a situation where rather than making sure we all rub along the opposite has happened. Some people demand that no offence is given, including so-called progressives, and amongst the most reactionary sections of those demanding no offense be given is a violent minority. A minority who maybe never even read the Koran much (they say this quite specifically).

The point is that there is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to (what top down multiculturalism assumes to be) the internal mores of each individual culture. So Muslim women sitting separately in meetings is OK, but segration for non Muslim women isn't.

This refusal to challenge reationary ideas for fear of causing offence over the decades has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).

It is this timidity, this cowardice, this refusal to show that disagreement over ideas is fine, normal, expected, that has led us to where we are now. The retreat of securalism in the face of moral relativism, for fear of giving offence. That's what the piece is saying. Really quite plainly.

I think you've summed it up their central message quite well. I guess my criticism of how they choose to communicate that message is that it is willfully ignorant of the loaded culture it was released into. In a way I quite respect their refusal to accommodate the reactionary, self-appointed commentariat, but by Christ do they make life harder for themselves, and those who are interested in a maintaining a rational, level-headed discussion about these things.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is why debating is merely existential satisfaction because you're not conversing in the practical language that the religious person requires, instead getting bogged down in semantic relativities.

This is nonsense afaic. The special, privileged nature of a figure such as Mohammad is not 'semantic relativity'.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

This is nonsense afaic. The special, privileged nature of a figure such as Mohammad is not 'semantic relativity'.

Of course it is. there are about 20 different muhammads in the early islamic literature, each involving contradictions, loose ends. Muhammad is quite vague in the qu'ran, and all exegesis is based on *perceptions* of muhammad. Given that most religion is word of mouth and contingent on experience, why wouldn't you argue that muhammad is semantic relativity? Sure, a muslim isn't going to admit this, but if he did, he'd be succumbing to cold rationality and denying his passion.

So take away the building blocks of such a passion and accentuate cold rationality. Debating can't do this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course it is. there are about 20 different muhammads in the early islamic literature, each involving contradictions, loose ends. Given that most religion is word of mouth and contingent on experience, why wouldn't you argue that6 muhammad is semantic relativity? Sure, a muslim isn't going to admit this, but if he did, he'd be succumbing to cold rationality and denying his passion.

So take away the building blocks of such a passion and accentuate cold rationality. Debating can't do this.

Saw a debate a while ago between Richard Dawkins and a believer. It went something like this:

Dawkins: So you believe that god sent an angel to talk to Mohammad?

Believer: Yes, that's what I believe.

At this point, Dawkins is left speechless (and unable to quite stop himself from snorting with derision). There's really little that can be said to that.

And it is that privileging of position that dictates the terms of debate. Last night there was a programme on Radio 4 about Buddhism and the idea of female monks. A woman was discussing whether or not Buddha would have approved of female monks (concluding that he would). That's the problem in a nutshell - the necessity to provide a scriptural justification for any position. This is not some relativist semantic problem.

We also see it in this country with liberal-minded Christians, who would really, really like to find a way to interpret the Bible to make homosexuality fine, but can never quite do it.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Saw a debate a while ago between Richard Dawkins and a believer. It went something like this:

Dawkins: So you believe that god sent an angel to talk to Mohammad?

Believer: Yes, that's what I believe.

At this point, Dawkins is left speechless (and unable to quite stop himself from snorting with derision). There's really little that can be said to that.

And it is that privileging of position that dictates the terms of debate. Last night there was a programme on Radio 4 about Buddhism and the idea of female monks. A woman was discussing whether or not Buddha would have approved of female monks (concluding that he would). That's the problem in a nutshell - the necessity to provide a scriptural justification for any position. This is not some relativist semantic problem.

We also see it in this country with liberal-minded Christians, who would really, really like to find a way to interpret the Bible to make homosexuality fine, but can never quite do it.

Yes, and Dawkins crude positivism only ensures that he snorts with derision. The perception in the mind of this believer is completely ignored. what Gabriel conversing with muhammad entails is ignored. It's just an exercise for Dawkins to entrench his ego even further.

And again, re: homosexuality, the prohibition is just a smokescreen for other anxieties such as individualism, disorderliness, decadence, breakdown of social contracts, etc.

You're not going to convince a christian nutjob that homosexuality is fine through trying to show that the smokescreen is just a smokescreen. If anything, that will just serve as a defence mechanism. This can't be resolved through debate but through theory and action. Which is completely different to debate.

 

[Vintage Paw]

There's a discussion to be had. And that's the point: we are shying away from these discussions.

(Diversion for littlebabyjesus's benefit really).

These discussions are not being shied away from. There being had constantly.

What's being objected to is people being asked to understand the effects some of their actions might have. They don't like that. Hebdo et al can say what they like, they just don't like being criticised for it. It's free speech one way. Every time. We'll defend one, not the other.

And I get your point about the article arguing for secularism and the ability to criticise and discuss.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also push a dangerous narrative along side that.

You keep saying it's not doing x y or z, and yet it is doing that. It's doing both. "The article's a bit crude" and "I might not have said it like that" and that's the problem.

For all the noble and wildly intelligent and amazing and perfect things the article is supposedly trying to do, it's also giving a rationalist's excuse to blanket demonise an entire group and culture. It doesn't matter if it has noble intentions - it's all in the execution. If everything they put out requires pages and pages and reams and reams to explain why it's satire or why it's actually a good thing, then maybe it's not fit for purpose and there are better ways of doing it that can bring everyone together rather than continuing the narrative that an entire group of people are evil.