French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

[danny la rouge]

Indeed, and part of that is supporting the basically Islamacist argument than any criticism of Islam (or a particular strand/interpretation of Islam, because of course there are many) is an attack on all Muslims.

Exactly.

 

[phildwyer]

Indeed, and part of that is supporting the basically Islamacist argument than any criticism of Islam (or a particular strand/interpretation of Islam, because of course there are many) is an attack on all Muslims.

Does anyone ever suggest that though?

It seems to me that even the most bigotted Muslims are willing to debate the rational points of their religion at frankly tedious length.

What they do not accept is blasphemy. I think they ought to accept it, as part of the price for freedom of speech. But objection to blasphemy is not the same as prohibition of any criticism.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Blood libel is clearly a "criticism" of a particular religion rather than a criticism of religion in general, and what's more it's a criticism based on a lie, a fabrication, and therefore clearly motivated entirely by anti-semitism rather than anti-Judaism.

Much criticism of religious doctrine is sectarian in nature and not a general anti-clerical stance. Anti-Judaism preceded anti-semitism as Jews were seen as a religious sect. Yes it's based on a lie, but then so are a lot of criticisms of Islam. Or more subtly there are criticisms of Islamic doctrine which are simply mistaken. There was one from Sam Harris a while ago, I'll see if I can dig it out. But if your criticisms of a religion are based on lies you are still criticising the religion not the people as such.

But I think you are right in that the broader intent is important. Which is why I'm not going to accept, "but it's just criticism of religion, m'lord," as universal get out, and it's the reason I'm being cautious about Charilie Hebdo.

 

[andysays]

Exactly.

Glad we've sorted that out - i can get on with the rest of my day now

 

[cesare]

anyway it often occurs to me that men have missed a trick and it would be far better to take a backseat and let women take their turn at running the world. much more time for the important things in life like football

 

[phildwyer]

The trumpeting triumphalism on the 'The Andrew Marr Show' was quite shocking. All that was missing was martial music.

You should see how these stories are presented in the USA.

 

[danny la rouge]

Which is why I'm not going to accept, "but it's just criticism of religion, m'lord," as universal get out

And neither you should, because sometimes it is obfuscation - the BNP used to try that one, for example. But that doesn't mean there are never genuine distinctions.

 

[andysays]

Much criticism of religious doctrine is sectarian in nature and not a general anti-clerical stance. Anti-Judaism preceded anti-semitism as Jews were seen as a religious sect. Yes it's based on a lie, but then so are a lot of criticisms of Islam. Or more subtly there are criticisms of Islamic doctrine which are simply mistaken. There was one from Sam Harris a while ago, I'll see if I can dig it out. But if your criticisms of a religion are based on lies you are still criticising the religion not the people as such.

But I think you are right in that the broader intent is important. Which is why I'm not going to accept, "but it's just criticism of religion, m'lord," as universal get out, and it's the reason I'm being cautious about Charilie Hebdo.

I think I see the point you're making here, but I would suggest that most criticisms of aa particular religion which are based on lies about that religion or its adherents are based on hatred of the members of that religion (eg anti-semitism, anti-Muslims, anti-Catholics) rather than simply criticism of the particular religion or religion in general.

And I bet you can't come up with a genuine counter-example!

 

[phildwyer]

Actually a lot of classical anti-semitism is also "criticism of religion". Blood libel being one example ie. supposing that it is part of the Jewish doctrine to drink blood of Christian children etc. Anti-semitism evolved out of anti-Judaism and includes much which is properly anti-Judaism.

Thing is, it's a secularist myth to suggest that religious and cultural prejudice can be separated. For example, the association of Jews with usury is based on allegedly Judaic hermeneutic commentary on Deuteronomy. It's both a religious and a secular issue.

The same is true of today's anti-Muslim blasphemy. The idea that you can take the piss out of Islam without offending individual Muslims is pure ignorance.

The qustion, really, is: do we care if individual Muslims are offended. And the answer to that can be provided only in practice, not in theory.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I think I see the point you're making here, but I would suggest that most criticisms of aa particular religion which are based on lies about that religion or its adherents are based on hatred of the members of that religion (eg anti-semitism, anti-Muslims, anti-Catholics) rather than simply criticism of the particular religion or religion in general.

And I bet you can't come up with a genuine counter-example!

"Paganism, druidry and wicca are all entirely synthetic belief systems, dreamed up by charlatans and romantics in the last hundred years." Probably not entirely true, but worth claiming, not out of hatred of the loonspuds but out of irritation with their divvy beliefs.

 

[Knotted]

Yes, it is an institution. And I have no problem with that institution deciding its own rules. That's very different from the state and civil society deciding for all of us what we can and can't say.

Well yes.

Yeah, but the blood libel isn't a criticism of Judaism; it's a lie, and a lie about Jews. It's an anti-Semitic attack.

If I'm not mistaken it is both. You could certainly formulate it as purely a criticism of Judaism. "This was part of Jewish doctrine in the Middle Ages although most Jews now reject it nowadays. There are moderates and extremists. Etc." In fact I think it's fair to say that most forms of anti-semitism attack only a subsection of Jews - Jewish bankers, Jewish Bolsheviks etc. Criticism of culture and religion can bleed into bigotry and hatred. I don't think we are going to be able to come up with any tight formulas about anti-Muslimism or anti-Semitism that don't rely on our sense of judgement.

 

[Knotted]

I think I see the point you're making here, but I would suggest that most criticisms of aa particular religion which are based on lies about that religion or its adherents are based on hatred of the members of that religion (eg anti-semitism, anti-Muslims, anti-Catholics) rather than simply criticism of the particular religion or religion in general.

And I bet you can't come up with a genuine counter-example!

Actually I come across examples with respect to Islam quite often. It genuinely happens a lot with New Atheist types. I see something, think hmm is that really so, look it up and find its bollocks. Further there is the whole issue of how things are interpreted in practice. Looking at a doctrine and then assuming its followers adhere to that doctrine as it is written or as you read it is usually to make a false assumption.

I think you and Danny are right in that the intent towards the followers of that doctrine is key. But what was the intent of Geert Wilder's film Fitnah? What is it's effect? (Do watch it by the way, it's pure criticism of religious doctrine.)

 

[Sirena]

"Paganism, druidry and wicca are all entirely synthetic belief systems, dreamed up by charlatans and romantics in the last hundred years." Probably not entirely true, but worth claiming, not out of hatred of the loonspuds but out of irritation with their divvy beliefs.

The fact you know nothing about their beliefs is no impediment to your judgement.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

it's fair to say that most forms of anti-semitism attack only a subsection of Jews - Jewish bankers, Jewish Bolsheviks etc. .

When bankers are portrayed as representative and typical of Jews, it's extremely unhelpful for other Jews.

 

[quiquaquo]

Will you do me a favour? Define for me what you mean by "Islamophobia".

Phobia of Islam and all its manifestations Muslims included.

Try being a Muslim on the end of some of the shit that's going on and then talk.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

The fact you know nothing about their beliefs is no impediment to your judgement.

The point was simply that for the vast majority of us who find neo-paganism irksome, it really is the beliefs rather than its adherents that are irksome - and as a result might be dismissed without complete accuracy. It was a counter-example, as called for.

 

[Knotted]

When bankers are portrayed as representative and typical of Jews, it's extremely unhelpful for other Jews.

OK suppose I said that there is a Jewish conspiracy for world domination a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but this conspiracy only involves a minority of Jews and I have nothing against ordinary Jews who know nothing of this conspiracy.

There are ways in which our politically correct notions often miss the nub of the matter.

 

[phildwyer]

"Paganism, druidry and wicca are all entirely synthetic belief systems, dreamed up by charlatans and romantics in the last hundred years." Probably not entirely true

Not true at all. It took 100 years of violent persecuation and 100,000 executions to uproot paganism from mainstream European practices. Modern pagans have a viable claim to be the authentic representatives of folk tradition.

but worth claiming, not out of hatred of the loonspuds but out of irritation with their divvy beliefs.

If there's nothing on the telly maybe.

 

[chilango]

What is the point of all this?

There's some pretty concrete situations related to the OP in our communities, in our workplaces, amongst our families and friends that are important and we can, and do, have an influence on.

 

[DotCommunist]

When bankers are portrayed as representative and typical of Jews, it's extremely unhelpful for other Jews.

its fair to say that to some minds- and this was especially prevelant between the wars- communism/socialism was painted as a jewish plot and anyone involved was a dupe or a member.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not true at all. It took 100 years of violent persecuation and 100,000 executions to uproot paganism from mainstream European practices. Modern pagans have a viable claim to be the authentic representatives of folk tradition.

only a hundred years? source pls.

 

[phildwyer]

only a hundred years? source pls.

The great European Witch Craze lasted from 1560-1660, approximately speaking. Of course there were earlier and later instances, but they were isolated. The Witch Craze was a deliberate and concerted campaign to stamp out paganism forever.

 

[phildwyer]

its fair to say that to some minds- and this was especially prevelant between the wars- communism/socialism was painted as a jewish plot and anyone involved was a dupe or a member.

Capitalism too.

 

[Ax^]

staying on topic as always i see

 

[Pickman's model]

The great European Witch Craze lasted from 1560-1660, approximately speaking. Of course there were earlier and later instances, but they were isolated. The Witch Craze was a deliberate and concerted campaign to stamp out paganism forever.

so what you're saying is that the previous thousand years of stamping out paganism was not in fact stamping out paganism. in addition, while you see the great witch hysterian as lasting form 1560-1660, historians more commonly see the period of witch trials as spanning c.1400 to c.1700. and it's only people gullible enough to believe margaret murray's exploded thesis (as in the witch-cult in western europe) who believe that what was happening was the suppression of a cult which had existed since pre-xian times. are you a gullible twat who believes in exploded theses? don't answer, we both know the answer's yes.

 

[phildwyer]

so what you're saying is that the previous thousand years of stamping out paganism was not in fact stamping out paganism.

Not successful stampting out, no. As is proved by the fact that widespread popular paganism survived until the C17th.

in addition, while you see the great witch hysterian as lasting form 1560-1660, historians more commonly see the period of witch trials as spanning c.1400 to c.1700. and it's only people gullible enough to believe margaret murray's exploded thesis (as in the witch-cult in western europe) who believe that what was happening was the suppression of a cult which had existed since pre-xian times.

Darling, Margaret Murray was writing in the 1920s. Research has progressed somewhat since then. Try Stuart Clarke.

 

[ddraig]

staying on topic as always i see

Phil is in the house...

 

[Pickman's model]

Not successful stampting out, no. As is proved by the fact that widespread popular paganism survived until the C17th.



Darling, Margaret Murray was writing in the 1920s. Research has progressed somewhat since then. Try Stuart Clarke.

it would help if you'd read stuart clark's work (note: no 'e' on end). looking through his 'thinking with demons' i note no index entry for pagans or paganism, popular or otherwise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Both threads on this subject now talking about paganism?

 

[treelover]

Incredible to be watching Hollande welcoming leaders of such bastions of free speech as Morrocco and 'peacemakers', like Netanyahu,

I also really wonder how this march is going to pan out, its a very very disperate crowd.