Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[kabbes]

We = residents of western countries, particularly England, over the few centuries. Yes I don't like organized religions either, but as soon as we as individuals start telling people who believe in their religion that they shouldn't or that they believe in sky pixies and the like, then we're carrying on the western tradition of telling people in the rest of the world what they should believe.

Indeed, and if Dandred could be arsed to read the link I posted instead of dismissing it out of hand, he would see that telling people what they should believe entrenches otherness rather than alleviating it

 

[two sheds]

Well my western country of origin is Ireland and their sky pixie of choice is (or was) Catholic bullshit which they only clung to as a cultural antithesis to the English. I'm quite happy to express my views on religion to anyone prepared to listen and that's not a western establishment tradition at all.

Yes fair play. We're all still residents of western countries which went out to convert the savages and heathens and other derogatory terms for people who were happily living their lives. Calling their beliefs (and I know it wasn't you who did this) 'sky pixies' follows in that long tradition of contempt for third world people and conscious or unconscious racism.

Sikhs for example probably have a more coherent and balanced world view than we in the west do. What right do we have telling them that they worship a sky pixy?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yes it does. You think these things are unresearchable? I didn’t put that book chapter link up for a laugh. It’s directly relevant.

Pages 8-9, for instance:



What that says is that the more the French state stresses the incompatibility of their national values with that of Islam (such as by banning headscarves), the more that migrants will place higher subjective importance on their religious identity. So if you want to deemphasise a belief in magic men in the sky, you’re actually going to fail utterly if you do it by trying to suppress the religious practices associated with the belief.

The quote you’ve used offers one study in Holland in 2007 for its specious argument. I may have missed it, but it doesn’t seem grapple with the core demand of islamo-fascism either (and seems instead to drift into the cognitive dissonance demonstrated on here of late): that demand and their motivation isn’t for a debate about whether the balance between secularism and religious norms is right. They aren’t seeking to nudge the negotiating process between generational migrant communities. They want to impose a caliphate

 

[kabbes]

The quote you’ve used offers one study in Holland in 2007 for its specious argument. I may have missed it, but it doesn’t seem grapple with the core demand of islamo-fascism (or the cognitive dissonance demonstrated on here of late either): that their demand and motivation isn’t for a debate about whether the balance between secularism and religious norms is right. It’s the complete eradication of the former.

The point is that cultural encounters are complicated. Boiling it down to “but they want to turn us all into them” massively misses many important points, such as who “they” are, how they ended up being “they” in the first place and how they got to the point of “wanting to turn us into them” given that many of their supposedly fellow “theys” don’t want that at all.

Anyway, you can choose to read the book chapter or not (and I would note that it actually contains rather more than the two paragraphs I quoted). But pretending that academic research is irrelevant to the discussion is just silly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The quote you’ve used offers one study in Holland in 2007 for its specious argument. I may have missed it, but it doesn’t seem grapple with the core demand of islamo-fascism either (and seems instead to drift into the cognitive dissonance demonstrated on here of late): that demand and their motivation isn’t for a debate about whether the balance between secularism and religious norms is right. They aren’t seeking to nudge the negotiating process between generational migrant communities. They want to impose a caliphate

Yep. That's the core issue wrt the violence. The very concept of 'blasphemy' is that I get to tell you that you can't do/say/believe/be something because in this matter you are obliged to follow my religious beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you allow me to do/say/believe/be according ot my religious beliefs.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yes fair play. We're all still residents of western countries which went out to convert the savages and heathens and other derogatory terms for people who were happily living their lives. Calling their beliefs (and I know it wasn't you who did this) 'sky pixies' follows in that long tradition of contempt for third world people and conscious or unconscious racism.

Firstly, religion was the stated reason - the spread of Christianity and morality - for the imperial subjugation, market seizure and control of subaltern groups.

Secondly, I’ve spent my entire political life fighting the conservative, backward, disorientating and ludicrous consequences of irrational religious beliefs. I’m not planning on stopping that lest I offend some medieval bigots. Nor would I condemn any lampooning of it. it’s the opium of the masses isn’t it?

 

[belboid]

it’s the opium of the masses isn’t it?

Very true, but we should never forget the rest of the quote:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Anyway, you can choose to read the book chapter or not (and I would note that it actually contains rather more than the two paragraphs I quoted). But pretending that academic research is irrelevant to the discussion is just silly.

The fact that it’s academic research doesn’t bestow great import. What research has been done? What qualitative and quantitive evidence is presented? What breadth of the literature in engaged with?

You presumably attach significance to the section you've quoted. I’m merely suggesting that drawing meta-narratives from one study is shaky. As I’m sure you’d agree

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Very true, but we should never forget the rest of the quote:

I knew someone would do that. It’s a bonus that it’s you

 

[kabbes]

The fact that it’s academic research doesn’t bestow great import. What research has been done? What qualitative and quantitive evidence is presented? What breadth of the literature in engaged with?

You presumably attach significance to the section you've quoted. I’m merely suggesting that drawing meta-narratives from one study is shaky. As I’m sure you’d agree

I do agree. I’m pleased you’re keen to know more. There’s a lot more information in the subsequent 55 pages (including many diverse perspectives on how migrant communities come to be integrated, separated, part of the polity or antagonistic)

 

[8ball]

None.

Can't you hear the condemnation of this in the thread?

Ok, I think maybe you just didn’t understand a string of posts there.

 

[belboid]

I knew someone would do that. It’s a bonus that it’s you

Cherry picking little bits of comments and ignoring the rest is never a good idea, and will probably lead you a crude and simplistic analysis. If you are happy with that, well, that's your problem.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I do agree. There’s a lot more information in the subsequent 55 pages.

You might want to post some of it up here then

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Cherry picking little bits of comments and ignoring the rest is never a good idea, and will probably lead you a crude and simplistic analysis. If you are happy with that, well, that's your problem.

Indeed, perhaps you should have finished the quote?

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

 

[kabbes]

You might want to post some of it up here t

Not really, ta. I read it for my own benefit. You can do the same or not as you see fit.

 

[two sheds]

Firstly, religion was the stated reason - the spread of Christianity and morality - for the imperial subjugation, market seizure and control of subaltern groups.

Secondly, I’ve spent my entire political life fighting the conservative, backward, disorientating and ludicrous consequences of irrational religious beliefs. I’m not planning on stopping that lest I offend some medieval bigots. Nor would I condemn any lampooning of it. it’s the opium of the masses isn’t it?

Sounds a similar mindset and certainty of belief to the missionaries who went out to convert the heathens in those uncivilized heathen medieval countries. The missionaries would have agreed with you about lampooning their beliefs, but they had the Word of God behind them, not some bloke who knew bugger all about scientific method's opinion.

Why insult them? Why not respect their beliefs and work from that? If you go in with the mindset that they are medieval bigots (and I was talking about Sikhs who I'd have thought are as far away from medieval bigots as you and I) then why should they listen to a word you say?

 

[two sheds]

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Well quite but in your own words:

What research has been done? What qualitative and quantitive evidence is presented?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sounds a similar mindset and certainty of belief to the missionaries who went out to convert the heathens in those uncivilized heathen medieval countries. The missionaries would have agreed with you about lampooning their beliefs, but they had the Word of God behind them, not some bloke who knew bugger all about scientific method's opinion.

Why insult them? Why not respect their beliefs and work from that? If you go in with the mindset that they are medieval bigots (and I was talking about Sikhs who I'd have thought are as far away from medieval bigots as you and I) then why should they listen to a word you say?

If you're referring to Charlie Hebdo, the why insult them is rather clear. They insult organised religions, in particular the leaders of those religions or anybody who claims to speak with the authority of those religions, and have done for many decades. They are militantly anticlerical.

Why not insult them? Until such a time when these structures do not wield power and influence, how could they not insult them?

 

[Johnny Vodka]

So that's 6 billion odd who are the problem. Which is clearly bollocks, it's the ones who kill in their god's name that are the problem which are a minute fraction.

I do feel this sort of statement is just a continuation of Western arrogance. We've spend several hundred years telling brown people that we know better than them and that Christianity is the only religion, and killed quite a few who resisted. Now we're telling them that we know better than them and that they mustn't have any religion and instead believe as we believe.

Fuck us really

Nah, religious people of any colour who impose their beliefs on others are cunts. See also, for example, the rulers in Poland who are doing their best to stop women accessing abortion.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Why insult them? Why not respect their beliefs and work from that? If you go in with the mindset that they are medieval bigots (and I was talking about Sikhs who I'd have thought are as far away from medieval bigots as you and I) then why should they listen to a word you say?
[/QUOTE

Who said anything about ‘insulting’ anyone? I’m not sure you’ve introduced Sikhs into the debate either

 

[belboid]

Indeed, perhaps you should have finished the quote?

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

No one's argued about any of that bit.

 

[two sheds]

If you're referring to Charlie Hebdo, the why insult them is rather clear. They insult organised religions, in particular the leaders of those religions or anybody who claims to speak with the authority of those religions, and have done for many decades. They are militantly anticlerical.

Why not insult them? Until such a time when these structures do not wield power and influence, how could they not insult them?

Perhaps - I'm talking about the 'rank-and-file' so not the fundamentalists though.

 

[two sheds]

Nah, religious people of any colour who impose their beliefs on others are cunts. See also, for example, the rulers in Poland who are doing their best to stop women accessing abortion.

I'd largely agree with that, but why not say political people of any colour who impose their beliefs on others are cunts then?

Agreed about the rulers in Poland.

 

[two sheds]

Who said anything about ‘insulting’ anyone? I’m not sure you’ve introduced Sikhs into the debate either

Well calling their gods 'sky pixies' is a bit of an insult (not that it was you who did it but that's what I came in on). I did mention Sikhs but same goes for Hindus or Buddhists - why should we start out by insulting them by talking about sky pixies and showing contempt for their beliefs?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd largely agree with that, but why not say political people of any colour who impose their beliefs on others are cunts then?

Agreed about the rulers in Poland.

tbh we're right back in the class about freedom of expression here. Earlier, spymaster asked why a poet hadn't made their point in a different way. People ask why Charlie Hebdo can't make their point in a different way. It's ludicrous. It wouldn't be that point if they made it in a different way.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

I'd largely agree with that, but why not say political people of any colour who impose their beliefs on others are cunts then?

Agreed about the rulers in Poland.

These attitudes are generally down to religion.

Ultimately, a working society does depend on imposing some 'beliefs'.

For example, I think people should be made to alter there behaviour because of climate change - but that's more about science.

 

[8ball]

tbh we're right back in the class about freedom of expression here. Earlier, spymaster asked why a poet hadn't made their point in a different way. People ask why Charlie Hebdo can't make their point in a different way. It's ludicrous. It wouldn't be that point if they made it in a different way.

It’s almost funny that when someone tries to make their point by hacking someone’s head off, some tool will say that maybe doing it with a cartoon was a bit provocative.

 

[two sheds]

tbh we're right back in the class about freedom of expression here. Earlier, spymaster asked why a poet hadn't made their point in a different way. People ask why Charlie Hebdo can't make their point in a different way. It's ludicrous. It wouldn't be that point if they made it in a different way.

Again fair point. Aren't they making their point to the violent fundamentalists, though, rather than most muslims, who wouldn't take huge offense? And if they're trying to offend most muslims than doesn't that stray over to overt racism which I thought the Hebdo cartoons didn't do?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Well calling their gods 'sky pixies' is a bit of an insult (not that it was you who did it but that's what I came in on). I did mention Sikhs but same goes for Hindus or Buddhists - why should we start out by insulting them by talking about sky pixies and showing contempt for their beliefs?

I don’t think it’s anyone’s starting point. The question is to what extent should society and culture accommodate organised religion and it’s believers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again fair point. Aren't they making their point to the violent fundamentalists, though, rather than most muslims, who wouldn't take huge offense? And if they're trying to offend most muslims than doesn't that stray over to overt racism which I thought the Hebdo cartoons didn't do?

Well that also isn't straightforward. If they were directly lampooning not just Islamists but all Muslim belief, would that be overt racism? It could be, or it could not be, depending on the context. There are problems here to do with associating a belief system with the concept of race.

ETA:

My attitudes towards such things have softened considerably over the years, but back in the 90s, I used to contribute to a small press magazine in which we were extremely rude about religion and the religious (mostly Christianity). The intention was to offend, or at least to entertain with material that would be offensive to Christians if they were to read it, which of course they didn't. Unnecessary? We didn't think so at the time. And who gets to decide?