In episode "201" (S14E06) all the celebrities South Park has parodied over the years collectively sued South Park town for making fun of them. The town would be ruined by the lawsuit, and beg for the celebs to drop the lawsuit. They agree to drop the lawsuit for just one thing - if the city could give them Muhammed.
The celebs had developed a machine that would extract the magic goo that makes it impossible to mock Muhammed from him. Eventually they get Muhammed and extract the magic goo. Tom Cruise eats it, but is shocked to discover that people can still make fun of him.
Comedy Central, ironically, totally beeped out the speech that followed (but thankfully it leaked Jan last year):
Kyle: That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works.
Jesus: That's right. Don't you see, gingers, if you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop.
Santa: That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence.
South Park was right as always.
All their Muhammad episodes should be watched, in this order:
1. S05E04 (Super Best Friends). It's the only uncensored episode with Muhammad, and ironically he's a pretty cool guy. Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history.
2. S10E03 (Cartoon Wars Part I)
3. S10E04 (Cartoon Wars Part II)
4. S14E05 (200)
5. S14E06 (201). Comedy Central actually bleeped all mentions of the name Muhammad in this episode plus the speech above. Watch the censored version first before you torrent the real version - the censorship is downright tragicomical.
That's bizarre. A quick Google search led me to the full episode here: http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Supe...
I'm not sure if this is due to the Streissand Effect.
Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.
It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know.
However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror.
Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.
I think underestimates the influence of the founders. Jesus mostly preached to turn the other cheek and didn't kill anyone.
Here is a list of people killed by Muhammed http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Suppor...
It goes on a bit and the sources vary in their authority but overall impression is pretty pro violence.
Most of the 911 guys were well off Saudis who felt they were following the teachings. Obviously you can interpret the founders of a religion in different way and most Muslims are peaceful but it's hard to understand what's going on if you ignore that stuff.
And yet from the time it achieved the kind of power in any society from which to exert substantial influence well into the modern period, Christians were killing people -- in other countries, in their own countries, etc. -- in the name of Christ all the time. The Crusades (and not just the ones in the "Holy Land" and/or targeting Muslims) were a thing. The Inquisition was a thing. Europe's Wars of Religion were a thing. There is a reason the word "pogrom" exists.
The modern Western concept of freedom of religion isn't a direct product of some religious parallel to the Ruby's community's maxim "Matz Is Nice And So We Are Nice", its a product of the exhaustion of Western European Christians after more than a millenium of killings -- not least of all of Western European Christians by Western European Christians -- in the name of Christ.
The idea that Christianity is somehow inherently more peaceful than Islam requires ignoring pretty much the entirety of the history of Christianity.
Any muslim who kills a satirist who mocked islam has pretty good grounds to be saying that their actions are in line with what Mohammed would have done!
There was some dissatisfaction with Al-Assad[1], but most Syrians supported him and continue to do so. This is not the first time extremist muslims have tried to overthrow him. I remember my hosts telling me he crushed a muslim rebellion in what I can only assume was the 80s or 90s
[1] I believe this had to do with his greedy brother or cousin who taxed businesses for personal profit
I was in Syria in 2010, also before the war. I travelled around for a fortnight.
I completely disagree. It was an almost entirely patriarchal society. I can't even begin to comprehend how you came to any other conclusion. The dominance of men in positions of authority and in the social life of all the cities I visited, including Damascus and Aleppo, was overwhelming and blindingly obvious.
For example, how many women did you see in cafes without male escorts? How many officials did you interact with who were female? How many times did you see women shopping alone in Souks? I think my answer to that is "pretty much zero".
Damascus was definitely much more liberal than other places. I don't recall the same being true of Aleppo.
I agree, however, that the poverty wasn't too bad, compared to other countries.
Popular support for Al-Assad was complicated. It's hard to assess people's true feelings about a situation when they live partly in fear of the consequences of their criticism.
I must admit that all of the families I stayed with were Catholic, but there was no difference in these families than the average American family in terms of respect between husband and wife.
I was trying to dispel the image that the culture of Saudi Arabia represents the entire middle east.
The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi...
That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good" vs "evil", which ends up doing more harm than good.
The other case, being Iran -whose Muslims are far less radical than those in Saudi- is made to appear as some raving mad state (their Govt. is awful no doubt).
Until the propaganda machine changes its mind, you'll keep seeing the violent philosophy of Wahabism spread like a cancer; and being politically correct doesn't particularly help.
It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens.
Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.
Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication.
PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.
Agreed, but sadly those expectations are met often enough, and dramatically enough (as in the cases you mentioned) that many people are not willing to take the risk.
Not exactly what you would call "backlash." Then the church took out an ad in the playbill. [2]
[1] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regar... [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/06/entertainment/la-et-...
Didn't you mean 'wouldn't' ?
Thought experiment: Can the same really be done for (say) Judaism without fear of being labelled anti-semite, losing your job, or worse? Could they have done it for Christianity and shown it in Bible-belt? (Maybe they already have and I don't know about it).
Also, there's a sense of 'no true scotsman' about your comment where you state no 'real' satire is possible. As though it only counts if there's 'significant risk of violent reprisal'.
from: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha...
"When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words."
This would suggest that there is plenty of commentary that does not result in reprisals.
Team America: World Police? Durka durka?
"Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam.
However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.
Wahhabism / Salafist Islam, which is a very small minority of Muslims, is the one preaching the extremist reaction.
The majority of mainstream Shia / Shiite Muslims are actually peaceful. They kinda don't like the cartoons, but I don't know of any attack from "mainstream" Muslims. They all come from the Al Quaeda-inspired Salafist sect preached by Osama Bin Laden.
Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Just on page two of the newspaper in front of me is a depiction of green party voters as idiots. Apparently they're all women, ugly, fat and insane. This depiction is done to denounce what boils down to the actions of a city official.
Should I write the paper complaining that there are multiple branches, men, and a great variety of ideas while complaining of racism ?
An attitude like this will kill all humor.
Btw what do you make of the primary source material ? Like that list of people muhammad had executed ? Is that somehow excluded from "mainstream" islam ? It seems to me a very well established point that islamic literature is not exactly peaceful, and "the prophet" is at best a warlord ... At worst ...
Denounce Muslims all you want... I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, you have freedom of speech. But instead, I'll use _my_ freedom of speech to counter-argue a point.
>>> Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment.
Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole.
What do the Irish Catholic IRA have to do with Mormans? Nothing. Or Protestants? I'm asking you to understand basic Islam here. There are many Muslims.
The violent sect is called Wahhabism, and most mainstream Muslims denounce that sect (Shiite and Shia are mainstream IIRC). And much like how Irish Catholics don't represent Catholics as a whole (IRA violence was not condoned by the Pope), Osama Bin Laden's specific philosophy on extremely violent Wahhabism is only a minority opinion of that minority sect.
Firstly I would argue that other people in this thread doing just that. Well usually not the actions of the IRA, though the terrorist attacks against abortion clinics are mentioned (they were against buildings, of course, not people), and things like the crusades or the founding of America. Usually to advance the case of atheism by implying moral equivalence of all religions, and of course neglecting that atheists, specifically 20th century communist state atheists are by far the biggest terrorists and warmongers in history, certainly where death toll is considered. Christianity is in fact pretty far down the list when it comes to deadly ideologies. Certainly far below atheism.
Examples from just this thread:
> Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication.
> If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century.
> Western christianity didn't leave all violence behind, see for example anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S....
And so on ...
Secondly, an answer to that I often hear is that that's because making the case that Jesus was a terrorist is utterly impossible. An annoyance to the government, sure. A rebel ... if you seriously stretch the truth, you can probably make him a rebel. Making the case that muhammad was a terrorist (leader), sending out assassins, raiding parties and the like ... doesn't seem very hard at all. Not sure if he ever sent out suicide attackers though.
This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology.
But all of these facts are beside the point. Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists (and it will get worse over time : just think of what might happen if we discover portable and easy fusion power while having a small minority of terrorists among ourselves). Right now we still have margin, but it's blatantly obvious that that margin is eroding over time.
Equally plain is that there is a breaking point where moral, social and political arguments are completely beside the point. Given the public reaction to this attack, I don't think we're that close yet, but we're getting closer. People would not respond at all if they didn't think it a threat, so in that view the demonstration is an escalation, even though I doubt Al Qaeda sees it as such. Also I'd be willing to bet that the French police, whether the agent is muslim or not, will effectively treat muslims worse because of what happened to Ahmed Merabet. It is no different from what happens if the mafia kills a police agent, but of course it will be felt by innocents just the same.
But when demonstrating fails to stop terrorism and new attacks occur, public opinion will shift to include other solutions to terrorism. It seems to me we are maybe half a dozen shifts away from attacking groups ... Of course there are 4-5 terror attacks by muslims per week (thursday ... Charlie Hebdo, friday ... massive attack and massacre against a Nigerian town, Saturday ... suicide bombings one in a public market in Nigeria and one in Lebanon (Tripoli), Sunday ... two people beheaded on tape in Zuweid, Egypt). At that rate it could happen suddenly and really, really quickly.
If you think about WWII and later the cold war, it would absolutely not be the first time that even America's state turns against minority ideologies that exist in their population, and the same is true in other countries. It's not like more than a tiny minority of US-Japanese would kill for the emperor, for instance.
You're so blinded by bigotry I bet you can't even tell the difference from an extremist Wahhabist Muslim and my Shiite next-door neighbor.
And you can't even admit to me that these two people have vastly differing philosophies and vastly different interpretations of the Koran. Quit denouncing Islam in general and start seeing the world for the complicated mess that it is.
I'm telling you the difference in ideology. Its called Extremist Wahhabist Islam. Again though, even this is a bit of an oversimplification as a good chunk of US allies in the middle east are in fact Wahhabists as well, and they're not violently attacking us. (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. etc.)
Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance.
>>> Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists
Why don't you google American history? I mean, 1960s has an assassinated President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact.
The last hostage situation in my town was by a Neo-Nazi, no joke. He got a few shots, killed a few security guards and had to be gunned down by the Police. Leftist Eco-terrorists have bombed labs. Anti-abortionists are shooting doctors and also bombing clinics.
Even if you Genocided all Muslims, the US will continue to have terrorists try to make points. The issue of terrorism is completely independent of Islam.
So stop being a Bigot, open your eyes to the facts. If you're gonna denounce Islam, do it correctly. Extreme Wahhabist Islam is a bad philosophy... growing in popularity. (ISIS, Al Qaeda).
But outside of ISIS / Al Qaeda inspired Wahhabists, Muslims are actually quite peaceful within the US.
Islam is evil. No question.
> Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance.
And what do all Christians have in common ? Well, easy : Jesus. That's what you're referring to.
What do all muslims have in common : "the prophet". This prophet :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca
Of note : "Ten people were ordered to be killed:[14] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace."
(note also the fact that the prophet violated the terms of the peace treaty he signed beforehand, real peace of work this prophet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids
...
The list goes on and all in all "the prophet" directly ordered the deaths of at least 1200 people, some sources say 18000 is closer to the real figure.
And let's just not mention that the guy did this to a 6 year old (don't worry, some muslim sources claim she was 8) (plenty of muslim countries realize that this is not moral, but always muslim clerics are fighting the state on this) :
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... (search for "fondle", and yes, that's not a mistranslation. For a modern view google "thighing" for how this is translated into modern law and ... into modern ways to do something to female toddlers (which is both legal and done in Saudi Arabia))
There is no gray area here. There is also no sane argument that "some" islamic sects don't include this. Every moral human being would consider islam's central figure a complete abomination. The rest (the large majority) is either ignorant or (some of them) malevolent.
So why is islam evil ? Simple. If you read the primary sources, there is no escaping the conclusion that the terrorirsts are right. If you consider massacring people for insults/criticism wrong, then the prophet is a monster, because he did that.
Such a viewpoint is completely incompatible with anything remotely related to islam, for obvious reasons (for over a millenia, muslims were referred to as mohammedans, because "muslim" means believer, not of any specific religion, and was used to refer to christians)
I fear to think about just how desperate you must be when holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of a "US ally", presumably to indicate the state itself is not extremist ...
Now look here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560
Heh ... I wonder why anyone would consider that extremist ?
> The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact.
And any historical map of the world will tell you exactly why that is. Incidentally, by death toll, islam is by far the largest cause of terrorism. By death toll per decade it's 2 orders of magnitude worse than all other sources combined.
Furthermore there are huge regions where that is not true at all. South Eastern Europe, North and Central Africa, India, and parts of China. Additionally, the largest massacre ever (the invasion of India by the Mughals) was also committed by islam's followers. And it's not like that's islam's only mention in the top-10 massacres by death toll.
It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?
That is the real question in my mind, at least.
So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
This guy had the right idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk
Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.
The Middle-east is such a hellhole because the Ottoman Empire got royally F'''ed up in World War 1. And its iddy-bitty pieces were redrawn by the Allies.
Whereas Germany remained strong and rebelled against the Allied rule by basically starting World War 2... the Ottomans were cut up piece by piece and distributed across the Allied powers. The clusterf'''ed map today was drawn by military commanders with no rhyme or reason to cultural unity, which leads us to how screwed up the Middle East is today.
Granted, the Ottomans were in decline by that point, which contributed to why they lost the Great War. But lets not forget the basis of history here. World War 1 screwed things up, quite severely, in this region.
In fact, the former map of the Ottoman Empire basically reads for where things are screwed up today.
http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2010-01-02-11578/The-Ottoman-...
Ignoring the major geo-political changes between 1850 through 1920 seems frankly insane. The current state of the Middle East can be easily explained by WW1 and the collapse of the Ottomans. Furthermore, the history and culture of the region _remembers_ when they were a great world power.
There's probably a bit of jealousy and pride in there, as the Persians / Ottomans were a great empire only ~150 years ago.
Religion is a personal thing.
There's one sect kinda-sorta preaching violence. And that is the Wahhabi Islam that followed Osama Bin Laden. Beyond that, your mainstream Shiite / Shia Muslims are rather peaceful folk within the Western World.
Frances 7%+ Muslim Population is a testament to that. Its pretty much those who get converted to the extremist violent sect that we have to worry about.
And as I stated in another thread: geo-political issues prevent the US from calling out the sect specifically. Saudi Arabia has a relatively large number of Salafists.
Even then... Wahhabi / Salafi aren't the same. But since they're more closely related (same geo-political area and a shared history)... I'll keep the terms close to each other. But honestly, these sorts of things are important to see.
You can't just paint Islam with a broad brush and make generalizations. At best, I'd say the attacks (Sept. 11, Anwar Al Awalki, Bin Laden, etc. etc.) are all derived from Wahhabi Islam at best.
The most accurate is probably "Violently Motivated Extremist Wahhabi Islam"... which is a rather small subset of Muslims. (Basically just ISIS and Al Qaeda)
Furthermore support of violence to suppress freedom of religion is by no means limited to a small splinter sect in the islamic world. For example in a Pew survey, 88% of muslims in Egypt support the death penalty for converting away from islam. When you consider that about 95% of Egyptians are muslim, that's a pretty mainstream view.
If you want to know more about muslim views, I highly recommend reading through http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religio... for perspective. Coming from a Western view you might encounter a lot of, "No, you think you are tolerant but what you think of as tolerance really isn't." And it is important to understand that.
The item I pointed to is kind of canonical. A muslim who lets others practice their religion believes that he is tolerant of those religions. And continues believing that even while saying that if a member of one of those religions convinces some other muslim that that religion is correct, then they need to be killed for the attack on the one TRUE religion, islam!
The first example that came to mind was the Unabomber - last attack was 1995, and he was explicitly opposing the technology-rich western world.
A simple google search for "terrorist attacks not muslim" brought up: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/
"only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists."
"In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 could be attributed to extremist Muslims."
> And as I stated in another thread: geo-political issues prevent the US from calling out the sect specifically. Saudi Arabia has a relatively large number of Salafists.
We're in violent agreement here, as long as our dependency on oil continues this likely will not change. That's one of the factors holding back meaningful progress on a quite a large number of stages.
"Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not"?
Surely you're not so ignorant as to dismiss the thousand years where the Islamic world was the abode of knowledge, science and civilization while Europe was in the dark ages.
Yes, shit sucks for them now. But to say they never experienced enlightenment (btw, the effects of the Islamic world on the "enlightenment" is well known). Part of the problem is that we're not over our colonial instincts. Just look down on the other cultures, we're obviously the best. Our country, our people, our skin color, right?
I've read about outwardly atheist and vocal scientists and philosophers from the 1100's in the Islamic world. And he was pretty revered (although today they wouldn't be able to walk down the streets of most Muslim countries with their head intact).
Many of our principles are borrowed from Islamic civilization that preceded us. It's the equivalent of dismissing Egyptians and saying their problem is that they never achieved civilization like us.
I still can't express how shocked I am at the shallowness of your comment. I really hope it is because you're upset.
EDIT: btilly was kind enough to point out where I misinterpreted what jacquesm was stating. I took his comment as a slight, whereas it was far better thought out observation.
Credit belongs to the Islamic world for keeping classical knowledge alive and reintroducing it to Europe at the beginning of the Renaissance. However the Enlightenment refers to a later period in European history where people came to terms with the result of decades of very nasty civil wars over Protestant vs Catholic, and came up with principles which allowed people of different beliefs to peacefully coexist within society.
That is the source of Western ideas like "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech". Which very importantly say that while you can take offense at another's words or beliefs, you can't actually do anything about it. Like go over and kill them. And they have to reciprocate by not killing you in turn.
The Muslim world has nothing like this. Sure, they say that you're free to follow another religion of the book. But their teachings are very explicit that this only works so long as you don't do anything offensive to muslims. Like mock the prophet, convert muslims to your faith, and so on. Do that, and you die. Unless the Muslim world internalizes the Western version of that idea, we're going to continue having problems reconciling Islam and Western civilization.
Incidentally the golden age of Islam that you refer to traditionally ended with the sack of Baghdad in 1258. However contemporary scholars point to evidence that relative enlightenment continued until the great economic decline that resulted from Western countries establishing direct trade routes with the East, which reduced commerce along the Silk Road.
What I would argue is the viewpoint that the Muslim world or any other region that isn't us, needing to inherit or adhere to our viewpoint, as being short sighted.
I think I'm finally starting to see jacquesm was saying (I feel like a dumbass now). I just reread his original comment on the world not moving in lockstep. It will take time, hopefully some economic development, infrastructure & some super connected smart people who are part of the local & global community. I interpreted his comment to be a slight against an entire culture, which, thanks your comment I am able to see past now.
As for what the enlightenment was all about, maybe you should read up on that first before starting a rant like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
So no, Islam did not experience enlightenment. The closest they came to that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk and his attempt to reduce the influence of religion on politics but it mostly failed outside of Turkey and recent events there should make you worried about whether or not his legacy will last.
The fact that there are anecdotes about atheists in the 1100's does nothing to contradict what I said.
What I was saying weren't just some anecdotes. May I humbly suggest you read up on the subject a little more before making such pronouncements. I don't care if some random person says something. But I think hope in the future rests in someone like you being informed and balanced in your views.
The internet is an amazing thing. It can help melt away prejudices and connect people who think from around the world. People who have the power to shape the future. We must be more sensible and informed. (It may sound elitist, but lets face it, this place in some way is a cafe that anyone from the US or Afghanistan can join in and discuss).
I'd argue that Ataturk was the wrong kind of leader. What the Muslim world needs is a Gandhi. Someone who doesn't force them to be this way or that way. All freedom need not look the same. I may be naive in thinking this, but maybe the world just needs better internet. There are people who destroy and people who build. If we could get the builders in the same community globally and get them communicating, there may be hope for a better yet.
(Advance apologies for the second rant)
> What the Muslim world needs is a Gandhi.
That would be a good thing indeed.
What I meant with the Ataturk reference - in case that wasn't clear - is that it should be possible to have an enlightened muslim state, one where the trend to fanaticism can be stopped maybe even reversed, and that such a state could set an example for the rest of the muslim world.
Right now Turkey is once again in turmoil, it's not unlike former Yugoslavia in composition and I fear for how that will all turn out. You are right in that this directly links back to how the union was achieved in the first place (mostly by force, rather than by consensus).
I agree that he was an improvement over the state of affairs in most muslim countries in the Middle East, but can't go so far as to say that he had the right idea.
But he did move Turkey from the state it was in to the next step. Keep in mind that most of the things that you add there were compromises, he was walking a very fine line between unification and all out civil war.
I doubt he could have done much more in one lifetime, I agree he probably could have done a better job but then again I wasn't in his shoes so it is hard to judge.
But putting Turkey ca. 1980 next to the countries surrounding it and you'd have to agree that his legacy had the potential to pay off.
But he ended 1500 years of war between islam and
The wast
Christianity
India
China
Africa
...
But yeah today it seems maybe he didn't so much end it as interrupt it for 100 years.
Don't misinterpret me - regardless of whether you post 10000 Mohammed cartoons or 10, Islamists are not going to change their attitudes overnight.
Abortion is obviously not the same thing as a cartoon, but it is a safe, routine, and legal elective medical procedure in the U.S.
Also realize that the vast (i.e. many orders of magnitude) majority of Muslims, while offended by satirical depictions of Muhammed, do NOT resort to violence.
It is the violence, and threats of violence--not the offense--that is the problem. Plenty of people take strong offense at things that seem silly to other people; for example, over software libraries to initialize Linux-based operating systems (init.d vs systemd). Or mobile device app store rules.
And finally before we all jump on our high horse about religion, remember that there are plenty of examples of violent threats within our own industry--say, for tweeting about a sex joke at a software conference, or complaining about videogame reviews.
Are we trying to "teach" these "uneducated and backwards" Muslims what freedom and freedom of speech are? Are we teaching comedy?
Sadly, in many cases those standing for "principles" are being defiant against the authorities in their own countries (as in who the hell is my Editor/Producer/Government to tell me what I can't say) whom the extremists have beef with and are getting caught in the crossfire. Yes, the extremists are wrong. I agree with the government not being able to tell me what I can and can't say. But to ignore reality is a whole different thing.
Let's extrapolate... Publish more content meant to offend so either they get used to it... or some fringe elements in the Muslim world commit terrorist attacks pretending to be the "defenders"... Then our government steps in and bombs said country back to the stone age (which incidentally is where these guys are most comfortable & can grab power the easiest). Think terror victims are pissed off/disturbed? I'm sure some kids in post war Afghanistan are a lot more ruthless than some of the meanest gangsters on our streets.
When I was on the streets, I recall being punched. The first thing that came to my mind was to kill the asshole that punched me, but I was able to catch myself before doing that. I realized that me punching back would eventually not just lead to one of us dying, but possibly his and my friends dying. He was astonished when I didn't punch pack, given I had a size advantage on him. I thought it through and made sure he, or anyone else there wouldn't punch me again, without anyone getting killed. We eventually became friends and started volunteering to feed the homeless.
If we're supposedly intellectually superior, and we're obviously in a superior position when it comes to the exchange of ideas in our society. If we can't stop and think a little more critically, then that's a shame. Principles are great. I know a gang member who is paralyzed from the waist down who really wished he's rethought that decision to fight. Sure the other guy ended up dead. The fight was about the principle of "respect". In the end they both lost.
It's stupid to jump on the bandwagon and stupid to complete forget. This is a good opportunity for us to think... There may be a better solution and machismo isn't necessary noble.
Ouch for the down-votes. When I say raise the bar, I don't mean to incite violence, I mean to say who else is going to take on the task that so little are willing to risk their lives for.
Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition
to see who can piss off religious people the most.
They will ask themselves "What have people tried in the past in order to silence journalists, did it work, and can we do it ourselves?"
Then they will say "In the past people have firebombed offices and attacked journalists. Can we do that? Yes we can. Did it work?"
Society and journalists have to decide whether upset groups will say "Yes, it was effective at silencing journalists" or if they'll say "No, it was ineffective, in fact it made the situation worse".
No need for a cartoon mocking the idea of mocking bad ideas...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
> no one is known to have been killed by the militia or anyone else specifically because of it. There were, however, other associated deaths: the militia and other state authorities used Boggs' Executive Order as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois.
I'm pretty sure many muslims countries suffer much worse violence than that, over many more years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre#Massacre
And it's not just Islamic religion that would cause this, exactly what you described happened when North Korea threatened "The Interview".
Edit: Although it hasn't opened yet, so what I said might well happen.
I recall receiving an e-mail from a KKK affiliate. It was a rational argument that a significantly larger proportion of the black population was incarcerated as compared to whites. The e-mail stated that see it on TV shows like cops who perpetrate heinous crimes. It then went to state that it's not about being racist. It's about taking a stand... I replied with a long rant countering every point and was obviously unsubscribed from the list.
Now let's apply that template to other minorities. Hmmm, skin color is too obvious, let's do religion instead. "Did you see how most scientologists are crazy? They jump on couches..." It's not racism since you're not targeting a race. But it's the same fucking thing. You're singling out a minority group. While you might not personally like a minority group, one not as powerful as the group you belong to, our society did not publicly attack minorities (I'm talking about the 90's).
It seems the only things that still haven't crept in are outright racism against a different race (probably because racial minorities are more powerful now). But we are now taking pride in offending and trying to decimate the views that aren't mainstream. WTF is that? Did we forget what that type of vitriol led to the last time around?
Can you seriously compare the socioeconomic conditions of the average Mormon to a Muslim from Iraq or Afghanistan?
I'm amazed that I'm reading comments on HN comparing 1.7B Muslims and trying to judge them as a whole. Yes, it's not technically racism, but it's not any less shallow or ignorant.
Is Islam more violent than Christianity? (WTF kind of a question is that)
Are American blacks more criminal than whites?
Both of these questions should make anyone with intelligence shudder. If you just tell yourself that you're asking yourself these questions "scientifically" an "rationally", let's not forget the Nazi Scientists who were measuring how Jews were scientifically different or even earlier when scientists in a slave owning american were trying to prove that blacks people were less evolved than whites.
> Are American blacks more criminal than whites?
Aren't these questions fundamentally different? One is about a belief system, the other is about someone's physical appearance caused by their genes. Given a belief system is at least partly made by choice (assuming you have that choice), you could ask this question without being "racist".
"Are communists more violent in their pursuit of ideals than socialists?" -- a similar and valid question. Perhaps communism requires a strangehold on the state that socialism doesn't, so more violence has occurred in the name of communism. Maybe not. But it's a valid question.
An interesting point. On a purely rational and logical level, yes, they're fundamentally different, and your'e a racist if you're bashing another race.
But in reality, people's beliefs closely reflect the beliefs and values of the society they live in. While two people living in the same community might have different religions, most noticeable differences are slight.
So, in some way, for most people, religion is inherited part of one's identity. If you happen to have the luxury of being able to reflect on your life, then you might adopt another religion or develop your own set of beliefs. A majority of the world does not have that opportunity or luxury.
So, yes, while it's technically not racism, but it effectively is bigotry in most cases. I think one of the coolest things in western culture is to question authority and be willing to be introspective. I have personally learned a great deal, thru introspection and being open to at lease listening to ideas that are very different than my own. This, to me, is an awesome opportunity that freedom of speech and not silencing dissenting opinion offers us as a society.
But what has become commonplace through the umbrella "free" speech is not the introspective discussions, but it's basically now our right to attack others whose opinions, beliefs (even inherited labels like religion) differ from us. Sure we have the right to free speech, even to offend.
I deleted the rest of the comment before posting it. I realized that the analogy I was making could have sounded like blaming the victims of Charlie Hebdo for what happened. That's wrong, so I chose not to express it. I technically would have been OK, but it's not the right thing to do.
Expressing views that will obviously polarize an entire section of population, and knowingly doing so for clicks, views, ads, or whatever, is short sighted and leave us with more negativity and intellectually worse off as a society.
And bad ideas deserve to be criticized.
It's as simple as that.
> Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies.
No insurance policy I know will pay out for events of terrorism unless specifically negotiated (and i have done a few).
For what it's worth, I don't see that as the only outcome of the logic in the GP's post. I read the point as: due to self-censorship, we essentially reinforce the notion that terrorism works to silence speech.
Not to put any words in the poster's mouth, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to accept the risk and generate more speech, and to prove that murder is not an effective way to stop such speech.
There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said.
As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesus. I can honestly say that sometimes I was offended and at other times, I had to laugh. But what I never did was go and kill those that offended my religion and my god.
We should hold accountable all individuals in any religious community that promote this type hatred and murderous attacks.
I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.
In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.
Importantly, it's just a variation of Osama bin Laden's self-stated goal for 9/11: poke the bear in order to get him to chase us into our trap.
The French will surely be more willing to pursue military intervention against jihadists, leading them to inevitably kill some innocent Muslims in the process, increasing recruitment.
To be clear, I don't mind the fact it was deleted. I do think Freedom of Speech is a poor justification for reprisals against Muslims of Islam partly because, as Stanley Fish put it, there's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.
Religion is software: adopt a baby from a family with a different religion and odds are that the baby will grow into an adult having your religion. It may feel like an inseparable part of oneself, but it is not: ideas can be reevaluated at any time, and probably should be.
You are responsible for the memes you host and propagate. You should be free to believe and say anything. But ideas have consequences, and you own the consequences: at least to the extent that your ideas are open to criticism or ridicule, but not to the extent of violence.
If we look at someone who is born into a religion, lives their life holding those religious beliefs, and dies as a member of that same religion - is it valid to assume that they could have separated themselves from their beliefs? Just because a subset of the population undergo religious conversion or deconversion later in life (for whatever reason), does not imply that everyone has that capacity. It may well be that for those people, their religion is effectively immutable.
(Also, racial characteristics are at least partially alterable, using plastic surgery to modify physical ethnic traits, e.g. see http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/ethnic-plastic-surgery.html)
Ofcourse that's fully possible. My parents was Christian. They raised me a Christian.
It wasn't until my late teens, when I got a job that I was exposed to a critical thinking crowd. They were very much willing to speak their minds, instead of showing religion some special-cased "respect".
It made me think. It made me reconsider. I'm now an atheist.
But oh boy was the period in between then and now a interesting one. Somehow just asking yourself "what if there is no God?" felt so incredibly wrong and the mind many, many times tried to stop itself thinking that very thought. Confusion is certainly not a sufficient word to describe what went on then.
Anyway today I'm extremely thankful that people didn't show me nor my religion "respect". They treated me with reason, rationality and critical thinking even though they knew it might offend me. Now that is showing someone real respect!
Exercise — of both body and brain — is work. Not having done it does not mean one is unable to.
Many live entire lives without a taut muscle. Yet we know they could have lived differently.
Actually, its not. The term "race" refers to two things (which people often fail to recognize are two different things) -- self-identity with a particular group -- which can change -- or an external, social perceived association with a particular group -- which can also change.
> You are responsible for the memes you host and propagate
Group identity (both self-identification and which buckets you put other people in) is a set of memes as much as any religion is (in fact, historically, its often been a set of memes tied to religion.)
Race is a dubious concept to begin with, but if we hope to salvage any useful semantics the only sane way forward would be to define race as those things about you that don't change when Jor-El puts you on a spaceship and ships you off to Earth to be raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent.
(Have you seen Dave Chappelle's parody of a blind black man who grew up as a member of the KKK? It's relevant to question at hand. It's easy to find on Youtube. While you're watching, consider where the character places his identity.)
Race describes one of two things:
1. Self-identification in a class socially constructed to be a "race", and 2. Externally perceived membership in a class socially constructed as a "race".
Ethnicity is identical, but with "race" replaced with "ethnicity". The distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" being quite arbitrary.
> Race is a dubious concept to begin with, but if we hope to salvage any useful semantics the only sane way forward would be to define race as those things about you that don't change when Jor-El puts you on a spaceship and ships you off to Earth to be raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent.
I'm not interesting in redefining race to make it a category that you find useful, I'm talking about what it actually means as it is used -- which does not refer to an immutable trait. (Though it does refer to a trait that is not easy to change, and which -- especially in the external form -- is very hard for the subject to change, absent moving to a different society with different conceptualization of race.)
This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment.
This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal.
If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on the same playing field, this includes opening religions up to the same discourse we levy at other things.
After September 11th, I read the Qur'an[1] to see what the fuss was about. I encourage others to do the same. Unlike the Bible, it is not a long text. Even if you take notes while reading, you can finish it in a few days. Unless you're indoctrinated in the faith, it will be obvious that the Qur'an preaches violence toward the infidel much more than nonviolence.
1. Or more correctly, an English translation of the Qur'an.
Look on the life of Prophet Muhammad for instance (you'll find plenty of non-Muslim accounts on His life that are non-biased) never you'll find any instance where he punished someone just because he ridiculed him.
Forget about prophet, just when Europe was going through the dark ages and Muslims were building knowledge cities in Spain etc. There were departments specifically reserved for scholars to come and discuss and question each other's religion! It's part of our history books, and a fact.
What we're seeing today is some radical Muslims dominating the majority and just because they have taken up guns people have started associating violence with Islam.
Do you know that the most number of people that have suffered from these extremists are infact Muslims themselves? I'll urge you to dig this further :)
p.s "Islam" when translated to english means Peace. Do I need to say any further?
Abu 'Afak seems close. He wrote a politically charged poem against Muhammad and was killed. Perhaps not just for ridicule, more for political opposition but even so it seems bad form.
Then you didn't read the actual Quran. I will not claim that the Quran is more violent than other holy books, but it certainly has its share of calls to violence.
A more common translation is "submission".
Religions really do cause their hosts to have different propensities for violence.
1. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/jain...
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-vegetarian-...
When religious folk say that the other religious folk are misinterpreting religious text x, I can't help but think they are in no position to make that judgement fairly unless they have their own sense of ethics that overrides the ethics fed to them by their religion. Their view is simply another interpretation of their texts on the broad scale of interpretations of their religious texts.
If their ethics are therefore not derived from their religion, seems like a large chunk of the utility of their religion is an illusion. They are not good or better people because of their religion, their ethical foundation is already formed inside them regardless of what religion they pledge membership to.
Then you can't have read the bible very well, let alone any other holy texts.
At the risk of going slightly off topic, quoting Hitler:
“I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were."
And to quote the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie:
"Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitler's passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed...because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus."
So the acts may indeed have been related. Not so much to the teachings of Jesus but to the various churches that followed.
Have you read the Book of Revelation?
(2) Religion does not preach, people preach. It doesn't really matter what is in the text of these old books - the only relevant question is what people do. I couldn't care less if their theological thoughts are sound or not.
* Well, its way more complicated, but he did not claim to act as he did because of his Christian faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I´m sorry if you see anything more in it.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-he...
Peaceful stuff eh? "This verse is often cited to justify attacks of Muslims on non-Muslims both in classical exegesis and in contemporary jihadism" according to Wikipedia.
Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be applied to people who believe in the existence of a god.
I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of:
- Been brought up in the environment
- External pressures from relatives/society
- In some cases institutionalised to their religion
- Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion
- Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to their religion
I don't believe in God, but I think saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter
- You sincerely believe it to be true.
If you don't have a doubt in your mind that something is true (e.g. that torture is never morally justifiable, or that God doesn't exist because of Epicurus' trilemma, or that an unborn baby has a right to life, or that objective truths exist) then to say that you could "choose" to believe something else is not quite accurate.
And since a religion is, fundamentally, a collection of truth assertions, it's not necessarily true that you can "choose" it intellectually.
Whether you are free to choose it socially or legally is another story. In many places, converting to another religion can be a very dangerous thing to do.
Yes. You're listing reasons why people might choose to join/stick-with a religion. The fact that there are (social/psychological) arguments for or against doesn't mean it's not a choice. The fact that it may require courage to choose the unorthodox option doesn't mean it's not a choice.
There's also a distinction between what someone believes and what they appear to believe. Many people go through the motions for the social acceptance, but don't believe any of it.
> saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter
I agree with this, but I don't think anyone's saying that religion is a "pick and choose" affair. Most religious people were indoctrinated into their particular religion, but as independent adults they can still choose whether to continue with their religion, abandon it or switch to another one.
It would be nice if religion truly were a case of "pick and choose", eg. as a child. At least that way, children would see that there are alternatives, and that their parent's religion isn't irrefutable.
People living in a totalitarian state can not always pick their religion (as in "the official religion is mandatory") but that's not a reason to restrict freedom of speech, including freedom to criticise religions, in our democracies.
No, racism is bad because it involves discrimination in many contexts on bases irrelevant to the context in which discrimination is being done; it is not bad "because you can't choose your race".
Often you cannot.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countr...
And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far.
It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards.
It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane?
The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth.
> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo.
My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
> And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).
The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree.
The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not?
Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn.
>My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world.
I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic.
In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.
> Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc.
What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits).
> I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant real-world issues, which I think, beyond a certain point, just gets us off track.
Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. Now, your evidence is evolving and is incomplete. In fact, scientific evidence has been overturned by more evidence. There have even been cases wherein the Bible was presumed wrong, but later corroborated by archaeological evidence. The state of science hadn't yet caught up to the reality that the Bible had already documented.
And, suffice it to say, there are many scientists who, at a certain point, draw the conclusion that there is some sort of intelligent design behind our universe. Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. There are also fundamental, observable laws of physics that must be broken in order to accommodate a spontaneous eruption of the universe. That is, accepted science contradicts itself. In some cases, the science is predicated upon assumptions that cannot yet be proven. That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
All of this to say that taking a position of assuredness in one's belief in something in the face of incomplete knowledge is the same, irrespective of some subjective measure of "degree of evidence" that one side or the other would like to impose. Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
Likewise, subjecting to ridicule those whose beliefs don't align with your own is short-sighted and destructive on either side.
In my opinion, the scientist's mind remains open until conclusive proof is in. Now, you may choose not to believe in Islam or Christianity, etc. because you have no proof of their truth. But, the most you can say about them is there's not enough evidence to convince you. You simply cannot conclude that they are wrong if you are applying those same "laws" of evidence to which you subscribe.
No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evidence to disclaim their belief, just as I don't need evidence to disclaim the belief of unicorns; the person making a proposition should present a proof. Edit: Mind you, I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. Basically: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
> That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Even gravity is not "proven"; it's only "demonstrated" to such a degree that we reasonably believe it's foolish to believe anything else.
> Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? There is no "they" who could be "right"; there are different fractions of people, having different, incompatible but equally irrational beliefs (Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, Hindu god(s), ...). Each of these theories could be true, and if one is true all others are necessarily false (including atheism). Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Compelling, of course, is a subjective word. So, you mean to say that there is no evidence that compels you. But, certainly, you are aware of eyewitness accounts of, say, Jesus' life and work, as well as archaeological evidence. You can choose not to be compelled by the evidence, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. And, you obviously cannot claim that it fails to compel others.
>I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof.
It's pretty stunning that, to your mind, nothing exists unless it can be proven. Again, I take you back to that trite and cliche notion that you cannot prove your own existence.
Alone, that statement would be pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I say this here only because the utter paucity in what any of us knows should undermine your confidence in imposing your own beliefs at least somewhat?
But, keeping it to the physical world, you are arguing, essentially, that you can explain (or prove) each and every thing that you observe.
>No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements.
Measurements are mere interpretations of what is "demonstrated". There is faith in science the moment we draw a conclusion predicated upon something that we cannot fully explain, but can only observe. In fact, religion itself has served this very role for millennia.
Some of our most accepted and consequential theories (e.g. Big Bang itself) are predicated on things that we cannot yet explain. In fact, we make "allowances" for some of these things that are themselves yet proven.
Yeah, it's the best scientific explanation we have so far. But, I think it's a bit presumptuous to go bashing people over the head with it.
>This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God?
Well, I wonder, if you allow that any God created the universe, whether the discussion about which God dissolve into pure meaninglessness? That is, if you acknowledge the existence of a God that created the Universe (and you), then are you really in a position to quibble about God's nature if you're not willing to consider the "evidence" from those who claim to know?
But, any one of these, all of these, or none of these could be correct. There could be some truth that reconciles all of these, as much as some unknown about dark matter or gravity or time could unify physics.
>Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Yeah, I think I may have come across one of the most famous "mental tricks" in the world from time-to-time! Seriously, it actually has an interesting history with regard to religion and its namesake, who was actually a Christian. You should look it up.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...
It's behind a partial paywall. You may need to Google the title and link to it from there.
First, the statistics are completely idiotic - the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science". SETI has scanned close to 0% of the sky, and has been operational for approximately 0% of the lifetime of the universe. Furthermore, most light from far-away parts of the universe hasn't even arrived yet. Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible. Sure, there might be 10^-100 probability of physical constants permitting stars to form, but there might be 10^200 universes being created every second, so... And, there were many planets found since that could potentially harbour life.
Second, even if we somehow assume that the authors are right (i.e. that their, completely unsubstantiated, estimates of the relevant probabilities are, miraculously, quite close), we cannot assume that "intelligent design", yet alone any specific religion, are right; simply, disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment; that's quite far removed from the description of "intelligent design" as usually propagated by religious people.
Absolutists in the other direction frequently display a certain inability to wedge in ideas that run counter to scientific dogma. This, even to the outright dismissal of evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, this adherence to dogma becomes a religion unto itself, complete with all of its faith-based articles.
It seems that you missed the entire tone of the article, and got stuck on the numbers (and your analysis there is partially incorrect, by the way).
Did you notice the evolution in science? What was initially supposed has since evolved dramatically. Sagan had a view that was widely accepted in scientific circles. Then, the narrowness of that view became increasingly apparent until the original assumption was rendered scientifically meaninglessness. Are you saying that didn't happen? If it has, then does it have any bearing on your strict adherence to scientific evidence or absolute certainty? Or, are you saying that we now have it 100% correct?
Did you also happen to notice quotes from Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, John Lennox or any of the rest of it?
But, here's one of your comment's biggest flaws:
>Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible
No one is talking about the search for life in other universes or even the search for other universes. You're confusing the relevant terms in your equation. Let's just stick to the one universe we know. It's the premise of the article, the search, the assumptions made by Sagan, etc.
I don't really want to refute each point. The bottom line, again, is that there's been an evolution in science that continues to this day.
>disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment
Sure, but it's pretty amazing that you are so selectively willing to allow for such "extreme" possibilities, but not ones for which thousands of years of history and some evidence exists. Wasn't that you who just invoked Occam's Razor?
First, you're dubbing religious people insane. Now, you're saying we might be living in an artificial experiment. You're willing to allow that there's some sort of "intelligent design", as long as it's not the one "propagated by religious people".
All totaled, it just seems that you have a bone to pick with religion, as much as a simple adherence to "science".
But, I'll leave you with this quote from Sagan, which sums up what I've been trying to express with far more eloquence:
"To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
Heard of the anthropic principle?
>> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.
That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it.
I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
>> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it.
Are these the same too?
Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :)
>sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do
There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it.
>I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs.
Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.
>taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases.
EDIT: You may find this interesting:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...
/EDIT
>Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?
Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.
"Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.
Well, I think, practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to think someone an idiot or outright insane, yet not have that impact the way we treat them.
And, it would be hard to separate a belief to which someone adheres his/her life from that person; and instead just judge that belief insane without judging the person the same.
More specifically, I think the degree to which we can separate the two are based on people's apparent adherence to their beliefs. So, the more they veil their beliefs, the more acceptable they are in the eyes of others who don't share them and would otherwise think them insane.
So, again, I don't think this is true tolerance.
And I agree that in many cases it is appropriate to go beyond tolerance to acceptance, but tolerance is more broadly warranted, even in some cases where acceptance is not.
And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"? It brings to mind the difference between granting certain rights vs. recognizing that they are truly inalienable and exist naturally.
With that in mind, I can't think of a case wherein acceptance is not "warranted", unless it involves harm to others or infringement on their rights. So, I'm not sure that acceptance is the right term, though, to your point, there may yet be one better than "true tolerance".
Of course, everyone is free to not accept or be tolerant or whatever we want to call it. I'm just arguing that is healthier to truly coexist and that there are implications to our choices that, at least in part, serve to define the world in which we live.
Its more something one individual bestows on other individuals. That a group can be said to be doing it or not is simply an aggregate description of the actions of individuals in the group.
> And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"?
Whether acceptance, tolerance, or intolerance or the default state, there is still utility in all three distinct terms to describe states that exist in the world.
If your religion falls apart because of a silly cartoon written by "some guy"...
> faggots
Not the word you meant.
If you identify as a Muslim you identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts that these Terrorists support.
It's hard to respect a religion that to all outsiders seems so completely insane.
I don't believe there are many modern christians that would say that the unchaste daughters of priests should be burnt alive [0], yet by your logic if someone "identifies" as a christian they "identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts".
Modern Islam is no more "completely insane" than any other religion (or sect of people, religious or not) and it is incredibly prejudiced to claim that it is any different. While terrorism and oppression is carried out in it's name, the same has been true for many religions and ideologies over time, (take Female Genital Mutilation in parts of africa, where 55% of christian women have experienced it[1], more than their muslim counterparts. It should be noted that this does happen in some muslim communities as well). To categorize a faith as "completely insane" based on the actions of violent extremists is unfair.
I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous, too (which CH spoke out against and fired over).
I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever they want and that choice should be granted.
It's the equivalent of me saying something insulting about your mother, and you responding by beating me to death. There is no useful comparison to be made.
What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It does not matter that their actions caused it, it only matters it exists.
Used to be you could isolate a country to make them come around, restrict access to trade and banking. With these groups your going to have to make sure they have no home. keep them on the move so much they cannot get established. It won't be easy or quick, but the alternative is allowing them a beachhead and being subject to their whims
But I don't know if we should conclude that everything is fine, and it's just a matter of a few unavoidable lunatics.
For instance, it is known that there are currently hundreds (thousands) of French people murdering people in Syria in the name of Daesh. Still a small number wrt the number of French muslims... But there are also a lot of people that support the killings at CH (including French kids or teenagers at school that didn't want to observe the minute of silence, probably reflecting their parents idea). Moreover, antisemitic agressions are also common place. And so on...
Concerning CH, let's not forget that they were bombed soon after their controversial drawing a few years ago. Without the police surveillance, I don't know how long it would have taken before other attacks.
Besides, CH has always been equally virulent against all religions. Probably less against Islam actually.
For a little while, we'll all pile-on the cartoon Muhammad bandwagon in show of support. But after this dies down, who will be the first to step forward with some new blasphemous ridicule? Who will single themselves out, risking their life, their family, their friends?
Whoever does so will certainly be braver than me.