French newspaper attacked by Muslims!

I don't generally make fun of anyone, I'm not a douche. I think the cartoons are offensive.
But I think that in order for freedom of speech to happen it has to happen no matter whom it offends.

And do we have a free press in the states? not our mainstream media, it's far too tied in with corporate entities and interests...which is why you can't get real news that way. You have to either go overseas or to alternative, independent stuff like Pacifica.

Question...are the French as a whole responsible for that much of the victimization going on lately?
I know they had colonies, yes, but not so much lately? Or am I wrong in thinking they are not being particularly colonial right now?
And why is firebombing an office a more effective response than picketing and boycott?
Ok that was a rhetorical question-I submit it's a far less effective response.
Alright, must sleep, have to go get therapy later.
I have to go get my brain professionally descrambled some more.:crazy:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure but the French intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan [not to mention their decision to abstain from the vote for the Palestinian state] is not happening in isolation. Apart from banning the burka in French Muslim women, they have also ruled against the building of mosques

France: Court Cancels Permit for Grand Mosque of Marseille

while banning praying on streets

France ban on street prayers drives Muslims to makeshift site

Its not just that they are "poking fun" at Muslims, they are marginalising them in French society - I wonder why the heck Europeans don't keep their countries white and free of foreign elements when they can't tolerate any differences in belief and have ghettos filled with black and brown people?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There be infidels!

And look! They be burned a newspaper to the ground. Clever plot, those newspaper lads. Imagine how many papers Hebdo will sell now!

...oh. Oh, right. Yeah.

Your spelling seems to have gone out the window. "Morans"? Which user is this now?

But this constant tit-for-tat thing is curious, as though some kind of mental body count were being invoked. A sort of them vs. us perspective, in which the justice of the case may be trumped by reference to the death poll. Why is that? Does it strike you as particularly honest?

Yes: we'll look forward to the rioting Frenchmen over that one. Any day now. Someday. But we'll be ready!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

It's a funny thing: none of them Christian types seems to so much as bat an eye about the denigration of their icons. Oh, sure, there's some letter-writing and people bitch about it endlessly, but no real torch-and-pitchfork stuff. It's as though the reactionary core of some plurality of some faith needs a serious rewrite or a good solid shaking.

Well, a fair chunk of the Middle East is carrying on that celebrated tradition, so I think you need not fear that the fires of Jew-hatred will die down, Sam. (I mean, unless they were all to "gather in one place so that it would save [someone] the trouble of hunting them all down", I suppose.)

But the question is rather whether religious reactionary politics should submit to humanitarianism and social democracy. The answer, of course, is yes: it's regrettable that we should have to discuss it, but the message simply has not gotten through. And as we struggle, and continue to struggle with it over here in the bad side of the world, we now find an entirely new take on a very old and very bad idea. It's like Pat Robertson on steroids and extraordinary childishness.

It's time the reactionaries grew up - and that includes you, Sam - and maybe took a little responsibility for themselves. Hebdo didn't burn themselves down. I doubt the criminal investigation will turn up much, but I imagine it's pretty likely that those that did were reactionary Muslims. That action is, as even the most casual observer would note, entirely unrelated to Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia - yet how strange that such attitudes would persist in social life. And how fortunate they are to have such a mostly articulate apologist, Sam.

I look forward to your impending digressions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A mosque, sure.

Shall I expect your upcoming diatribe about the reprehensibility of Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan and Iran on the treatment of religious minorities? Why or why not? Perhaps the banning of that mosque is not in isolation either.

Which block those streets completely off. But never mind that.

Are you suggesting that perhaps they should do as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, and the Sudan do?

 

French church in Chandannagar, India

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Eglise de Notre Dame des Anges in yup, India

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Pondicherry church in <once more> India

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You think they follow the local legislation on "urban planning requirements"? Nah, those guys moved in with guns not through legal immigration channels and forced their churches on the local people

 

Where did that absurdity come from?

 

Funny how Cut and Paste SAM has been reduced to a mind numbing Troll.

 

So you don't understand your own argument? Besides this being hugely off-topic, I might add. Okay.

Ohh - so you think Muslims should do the same. I begin to see your direction.

 

No I think they should follow the French example. Set up a guillotine in the town square maybe. What do you think? Clearly "freedom of expression" is only a value which the French appreciate comes through the guillotine or the gun. Nonviolent channels of applying for citizenship and permission to build a place to pray are not very effective, are they?

No, all they wanna do is poke fun at Muslims. Because that's how they express themselves, by belittling others. You think we could convince the French to take down their churches? Have they taken down any churches in France, now that they find it offensive to see visible signs of religiosity?

 

These people FORCED their churches on the people?

LOL

Yeah, and every day they go out and FORCE people to attend their services.

Morans indeed.

 

Bengal is not a Christian state, no matter what they teach you in the US. Not much call for all these huge churches for a handful of colonisers, you'd think. But you're welcome to ask the Algerians and Polynesians or even some native Americans how they landed up in churches built by Europeans on their lands without urban planning requirements to challenge them. Then consider the absurdity of the French not allowing French Muslims to pray or build a mosque with permission and through legal means

No they'd rather poke fun at the Muslims. Yeah that would make them assimilate and integrate for sure.

 

Several things: First, that my description of your stance above was correct. Second, that, although you pose this almost rhetorically, that your supportive stance is leaking through the deflection; else, why even start the discussion so dishonestly? I don't think you assign any immorality to the excesses of your religion whatsoever, and this has been a trend in your approach to the issue of religious fascism - or at least of any evidence for same in believers of your own faith - for some time now on SF. Thirdy, that you're another element in the deep and wide plurality of extremist hatred in your faith; not that your faith consists of same, but that there's an impressive depth of reactionary sentiment therein. Fourth, that you are indeed assigning each element of the historical record a value judgement to be tallied and equilibrated in reciprocal horror until all balances are equal, or - given your perspective - your own politico-religious philosophy comes out on top. I suspect you're one of those moralizers that could accept religious imposition - in fact, as I recall, you've hinted at it before - in the name of some imaginary 'greater good' as defined by your preconceptions, and personal biases. And, finally, that all protestations to the contrary, you have seemingly learned nothing of history or dialectic. To wit:

Ah - so you would similarly support the Copts' mounting an effective campaign of terror against the Islamic establishment in Egypt. Or of the Ahmadis' throwing off of the shackles of conventional Islam in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan...and possibly Malaysia, if I recall me correctly. And similarly, you would not much mind if they mounted a decent toll of bodies to do so.

Sorry, but you did ask what I thought about your position, and you can hardly call this demand for past redress 'rhetorical' given your philosophies.

 

Of course: because the situation of southeast Asia a hundred years ago trumps the necessity of refuting religious reactionaries and their filth. Sure sure.

Careful - the chip on your shoulder is starting to totter.

 

I think I've already given my opinion on that bit, vote with your feet if you can't take the heat. Note that I see no point in the French accepting Muslim immigrants only to poke fun at them and marginalise them. Better to keep their state white and atheist, kick out anyone who seems otherwise. They should just tell the Muslims in France, sorry we don't want you or your religion here and kick them out. Otherwise, they'll round them up like they did to the Jews in Vel d'Hiv and who would that benefit?

 

I don't think we even think about a state as being tied to a religion, well except for Islamic ones that expressly put that in their Constitution.

Over here we kind of believe in a Separation of Church and State.

Clever of us.

Nah, they seem well tended, probably making a bunch of converts every week.
The fact that you apparently don't like them being there means exactly nothing.

Arthur

 

Yeah, and you have only male Christian Presidents. I noticed. How very clever.

Of course they are well maintained, the orders which preach in them maintain them. Who maintains mosques in France? The government?

 

So what, the majority of our population that are religious are Christians, so no big surprise.

Doesn't mean we don't have a clear division between Church and State.

Nope.
Like the US, the French Govt is also secular and so the mosques in France are built and maintained by the people who support them.

 

So Mormons are not Christians according to you?

Right, so when they cancel mosques because of the urban planning requirements, its not because they have to pay for anything. They are just being their regular secular selves, looking for Gandhis in all nations but their own.

 

I'm not really up on religions, but if you'll note I edited that even before your post because, yeah after I posted it I remembered that they are.

No, from reading the articles it would apper that the issue was the HUGE size of the Mosque.
For the area they were at it would appear that they were over-building.
If you don't think there are serious planning issues, for street congestion, with a church that was expected to bring in over 7,000 people several times a day, then you simply don't understand the concept of urban planning.
Doesn't matter what religion the church is.

Obviously, if you had bothered to check, there is not an issue with having a mosque in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_France

Arthur

 

I commend you on your honest admission, however long it took to wring it out of you. But perhaps you see how it admits to the power of supremacism? I mean, so far from being a sound humanitarian point, it's actually an enabler of repression. I'm surprised certain figures don't take you to task on that point, but prefer to imagine a skewed and wobbly reflection in these little debates.

Well, not that surprised, obviously. Those who can't take the heat generally do indeed run off.