Paris Attack

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

If i insulted Islam, day after day..........oneday someone might get very upset about it. I don't spend my time upseting ANYONE ( I hope)..........& they don't bother me......sort of level headed sort thing to do. As for the WW2 thing, forget it..........deep down out of sight "They" will get the message........the "adventures" into other peoples lands will have to stop & any "Silly" idea about fronting Russia will be dropped as well...........

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

Don't get me wrong.........i am not enjoying this in any way, i much rather it had not of happened....or we NOT invaded & killed MILLIONS of people whom where ZERO threat to us!.........

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

Forgive me, but didn't France train & arm lots of these people to fight in Syria & Lybia?
Didn't France (& Britan) use them to destabize said Nations?

Hmmm............"Blowback" ?

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

Cheers for that Astonas.

Isn't a belief system largely(or at least partially) banned in Germany in the form of nazism?

I recall the very early days of Amazon.com as well as the subsidiary Amazon.de when first set up in Regensburg back in 97/98, we ran into grief a few times(making the press) regarding certain books banned for sale in Germany, that were available from/in/to other markets.

Would that not be banning thoughts rather than just banning actions?

Germany does indeed place stronger limits on free expression than some other free states, in large part because it holds certain ideas (most prominently nazism) to be intrinsically dangerous. So if Germany were to conclude that Islam fell into that category, it would be more self-consistent than other western nations would be in doing the same. Not many others could do so without being blatantly hypocritical.

It isn't a model I believe serves society well in the long run, though.

As long as the universal principle of respect for people is upheld, then ideas can't really be dangerous. And when that principle isn't upheld, then any idea at all, no matter how benign-sounding, can be incredibly dangerous.

[llanlad2]

Re: Paris Attack

I am genuinely curious to hear from a liberal how many more Europeans have to be killed/injured by muslims in European countries before they will consider the possibility that Islam is simply not compatible with Western civilization.

I don't think another 1,000 deaths would do it. The 3,000 dead on 9/11 plus all of those killed in the last 40 years in all of the various muslim atrocities, from dumping wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer into the sea, to murdering the Israeli athletes at the Olympics, to murdering hundreds of schoolchildren in the Beslan massacre, to the kidnappings and beheadings, the subway attack in Spain, the attacks in Britain, including beheading a soldier on the streets of the city, to this latest atrocity...none of that seems to have impressed on liberals that maybe the Islamic belief system simply can't be allowed into the West without these kinds of events, because the religion commands devout believers to conquer the whole world for Islam.

Would 10,000 more Europeans deaths make you reconsider?
100,000?
If the muslims managed to murder 500,000 in some major weapons-of-mass-destruction attack, would that make you finally concede that Islam is incompatible?

Or is there no number, no limit to the atrocities and deaths you would have us continue to suffer, because you would find it a greater sin to be "intolerant" against non-Europeans, even those with a death cult ideology like this, than to continue to see our fellow citizens die?

How many more have to die? How many more decades of this? What is it going to take for you to give up the platitudes about tolerance and wake up to reality?

It is a fair point that you ask. And the beliefs of the men who carried out those sickening, indefensible attacks are clearly incompatible with modern Western Civilisation. But the men who carried out the attacks do not represent the majority. In fact there has been widespread condemnation of the attacks.

The vast majority of French Algerians and, indeed, Muslims across the world, were shocked and appalled by the murders, with a spokesman for the French Council of the Muslim Faith speaking of a “barbaric act against humanity, democracy and freedom of the press”.
Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the mosque in Drancy – scene of those Holocaust deportations during the Nazi occupation – spoke up for many when he said of the killers: “They have sold their souls to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this.”
Two of the dead – Ahmed Merabet, a police officer, and Mustapha Ourad, who was working in the Charlie Hebdo office – were themselves Muslim. Many fellow Muslims were among the crowds that poured on to the streets on Wednesday night in a show of solidarity for the Charlie Hebdo victims, rallying behind President Hollande’s call for national unity.

Should we condemn Christians as a whole for the behaviour of "death-cult" Christians such as David Koresh? Of course not. His behaviour was distinctly un-Christian. It is the same with these murders carried out by muslims.


Religions don't stay fixed. 17th Century Christian beliefs would certainly be incompatible with modern beliefs in Europe these days but does that mean Christianity is incompatible with Western Civilisation? Of course not, the attitudes and culture of Christians changed. Women can be ordained rather than burned for being a witch.

There is no reason why muslims won't change in the future. For many it already has. Arranged marriages are less common, inter-faith marriage is more widely accepted.

Recent data from the extensive European Social Survey (ESS) show that the number of Muslim immigrants who regularly go to the mosque drops significantly after they've lived in their new homeland for some time.The ESS figures, which are being published for the first time in Europe in Aftenposten, show that 60.5% of Muslims immigrants who have lived less than a year in Europe regularly go to the mosque. But after they've lived more than a year in their new homeland, the figure drops to 48.8%. More than half rarely or never go to the mosque to pray.
. . .

Ervasti [the famous Finnish religion-sociologist from the University of Turku], who analyzed the ESS figures, emphasizes that this development doesn't happen quickly. "This secularization process will take generations, and for the individual the changes aren't as dramatic. Even it it doesn't happen fast, it's a clear trend," says Ervasti, who says that this same development also occurs among immigrants of other faiths.… [He] points out that the secularization process among Muslim immigrants starts soon after they come to Europe, which he thinks is surprising. "Already after a year in the new homeland, they're clearly less religious. They become integrate into the way we live; they get more education and become more individualistic," he explains

You've listed a number of murders in the last 40 years but to be honest the numbers are small and the Beslan one was certainly more political than anything else. I have more to fear driving to work or going up a ladder or going out in a storm than being killed by a murderer acting in the name of Islam. I don't think any rational person in Europe lives in fear of European Muslims at present.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I grew up during the "Troubles" that lovely little war between the Orange man & the Green man.........both same sort of faith ish. My Mom a "Coward" by your standards worked for Liverpool city housing & it was an unwriten rule that NEVER should the Greenman be put into the Orangemans housing estate (or vice visa).

Having a large in flux of people escaping Northern Ireland & moving to Liverpool (hence why the IRA never bombed Liverpool) ment that we faced a REAL war on the streets of Liverpool. My Mom would talk to the people & quickly suss if they were "Orange" or "Green"..........the two sides were kept apart....

It mostly worked, now she could have taken a "Brave" desion, & mixed the two looking only at their housing needs......there are people alive today because she & her work mates were "Cowards"...

Mike

Mega,

I certainly would never assert that a person like your mother was obliged to place herself and others at risk. That's a call every person has to make, with an eye to their commitments to others. And there is certainly considerable nobility in keeping people safe through dangerous times.

But I also respect those who can and do choose to place themselves at risk for the benefit of a broader society's freedoms. The knowing acceptance of that risk may be unwise based on an assessment of personal risk, but that is precisely what makes that decision noble.

There are many forms of courage. Lauding one does not diminish another.

Truth be told, the "Troubles" are a perfect example of how even the religions that are seen as benign in much of the west today have caused bloodshed, and terror, in recent history. They are one example of many that the problem is not with any one faith or time, but with the general idea that a faith is worth dying (and more importantly, killing) for.

It sounds to me like your mother and the cartoonists had at least one thing in common: They prioritized the welfare of people over a religious ideal.

That's a pretty good thing to stand for. And frankly, I suspect that those who are sincere in their religious convictions would probably even agree. The poem by Hunt says it well:

Abou Ben Adhem


BY LEIGH HUNT

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

It sounds like your mom does pretty well in anyone's book.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

I don't think any rational person in Europe lives in fear of European Muslims at present.

Just over 20 years ago there was the start of a fairly significant slaughter of muslims(and orthodox, not just one way) in Europe in the disintegrated remains of Yugoslavia.

I would agree that it would be irrational for a native european non muslim to fear european muslims at present, outside of the rare few who would be at heightened risk in low socio economic enclaves.

But those numbers would be fairly small, since it would appear that ethnic/religious isolation is fairly prevalent in parts of Europe, which is part of the longer term problem if left to fester.

Yep....there have been irrational fears throughout history of the latest iteration of immigrant.

But not only are we "doing it wrong" again(consciously accepting segregated unassimilated silo-ing/ghetto-ization), but we have the added problem of not just ethnic/cultural/linguistic barriers to integration, but also the addition of a fundamentally incompatible(in it's current unreformed and progressive iteration) ideology.

If I were living there, I wouldn't be worried about fearing for my life in the present(as like most caucasians I'd be unlikely to have much close/direct interaction that could precipitate the need to fear anything, I'd be more worried about my cholesterol), but I'd be genuinely concerned for my children's future until sufficient assimilation has been achieved and current fundamentally incompatible ideology is reformed to become compatible with the existing dominant culture.

I view it as early stage cancer(polyp, precancerous lesions, whatever floats your boat), that is mostly benign, with not many malignant cells....yet.

Left on it's own, and with no change to lifestyle or far more serious surgical intervention, the chances of it growing into a malignant cancer is certainly high enough to justify some lifestyle changes.

[vinoveri]

Re: Paris Attack

As long as the universal principle of respect for people is upheld, then ideas can't really be dangerous. And when that principle isn't upheld, then any idea at all, no matter how benign-sounding, can be incredibly dangerous.

Ah yes, very good, although I would substitute "persons" for people just to insure we are talking about individuals.

The problem of course is that that principle is not considered universal at all except by those, who either accept it as self evident or who have discovered that the human being is special and worthy of special treatment and dignity via natural philosophy or theological revelation. All men are brothers and must be accorded dignity as human beings. My personal belief is that we are each made in the image of God, but I can also arrive, through philosophical reasoning and based on the evidence before us, at the very probable conclusion that man is truly unique amongst the higher animals, differing in kind from all others; and therefore all humans, simply b/c they are humans are entitled to respect for their dignity.

My secular friends, while tending to be more progressive toward "human rights", do not have a convincing answer when asked why we should treat all humans fairly and equally (other than they know that is the right thing to do - a fine answer indeed - but it does not convince those who don't agree). Absent the bullhorn and without a firm philosophical or theological justification as to why all men have inalienable rights, the demagogue can always persuade a large group of uninitiated that some people aren't really people at all.

[radon]

Re: Paris Attack

My secular friends, while tending to be more progressive toward "human rights", do not have a convincing answer when asked why we should treat all humans fairly

It has little to do with treating people fairly and more about the ability to exchange ideas freely without be labeled a heretic and executed.

Secular or no, the idea of "respect for people" owes a great deal to the impact of the enlightenment culture on western thought and Christianity. Islam has no such tradition. In my opinion it is a mistake on the part of policy makers to view it in western terms.

[radon]

Re: Paris Attack

If i insulted Islam, day after day..........oneday someone might get very upset about it. I don't spend my time upseting ANYONE ( I hope)..........& they don't bother me......sort of level headed sort thing to do..

Do you honestly think that following a policy of appeasement will help?

[vinoveri]

Re: Paris Attack

It has little to do with treating people fairly and more about the ability to exchange ideas freely without be labeled a heretic and executed.

we should all be free to label one another a heretic if one meets the definition, e.g., a physicist who denies the law of gravity is a heretic, although no execution for sure, - there is objective truth - this is the core of the disagreement - and then there's the simple rule that violence begets violence after all

Secular or no, the idea of "respect for people" owes a great deal to the impact of the enlightenment culture on western thought and Christianity. Islam has no such tradition. In my opinion it is a mistake on the part of policy makers to view it in western terms.

Yes, we all owe a lot to those who came before us and advanced the core principles we value so much.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

Ah yes, very good, although I would substitute "persons" for people just to insure we are talking about individuals.

I happily accept the correction for the sake of clarity. Thank you for pointing this out. The rights of the individual were indeed my focus.

The essence of my argument was that a person can have rights, while an idea cannot. Any protection of ideas must stem from the the protection of the rights of a person, not vice versa. While this notion may be difficult to export, I do think it strikes at the heart of the difference in cultural perspectives made manifest in Paris.

The problem of course is that that principle is not considered universal at all except by those, who either accept it as self evident or who have discovered that the human being is special and worthy of special treatment and dignity via natural philosophy or theological revelation. All men are brothers and must be accorded dignity as human beings. My personal belief is that we are each made in the image of God, but I can also arrive, through philosophical reasoning and based on the evidence before us, at the very probable conclusion that man is truly unique amongst the higher animals, differing in kind from all others; and therefore all humans, simply b/c they are humans are entitled to respect for their dignity.

This seems to be fertile common ground. There are indeed many paths to the conclusion. Well said.

My secular friends, while tending to be more progressive toward "human rights", do not have a convincing answer when asked why we should treat all humans fairly and equally (other than they know that is the right thing to do - a fine answer indeed - but it does not convince those who don't agree). Absent the bullhorn and without a firm philosophical or theological justification as to why all men have inalienable rights, the demagogue can always persuade a large group of uninitiated that some people aren't really people at all.

Perhaps your secular friends have not considered the question as fully as you have? I myself find no problem laying out several independent lines of reasoning that point to that conclusion unambiguously. Evolutionary biologists have made pretty clear arguments based both on genetics and on the evolution of societies and social mores that accompanies the development of language, ethicists have made arguments based on the principle of the minimization of suffering, and neurologists have even made arguments based on neurochemical releases associated with consciousness and interpersonal interaction. Any of these, or many others, could serve.

The real problem is when any answer arising from logic or science is treated a priori with more suspicion than those arising from received wisdom. In that event, no argument, however compelling, can penetrate the discussion. Conversation simply ends before it begins.

And that is when it is particularly true that demagoguery can overcome any amount of reason. Reason is simply discounted. I believe that at least one solution is training ourselves (at all levels of society, beginning early in the public education system) how to approach all ideas critically and objectively, think them through for ourselves, and challenge received wisdom.

I readily grant that this is neither a trivial request, nor an easy task, but I do think that it is one of the few defenses available to a free society.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

Perfection! I want to print this and frame it.

Thanks, shiny. Your appreciation is itself deeply appreciated, as are your own considerate and thoughtful contributions.

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

It will help me............

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Paris Attack

It is a fair point that you ask. And the beliefs of the men who carried out those sickening, indefensible attacks are clearly incompatible with modern Western Civilisation. But the men who carried out the attacks do not represent the majority. In fact there has been widespread condemnation of the attacks.

Should we condemn Christians as a whole for the behaviour of "death-cult" Christians such as David Koresh? Of course not. His behaviour was distinctly un-Christian. It is the same with these murders carried out by muslims.


Religions don't stay fixed. 17th Century Christian beliefs would certainly be incompatible with modern beliefs in Europe these days but does that mean Christianity is incompatible with Western Civilisation? Of course not, the attitudes and culture of Christians changed. Women can be ordained rather than burned for being a witch.

There is no reason why muslims won't change in the future. For many it already has. Arranged marriages are less common, inter-faith marriage is more widely accepted.



You've listed a number of murders in the last 40 years but to be honest the numbers are small and the Beslan one was certainly more political than anything else. I have more to fear driving to work or going up a ladder or going out in a storm than being killed by a murderer acting in the name of Islam. I don't think any rational person in Europe lives in fear of European Muslims at present.

I'm not sure how you know that the beliefs of the men who carried out the attacks do not represent the majority of Muslims in the world. There are a lot of Muslims in the world who don't live in the West (yet). How do you know what the mass of Muslims in, say, Egypt, really think about some other Muslims in France killing some kaffir who have been viciously mocking their beliefs and sacred prophet?

Beyond that, I don't think it matters if it is less than a majority who agree with the atrocities. If it is nothing more than a reliable, say, 10% who support violent subjugation of non-believers, that's more than enough to be a serious problem for us.

Sure religions can change. But Islam hasn't changed in 1400 years. Why should we invite Muslims into our countries before it has become an innocuous belief system? Let them evolve Islam in their own muslim countries first. In fact, it is the kinds of motivated, intelligent, moderate Muslims who want to live in a Western-style culture who should be back in their homelands agitating for change there. If all the moderate, "evolved" Muslims emigrate to the West, who is going to change Islam?

You ask, should we blame Christianity for the bad actions of a few fundamentalist Christians? Maybe yes and maybe no, but Christianity is our problem because it is our culture. Islam is not our culture. It's not our job to provide space for Muslims to evolve. Putting it another way, whatever minor problems Christianity has, it's "family". Islam is not "family". The problem we're having is that Western progressives want to think and behave as though everyone on earth is "family". But the reality of the world is that they aren't. They (non-Westerners) don't think we're "family".

And it is unfair to put Christianity on par with Islam. There is nothing in the New Testament that says anything like what the Koran commands followers to do, and permits them to do to non-believers. Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and Judaism are truly religions of peace and love. Islam is essentially an ideology invented by a 7th-century Arab warlord to justify his conquests. Someone has said that if Hitler hadn't been defeated, and Naziism had survived for 1400 years, you would have had something like Islam: a supremacist ideology that commands its followers to conquer the world. That is nothing like Christianity.

Steve Sailor says it very well, I think:

In other words, the Administration and its media shills remain committed to their Grand Strategy of Invade the World – Invite the World. Bomb them over there and indulge them over here.
Obviously, when you stop and think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.
So, it’s time for a new Grand Strategy to unify domestic and foreign policies for how Westerners should deal with Muslims. Because strategizing routinely fails due to too much Rube Goldbergish complexity, I’ll boil it down to one word:
Disconnect.
Perhaps the most quoted social philosopher of our time famously asked:
“Can we all get along?”
Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:
No, we can’t.
So, deal with it. When we get in each other’s faces, we get on each other’s nerves. It’s time to get out of each other’s faces.
Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.
To paraphrase E.M. Forster:
“Only disconnect.”
If we start disconnecting now, maybe in a generation or two we’ll have forgotten what we’ve done to each other and can start afresh.

Finally, let me note that you did not answer my question: how many more of us have to die before you change your mind about allowing Muslims to live in the West? 100,000? A million? You said it is a "fair question" but you didn't answer it. Can you face that question head on and answer it, or do you find yourself trying to weasel out of addressing it, trying to avoid putting a numeric limit on how much more murder you will tolerate? If you can't answer that, why not? Why can't you draw the line somewhere?