Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 897 comments
  • 34,212 views
eran0004
It's a cultural piece of clothing, not a uniform (unlike the Hugo Boss designed Nazi uniforms or the KKK ritual costumes).

Sure, you can see it as a symbol of hatred and brutal oppression, just like I can see the flag of Canada as a symbol of hatred and brutal oppression. It doesn't however mean that it holds these values, and attacking cultural symbols certainly isn't a constructive way of conducting a dialogue.
Click to expand...
A uniform is something that everyone in a certain profession or group has to wear?

Look like a uniform to me:
Burqa-ed_throng.jpg
 
eran0004
A uniform is something you wear while participating in the activities of an organization.
Click to expand...
Ah, so since a burqa does follow that pedantic criteria if we wanted to get even more pedantic about it, it is a unifor-

eran0004
So no, it's not a uniform.
Click to expand...
...




'Kay.





Carbonx and Johnnypenso are both off base with the comparison, since it operates on the faulty assumption that Western women are inherently less constricted than Islamic women (essentially assigning how Islamic women should feel about Islamic garb for them), but random comparisons to Canadian flags and extremely narrow definitions doesn't actually support that.
 
Last edited:
eran0004
A uniform is something you wear while participating in the activities of an organization.
So no, it's not a uniform.
Click to expand...
The organization in this case would be an Islamic State with Sharia law. Everywhere these women go, they are involved in that organization and they have no choice but to be covered head to toe.
 
Johnnypenso
The organization in this case would be an Islamic State with Sharia law. Everywhere these women go, they are involved in that organization and they have no choice but to be covered head to toe.
Click to expand...
Actually women in Islamic States are starting to challenge it and its also a little inaccurate to infer than they all have no say in it.

While I 100% agree that many would rather not wear it, you will also find that many will wear it out of choice and religious observance (just as you will find both these sides in the Orthodox Jewish faith).

That's the balance that can be forgotten, allowing those who don't want to wear it to not wear it, but still allowing those who do want to wear it (as alien as that may sound to us) to do so.

I suspect however that we have now got a fair bit off topic.
 
Tornado
Ah, so since a burqa does follow that pedantic criteria if we wanted to get even more pedantic about it, it is a unifor-
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Islam is not an organization and the Burqa isn't only used when you participate in islamic activities.

Johnnypenso
The organization in this case would be an Islamic State with Sharia law. Everywhere these women go, they are involved in that organization and they have no choice but to be covered head to toe.
Click to expand...

It's a dress code, not a uniform.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
A uniform is something that everyone in a certain profession or group has to wear?

Look like a uniform to me:
Burqa-ed_throng.jpg
Click to expand...

So what, like everyone who wears a suit in the West?

Common attire is not necessarily a uniform.

Nor is attire that is suitable for the situation that you find yourself in. Budgie smugglers are not the uniform of the beach.

They're just clothes. You can read into the reasoning as to why those particular clothes are common, but labelling them as something that they're not doesn't really help.
 
Scaff
Its an organized religion, if that doesn't make it an organization then I'm not sure what would?
Click to expand...

Organization has two basic meanings:

1. The property of being organized, like a CD collection or the files on your computer, or the molecules in a tree.

2. A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association or business.

Islam is an organized religion, and by the first definition above it's an organization (an organized system of belief). By the second definition it isn't, because Islam isn't necessarily a group of people organized for a particular purpose (although people can organize themselves for islamic purposes, but what we have then is an islamic organization, not islam per se).

Compare it with christianity or atheism; those are more or less organized belief systems but they are not people organized for a specific purpose. The catholic church is an organization, the anglican church is an organization, the Swedish church is an organization, but christianity in itself isn't.
 
Was the magazine making fun of victims as in depicting women in tents searching for lipstick or more likely male perpetrators in black and red suits lying about a trains destination, or both? That's really the only difference I'm seeing so I'm confused what the argument is about.
 
eran0004
Organization has two basic meanings:

1. The property of being organized, like a CD collection or the files on your computer, or the molecules in a tree.

2. A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association or business.

Islam is an organized religion, and by the first definition above it's an organization (an organized system of belief). By the second definition it isn't, because Islam isn't necessarily a group of people organized for a particular purpose (although people can organize themselves for islamic purposes, but what we have then is an islamic organization, not islam per se).

Compare it with christianity or atheism; those are more or less organized belief systems but they are not people organized for a specific purpose. The catholic church is an organization, the anglican church is an organization, the Swedish church is an organization, but christianity in itself isn't.
Click to expand...

Now aside from not actually needing to meet both criteria to be an organisation (which would make Islam one by your own admission), to state that religions are not organised for a particular purpose is odd in the extreme.

They actually can have many purposes (expansion via conversion, worship of a deity or deities) which individuals are organised around. The Aberhamic faiths are actually rather specific in this regard, for example Muslims have the Five Pillars of Islam which the group (followers) are organised.

Christians are followers of the anointed one (to given it the translated meaning), a group of people who follow the teachings of Christ (a common purpose - to follow the teachings of and live according to those teachings).
 
eran0004
It doesn't. Islam is not an organization and the Burqa isn't only used when you participate in islamic activities.



It's a dress code, not a uniform.
Click to expand...
eran0004
Organization has two basic meanings:

1. The property of being organized, like a CD collection or the files on your computer, or the molecules in a tree.

2. A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an association or business.
Click to expand...
If you're going to keep moving the goalposts in this conversation, you should at least come up with something that doesn't support the thing you're arguing against.
 
Scaff
Now aside from not actually needing to meet both criteria to be an organisation (which would make Islam one by your own admission), to state that religions are not organised for a particular purpose is odd in the extreme.
Click to expand...

It's not two criterias for the same thing, they are two different words. By matching the criterias for a certain meaning A you don't automatically match the criterias for the other meaning B. The archer's bow is not the front of a ship.

There is organization as in:

1. Structured content (like a CD collection)

2. A structure of people working together towards a common goal (like Amnesty International)

Islam (and other religions) meets the first definition because there are documents, moral codes, rituals etc. that provides a structure to the religion.

It doesn't meet the second definition because there is no structure of people. The structures of people are found on a lower level, where we have the religious organizations. They usually have some kind of leadership and a hierarchy and they interpret the content of the religion. These organizations are not mandatory, you can belong to one, or several, or none. You can go from one organization to another.

They actually can have many purposes (expansion via conversion, worship of a deity or deities) which individuals are organised around. The Aberhamic faiths are actually rather specific in this regard, for example Muslims have the Five Pillars of Islam which the group (followers) are organised.
Click to expand...

That is a structured content and an organization by the first definition.
Religious followers may organize themselves around some religious content, but when they do that they form an organization that is separate from the religion. A religious organization's interpretation of the five pillars, for instance, does not change the content of the actual religion, just the content of that specific organization and their specific followers.

Christians are followers of the anointed one (to given it the translated meaning), a group of people who follow the teachings of Christ (a common purpose - to follow the teachings of and live according to those teachings).
Click to expand...

There may be groups and there may be individuals, but it's not a structure of people because they don't work together. A bunch of people all over the world believing in global peace but being unaware of each other does not constitute an organization. There are people, and there is a common goal. But there's no structure to the people. (And it's not even certain that they have the same goals because their interpretation of the content may be very different from each other.)

The anglican church is an organization of people, because they have a structure of people and a hierarchy, they have a common goal that they work towards, they have formal (and informal) methods of making decisions for the organization. The catholic church is the same. Christianity, on the other hand, is not an organization of people - it's just a set of ideas.

The Soviet Union was an organization, but communism isn't.
FIFA is an organization, but football / soccer isn't.
The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is an organization, but Beethoven's 5th symphony isn't.
 
eran0004
It's not two criterias for the same thing, they are two different words. By matching the criterias for a certain meaning A you don't automatically match the criterias for the other meaning B. The archer's bow is not the front of a ship.

There is organization as in:

1. Structured content (like a CD collection)

2. A structure of people working together towards a common goal (like Amnesty International)

Islam (and other religions) meets the first definition because there are documents, moral codes, rituals etc. that provides a structure to the religion.

It doesn't meet the second definition because there is no structure of people. The structures of people are found on a lower level, where we have the religious organizations. They usually have some kind of leadership and a hierarchy and they interpret the content of the religion. These organizations are not mandatory, you can belong to one, or several, or none. You can go from one organization to another.



That is a structured content and an organization by the first definition.
Religious followers may organize themselves around some religious content, but when they do that they form an organization that is separate from the religion. A religious organization's interpretation of the five pillars, for instance, does not change the content of the actual religion, just the content of that specific organization and their specific followers.



There may be groups and there may be individuals, but it's not a structure of people because they don't work together. A bunch of people all over the world believing in global peace but being unaware of each other does not constitute an organization. There are people, and there is a common goal. But there's no structure to the people. (And it's not even certain that they have the same goals because their interpretation of the content may be very different from each other.)

The anglican church is an organization of people, because they have a structure of people and a hierarchy, they have a common goal that they work towards, they have formal (and informal) methods of making decisions for the organization. The catholic church is the same. Christianity, on the other hand, is not an organization of people - it's just a set of ideas.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

The two are so completely interwoven within religion that they inseparable.



eran0004
The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is an organization, but Beethoven's 5th symphony isn't.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense at all.
 
Scaff
I disagree.

The two are so completely interwoven within religion that they inseparable.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. Both are present (on different levels) but they're not one and the same thing.


That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: The orchestra is an organization of the second kind, the symphony is an organization of the first kind.
 
eran0004
That's where you're wrong. Both are present (on different levels) but they're not one and the same thing.
Click to expand...
I'm wrong that religions and the organizations that follow them are not totally intertwined?

Without the followers the religion would not exist, it is quite literally a product of the organization. How many people alive today came to Christianity/Islam/Etc without a product of the 'followers of a religion (and in that I mean a group of people who have had no exposure to Faith X ever suddenly finding it)?

Now that aside your entire argument that it can't be a uniform because religions are not an organization is moot anyway, religious garb (and the form it takes) doesn't come from the 'religion' it comes from the religious sect (the bit you do agree is an Organization). That's quite clearly demonstrable by the fact that Mormon's are the only sect of Christianity with the 'magic underwear', while Plymouth Brethren wear headscarves, etc.

Within each of the faiths its is at the level of the sect that, for want of a better word, dress code comes into it. As such it is most certainly at the level of organization even by your criteria.

Now if that dress code constitutes a uniform is an entirely different matter. In most cases at this level the only time uniform comes into play at the level of clergy or at the time of religious festivals (and the picture that sparked all this looks a lot like one from The Day of Ashura - in which women dress in full black with religious messages on them and are also 'in chains' - images that have been misused many times). The rest of the time its is simply a culturally acceptable (within that sect) form of dress that (apart from the most extreme) allows for personal variance with no link to status or role.

Oh and its not just Muslims that go a bit bonkers with garb at festivals....

oiYGV.jpg


.....not Klansmen. However clearly a uniform.
 
Last edited:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...n-contest-in-texas-possible-explosives-found/

GARLAND, Texas — Armed police officers rushed in to the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest and quickly removed Pamela Geller and whisked her away to safety after a gunfight erupted outside of the event. A law enforcement officer and two suspects are reportedly down, according to police on the scene. Three Breitbart Texas reporters are locked down inside of the event. The officers on the scene said that possible explosives were found. The extrication of Geller occurred during a live video interview with Breitbart Texas.
Click to expand...
 
lGNAl
As in everyone involved. The shooters obviously. And after the charlie hebdo indecent the police should have given better security to the event. And for the unnecessary childish provocative 'art'.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, sir, that this is still the US of A. We still have the right to insult religion like Bill Mauer does on a semi-regular basis, even if it is Islam.
 
lGNAl
As in everyone involved. The shooters obviously. And after the charlie hebdo indecent the police should have given better security to the event. And for the unnecessary childish provocative 'art'.
Click to expand...

The artists are perfectly entitled to offend. The shooters are not entitled (particularly on the say-so of a religion) to commit murder. I see a big difference, personally.
 
TenEightyOne
The artists are perfectly entitled to offend.
Click to expand...
I think that there is a point where it goes to far. I get that there is an argument that "art isn't art unless it's provocative", but my understanding is that the exhibit was put on by an organisation that is borderline nationalist and opposed to the "Islamisation" of America. They apparently sponsored a competition with a $10,000 prize for the best depiction of Mohammed, and when the building was in lock-down, the patrons sang the national anthem. I saw a couple of Twitter posts celebrating this and declaring "God Bless America" - but to my mind, this is taking things too far. I don't think that you can justify this as art challenging as social perceptions or values. The organisers established the event because they were looking for a fight. Having a group of gunmen roll up and forcing the police to take action is probably exactly what the organisers wanted. They justify it as defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they're really doing it to dig in with nationalistic values and prove that they are better than Muslims.
 
prisonermonkeys
I think that there is a point where it goes to far. I get that there is an argument that "art isn't art unless it's provocative", but my understanding is that the exhibit was put on by an organisation that is borderline nationalist and opposed to the "Islamisation" of America. They apparently sponsored a competition with a $10,000 prize for the best depiction of Mohammed, and when the building was in lock-down, the patrons sang the national anthem. I saw a couple of Twitter posts celebrating this and declaring "God Bless America" - but to my mind, this is taking things too far. I don't think that you can justify this as art challenging as social perceptions or values. The organisers established the event because they were looking for a fight. Having a group of gunmen roll up and forcing the police to take action is probably exactly what the organisers wanted. They justify it as defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they're really doing it to dig in with nationalistic values and prove that they are better than Muslims.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
lGNAl
As in everyone involved. The shooters obviously. And after the charlie hebdo indecent the police should have given better security to the event. And for the unnecessary childish provocative 'art'.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for managing to get offended at something that wasn't even a personal insult to you.
 
Scaff
A link to the first amendment is not exactly helpful without context, I suspect you may be referring to the right to free speech, but a little explanation would be helpful.
Click to expand...
I thought it was obvious - the right to free speech is inviolate, even if your free speech is deliberately intended to incite others to commit acts of violence.
 
I still hold the same opinion as I did back then.


Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.
It is like if I insulted your mother you would likely punch me. If you then got the idea that my friends also insulted your mother you punch them as well yet they are innocent.
 

Latest Posts

Back