Islam - What's your view on it?

[Dotini]

What does the bolded part mean? Everyone in the world should be protected from outdated blasphemy laws.

That was the radical idea that such laws may be necessary to live side by side with growing populations of Muslims in Europe.

 

[Carbonox]

That was the radical idea that such laws may be necessary to live side by side with growing populations of Muslims in Europe.

Yeah, no :censored:ing support for that from me. You'll only entitle them even more by doing that. Unfortunately, that sounds like the kind of law that might realistically be placed in Sweden or Finland. And if that were to happen, I'll just pack my stuff and leave Europe behind for good.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, no :censored:ing support for that from me. You'll only entitle them even more by doing that. Unfortunately, that sounds like the kind of law that might realistically be placed in Sweden or Finland. And if that were to happen, I'll just pack my stuff and leave Europe behind for good.

The situation of multiculturalism is most advanced in Europe. But where would you go in the western world where multiculturalism isn't the prevailing paradigm of the establishment, if not the voters?

 

[Milouse]

@Dotini
Protect from blasphemy doesn't protect people, it protects ideas. Ideas need to be challenged, not protected. Especially dogmas.

 

[Carbonox]

The situation of multiculturalism is most advanced in Europe. But where would you go in the western world where multiculturalism isn't the prevailing paradigm of the establishment, if not the voters?

Most advanced? Most screwed up, maybe.

I think Canada, Australia or New Zealand would be sensible choices. As far as I know, those countries don't throw as much money away for worldhugging purposes as European countries do, and mostly accept educated immigrants anyway. (Better get me some decent education soon enough, just in case) Besides, by settling into a small enough town, I wouldn't have to worry about finding myself in a ghetto dominated by the primitive, unpredictable 3rd world gangs.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@Dotini
Protect from blasphemy doesn't protect people, it protects ideas. Ideas need to be challenged, not protected. Especially dogmas.

Unfortunately there's a lot of people who will say criticising bad ideas is racism and bigotry, so you can't win either way

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini
Protect from blasphemy doesn't protect people, it protects ideas. Ideas need to be challenged, not protected. Especially dogmas.

I totally agree - in the intellectual and abstract sense. But in a too-real world where your leaders have presented you with the fait accompli of a substantial and growing Muslim population living in the margins of your own society, you automatically owe them acceptance, integration, access to your government, banks and boardrooms, etc. At a minimum, they should be afforded the same protection from abuse as other religions such as Judaism. That means no discrimination, mockery or now blasphemy. It's small price to pay. After all, there is no going back, for the most part. The continued viability of the EU itself is another question.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Besides, by settling into a small enough town, I wouldn't have to worry about finding myself in a ghetto dominated by the primitive, unpredictable 3rd world gangs.

With an attitude like that, I'd give you about a week before you ran afoul of our anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Scaff]

Most advanced? Most screwed up, maybe.

I think Canada, Australia or New Zealand would be sensible choices. As far as I know, those countries don't throw as much money away for worldhugging purposes as European countries do, and mostly accept educated immigrants anyway. (Better get me some decent education soon enough, just in case) Besides, by settling into a small enough town, I wouldn't have to worry about finding myself in a ghetto dominated by the primitive, unpredictable 3rd world gangs.

To avoid the 'evil' of multiculturalism you want to move to another culture!

Now sit down and have a good long think about that.

Oh and I hate to break it to you but you managed to pick three countries that are very multicultural, including one that contains one of the most multicultural cities on the planet.

You want to move to a location of a group of people that totally reject the concept of multiculturalism then I suggest you hop on a plane to Turkey and take a quick trip south of the border (and it will be a short trip I suspect).

What you are rejecting when you condemn multiculturalism is the acceptance of anyone who's culture is different to yourselves and given that cultural difference exist regionally within the borders of pretty much all countries its a recipe for intolerance, bigotry and attacks on anyone who is remotely 'different' to yourself. However given your preferred choice of reading material (based on the sources you use) that would sound right up your street, its just a shame they would be the wrong type intolerant bigot for you.

 

[Spurgy 777]

To avoid the 'evil' of multiculturalism you want to move to another culture!

Now sit down and have a good long think about that.

Oh and I hate to break it to you but you managed to pick three countries that are very multicultural, including one that contains one of the most multicultural cities on the planet.

You want to move to a location of a group of people that totally reject the concept of multiculturalism then I suggest you hop on a plane to Turkey and take a quick trip south of the border (and it will be a short trip I suspect).

What you are rejecting when you condemn multiculturalism is the acceptance of anyone who's culture is different to yourselves and given that cultural difference exist regionally within the borders of pretty much all countries its a recipe for intolerance, bigotry and attacks on anyone who is remotely 'different' to yourself. However given your preferred choice of reading material (based on the sources you use) that would sound right up your street, its just a shame they would be the wrong type intolerant bigot for you.

I don't think you could have missed the point of his post any more, even if you tried.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think you could have missed the point of his post any more, even if you tried.

I doubt it, unless he has had a rather significant change of world view.

 

[Carbonox]

To avoid the 'evil' of multiculturalism you want to move to another culture!

Now sit down and have a good long think about that.

Oh and I hate to break it to you but you managed to pick three countries that are very multicultural, including one that contains one of the most multicultural cities on the planet.

You want to move to a location of a group of people that totally reject the concept of multiculturalism then I suggest you hop on a plane to Turkey and take a quick trip south of the border (and it will be a short trip I suspect).

What you are rejecting when you condemn multiculturalism is the acceptance of anyone who's culture is different to yourselves and given that cultural difference exist regionally within the borders of pretty much all countries its a recipe for intolerance, bigotry and attacks on anyone who is remotely 'different' to yourself. However given your preferred choice of reading material (based on the sources you use) that would sound right up your street, its just a shame they would be the wrong type intolerant bigot for you.

Please sit down, you're indeed missing the point.

What I was suggesting was that if the special treatment of certain immigrants - 3rd worlders and Muslims, mostly - started to become critical in Europe, to the point where special blasphemy laws were set to protect them from the nasty evil native citizens and all their hate speech, I would change location to somewhere where true equality still takes place.

I don't need you to educate me about how multicultural those countries are. What truly matters is that those countries focus more on the newcomers' quality, rather than quantity. Sweden, my funny and more and more insane neighbor, is willing to take 80,000 asylum seekers a year, while Australia is turning boat refugees away into nearby, equally safe countries. It's actually a big difference when you think about it.

And just so you know, multiculturalism doesn't bother me at all when all cultures involved are the civilized kind.

 

[Scaff]

Please sit down, you're indeed missing the point.

Given the rest of your post I don't think so.

What I was suggesting was that if the special treatment of certain immigrants - 3rd worlders and Muslims, mostly - started to become critical in Europe, to the point where special blasphemy laws were set to protect them from the nasty evil native citizens and all their hate speech, I would change location to somewhere where true equality still takes place.

Special treatment?

I quite agree that any laws put in place should be valid for all and offer equitable treatment for all, which is exactly what multiculturalism is.

However as has already been pointed out you're own language would see you fall foul in at least one of the countries you have mentioned.

I don't need you to educate me about how multicultural those countries are. What truly matters is that those countries focus more on the newcomers' quality, rather than quantity. Sweden, my funny and more and more insane neighbor, is willing to take 80,000 asylum seekers a year, while Australia is turning boat refugees away into nearby, equally safe countries. It's actually a big difference when you think about it.

You are aware that all UN countries are bound to accept a certainly number of asylum seekers per year? I also take it doesn't bother you that the Australian policy has caused the death of numerous innocent people.

It does also raise the question of what exact issue you have with asylum seekers?

And just so you know, multiculturalism doesn't bother me at all when all cultures involved are the civilized kind.

And those ones are?

 

[Milouse]

@Dotini , we're not "totally agree", as we actually have opposite opinions -> i say we need to stay away from retrograde blasphemy laws, and you ask for such laws.

Edit: to be clear, i don't refer to a specific religion.

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini , we're not "totally agree", as we actually have opposite opinions -> i say we need to stay away from retrograde blasphemy laws, and you ask for such laws.

Edit: to be clear, i don't refer to a specific religion.

Saying you need to stay away from blasphemy laws may mean the same thing as saying you need to avoid being integrated with the Muslim population. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But if the leaders of the EU decide on it, you will have both integration and blasphemy laws.

I simply do not understand how you can live with Muslims and yet be free to blaspheme their religious beliefs. If you do understand how, please explain it.

 

[Famine]

I simply do not understand how you can live with Muslims and yet be free to blaspheme their religious beliefs. If you do understand how, please explain it.

The same way you can live with Christians and yet be free to blaspheme theirs. Or any other religion.

 

[Dotini]

The same way you can live with Christians and yet be free to blaspheme theirs. Or any other religion.

But what way is that? How can you go ahead and blaspheme against a Muslim when he/she is your neighbor, your spouse or your boss?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Saying you need to stay away from blasphemy laws may mean the same thing as saying you need to avoid being integrated with the Muslim population. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But if the leaders of the EU decides on it, you will have both integration and blasphemy laws.

I am quite confident we can do just fine. The vast majority of muslims may be offended by blasphemous satire of their religion, but so are christians and jews (and I remember a Soka Gakkai friend being quite pissed at a humorous vignette published by an Italian newspaper about her faith, for that matter). And if we want to move away from religion a bit - we can do that, after all, we're not specifically talking about Islam at this point, are we? - do you have any idea what kind of ******** I have to put up with as a communist?

But the point is, we're all grown ups who don't make a big deal of being offended once in a while. Hell, sometimes we may even get a good laugh out of something that offends our religious or political or cultural sensibilities. Or someone's mockery could turn into food for thought. But what's more important, we understand that what's sacred for us may not be as sacred for someone else - we wish they could see things that way, but we accept the fact that they may hold a different view of the world.

Extremists don't do that, extremists think in absolutes and for them anybody who can't see how right they are is a nuisance or a pest - but extremists are so insignificant in their numbers, they shouldn't even be taken into consideration when discussing where the limits of freedom of speech are.

But what way is that? How can you go ahead and blaspheme against a Muslim when he/she is your neighbor, your spouse or your boss?

The same way I blaspheme against my christian parents, friends, and neighbors. As a matter of fact, the muslim friends I have aren't any more or less tolerant of it. You make it sound like all muslims carry around a scimitar and are ready to chop your head if you make as much as a joke about good ol' Allah Snackbar.

 

[Dotini]

The vast majority of muslims may be offended by blasphemous satire of their religion, but...they shouldn't even be taken into consideration when discussing where the limits of freedom of speech are.

I have taken two of your excellent sentences and reconstructed them as one. Please let me know if it makes sense.

 

[Milouse]

@Dotini, and to complete @Famine answer:
I want to live with people without having to know about which church they "belongs" to, nor for them and i to have to justify it. So the blasphemy is just out ot the picture, everyone comply with the same law. Countries who have blasphemy laws can't have free religion, hence are not lands of freedom.

 

[Famine]

But what way is that? How can you go ahead and blaspheme against a Muslim when he/she is your neighbor, your spouse or your boss?

You don't blaspheme "against a Muslim", but against Islam. And you can do it the same was as you can blaspheme against Christianity, Judaism or take your pick of religion.

Questioning the veracity of a religion is blasphemous - and unless you believe in all of them, that means you're blasphemous to the core. By adopting Christianity, Christians blaspheme against Islam by not accepting it as the one true religion and Allah as the one true God (and vice versa).

Sure you can ramp up the levels of blasphemy if you like - by calling Buddha a fat dick or suggesting L. Ron Hubbard made it all up because he was a crap science fiction writer and saw money in it - but it doesn't really change the fact that suggesting you don't believe in Yahweh is innately blasphemous.


Our media - and our comedians particularly - mock Christianity on a regular basis. Here's Tim Minchin doing a song about Jesus on a TV special broadcast at Christmas (language warning):

​

Amusingly this was actually cut from the show by ITV bosses fearing the volume complaints (see Ross, also , but they allowed Minchin to use the footage on his own Youtube channel. He does this sort of thing a lot.

So how can we live with Muslims and be free to blaspheme their religion? The same way we do it with Christians...

 

[Furinkazen]

On a subject about TV - BBC often got complaints about the sitcom Citizen Khan, yet the complainers forgot a muslim was the person who invented the show. I don't recall ever reading about tons of complaints on Father Ted when it came out.

 

[Kurei]

I stopped in here to see what exactly is being discussed in this sub-forum out of curiosity, and honestly ?, I feel like I'm still in the GT6 section with all this "I'm right, you're wrong" banter between members. #justsaiyan

To keep things on topic, I don't much care for religion, nothing against it - just not interested, so Islam just gets jumbled with the others and tossed out of my attention. Honest to God () view on it.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Given the rest of your post I don't think so.

His point seemed fairly obvious to me, he thinks that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are better examples of multiculturalism than Europe, and that if European countries started giving special treatment to Muslims by introducing blasphemy laws to prevent criticism of Islam, that is where he would move.

You were wrong to suggest he doesn't think those countries are multicultural, you were wrong to suggest he wants to go to a country that completely rejects multiculturalism, and you were wrong to suggest that he condemns multiculturalism. Hence missing the point.

I would even go as far to say that your second post implies you know those assumptions were wrong as you failed to address any of them despite them apparently being the main point of discussion in @Carbonox's reply.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

if European countries started giving special treatment to Muslims by introducing blasphemy laws to prevent criticism of Islam, that is where he would move.

Holocaust denial is illegal in sixteen European countries, and is punishable by fines or imprisonment. To deny that the Holocaust took place, or to deny that it was as extensive as historical figures show, is considered extremely offensive to the Jewish community. Perhaps it is not blasphemy in the strictest sense, but it is nevertheless a provision granted to the community.

Depictions of the Prophet are perhaps not as serious as denying the systematic genocide of six million people, but everything falls under the banner of freedom of speech. Why is it acceptable to commit an act that one religion considers blasphemous, but you can be considered to have committed a crime if you commit an act that another religion would consider extremely offensive?

Furthermore, why is it okay to exercise freedom of speech when doing so means someone else is going to suffer for it? When those cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper back in 2006, it resulted in civil unrest. This was an entirely forseeable consequence of Charlie Hebdo's publication - and, inevitably, it happened. Demonstrations in Karachi turned violent, with police and bystanders being killed and injured. They had nothing to do with the magazine. They were either doing their jobs or just going about their day. But they suffered for the actions of someone halfway around the world, and I think that saying "Charlie Hebdo was just exercising its right to freedom of speech".

 

[Famine]

His point seemed fairly obvious to me, he thinks that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are better examples of multiculturalism than Europe, and that if European countries started giving special treatment to Muslims by introducing blasphemy laws to prevent criticism of Islam, that is where he would move.

Carbonox is known for speaking out against what he sees as multiculturalism (which is the appeasement of minorities, rather than what multiculturalism is - see here and here), and I read his post in the same way that @Scaff did as a direct answer to @Dotini's query "But where would you go in the western world where multiculturalism isn't the prevailing paradigm of the establishment, if not the voters?".

The fact that his examples are all examples of multiculturalism (the adoption and adaptation of minorities into a larger culture while preserving their cultural identities) wasn't lost on me either. Nor the concept of moving to Australia - with one of the most oppressive internet controls in the world, rivalling Saudi and China - for the freedom of expression it affords. Nor the concept of him becoming an immigrant from a different culture...

Furthermore, why is it okay to exercise freedom of speech when doing so means someone else is going to suffer for it?

When the speech doesn't cause suffering, but the acts of people to cause suffering do.

CharlieHebdo didn't cause violence. Violent people caused violence. Of course, beating people up and killing them is illegal, so that should be the end of the problem...

We don't accept that reasonable adults can be turned into violent killers by violent video games (well, Australia does), so why do we accept that reasonable adults can't be held responsible for being violent killers because a comic book upset them?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Nor the concept of moving to Australia - with one of the most oppressive internet controls in the world, rivalling Saudi and China - for the freedom of expression it affords.

True. The level of security clearance I need just to post here is so high that it would be easier for me to meet Barack Obama.

 

[Keef]

I think they're a bunch of crazy freakin' fools, that's what I think.

 

[Famine]

True. The level of security clearance I need just to post here is so high that it would be easier for me to meet Barack Obama.

Don't worry - if Cameron gets his way and bans encryption, the UK will have no internet of which to speak any more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Don't worry - if Cameron gets his way and bans encryption, the UK will have no internet of which to speak any more.

I don't think our government even knows what the internet is. They passed legislation requiring ISPs to retain metadata in the fight against terrorism, and when he was asked to explain what metadata is and how retaining it would help first terrorism, our Attorney-General George Brandis spent five minutes err-ing and uhm-ing a response which didn't answer the question.

It's not altogether unsurprising, given that he sought to repeal parts of the Racial Discrimination Act on what constitutes discrimination ... without engaging in any kind of community consultation whatsoever. He is a wealthy, older, white male conservative politician, and thus fits the demographic of the people least likely to experience discrimination, but still saw fit to try and change the legislation. He argued that he was doing it to protect freedom of speech an "the right to be a bigot", but in reality he was trying to help a conservative political commentator whose reputation took a beating for discriminating in an editorial (and it wasn't contentious - it was racism, pure and simple) because he's essentially the government's private-media propaganda generator and the government needed him to help sell unpopular policies elsewhere.