Charlie Hebdo

How long do you think it will be before the Islamic apologists are on CNN stating that, “This is a perversion of Islam” or “Islam is a religion of peace”? I think it will be about 10 minutes after they positively identify the perpetrators as being Muslim and that they were doing it in the name of Allah.

Oh Geez, now I guess I need to read up on this. I saw that Salon and Blaze went after Dawkins comments about the influence of the Islamic religion. Seems to miss the point. When someone says “We have avenged Mohammad”, I think it is fair to say their influence is religious. The simple thing is, it doesn’t mean the gunmen are RIGHT about their religion, it just means it influenced them. You can say they were influenced and they were wrong about their interpretation of the Quran, or you can say they were influenced and they interpreted correctly, but to say they weren’t influenced is more like saying they are lying. Which could be true, but its a tough case to make.
My guess is, it’s just easier to say they are wrong about their interpretation since they are obviously wrong to gun down cartoonists. And the implications of them being right, that Islam is a religion of violence, are just too much to deal with. So they don’t.

http://i.imgur.com/pGkhIoK.jpg
I think this cartoon is brilliant.

How long do you think it will be before the Islamic apologists are on CNN stating that, "This is a perversion of Islam" or "Islam is a religion of peace"? I think it will be about 10 minutes after they positively identify the perpetrators as being Muslim and that they were doing it in the name of Allah.
10 minutes is far too long. Lois
Oh Geez, now I guess I need to read up on this. I saw that Salon and Blaze went after Dawkins comments about the influence of the Islamic religion. Seems to miss the point. When someone says "We have avenged Mohammad", I think it is fair to say their influence is religious. The simple thing is, it doesn't mean the gunmen are RIGHT about their religion, it just means it influenced them. You can say they were influenced and they were wrong about their interpretation of the Quran, or you can say they were influenced and they interpreted correctly, but to say they weren't influenced is more like saying they are lying. Which could be true, but its a tough case to make. My guess is, it's just easier to say they are wrong about their interpretation since they are obviously wrong to gun down cartoonists. And the implications of them being right, that Islam is a religion of violence, are just too much to deal with. So they don't.
IMO, there are no correct interpretations of any religions, as they are all based on superstitious bullshit. However, there are more destructive and less destructive interpretations. Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations. And for the Islam apologists, I am compelled to add, that, by far, most Muslims do not actively accede to these most destructive interpretations. (Too bad that Muslims, just by identifying themselves as such, still have to recognize that their basic ideology can inspire cold blooded murder of those who say something that they find offensive. Shout Allahu Akbar! dumbasses.)
And for the Islam apologists, I am compelled to add, that, by far, most Muslims do not actively accede to these most destructive interpretations. (Too bad that Muslims, just by identifying themselves as such, still have to recognize that their basic ideology can inspire cold blooded murder of those who say something that they find offensive. Shout Allahu Akbar! dumbasses.)
There are several polls that have been done that contradict that statement. Many Muslims support their country's blasphemy laws. This varies by country with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being some of the harshest while Indonesia and Bosnia are far more tolerant. I think you would be surprised if a poll was done asking Muslims about the Charlie Hebdo incident. Most, of course, would not agree with what was done, but the percentage that did agree with it would not be as low as you'd like it to be. Add in the percentage that thought the reaction was too harsh but that the perpetrators were somewhat justified in what they did, that's where I think the real shock would be. I think that would be a significant percentage, not a majority but something around 10% wouldn't surprise me. I already read an article from an Imam that shifted the blame onto the cartoonists and the arrogance of their editor for not expecting a violent reaction from the Muslim world. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/

I read a couple of western moderate Muslims’ “condemnation” of the Charlie attack. One was a leader of a North American Islamic organization. The other was an Associate professor of Islamic Studies at an American University.
The organization leader basically said that it is against Islamic doctrine to be violent toward others. Then he immediately added: But there are limits to what people should do in exercising their free speech. Since he was commenting on the Charlie incident, it seems to me that he was blaming Charlie for going over the line. This seems similar to what people often do with rape victims, i.e., saying “The way she was dressed, maybe she had it coming.”
The professor said something to the effect that it is against Islamic doctrine for vigilantes to execute someone for blasphemy. But it is okay to execute the blasphemers if this is the determination of an Islamic court in an Islamic State. Since he was also responding to the Charlie incident, I can only assume that he was suggesting that what Charlie did was potentially something to warrant a death penalty.
These two guys are not blathering extremists. They know Islamic doctrine.
I suggest that as it stands, western ideals of free speech are not very compatible with “mainstream” (if there is such a thing) Islamic doctrine.

And for the Islam apologists, I am compelled to add, that, by far, most Muslims do not actively accede to these most destructive interpretations. (Too bad that Muslims, just by identifying themselves as such, still have to recognize that their basic ideology can inspire cold blooded murder of those who say something that they find offensive. Shout Allahu Akbar! dumbasses.)
There are several polls that have been done that contradict that statement. Many Muslims support their country's blasphemy laws. This varies by country with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being some of the harshest while Indonesia and Bosnia are far more tolerant. I think you would be surprised if a poll was done asking Muslims about the Charlie Hebdo incident. Most, of course, would not agree with what was done, but the percentage that did agree with it would not be as low as you'd like it to be. Add in the percentage that thought the reaction was too harsh but that the perpetrators were somewhat justified in what they did, that's where I think the real shock would be. I think that would be a significant percentage, not a majority but something around 10% wouldn't surprise me. I already read an article from an Imam that shifted the blame onto the cartoonists and the arrogance of their editor for not expecting a violent reaction from the Muslim world. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/ By the same token, the Jihadists should expect a violent reaction to Islamic terrorism from the rest of the world. I am sick to death of political correctness and blaming the victim. Lois
How long do you think it will be before the Islamic apologists are on CNN stating that, "This is a perversion of Islam" or "Islam is a religion of peace"? I think it will be about 10 minutes after they positively identify the perpetrators as being Muslim and that they were doing it in the name of Allah.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, All three Abrahamic religions are all about tribalism and egomaniacal world outlooks and creating ruthless wars of convenience to pump up their own tribalism, in complete disregard for basic humanity. Oh yea in the name of god no less, go listen to some of our American evangelicals before . . . . . . . never mind. Let's stop pretending - there are no innocents anymore >:-( And who started this ball rolling ?
Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations.
Or are they the worst because they been shit on the worst and the longest ? Don't get me wrong, the people that did this are trash, but what makes them so much worse then Cheney/Bush and USA's sadistic embrace of torture? And destruction of countless neighborhoods and innocent lives???

I think The Onion makes a good point here:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
If you satirize any other religion, even if you are down right offensive to that religion, you don’t have to worry about being murdered. This doesn’t seem to be the case with Islam.

Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations.
Or are they the worst because they been shit on the worst and the longest ? Don't get me wrong, the people that did this are trash, but what makes them so much worse then Cheney/Bush and USA's sadistic embrace of torture? And destruction of countless neighborhoods and innocent lives??? Is Islamic violence acceptable, then, as long as we've done something similar? That's a strange way to assess actions--and to create a non-violent society. Tit for tat. Lois
I am sick to death of political correctness and blaming the victim.
And I am sick to death about Islam bashing. Instead of trying scientifically to understand what is going on, too many people just do sweeping statements about Muslims in general. They think they understand it already. The Koran contains violence, Muslims are on average less developed than we are, there are many terrorist attacks done in the name of Allah, so Islam is bad. Yes, and the earth is flat, it is obvious, you can see it. I always wonder why people who are convinced of the value of science, like to do sweeping statements without scientific base. The whole situation recalls me of the discussion about the 'Marxist' terrorism and the German 'Read Army Fraction' (Baader-Meinhof group) in the seventies. A lot of ideological and extremist discussion surrounding it, but in the end it were frustrated young people who did not feel at home in western society. Doesn't that sound familiar? And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie. That is the difference between us and the radical Muslims: we can live with the partially unpleasant excesses of the freedom of speech, for the greater good that freedom of speech is. They obviously can't.

As a scientist, I have to say I care more about the implications for suppression of criticism generally in these kinds of acts than about the debates over which religion is the least tolerant of criticism. I criticize people’s ideas and claims all the time, and doing so is an inherent and necessary part of the process of scientific evaluation of claims about the natural world. While I get mostly angry emails and occasional threats of litigation, rather than death threats and actual violence, I think intolerance of criticism is a continuum. The reaction of Muslim fundamentalists to these cartoons is only different in degree, not in kind, from the reaction of Christians to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Tweet on Christmas (discussed HERE]) the reaction of the NRA to criticism of its gun rights positions, or the reaction of anti-vaccine activists to rebuttal of their nonsensical claims about autism.
Everyone hates criticism, but the principle of tolerance of potentially offensive speech is pretty central to a functioning civil society. If we privilege certain ideas as off-limits for criticism, even mockery, we start to unravel the fabric of guidelines which allows diverse beliefs to coexist and which allows progress, which only comes from debating and ultimately abandoning bad ideas. As individuals and a community with a number of values and beliefs that are widely viewed as at least badly mistaken and, sometimes, as evil and dangerous, I think we ought to be extremely protective of the speech rights of others. We have a lot to lose if criticism of popular or deeply held beliefs comes to be viewed as not simply in bad taste but as unacceptable or immoral. Blasphemy laws, anti-sedition laws, and personal violence on a larger scale aren’t going to be far behind if we stop defending the speech rights of even the least popular speakers.
Here are some additional thoughts on this event I expressed recently, for anyone who is interested:
Je Suis Charlie]

I am sick to death of political correctness and blaming the victim.
And I am sick to death about Islam bashing. It's not bashing if it's true. Instead of trying scientifically to understand what is going on, too many people just do sweeping statements about Muslims in general. They think they understand it already. The Koran contains violence, Muslims are on average less developed than we are, there are many terrorist attacks done in the name of Allah, so Islam is bad. Yes, and the earth is flat, it is obvious, you can see it. I always wonder why people who are convinced of the value of science, like to do sweeping statements without scientific base. The whole situation recalls me of the discussion about the 'Marxist' terrorism and the German 'Read Army Fraction' (Baader-Meinhof group) in the seventies. A lot of ideological and extremist discussion surrounding it, but in the end it were frustrated young people who did not feel at home in western society. Doesn't that sound familiar? And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie. That is the difference between us and the radical Muslims: we can live with the partially unpleasant excesses of the freedom of speech, for the greater good that freedom of speech is. They obviously can't. Or won't. In any case civilized people are stuck with the consequences.
As a scientist, I have to say I care more about the implications for suppression of criticism generally in these kinds of acts than about the debates over which religion is the least tolerant of criticism. I criticize people's ideas and claims all the time, and doing so is an inherent and necessary part of the process of scientific evaluation of claims about the natural world. While I get mostly angry emails and occasional threats of litigation, rather than death threats and actual violence, I think intolerance of criticism is a continuum. The reaction of Muslim fundamentalists to these cartoons is only different in degree, not in kind, from the reaction of Christians to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Tweet on Christmas (discussed HERE]) the reaction of the NRA to criticism of its gun rights positions, or the reaction of anti-vaccine activists to rebuttal of their nonsensical claims about autism. Je Suis Charlie]
Just to clarify, reaction to criticism is normal and a healthy part of debate. It is a threat to a healthy society though when the reaction is one with the intent if silencing criticism rather than meeting it with alternative ideas and arguments.
Also, IMO, Islam is the worst in terms of its being easily susceptible to powerfully destructive interpretations.
Or are they the worst because they been shit on the worst and the longest ?... Being abused or as you say, shit on, routinely, I think, helps set up an individual to take on this sort of fundamentalist theology, and to be inspired to act out violently. But that being said, Islam, as I see it, is the worst (for humanity at large), that such individuals can latch on to.
I am sick to death of political correctness and blaming the victim.
And I am sick to death about Islam bashing. Instead of trying scientifically to understand what is going on, too many people just do sweeping statements about Muslims in general. They think they understand it already. The Koran contains violence, Muslims are on average less developed than we are, there are many terrorist attacks done in the name of Allah, so Islam is bad. Yes, and the earth is flat, it is obvious, you can see it. I always wonder why people who are convinced of the value of science, like to do sweeping statements without scientific base. The whole situation recalls me of the discussion about the 'Marxist' terrorism and the German 'Read Army Fraction' (Baader-Meinhof group) in the seventies. A lot of ideological and extremist discussion surrounding it, but in the end it were frustrated young people who did not feel at home in western society. Doesn't that sound familiar? And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie. That is the difference between us and the radical Muslims: we can live with the partially unpleasant excesses of the freedom of speech, for the greater good that freedom of speech is. They obviously can't. I call bullshit on the cartoon, here. No one is killing cartoonists and shouting Allahu Akbar! for satirizing any religious figures other than Islamic ones. Always, I have to add the disclaimer, for Islamic apologists, that Muslims should not be painted with a broad stroke, other than the fact that they all claim to be followers of Islam to some degree or another. My contention is that Islam, itself, although, obviously it can be interpreted in ways that are consistent with the well being of humanity, it is, I believe, in today's world, uniquely suited to be interpreted in the most destructive ways. GdB, you don't need a scientist to tell you that it is raining, if you can look out of your window. Sure, there are all sorts of factors that could be, and have been, I think, determined to impact the likelihood of violence done in the name of religion. But, it seems a bit insane to me, that intelligent people would consistently, ignore the common factor that is present in so much of today's religiously associated violence, i.e., Islam.
... The whole situation recalls me of the discussion about the 'Marxist' terrorism and the German 'Read Army Fraction' (Baader-Meinhof group) in the seventies. A lot of ideological and extremist discussion surrounding it, but in the end it were frustrated young people who did not feel at home in western society. Doesn't that sound familiar?...
Political ideologies are a relative flash in the pan, in the scope of human history. Islam has stood the test of time and is continuing to grow. Sure, young people with histories of abuse are a clear element of concern, but you seem to be excusing the ideology altogether. That is not logical.
...And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid. What else? Is provocation a strategy that helps to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism? Or is it just an outskirt of the freedom of speech we have to live with: the right to offend, insult, and provoke? Non, je ne suis pas charlie. That is the difference between us and the radical Muslims: we can live with the partially unpleasant excesses of the freedom of speech, for the greater good that freedom of speech is. They obviously can't.
You can call people unwise, for their choices. You can decry their being insulting and offensive. You can ignore them. You can boycott their business. You can sue them. You can be insulting and offensive in retaliation. But in today's world, it must not be allowed for you to kill them for saying something offensive. If Muslims are to be excused for killing someone who says something offensive about Islam, then who else can control the rest of the world's people's speech by threatening to kill them if they say something that the new controller of free speech, (whoever it may be), deems to be offensive? We don't need to support Charlie's being insulting and offensive. We can wish that all people, who choose to be insulting and offensive to others, meet with the greatest social disdain. BUT NO ONE (INCLUDING FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM) CAN BE ALLOWED TO USE SOMEONE'S INSULTING AND OFFENSIVE SPEECH AS AN EXCUSE TO KILL THEM.