Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur

[White Doors]

She's a witch!! a witch!! BUUURN HER!!!!

[Jerry Galinda]

She's a witch!! a witch!! BUUURN HER!!!!

Who ?

I see - it's a joke .

[Leafless]

Who ?

I see - it's a joke .

Yes, a HATE joke.

How about burning HATE LAWS.

[Black Dog]

Seemed to exist in Rhodesia...Belgian Congo, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ireland etc. So don't say the possible is impossible.

It's not the numbers that matter it's the degree of power they can exercise. Muslim immigrants in Europe and in North America are being ascribed a level of power and influence that is well beyond what is realistic for groups in their position. Groups with power and influence tend not to riot in the streets and pass laws (such as the banning of headscarves) antithetical to their own interests.

[Jerry Galinda]

Yes, a HATE joke.

How about burning HATE LAWS.

"burning law" - what does it mean ? I'm not sure - but I guess.

Does it mean - "brake law" - or something like that ?

Of course it was a stupid "breaking" law - "joke" of White Doors.

BTW. I tried to be quizzical, ironical or something like that.

[jefferiah]

Who knows, but I've been told, over and over, by Conservative supporters that even though I am opposed to the current marijuana laws, I should suck it up and obey them.

I guess that's just what we're supposed to be with irrational legislation.

So basically you value marijuana over freedom of speech. Well, as Dion says, making priorities is not easy. Maybe you could sell all your natural rights for a big bag of weed.

Edited April 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

I don't know, what do the laws of France say? I guess then , we know why she is being charged?

Do you not think that is a higly unreasonable, even dangerous law? Freedom of speech and expression is the cornerstone of free societies. In case you missed it, I think thats why the poster made the topic.

I believe it was you who said "Most Christians are willing to kill...."

[guyser]

just an aside question -- does anyone know if the *cute baby sealmeat is wasted or eaten, and by whom?

Our resident Newfoundlanders , well I was going to say Newfies but apparently thats not kosher, eat the seal meat.

I asked a Newf today. He said his dad loved it, he and his mom hated it.Basically you have to boil the s**t out of it to render the fat , and then cook it . The whole house would stink something fierce and it always bugged his mom and he. I would try it, but I wouldnt let them cook it in my house.

Now salt cod or cod cheeks......that be some good eatin'. (how does one get the accent of the rock in print? ..use by jeez a lot?)

[kuzadd]

Do you not think that is a higly unreasonable, even dangerous law? Freedom of speech and expression is the cornerstone of free societies. In case you missed it, I think thats why the poster made the topic.

I believe it was you who said "Most Christians are willing to kill...."

honestly, I don't think the poster made the topic as a free speech issue. It was started a way to show muslims in a negative light.

all the people claiming free speech these days, seem to only want it so they can castigate muslims.

These same people who cry "free speech" have there noses all out of joint when one is critical of GWB, american foreign policy, anti-war people, criticism of Israels' human rights abuses, war crimes, etc., they are not concerned that people who express these opinions are also entitled to their opinion.

Yet time and time again, we see the people shouting anti-american, anti-semite, traitor, terrorist supporter, and every other label they can muster.

So if these people were really espousing free speech, they wouldn't resort to silencing tactics.

[kuzadd]

It's not the numbers that matter it's the degree of power they can exercise. Muslim immigrants in Europe and in North America are being ascribed a level of power and influence that is well beyond what is realistic for groups in their position. Groups with power and influence tend not to riot in the streets and pass laws (such as the banning of headscarves) antithetical to their own interests.

actually I made it quite clear in several posts that not only are the numbers not there, the people are unempowered.

Therefore the power and influence they wield is really miniscule, and that's quite obvious given the amount of bad press they receive endlessly.

Unlike say the US which has minority population, yet is a major player in the world, very powerful,wreaks endless havoc, and really doesn't garner anywhere near the bad press, relative to the amount of misery they manage to inflict on multiple countries and people.

[jefferiah]

honestly, I don't think the poster made the topic as a free speech issue. It was started a way to show muslims in a negative light.

all the people claiming free speech these days, seem to only want it so they can castigate muslims.

These same people who cry "free speech" have there noses all out of joint when one is critical of GWB, american foreign policy, anti-war people, criticism of Israels' human rights abuses, war crimes, etc., they are not concerned that people who express these opinions are also entitled to their opinion.

Yet time and time again, we see the people shouting anti-american, anti-semite, traitor, terrorist supporter, and every other label they can muster.

So if these people were really espousing free speech, they wouldn't resort to silencing tactics.

Thats a poor example Kuzadd. You are using an example of people who do not agree with your free speech using their own free speech to criticize you. That is not a violation of anyone's right. It is simply more free speech. No one is being held legally liable in your examples. Bridgette Bardot is actually on trial for making a comment. Not once, but five times has the French justice system repeated this ridiculous farce.

Now if you want to criticize Miss Bardot or diss her opinions and call her a traitor, that's an entirely different matter isn't it, than making her appear before a judge for her opinions and fining her 15 grand Euro.

Edited April 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[Argus]

yes, let's promulgate sterotypes , instead of dealing with reality

In this case the stereotype is the reality.

[Argus]

she can say whatever she wants,

Not in France, she can't.

and so can I, get it?

Good thing you live in a free country.

[kuzadd]

In this case the stereotype is the reality.

stereotypes are never realities.

Except to the ignorant and the biggoted.

[kuzadd]

Thats a poor example Kuzadd. You are using an example of people who do not agree with your free speech using their own free speech to criticize you. That is not a violation of anyone's right. It is simply more free speech. No one is being held legally liable in your examples. Bridgette Bardot is actually on trial for making a comment. Not once, but five times has the French justice system repeated this ridiculous farce.

Now if you want to criticize Miss Bardot or diss her opinions and call her a traitor, that's an entirely different matter isn't it, than making her appear before a judge for her opinions and fining her 15 grand Euro.

sorry Jefferiah, free speech has nothing to do with coercive tactics to manipulate. That is a whole subject to itself.

criticism doesn't reduce itself to name calling and smear, criticism is rational, logical and well thought out.

[WIP]

honestly, I don't think the poster made the topic as a free speech issue. It was started a way to show muslims in a negative light.

all the people claiming free speech these days, seem to only want it so they can castigate muslims.

The only mitigating circumstances that should not be protected as free speech are where people such as Brigitte Bardot are blending race with religion, since some of her previous charges have resulted from comments about Muslim immigrants. But, if it's a matter criticizing religious beliefs or practises, it should be a case of either put up or shut up! One of her comments was about the ritual animal sacrifices. I don't know what the laws are in France, but I am certain that animal welfare laws where I live, would not allow me to carry out a ritual sacrifice - unless, I suppose I could convince the authorities it's part of my religion - then it seems you can get away with almost anything this side of female genital mutilation!

But why shouldn't these things like animal sacrifices, a practise that goes back to a time when Semitic peoples thought God was up in the sky and could smell their burnt offerings, be sanctioned in this day and age? And on the subject of animals, why does almost every country in the world allow kosher and halal butchery of animals for meat when the methods violate the rules of slaughter in most Western nations? This primitive concept comes from a belief that the soul of the animal is in its blood, and has to be drained out before eating so that it doesn't contaminate the people who eat the meat. This is the same line of reasoning that leads Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. They don't want their souls mixed with someone else's souls from a blood transfusion; should they be allowed to refuse transfusions for their children in medical need?

The demand for respect of religion is a demand not to question these beliefs. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc. have no other way to defend their belief systems than to appeal to respect, promise eternal life for believers, and threaten eternal torment for unbelievers. What makes Islam dangerous today is the degree its followers will go to try to shut down criticism. Many, if not most Muslim countries still criminalize apostasy (the crime of not believing), and they use threats of violence to try to prevent Western Muslims from leaving the religion.

These same people who cry "free speech" have there noses all out of joint when one is critical of GWB, american foreign policy, anti-war people, criticism of Israels' human rights abuses, war crimes, etc., they are not concerned that people who express these opinions are also entitled to their opinion.

Yet time and time again, we see the people shouting anti-american, anti-semite, traitor, terrorist supporter, and every other label they can muster.

So if these people were really espousing free speech, they wouldn't resort to silencing tactics.

What's stopping criticism of George Bush and American foreign policy? I do it all the time.

[sharkman]

But why shouldn't these things like animal sacrifices, a practise that goes back to a time when Semitic peoples thought God was up in the sky and could smell their burnt offerings, be sanctioned in this day and age? And on the subject of animals, why does almost every country in the world allow kosher and halal butchery of animals for meat when the methods violate the rules of slaughter in most Western nations? This primitive concept comes from a belief that the soul of the animal is in its blood, and has to be drained out before eating so that it doesn't contaminate the people who eat the meat. This is the same line of reasoning that leads Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. They don't want their souls mixed with someone else's souls from a blood transfusion; should they be allowed to refuse transfusions for their children in medical need?

Your grasp of religions may be a little shakey. Semitic people still believe God is up in the sky. Animals were not sacrificed so God could smell them. Kosher slaughter of animals is not done because of a belief concerning the soul of the animal, where do you get this stuff? God gave the Hebrews very specific instructions on which animals they could eat and how to slaughter them or else the animal would be unclean.

It is a completely different issue than the JW beliefs in blood.

[WIP]

Your grasp of religions may be a little shakey. Semitic people still believe God is up in the sky. Animals were not sacrificed so God could smell them. Kosher slaughter of animals is not done because of a belief concerning the soul of the animal, where do you get this stuff? God gave the Hebrews very specific instructions on which animals they could eat and how to slaughter them or else the animal would be unclean.

It is a completely different issue than the JW beliefs in blood.

Maybe it would be more accurate to state that the ancient Hebrews believed that the souls of man and animal were in the blood, since that is what a number of scriptural verses plainly state. The doctrine of an immortal soul that goes on to eternal reward or damnation doesn't appear in most of the Old Testament. In the first five and the prophetic books like Job and Ecclesiastes, which specifically ponder the meaning of life and why there is suffering in the world - when you're dead, you are dead! That's it! There are some later apocalyptic Jewish books that refer to Sheol as an abode where the dead continue on in some sort of existence. It was probably influenced by the Greek belief in Hades and imported when the Ptolemies overran Judea.

Regardless, how else do you explain Old Testament verses that say the God can smell and is pleased with the burnt offerings from the Temple if there wasn't a belief that the aroma of their burnt offerings floated up to heaven where God could enjoy them?

Genesis 8

8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour;..................

Exodus 29

29:18 And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Numbers 18

18:17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD.

The J.W.'s get their blood prohibition from verses like these in Leviticus Ch. 17:

17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Does God desire animal sacrifices?

17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

and from the implied animism of scriptures that connect the life force directly with the blood:

Genesis 4

9. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

10. And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Anyway, my point is, what ever you believe about the value and legitimacy of animal sacrifices and a blood taboo that demands that the blood be drained from an animal by slitting its throat while it is alive, should the practises be protected since they would not be protected if they weren't wrapped up snuggly in the form of religious belief?

[sharkman]

I'm aware that the Bible talks about sacrifices being a sweet savour to God, but my point(which it seems I didn't include) was that the sacrifices were usually for the atonement of sin, not to somehow earn forgiveness based on whether God could smell that particular sacrifice or not.

I'm not sure now what your definition of a soul is, but in that verse a pretty generic definition of God's hearing Abel's voice and can mean many things.

As a Christian today, these things seem pretty distant to my faith, perhaps that's why I objected so strongly. At any rate, WRT animal slaughter or many things, religion is given an accord of respect in ours and most societies. If the religious feel that they've sinned by eating unclean food, I don't see the harm in it.

Personally, I always buy Kosher hotdogs if I can find them, what goes in wieners these days is pretty gross.

Edited April 22, 2008 by sharkman

[WIP]

I'm aware that the Bible talks about sacrifices being a sweet savour to God, but my point(which it seems I didn't include) was that the sacrifices were usually for the atonement of sin, not to somehow earn forgiveness based on whether God could smell that particular sacrifice or not.

I'm not sure now what your definition of a soul is, but in that verse a pretty generic definition of God's hearing Abel's voice and can mean many things.

The problem I have with Christians who claim to be fundamentalists is that they use their modern understanding of the world and their modern theological interpretations when they read the earlier books of the Old Testament. Taken at face value, the prohibitions against blood, the blood purity taboos that make a woman unclean for twice as long for having a daughter as opposed to having a son, all make no sense with our modern understanding of blood and germ theory of disease.

Today, the statement that Abel's blood was crying out from the ground is interpreted as symbolic metaphor, but during a time when people believed that a person's life force was in the blood, it would be interpreted as Abel's soul ebbing away. Refraining from eating meat that contained animal blood would be protection from contamination from the animal's spirit.........and I don't even want to go near their special horror of menstruating women and the blood passed from giving birth! They would have defined the soul much differently than later Jews who were influenced by other religions and especially Greek philosophy. When the writer of Ecclesiastes says that 'the dead in sheol know nothing,' it has become reinterpreted as 'the dead know nothing until they are resurrected.' But I don't think the author's humanistic philosophy regarding how we should live our lives makes any sense if he believed that each person had an immortal soul that was waiting to escape the physical bounds of earth.

As a Christian today, these things seem pretty distant to my faith, perhaps that's why I objected so strongly. At any rate, WRT animal slaughter or many things, religion is given an accord of respect in ours and most societies. If the religious feel that they've sinned by eating unclean food, I don't see the harm in it.

Personally, I always buy Kosher hotdogs if I can find them, what goes in wieners these days is pretty gross.

Right, those who believe in the blood taboo are going to be offended and afraid to eat meat if they can't have their kosher and halal methods used, but why should a method of animal butchery that is declared to be animal cruelty and not allowed for secular meat processing, be protected as religious expression? The same rules should apply to everyone!

And how far are we going to go to protect the religious from being offended? Muslims are trying to make blasphemy laws international and sanctioned by the U.N. Even though this is largely symbolic, the implication of protecting religious beliefs from critical analysis means that they can carry on with beliefs and practises even where they are causing harm and moving civilization backwards.

[sharkman]

Most mainline christian churches accept Jesus' claim that he was God and died for the sins of the world, bringing us into the New Testament dispensation. This means that all of the laws from the OT have been replaced. That is why these churches do not follow these laws.

The Jewish religion does not believe that Jesus was God and still observes the OT law. I figure they are free to do what they want.

As to the soul, I was misunderstanding you based on the fact that I follow the theory that a person has a body, soul and spirit. You mean spirit as I define it when you say soul. At any rate, I disagree with you but am quite happy to leave you to your beliefs.

From what I've read, the kosher killing of an animal is not as awful as you believe, but certainly the animal's life before this must be scrutinized as well. You probably have a dim view of the way most modern farms raise animals too. I just can't work up a great deal of concern over this, perhaps it's because I believe that animals were created for man, not the other way around.

I think the Muslim situation goes to trying to force your beliefs on other people. It never works, and is wrong. Funny how we meandered into a religious discussion...

[M.Dancer]

Most mainline christian churches accept Jesus' claim that he was God and died for the sins of the world, bringing us into the New Testament dispensation. This means that all of the laws from the OT have been replaced. That is why these churches do not follow these laws.

I don't think most churches would agree....for instance the 10 commandments and laws regarding consanguinity.

[sharkman]

Ask 'most' churches what they think about Jesus and the ten commandments. I have the answer, but I don't want to spoil this discovery for you.

[M.Dancer]

Ask 'most' churches what they think about Jesus and the ten commandments. I have the answer, but I don't want to spoil this discovery for you.

Go for it...every jot and tittle.

[WIP]

From what I've read, the kosher killing of an animal is not as awful as you believe, but certainly the animal's life before this must be scrutinized as well.

You're still not getting my point. Commercial meat processors are required to stun the animals first, before they are killed. This is not allowed in kosher and halal butchery, since they require that the throat is slit and the animal's blood to be drained while it is still alive. The same rules should apply in both cases!

If it is deemed cruelty to animals by the state, then it is still cruelty to animals when it is all dressed up in religious ritual. If it is not, then every other meat processor should have the same right to use this method of slaughter without having to apply for a religious exemption.

You probably have a dim view of the way most modern farms raise animals too.

It is often said, that most modern city-dwellers would have to become vegetarians if they had to hunt and prepare their own meats. I would probably fit in that category.

I just can't work up a great deal of concern over this, perhaps it's because I believe that animals were created for man, not the other way around.

I think the evidence from the fossil record and DNA research is pretty conclusive that humans are not above and separate from other animals, but instead occupy a branch among the primates in the mammal class. And I also think that the perspective of being a primate with a larger cerebral cortex makes us have more respect for the natural world around us. The mindset that animals were created to be our playthings has contributed to an attitude of careless disregard of nature as a whole. We may have to pay a heavy price for this attitude in the coming years.

I think the Muslim situation goes to trying to force your beliefs on other people. It never works, and is wrong. Funny how we meandered into a religious discussion...

Since the thread topic is about France's criminalization of speech that criticises Muslim religious customs that include animal sacrifice, it's pretty much a religious discussion to begin with!