Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 And I certainly don't take this guy's point of view to represent all Catholics... The Catholic League's Bill Donohue created a bit of controversy last week when he responded to the deadly attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo that killed a dozen people by declaring that the victims essentially brought the attack upon themselves by intentionally insulting Muslims and other religious believers. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/donohue-if-someone-kills-piss-christ-artist-it-will-be-artists-own-fault Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 I doubt it. And yet 80% or more Muslims support Sharia law and all that entails in many nations. "a few" "many" ... I have already commented on such words. What a pompous response. Most of us are familiar enough with the English language to discern the difference between 'a few' and 'many'. As in, a few Christian nuts support killing over abortion, but many, many, many, many Muslims support killing over cartoons, adultery, homosexuality, immoral behaviour (only for women of course), insulting the prophet, blasphemy, apostasy, etc. etc. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 And yet 80% or more Muslims support Sharia law and all that entails in many nations. I think this must be the poll you're citing: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ Do you think we could focus on the 16% of Pakistanis who don't believe in Sharia as the law of the land, when selecting immigrants from Pakistan ? What a pompous response. Most of us are familiar enough with the English language to discern the difference between 'a few' and 'many'. Is a million Muslims many or a few ? Depending on what you're trying to say, it could be either one. As in, a few Christian nuts support killing over abortion, but many, many, many, many Muslims support killing over cartoons, adultery, homosexuality, immoral behaviour (only for women of course), insulting the prophet, blasphemy, apostasy, etc. etc. How "many" think that killing civilians is "never" justified, for example ? Are we going to get into a war of statistics, because I can give you some as well. Unless we agree on an objective, and on objective sources in a discussion quoting statistics and terms like "many" "few" without baselines, numeric qualification ... it's just an exercise in propaganda. Don't you think that Muslims who want to emigrate are naturally more interested in living in a pluralistic society ? You have stated that you don't write off "all" Muslims, and Muslim immigration and therefore assimilation is going to be with us for some time. Why not offer some positive choices for the rest of us to pursue towards integration ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Hudson Jones Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 And yet 80% or more Muslims support Sharia law and all that entails in many nations. Did you mean 80% of Muslims in the world? Are you getting confused by polls again? Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
WestCoastRunner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Did you mean 80% of Muslims in the world? Are you getting confused by polls again? In Argus' world, there are only his personal polls in his mind. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Rue Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Well, on that issue of Jewish cartoons being censored, here's some flesh on the bones of the story I only heard about from a recent interview: Maurice Sinet, 86, who works under the pen name Sine in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, faced charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote in 2009. The piece sparked a slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine. "L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad." A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused in a very strictly manner. Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech. As mocking young Mr Sarkozy converted to Judaism for money, Sine was accused of being Anti-Semitic and faced many preassures leading him to be fired from the weekly magazine. The same magazine published cartoons even insulting the Islam Prophet Muhammad and Muslims yet explained them as “freedom of speech.” Charlie Hebdo published cartoons about Prophet Jesus and Chiristianity, too, causing the magazine being sued 12 times by Catholic Chuch. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism-in-2009 And, the objection to the presentation of Charlie Hebdo as some sort of unprejudiced equal-opportunity offender was also called into question by that Hebdo editor of the time - Philippe Val, later being given a lucrative and high profile government appointment by Sarkozy.....perhaps as a reward...who knows; but it's a lie to claim to be an unbiased critic, so attacking religion without considering the context of who - what groups may belong to that religion, is a complete fraud! Catholicism in France takes a lot of crap because it is the religion of the majority of French and since the majority of French seem to view it largely as an antiquated historical relic, there's not much of a price to be paid for attacking the Catholic Church....since most French Catholics do it also. With Judaism, France has big problems, since they not only have a long, sordid history of persecution and ethnic cleansing (like the rest of continental Europe) France has never come clean about the degree to which the Vichy Nazi-collaborators during WWII worked with the Germans to round up Jews for exile to concentration camps, as well as war crimes within Franc. Perhaps it's not a whole lot different with Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and most other European nations aside from Holland, which collaborated with the Nazis during occupation. But, some occupied countries were more willing collaborators than others. And French governments ever since De gaulle, have operated under the premise of 'we're going to look forward, not backward' which we hear so much in recent years. That Sine case looks like an example of doing a shoulder-check before acting on first impulse. But, since they are so easy to vilify the religion of most of the immigrants at obscene levels, I'm sure they already calculated that the price to pay for offending Algerians is minimal! It's been mentioned a few times that the editor - Charb, drew this cartoon recently that roughly translates as 'still no attacks on France, with the terrorist in the picture proclaiming that he 'still has to the end of January.' Maybe it was the 24/7 police security he was provided by the Government, but it sure looked like he thought he wasn't in danger! In effect, his goading of potential terrorists not only killed him, but others who were working for him! My point is that the pundits jump right from 7/7 to this latest attack when they talk about terrorist attacks in Europe, and don't even think about the Norway Massacre.....that's what's telling! Beyond me how you turn that into a double standard.. you do realize that thanks to Snowden, his leaks compromised counter-intelligence operations across Europe and for all you know enabled this latest attack and more to come? The White House nor CIA and NSA officials have not produced one single example of where Edward Snowden's revelations have caused deaths or endangered anyone's safety! What the leaks endangered was the extraordinary powergrab by the NSA and private security apparatus...remember Snowden was working for a private contractor! And he had access to anyone, absolutely anyone's private information with a few clicks of the mouse at his computer. I have no doubt that one of the reasons why almost every Democrat and Republican politician in the U.S. is so averse to criticizing the abuses, the corruption and the ever-growing costs of the military apparatus is because they are already being blackmailed by their own security establishment! And, this is where free speech really serves a purpose that could benefit most people! Freedom to create obscene cartoons is at best - superfluous, and potentially corrosive, as some critics of Hebdo noted that pro-war propaganda prior to both world wars by nationalists and fascists on both sides, featured defamatory cartoons of their respective enemies and groups accused of being possible collaborators within their borders. Excellent well thought out response. Thank you.I appreciate the hard work in your response. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 In Argus' world, there are only his personal polls in his mind.Not to mention that "Sharia Law" is not qualified here. Is this the Sharia Law that stones women who were raped and forces people to cover themselves head-to-toe in blankets? Or is it the more moderate Sharia Law that resembles the Christian and Jewish family tribunals that exist in Ontario (still not sure if they were banned or not). Quote
GostHacked Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Not to mention that "Sharia Law" is not qualified here. Is this the Sharia Law that stones women who were raped and forces people to cover themselves head-to-toe in blankets? Or is it the more moderate Sharia Law that resembles the Christian and Jewish family tribunals that exist in Ontario (still not sure if they were banned or not). Sharia Law is not welcome in Canada. It is not compatible with the laws that govern this land. And I believe when a group tried to get a Sharia Law or a similar Muslim family court, the laws said no, and even disbanded the Jewish family courts as well. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 And I believe when a group tried to get a Sharia Law or a similar Muslim family court, the laws said no, and even disbanded the Jewish family courts as well. Partly right - again it's hard to find the source, but The Guardian indicates: "Such was the political feeling that the province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, eventually dismissed Boyd's recommendations. He was also forced to ban other religions which had been using faith-based tribunals." http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost So it was a political decision, not a legal one. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) And I believe when a group tried to get a Sharia Law or a similar Muslim family court, the laws said no, and even disbanded the Jewish family courts as well. And so in typical fashion, humanity takes another hard earned step forward out of darkness towards rationality. The path to enlightenment is painful but worth the effort. Nobody dies in vain. Edited January 13, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
GostHacked Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 So it was a political decision, not a legal one. And a good one. It also makes sense legally to only have one legal system in Canada. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 And a good one. It also makes sense legally to only have one legal system in Canada. Well... I like the idea of people being able to choose an arbitrator that they respect, which for religious folks includes clerics. Notwithstanding the problems with including religious people in that list, it's generally a good idea. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Well... I like the idea of people being able to choose an arbitrator that they respect, which for religious folks includes clerics. Notwithstanding the problems with including religious people in that list, it's generally a good idea. If those Clerics can present their case in a normal court of law, then there is no issue. Quote
Argus Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) I guess you missed the part (even though it's right up there for you to see) where one of their own employees had to go to court for making a comment about Sarkozy's son converting to Judaism and then they fired him. So yeah, they do care if they are criticized. But only if it is criticism by the Jews. Yes, life in France is so good for the Jews they need police with automatic weapons to guard their schools. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/frances-new-anti-semitism/article22423577/ http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/13/norman-lebrecht-france-for-jews-cest-termine/ Edited January 13, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Did you mean 80% of Muslims in the world? Are you getting confused by polls again? The numbers have already been posted several times. Is reading difficult for you? Go back to post 310 and click on the link, or get someone to show you how to click on the link. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 In Argus' world, there are only his personal polls in his mind. As the polls have already been posted several times I can only guess that you too lack the ability to figure out how to click on a link. Perhaps you could find someone to instruct you in how that's done. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Not to mention that "Sharia Law" is not qualified here. Is this the Sharia Law that stones women who were raped and forces people to cover themselves head-to-toe in blankets? Or is it the more moderate Sharia Law that resembles the Christian and Jewish family tribunals that exist in Ontario (still not sure if they were banned or not). Do you really think the Muslims of Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt are looking for a 'moderate' version of Sharia law? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 If those Clerics can present their case in a normal court of law, then there is no issue. No... the Clerics are the arbitrators. Maybe you don't understand what the Sharia dustup came from ? It was about using clerics of popular faiths as arbitrators in certain types of non-criminal disputes. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 There are different kinds of Sharia law, each with some very different tenets from others. I believe that any society can choose which kind of "rules" it will govern by. There are very many different societies which have very different laws. The Canadian federal government has decided to allow our aboriginal community to apply their own laws to certain cases. Since the application of regular Canadian law has not appeared to be effective for the aboriginal culture we allow the aboriginals to judge their own cases and set their own sentences. I know of (but cannot cite) cases in an Afghanistan villages where the elders are judge and jury. A man found guilty of the negligent killing of another man has to take on the remaining family of the victim. To send the man to jail would only remove the breadwinner from another family and there will be two families left to starve. That is common sense to them. As to Sharia, I try not to comment on something I know very little about so am trying to find more information. There is lots of information out there about what people (usually from those who know nothing about the process) about how bad or how good it is. I prefer to make my own decisions. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Looks like "Charlie" is publishing a new edition with a cartoon of Mohammed on the cover - with the caption - I forgive you. Is this a brave message a poke in the eye and baiting of fanatic Muslims an attempt to put an end to this a stirring of the embers of violence a brilliant way to increase sales or not worth commenting on? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
poochy Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 I find it a bit strange that some of the people here who in anyway defend some peoples right to believe in subjugating women, punishing homosexuals (possibly by death), beheading as criminal punishment, death for idolatry, and any other number of pretty abhorrent things, would be the first to condemn Christians for even mentioning that say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Yes, bombing abortion clinics is bad, killing abortion doctors is bad, i think their have been 8 total murders like this in the USA, maybe US/Can combined. No reasonable person thinks that most Christians support this, i doubt that most Muslims support the murdering of 12 cartoonists either, however, that does not mean that the ratio of those who do, from either religion, must somehow be the same, or close to the same. It's a comparison that just doesn't need to be made. There isn't much point in arguing details because some will simply never be convinced, but there are plenty of obvious reasons to think that there are far more fundamentalist Muslims in the world than fundamentalist Christians, far, far more. And of those, far more of them are ok with violence, look at the places where most Muslims live and tell me it isn't likely that their beliefs are more reflected in the terrible laws of most of those places. Where it gets scary is if or when you no longer have the luxury or rationality to decide that you can suffer the relative few who might be violent in order to protect the majority who aren't. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Looks like "Charlie" is publishing a new edition with a cartoon of Mohammed on the cover - with the caption - I forgive you. Is this a brave message a poke in the eye and baiting of fanatic Muslims an attempt to put an end to this a stirring of the embers of violence a brilliant way to increase sales or not worth commenting on? Literally, it says 'all is forgiven'. Is this a brave message YES a poke in the eye and baiting of fanatic Muslims YES an attempt to put an end to this YES a stirring of the embers of violence NO a brilliant way to increase sales NO - they don't need that at this point Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 I find it a bit strange that some of the people here who ... I think most people here are for freedom of religion and against the joining of church and state. Do you have counter examples ? Yes, bombing abortion clinics is bad, killing abortion doctors is bad, i think their have been 8 total murders like this in the USA, maybe US/Can combined. At what percentage do you feel we should attribute the actions of some to a "group" ? The question is fully loaded. No reasonable person thinks that most Christians support this, "Most" is a quantifiable word. "Some" "a few" "many" aren't. i doubt that most Muslims support the murdering of 12 cartoonists either, however, that does not mean that the ratio of those who do, from either religion, must somehow be the same, or close to the same. It's a comparison that just doesn't need to be made. I agree. Unless you're trying to argue that one group is "worse" than the other, then this comparison would be your first step I suppose. but there are plenty of obvious reasons to think that there are far more fundamentalist Muslims in the world than fundamentalist Christians, far, far more. I think that's probably true, but I already thought that. I don't need convincing. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) delete Edited January 13, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 With Judaism, France has big problems, since they not only have a long, sordid history of persecution and ethnic cleansing (like the rest of continental Europe) France has never come clean about the degree to which the Vichy Nazi-collaborators during WWII worked with the Germans to round up Jews for exile to concentration camps, as well as war crimes within Franc. Perhaps it's not a whole lot different with Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and most other European nations aside from Holland, which collaborated with the Nazis during occupation. But, some occupied countries were more willing collaborators than others. And French governments ever since De gaulle, have operated under the premise of 'we're going to look forward, not backward' which we hear so much in recent years. The Netherlands actually collaberated. It was Denmark that has the stellar record. Neither Vichy nor directly occupied France comes out well. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.