satire, freedom, sacrilege, abuse

[aitor iriarte]

Oh, don't worry about that , Theo, we already are on the OT section! :wink:
I hate wars and terrorism equally. I remember a quote from 'Little drummer girl' where a Palestinian said that the only difference between terrorists and (say) established States is that the former deliver their bombs by hand and the later, by plane. I add: And all of them kill innocents, mainly!
Returning to topic, it is somehow obscene the way that both, terrorists and established States use gods and religions to justify their bombs...
Perhaps that is the worst kind of blasphemy... And nobody is thinking of enacting a law against it...

Aitor

[marsvigilia]

Islam is the religion of peace.
And death to all that disagree.
--
>|P. Dominus Antonius|<
Tony Dah m

Oderint dum metuant - Cicero
Si vis pacem, para bellum - Vegetius

[Praefectusclassis]

I would like to remind all members that this thread survives because of the board administration's leniency despite the flagrant breach of one of the board rules. All members are cautioned to react in a civilized manner with arguments to the discussion.
Since this thread is already outside the bounds provided by board rules, board administrators reserve the right to (temporarily) deactivate or ban members on sight for inflammatory statements or ad hominem attacks. Think before you post!

[Theodosius the Great]

Oh, don't worry about that , Theo, we already are on the OT section!

Hello Aitor. Be that as it may, I wanted to show respect to Goffredo since he started the thread.

the only difference between terrorists and (say) established States is that the former deliver their bombs by hand and the later, by plane. I add: And all of them kill innocents, mainly

With due respect, that's an oversimplification. That type of warfare is known as "total war" which hasn't always existed and isn't always practiced. In the middle ages and ancient times, warfare was practiced between two opposing armies and usually didn't involve civilians getting killed unless we're talking about a siege.

The last war that was "total" in nature and practiced by all sides was World War II. The "Battle of London" and "Dresdan" come to mind in the European theatre.

And we should remember that terrorists often use their own civilians as human shields. Iran has built nuclear facilities underneath civilian neighborhoods in the hope that if the US will bomb them that the Yanks will get bad press for killing civilians. Nice guys aren't they ?

it is somehow obscene the way that both, terrorists and established States use gods and religions to justify their bombs...

Is there a Western country who bombed another in the name of a religion? Or are you refering to Islamic nations ? Either way, warfare is simply a given in this world - with or without religion.

[aitor iriarte]

Mmmmh, I think that I agree wholeheartedly with what Comerus says some posts ago (edited version)...
If there have been in the past some nasty problems discussing such trivia like tunic colours I simply don't want to imagine the level we could reach if the topic is current politics and religions... I'm off this thread but I'll keep an eye in it as moderator.

Aitor

[Robert Vermaat]

Isn't ironic that the vast majority of islamics that are protesting haven't even seen the drawings?

It's difficult to taunt a billion people all at once, even in this age of mass media :wink:

See my point about organised demos. In beirut, about 140 demonstrators were detained and - surprise, surprise - more than half of them turned out to be Syrians. The Lebanese governemnt has already lodged an inignated protest with the Syrian govt. about this (yet another) attempt at destabilising Lebanon.

Keep a good loukout about this - it's not all religion vs. freedom of speech! These things are often organised and playing the religion card plays into the hands of those wanting to destabilise East-West affairs.

I am not a relativist and to think a terrorist is some one else's freedom fighter is a very good example of relativism.

Good point. Real "freedom fighters" don't deliberately kill innocents. Once you do that, you've crossed a BIG line. Here goes a karma point for you, Goffredo.

I'm sorry, but aren't you thinking this through tothe end? When my country was occupied, the resistance also killed innocents when that meant hurting the German occupation or safeguarding their own organisations. And that included risking the mistakes of hurting/killing the innocent.
So you're saying the Dutch resistance were terrorists? They crossed the line? That's what the Germans said, for sure.

[Robert Vermaat]

Islam is the religion of peace.
And death to all that disagree.

Tony,
Please get some more information before you write such hurting generalisms which no ground whatsoever. FYI, really religious Islamics always denounce terrorists as un-Islamic. Only the fanatics claim they are allowed to kill. Which reminds me of similar groups in Christianity (anti-abortionists), Judaism and Hinduism. Don't condemn millions for the extremisms of hundreds.

And to what end? Those who want to incite Muslims argue that we are the 'crusaders', only wanting to subjugate them and keep Jerusalem from them.
So who wins with such groundless arguments?

[Carlton Bach]

While some European newspapers are framing their provocation as a fight for free speech, I think the cartoons qualify as "hate speech" against religion in general.

I predict the escalating outcry will bring about the enactment of "anti-blasphemy laws" in Europe, which I whole-heartedly approve of

Freedom of speech has its limits.

But we have blasphemy laws. I don't know the exact details of the Danish one, but in Germany, the maxiumum sentence for blasphemy or hate speech is 3 years (and there are separate laws to cover Nazi propaganda, use of Nazi symbols, and incitement to hate crime). Quite enough, methinks, givem the questionable uses it has been put to at the hands of the established churches in the past.

Also, a lawsuit was brought and thrown out on grounds, IIRC, (I get this from a Danish friend, I don't read Danish very well) that the cartoons were tasteless and offensive, but not in breach of the law.

[Carlton Bach]

As for actual anti-blasphemy laws, when a priest, a preacher, a rabbi and an imam open their mouths at prayer they will all likely be criminals for blaspheming against one of the other faiths

Again, it has to do with the context. If the clergy do as you suggest they're likely to do inside a place of worship then that should be nobody's business. Places of worship and the home should be neutral ground, IMO.

That would defeat the purpose of the law, though, not to mention create an unaceptable double standard. Much of the hate speech that people are most concerned over today takes place in mosques, churches, temples and chapels. If you were to exempt these venues, that would simply mean that person 1 could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for saying that Jews were vermin at a party meeting, but person 2 could say the same with impuinity from the prayer niche of his mosque. It also opens a whiole can of worms about what constitutes a 'place of worship'. Do Quaker meetings qualify, even if they are held at home? (Not that Im terribly concerned about Quaker terrorism, but many less savoury groups have adopted the house church model lately). What about holding a Kameradschafts-meeting at home?

When it comes to blasphemy/hate speech legislation I think it's all or nothing. Otherwise, sorting these out is going to be a legal nightmare, especially in a setting where you don't have case law.

And then we have the atheists, which has the potential to put a huge percentage of Europe in court

So minority rights go out the window ? Tough for them, I say. If someone can't suppress his bigotry, then maybe he should take one of those infamous "sensitivity courses" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But why should atheists be required to suppress their bigotry all the time if religious people are free to voice theirs in a place of worship?

Not to mention that by the lights of many religions (not necessarily their adherents, but certainly by their sacred texts), atheists and polytheists commit blasphemy by *existing*. UNder German law, the gauge for what blasphemy is permissible is the highly flexible concept of 'likely to disturb the public peace'. I think somethiong like this is going to be necessary if you want to enact a law of this kind, and even then it is at best an unsatisfactory solution to a worse problem.

[Carlton Bach]

Isn't ironic that the vast majority of islamics that are protesting haven't even seen the drawings? How could they have for their press could not print them. Tragic.

Actually, many of them saw them. Certain organisations of concerned citizens, based mostly in mosques and receiving funding from sources that remain unclear, helpfully printed vast amounts of booklets showing these cartoons for the education of the public. It has been claimed in the media repeatedly, and I suspect truthfully, that these booklets contain several very offensive cartoons not originally published by the Jyllads Posten.

The approach just sounds so familiar...

I am convinced terrorism is a profound sacrilege, certainly more than any vignette. And, when I am in an optimistic mood, I tend to think that probably most normal people including muslims think so too. Then there are the relativists and the intoxicated that are convinced otherwise.
I am not a relativist and to think a terrorist is some one else's freedom fighter is a very good example of relativism.

While I do subscribe to the idea that the means justify the ends rather than the other way around, I must disagree with this. The real world, unfortunately, is not that clear, and I am grateful I do not live in the Gaza strip or Helmand province and do not have to make such decisions.

I would also caution against overreliance on any media outlet. While it may not be true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it seems that one man's freedom fighter is invariably someone's terrorist.

[Robert Vermaat]

the only difference between terrorists and (say) established States is that the former deliver their bombs by hand and the later, by plane. I add: And all of them kill innocents, mainly

With due respect, that's an oversimplification. That type of warfare is known as "total war" which hasn't always existed and isn't always practiced. In the middle ages and ancient times, warfare was practiced between two opposing armies and usually didn't involve civilians getting killed unless we're talking about a siege.

I have to disagree. Think of the Jewish Wars in the 1st c. AD. On modern accounts, you could call the Jewish opposition ‘terrorists’ (think of the Sicarii), and it involved not only the towns but the whole countryside. Armies at war usually devastated the countryside they swept through. Ever read the accounts of the atrocities of armies during the Hundred Years’ War or the Thirty Years War in Europe? Gruelling. War is hell.

The last war that was "total" in nature and practiced by all sides was World War II. The "Battle of London" and "Dresdan" come to mind in the European theatre.
And we should remember that terrorists often use their own civilians as human shields. Iran has built nuclear facilities underneath civilian neighborhoods in the hope that if the US will bomb them that the Yanks will get bad press for killing civilians. Nice guys aren't they ?

Neither side in a violent conflict can always be the good side or always the bad side.
But you don’t need a total war to deliver bombs by planes that kill innocents. No state that kills terrorists can afford to halt an attack on account of the risk that innocent mums pushing prams suddenly cross the road and get in the way of a plane-delivered, laser-guided missile.
Which happens all too often. I think Aitor is correct here, killing innocents is not only the hallmark of terrorists.

it is somehow obscene the way that both, terrorists and established States use gods and religions to justify their bombs...

Is there a Western country who bombed another in the name of a religion? Or are you refering to Islamic nations ? Either way, warfare is simply a given in this world - with or without religion.

Nazist Germany came close.. Does communism count as a religion? As for bombing, political reasons are equal to religious reason as far as I’m concerned. Religious terrorism (IRA) is also found in non-Islamic countries.

Yes, I’m a relativist. Being a historian may give me a different view on events, in my case at least.

[Theodosius the Great]

When my country was occupied, the resistance also killed innocents when that meant hurting the German occupation or safeguarding their own organisations. And that included risking the mistakes of hurting/killing the innocent.
So you're saying the Dutch resistance were terrorists? They crossed the line? That's what the Germans said, for sure.

Hi Vortigern. Yes, I believe I have thought this through.

When you say "risking the mistakes of hurting/killing the innocent" that implies non-deliberate killing, which is always a risk in warfare. So, my answer is "no, the Dutch resistence weren't terrorists".

However, even if the resistence did deliberately kill innocents, my answer would still be "no" because it took place in the context of "total war." If the Allies are practicing it on the outside, why shouldn't the occupied peoples practice it from the inside ?

But we have blasphemy laws.

I'm sorry they aren't enforced. I don't know why these cartoons aren't considered blasphemous (yet).

When it comes to blasphemy/hate speech legislation I think it's all or nothing

It depends on what the goal is. If they are meant to make the public square a more civil place, then banning blasphemy in public is as far as it needs to go.

Banning blasphemy in the home and places of worship would in effect create a totalitarian state. So, I don't agree with "all or nothing."

I don't approve of the designation of crimes as "hate" because all crime is based on hate. The label creates special protection for some groups at the expense of freedom from the rest.

But why should atheists be required to suppress their bigotry all the time if religious people are free to voice theirs in a place of worship?

I'm talking about the public square which would be a neutral ground. No bigotry, period.

Not to mention that by the lights of many religions (not necessarily their adherents, but certainly by their sacred texts), atheists and polytheists commit blasphemy by *existing*.

That's would be a problem if you live under a theocracy -like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

These are very interesting hypotheticals, but with a little common sense everything can work out just fine.

[Theodosius the Great]

I have to disagree. Think of the Jewish Wars in the 1st c. AD. On modern accounts, you could call the Jewish opposition ‘terrorists’ (think of the Sicarii), and it involved not only the towns but the whole countryside. Armies at war usually devastated the countryside they swept through. Ever read the accounts of the atrocities of armies during the Hundred Years’ War or the Thirty Years War in Europe? Gruelling. War is hell.

I don't see an inconsistency with my earlier statements, because the wars that you mention were dominated by siege warfare. I qualified my statement as such.

killing innocents is not only the hallmark of terrorists.

I agree with you that killing innocents is not the exclusive hallmark of terrorists. Rather, the label "terrorist" has to do with the kill ratio between civilians and combatants. If far more of the former are deliberately killed, then the purpetrator is using terrorist tactics. Otherwise, you're a rebel and not a terrorist, IMO.

Nazist Germany came close.. Does communism count as a religion?

You could legitamately consider it as such. I think atheism can be, too. But if you're going to lump them in, then I think a better word to use is "ideology".

[Robert Vermaat]

When my country was occupied, the resistance also killed innocents when that meant hurting the German occupation or safeguarding their own organisations. And that included risking the mistakes of hurting/killing the innocent.
So you're saying the Dutch resistance were terrorists? They crossed the line? That's what the Germans said, for sure.

When you say "risking the mistakes of hurting/killing the innocent" that implies non-deliberate killing, which is always a risk in warfare. So, my answer is "no, the Dutch resistence weren't terrorists".

I still think you are making too much of a difference between ‘total war’ and ‘armed conflict’, which may entail anything from guns to artillery, but still be quite limited.

Also, such limitations make it impossible for an oppressed people to fight for their rights without a standing army, armour and an air force. Outside the question of killing innocent civilians (see below, I agree with you on that) I would say it depends on whose point of view you share.
For instance, Palestinian use of force (whether against military or civilian targets, discriminate or indiscriminate) is seen as terrorism. On the other hand, similar actions by Jewish forces in the 1930s and 1940s are still seen as freedom fighting. Or to cite another conflict, for a long time the IRA-protestant conflict in Northern Ireland was similarly viewed.
(My apologies, I had hoped to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of this – but the example for ‘point-of-view’ purposes is too obvious).
You don’t need total war, apparently, to get an apologetic view for one group whereas the other can get universal condemnation. I’m still for relativism.

I have to disagree. Think of the Jewish Wars in the 1st c. AD. On modern accounts, you could call the Jewish opposition ‘terrorists’ (think of the Sicarii), and it involved not only the towns but the whole countryside. Armies at war usually devastated the countryside they swept through. Ever read the accounts of the atrocities of armies during the Hundred Years’ War or the Thirty Years War in Europe? Gruelling. War is hell.

I don't see an inconsistency with my earlier statements, because the wars that you mention were dominated by siege warfare. I qualified my statement as such.

Nope, they weren’t. There were sieges, sure, but by far the most conflicts hit the population outside of the towns in all three conflicts mentioned.

killing innocents is not only the hallmark of terrorists.

I repeat : innoncents will ALWAYS die in warfare. That's a given. But, I agree with you that killing innocents is not the exclusive hallmark of terrorists. Rather, the label "terrorist" has to do with the kill ratio between civilians and combatants. If far more of the former are deliberately killed, then the purpetrator is using terrorist tactics. Terrorism and warfare = apples and oranges (IMO)

Now there I completely agree with you. That’s in the name – terror through targeting of civilians.
Apples and oranges, however, are both fruit.
I hate fruit.

[Theodosius the Great]

Also, such limitations make it impossible for an oppressed people to fight for their rights without a standing army, armour and an air force.

I think you can be a rebel without being a terrorist. I edited my statement somewhat above before you responded.

For instance, Palestinian use of force (whether against military or civilian targets, discriminate or indiscriminate) is seen as terrorism. On the other hand, similar actions by Jewish forces in the 1930s and 1940s are still seen as freedom fighting

Although I think the Jewish cause for the establishment of Israel was just, I think it is disingenuous to say that they did not use terrorist tactics to acheive it. The same goes for the IRA. I sympathize with both of their causes, but I didn't agree with the tactics they used. I try not to let my sympathies blind me to the truth.

Nope, they weren’t. There were sieges, sure, but by far the most conflicts hit the population outside of the towns in all three conflicts mentioned.

You can mention Caesar, too. Okay, I stand partially corrected. Total war did exist in earlier times, but I maintain that they were the exception and not the norm. Even today they aren't common, so that Palestinian who commented on war was using too broad a brush.

Apples and oranges, however, are both fruit.
I hate fruit.

Me too :!: :wink: