12 killed in shooting at satirical newspaper office in Paris

First of all I don't know the religious views of this forum please don't group me with these people who did this just because im muslim. It's not in my islam to harm anybody for that matter.

I just wanted to say that shooting & killing people in the name of prophet (peace be upon him) is much worse than even those cartoons in my eyes.

I also wanted to point out one of the police officers who died defending charlie hebdo was a muslim.
more about that here: http://uk.businessinsider.com/ahmed...ficer-killed-in-charlie-hebdo-shooting-2015-1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ck-commemorated-with-jesuisahmed-9966891.html

We muslims are taught by our prophet (peace be upon him) to have good character so that kind of stuff killing etc goes totally against it. But i am also not saying that these cartoons are a good thing they are mocking a way of life followed by billions across the globe, we have a right to show our emotions however in a good way so you can understand and not in the way shown by these people who seem to think its in the name of islam

I'm also adding this link basically this sums up our stance on it, this was a speech which was done before one of the friday prayers talking about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzP8e9b_OT8

Also I will not be commenting any more on this thread basically ive posted my view and that's that and i apologiise if i have offended you in anyway, I'm just an ordinary guy like you who loves all things computers and I happen to believe that God created me. [End]

 

That is indeed tricky and I'm not sure that I have an answer to that --although if enough people don't like their oppressor, then a revolt will inevitably happen sooner or later. It is then that we can legitimately offer assistance.

Another tricky issue in this is of course that although the population may be mostly unanimous in their dislike of their tyrant, they may have very divergent (and most strongly expressed) opinions about who he should be replaced by. This is a problem we see for instance in Libya, Syria and to an extent, Iraq. Our idea of a suitable replacement government may not be theirs. They may not even be able to make up their own minds.

Given that it is the local population who ends up living with (and not infrequently, dying because of) the consequences, I feel that it is the local population who should decide whether it is worth taking the risk of revolt and civil war. It's their lives --we should let them choose how to live it or what to risk it for.

 

I have to agree with the revolt sentiment after all real change comes from within, be that personal change or change on a country wide scale, sadly humans find it difficult to stand idly by when they see an 'injustice' being done to others, hence our willingness to get involved in things that we probably shouldn't.

I don't think you have offended anyone.
I think most people know that these type of people don't reflect the Muslim community as a whole, well at least i do.

 

Just because it goes through the courts does not automatically bestow legitimacy. Especially given the dubious origin of the law gaining actual power to prosecute and as was stated in the video no political parties actually agree with it. You know, those people that represent the rest. I certainly didn't get an opportunity to vote on it,

There are a number of examples of the catholic church doing similar. I can't for example buy a drink on good Friday. The ban is all above board and nice and legal. But it doesn't change the fact that the catholics are forcing what they consider sacred on everyone by means of moronic law. Regardless of whether you're a subscriber or not.

The point Nexxo is that no, extremist are not the only ones who force their religious beliefs on others. Given half a chance religious moderates will do it too.

 

I think you'll find it does. If political parties don't agree with it, they can repeal the law. There's a whole legal process for it.

Can't buy a drink on Good Friday? Pour yourself a drink at home. We can't expect everyone to cater to our will either.

Actually, given half the chance everybody will do so. You for instance would force a Catholic landlord to serve you on Good Friday, even if he doesn't want to.

 

It seems this government won't allow a referndum on it in spite of sufficient opposition.

Ah the old "sure it's only one day" argument. It's completely irrelevant. It's the principle of suppressing others based on what you consider sacred.

Would you prefer a less trivial example? OK what about Catholic control of the majority of state primary schools.Which will assign priority placement to those of the same faith. These are state schools not fee paying schools.

If I wasn't on my phone there would be a massive Piccard face palm picture here.

The Catholic can close their business if they want to. There's nothing I can or would do stop them. However anyone else, including a Catholic that doesn't care should be allowed to remain open.

It's all quite simple. Do what the **** you want. Just don't stop others from doing whatever the **** it is they want.

 

I'm not sure you can say most Church of England primary schools are Catholic as technically there protestant not Roman Catholic, not that it makes a huge difference.

Also there is a clear policy in primary schools to have a mix of students with a multicultural background you can't discriminate based on faith. However I'm not sure how this applY's to academy's etc.

 

There is a legal and political framework for challenging that, so I suggest the people use it, just like the aforementioned Muslim lecturer is using it. Else, they can make their opinion known at the next general election. But don't get annoyed because the Muslim lecturer is getting off his ass to influence the political process while you're not.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the Catholic landlord has a right not to serve you on Good Friday just as much as you have the right to enjoy a drink on Good Friday. This law does not stop you in any way from having one at home. If there was a law that stated that you could not have an alcoholic drink at all on Good Friday, at neither a pub nor in the privacy of your own home, then I would argue that other people's beliefs are forced on you. But as long as you can do what you want, without forcing others to collude with this, it's all good.

Again, if the people don't like it, the people can challenge it. You don't live in a dicatorship; you live in a democracy. There are legal and political processes for challenging government.

 

I don't think that our governments' motives are so altruistic (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but can be), but it's true: most normal human beings hate to stand by and watch people suffer. However in mental health and social services we quickly learn that sometimes people don't want to be helped because they don't see themselves as having a problem, or at least not a problem that they want solved in a way that we propose to solve it. Sometimes they want help but only on their own (unhelpful) terms. Sometimes they aren't particularly grateful for the help they got and turn around to bite the hand that helped them. Sometimes they develop a dependency on such help and won't take responsibility to help themselves. Like I said: tricky.

Agreed.

 

Nice ad hominem. I won't be side tracked on the point of discussion however.

He threatened to use a legal framework to enforce his views. To ensure those outside his faith are made to keep sacred what he believes is sacred. Regardless of whether they agree or not. He is within his legal right to do so. That doesn't change the nature of what he is trying to do.

I am prevented from making a normally legal financial transaction without choice. Business owners are prevented from legitimately conducting operations without choice. Secondary businesses are affected as a result. These are situations which occur directly as a result of a group of religious people forcing their version of what is sacred on those who do not believe or care to follow their views.

Yes and it is being challenged. Those challenges have not worked to date. That doesn't change the nature of how one religious group discriminates against another.

This is what religious moderates do. They try to enforce their beliefs on others. Sometimes legally sometimes illegally. You can find numerous examples all over the world. Teaching creationism in American science classes for example. Sometimes these forced attempts are successful, sometimes they are not. The fact that they can be challenged or are perhaps unsuccessful doesn't change that this is the nature of religious moderates.

 

And we/you can use that same legal framework to challenge his view, no ?

It seems you are saying that religious moderates use the system to their own advantage, and there is no denying that they do, but that is why people have to be constantly vigilant of such attacks on their freedoms, and their liberties.

The freedoms and liberties we take for granted everyday are under constant attack and it's up to society as a whole to make sure they speak out to defend them, otherwise one day you wake up to find out those freedoms and liberties no longer exist.

 

I am simply stating that religious moderates will force others to believe or follow their doctrine. I have given some quick and easy examples of where that has occurred in my locale. You could probably find more if you went looking in numerous places. The method with which they use to do so is secondary to this point.

Its not just extremists who force their views on others.

 

It's not an ad hominem; Dr. Selim is using the legal framework to try and get his way and so can you. Don't get mad; get even.

He is not enforcing his views; he is petitioning. So can you.

They are not forcing anything; the law is. And you can challenge that law. It's what the legal process is for. Vote for politicians who will support your cause. That's what elections are for.

If enough people challenge the law, the law is changed. Because a law that nobody obeys is unenforceable.

Discrimination is a whole other debate.

They try to get things their way, sure. But you can use the same processes that they use to challenge them. In fact, as Corky42 says, you're supposed to in order to bring balance to the force. Civil rights: use them or lose them.

No, it's pretty central to this point. If the method that they use is not coercive, they are not forcing.

Religious people are on a continuum from relaxed to fundamentalists. I know plenty of devout Christians or Muslims who don't really care how other people choose to live because they see their faith as a personal matter. There are those who proselytise because that's part of their doctrine, but they'll go away and leave you alone if you ask them to. Then there are those who try to push their views by any legal means possible, and some use any means possible, legal or otherwise. And a few are just batshit crazy, but that has less to do with religion than with personality disorder.

So I'm not feeling the whole "them moderates are trying to force us to be like them" vibe. You are talking about religious people as one homogeneous group with nefarious intent, and people are not like that, and such views are what discrimination is made of.

 

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think the majority of people in the west are absolutely fine about not annoying other people by targeting a groups religion or beliefs, in the name of fun/comedy/satire, or when a minority of risk takers want to show the world how awesome their freedoms are.

The world is not democratic. Is not free. Is not atheist or agnostic. Is not a lot of other things. You can't try and make it what you want. Accept it for what it is and be a good neighbour.

 

And when your neighbour is beating seven bells out of his partner each night and you have to listen to the screams ?

 

Ask the partner if (s)he wants your help. Because not all of them do, sadly, despite the beatings (what can I say? People are messed up like that). And then think carefully about how you can help them.

 

This isn't a valid argument, what's your point?

And ...

Instead of printing pictures of the prophet, or otherwise purposefully insulting the religion and beliefs of people, or - ridiculing - is another great word to use, why not enter into a debate on the subject in the Serious section of the forum with some Muslims?

Why is it ok for the minority to go straight for their jugular and try to piss them off? It isn't. I think, if you want freedoms - don't abuse them.

 

I think it's a valid and interesting analogy. Anyone who has worked with domestic abuse quickly realises that it is not simply a matter of swooping in like a righteous avenger, slapping down the abuser and scooping the grateful victim up in your rescuing arms. It is, as they say, complicated.

Police and social services are often accused of being inert when it comes to domestic abuse. But they have done the dance: shown up to arrest the partner only to have the charges dropped by the victim time and again; reprimanding the abuser only to have he victim turn on them in the abuser's defence; helped the victim leave only for them to return to the abusive household, or seek contact with him again; or to find another abusive relationship. The problem is: there are a whole host of (often not invalid) reasons why a victim is --stays-- in an abusive relationship and they are difficult to fix. There are reasons why abusers become abusers. As a psychologist I feel like I should be permanently wearing a T-shirt at work that says:



The abuse dynamic can happen on all levels and scales, as Zimbardo's experiment graphically demonstrated; even between a government and its people, even between nations. Israel's behaviour towards Palestine is a classic case of the abused child growing up into the abuser in turn. But what do you expect? It's abuser (Germany) was abused itself.

 

Ahh, I see what you did there. Good stuff.

Can we not agree this:

We have freedoms to say whatever we like.
We could print pictures of your Prophet if we like.
We choose not to because we want to be a good neighbour.
Your turn to show us respect.

 

Well you say "Accept it for what it is and be a good neighbour" but what is a good neighbour ?
How do we know what is and isn't annoying other people ?
How do we know you are targeting a groups religion or beliefs ?

If we live our lives like you suggest everyone would be forever walking on eggshells.
In a free society we are free to offend and be offended, if people don't like it they are free to say so, or not buy what you're selling, they are not free to act outside the laws of the land.