We are Charlie

[Tari Landar]

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

Phil, Tari, I hear you. I'm sorry... Maybe i should have not started this thread in the first place. Emotion took over brains and rational thinking for the last 10 days.

As a graphic designer, I replaced a friend at Charlie a few years ago for one month. Yes, they were gross, irreverant, anticlerical et definately not politically correct. But they were also the nicest and gentle guys I've had the chance to meet. I am more mourning this guy's lost than freedom of speech and I apologize if my previous posts were unclear.

BUT, i stand strong on this: people living in France (pr any other country) must accept and respect the rules. This is what a secudemocray should be. 

 

---

Oh, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for, to me, or to anyone. Those are your thoughts, and your feelings and everyone is entitled to them. I mourn the loss of life along with everyone else. I was merely answering the questions you posed and offering answers that it seemed like you might be seeking, perhaps a different perspective, and a different way to look at the responses Charlie Hebdo gets, and has gotten(recently, and in the past) and why they come about.

People get offended all the time, sometimes for no reason at all, it seems, other times, their reasons make perfect sense, but we might not understand it, if we don't look at it from differnet points of view.

Personally, there are some areas of satire I wouldn't dare venture into, and one of them happens to be making fun of others' religion, faith, and religious beliefs. Most wars are begun, for this very reason, as religion is something people tend to hold very sacred. Whether or not I agree with others' religious views, really is irrelevant(to me, or them, for that matter). It's an area I tread very, very carefully, knowing that it's a touchy subject. I strongly believe that many people will point to what happened and say "you poked the bear too much". I don't agree with them, I don't agree that the satire Charlie published, is worthy of any kind of physical attack, verbal, perhaps, physical, absolutely not. But, I can see, and have seen, others, suggest that poking the bear too many times equates to welcoming an attack. Again, i don't agree, but it's definitely out there.

I think the latest cover is distasteful, at least, and horrible of them, at most. Does it deserve further physical and violent attacks? Absolutely not. Is it deserving of verbal attacks....well, it's probably a good thing I don't get to decide that.

[Tari Landar]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't believe for a moment that you or anyone else should apologize for showing your support for the people at Charlie Hebdo.  I believe that what Tari fails to understand is that people are not buying that magazine in support of the views express within it, they're doing so in support of those who are expressing those views and their right to do so without being gunned down like rabid dogs for doing it.

The very notion that criticism of religious institutions should somehow be off limits is the complete opposite of the very idea of free speech.  Satire is not terrorism and should not be treated as such.  Even the most incendiary of speech does not cause the type of damage that does a bullet to the head.  When we stand up in support of free speech, we must do so in support of those with opinions with which we agree and also of those with opinions with which we, not only disagree, but may find offensive.

...Dres

---

Tari doesn't fail to understand, or see, anything. Tari likes to answer questions that ar eposed, and perhaps offer answers the person asking, hasn't yet thought of. I didn't actually share my personal feelings on the matter at all, and, for the most part, I won't, because I know they'd be offensive to people. But I can offer insight from someone who has read a lot more than just one side of the issue, as I am sure many others can.

I fully support free speech, even if I think the delivery of it is absolutely horrid. I fully support their right to publish whatever they wish, satire, offensive, whatever, so long as it is within their rights(and it is). That does not mean I support belittling others religious beliefs. It also doesn't mean that I fail to understand how some might consider that kind of act, even if well within their rights, as "poking the bear". I don't agree with the belief that it is indeed poking the bear, but I can see why others might just think that(and a great many do).

Again, I don't condone the violence, I never have, and I never will. I do support free speech, whether or not I like what comes out of their mouths..or fingers...I support human rights, period. But if asked if it is possible something might be going a little too far, I'm going to answer truthfully, whether someone wants to hear the answer or not. People do think it goes too far, just like they think a lot of other satire goes too far, it is just as much their right to express their distaste for such, as it is Charlie Hebdo's right to publish it. Freedom of speech works more than one way-which was my ending point. People are going to lash out when they think you've overstepped, based on their own beliefs, and you have to be willing to accept that this is their right to do so, even if you don't agree.

On a personal note, I don't agree with a lot of the people that verbally lash out at others who "offend" them. I merely support their right to do so, again, verbally, not violently, and not physically.

[Maryanne Solo]

Shocked and confused because of beliefs stemming from nearly 1.5k years of consanguine relationships? I dont think so.

Historical & scientific evidence abounds. If the evidence that exists doesnt convince you ask mother nature?. She has the answer.

 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

Phil, Tari, I hear you. I'm sorry... Maybe i should have not started this thread in the first place. Emotion took over brains and rational thinking for the last 10 days.

As a graphic designer, I replaced a friend at Charlie a few years ago for one month. Yes, they were gross, irreverant, anticlerical et definately not politically correct. But they were also the nicest and gentle guys I've had the chance to meet. I am more mourning this guy's lost than freedom of speech and I apologize if my previous posts were unclear.

BUT, i stand strong on this: people living in France (pr any other country) must accept and respect the rules. This is what a secudemocray should be. 

 

---

You have nothing to apologize for..Freedom of expression is where emotions and beliefs thrive.

These terrorist failed in thinking they would scare people into another way of thinking.

From the turnout in those pictures they failed miserably..

They have hurt their cause more than ever now..

40 world leaders showing up out in the open in a huge crowd?

If that's not saying FU terrorist,i don't know what is..

Your true emotions are the true uncapped unrestrained you. many people would love to try to put a cap on that kind of freedom with their version of logic..

These terrorist are nothing but brain washed drones doing the bidding of someone else that doesn't believe you or i or anyone should have the kind of power we have in our freedoms..

So much blood has been spilled paying the price for freedoms..There will be much more to come..

So we have to hold strong when the toll is paid and keep showing that fear just won't cut it..It only adds strength in the numbers to embrace it even more..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

You have nothing to apologise to me for, Valerie. The first part of my post to you pointed out that censorship is all around us in the form of 'political correctness', and, on the whole, we willingly accept and agree with it. I.e. it's too late to suggest that "censorship won't ever be acceptable". It is very acceptable already. The second part of my post pointed out that you don't really have a dilema concerning forgiveness.

[Aethelwine]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

I think the latest cover is distasteful, at least, and horrible of them, at most. Does it deserve further physical and violent attacks? Absolutely not. Is it deserving of verbal attacks....well, it's probably a good thing I don't get to decide that.

---

I assume we are talking about the Je Suis Charlie cover?

If so then I disagree 100%. Some other cartoons I have seen go beyond what I would say was sensible, or necessary to make the satirical point they were making.

But the cover in question:

A) leaves it to the viewer to interpret who the Arab is portrayed as.

B) is a message of respect for Islam. The Arab has a tear in his eye and is standing in solidarity against terrorism. The message is not about hate.

In the context of what happened the paper had to declare defiance against the aims of the terrorists or the lives lost would have been in vain.  That would be a far geater scandal than chosing the cover they did with a message of both defiance and respect.

There is a line to be drawn, but you cannot prevent satirical criticisms of religion and belief without forsaking the enlightenment traditions that are an essential element to so much of our lives, not least modernity. Furthermore, if one were to prevent criticsm of religious belief it would mean the suppression of atheist belief.

But lines should be drawn and the principles on which it should be drawn are basically whether the satirical message is hateful (eg. racist), not merely because it causes offence. I say lines because there is a sliding scale from satire which is constructive that makes articulate important points and should be approved of to satire you dissapprove of, that which publishers should consider carefully before publishing and at the extreme end (like blood libels, malicious slander, recruitment to terrorism) with criminal convictions and incarceration.

[Aethelwine]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

---

As a christian, I wish i could forgive. But my guts cannot.

---

As a Christian, there is no need to forgive. God forgives those who ask for it. "

If we confess our sins

, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins

" (1 John 1:9). Those who don't admit their sins don't have God's forgiveness for them, so there is no need for Christians to offer it freely to those who don't admit it, or want it. The hard part would be forgiving someone who does us harm, and then is truly sorry for what they did, but that's the time when a Christian needs to forgive.

 

One more thing. An evil act, like the terrorism in Paris, is never made alright, or even overlooked, by forgiveness. It always remains an evil act. It's the person who receives forgiveness, not the act, and, even then, the forgiven person still has to pay the price in this world for the act. E.g. a person commits a murder, and then is truly and genuinely sorry that s/he did it. The person can receive forgiveness because of the genuine repentance, even from the victim's family, but s/he must still serve the time in jail in this world for the act of murder.

---

I am not sure what version of Christianity you follow but, I always understood forgiveness to be essential for Christians.

Mark 11:25 (NIV)* “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.”

or

Matthew 6:14,15, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.,"

I agree with your second point and the essential thrust of what you are saying. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, or allowing passively without consequence. Forgiveness is not easy, but is it really so hard to take the initial step of feeling sorrow and pity for the terrorists states of mind and circumstances such that they are driven by hate to act out such attrocities.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Furthermore, if one were to prevent criticsm of religious belief it would mean the suppression of atheist belief.

---

It would also mean the suppression of rational discourse and the devaluing of evidence.

Criticism of belief systems, regardless of their source, should always be allowed... and encouraged.

Satire is a powerful means of criticism.

---

There is a line to be drawn, but you cannot prevent satirical criticisms of religion and belief without forsaking the enlightenment traditions that are an essential element to so much of our lives, not least modernity. Furthermore, if one were to prevent criticsm of religious belief it would mean the suppression of atheist belief.

But lines should be drawn and the principles on which it should be drawn are basically whether the satirical message is hateful (eg. racist), not merely because it causes offence. I say lines because there is a sliding scale from satire which is constructive that makes articulate important points and should be approved of to satire you dissapprove of, that which publishers should consider carefully before publishing and at the extreme end (like blood libels, malicious slander, recruitment to terrorism) with criminal convictions and incarceration.

---

I agree about drawing lines between satire and hate speech, but it'll be difficult to draw lines based on whether a criticism is constructive. Who decides what's constructive? I think it's both acceptible and desireable to criticize, even to the point of offense, destructive belief systems. But again, who decides which belief systems are destructive, who decides what's offensive? Many people would be quite glad I'm not making those decisions.

This will continue to be a mess for some time to come.

[Aethelwine]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I agree about drawing lines between satire and hate speech, but it'll be difficult to draw lines based on whether a criticism is constructive. Who decides what's constructive? I think it's both acceptible and desireable to criticize, even to the point of offense, destructive belief systems. But again, who decides which belief systems are destructive, who decides what's offensive? Many people would be quite glad I'm not making those decisions.

This will continue to be a mess for some time to come.

---

Morality and promoting the common good is the responsibility of everyone in equal measure. We may not agree what is or is not moral, therein lies the debate and argument. Our collective view on the subject should be reflected by the laws our elected politician's decide upon. In France Robert Faurisson has had convictions, in Germany and Canada Ernst Zundel. More recently we see the line being drawn with respect to extermist muslim preachers who are linked with terrorism and hate speech. Whilst there are important debates to be had around Freedom of Speech, it is not unlimited and we have and do make rightful convictions limiting it for the good of society.

Where moral decisions are difficult, it does not mean we should shy away from them. Respect other opinions, be open to new ideas, honest with ourselves, guard against hate, victimisation and deflection through blaming others, look to promote respect and universal love, to come to our own moral decisions about where those lines should be drawn.

Offensiveness is something we can all decide upon.... sometimes points are made better by being offensive. Offensiveness in and of itself is not the deciding factor. The deciding factors are the sum of moral considerations including the impact of the action. These are not easy choices to rationalise, but ones we as moral beings have to decide upon to live in a healthy society.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I agree about drawing lines between satire and hate speech, but it'll be difficult to draw lines based on whether a criticism is constructive. Who decides what's constructive? I think it's both acceptible and desireable to criticize, even to the point of offense, destructive belief systems. But again, who decides which belief systems are destructive, who decides what's offensive? Many people would be quite glad I'm not making those decisions.

This will continue to be a mess for some time to come.

---

Morality and promoting the common good is the responsibility of everyone in equal measure. We may not agree what is or is not moral, therein lies the debate and argument. Our collective view on the subject should be reflected by the laws our elected politician's decide upon.

Where moral decisions are difficult, it does not mean we should shy away from them. Respect other opinions, be open to new ideas, honest with ourselves, guard against hate, victimisation and deflection through blaming others, look to promote respect and universal love, to come to our own moral decisions about where those lines should be drawn.

Offensiveness is something we can all decide upon.... sometimes points are made better by being offensive. Offensiveness in and of itself is not the deciding factor. The deciding factors are the sum of moral considerations including the impact of the action. These are not easy choices to rationalise, but ones we as moral beings have to decide upon to live in a healthy society.

---

While I think we should acknowledge other's opinions, I don't think we should feel obliged to respect them. Perhaps you meant that we should respect people's right to hold opinions different from our own, even if those opinions can be proven to be ignorant, hateful or crazy.

I agree that promoting the common good should be the responsibility of everyone in equal measure, but that's not reality, nor is it the belief of a great many people.

You're arguing from a position not shared by everybody on the planet, though probably not far from mine. I'd have less issue with your statements if you said "should" rather than "can".

If I'm this much of a pain in the ass when I'm generally agreeing with you, imagine what I'd be like if I thought you were wrong.

;-).

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Furthermore, if one were to prevent criticism of religious belief it would mean the suppression of atheist belief.

---

It would also mean the suppression of rational discourse and the devaluing of evidence.

Criticism of belief systems, regardless of their source, should always be allowed... and encouraged.

Satire is a powerful means of criticism.

---

There is a line to be drawn, but you cannot prevent satirical criticisms of religion and belief without forsaking the enlightenment traditions that are an essential element to so much of our lives, not least modernity. Furthermore, if one were to prevent criticism of religious belief it would mean the suppression of atheist belief.

But lines should be drawn and the principles on which it should be drawn are basically whether the satirical message is hateful (eg. racist), not merely because it causes offence. I say lines because there is a sliding scale from satire which is constructive that makes articulate important points and should be approved of to satire you disapprove of, that which publishers should consider carefully before publishing and at the extreme end (like blood libels, malicious slander, recruitment to terrorism) with criminal convictions and incarceration.

---

I agree about drawing lines between satire and hate speech, but it'll be difficult to draw lines based on whether a criticism is constructive. Who decides what's constructive? I think it's both acceptable and desirable to criticize, even to the point of offense, destructive belief systems. But again, who decides which belief systems are destructive, who decides what's offensive? Many people would be quite glad I'm not making those decisions.

This will continue to be a mess for some time to come.

---

Look how far we have come...

I Imagine a cave dwelling neanderthal creating a cave painting that depicts the homo sapient in the valley miles over in an amusing light. In the other valley, a cave dwelling homo sapient likewise makes a cave painting that depicts the neanderthal in the valley miles over in an amusing light. Perhaps a visual slur at the others hunting ability.

Many generations later each clan wonders into an abandon cave of the other to view the historical slur. What, pray tell, would the reaction be? Probably nothing other than a snicker of the quality of the cave drawings depiction of hunting. Ahh the beginning of civilization.

All we've done in this day and age is to remove the moderator of time with instant communication of thoughts and ideas.

My point is, uncivilized groups of humans have existed since the dawn of time. Some groups have evolved out of their destructive behaviour. Some haven't. The idiocy of our time is that we foolishly think that by inviting all into a club of civilized nations that somehow this makes all civilized?

It doesn't. The use of critical thought and language does. The adoption of the philosophy that the whole mass of humanity on our planet is worthy of respect and celebration does. On this score, we all fail miserably!

Good and Evil exist.... But we are still a long way from the point where all believe that life is a sacred trust. We had to invent "Politics" the language of lies, to allow those who hate each others civilizations to have the ability to communicate for mostly economic gain.

I don't have an answer to this global problem. I am afraid that what needs to transpire is another huge purge of life on our planet. 

I don't want a part of this purge but that said, what are we to do? What do we supposedly civilized groups of people do with those who kill so easily because of an ideological affront? Don't think for a second that I'm not also talking about western civilization as well.

I'm an American and love my country. But we are lawless under the cover of war, and conduct executions of our enemies daily via robots in countries far away where we no longer have ground troops. We caused this problem within our own country as a matter of idiotic politics both internal and international. And we are not the only western style civilization guilty of this.

But as a privileged member of a western civilization, I am as biased about my wanting it to survive as any Islamic extreamist terrorist & sympathiser is wanton to have the Caliphate of their dreams. Does the majority make the decision in this case?

In the final analysis there are only 2 choices, allow Islamic extremism to exist by isolating it from the rest of the world or eliminate it completely. There is not a 3rd option.

The western world will feel the guilt of this decision for generations to come, but at lease a reasoned civilization will be left in the wake of the horror of this reality. It the religion of Islam is to survive to be practiced, then the reasonable practitioners of it need to understand this as well.

Any Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

valerieInshan wrote:

I just don't know what to think now. Once the emotion and the tears have calmed down, I do believe our society has to deeply think about what should be acceptable or not keeping in mind terror is not and will never be an answer.

Censor

and terror

won't ever be acceptable

but I'm wondering what went wrong here. 

---

Censorship is very acceptable. It's all around us in the form of political correctness (which sometimes is ridiculous). I would see nothing wrong with outlawing/censoring the ridiculing of religions in the same way that other things (political correctness) are outlawed/censored. Imo, having a laugh at other people's expense is bad when the 'other people' are not laughing with you, and religion is one area where those on the receiving end of the ridicule are very unlikely to laugh with you, because real faith is so very deep in a person, and is often the bedrock of a person's life. It can hurt people personally, and often deeply, which is a bad thing to do just for the sake of a laugh.

 

---

I wrote a reply to this when you posted it but Lithium ate my response an I never did get back to it.  But reading how this thread has progressed I've decided to take another shot at this.  Because I disagree when you say that Censorship is very acceptable and that you see nothing wrong with outlawing ridicule of other religions.  Because that forms a very slippery slope.

In our World we have laws against theft or stealing in every country and community that I am aware of.  These laws are predicated upon a very simple concept, that there is a taking of another person's property without their consent, a clearly articulable act.  Then by extension we make conspiracy to break these laws a crime.  Though there is an old joke that it used to be in some instances that conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor was a felony.  (I don't know if that was true).

But when it comes to Freedom of Speech and censorship, the problem is there is no taking of property making it very hard to define what is and what is not acceptable.  You can see this difficulty quite readily in the Community Standards.

"Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment."  LINK

How do you define annoyance?  Most of us find bling annoying.  Should it be banned because the majority of us find it annoying?  In the U.S. Courts have struck down anti harassment laws that used the word "annoy" because it was too vague.  So we get left with subjective judgements.  The only case of Censorship I tend to agree with is when said speech would cause people to fear for their well being. This article by the EFF which someone else posted a link too is an excellent read.  LINK

 

Freedom of Speech requires Freedom from Censorship.  You can not have one with out the other.

 

So I want to make myself perfectly clear.  As long as someone in the name of their religion or if their religion teaches such concepts as "kill the infidel," or espouses FGM, or reduces the value of any persons life, whether male or female, to nothing more than mere chattel, then I am going to speak out against it.  I will mock it, I will criticize it, I will make fun of it in any way I can.  These things have no place in our World because they are the taking of another persons property without their consent.

And even if they don't espouse these things I will reserve my right to say how dumb their beliefs are if that's what I think.  If they can't handle it that is their problem, not mine.

"Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?"

- Frederic Bastiat

[KarenMichelle Lane]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

I just don't know what to think now. Once the emotion and the tears have calmed down, I do believe our society has to deeply think about what should be acceptable or not keeping in mind terror is not and will never be an answer.

Censor

and terror

won't ever be acceptable

but I'm wondering what went wrong here. 

---

Censorship is very acceptable. It's all around us in the form of political correctness (which sometimes is ridiculous). I would see nothing wrong with outlawing/censoring the ridiculing of religions in the same way that other things (political correctness) are outlawed/censored. Imo, having a laugh at other people's expense is bad when the 'other people' are not laughing with you, and religion is one area where those on the receiving end of the ridicule are very unlikely to laugh with you, because real faith is so very deep in a person, and is often the bedrock of a person's life. It can hurt people personally, and often deeply, which is a bad thing to do just for the sake of a laugh.

---

. . .

Freedom of Speech requires Freedom from Censorship.  You can not have one with out the other.

So I want to make myself perfectly clear.  As long as someone in the name of their religion or if their religion teaches such concepts as "kill the infidel," or espouses

FGM

, or reduces the value of any persons life, whether male or female, to nothing more than mere chattel, then I am going to speak out against it.  I will mock it, I will critisize it, I will make fun of it in any way I can.  These things have no place in our World because they are the taking of another persons property without their consent.

And even if they don't espouse these things I will reserve my right to say how dumb their beliefs are if that's what I think.  If they can't handle it that is their problem, not mine.

"Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?"

- Frederic Bastiat

---

Well stated Perrie...are you sure you are from Mars?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

KarenMichelle Lane wrote:

Any Thoughts?

---

I just read that we're fast approaching an interesting new statistic. The World's richest 1% will own half the World's assets. That got me wondering about the religious disperson of wealth. I found that Christians hold 55% of the World's wealth, Muslims 5.8%, Hindus 3.3%. Jews 1.1%. The remaining 34.8% is held by "other". Seven of the 10 richest nations are Christian. Of course we can never be quite sure whether a mogul reports a religion s/he believes in spiritually, or financially.

If you believe that everything ultimately boils down to economics, this doesn't sound encouraging, does it? If you're an angry Muslim adolescent with seemingly no future (particularly in comparison with the excesses now visible to you via the internet), are you likely to think you'll ever sit across the table from a Christian millionaire to discuss morality? Or are you more likely to fall in with the similarly disillusioned, seeking solace in the solidarity of a gang tee-shirt, a macho manifesto, and a gun?

---

Does the majority make the decision in this case?

---

Majority? Did you mean to type money? This could start a whole 'nother conversation about whether some ideologies are more profitable than others.

And don't get me started on drones!

;-).

[Aethelwine]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

While I think we should acknowledge other's opinions, I don't think we should feel obliged to respect them. Perhaps you meant that we should respect people's right to hold opinions different from our own, even if those opinions can be proven to be ignorant, hateful or crazy.

I agree that promoting the common good should be the responsibility of everyone in equal measure, but that's not reality, nor is it the belief of a great many people.

You're arguing from a position not shared by everybody on the planet, though probably not far from mine. I'd have less issue with your statements if you said "should" rather than "can".

If I'm this much of a pain in the ass when I'm generally agreeing with you, imagine what I'd be like if I thought you were wrong.

;-).

---

Respect is one of those double meaning words, I used it in the sense of due regard rather than the deep admiration meaning. I only ever use it to mean deep admiration if I put something like 'deep' or a 'lot of' before it.

Your point about power and the distribution of wealth is a good point and broadens things out a bit. At the point I was saying everyone holds equal responsibility I wasn't intending to be contentious merely restating the basic tenet of a democracy.

And no you aren't a pain in the ass. Not at the moment anyway :-)

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Christians hold 55% of the World's wealth

---

That would be the Catholic Church owning 50% and 5%  people pretending to be christians.

Because real christians would give their wealth away.

Or is that communists?

Although we are dependent upon the (limited) skill of interpreters, it was interesting to see that the pope, if not exactly condoning terrorism, apparently said that it should be expected that those who feel insulted will take disproportionate violent action.

Just like these forums?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

---

As a christian, I wish i could forgive. But my guts cannot.

---

As a Christian, there is no need to forgive. God forgives those who ask for it. "

If we confess our sins

, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins

" (1 John 1:9). Those who don't admit their sins don't have God's forgiveness for them, so there is no need for Christians to offer it freely to those who don't admit it, or want it. The hard part would be forgiving someone who does us harm, and then is truly sorry for what they did, but that's the time when a Christian needs to forgive.

 

One more thing. An evil act, like the terrorism in Paris, is never made alright, or even overlooked, by forgiveness. It always remains an evil act. It's the person who receives forgiveness, not the act, and, even then, the forgiven person still has to pay the price in this world for the act. E.g. a person commits a murder, and then is truly and genuinely sorry that s/he did it. The person can receive forgiveness because of the genuine repentance, even from the victim's family, but s/he must still serve the time in jail in this world for the act of murder.

---

I am not sure what version of Christianity you follow

The Christian version.

but, I always understood forgiveness to be essential for Christians.

Then you understood wrongly, if you mean forgiveness for everything, without the wrongdoer showing any remorse.

Mark 11:25 (NIV)* “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.”

That has no relevance to this discussion. Ask me why if you want to know.

or

Matthew 6:14,15, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.,"

That does not negate the verse I quoted (1 John 1:9), and neither does the verse I quoted negate that. They work perfectly together. Put them together and we see that Christians forgive those who sin against them and repent of it. I.e. since God forgives those

who confess their sins

, so should Christians.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

valerie Inshan wrote:

I just don't know what to think now. Once the emotion and the tears have calmed down, I do believe our society has to deeply think about what should be acceptable or not keeping in mind terror is not and will never be an answer.

Censor

and terror

won't ever be acceptable

but I'm wondering what went wrong here. 

---

Censorship is very acceptable. It's all around us in the form of political correctness (which sometimes is ridiculous). I would see nothing wrong with outlawing/censoring the ridiculing of religions in the same way that other things (political correctness) are outlawed/censored. Imo, having a laugh at other people's expense is bad when the 'other people' are not laughing with you, and religion is one area where those on the receiving end of the ridicule are very unlikely to laugh with you, because real faith is so very deep in a person, and is often the bedrock of a person's life. It can hurt people personally, and often deeply, which is a bad thing to do just for the sake of a laugh.

 

---

I wrote a reply to this when you posted it but Lithium ate my response an I never did get back to it.  But reading how this thread has progressed I've decided to take another shot at this.  Because I disagree when you say that Censorship is very acceptable and that you see nothing wrong with outlawing ridicule of other religions.  Because that forms a very slippery slope.

If it's a slippery slope, w're already on it, and we are happy to accept being on it. Not too long ago, some people decided that calling a black person a n----r, and calling a Chinese person a c---k, etc. is unacceptable, and on the whole everyone agrees. (Oddly, nobody finds it unacceptable to call an English person a pom or a limey

.) So we do have effective censorship already and, on the whole, we find it acceptable.

[...]

But when it comes to Freedom of Speech and censorship, the problem is there is no taking of property making it very hard to define what is and what is not acceptable.  You can see this difficulty quite readily in the Community Standards.

We don't have freedom of speech. We only have it

up to a point

, as you can see from my previous paragraph. The slander and libel laws also restrict freedom of speech. We simply don't have freedom of speech. I would be perfectly happy for the ridiculing of religions to be beyond that point, which is what I stated, and I stated why I think it.

"Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment." 

LINK

How do you define annoyance?  Most of us find bling annoying.  Should it be banned because the majority of us find it annoying?  In the U.S. Courts have struck down anti harrasment laws that used the word "annoy" because it was too vague.  So we get left with subjective judgements.  The only case of Censorship I tend to agree with is when said speech would cause people to fear for their well being. This article by the EFF which someone else posted a link too is an excelent read. 

LINK

I don't think that those two paragraphs are relevent to what I wrote.

Freedom of Speech requires Freedom from Censorship.  You can not have one with out the other.

We don't have freedom of speech.

 

So I want to make myself perfectly clear.  As long as someone in the name of their religion or if their religion teaches such concepts as "kill the infidel," or espouses

FGM

, or reduces the value of any persons life, whether male or female, to nothing more than mere chattel, then I am going to speak out against it

(me too).

  I will mock it

(that would be a wrong thing to do, imo)

, I will critisize it

(definitely)

, I will make fun of it in any way I can

(then you'd be harming your actual desires)

. These things have no place in our World because they are the taking of another persons property without their consent.

(Agreed, but stick to persuasive reasoning rather than ridicule, and you'll be doing well. Ridiculing, mocking, making fun of, etc. would only serve to further alientate those who you would like to change for the better).

And even if they don't espouse these things I will reserve my right to say how dumb their beliefs are if that's what I think.  If they can't handle it that is their problem, not mine.

(By all means, point out the dumbness of such a thing, and explain why it's dumb. That's persuasive reasoning)

---

ETA:

Satire is written for the purpose of making people laugh. It may sometimes make valid points, but it's still done to poke fun at something, or someone, in order to make people laugh. Imo, making people laugh is sometimes not a valid, good, or acceptable reason to poke fun at something or someone.

The satirical magazine in the UK is called 'Private Eye'. The editor is the most sued person ever in the UK - and he keeps losing - and not without good reason.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

We don't have freedom of speech. We only have it

up to a point

,

---

You're right.  And it should be scaring the heck out of people.

[valerie Inshan]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

You're right.  And it should be scaring the heck out of people.

---

Actually, it looks like it does, even for the most daring and iconoclast of them:

(Adapted from Le Figaro.fr)

Charlie Hebdo: no release "in the coming weeks"

The cartoonist Riss, wounded in the attack against Charlie Hebdo on January 7  says that "the next issue will not appear on Jan. 28 but in the coming weeks." He adds, "in the longer term, we will need a radical reform. But it must be mature."

In an interview given today, Riss said he was ready to head the satirical weekly "reinvented" and "transform this tragedy into something creative,". He will lead Charlie Hebdo in tandem with the editor, Gérard Biard, however, he noted that "it is the collective dynamic that will give direction."

"We need to reinvent the newspaper. We must turn this event into something creative. It's not obvious. In the team, some find it hard to overcome that. Myself, I do not know if I get to do it. We'll try, anyway, " said Riss, aka Laurent Sourisseau, who is to be out of the hospital today.

[Ceka Cianci]

I'm curious..

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first amendment rights?

Or, would it be considered a different law that they would have to break for them to be able to violate them?

 

I ask because this bill of rights is part of the constitution which is  a contract between the citizens and the government and not between the citizens and the citizens..

I look at this and see where the only way citizens silence someone from free speech is from them commiting different crime,usually involving violence..

So are they violating someones constitutional rights or are they commiting a different crime all together?

Motivation can be the reason,but motivation not a crime vs the crime itself.

Murder is crime that anyone can commit, where violation of the bill of rights is something i thought only governments could commit..

It can be confusing sometimes with not being able to trust much of anywhere for information..

Heck google can't even anyswer simple questions anymore without throwing 10 pages of news articles because keywords match up to whatever was recently in the news..

One decade something is as it seems, then the next decade it's not..So just wondering where we stand i guess, with all this..

ETA: I'm not sure how other countries do it,it's why i am only questioning about the U.S.

 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first ammendment rights?

---

I'm no lawyer, but according to the Constitution, only Congress can violate the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law...". The first amendment is a contract between Congress (and because the States ratified the Constitution, that includes state and local legislators) and the Government, not between Congress and the Public.

So, we are only free from laws that restrict our speech. We're not free from others restricting it, which happens daily. Walmart doesn't sell porn, Mom can threaten to disown me if I tell anyone she's a lousy cook, etc. Note that in these cases, I'm not truly restricted from speaking, as I can simply suffer the consequence of not shopping at Walmart, or rat on Mom where she can't see me.

The Government has other mechanisms through which it can coerce non-government entities to follow the intent of the First Amendment. For example, they can withdraw tax-free status from non-profits that restrict freedoms of members or beneficiaries. Of course, Congress shall make no law governing religion either, so you can always use Freedom of Religion to restrict Freedom of Speech. That's certainly nothing new.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

I'm curious..

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first ammendment rights?

Or, would it be considered a different law that they would have to break for them to be able to violate them?

 

<snip>

 

---

I'm not sure how a person who is not in a Gov't position could violate that right.

I know there has been a debate whether firing an employee for expressing an opinion is legal but I am unaware of any rulings finding it unlawful.** 

It would have to be as far as I know other laws that would need to be involved.

Example:  We have laws governing minimum wage.  The State won't even allow me of my own volition to work for less.  If they find out they will step in on my behalf and collect the additional wages for me.

I really don't see any confusion here because you are correct that the Bill of Rights is a contract with the Gov't.  The other laws would start with the Constitution itself.  And really I don't know if you can define the Bill of Rights as "laws" in the sense you are thinking.

 

**Here is another side to this issue.  Can a School censor a Student's right to free speech?  LINK

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first ammendment rights?

---

I'm no lawyer, but according to the Constitution, only Congress can violate the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law...".

<snip>

 

---

That was true until the passing of the 14th Amendment.  But the Incorporation Doctrine has probably been the most hotly debated issue in Court history.**  But under the 14th Amendment the Court has held that the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

**Roe vs Wade hinged on it.  The striking down of many State gun control laws has hinged on it.  Etc, etc.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first ammendment rights?

---

I'm no lawyer, but according to the Constitution, only Congress can violate the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law...".

<snip>

 

---

That was true until the passing of the 14th Ammendment.  But the

Incorporation Doctrine

has probably been the most hotly debated issue in Court history.**  But under the 14th Ammendment the Court has held that the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

"

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

**Roe vs Wade hinged on it.  The striking down of many State gun control laws has hinged on it.  Etc, etc.

---

You snipped too soon, Perrie! I said this...

"The first amendment is a contract between Congress (and because the States ratified the Constitution, that includes state and local legislators) and the Government, not between Congress and the Public."

I will admit to not knowing it took until the 14th Amendment to make it clear to the States that they were covered by First.

;-).