France under attack by Islamists (including Erdogan)

That's you..... ignoring thousands of years of Abrahamic religion to focus on Islam. You said "the religious handling of these two books is meant to be completely different and it's explicitly stated", which isn't true at all.

Religion is a major contributor but you can switch out which religion it is based on the time period.... which is my point. Saying only Islam does this and that is just ignorant and flies in the face of human history. I certainly won't disagree that in this time period, Islam is the bigger global threat.

 

I never said they should limit their freedom of speech. In fact, I think their free speech laws don't go far enough in protecting free speech/expression.

Can you quote where I said they should limit free speech?

 

So what if a kid in an Islamic country is drawing with crayons and drew a stick figure and called him the prophet?

does that kid get expelled from school?

@AroundTheWorld

 

What if an artist wants to profit off their work?

 

You said that their religion shouldn't be attacked.

However in France religion is free game for satirism and hybris. Everything is free game.

Limiting satirical and freedom of expression and putting any religion off limits is limiting the soul and heart of France.

I am no french and I don't agree with such secularism but it is who they are.
Change for a minority that doesn't accept the heart and soul of France?

 

Kids are malleable. 100 kids are easy to control. Your book does not have hundreds of years of history and varied cultures built around it.

Option B might be viable in your scenario. This is a good illustration of the limits of analogies.

 

What Islamic country?
If he did that in Bangladesh for example he would be lynched by a mob who then would parade its dead body for everyone to watch and marvel.
In Iran he may be stoned or hanged.

If he did that in Marocco or Tunisia he would survive.

 

Not on principle, and certainly not as a matter of legality. Only as a practical prescription for the problem they are facing.

 

The point is that no matter how many people there are or how much history that book has, in all cases it's the reason for the terrorist act and should therefore be the #1 priority to tackle and solve the issue.

 

I explicitly stated that all religions are garbage and potentially dangerous in my opinion, so not sure where the whataboutism is.

But when it is a fact that in modern times, the vast majority of terrorism is done in the name of Islam, there's very little reason for pointing fingers at the Bible or other religions. It doesn't solve the issue of modern Islamist terrorism anyhow and dodges the uncomfortable truth.

 

And you also explicitly state the Bible and Quran were used differently which isn't true at all. Considering the issue is RELIGION, I'm not sure why looking at the past and recent past isn't useful....

In spite of all that.... I'm more worried about Christian extremists here in Texas, not radically Islamic terrorists. The latter ain't trying to change the laws and take away rights or playing militia soldier in the East Texas woods. I'd have different concerns if I was in Europe.

 

So again..you are saying keep the laws the same on paper but change the actual secularism.
Secularism in France is a way of life. It is not just some law written in the constitution.
That's why like Mr Patty you have elementary school teachers devoting hours to impress on young students the freedom of speech.
It is a fundamental stone of their society.

It's like saying let's keep the law about gun bearing but from now on every american should stop using guns to stop mass shootings.

It doesn't matter what the law says or does't say. Now that secularism is the way of life in France.

That's why there are and will be even more problems

There is crashing between a nation who breaths on hybris and freedom and a religion who doesn't tolerate the smallest slight.

 

Could the prophet even go one day in 2020 without getting photographed or put on TikTok or Instagram in 2020?
No.

Technology > Religion

 

We should talk about the current mainstream philosophy of the books, not about the Old Testament and sects that have nothing to do with what Christianity represents nowadays.
With Islam it's the current ideology to directly follow the Quran, peaceful Muslims acting like the hateful parts don't exist doesn't change that.

The fundamental difference is Islamist terrorists directly following the teachings of their prophet and Quran to commit and defend these acts, while the militia and trump nuts you mention don't follow the Bible at all and want to build their own totalitarian regime that has nothing to do with religion.
Pretty bad comparison.

 

What does Christianity represent nowadays....? I didn't realize there was one version of it......

Huh? Jesus wasn't a prophet? Abraham wasn't a prophet? Last time I checked Jesus kept the company of lepers, prostitutes, and other socially undesirables while preaching turning the cheek. I don't see any of that with the Militias and Trump nuts....they prefer the old testament and making sure the fags and single mothers are put in their place. To Christian fundamentalists .... they are following God's plan.

Pretty ignorant view of Christianity. Funny how fundamentalist Christians and Muslims view homosexuals and women similarly....

Revealed: $280m ‘dark money’ spent by US Christian right groups globally

 

I'm not Muslim, nor did I grow up Muslim, nor do I have any relatives who are Muslim.

It is interesting that you would assume that.

 

If the "secularism" you are talking about is refusing any degree of self censorship for the purposes of advancing social cohesion, then yes that attitude should be abandoned if you are serious about retaining a pluralistic and peaceful society. The other options, as I said, is to kick out all the undesirables and/or forcibly convert them.

Since we're using analogies, imagine a couple who can't stand each other's religion. The options are: (1) one forces the other to convert, (2) they divorce, (3) they stay married but constantly quarrel with each other over it and make each other miserable, or (4) they mutually decide to focus on their shared values rather on the things they violently disagree on.

What's the wisest path for this couple? Only (2) and (4) are real options. (2) would be analogous to kicking out Muslims from the country or effectively splitting the country. (4) would be analogous to the path I'm calling for.

 

And he propagated excessive violence, murder, hate and intolerance how exactly?
Not sure how you would make up that statement about me saying Jesus isn't a prophet.

And that's relevant how?

So you are agreeing that they are clinging to the Old Testament and views that have been shunned from modern Christianity for hundreds of years now. Every religion has different branches, but you are acting like some US extremist Christian minority that clings to parts of the Old Testament are comparable to Islam where billions follow the current teachings and also don't vocally speak out against terrorism in any meaningful or quantitative way.
And outside of lbgt and single moms, you will struggle to show me how the trump militia follows Christian values by threatening ppl with guns, supporting policies that hurt common and poor citizens or wanting to surpress freedom of the political position and minorities.

Again, Islam was founded on violence and hate and has never changed that throughout history and the Quran, the same can't be said for Christianity and it's really dishonest to put the two on the same pedestal.


But I see we went to whataboutism and comparing religions again instead of focusing on the fact that thousands die annually based on the very words of the Quran and not the Bible, so this is completely pointless.

 

Secularism has literally zero to do with preventing pluralism or peace, that's a pretty weird point of view you are displaying.
As long as all involved religous groups don't think they are above the law or get extra treatment (as it should be), secularism doesn't create issues and ideally prevents politics and religion from clashing.

Self censorship in order to appease a certain religious group (that isn't even native to France) is the very opposite of attaining social cohesion and only leads to more issues due to abandoning what has lead the nation to success and peace in the first place.

You will never have cohesion and peace between religions if you are afraid of consequences and abandon your own principles just to appease one side.