French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke

[Strike For The South]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350

The weekly had said it would publish a special edition on Wednesday to "celebrate" the Ennahda party's election victory in Tunisia and the transitional Libyan executive's statement that sharia law would be the country's main source of law.

Ho hum, Another day at the office I suppose.

[Papewaio]

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

I'd say lacking a sense of humour is a prerequisite for extremism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nations function best in their natural, homogenous state.

This is what happens when you open the floodgates.

[Viking]

If they really don't want anyone to mess with their prophet, then should let the prophet handle this issue himself. The way they are doing things now, they make their favourite prophet look weak.

I'll mess with whatever prophet that does not bring down smiting lightning from some almighty god.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nations function best in their natural, homogenous state.

This is what happens when you open the floodgates.

The problem is when we, as a culture, do not stand up to extremists in every way. To me, one of the most shaming incidents of the western press recently is when nearly every paper backed down from reprinting the Mohammed cartoons from Denmark. It showed the extremists that violence could get them what they wanted.

The paper needs to continue this joke and make it bigger.

CR

[Gregoshi]

The paper needs to continue this joke and make it bigger.

It would increase prophets too.

[Fragony]

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

Who says these were extremists

[Major Robert Dump]

Why would you make Mohammed the Editor in Chief? He does not have the qualifications.

[Papewaio]

Well he was involved in a best seller.

[CountArach]

Not even a good joke... unlike Gregoshi's fine display above

[Viking]

Who says these were extremists

Because petrol bombs is not what the average person is up to. 2+2.

[Hax]

Everything should be subjected to satire. I think that's the key message here.

why is it perfectly acceptable to make a joke about Jesus or the christian god in poor taste but Mohamed who was merely a man is off limits. I'm sick of double standards.

So..what is your point? Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't satirise Islam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So..what is your point? Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't satirise Islam.

I don't think they should satirise it in such a manner.

I guess it was supposed to be clever or funny or something but it wasn't. All it did was offend people, it didn't add anything to anything.

Honestly it feels like nowadays people take their liberties as a license to behave in the worst ways they can imagine.

Sure you can scream about your rights I'm not trying to take them away from you, but what happened to just choosing to be respectful?

Everything should be subjected to satire. I think that's the key message here.

I don't like this overly-competitive approach to the 'marketplace of ideas', where we are told to take a Darwinian approach towards beliefs so that only the strongest survive. As if we in the west have to brutally hack away at Islam until it either disappears or conforms to our own belief systems.

We should just chill out and respect others beliefs. Not because of the validity of the beliefs themselves, but because of the fact that they are held so dear to people.

Otherwise all this confrontation just alienates people.

Instead of always focusing on our right to be insensitive, why don't we just try being nice to people?

[Fragony]

Because petrol bombs is not what the average person is up to. 2+2.

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

[Viking]

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

A population is divided into different categories of aggresiveness etc. Only a truly devout belief can change such levels of an individual, not a casual one.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was going to say something, but I think I will just wait until the conversation condenses back on to a single topic.

[Tuuvi]

That is part of the path to understanding is standing in the other's shoes

What also has to be looked at are other elements in society open to the barbs of satire?

IMDHO other sections have satire aimed at them. It is one of the requirements of a free society to have a free press. In the same section as the main editors editorial is normally the political cartoons. These satirical cartoons ransack leaders of business, politics and the church.

So my stance is not only satire a requirement of a free press which they weild with a painted wand. It would be a discriminative disservice to apply the stains of satire to all of society bar one pocket. Islam has joined the establishment when it is seen as one of the facets of society to hold a mirror up to.

Do Evangelical Christians get petrol bombed for it? If I was to openly criticise or write in a newspaper "Next paper will be edited by Jesus Christ", should those same people petrol bomb me?

Everything should be open to criticism and whilst some things people say or do are simply immature or childish, the answer isn't to petrol bomb them. The solution is to tut at them and just carry on walking shaking your head.

An example could be on the forum, sometimes a member might post something really immature. What do we do? We point out how immature they are and simply continue living on life.

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

The answer is No, but he is free to point out my characters hides in the dark with a mask because my face makes babies cry.

In my first reply to this thread I said that satire, etc. should be legal and that nobody deserves to be bombed for it. And I agree that satire can be a good thing, however when it crosses the line and becomes ridicule with the intent to offend others it ceases to be constructive, in my opinion.

[Nowake]

And the point stands, Catholics moved in to suppress the spread of a Lutheranism which was ridiculing the state of the Church by pointing out the fallacies of their thesis and their degenerate morals. The Catholics did everything in their power to stop militarily a war of ideas. It is what established religion always does to protect itself against ridicule. It cannot fight, as Mark Twain asserted when he wrote the quip I quoted on the previous page, truth-revealing ridicule with reason.

Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything, so your second sentence makes no sense.

As to the first part, the military campaigns were extremely late in the day. By the time of the thirty years war both Wyclif and Huss had been condemned and Luthor and Calvin were loose upon the world. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own. As to the violent internal reactions - they were extreme because of the internal politics of the time.

I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars, had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars, had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

Wyclif was active from the 160's to 1384, when he died of a stroke. His condemnation at Blackfriars (his third trial) condemned his ideas, particularly as regarded temporal power and the Eucharist, but he was allowed to retire to his Parish in Lutterworth. In 1409 Archpishop Arundel published his "Constitutions" which severly curtailed religious debate and Biblical translation, the "Law of Burning" allowing for the burning of heretics had already been passed in 1401. Despite this, no rebellion occured until 1415, and as late as March 1413 Sir John Oldcastle, the Lollard Knight, was able to avoid condemnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oldcastle

As to the Hussites, well Huss traveled volantarily to the Council of Constance in 1415, where he and Wyclif were both condemned and Huss was executed. The Council also provided the first Ecumunical Condemnation of what would become "Protestant" doctrine, it has in fact been argued that Constance galvanised "Protestantism" by opposition, given that (as your own link shows) the Hussite Wars did not begin until 1419 my point stands.

Concerted military effort began very late in the day, Wyclif was more than 30 years dead before a proper condemnation of his ideas could be promulgated from the Holy See (partly due to internal schism, but that's not the point) and rebellion and Catholic "Crusades" come later. The cat was already well and truly out.

I always argue in good faith, and I think the majority of patrons here would support me in that claim.

Maybe it's the fact that I have a much more nuanced view of medieval religious practice and politics than you?

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

I don't like you because of the way you treat people you dissagree with and in particular your habit of denigrating your opponent's intellect, and integrity. I am opposing you here because you demonstrate ignorance. As to your "historically validated" assertion, I'm not sure to what you refer. If you are claiming that ridicule defeats reson then you clearly are not using your own.

Reason is a blade, ridicule is a blunt instrument, one is lethal the other just gives you a sore head.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sometimes a small dose of ridicule can open peoples eyes better than a long dose of reasoning.

People usually have some structure to their belief that they are comfortable with, something needs to happen to shake their comfort.

Of course a bad attempt at reasoning is inoffensive and allows itself to be corrected easily, which is a huge difference compared to ridicule.