French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke

[Nowake]

You know, just to tie a neat little ribbon over my argument and leave it at that, because I do not want to annoy anyone further

Freedom of speech is important, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people take to be offensive. Religion remains a major obstacle to basic reforms that reduce unnecessary suffering. Think of issues like contraception, abortion, the status of women in society, the use of embryos for medical research, physician-assisted suicide, attitudes towards homosexuality, and the treatment of animals. In each case, somewhere in the world, religious beliefs have been a barrier to changes that would make the world more sustainable, freer, and more humane.

So, we must preserve our freedom to deny the existence of God and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that billions of people regard as sacred. Since it is sometimes necessary to use a little humor to prick the membrane of sanctimonious piety that frequently surrounds religious teachings, freedom of expression must include the freedom to ridicule as well.

[Fragony]

Ridicule is a pejorative term practiced by lesser men.

No burning an office over a joke about your imaginary friend is nice, please. If me mocking these goatmakes me the lesser man ah well been called worse than that. There are perfectly fine deserts for their kind, less confusing

[Vladimir]

No burning an office over a joke about your imaginary friend is nice, please. If me mocking these goatmakes me the lesser man ah well been called worse than that. There are perfectly fine deserts for their kind, less confusing

Frags, you're pretty cool and I would hang out with you if given the chance, but that statement just confirms mine. That's insulting to me, a non-Muslim of European decent, and you didn't even put much effort into it.

[Fragony]

That's insulting to me, a non-Muslim of European decent, and you didn't even put much effort into it.

I can do better but it makes the moderators sad, and they already are of a fragile disposition it would be mean. (I hope you aren't going to bomb my office by the way)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does giving any contrarian answer equate to giving a logical contrarian answer? Focus a bit.
The point was that religion cannot tolerate ridicule and has to bloodily insulate itself as best it can.
In order to survive protestant ridicule, the catholics killed as many as they were able. You just gave the perfect example.

What about the Roman ridicule of the early Christians, Academic ridicule of the Lollards.....

Make a more careful reading of history, burning at the stake is not a reaction to ridicule it is a perfectly coherent theological response to heresy, but then given you ignorance of Church history I would hardly expect you to grasp such delicate nuance.

Your point fails because you confuse actual motive with your prejudiced perception.

[Watchman]

Catholics and Protestants waged bloody war replete with hair-raising atrocities on each other over the issue of whose reading of the Scriptures was more righteous, on and off, for something like a round century. All it led to was mutual exhaustion and nobody halfway sane bothering anymore. (Instead they settled for persecuting minorities inside their own territories and producing mean, petty satire about each other.)

[Nowake]

I am well aware every one of us here is or was a history buff in some way, but precisely because of that, it is pretty useless to waste time and side-tracking the main theme by pointing obvious or extremely well known facts every time someone doesn’t write NxN explanatory notes to an idea. Historical facts are known and taken into consideration Watchman, I have not majored in History but I probably read just as much as many qualified professors did when I was younger, nevermind that I participated in quite a few national olimpiads on International history – modelled here after http://www.imo-official.org (there isn’t an International phase for history).


I also get that here most people’s passion for History leads them to believe knowledge of History makes one an intellectual, when that doesn’t even begin to describe the concept unless it is part of a personal culture with a solid grasp on all subjects, from math to philosophy. Perhaps overreacting a bit and I pre-emptively apologise for that, but this insistence to nitpick phrases which are not at all untrue, just not all-encompassing, simply to display knowledge of some historical minutiae (which is not even the case now) is pointless.


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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is a profound difference between showing someone up in their own foolishness, and setting out to provoke a negative reaction.

But ridicule can mean either.

It is also clearly untrue that we have a "right" to ridicule, if we do it is a severely curtailed right. I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?

Yes. Why not?

A right to ridicule involves a right to do any number of stupid, mean spirited, cruel things that it isn't right to do. There's a difference between legal or natural rights and moral right.

The stakes are crystal clear. Survival.
As Mark Twain dryly put it: No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live.
And when you bring a backward religion in the midst of the French secular society, you have absolutely no choice but to retaliate against ridicule if you wish to keep buggering on, because so much of what you brainwash your small community of immigrants into is contradicted by the reality on the ground, that you have to take yourself seriously at any cost if you wish to not be simply effaced.

This is exactly right, PVC you shouldn't ignore "fair field".

Although of course, the truth can stand up to ridicule and so this argument is at an impasse from the start.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Catholics and Protestants waged bloody war replete with hair-raising atrocities on each other over the issue of whose reading of the Scriptures was more righteous, on and off, for something like a round century. All it led to was mutual exhaustion and nobody halfway sane bothering anymore. (Instead they settled for persecuting minorities inside their own territories and producing mean, petty satire about each other.)

While that's true, in broad strokes, but the "war" continued, it was simply the secular states that were exhausted, the doctors in the universities continued to fight it out, hence the aforementioned pamphlets, but all that ink and rags didn't make any difference either. The crucial point is that the situation didn't change until the two sides sat down and had civilised debates at the start of the twentieth century. Rational dialogue, not ridicule, changed how people felt and thought.

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.

But ridicule can mean either.



Yes. Why not?

A right to ridicule involves a right to do any number of stupid, mean spirited, cruel things that it isn't right to do. There's a difference between legal or natural rights and moral right.

Well in my country I can't, and I also can't ridicule individuals or I can be sued for slander and defamation of character.

This is exactly right, PVC you shouldn't ignore "fair field".

Most (all?) world religion have been ridiculed in pretty much every "field" and it hasn't made one iota of difference.

[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.

[Nowake]

no rebellion occured until 1415

No rebellion occurred until mere... weeks after the execution of Jan Huss.
Execution, by the by, which is the perfect case in point for the way religion decided to fight ridicule of say, its practice of selling Indulgences, with reason, which was the point I was making and which you've constantly chosen to misinterpret. Case in point illustrating your “Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything” principle of course; nothing more reasonable than burning someone for his arguments against your beliefs.
Oh and I bet no one can see how thirty years from Wycliff’s death is a number which totally disproves your assertion that “The military campaigns were extremely late in the day [during] the time of the thirty years war. 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.”

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’m sorry to have aroused such strong feelings, even more so considering their negativity. Honestly.
I can’t sincerely say I accept the accusations though. So, if you can’t get over it, lets just look past each other i.e. try to not engage my assertions anymore. I do not like to debate a point in which my interlocutor has a personal stake.
Having said that, eventhough you initiated this latest exchange, I’ll back off from continuing the particular chain of replies, as a courtesy. Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it

My final word is this:

You are trying to get me to sacrifice the intellectual high ground by goading me to reply.

Sure, I'll do that for you. Feel better?

In answer to your question, yes burning people at the stake is completely reasonable, although most heretics were actually hung until the Renaissance. I have already explicitely stated that execution of heretics is entirely reasonable in the theological context of the time. You ignored me.

Also, it's Wyclif with one "F", not two. If you want to be anachronistic you could go with Wycliffe.

As to not answering points: Mine was that there were no wars to supress heresy until very late in the game, Hussite and Wycliffite revolts were not the same as the later religious wars, the most concerted of which was the Thirty Years War.

In any case, the heresy begins with Wyclif in England, not Huss, and I have never heard it argued that Oldcastle's rebellion was due to the Council of Constance, the Hussite Wars did not begin until four years after Huss' death, and by your own admission the Hussites sent a deputation to Constance to remonstate with the Council, not least because Huss had letters garenteeing his safe conduct to and from the Council (but not his safety at Constance).

[Vladimir]

That's an interesting side conversation. It's unfortunate you two seem to be at each other's throats.