11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Norgy]

You really do need to read it in Greek to get the puns, like the one about being born again vs being born from above, which is only a joke in Greek, not Aramaic.

Which amusingly means the joke is on Jesus, who certainly spoke Aramaic, but likely little if any Greek.

I heard he went to Agia Napa and partied hard before his final tour.
Even Peter went to the karaoke and sang "I am a rock".

[garbon]

Well you're not getting any until you post here have a better tone.   

Don't worry, I don't come to Languish for respect.

[garbon]

A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:

"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."  –Salman Rushdie

I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.

It is silly in several respects.

First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.

Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.

Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".

He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.

He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.

Reading comprehension much?

Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?

For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.

Terrorism not part of the heart of Islam? LOL We fight the Islam we have, not the Islam we wish we had.

I think you understand what he meant by all ideas deserve disrespect.

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

[Jacob]

Well you're not getting any until you post here have a better tone.   

Don't worry, I don't come to Languish for respect.

Good thing. I think we've been out since forever.

[The Brain]

A statement from Salman Rushdie, now being re-tweeted by Neil Gaiman and other writers:

"Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect."  –Salman Rushdie

I could not agree more. I guess for several people here, that's racism and bigotry but go fuck yourself.

It is silly in several respects.

First, there is nothing particularly "medieval" about religion - something that has existed since, as far as we know, the dawn of humanity.

Second, the notion that these terrorists represent the "heart of Islam" is simply untrue.

Third, while I support the right to satirize anything without fear of violence, I am unclear as to why all ideas "deserve disrespect".

He didn't say religion was medieval, he said religion was a medieval form of unreason. Nouns and Adjectives are different things.

He also didn't say they represented the heart of islam, he said religious totalitarianism was a deadly mutation in the heart of islam.

Reading comprehension much?

Religion is in no way "medieval". Terrorism is not part of the heart of Islam, and so cannot be "a deadly mutation in the heart of islam". And it makes no sense to state that all ideas "deserve disrespect" - I point I see you did not bother to contest. Surely some ideas deserve disrespect and others do not, depending on content?

For famous writers, they sure have trouble conveying simple ideas - that people should be free to satyrize anything without fear of assault - without mixing in a lot of silliness.

Terrorism not part of the heart of Islam? LOL We fight the Islam we have, not the Islam we wish we had.

I think you understand what he meant by all ideas deserve disrespect.

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

He's an artist. He can't just write like regular folk.

[Martinus]

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Because they demand respect.

Yup.

What should we do about gay people demanding respect?

I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.

It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.

Very well said.

But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.

In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.

[Jacob]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.

I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.

[crazy canuck]

In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.

Really?  A theology can "demand" respect without the need for human agency?  So you are a Theist after all.

[Sheilbh]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.

[The Brain]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.

I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.

Mutations are inherent now?

[mongers]

I can understand the strident tone of Rushdie's 'post' as this outrage would very likely have been his fate years ago, but for police protection, going into hiding and the then relative lack of murderous fanatics.

I guess he probably feels threatened again.

[crazy canuck]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.

I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.

[garbon]

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Because they demand respect.

Yup.

What should we do about gay people demanding respect?

I don't think 'they' have ever demanded respect, rather an end to persecution and equality before the law. Its then up to the rest of use to like, embrace or otherwise the cultural aspects of LGBT life.

It's pretty clear to me that respect is not given, but earned; so you just can't put your ideology or religion into the public space and demand it be respected, without a positive contribution on it's or your part.

Very well said.

But false. Gays most definitely demand respect.

In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.

Islam can't demand respect as an idea, it can't speak. Maybe you are talking about Muslims who demand respect for their religion - which when phrased like that seems similar to the construction of gays demanding respect for their sexuality/life choices.

[Malthus]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

Yeah, but that's Rushdie isn't it? All bizarre flourishes.

I'm on board with criticism and satire (while reserving the right to disapprove), but not so much with the "duty to disrespect" or "inherent evil that lurks in the heart" bits.

[garbon]

It would have made more sense if he just said criticism and satire. The fearless disrespect seemed liked a bizarre rhetorical flourish.

I disagree. I think especially from the perspective of a novelist like Rushdie or any other artist approaching a subject or an idea from a position of immediate respect is inhibiting and wrong. All ideas need to be open to disrespect, to descralisation - including, of course, all the different pieties in this thread.

Which then makes that irrelevant to all of us. I don't think common people approach the world thinking that we should approach everything with disrespect.