11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Jacob]

I haven't seen this evident distaste for journalists displayed anywhere other than in response to articles that are poorly written and/or factually wrong. Journalists who do their job right pass by without notice.

I'll point it out to you the next few times it crops up, if you'd like?

[mongers]

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.

Distinction without a difference.  "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples.  By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.

I don't buy this.

And what does it mean in practice?

And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.

... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.

I'm waiting for BB to respond.

I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.

Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?

[garbon]

It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.

Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.

Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with.

Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities ) but societal acceptance.

But I also recognise a number of dysfunctional practices in the "cultural" practice of homosexuality, so to speak. I don't demand respect for the cult of fit body, darkrooms and grindr, for example. And on top of that, homosexuality is inborn so at least a part of it is immutable. Religion isn't.

You stated that you agreed gays don't as for respect, so I'm not expecting you to demand respect for anything.

Anyway, I was thinking of the basics like recognizing that homosexual unions can be happy stable, nothing sick about that, should be able to happily couple up like straight couples and speak about one's partner. Nothing to seedy but still ideas around homosexuality.

What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?

[Viking]

There are way to many people here thinking that an attack on ideas is an attack on the humanity of the people holding them, this is not true, these people are idiots.
There are way to many people here thinking that ideas do not have consequences and that all religions are spherical and identical with them all being somehow content free versions of Unitarianism, this is not true, these people are idiots
There are way to many people who think that supernatural ideas have some kind of special claim on respect, this is not true, these people are idiots.

I'm actually, quite repeatedly it seems, quite surprised at the level of intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance involved in the religion debate. Actually, it's not really a debate, since not actual ideas are exchanged, merely strawmen constructed, ad-hom issued and constant red herrings tossed in.

There are people who believe that their religion commands that murder is good. These people really do exist and they were at work in Paris today. Pretending that the tenents of the religion of the murderers which has previously legitimized murder of those who mock the so called prophet have nothing to do with the murder of those who mock the supposed prophet is denial. I think it is part of the desperate attempt to either preserve the comforting delusion of the sky daddy who can take care of you and the hope that once you die you aren't really dead or to convince ones self that one isn't a racist by desperately denying that the teachings of islam had anything to do with the murders.

[garbon]

Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities ) but societal acceptance.

Those fighting for respect for the right to bang whoever and for the right to wear whatever on ones head are similar. But what is the gay equivalent to demanding respect for a deity?

Well yes there is no gay equivalent of that but I don't see how that means that means gay activists are not about respect for their idea but Muslims are. Gays still want respect for the idea that they can have happy, fulfilling, morally neutral (if not morally good) lives when paired with someone of their own sex. Much as you may disagree with the existence of Allah, there are many who disagree with those ideas I just noted about homosexuality.

[Razgovory]

That's quite convincing.  Did you crib that From Dawkins?  I mean the part where you called people who disagree with you "idiots".  No wonder he sells so many books.

[garbon]

There are way to many people here thinking that an attack on ideas is an attack on the humanity of the people holding them, this is not true, these people are idiots.
There are way to many people here thinking that ideas do not have consequences and that all religions are spherical and identical with them all being somehow content free versions of Unitarianism, this is not true, these people are idiots
There are way to many people who think that supernatural ideas have some kind of special claim on respect, this is not true, these people are idiots.

I'm actually, quite repeatedly it seems, quite surprised at the level of intellectual dishonesty and the cognitive dissonance involved in the religion debate. Actually, it's not really a debate, since not actual ideas are exchanged, merely strawmen constructed, ad-hom issued and constant red herrings tossed in.

There are people who believe that their religion commands that murder is good. These people really do exist and they were at work in Paris today. Pretending that the tenents of the religion of the murderers which has previously legitimized murder of those who mock the so called prophet have nothing to do with the murder of those who mock the supposed prophet is denial. I think it is part of the desperate attempt to either preserve the comforting delusion of the sky daddy who can take care of you and the hope that once you die you aren't really dead or to convince ones self that one isn't a racist by desperately denying that the teachings of islam had anything to do with the murders.

[Martinus]

It? Again, I assume you mean Muslims can demand respect for it to work as an idea. Can I not also say that Gays demand respect for the idea of homosexuality working as an idea? After all - much of the 20th century saw homosexuality noted as just disordered thing that always led to bad ends for its adherents.

Gays and muslims alike should be respected as humans, with that I, of course, agree. But I still wouldn't say they demand the same respect for their respective liking. One wants respect as a human and to be equal, one is equal but wants respect for their idea.

Maybe I'm not explaining this probably, and this thread is moving to fast for me to keep up with.

Yeah, I'm not getting the distinction, as despite what Martinus has said a few times today, homosexuality does have a certain set of ideas attached to it. LGBT activists have pushed not for mere tolerance of those ideas (and activities ) but societal acceptance.

But I also recognise a number of dysfunctional practices in the "cultural" practice of homosexuality, so to speak. I don't demand respect for the cult of fit body, darkrooms and grindr, for example. And on top of that, homosexuality is inborn so at least a part of it is immutable. Religion isn't.

You stated that you agreed gays don't as for respect, so I'm not expecting you to demand respect for anything.

Anyway, I was thinking of the basics like recognizing that homosexual unions can be happy stable, nothing sick about that, should be able to happily couple up like straight couples and speak about one's partner. Nothing to seedy but still ideas around homosexuality.

What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?

But the respect for stable gay unions actually follows a great effort on the part of gay community to assimilate (in fact, some would say going too far - there is a subset of gay culture who are opposed to gay marriage for this very reason). This was done in response to the criticism levelled against gay culture for its apparent promiscuity and superficiality. You dont see any such effort on the part of muslims.

That it is an inborn trait is imho quite relevant - at least in the context of respect (if not rights). The fact that being gay is not a choice has a great influence on it being seen as a valid and respected lifestyle option (as opposed to simply being a choice that is merely tolerated but not respected).

[Sheilbh]

What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?

I agree. There's nothing I hate more than the 'born this way' argument - even if I think it's true.

[Liep]

Those fighting for respect for the right to bang whoever and for the right to wear whatever on ones head are similar. But what is the gay equivalent to demanding respect for a deity?

Well yes there is no gay equivalent of that but I don't see how that means that means gay activists are not about respect for their idea but Muslims are. Gays still want respect for the idea that they can have happy, fulfilling, morally neutral (if not morally good) lives when paired with someone of their own sex. Much as you may disagree with the existence of Allah, there are many who disagree with those ideas I just noted about homosexuality.

Didn't really consider homophobia to be that encompassing, but okay, I see proof every day that the gay idea is real, which is why I in no way see those two ideas as being equal.

I consider us in agreement though and I move we put the Muslims = Gays debate to rest.

[Jacob]

I'm waiting for BB to respond.

I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.

Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?

Sure. The only thing I'm not good with is the duty to actively disrespect, which is what I got from Rushdie's commentary.

It's not that reflexive disrespect should be disallowed or prohibited, but I can't sign on to it being inherently positive.

[Martinus]

Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.

[Jacob]

Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.

Sweet dreams

[garbon]

But the respect for stable gay unions actually follows a great effort on the part of gay community to assimilate (in fact, some would say going too far - there is a subset of gay culture who are opposed to gay marriage for this very reason). This was done in response to the criticism levelled against gay culture for its apparent promiscuity and superficiality. You dont see any such effort on the part of muslims.

But that says little to nothing about homosexuality not being about ideas and simply is on why someone might choose to respect homosexuality more than Islam.

That it is an inborn trait is imho quite relevant - at least in the context of respect (if not rights). The fact that being gay is not a choice has a great influence on it being seen as a valid and respected lifestyle option (as opposed to simply being a choice that is merely tolerated but not respected).

Again, I don't really think that says much beyond why someone might choose to respect it more (/looks at the history of how gay activists messaged in order to gain respect for homosexuality). I can't see why something in-born should be accorded more respect than something that a personally consciously chooses*. Since my identify as a practicing homosexual (as my decision engage in homosexual actions is a choice -based on in-born urges), should in a hierarchy of respect, it be accorded less respect than my identify as a person of middling height or as a person with my brown shade of skin? The latter are without a doubt inborn and pretty immutable.

*which, is questionable in the case of religion where many have it pushed on the by family, community, etc,

[garbon]

Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.

And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.