11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Malthus]

I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.

This just gets stranger and stranger. 

My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.

What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I may be wrong, but I think communist terrorism was more rational than muslim terrorism is. Communist terorrism, in theory at least, treats terrorism as an extraordinary measure - once political goals are achieved, it no longer postulates terror (of course it is different in practice, but still).

No terrorism is really inimical to Marxist theory; Marx was quite hostile to "propaganda of the deed" and such antics. 

In terms of practice, it is difficult to think of anything less rational than the bizarre but horrific exploits of the Red Brigades, baader-meinhoff, Shining Path et al.

[The Brain]

Please don't disrespect the idea of Red Terror.

[Berkut]

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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

[Malthus]

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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

[The Minsky Moment]

Agree Berkut - Rushdie is just saying (in trenchant language to be sure) that religious ideas should be not treated any differently from any other form or kind of idea.  That is a basic tenet of any liberal society and as such unobjectionable.

[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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

[DontSayBanana]

From France 24 liveblog

Expert on BFMTV says gunmen not pros. Went to wrong address, dropped identity card AND "Commandos don't drive a Citroen C3".

The ID card dropped allowed the quick identification. As for the Citroën bit, well I'm a bit more skeptical, it's easier to blend in with...

What did he think they were going to tun up in? A Lamborghini? These aren't Qataris, for god's sake.

I think he means pros don't choose a getaway car that could be outrun by a bicycle.

[Berkut]

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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

Exactly. But when you satirize or mock religion, specifically THIS religion, people get killed because that is "disrespectful".

What he is saying is pretty obvious Malthus. All ideas deserve to be "disrespected" in the manner that those who killed 12 people found this magazine disrespectful. They all deserve to be challenged, satirized, mocked, argued and debated.

Rushdie is a pretty accomplished writer. I think it is pretty safe to presume that he isn't a drooling idiot incapable of making his point in the manner you insist he must be because you pretend to be incapable of understanding how he is making his point.

ALL ideas deserve that kind of "disrespect" but only a very particular set of ideas being disrespected in that manner results in people being murdered. One of these things is not like the others.

[Malthus]

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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

My paraphrase:

Berkut: the religious perceive criticism as"disrespect". Thus the Rushdie statement makes sense. "Disrespect" in this context does not literally mean disrespect, it means the sort of searching critique that the religious perceive as "disrespect".

Me: the Rushdie statement isn't confined to religions. He's stating that all ideas deserve disrespect. Which is why it is awkwardly phrased, because normal people understand there to exist a difference betweeen critique and disrespect. When a scientist peer-reviews someon's paper, he is not "disrespecting" that other person.

[Duque de Bragança]

I know it's harder for you to discuss Turkey than showing your bigotry against French-speakers (in Canada mostly) but you really should discuss Turkey when dealing with secularism topics.

This just gets stranger and stranger. 

My point: that the whole veil controversy thing in France was a bad idea, because it encourages fundamentalism in France by encouraging the dissafection of the Muslim minority there from mainstream French society.

What this has to do with Turkey, which as far as I know has a Muslim MAJORITY, I do not understand. How this shows bigotry towards French-speakers, in Quebec or otherwise, I do not know. It certainly demonstrates that Muslims are not the ONLY folks who respond irrationaly to any hint of criticism, though - so it has that going for it. 

Turkey has been until recently a secular state with even more stringent laws against religion. The Turkish state even used to redefine hadiths..

So secularism is only good for majority religions, not religious minorities? More multikulti drivel. Secularism is for all religions, they stay in the private sphere.
As for encouraging fundamentalism, check again, it's the other way around. Cases have decreased since '89 when it started (try reading the links you give for once). Fundamentalism was on the way in, scarf or no scarf. Of course, in the '70s in the heyday of feminism, pre-current radical islamism the question did not exist.

You are well-known for your bigotry against French-speaking people in Canada e.g Language laws debates in Québéc, that shows up regularly in this forum, and that spills sometimes when we discuss French issues. Québécois being much more secular in mind than Anglo-Canadians does not help as well.

[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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

My paraphrase:

Berkut: the religious perceive criticism as"disrespect". Thus the Rushdie statement makes sense. "Disrespect" in this context does not literally mean disrespect, it means the sort of searching critique that the religious perceive as "disrespect".

Me: the Rushdie statement isn't confined to religions. He's stating that all ideas deserve disrespect. Which is why it is awkwardly phrased, because normal people understand there to exist a difference betweeen critique and disrespect. When a scientist peer-reviews someon's paper, he is not "disrespecting" that other person.

I think everyone on the planet understood what Rushdie said except you Malthus.

[Malthus]

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.

And so extremism begets more extremism.

Why is it that all religions "deserve" disrespect?

Find me one which is morale, ethical, true and logical and I'll respect it.

That isn't the point - even if there was a moral, ethical, and true religion, Rushdie is saying that it can and should STILL be "disrespected", because all of our conventions and assumed truths are worthy of satire, challenge, and question - and that is what the religious define as "disrespect".

The statement isn't confined to religions, but to all ideas. They all deserve disrespect.

Exactly. But when you satirize or mock religion, specifically THIS religion, people get killed because that is "disrespectful".

What he is saying is pretty obvious Malthus. All ideas deserve to be "disrespected" in the manner that those who killed 12 people found this magazine disrespectful. They all deserve to be challenged, satirized, mocked, argued and debated.

Rushdie is a pretty accomplished writer. I think it is pretty safe to presume that he isn't a drooling idiot incapable of making his point in the manner you insist he must be because you pretend to be incapable of understanding how he is making his point.

ALL ideas deserve that kind of "disrespect" but only a very particular set of ideas being disrespected in that manner results in people being murdered. One of these things is not like the others.

So ... what you are saying is that I shouldn't "disrespect" Rushdie? 

[Malthus]

I think everyone on the planet understood what Rushdie said except you Malthus.

I know the West Coast is a different place, but it is hardly on Mars. 

[Berkut]

That is the freaking point that Rushdie is making!

Satire, critique, debate is often seen as "disrespect" by those who hold the views in question.

Rushdie is basically saying this:

Some guy: Your idea is silly! Here is a funny cartoon making fun of it!
Offended guy: That is so disrespectful! I am offended!
Rushdie: Tough shit! If mocking an idea is disrespectful, then we should protect disrespecting ideas!

Rushdie being a vastly more competent writer than myself, said it vastly more eloquently, but it is crystal clear what he is trying to say, as long as your intent in reading him is trying to understand what he is saying, rather than figuring out a way to be offended by it yourself.