11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[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.

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

No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.

[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. 

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 for 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.

My patience for you is at an end.

[crazy canuck]

I doubt it. This sort of extremist tend to think most other Muslims are either heretics or effectively apostates. It's one of the features of Jihadi Islamism, particularly ISIS, and one of the reasons Syria's so brutal.

This sounds so "wars of religion" period christian thinking.  The only problem with this is, given the timeline, it will be a hundred more years of reformation killing of everyone in sight before some sort of logic begins to prevail.

Yep,

That is exactly the point made in Aslan's book "No God but God" back in 2005.  I brought it to Languish's attention at the time. It is still well worth a read.  Perhaps even more now.

[Malthus]

No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.

I know what he was saying.  I'm criticising his way of saying it.

[Warspite]

There's a lot of disrespect in this thread.

[Grey Fox]

No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.

I know what he was saying.  I'm criticising his way of saying it.

That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.

[Malthus]

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.

What leads you to believe I'm offended by his statement? I just think it is badly phrased.

[crazy canuck]

After reading Berkut's posts I know one thing that is "deserving" of disrespect.

[Malthus]

No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.

I know what he was saying.  I'm criticising his way of saying it.

That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.

Apparently Berkut - like religious people - sees the two as the same. 

[Berkut]

Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...

[11B4V]

This thread is a hoot. Only thing missing is Grumbler.

[Berkut]

No, I am saying you shouldn't act like you don't understand what he is saying, because it is pretty fucking obvious and just makes you look like a tool.

I know what he was saying.  I'm criticising his way of saying it.

That is unnecessary, you should be mocking it.

Apparently Berkut - like religious people - sees the two as the same. 

You are perfectly welcome to mock it - that doesn't mean your mocking is valid, and I am similarly able and willing to point out that you are being a tool. It goes every which way.

Which...again...is the point Rushdie is making. And doing such a bad job of it, because he simply cannot write as well as Malthus, I am sure.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, if only Salman Rushdie knew how to write...

So you are making an argument that we shouldn't read what Rushdie actually wrote but we should make allowances and read in something he didn't actually say because you say he is a good writer?  Now that is some twisted logic right there.

By the way, have you ever tried to read one of his books? 

[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 for 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.

My patience for you is at an end.

Relax, I'm not a Québécois.

[crazy canuck]

There's a lot of disrespect in this thread.

This thread deserves to be disrespected.