Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Barrister]

As I said before Islam has particularly problematic elements in its religion that, for various reasons, are difficult for Islam to address. I think this is because so much of it is based on the fact that God, or his prophet, have decreed certain things. So the only way to really get around problematic elements is to rationalize around or ignore them. But then that leaves the door open for crazies to go ahead and NOT ignore the part about sex slaves or whatever. We certainly have things like that in other Abrahamic Religions. Like if suddenly we started rigidly enforcing the letter of Leviticus or something. It just seems more problematic in Islam for whatever reason.

But that is mainly an issue for a small minority of Muslims. It seems unfair to crack down on all of them for the crazies but you cannot dispute the fact that they do carry a group of crazies around with them. Again, not unlike other religions, but in Islam it just seems more so. At least in recent history.

So sorry to get all theological on you... (and I think you know most/all of this)

In Christianity we first of all have the Old and New Testament, and it's pretty clear that the new Testament overrides the Old where it differs.  That's why Christians don't need to keep kosher, and you can pretty much ignore people who bring up Leviticus.

But even beyond that - in the Christian tradition the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans.  And while the first four books are about Christ himself, the rest are a bunch of letters anyways.  So while we always consider it to be a Holy Book (and it is!) Christianity has a little more ambiguity built into it, for good and bad.

As I understand it though, the Koran was directly dictated by Mohammed (according to Islamic teaching), who as the Prophet was thus basically the direct word of God.  Which is great for giving more certainty, but certainly introduces a lot more rigidity into the faith.

[viper37]

Right now, Mélanchon's party may be less than ideal, but they are just slightly better than LePen's party.  The difference being that the commies are way less popular than the RN for now.

Mélenchon n'est pas un communiste, mais un gauchiste.  En France, les gaucho sont plus (à) gauche(s) que les cocos. 

Commies did get 9 seats on their own, however.
Guess what, they are pretty Pu-Pu curious, à la RN, out of old pro-Moscow habits (unlike the RN)  cf. « le PCF n'est pas à gauche il est à l'Est » . That's your leftie-wing pro-Ukraine majority for you!

PS: Mélenchon, formerly a PS aparatchik, is also a former Trot, another implacable enemy of the commies.

Mon erreur, je le croyais chef du Parti Communiste.

[Jacob]

As I understand it though, the Koran was directly dictated by Mohammed (according to Islamic teaching), who as the Prophet was thus basically the direct word of God.  Which is great for giving more certainty, but certainly introduces a
 lot more rigidity into the faith.

... and yet, there is a fair amount of divergence in how Islam is interpreted and lived across time and geography. There are the Hadith and multiple schools of jurisprudence. Seems like there's a reasonable amount of flexibility.

You kind of see the same thing with fundamentalist Christians who claim to follow the bible exactly, but nonetheless engage in a wide variety of practices (some of which seems to directly contradict the words in the bible).

[Solmyr]

Was Duque always off the deep end, or is it recent? I mean, citing Al-Andalus and the fall of Constantinople as relevant for current politics?

[Barrister]

As I understand it though, the Koran was directly dictated by Mohammed (according to Islamic teaching), who as the Prophet was thus basically the direct word of God.  Which is great for giving more certainty, but certainly introduces a
 lot more rigidity into the faith.

... and yet, there is a fair amount of divergence in how Islam is interpreted and lived across time and geography. There are the Hadith and multiple schools of jurisprudence. Seems like there's a reasonable amount of flexibility.

You kind of see the same thing with fundamentalist Christians who claim to follow the bible exactly, but nonetheless engage in a wide variety of practices (some of which seems to directly contradict the words in the bible).

So I mean - yes and no.

And lets be clear - this is my own reading on the topic, and I'm no master of comparative theology.

So yes, there's a difference between how Islam is practiced in Indonesia (which is the largest Islamic country in the world) and Saudi Arabia.  But there's also a difference between different theologies, and just different levels of observance.

If you're a muslim who drinks alcohol and eats pork - you aren't a follower of some different strain of muslim theology, you're just a non-observant muslim.  Whereas on the other hand Christians can have wildly different views on, say, contraception, that are strongly based on different readings of the Bible and the Christian tradition.

So I feel like serious Christianity has a much wider zone of what might still be considered religiously observant (consider all the differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and various flavours of Protestant) compared to Islam.  Islam does have the Sunni-Shi'a split, but the difference there had more to do with who was the true heir to the Prophet rather than some massive doctrinal split.

Edit:  Just to be clear there are tons of non-observant Christians too.

[Josquius]

If you're a muslim who drinks alcohol and eats pork - you aren't a follower of some different strain of muslim theology, you're just a non-observant muslim.  Whereas on the other hand Christians can have wildly different views on, say, contraception, that are strongly based on different readings of the Bible and the Christian tradition.

I have found it very common even the most non observant of drunk Muslims is really strict about pork.
On alcohol I've heard from more than one Persian, zero knowledge of the text myself to check, it somehow just says don't drink wine so anything else is chill.

Anyway. Beyond hearsay of random guys. In history there has been quite a divergence of muslim sects. Sufis for instance do a lot of wildly different stuff. I'm not sure about what you say here.

[Duque de Bragança]

Right now, Mélanchon's party may be less than ideal, but they are just slightly better than LePen's party.  The difference being that the commies are way less popular than the RN for now.

Mélenchon n'est pas un communiste, mais un gauchiste.  En France, les gaucho sont plus (à) gauche(s) que les cocos. 

Commies did get 9 seats on their own, however.
Guess what, they are pretty Pu-Pu curious, à la RN, out of old pro-Moscow habits (unlike the RN)  cf. « le PCF n'est pas à gauche il est à l'Est » . That's your leftie-wing pro-Ukraine majority for you!

PS: Mélenchon, formerly a PS aparatchik, is also a former Trot, another implacable enemy of the commies.

Mon erreur, je le croyais chef du Parti Communiste.

À ce propos, ça ne va pas fort entre les islamo-gauchos et les cocos (Fabien Roussel chef du PCF) :

Fabien Roussel accusé d'avoir proposé une union «sans les Insoumis»
Le secrétaire national du Parti communiste français, Fabien Roussel, est accusé d'avoir voulu monter une stratégie de coalition avec Gérald Darmanin et Olivier Véran, tout en excluant les Insoumis. Le porte-parole du Parti communiste français nie en bloc.

Richard Gira
09/07/2024 à 19:55, Mis à jour le 09/07/2024 à 20:00
Fabien Roussel accusé d'avoir voulu  proposé une union « sans les Insoumis ».

Polémique autour de Fabien Roussel. Le secrétaire national du Parti communiste français a-t-il voulu monter une coalition sans la France insoumise ? Ce sont les accusations portées à l'encontre de l'ancien député sur le réseau social X par un compte qui a publié un enregistrement à bord d'un train, explique Libération. La scène daterait du 4 juillet dernier, dans un TGV reliant Paris à Lille. Une photographie accompagnant ces enregistrements montre un homme de dos, en chemise blanche, présenté comme étant Fabien Roussel.

Dans ces extraits, on peut entendre l'homme au téléphone (présenté comme Fabien Roussel) évoquer différents scénarios en fonction « du rapport de force qui sortira ». Il poursuit : « Est-ce que le Front populaire a plus de députés que la majorité et LR ? » ou encore « Est-ce que sans les Insoumis, on est un poids suffisant pour que ça fasse une majorité avec les autres ? ». Puis l'homme explique à son interlocuteur : « On échafaude des scénarios, on en parle avec Faure (...) Moi, j'ai eu Darmanin. Le plus simple, c'est de faire sans les Insoumis. »

À LIRE AUSSI
Laïcité : le député NFP Rodrigo Arenas souhaite revenir sur l'interdiction de l'abaya à l'école

Un enregistrement datant « d'avant le premier tour », selon Roussel

Ces propos présumés ont provoqué l'ire des internautes de gauche sur le réseau social X. Mais ont-ils été tenus par Fabien Roussel ? Interrogé par BFMTV, le sénateur communiste et porte-parole du PCF, Ian Brossat, a « contesté totalement l'authenticité de cet échange » en prenant pour justification la date d'enregistrement de la conversation, le 4 juillet, donc « avant le résultat des élections législatives ». Pourtant, selon Libération, l'entourage de Fabien Roussel a confirmé l'authenticité de l'enregistrement tout en critiquant la manœuvre « trompeuse, tronquée et malveillante ».

Invité du plateau de C à Vous ce mardi soir sur France 5, Fabien Roussel a confirmé à demi-mot avoir tenu ces propos tout en rappelant qu'ils dataient « d'avant le premier tour ». Et d'ajouter : « J'échange avec des collègues, et donc à cette époque-là, il y a une majorité absolue donnée au RN, donc chacun chapeaute des scénarios. » A-t-il pour autant voulu exclure les Insoumis ?

Le patron du PCF a tenu à rappeler qu'il faisait partie avec Manuel Bompard, Marine Tondelier et Olivier Faure de ceux qui ont formé le Nouveau Front populaire. « On n'a rien lâché dans le respect. On a travaillé dans le respect et le consensus », a-t-il terminé. De son côté, Ian Brossat a voulu calmer le jeu en assurant que « le Nouveau Front populaire est uni » et qu'il « restera uni ».

Ce cher Fabien Roussel a même osa même parler de viande dans un repas français typique, suscitant l'ire de la gauche végane.
Il reçut l'approbation de la droite, en revanche.

https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/opinions/la-bonne-viande-et-son-arriere-gout-20220117_G2IQR5JTPFGHBH7J7VVGKAI77E/

[Duque de Bragança]

Was Solmy always off the deep end, or is it recent? I mean, ignoring Muslims citing Al-Andalus and grabbing more of Western Thrace as relevant for current politics?

Fixed! 

[viper37]

À ce propos, ça ne va pas fort entre les islamo-gauchos et les cocos (Fabien Roussel chef du PCF) :


Ce cher Fabien Roussel a même osa même parler de viande dans un repas français typique, suscitant l'ire de la gauche végane.
Il reçut l'approbation de la droite, en revanche.

https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/opinions/la-bonne-viande-et-son-arriere-gout-20220117_G2IQR5JTPFGHBH7J7VVGKAI77E/

La Gauche en France / The Left in France:

[crazy canuck]

Europe is a continent basically built upon cultural genocide.
Everyone for hundreds of miles on this side of a line is French and everyone for hundreds of miles on that side of the line is German is not the natural order.

Certainly ethnic cleansing. Europe's a charnel house - even putting European imperialism and settlement to one side. Across Europe people were made to match borders. Just visit, say, any city in Poland (having recently got back from Gdansk and the tri-city area.

It's one of the reasons I find Europe orb of lightness so maddening. I've mentioned it before but the European diplomat quoted in relation to Ukraine that it was "intolerable" that Europe's future was being decided in tank battles. There is nowhere in the world where history has been decided by tank battles as much as Europe. There's not an inch of ground here that is not blood-soaked.

all continents are charnel houses. There's no such thing as a noble savage.
It's not because they weren't westphalian states that the tribes and non-european states weren't genociding left and right. Something to keep in mind.

Agree on the orb-of-light thing. Euros have forgotten that to keep your country you need to be willing to hold it, occassionally the means at all costs.

While there was certainly conflict amongst Indigenous communities there are also are also peoples who can demonstrate exclusive use of their traditional territories.

Something very different from the bloodbath that is Europe. 

[viper37]

If you're a muslim who drinks alcohol and eats pork - you aren't a follower of some different strain of muslim theology, you're just a non-observant muslim.  Whereas on the other hand Christians can have wildly different views on, say, contraception, that are strongly based on different readings of the Bible and the Christian tradition.

Of my own observations:
Not eating pork seems near universal.  I've yet to see a Muslim who will willingly eat pork in a non starving situation.

But alcohol is widely different.  They don't drink in countries where they are the majority, they prefer drugs , but in occidental countries, those who were born here will often at least try it for a time while still being devout Muslims.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I am not sure why some here think practicing Muslims are very different from them.

[Habbaku]

The siege of Vienna, seen as the furthest extent of Turkish expansion into Europe, was in 1529

This is winged hussar erasure and I won't stand for it.

[Duque de Bragança]

À ce propos, ça ne va pas fort entre les islamo-gauchos et les cocos (Fabien Roussel chef du PCF) :


Ce cher Fabien Roussel a même osa même parler de viande dans un repas français typique, suscitant l'ire de la gauche végane.
Il reçut l'approbation de la droite, en revanche.

https://www.liberation.fr/idees-et-debats/opinions/la-bonne-viande-et-son-arriere-gout-20220117_G2IQR5JTPFGHBH7J7VVGKAI77E/

La Gauche en France / The Left in France:

Seulement en France ? 

Olivier Tesquet

Un trotskiste c'est un parti, deux trotskistes c'est une tendance, trois trotskistes c'est une scission. Et Twitter en a fait un modèle économique.

Olivier Tesquet est un journaliste de Télérama, une des voix des bobos parisiens. 

[Valmy]

Yeah, I am not sure why some here think practicing Muslims are very different from them.

Well, for me, it is usually because of what Muslims say when polled.

According to the Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

74% of Egyptian Muslims think that Sharia should be the law of the land. And 86% of those think that there should be the death penalty for apostasy. So 63% of Muslims in this country are in favor of executing anybody who decides, you know Islam just isn't for me man. And granted there is a variation on this. Only 1% of Albanian Muslims think this, but still 1% calling for death for apostates is pretty horrifying. I mean most people are born into this religion, they didn't read over all the religions and just decide they want to become a Muslim. But even if they did, I think they should be free to decide to not be a Muslim anymore.

But, as you say, surely these people aren't that much different than me right? Maybe to them the whole idea of changing ones religion is really foreign to them. Maybe if somebody they knew where to apostatize they would be suddenly have a change of heart once it gets very real somebody they know is about to be executed.

But still we have Egypt, a country with 90 million or so Muslims, where over 50 million people believe something incredibly evil and vile and more extreme than even Scientology or some of the most dangerous American cults practice. And I think the shunning practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are horrendous. How many of those Egyptians who don't go as far as execution simply favor JW-type shunning practices which to my mind are already very dangerous and culty? Or some other kind of persecution like prison time or something?

And the reason for this is: Islam says kill apostates. Explicitly. And there just isn't much you can do inside Islam beyond just ignoring that or rationalizing around it. But there is always going to be a core number who take Islam very seriously who think apostates should be killed. Even Albanians.

Now do I know how many Canadian, French, or American Muslims are in favor of persecuting apostates in someway? No. But I bet it's not zero.