Terrorist attacks throughout Europe

Just the occasional dogs tbf

Within certain cultures eating a dog is not distinguishable from eating a chicken or a snake. When cooked, it is food and it is well within norms. The attitude of Americans towards dogs seems rather comical to them I'm sure. This is a perfectly valid illustration of differing cultural norms.

Its weakness in the context of this discussion is that eating dogs is very far from central to the cultural identity of those societies and is relatively easy to dispense with, as there is plenty of other foods available. Religious matters are much more fraught. Orthodox jews do not simply give up eating by kosher standards in order to 'fit in'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CbFAZ2ztlE

some day you go through the rain, some day you feed on a tree frog

something 2 think abt

It's a dog-eat-dog world, y'know?

Aimless: I'd disagree. Eating anything that moves is central to mainland Chinese culture. It's why the Taiwanese discuss the total absence of birdsong in mainland China after their visits.

I just don't make a distinction between culinary habits and other elements of culture like religion. It's all just culture. If a nation wants to remain religious, or remain secular, or if it thinks cats and dogs are protected animals, it's all just cultural fictions.

i'm stiiiiiiiiill

in a dreeeeeeeeam

SNAKE EAAAAAAATERRRRRR

Gonna hide under a cardboard box now

What is with assholes claiming they can take a supposedly neutral stance while still spreading pretty statistically useless and othering ideas about others? I wonder if it might have something to do with...western chauvinism?

I just don't make a distinction between culinary habits and other elements of culture like religion. It's all just culture. If a nation wants to remain religious, or remain secular, or if it thinks cats and dogs are protected animals, it's all just cultural fictions.

― Sanpaku, Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:01 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

The offense here is not that these muslims aren’t adapting to French society, they are. It’s just that French society refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt, muslims in France see that other religions are generally better tolerated and don’t bear the same brunt of securalism. If the islamic veil is contrary to french ‘values’ and banned, why the hassidic practice of shaving women’s hair wouldn’t? If the muslim brotherhood is harrassed for espousing extremist views, why is it that the ultra-catholic can safely ally with the RN?

A better analogy using dog eating would really be that some people are allowed by the state to eat dogs and some others aren’t. No one should be asked to adapt to hate speech, and if a teacher had offensive discourses towards jews or protestants and lgbt, or whatever, it would be met with a ton more scrutiny, not freaking heroism.

^^^

A drawing of a historical figure can be hate speech, but not in every case, and certainly not just because a religious group prohibits it amongst its own followers.

2 French women of Algerian descent were stabbed by two European women in the presence of their children + were racially and Islamophobically abused prior to the attack.

This is escalating fast, with govt officials referring to French Muslims as 'the enemy within'. https://t.co/eM5sckuBWl

— Ryma Tchier 🇩🇿 (@rjtchier) October 20, 2020

Terrorist attacks.

A drawing of a historical figure can be hate speech, but not in every case, and certainly not just because a religious group prohibits it amongst its own followers.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:22 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Correct, but in this case it absolutely is. It’s not just a drawing, it’s caricatures, and it’s not just a historical figure, the person himself has spiritual meaning.

a spiritual meaning to people of that faith. He was an actual human, military leader etc.

Sure, discussing and debating the merits of Mahomet is okay, it is done in french classes. However, when you show the caricatures the only point is to transgress a spiritual rule.

Can an art teacher show a class pictures of Piss Christ?

Wow, so you don’t actually know anything about Islam?

Don’t make me tap the sign


It’s complicated. I don’t think I’ve ever read a better summary of the cartoons themselves than this old ilx post by an acquaintance:

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari)
Posted: 8 January 2015 at 12:31:21
There's a strong possibility that many of their cartoons would have fallen foul of British laws about inciting racial and religious hatred. Many would have been equally as at home in a Neo-Nazi publication as they were in a libertarian satirical magazine. It's clearly possible to separate the belief that they have a right to publish from a belief that other organisations should republish as a point of principle, though.

xpost Explain please

Your question about piss christ would indicate that you think that’s an equivalent blasphemy. It isn’t even close.

Piss Christ of course being done by an adherent of Catholicism in a religion that doesn’t prohibit depictions of Jesus, so totally comparable.

Like we’re talking about a culture that takes the commandment against idolatry so seriously that basically none of their art, for centuries, is figurative.

I don't think it's possible to commit blasphemy to a religion you don't follow.

That’s some sovereign citizen shit right there

bs

I don't think it's possible to commit blasphemy to a religion you don't follow.

“I don’t belong to any society other than the one I imagine in my own head”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
accused of blasphemy
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity

for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy
— John Bright †1889

2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

I don't see anything about the beliefs of the person committing the act in those definitions.

Blasphemy in the sense that you are committing a sin that gets you punished within the laws of that religion--sent to hell/burned at stake etc. A non-believer has no spiritual reason to refrain from breaking a particular religion's law, only a social one.

But let's be all Webster's

What, you mean let's understand the meaning of the words we're using?

yes, the social reason not to openly engage in blasphemy is in fact what everyone has been talking about on this thread for days. Thank you for catching up.

I thought we were talking about beheadings

Can’t believe the guy with nothing useful to contribute to any thread is continuing that streak here

it's a living

Oh, now you can see my posts.

Your question was: do you have any thoughts on this?

I think you know the answer

You’re not getting enough attention at home, got it.

too much actually

just catching up on the revive and this is a really interesting discussion. feel very enlightened by some posts itt.

once you pick thru all the people in the thread arguing that the murder was justified under sharia law

lol

Basic critical theory around identity (which you'd think French people would have an edge in) since at least the 1970s

le rire à haute voix

Depends. French critical theory is no monolith and can be quite critical of identity as well.

sorry, the LOL francaise was because Tracer and I were actually in the same critical theory/semiotics classes in the early 90s, where the majority of the texts were English translations of French writers.

I still have my copy of Mythologies by Barthes from MCM 11

Yeah, sorry, I don’t think we should engage in blasphemy. I’m not going to wear a feather crown, nor am I going to keep my shoes in a Mosque. I think respecting the notion that muslims don’t like demeaning caricatures of their prophet is pretty easy to understand, and pretty easy to act on. And that the only social reasons you would partake in such activities is to prove that you don’t care about respecting other people’s right to spiritual and cultural integrity.

I don’t have any regard for blasphemy as an offence, and it strikes me that several people itt are deliberately calling it this to deflect from the fact that it’s just disrespectful - like, if you’re discussing the subject, why use the CH ones?