Aibu to be schooled at the stats about muslims

[Inabitoftyhme]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

I think this study is worrying and also fantastic at the same time.

Worrying over the Charlie Hebdo 27%. But fantastic that 93% feel british.

No one answers the Muslim newsagent who sells Charlie hebdo

but what about free speech Inabit surely if you have free speech you should be able to say what you like?

who is saying it shouldn't be published?

well, 11% in the survey said they should be attacked. 24% say they disagree with the statement that acts of violence against the publisher are never justified, and 27% have some sympathy for the motives of the attackers.

whether or not the publishing of the cartoons should be legal was not in the poll. but my guess is many muslims would say they shouldn't be published. hell, I know a lot of non-muslims who say that.

I know Muslims are idivduals

Lem73 I agree. I think it is as important to publish the magazine regardless of offensive content as it is to allow British Muslims to say 'I find that offensive' . I agree with Inabit I too find UKIP deplorable, but I would fight for their right to exist in the face of their oppression, after all we live in a free society and everyone regardless is entitled to an opinion. And so we come on to the whole banning opinions/hate speech/fundamentalism (of any religion/creed) do they not have the same rights? Are they not equally protected in a democratic society. It's a whole hot mess.

That's why I question it. Not the censorship of it though. Just the need for it.

if you don't see the need for such cartoons, don't buy a newspaper and publish them.

I gave instances where there is a need for offensive cartoons (depicting a violent or paedophile mohammed). if you don't see the need, don't publish them.

Muslim newsagents probably sell top shelf porn mags too. Why wouldn't they sell Charlie hebdo?

Thyme you have absolutely zero knowledge of the nature of God if you think He would be okay with being mocked.

so that no one saying it shouldn't be published then?

It is my view that God is a kind humorous person who in my opinion can take the piss out of himself.

Keep I Am with you I'm afraid. I question the need for Big Brother, I find the banality of it utterly offensive. They keep making it. I don't feel the need for them to not make it, I just don't watch it.

That's quite a passive attitude to have. Thank goodness there are people who don't just ignore things they don't think are right.
Debate is good. It leads to action too when necessary.
Maybe women should never have got the vote? Gays and blacks treated equally?

Debate is good. It leads to action too when necessary.
Maybe women should never have got the vote? Gays and blacks treated equally?

there's a distinction with disagreeing with a position, finding it offensive, and calling for it to be silenced.

so should Holocaust deniers be allowed a platform in the UK - because protest has silenced them

of that awful Dapper bloke who's show was cancelled after protests

Or the convicted rapists being banned from speaking at UK universities (Mike Tyson) due to protest?

and again - NO ONE has said it should be banned have they?

That's where the debate comes in.
It's good to hear different viewpoints though I don't think anyone here is calling for it to be silenced.

Agree Ghosty.
Do people who agree in the freedom of speech in this context agree with all freedom if speech regardless of message and consequence?

Holocaust deniers are allowed to speak in the UK, so are rapists.

Although there may not be many people who want to hear them.

In Germany and Austria, for historical reasons, Holocaust Denial can be an offense under the law.

Yes they are BUT specific protests have prevented them from doing so on occasion

I didn't say they where banned out right - I'm giving examples of when peoples offence led to 'silencing' - it happens

if it is right or not is the debate

but it happens to things not connected to being Muslim

The Life Of Brian was banned in some areas

I can quite easily see how terrorists are created, and there's a lot more behind it than someone being randomly offended by a cartoon.

The biggest problem we have is lack of debate, and I think it would be well worth the people who have power debating the reasons why some people feel they can justify extremism.

so should Holocaust deniers be allowed a platform in the UK - because protest has silenced them

we don't need to give them a platform, but they should be allowed to speak.

i don't know who Dapper is.

Or the convicted rapists being banned from speaking at UK universities (Mike Tyson) due to protest?

I don't know what the law is, but i thought that convicted anythings might have trouble entering the country. however, if he is allowed in the country, he should of course be allowed to address anyone crazy enough to listen to him.

and again - NO ONE has said it should be banned have they?

no one here has, but in fact many people do. so what's the debate here then? if we all agree the speech shouldn't be banned, we all agree.

"Some percentage of Christians and Jews would also say that modern secular society is incompatible with Christianity or Judaism (at least as they think it should be practiced)."

The only Jews who would say that modern society is incompatible with Judiasm are the (fanatical) ultra orthodox jews who don't mix at all outside their community. They are very clear about this.

However with Islam I think this extends outside the religious fanatics.

You are missing my point - I am not saying any of the above should be banned - just that peoples protests played a part in them being 'silenced'

People have a right to protest and by angry at things that offend them - you have to defend that as well as peoples right to say offensive things if you are truly in favour of free speech.

and I think people should use 'free speech' (which doesn't exist) to deliberately offend for the sake of it

being offensive then shouting 'freedom of speech' doesn't make you right

in the survey mentioned here 4/5th of Muslims said that modern society was compatible with their faith

They were silly cartoons about a silly non-existent figure. Anybody prepared to kill over them is a fool. Anybody who actually has sympathy for somebody who was prepared to kill over them is also a fool.

Freedom of speech does not equal the automatic right to publish your views in the medium of your choice. Eg. by giving a speech at a university. Or publishing an article in the Times.

These organisations are free to choose who they wish to provide a platform to. This is not a restriction of individual X's freedom of speech.

I must say I feel quite ill at the number of people who seem to be trying so very hard to be open-minded that their brains appear to have fallen out. Ideologies are and should remain open to any and all criticism. I don't give a shit that a given religion says for example that wearing a rainbow coloured hairband on the third Tuesday of the month is a grievous attack on them and their god. It's not my god. They're not my beliefs.

The majority of Christians don't get violent when Jesus appears in South Park. It's time for certain groups of people to wise up to the stark differences between 'moderate Islam' and the English brand of moderate Christianity and stop assuming they're comparable in adherence to scripture, genuine belief in the contents of the holy book, etc. And time for other groups of people to fucking grow up and stop playing the victim. I understand that satirical drawings can perhaps be taken too seriously if you're already hyper-alert to any sign of discrimination as a minority in a country - but it's really tough fucking luck. Repressing freedom of speech in said country is not the way to test the waters and reassure yourself that everyone doesn't hate you.