Charlie Hebdo

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Charlie Hebdo publishes satirical cartoons

No-one catch this little gem? The mag in question has a long track record for publishing offensive satirical cartoons featuring religious and other figures and decided to give the prophet Mohammed the same treatment this week, depicting him in the buff. On the one hand they're showing no fear or favour and it's a noble stand for free speech, on the other you can't help wondering if they haven't just poked an already angry dog with a very big stick.

If there was a god, what has he/she been up to this last few centuries??? What is his/her purpose? Are we merely tiny characters in a game like The Sims, and there's a player playing this game? If so, why should I worship the player???

why should I worship the player

It's a good question. Usually we get so bogged down in sorting out if god exists that we never get to that part. If I saw proof god existed I would of course agree that she did, but I think there's an assumption that I would then worship her and there's no way I'd do that. No way am I going to worship even a nice god and this one according to the religious is a serial killer.

ThereYouArePeter

Every atheist whose written about it has said it's intellectually dishonest to describe yourself as anything other than agnostic?

Erm....almost. But not quite.

It's true that we should all...theist or atheist...be agnostic since none of us know. But you seem to be implying that the term atheist should not be used.

Why ever not? Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive as they answer different questions.

In my case.....I don't know for certain that there's not god (agnostic) but I actively do not believe there's one (atheist).

And it's always worth pointing out that since the term "atheist" describes absolutely anyone who does not have a belief in a god, this must include self declared agnostics.

They don't like me pointing that out and become quite insistent that they are not atheists - which is easily dealt with when I ask them what god they actually believe in then. If they can't name one then, sorry, but you are an atheist.

If they are especially clueless I'll then get: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" thereby proving, yet again, that they have no understanding of the terms they are using.

And, seriously...you have no evidence but who knows what the future will bring? Worst logic ever. Almost as bad as, "I can't prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't!"

I never said there wasn't one - well, then, you're not an atheist

You are not being pedantic. You are wrong. Quite startlingly so.

I am stunned by the size of the rally in Paris.

It's quite something. A friend of mine is in Toulouse and she was shocked by the size of their crowd this week. IT is a liberal/student city but it was still surprising to her.

I've made a thread for those who don't wish to argue but wish to stand in unity here

Thanks oybbk.

It's a better idea.

For those of you who argue that atheism is a faith position, or that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, where do you stand on the existence of Thor? Or Zeus? Are you 100% sure they don't exist?

They're getting ready to publish more pictures of Muhammad...

I just heard a commentator on BBC News 24 saying that:

if CH is free to publish cartoons depicting the prophet

but someone who says that British soldiers should be murdered is prosecuted

that is discrimination against muslims in terms of access to freedom of speech.

And he was not challenged on that point, in spite of the fact that only one of those situations is actually inciting murder and therefore illegal.

Shameful.

The BBC is allowing a lot of ridiculous claims to go unchallenged. Lots of self-confessed 'moderate Muslims' on BBC this morning saying they are "outraged" by the cartoons. A common theme is fir Muslims to try to portray themselves as race presumably so they can utilise discrimination law when in fact Islam is only a belief system. Also a tendency to portraying themselves as the victims of non-Muslims. Both very inaccurate positions but seem to be widespread Muslim beliefs that must be challenged.

One Muslim objecting to what he called persecution of Muslims was caught out this morning when it was pointed out that he has published anti-Semite views
I find the bigotry quite depressing.

There is a vast gulf between Voltaire and the fearfulness of snr BBC managers and execs.

Not just BBC. Sky News and the mainstream Press are just as guilty. But the fact that many feel it's too dangerous to publish speaks volumes about our Govts unwillingness and inability to protect freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression has been hardly free, under threat and clamped down on for ages, and not by terrorist threats, but by our Western governments who seem free to decide what is "freedom of expression/press/speech/assembly" and what they can toss under any other label to silence those not toeing the line.

speech is under threat from many sources, the state being one of them, and crazy zealots with guns being another. In the piece linked in what I quoted, the French government apparently clamped down on protests about the situation in Gaza, which is bad, even if the excuse is security.

I certainly have sympathy with French Muslims when they claim there is a double standard. They (the people in the west who support of Charlie, myself included) have dug their heels in the ground and said free speech is too important. Well, what of the French head scarf law? Why don't religious minorities have the same right to free expression? If free expression is that important (and it is), everyone should have access to it.

That, however, doesn't excuse these attacks. The people doing the attacks said they were "avenging the prophet", not protesting these double standards, and of course this is not the way to protest.

France didn't ban the hijab. It's the burqa, niqab and face-covering that was banned and it's because it us a secular society. The UK still has a established church. The real problems for us will start when King Charles insists in being the defender of all faiths, as he has proposed as his Coronation oath.

France didn't ban the hijab. It's the burqa, niqab and face-covering that was banned and it's because it us a secular society.

The US is secular and doesn't ban them. it certainly doesn't follow that because you are secular you must ban the niqab.

I was referring more to law banning hijabs (not niqabs) in schools (they may be banned in other places).

All religious identifiers are banned in French schools e.g the cross as well as the hijab. It's part of their secular state and also egalitarian

I wish we would do the same. I hate to see children saddled with the archaic beliefs of their parents. I feel even more strongly against faith schools. The opportunity for isolating children within a certain faith does not lead to harmony or tolerance.

All religious identifiers are banned in French schools e.g the cross as well as the hijab. It's part of their secular state and also egalitarian

no they are not, only "ostentatious" ones. Small crosses are accepted (how convenient?).

There is nothing secular about it. Secularism practised with a religious fervour that clamps down on free expression doesn't interest me in the slightest. And it's not at all egalitarian. Uniform and equal are not the same. The rules now fit (again, how convenient?) the french majority. How is that egalitarian? That's like saying the rule that everyone must wear a jewish skullcap is egalitarian because it applies to everyone, which is plain nonsense.

I wish we would do the same. I hate to see children saddled with the archaic beliefs of their parents.

Then it doesn't sound like you are for free expression, just expression you agree with. Sound familiar?

I feel even more strongly against faith schools.

faith schools are entirely different.

written - you and I disgree on a level that will never be resolved so lets just leave it here Thanks

Jewellery is usually banned at French state schools in order to prevent crosses/Stars of David etc from being worn.

"All religious identifiers are banned in French schools."

You mean French state schools. There are a lot of faith schools in France!

Theres only one reason why they print these pictures, to make money.

They have achieved their goal at the ultimate price.

I dont want to see the pictures because I dont think its funny to deliberately antagonise others.

This is not freedom of speech its freedom to offend.

From The Telegragh:

The profits from the edition will go to the families of the victims of the attack at the satirical magazine, while the distributors have decided to waive their usual commission.

Satsfied now tidy?

and btw 'freedom of speech' includes 'freedom to offend'. Not the world's greatest thinker are you?