Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad • Hacker News Board

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#181

Post by gbog » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #73

gbog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to point out that Far East cultures (China and Japan) do not have the same religious instincts. For them an almighty human-like God who wrote a sacred book is not conceivable. I don't think they can understand what religion and faith represent in the lives of Christian, Jews and Muslims. And unsurprisingly, religious wars have been quite marginal in this part of the world. One could also trace this important…

A very good point. I would argue that these cultures are simply expressing these religious instincts in ways that don't look like abrahamic religions, in the same way that football or rock music don't look like abrahamic religions either. Also, once you blur out the technical theological details, is Confucius not effectively treated as a prophet? (This is a genuine question.)

Well, for me there is a discontinuity between religion in abrahamic sense and football, rock music, and even buddhism. While the former obviously covers what might be a kind of universal religious instinct, it does much much more. For instance, I don't think believing in God is the same as believing in the existence of ghosts, or in immaterial spirits. It should even be the same verb. A man of faith is not only believing in the existence of God, and that His words are in a Book, he is also his whole life a consequence of this belief. If you really believe in God, you should be working very hard to be a Saint. Every second of your life you are not climbing this path is a misstep.

In the Far East religions, you have most pieces of the jigsaw present: mysticism, the Sacred, priests, monks, prayers, meditation, afterlife, etc. But I think the central piece of a unique almighty exclusive God is missing, and then the result is completely different.

There is also this theory that the Far East did not have a powerful scientific revolution because of this missing piece: Without a God who created everything, there is less incentive to believe in a unique ordering of things (the Law of physics) and to try to discover it.

And no, Confucius is not a prophet, he made no miracles, he did not announce anything. He was just a failed political advisor who became the teacher of a few disciples. However, he proposed a very rational and revolutionary way of life, under the disguise of restoring the ancient Way. He also happen to be (along with Jesus and maybe Mohammad) the man who influenced the most the lives of most other humans.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#182

Post by rikacomet » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #165

rikacomet wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liberty to express yourself is not the only liberty in the world. I, You and All of Us have the liberty to be offended as well. The point is: -what to do if you are offended? To which I say simply ignore it happened. -why offend someone in the first place?

> why offend someone in the first place? Why this insistence on feeling offended? The prophet is the one being mocked, not you.

To offend him is to offend me. The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#183

Post by seabee » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

mavdi wrote: post #59

chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

> Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Team America: World Police? Durka durka?

The depiction of the Arab terrorists in that film was intentionally shallow and not particularly focused on Islam; the worst message you can get from it is 'Muslims are dumb terrorists' which, while hurtful, is nowhere near ridiculing religion to the same degree as Book of Mormon.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#184

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

[deleted]

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#185

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

rikacomet wrote: post #145

anoonmoose wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"both parties were at wrong here"..."it is a kin to playing with their feelings"..."such mishaps happen"..."the level of satire in question here, was perhaps too much". Honestly, I can't help but come away feeling that what you're saying is that what Hebdo did was so wrong on their part that they should have seen it coming and it is their own fault.

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

> did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

Yes, and if you had left it at that your stance would be commendable. But you chose to significantly dilute your position in what followed.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#186

Post by jkot » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

neals wrote: post #7

I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion behind. But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind. Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.

What society has to do with this? Two terrorists are not society. If anything 'leaving all violence' behind is responsible. It could look very differently if those victims could defend themselves.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#187

Post by amirmc » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

pohl wrote: post #114

[deleted] wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Race is an immutable characteristic. No one could possibly change their race. It's barely a valid concept. Holding someone responsible for an inseparable part of themselves is both ill-conceived and futile. Religion is software: adopt a baby from a family with a different religion and odds are that the baby will grow into an adult having your religion. It may feel like an inseparable part of oneself, but it is not: i…

Religion is legacy software (FTFY) -- as we all know legacy software is a pain in the ass to deal with and definitely not as easy to replace as your comment suggests.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#188

Post by DanBC » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #112

tomp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> racists I fail to see how the attacks have anything to do with racism . Islamophobia is not racism. > Send me some photographs or your mother or spouse and let me modify those images. Let's see if you are able to ignore or laugh them off. Well, I'm not sure they would consent to me sharing photos of them, but you can have mine :) Just add me as a friend on Facebook (Tom Primozic), and you'll have a collection of ph…

> not funny or disgusting And therein lies the rub: would you subsequently gun someone down because they made photos of your loved ones which you find distasteful? Almost nobody would.

I could take a photo some someone's male child, photoshop it so he is kissinganother male. That would be enough for some people to murder me.

You can argue that only a tiny number of people would murder me, but then it's only a tiny minority of Muslims who consider murder when they hear of Muhummed cartoons.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#189

Post by mattmanser » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:52 PM UTC

gbog wrote: post #64

JonnieCache wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The religious instinct hasn't gone from the secular western world, it's just been re-expressed in different more modern ways, variously consumerism, string theory, celebrity, and so on. I'm pretty sure personally that it's built into our biology. In the words of Charlie Brooker: "Imagine! Nothing to kill or die for! And no religion too! It's amazing, literally no one's ever had that thought before. Okay, so there's a…

I'd like to point out that Far East cultures (China and Japan) do not have the same religious instincts. For them an almighty human-like God who wrote a sacred book is not conceivable. I don't think they can understand what religion and faith represent in the lives of Christian, Jews and Muslims. And unsurprisingly, religious wars have been quite marginal in this part of the world. One could also trace this important…

They had deification of leaders and ancestor worship.

The Japanese did some horrific things in the name of their Emperor, so I don't buy your assertion.

You could argue that the Far East are simply religiously backwards, using polytheism instead of monotheism, so your argument actually makes no sense, they simply haven't caught the monotheistic religious bug (yet).

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#190

Post by Joeboy » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

aNoob7000 wrote: post #121

[deleted] wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said. As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesu…

> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want.

I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.

In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.