Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

251–260 of 489 posts

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

#251
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.

Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not e…

Islam and Christianity promote peace. But, pretending that everyone is ready to stand hand in hand and do a sing along is just ridiculous.

Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication.

PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.

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

#252
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this iss…

> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?

[deleted]

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

#253
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad ideas deserve to be mocked.

Why? To make you feel smart or better than someone else? If there is an idea you think is bad and you want the other person to realise it is bad mocking it is a stupid way to go about that. Charlie Hebdo took ideas it thought were bad and didn't simply mock them but used satire and cartoons to explain why they were bad or ridiculous in a humorous way.

I agree with your sentiment that mocking should have its limits, but I subscribe to the view that "if you cross the limits of good taste, you're just being an asshole", and definitely not to the idea of shooting such people instead. People should have right to express their opinions safely, even when those opinions aren't in good taste.

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

#254

Charlie Hebdos fight is not a fight for freedom of expression but against self-censorship. I think a lot media and politicians forget that. We all deal with self-censorship every day as we live amongst each other. Some people have more courage than others and dare take it "behind enemy lines" where other rules apply. Freedom of expression is a legal right to express yourself without fearing those in power is going to…

There are already plenty of laws in France and most (perhaps all) other countries that restrict freedom of speech. Examples of censured expression include but are not limited to: Holocaust denial, hate speech, some forms of pornography, leaking state secrets, harassing communication, copyright infringement, libel and slander. I don't think that freedom of expression is absolutely permitted anywhere. There are so many…

I agree. My primary point is just that it's not "the others" that threaten our freedom of expression its ourselves.

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

#255
post #115
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely those faggots need to be condemned/punished/killed/whatever This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment. This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal. If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on…

I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?

The only non-violent religions I know of are Jainism and Theravāda Buddhism. The holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all contain passages encouraging their followers to torture, kill, and otherwise harm non-believers. Mainstream adherents followed these directives for millennia. It's taken centuries of conflict with enlightenment values to relegate such views to extremists.

After September 11th, I read the Qur'an[1] to see what the fuss was about. I encourage others to do the same. Unlike the Bible, it is not a long text. Even if you take notes while reading, you can finish it in a few days. Unless you're indoctrinated in the faith, it will be obvious that the Qur'an preaches violence toward the infidel much more than nonviolence.

1. Or more correctly, an English translation of the Qur'an.

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

#256
post #210
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beg your pardon. I find the exact opposite as true. People today, are generally careful and sensitive about what they say about Jews or black people, because they don't want to be labelled as anti-semitic or racist. Muslims seems to be the only minority you can criticize and be politically correct. Consider the following statement : "Maybe most Jews are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing zio…

To be fair, I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), the ultra-orthodox political campaigns in Israel (e.g. that men and women should walk on opposite sidewalks). Also, they don't seem to have as many idiotic rules as Muslims (no depictions of Yahweh? or at least I don't know about them, and…

>> I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously),

Well I don't think many jews, or muslims for that matter (muslims do it too) would be offended by a reasoned criticism of circumcision. It is usually the hot topics like Israeli actions, or depiction of Prophet Muhammad that seems to trigger passions.

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

#257
post #92
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be app…

> You can choose your religion

Often you cannot.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countr...

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the Guardian's credit, they did actually publish the cover. As did Libération in France. US news outlets, as well as some UK outlets, and certainly many more elsewhere including France, cannot be said to have done as much, e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/arts/international/charlie... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1134...

Several US news outlets did, the biggest being the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-hebdo-puts-muhammad-on-c... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/12/hayat-bo... http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-charlie-hebdo-cove... http://chicago.suntimes.com/nationworld/7/71/286127/charlie-... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/12...

Yep. Big hat to them, and shame on the NYT imho. In the UK, the Independent also published the cover in full.

Edit: it look like Buzzfeed went through a couple of sites:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/austinhunt/heres-who-is-and-isnt-pub...

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

#259
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?

Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500?

That is the real question in my mind, at least.

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

#260
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be app…

> You can choose your religion I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of: - Been brought up in the environment - External pressures from relatives/society - In some cases institutionalised to their religion - Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion - Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to th…

I agree with you that your religion is not necessarily something you can choose, but because of another bullet point:

- You sincerely believe it to be true.

If you don't have a doubt in your mind that something is true (e.g. that torture is never morally justifiable, or that God doesn't exist because of Epicurus' trilemma, or that an unborn baby has a right to life, or that objective truths exist) then to say that you could "choose" to believe something else is not quite accurate.

And since a religion is, fundamentally, a collection of truth assertions, it's not necessarily true that you can "choose" it intellectually.

Whether you are free to choose it socially or legally is another story. In many places, converting to another religion can be a very dangerous thing to do.

Post reply on HN