Charlie Hebdo

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just remember two things:

1: I am Charlie


2: (Even now) eternal vigilance is the price of freedom

I would amend those two things to something vastly more important:

1. Love the Lord God with all your heart.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

All else follows from these.

Originally posted by FMF
The gap between how people see themselves and how they come across can be interesting sometimes.

The gap between how people see themselves and how YOU wish them to be seen is even wider. "How they come across" barely even enters into it.

You've made some good points in this thread. Don't backslide into old habits now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The gap between how people see themselves and how YOU wish them to be seen is even wider. "How they come across" barely even enters into it.

Perhaps you don't know what the phrasal verb "come across" means. How a poster "comes across" to me and how they "come across" to you is never going to be the same. To "come across" is to be perceived. "How they come across" to you, me or anyone, always enters into it. In a way, it's the only thing going on on a message board like this. Regardless of whatever it is you think you are protesting against with the above rather incoherent comment, you are coming across as swinging fists in your characteristically Pavlovian way, and hardly giving a thought to what it is you are actually saying, as is sadly so often the case.

Originally posted by FMF
So, while you think CH didn't and doesn't want to insult Muslims, if you yourself would try to be as insulting as possible, something like 'Mohammed being depicted as a gay man watching porn while smoking weed'. In what way would that be "satire"?

It wouldn't. Like I said, I'm not a satirist. Satire, in my opinion, tries to make a point about something using for instance cartoons. I leave it up to people who think they have a talent for it to make a satire out of the Muslim's sensitivity regarding Mohammed.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
If they wanted to, yeah. I am not familiar with this Piss Christ thing. Were people killed over it or something?

From Wikipedia:

"Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

Description

The photograph is of a small plastic crucifix submerged in what appears to be a yellow liquid. The artist has described the substance as being his own urine in a glass. The photograph was one of a series of photographs that Serrano had made that involved classical statuettes submerged in various fluids—milk, blood, and urine. The full title of the work is Immersion (Piss Christ). The photograph is a 60x40 inch Cibachrome print. It is glossy and its colors are deeply saturated. The presentation is that of a golden, rosy medium including a constellation of tiny bubbles. Without Serrano specifying the substance to be urine and without the title referring to urine by another name, the viewer would not necessarily be able to differentiate between the stated medium of urine and a medium of similar appearance, such as amber or polyurethane.

Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture.

The art critic Lucy R. Lippard has presented a constructive case for the formal value of Serrano's Piss Christ, which she characterizes as mysterious and beautiful. She writes that the work is "a darkly beautiful photographic image… the small wood and plastic crucifix becomes virtually monumental as it floats, photographically enlarged, in a deep rosy glow that is both ominous and glorious." Lippard suggests that the formal values of the image can be regarded separately from other meanings."

----------------------------------------------------

Christians considered this as being a statement of denial and denigration of Jesus Christ. Many were upset about it, and many in Congress opposed funding to the National Endowment for the Arts for works such as this. The worst public outcry against this work resulted in vandalism of prints in 1997 and 2011, and the BBC covered the controversy in a documentary titled Damned in the USA.

As was said earlier, Christians might get upset over blasphemy, but not enough to kill over it, generally. I guess there always might be a wacko or two out there, but this is not the norm.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you don't know what the phrasal verb "come across" means. How a poster "comes across" to me and how they "come across" to you is never going to be the same. To "come across" is to be perceived. "How they come across" to you, me or anyone, [b]always enters into it. In a way, it's the only thing going on on a message board like this. Regardless of what ...[text shortened]... nd hardly giving a thought to what it is you are actually saying, as is sadly so often the case.[/b]

Missing the point, per usual.

Originally posted by FMF
So you think CH wants to insult Muslims or you think it doesn't want to insult Muslims, which is it to be?

I don't think they want to insult Muslims. They might do it regardless of their intentions, because Muslims - and theists in general - can be huge crybabies who adhere to a religion that still has a lot of growing up to do.

If CH has stated otherwise I will of course be happy to concede this.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Missing the point, per usual.

That you seem not understand what the phrasal verb "come across" means and that you don't seem/or are pretending not to realize that it will always refer to and involve differing perceptions of people, goes straight to the heart of the point you were trying to make and hits it right between the eyes. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
I have said several times that I support the right of CH to do what it does. Despite the fact that they were gunned down in cold blood and the story has spread around the globe, I don't think they are impressive or effective partners to people trying to secure freedom of speech in parts of the world where it is not yet recognized or respected. I think they have ...[text shortened]... , and if this makes France a better and better place in your view, then that's OK. I understand.

If by publishing a couple of silly cartoons in another country with a print of roughly 70.000 copies (currently I believe ~5M. Thank you, angry crybaby muslim, for drawing attention to CH), they managed to undo "the cause" by "years" then I'd say the situation about which you speak was extremely unstable and it's a good thing that this has been shown. You should thank CH for showing again how easily Muslims are pushed over the edge. Lest we start to think Islam is starting to mature.

Originally posted by FMF
Unlike the cartoons that European magazines publish on occasion, Life of Brian was extremely clever and funny and was embraced by every Christian I have met and still is. I walked past 3 or 4 demonstrators outside a cinema in Rickmansworth went I saw it in 1979; I was a Christian at the time. I was not insulted. I think Life of Brian was made to satirize the cul ...[text shortened]... don't think it's a good law. But repealing this law will probably be harder now and take longer.

You finding LoB funny and CH not is a very subjective matter. I'd bet many Christians felt it was funny nor clever back then, and possibly even today.

I agree LoF helped "change what could be said". CH, in it's own more crude way, helps to change what can be shown. I think.

Hopefully these crude cartoons will stir up discussions and in time it will help to repeal the law. If that is now getting harder than easier I'd say the wrong people are currently in charge and hopefully your fellow citizens will see this as another example that church and state should not mix.

I see now this is where you said what Suzianne said in her OP. I guess you're not Suzianne. I guess.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I don't think they want to insult Muslims. They might do it regardless of their intentions, because Muslims - and theists in general - can be huge crybabies who adhere to a religion that still has a lot of growing up to do.

If CH has stated otherwise I will of course be happy to concede this.

I have already conceded that I believe you are telling the truth when you say you don't think CH wanted/wants/will want to insult Muslims. I have lived in a Muslim majority country here for many years and of course never seen a portrayal of the likeness of the prophet (created here, at any rate) because of course it is taboo and seen by Muslims to be a very insulting things to do, even if it were done respectfully. Perhaps CH was completely unaware of this. I don't live in France. I don't read CH. You're there in Europe. So perhaps I just have to accept what you say about what CH wanted.

Originally posted by FMF
Would you support that satirist's freedom of speech to say nasty things about the Jews? Do you think CH would be an even better 'campaigner' for freedom of speech if it also insulted Jews?

I do not support anyone who calls for the extermination of anyone.

I support CH for deciding not to work with such a person.

They may or may not be hypocritical when it comes to satirizing Jews and their beliefs. Are you sure they have not done this in the past? I support CH's right to be hypocritical.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
You finding LoB funny and CH not is a very subjective matter. I'd bet many Christians felt it was funny nor clever back then, and possibly even today.

I agree LoF helped "change what could be said". CH, in it's own more crude way, helps to change what can be shown. I think.

Of course it's a subjective matter. It is my subjective opinion that CH has probably retarded the advance and adoption of Western style of freedom of speech in my Muslim part of the world, and has weakened the hand of its brave and tenacious advocates here. I say this while also supporting CH's right to be offensive. We share the same ideology on that right, I reckon, but perhaps I'm exhibiting some ideological impurity in your eyes by finding CH's approach to be crap and counterproductive. 😀

Originally posted by FMF
But isn't this what has happened and isn't it what you want? Hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims have been deeply offended and have, for all intents and purposes, shrugged and said whatever and done nothing. They appear to be used to it. They've taken the "satire" on the chin and they've done nothing. You think the best course of action now is to keep c ...[text shortened]... eds and hundreds of millions of Muslims on the chin over and over again, harder and harder? Why?

If the "average" Muslim is "deeply offended" by a silly cartoon they still have a long way to go. It would be better if only the most extreme Muslims would be "deeply offended" and still do nothing, while the average Muslims either chuckles or simply doesn't care.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I do not support anyone who calls for the extermination of anyone.

I support CH for deciding not to work with such a person.

Did he call for the extermination of the Jews? Is your source CH or some other critic of his views or did he indeed propose genocide? I don't know the answers. You tell me.