Monday, January 12, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

American religious attitude to cartoons of Mohammed

Paris saw the greatest rally in its history – between 1.5 and 3 million people were attending the Charlie Hebdo march. Barack Obama wasn't among them. Neither was Joe Biden. Or any other top U.S. official. The only visible public representative was the U.S. ambassador to France. Is that a coincidence?



In September 2012, Barack Obama spoke to the United Nations and articulated a chilling sentence "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." One could have asked: What was he going to do to make sure that the people who slander the prophet of Islam had no future? Was he going to encourage his Algerian French friends to act?

He quotes Gandhi who said that intolerance is a form of violence. Perhaps, it is a form. But it is a totally legitimate, ethical, moral, and legal form of violence and our social system is proud about protecting our freedom to be intolerant. The miracle of the European civilization in the recent 5 centuries – which includes the U.S. – was about similar principles.

In practice, what Europe needed a few centuries ago was not just the freedom but some active defense against Islam, too.




Obama's quote above may have been chilling but it was far less explicit than the post-attack statement by the Catholic League, an NGO that defends the influence and pride of the Catholic officials in the most predetermined, animalistically instinctive way you may imagine.

In the Latest News section, one day after the NGO's boss Bill Donohue boasted that there are no atheists in the U.S. Congress now (which is about as sick as having no anticommunists in the North Korean parliament), the NGO posted an incredible text titled

Muslims are right to be angry
They wrote:
[Killing must be condemned.] But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.
Sorry but in a decent, Western society, all public officials are obliged to tolerate publicly expressed negative attitudes towards Islam – or any other ideology. That's what the term "freedom" means. Donohue's call not to tolerate the freedom of expression is an assault against the basic principles of the Western society and as far as I am concerned, it would be better to deport this mammal. (His headquarters are at Manhattan.)




Donohue repeated his anti-freedom tirade in several additional ways before it gets even more shocking:
Stephane Charbonnier [the editor-in-chief] ... [was] asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.
Mr Donohue is not only spitting at the memory of the French artist; he is downright blackmailing others, too. The reason why Mohammed wasn't sacred to the cartoonists or why he isn't sacred to myself or any other intelligent native European isn't that we were or we are "narcissistic". It's because we are not idiots and we understand what values are important for the civilized character of our part of the world and what values are unimportant or even harmful.
Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
Right, Mr Donohue, but you have nothing to boast about. It would never occur to you because 1) you are a coward, 2) just like the Muslim officials, you are literally making your living out of the human stupidity and gullibility and this painful setup is being protected by the anger of mobs of these stupid people.

One must listen to Mr Donohue to be reminded that in principle, there are aspects of Catholicism that are equally fascist as those in Islam.
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”
What Charlie Hebdo was drawing wasn't an abuse of liberty – and, as expected, it doesn't endanger liberty, either.

One day later, Donohue dishonestly claimed that his words were misrepresented in another text,
Charlie Hebdo perverts freedom
He says that "The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom." Sorry, but they definitely were champions of freedom and they became symbols of the European freedom. I may also use the religious vocabulary and say that these editors have become martyrs of freedom against the most primitive and brutal kind of violence and against the kind of medieval would-be authorities, blackmail, and manipulation that is represented by Al-Qaeda and Mr Donohue, among others.

Although it may be hard to understand for bigots such as Mr Donohue, irreligion – and disrespect towards the old-fashioned kinds of religion – is a modern form of a religion as well and it has at least the same (and I think that greater) "right" to control the European societies as the old-fashioned religions. So it is Mr Donohue who is posting despicable blasphemies.
Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end.
Freedom of speech is a much grander goal or end than anything else that Donohue sells as "his end".
No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary.
Sorry, this right indeed was the very purpose of the Preamble. If the Preamble would be written to endorse just the kind of speech that doesn't insult anyone, it would be unnecessary and redundant. The nontrivial point of freedom of speech is that one has it even if others, e.g. aßholes such as Mr Donohue, find the truth inconvenient.
...everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.
Everyone has the moral right to say what he thinks about religion, whether it's positive or negative. The constitutional principles were indeed incorporated to codify these moral rights. Claims that "one has the legal right but not the moral right" are nothing else than tricky attempts to kill the freedom of speech again.
Can we please have this conversation, along with what to do about Muslim barbarians who kill because they are offended?
We can have a conversation but we surely cannot change the society in the way that would be welcome by Al-Qaeda or Mr Donohue.

One more Donohue's rant was published another day later:
Muslims and artists must change
We read the following proposal:
In an ideal world, Muslims who interpret the Koran to justify violence would convert to Catholicism, and artists who think they have an absolute right to insult people of faith would follow suit. If both did, we would have peace and civility.
Funny – if it were meant as a joke at all.

Last night, I watched The Invasion (2007) in which peace and civility was spreading in an almost identical way as the way promoted by Mr Donohue. Thankfully, a courageous Nicole Kidman didn't give up and she exterminated a horde of these personality-free individuals infected by the virus of peace and civility – including her ex-husband. (Well, it wasn't really a virus, it was a fungus of a sort – something in between Catholicism and Candida Albicans and it was brought here extraterrestrially.) And after the scientists managed to exploit the immunity of some people against the virus, they defeated the pandemics.

If I were facing an isomorphic situation as Nicole Kidman, I would behave in the same way. Kill, kill, kill. What Mr Donohue presents as his plan for the ideal society is absolutely unacceptable.

Let me emphasize that nothing I wrote above is an insult. Instead, the claims – expressed in various ways – that Al-Qeada and Mr Donohue are piles of immoral medieval šit were the most accurate and objective appraisals of the reality I could have found.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (68) :


reader NikFromNYC said...

"Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." - Lenny Bruce


reader Luboš Motl said...

I am exactly equally horrified by those guys in Moscow - still, I believe that the Catholic League is more powerful.


Some of its whining is so similar to the feminist one. These Donohues control 100.0% of the U.S. Congress, not to mention the vast majority of the remaining society, but they find it reasonable to scream that they're being harassed in some way.


reader Shannon said...

So for this unitedstatian Donohue, it is better to go kill muslims in their country rather than making funny drawings of their prophets. Because that's what the US does.

FYI, Siné, a popular French caricaturist, was sacked from Charlie Hebdo in 2009:
http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/152585/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism-in-2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html


reader cynholt said...

Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper

‘With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France'

The cartoon compared the death of 10 journalists in Paris to the death of 13 journalists during last summer's Operation Gaza Punchbag.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/journalists-publication-newspaper


reader Ann said...

I think Romney or McCain or Bill Clinton would have been present with Euro leaders, if they were Potus today. Whatever the spin I believe Obama was just scared to go. He isn't qualified for his job, but iur country twice elected him. Not a good sign about us, sadly.


reader Shannon said...

In France we have a humourist called Dieudonne that the French government is trying to muzzle by any legal and illegal means. Even his lawyer has been banned from the bar association... so much for our beautiful freedom of speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhR25o6JdxU&feature=youtu.be


reader Alex said...

Americans don't realise that their world view is a fantasy. They can't conceive that there could possibly be another one. That's why they are bumbling about in the dark without a clue.


reader davideisenstadt said...

what an asshat.
well, at least he has the decency to come right out and declare himself a coward,a fool and a quisling.


reader davideisenstadt said...

the guy is a jew hater, and he should be allowed to speak, just like you Shannon, so all can see him for what he is.


reader Fred said...

The US Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris at the time but did not attend!


reader Swine flu said...

In a free society it is just as OK to draw caricatures of sacred figures as it is to denounce such work as tasteless and insensitive. I am sure many Christians were not pleased to see a crucifix submerged the artist's urine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ (some of whose works got destroyed during an exhibition in France), and it would make sense for them to disapprove of Mohammed's cartoons as well. Jonah Goldberg put it rather well - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396007/win-jihadists-jonah-goldberg - whose point is that he finds himself in the unenviable position of having to support the cartoonists in the name of the freedom of speech while generally disapproving of such treatment of religious symbols. The real problem is when someone ridicules one religion but is afraid to ridicule a specific one due to fear of violence. I have no problem with someone who feels that no religion should be ridiculed in this way.


reader Swine flu said...

It depends. The Bretton Woods world, as conceived by the US, is a fantasy in historical terms, but was quite nicely enforced for a number of decades, allowing Europe to rebuild and billions worldwide to be lifted out of poverty.

A fantasy can last for a while if backed by enough firepower. But enforcing the Bretton Woods arrangement is clearly of less and less interest to the US, so it will likely drop the whole thing at some point, allowing history to return to rest of the world, which may end up not liking it as much as it thinks.

But you must have been referring to some other American fantasies. Do tell.


reader Alex said...

The fantasy of superiority in everything and the American way


reader maznak said...

Actually, religious figures all over the world tend to have some kind of Donahuesque attitude. Probably part of the job. I would not single out America too strongly. Btw, did we hear from the Pope yet?


reader Alex said...

You're an American? Americans dropped currency parity with gold and had the US dollar replace it. It's more than likely that the world will be dropping US currency as the main international currency. The US won't drop out of it's own accord. It will be dropped by others.


reader Uncle Al said...

One is ever amused by residents of America's "Tornado Alley" who fill collection plates instead of upgrading building and utility codes, then infrastructure. He loves a good punchline.

Given all the deities and demigods for and against which humans have killed, there is but one - by a huge margin - who has accumulated no pro-active body count. So many names... try "Satan."


reader jon said...

Obama didn't go for the simple reason that the rally was not about him. I'm glad he didn't go, because he might have made a speech and said something even more counter-productive.


reader Swine flu said...

The US has a large internal market, and a not insubstantial chunk of whatever foreign trade it engages in is not long-distance. How much the long-distance trade can be reduced further will depend on whether it succeeds in achieving full energy independence. The countries that depend on exports, and most do to a greater extent than the US, will not be able to isolate themselves to the same degree. The US is also better isolated geographically, reducing its security needs.

So, there's a fair chance the US will keep fumbling along reasonably successfully, as it has done since its inception.


reader Swine flu said...

It's always been a mystery to me why the US has done as well as it has. Some say it's just due to the advantages afforded by its geography, but I suspect certain traits of the national character may play a role too, although said national character was in turn shaped by the country's history, so I am not sure where the chicken and where the egg is in the end.


reader MikeNov said...

No, Obama had a reason for sending no one. He is all about imagery. Look at how he sent the Dalai Lama out the back thru the trash. He posts a picture of a phone call with Netanyahu with his shoes up on the desk, a deliberate signal to the Middle East which considers that a big insult, just as one reporter threw his shoe at President Bush.


reader Gordon said...

The US will not achieve full energy independence through fracking. The wells are quickly depleted, and already the gas/oil costs more to extract than they recover on sale. It is a scam that will collapse.


reader Gordon said...

Harper didn't go either. Canada was represented by some public safety minister I have never heard of. Harper seems to take his orders from the US.
Just who is advising Obama? They must be completely tone deaf.


reader Swine flu said...

Surely, the quick depletion of the fracking wells compared to the conventional ones has been factored into the industry analyses? It's clear one has to drill more with fracking, but is that a show-stopper?


reader Swine flu said...

Tone deaf to whose tone?


reader Gene Day said...

With oil under $50 a lot more fracking wells will be capped but they will stay in place and will provide a very strong lid on future prices, particularly of natural gas. Transportation costs keep NG from controlling world-wide petroleum pricing but only partially.
Don’t forget, Gordon, that a capped fracking well improves with age as the gas (or oil) percolates through the porous surround. Our energy independence will come but it is best to think of this as a result of a broad range of technical advances, including hydrocarbon recovery methods.


reader Gene Day said...

Of course it is necessary for any well to be profitable. That’s what the game is all about and fracking is not a dead end.


reader physicsnut said...

I suspect that Donohue has been trying to deal with the ACLU for a long time - about which he wrote two books. Today you can not even bring a Bible to school without a huge hassle from the ACLU. OK so the ACLU does not shoot people who bring a Bible to school - they just sue you into bankrupcy.
That said, I think he is just wrong about this for the reasons you put forward. Well -that is the problem with religious 'diversity' because religion works only when people believe the same fundamentals. That is just the way it is. It can not be resolved within religion.


reader Shannon said...

So why are you sionist jews trying to destroy him ?
Dieudonne has a lot of jew friends and supporters like Jacob Cohen, Gilad Atzmon among others... who are great jews by the way, unlike you.


reader davideisenstadt said...

eat bovine excreta and live to taste it on your breath the next day.


reader Cogniscentum said...

This is the man who sent Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to jail for making a film against Islam. Sure he had a flimsy pretext, but Obama is no friend of freedom of speech. Look what he is trying to do to the internet. For the Left, freedom of speech is like democracy is like a train. Once it gets to your stop, you get off.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Stalin was an evangelical atheist, and he did pretty good in the body count area.


reader physicsnut said...

try the idea of SELF GOVERNMENT and FREE ENTERPRISE !


reader Shannon said...

Sounds like one of your favorite American dish ;-)


reader Swine flu said...

The founding values are indeed most pleasing, but there were other factors as well.


reader Shannon said...

Swine flu, every country has its own law and it is good to be different (Ireland has an anti blaspheme law that can cost you 25000€ if you breach it, not France. Result: Irish sense of humour is zero). If someone ridicules or blasphemes and it hurts you the best thing is to not buy the magazine, not look at it, or even better make yourself a caricature of those who are mocking you. Fight back with a pencil ! :-)


reader davideisenstadt said...

BTW you are a foul example of a catholic person, so full of hate and stereotypical views of the other, as well as a prototypical example of what many in the world see as a french person, a craven arab ass sucking, sycophantic, jew hater.


reader Swine flu said...

Shannon, my comments had nothing to do with any nation's laws. It was more about individual opinions on the subject of whether it is or is not in bad taste to lampoon religious symbols. There are people who do not agree with showing disrespect towards other people's religion, while at the same time opposing immigration:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/europes-paralysis/


reader Shannon said...

I hope you feel better soon. Peace be with you.


reader Shannon said...

That is why nation's laws is put between brackets if you read ;-)
I offer you a way how to dodge disrespect...


reader franc said...

" Sorry, but they definitely were champions of freedom"
This blog used to be fun, but it's no more - just the same left wing crackpottery here as everywhere else. How blindfolded one has to be to write such things? Those people were trockyists actively fighting against freedom - all kinds of it. Against freedom of action and agreements (by supporting hardcore socialism/communism), of self-organizing (by participating in attempts to delegalize Front National) and of speech (by activeley condemning all critiqs they didn't like i.e. against communists/Jews/LGBT people etc). I think that Dieudonne is a real connard but I also believe that he should have right to express himself while your "champions of freedom" were all happy when he got censored. I'm sure that you're one of those poor people who not only "sont charlies" since about a week but also "connaissent charlie" since then. Making heros of red, anticultural scum just because they were killed by islamists is insane - something that only the worst crackpots could do.


reader Ann said...

I haven't seen the ACLU suits about people bringing Bibles to public school, but it brings up a really important distinction that many liberals/atheists in U.S. don't appreciate. The government is not to support one religion above another, but is also -not- to interfere with individuals' religious beliefs. It is not to suppress those beliefs in public settings. If individuals are on tax-payer property they are still allowed to express themselves about their religious beliefs, this activity does not mean the government is endorsing that belief, it is simply not stifling the belief from expression. Why is this distinction so hard to understand for some? (I am not a religious person, btw)


reader Edit_XYZ said...

Take a look at the statistic referenced in this article:
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/dan-joseph/27-french-youth-support-isis

In a few decades, the muslims will be majoritary in France, England, Scandinavian countries, etc. Then - at the ballot box or through violence - they will impose Sharia thoroughout western europe.

It's very unlikely the current western leaders will take the drastic
measures that could stop this, at this late hour. Even now, they're actually denying this existential problem even exists.

Indeed, they - the political, economic and cultural elites - are the ones that commited the high treason - importing muslims for their votes given in exchange for welfarre, accompanied by the
post-modernist/multi-culturalist/marxist/culpabilist/thought-crime
ideological toxic mix served to the indigenous poeple - leading to the suicide of the western civilization.

I'm even starting to see the merits of L. Motl's vision for Russia.

Sure, it's a dictatorship and not my first, second or even tenth choice.
But it is not infected by the western types of elites that de facto succeeded in destroying their own civilisation and is one of very few choices for a continuation of the western civilisation.

The arabs and blacks that will inherit western europe redundantly proved throughout history they're not up to the task of creating or maintaining an advanced civilisation.


reader physicsnut said...

probably because historically a lot of towns were "covenental" and people shared the same beliefs, so the idea that taxpayer property should be off limits was not an issue. It takes a while for this to change.


reader Gordon said...

Gene it is not whether a well is profitable, it is whether the company doing the drilling is getting money from investors. It is not the same...hence my word "scam".


reader Gordon said...

David--she is enjoying baiting you...not worth responding to her.
She doesn't understand the difference between free speech and hate speech. Push any of her buttons and the word "jew"
pops out. For some people, it is enough to have a scapegoat responsible for everything. Goebbels knew this, as did Stalin.


reader davideisenstadt said...

I would call her a quisling, but that would be an insult to norwegian collaborators everywhere....


reader Uncle Al said...

Stalin and Mao were pragmatists. Stalin (re German surname Stahlman) needed Siberian labor, he tolerated no dissent. Embrace Obamacare or we kill you.

Nobody invested a century building a cathedral or lining it with gold for Satan. Nobody went to war for Satan. Libraries are not stuffed with dead tree editions of minutely reasoned bullšit about Satan (Christian libraries excepted). Satan let's you have your Sunday intact (or Saturday, big chunks of December and April, etc.).

If you like god, then sacrifice your entire life with piety, worship, and finance. There might be something waiting for you after you die. Sign a Satanic contact and get it all up front. Payment is deferred. Easy choice.


reader maels said...

Sorry for this unneccesery post, but i have to say this: THANK for this post - it's your best "political" post in last 2 years. I got pretty angry about the attack and you described everything about this tragic incident with great taste and care.
And had i lived closer to Paris, i'd go in this march myself.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I can disagree or you can disagree with lots of political opinions of those people but as far as one is honest - I am and you are *not* - it can't change the fact that they are heroes of freedom.


After all, trotskyism *is* a form a pro-freedom ideology.


They were brave not just because they were killed - which would be retroactive - but because they continued to express their views despite the violence that this very magazine has faced in the past.


reader Swine flu said...

Every new technology is a gamble. Are the investors into fracking being lied to in some special way (which goes beyond the usual sales hype) that the word "scam" is warranted here? What is the actual present-day cost of producing a barrel of oil via fracking?


reader Cogniscentum said...

So, because they were pragmatists, their scores of millions of dead don't count. I get it now. At first I though you were trying to make an honest argument.


reader BMWA1 said...

http://rt.com/news/221779-charlie-publish-muhammad-cartoons/


reader QsaTheory said...

"She doesn't understand the difference between free speech and hate speech."



the six something dollar question.


reader QsaTheory said...

The article you posted goes to the heart of the matter as either as a myth or a deliberate misinformation, with the predictable outcome, justification for CONTROL.


First, there was NO riots in the ME, they were in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan( they take insults very seriously, something to do with their culture).Here in the ME people discussed the issue rationally and people printed zillions of posters " We Love Mohamad".


However, the situation here is a bit more complicated and multi variable. IMHO, I think what has transpired is the last straw which crushed the camel's back. Taken the burning of the Koran, the invasion of many Islamic states(perceived as armed robbery or subjugation), Long history of intervention,the relentless propaganda ... etc. and some deep hatred and frustration of the underprivileged people in France, so it was possible to have such outcome.


Many of the other events where specific overreactions by some people to some injustice. But I think if people want to be honest they should stop this "they hate us slogan". For why the hell all these people immigrate legally and illegally to the west. Is it because they hate westerner. what a preposterous claim, really incomprehensible. They go there because they want to be part of it, whether they succeed or not that is a different question.






If you count all Muslims in Europe, they will be 2% at most and I find it the propagandist declaration that these 2% percent will change Europe and the west so incredible that no European in his right mind such an absurd thought even possible.


On the other hand I can see in the ME and Muslim world we have embraced many western values(with and without modification) good and bad with our own will,


As a matter of fact ,right now I am in Holland with my family and I see tall and blond people buzzing around in their bicycles worrying about their own lives. and one hour a go a nice man showed us the way to our hotel because we looked bewildered . This is all propaganda.


reader QsaTheory said...

P.S. people think that that the Muslim world is all holy, but the facts are the opposite.


While the west thinks that it invented the gay rights but the Muslim history has the first admittance to the existence of gays. in the 8th century a whole of school arose regarding the subject. Decadence was invented in the middle east just as beer , belly dancing and religion..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nuwas



http://www.nambla.org/nuwas.html



IMO the slogans "They hate OUR values" and "They want to change us " is a myth.


reader QsaTheory said...

One more thing, why don't the Muslims pick on Japanese infidels or the Africans with their exotic religions or Hindus...etc . these people are a lot weaker than Europeans. This is all made up.


reader Gordon said...

Well here is one estimate--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexis-crow/america-fracking-saudi-oil_b_6091942.html


reader Swine flu said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks


reader Gordon said...

The rest of the world.


reader Swine flu said...

$10 must be the cost at the well. To get to the US, that oil must be transported, and there may be significant hidden military costs to securing energy sources that far away. I wonder what cost per barrel would still make sense for the US production after a potential realignment of its military strategy and forces. I'd imagine one would first want to know how much oil is there in the US that can be extracted for somewhere between $65 and $100, or whatever that number may (or may not) come down to in the future.


reader Swine flu said...

This seems too calculated somehow, but I am not sure what the game is.


reader Vangel said...

Sorry but in a decent, Western society, all public officials are obliged to tolerate publicly expressed negative attitudes towards Islam – or any other ideology. That's what the term "freedom" means.

The problem my friend is that the French government did not think enough of freedom of expression to allow the predecessor publication to continue after it insulted Charles de Gaulle.



And let us not forget that the US has a large number of hate laws that prohibit certain types of speech. And as you have pointed out feminazis, greens, and other extremists groups have managed to suppress free debate of controversial issues. It looks to me that the West is not nearly as civilized or tolerant as it claims to be.


reader Swine flu said...

Whether, as article claims, it is generally true that, "The differences between a liberal secularized Europe and the Islamic world are irreconcilable," is hard to know, but integrating immigrants into European societies certainly hasn't been a painless affair.


reader Peter F. said...

Obama said in his unfortunately and worryingly worded - so that it amounted to a stupid condemnation ALSO OF APPROPRIATE intolerance - speech: The future *must* not belong...." (a quote should be verbatim).

He is a (merely) very prominent representative of the many vociferous people who have lost the plot in respect of their lack of regard for when intolerance is perfectly apt - or, IOW, for when *intolerance of intolerance* is utterly inEPT. *!%<!*

[grrrrr+snaaarl (funk I'm feeling angry)]

Manifestations of apt (or 'least inEPT') intolerance, also include a highly selective or with exquisite precision targeted 'evolutionary pruning type' interaction.

IMO, what is lacking is a simple, rationally indisputable, *enjoyable* (preferrably TRFically so), science-aligned (e.g. 'Tolerance{nee Uncertanty} Principle'-embedding), pragmatically rule or principle by which to shame politicians and/or opinion leading people and instruct realpolitik.

Such a fundamental but most psychosocially relevant guide-line would of course also have to be the logical base for a *fairly* philanthropically oriented outlook on ourselves and the world (or multiverse) at large.

We humans are a naturally irredeemable 'wellspring' (ironic choice of word in this context) of intolerance.


This 'wellspring' requiries (is as if asking to be) more fastidiously and forcefully funneled than it has until know.


The wellspring has as its main concurrent contributing endogenous source the by people all too commonly incurred and insidiously stored early-lifetime-frustration-generated CURSES (conditioned-in unconsciously kept reverberating states effecting symptoms ; that is, a vast range of symptoms, but in this context most notably: a symptom in the form of exaggerated and misplaced intolerance, and a symptom consisting of misplaced fear of appropriately targeted incisive intolerance.


reader Peter F. said...

*!%<!*

[grrrrr+snaaarl (funk I'm angry)]

Manifestations of apt (or 'least inEPT') intolerance, also include a highly selective or with exquisite precision targeted 'evolutionary pruning type' interaction.

IMO, what is lacking is a simple, rationally indisputable, *enjoyable* (preferrably TRFically so), science-aligned (e.g. 'Tolerance{nee Uncertanty} Principle'-embedding), pragmatically rule or principle by which to shame politicians and/or opinion leading people and instruct realpolitik.

Such a fundamental but most psychosocially relevant guide-line would of course also have to be the logical base for a *fairly* philanthropically oriented outlook on ourselves and the world (or multiverse) at large.

We humans are a naturally irredeemable 'wellspring' (ironic choice of word in this context) of intolerance.

This 'wellspring' requiries (is as if asking to be) more fastidiously and forcefully funneled than it has until know.

The wellspring has as its main concurrent contributing endogenous source the by people all too commonly incurred and insidiously stored early-lifetime-frustration-generated CURSES (conditioned-in unconsciously kept reverberating states effecting symptoms ; that is, a vast range of symptoms, but in this context most notably: a symptom in the form of exaggerated and misplaced intolerance, and a symptom consisting of misplaced fear of appropriately targeted incisive intolerance.


reader berb said...

Mr. Motl, trotskyism i.e. an ideology of permanent bolshevik revolution in the purpose of introducing as much communism (a radically totalitarian political system in which the basic rights of individuals are nonexistent) as it's possible is not any form of pro-freedom ideology - it's exactly opposite, almost a dichotomic contradiction. By writing such things you discredit yourself as a political commentator completely.
And yes, Charlie Hebdo is a magazine that stands for freedom, but not for everyone, only for their own kind. They're champions of freedom in exactly the same way as nazis from NPD or other similar groups - they want to be able to say everything and to censor their enemies at the same time. Of course, when antifreedom communist activist dies, everyone gets upset, but we all know that if one of Dieudonne's followers or a member of NPD died (and those people are also harassed because of their believes) nobody would really care, nobody would praise them. This is the hypocrisy of modern Europe, and sadly, it's also your hypocrisy. What is even worse in your case, is the fact that it's against basic logic to cry over the death of a few victims of radical Islam while in other countries, during only last week, died at least 2000 people (mainly in Nigeria and territories controlled by ISIS). Many of those victims were much more decent people than killed workers of Charlie Hebdo, a not-funny, primitive and barbaric magazine for ultra-left-wingers, a modern communist version of Der Sturmer, one of the forces leading France to suicide.
Moi, je ne suis pas Charlie.


reader Tony said...

If Dawkins was right about one thing, that is regarding the enormous arrogance of religious people.

They all demand respect because they consider themselves as representing and defending the God and the Prophets, even if no Supreme Being, if it exists, could possibly want anything to do with such a sorry horde of morons and mushy whiners imagining bearded granddad sitting in their head and judging if they are right or wrong when they cheat on their wife or go shopping.

If anything, religious people offend the Supreme Being, if there is one.


reader Shannon said...

Tony, what you say is so cute and naïve... almost touching ;-). Let me only tell you that the main difference between religious people and atheists is the notion of sacred.