4 ms·

This is a tough thing to form an opinion on. Clearly Islam, if followed to the letter, is incompatible with the modern world, and this need to be made clear to

This is a tough thing to form an opinion on. Clearly Islam, if followed to the letter, is incompatible with the modern world, and this need to be made clear to anyone who wants to live in a modern country in the modern world. Hell, nor is Christianity, if taken literally. But it has adapted slowly, and Christians no longer kill non-Christians on the streets for blashpemy. On the other hand, I support freedom of speech, and liking something is speech. To me, I think, that matters more. So I choose to be unhappy at this news. IMHO, he had every right to like it. Just like Nazis had every right to march through Skokie [1]. I find it despicable, but that is precisely what freedom of speech protects: things I find despicable and would rather not see. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... edit: downvoted to hell, predictably. Everyone loves freedoms, unless they are of something they dislike

mdifrgechd 6y ago
In some ways the whole thing supports a classic argument for free speech: better people know this guy had that kind of opinion (the "like") and intervene, either though anti radicalization programs or at worst keeping an eye on him. If he keeps his views private or underground, we only learn about them when he does something really bad.
- mulmen 6y ago
  This is a perspective I have not seen before. It's very interesting. I've always viewed freedom of speech from a purely personal liberty perspective but you are right that it also creates an opportunity for the rest of society to hear and react to that speech. For better or worse. I'm not totally comfortable with this because it creates a situation in which people may be compelled to speak or reproduce the speech of others for the supposed benefit to society. This is a very interesting perspective I will continue to consider.
mulmen 6y ago
Well unsavory opinions are more of an unavoidable side effect of freedom of speech, not the intent. If the only benefit of freedom of speech was to offend other people it wouldn't be much of a foundation of civilization. Sometimes it is important to make people uncomfortable in the name of progress. Sometimes people take advantage of that to be trolls. The two are inseparable and to a generic outside observer indistinguishable. But the real reason for freedom of speech is purely to preserve individual liberty and remove any value judgement on the part of society. The only time it is ok to limit speech is when it poses a risk of real harm to others.
recuter 6y ago
> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. Spare me. This has nothing to do with the technicalities of free speech. A right incidentally that Islamists who cut peoples heads off don't accept. It is certainly rational to arrest someone for screaming they are about to kill rather than waiting for them to go through with it.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > screaming they are about to kill Was there another story?
- dmitrygr 6y ago
  > It is certainly rational to arrest > someone for screaming they are > about to kill With you so far. But the guy in the story did not do that...
  - recuter 6y ago
    > He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. I'm all for free speech and I understand slippery slopes and don't approve of thought policing. My reading of this article is that they had sufficient evidence to arrest him, technicalities and legalities aside.
    - dmitrygr 6y ago
      I have several knives and weapons at my house. And "endorse" is a slippery word. Hell, my comment above could be construed as endorsing this guy (by refusing to condemn him loudly enough). Thus, transitively, I can be said to have endorsed this killing. Should I be arrested?
      - 6y ago
Pfhreak 6y ago
> Christians no longer kill non-Christians on the streets for blashpemy. Tell this to all the gay and trans people who are very much killed in the streets in places like the US. (I'm not saying Christians do all the violence against lgbtq people or that all Christians are complicit in said violence. I'm just pointing out that the parent's claim that Christians don't do this any more is not correct.)
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  No, gay and trans people are not being killed for blasphemy.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    They have most certainly been killed in the US because they violate the murderers’ view of religious rules. It may not be technically correct to say they’ve been killed (strictly) for blasphemy, but that’s nitpicking in my view.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    They've been killed for religious reasons related to what was perceived as sinning. Blasphemy has many definitions, and I believe that what you've suggested is a distinction without a difference.
    - howlgarnish 6y ago
      Blasphemy is quite narrowly defined as insulting a deity or sacred objects. "Sinning" is not blasphemy, and homosexuality is not blasphemous unless you're involving religious objects in sexual activities. For an example of actual blasphemy that riled up a lot of Christians in the US, see Serrano's Piss Christ. Although to the best of my knowledge nobody was killed because of it.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Do you have any data on that? I’m very skeptical that this could be happening without the media blowing it up.
nicolas_t 6y ago
Any fundamentalism be it Islamic, Christian (Klu Klux Klan, westboro baptism, lgbt murders), Buddhist (Rohingya killed by Buddhists in Myanmar) is incompatible with the modern world. Not just Islam. The problem is not religion, it's that some fundamentalists who are not right in the head use it as an excuse to commit horrifying acts.
- rcstank 6y ago
  Westboro Baptists are fundamentalists? I’d say they’re hateful, not fundamentalists as they preach that God hates people which is not what the Bible says.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    I must have a different translation from yours.
  - vaidhy 6y ago
    Isn’t it just that their interpretation and your interpretation of bible are different? They claim that their position is a literal interpretation of the book. They are fundamentalist by the same reason Wahhabism is the fundamental strain of Islam.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  As an atheist, I never really understood how a religious person can not be a fundamentalist. Isn't that just reading the book and doing exactly as it says, which is required by the God? I don't get how people disregard sections of the books and still consider themselves members. How much of the book can be ignored before you are no longer following the religion in peoples eyes?
  - mdifrgechd 6y ago
    Atheism is a very strong stance. Consider that not everybody needs to think in such absolutes.
illys 6y ago
" I support freedom of speech, and liking something is speech" Freedom, liberty have limits. The limits are cultural and ruled by law. In France, the freedom of speech must respect individuals and allows to mock ideas and ideologies. And religions are ideologies. If people feel offended when their ideas are criticized or mocked, they are not supposed to kill: they have to adapt, or if in doubt they are personally attacked, they can address a tribunal to settle the case. Liking a murder is not an opinion or a speech, it is personally attacking the victim and his relatives. "Clearly Islam, if followed to the letter, is incompatible with the modern world (...) Hell, nor is Christianity, if taken literally." Not sure about this: all religions have specificities and different reference texts. Of course christians and muslims are humans, and humans kill when reaching extreme conditions. However christians are in violation of their texts when killing. Not in Islam: muslims are in line with their prophet life (hadith "who leaves the Religion, kill him!") and Koran, a book written by God himself. Koran is quite a bloody book describing severe rules, xenophobia for non-muslims, slaughters, slavery, explicitly allowing wife-beating... And being written by God, not a word can be challenged by moderates to stop extremists: they would just put themselves in the blasphemy list for being murdered. Some muslims try to unlock Islam from these deadlocks. However it usually brings them to harsh times, a lifetime in jail in the best case (Raif Badawi), or being murdered (Mahmoud Mohammed Taha). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

mdifrgechd 6y ago

In some ways the whole thing supports a classic argument for free speech: better people know this guy had that kind of opinion (the "like") and intervene, either though anti radicalization programs or at worst keeping an eye on him. If he keeps his views private or underground, we only learn about them when he does something really bad.

mulmen 6y ago
This is a perspective I have not seen before. It's very interesting. I've always viewed freedom of speech from a purely personal liberty perspective but you are right that it also creates an opportunity for the rest of society to hear and react to that speech. For better or worse. I'm not totally comfortable with this because it creates a situation in which people may be compelled to speak or reproduce the speech of others for the supposed benefit to society. This is a very interesting perspective I will continue to consider.

mulmen 6y ago

Well unsavory opinions are more of an unavoidable side effect of freedom of speech, not the intent. If the only benefit of freedom of speech was to offend other people it wouldn't be much of a foundation of civilization. Sometimes it is important to make people uncomfortable in the name of progress. Sometimes people take advantage of that to be trolls. The two are inseparable and to a generic outside observer indistinguishable. But the real reason for freedom of speech is purely to preserve individual liberty and remove any value judgement on the part of society. The only time it is ok to limit speech is when it poses a risk of real harm to others.

recuter 6y ago

> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. Spare me. This has nothing to do with the technicalities of free speech. A right incidentally that Islamists who cut peoples heads off don't accept. It is certainly rational to arrest someone for screaming they are about to kill rather than waiting for them to go through with it.

pessimizer 6y ago
> screaming they are about to kill Was there another story?
dmitrygr 6y ago
> It is certainly rational to arrest > someone for screaming they are > about to kill With you so far. But the guy in the story did not do that...
- recuter 6y ago
  > He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. I'm all for free speech and I understand slippery slopes and don't approve of thought policing. My reading of this article is that they had sufficient evidence to arrest him, technicalities and legalities aside.
  - dmitrygr 6y ago
    I have several knives and weapons at my house. And "endorse" is a slippery word. Hell, my comment above could be construed as endorsing this guy (by refusing to condemn him loudly enough). Thus, transitively, I can be said to have endorsed this killing. Should I be arrested?
    - 6y ago

Pfhreak 6y ago

> Christians no longer kill non-Christians on the streets for blashpemy. Tell this to all the gay and trans people who are very much killed in the streets in places like the US. (I'm not saying Christians do all the violence against lgbtq people or that all Christians are complicit in said violence. I'm just pointing out that the parent's claim that Christians don't do this any more is not correct.)

howlgarnish 6y ago
No, gay and trans people are not being killed for blasphemy.
- sidlls 6y ago
  They have most certainly been killed in the US because they violate the murderers’ view of religious rules. It may not be technically correct to say they’ve been killed (strictly) for blasphemy, but that’s nitpicking in my view.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  They've been killed for religious reasons related to what was perceived as sinning. Blasphemy has many definitions, and I believe that what you've suggested is a distinction without a difference.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    Blasphemy is quite narrowly defined as insulting a deity or sacred objects. "Sinning" is not blasphemy, and homosexuality is not blasphemous unless you're involving religious objects in sexual activities. For an example of actual blasphemy that riled up a lot of Christians in the US, see Serrano's Piss Christ. Although to the best of my knowledge nobody was killed because of it.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Do you have any data on that? I’m very skeptical that this could be happening without the media blowing it up.

nicolas_t 6y ago

Any fundamentalism be it Islamic, Christian (Klu Klux Klan, westboro baptism, lgbt murders), Buddhist (Rohingya killed by Buddhists in Myanmar) is incompatible with the modern world. Not just Islam. The problem is not religion, it's that some fundamentalists who are not right in the head use it as an excuse to commit horrifying acts.

rcstank 6y ago
Westboro Baptists are fundamentalists? I’d say they’re hateful, not fundamentalists as they preach that God hates people which is not what the Bible says.
- leephillips 6y ago
  I must have a different translation from yours.
- vaidhy 6y ago
  Isn’t it just that their interpretation and your interpretation of bible are different? They claim that their position is a literal interpretation of the book. They are fundamentalist by the same reason Wahhabism is the fundamental strain of Islam.
thatguy0900 6y ago
As an atheist, I never really understood how a religious person can not be a fundamentalist. Isn't that just reading the book and doing exactly as it says, which is required by the God? I don't get how people disregard sections of the books and still consider themselves members. How much of the book can be ignored before you are no longer following the religion in peoples eyes?
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  Atheism is a very strong stance. Consider that not everybody needs to think in such absolutes.

illys 6y ago

" I support freedom of speech, and liking something is speech" Freedom, liberty have limits. The limits are cultural and ruled by law. In France, the freedom of speech must respect individuals and allows to mock ideas and ideologies. And religions are ideologies. If people feel offended when their ideas are criticized or mocked, they are not supposed to kill: they have to adapt, or if in doubt they are personally attacked, they can address a tribunal to settle the case. Liking a murder is not an opinion or a speech, it is personally attacking the victim and his relatives. "Clearly Islam, if followed to the letter, is incompatible with the modern world (...) Hell, nor is Christianity, if taken literally." Not sure about this: all religions have specificities and different reference texts. Of course christians and muslims are humans, and humans kill when reaching extreme conditions. However christians are in violation of their texts when killing. Not in Islam: muslims are in line with their prophet life (hadith "who leaves the Religion, kill him!") and Koran, a book written by God himself. Koran is quite a bloody book describing severe rules, xenophobia for non-muslims, slaughters, slavery, explicitly allowing wife-beating... And being written by God, not a word can be challenged by moderates to stop extremists: they would just put themselves in the blasphemy list for being murdered. Some muslims try to unlock Islam from these deadlocks. However it usually brings them to harsh times, a lifetime in jail in the best case (Raif Badawi), or being murdered (Mahmoud Mohammed Taha). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi