Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A prayer for Paris
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Makin' perfect sense
. The US was a 'one off' proposition, and we're still watching to see how the consequences (good ones too) unfold over time.
Part of the founding ideology of the US was keeping the government's hands off people's religious beliefs -- and vice versa praise the lord
I didn't know that about the Church of England. The irony is too much 
The UK versus US 'believers' is one of the reasons human beings are SO interesting!
@Hamsaka Yeah and England has many more non-religious people, even for having a state church. It's odd how things work out sometimes.
I think I'm right in saying that when Christianity was the age that Islam now is, they were running the Inquisition. It feels like Islam needs to grow up, reform, drag itself into the 21st century.
That's exactly what is happening. Well, the dragging itself into the 21st century part. The growing up and subsequent reform happens as you go, like in the life of an individual. Hopefully Islam (in this way of thinking) will learn its 'lessons' and acquiesce to 'reality' in the process of maturity, as it already has in large numbers of its followers.
Christianity had to take second chair to 'reality', as did Buddhism as a religion. The Islam raising hell still believes it dictates reality and that ISIL has not been vaporized by nuclear or whatever means is a measure of the maturity of the rest of the world.
I am not a scholar of war or Islam so this may sound ignorant. But I wonder just how long and how far the rest of the world is gonna put up with this shit?
But I wonder just how long and how far the rest of the world is gonna put up with this shit?
I was wondering the same. My guess is that ISIL's days are numbered, it's more a question of when rather than if.
How do you suppose it will happen? Sadly, I see no other possible solution other than massive destruction.
Well, first someone is going to poison the Caliph. Its how it went for the most "recent" Caliphates (recent being hundreds of years ago). If I don't continue to post regularly you know what happened to me
ISIL is on extremely fragile ground in spite of the chest pounding. It only exists because the rest of the world allows it to. I guess that says a lot about humanity in general -- a good thing. As a human world together, we are not wont to exterminate even the most annoying and ugly get togethers. It hasn't always been this way, most of us humans took the lessons of various atrocities and learned something from them. For now, since ISIL hasn't been stomped into a grease spot in the desert, we deserve to give ourselves credit.
To paraphrase Penn Jillette... "saying that we're afraid to insult Islam because we have families is the most damning thing that can be said about Islam".
You can't nuke an idea.
Plus, nuking them is seriously lacking in compassion.
Well you said it ........
How long will the world put up with the US's shit?
And I've always thought it was the funniest thing he's ever said.
He should have stayed on Hennipen.
@Chaz Funny? Well he can be funny. I found it more "sad but true". The only funny thing was that it came from Penn Jillette. No one expects insightful from Penn... especially Penn.
It reminded me of the Inquisition, and I've since started reading Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch. Now that book is becoming extremely helpful in understanding the underlying mentalities/perspectives that have led us to where we are in America... and not led other places to quite the same place (yet). These perspectives are still in a tug-of-war, and that fire burns slowly for the exact reason that we don't understand the strengths and weaknesses of each view.
I've never found him funny. I hold his social commentary in equal esteem.
He was doing better when he and Teller were busking in downtown Minneapolis.
Cultures never go lockstep in their evolution.
@Chaz Yeah it's not so much funniness that makes me like Penn Jillette. It's more his humanity. His morality. Some great stories he tells. And I like magic.
He's a damn fine human being IMHO. Represents atheists very well in a country that is highly prejudiced against atheists, even if his Libertarianism works against him.
I may call myself a Buddhist now, but I still very much belong to that loathed &misunderstood group.
The Bay City Rollers?
@Chaz Atheists (or non-theists). I have no clue who The Bay City Rollers are. Should I hate them? Misunderstand them? Tell ya what, I'll do that by default until I know better, instead of the other way around. Boo BCR! Boo!
I know what yer sayin. I'm just busting your chops.
Around here atheists are niether loathed or misunderstood. They're ignored. There are far more important and interesting things to occupy our time. Like how to keep Stock Show tourists from eating at Casa Bonita
Where I'm from, Duluth, MN, they are loathed. They are only misunderstood there, by people who think that Bachman Turner Overdrive was a good band.
Google Bay City Rollers.
@Chaz You got me, I was thinking they were a sports team. It's just a topic that's close to my heart, since atheists are more hated here in American than Muslims... if you can picture that. And largely undeservingly, I might add. Anyway we're probably derailing this topic, something I've found myself involved in doing more often than not, so maybe we should leave it there.
In Duluth, the locals would say they deserve it.
Here, being as they are largely ignored, it doesn't really matter if any hatred towards them is deserved or not. Indifference can be a powerful thing. You'd prefer to be hated I'm sure. If they hate you they're paying attention.
The extremeists want us to hate Muslims. I think that what drives much of their actions. Our reaction to their attacks polarizes hatred and sends support and dollars their way.
Eh I don't think extremists want us to hate Muslims. They're expressing their hate of us. To us freedom is everything (of thought, speech, expression, and religion). To them it's evil, corrupting, the decline of civilization and a threat to their way of life. We are the "backwards" ones to them, and I can't help but think that makes perfect sense. It's just like how we as individuals always think we're right, and everyone else is wrong, and the more we stick to that the more it's true for us. It may not be really true, but we're not availing ourselves of thinking outside our own boxes.
I think a good way to know the mindset is to read such books as Leaving Islam by Ibn Warraq, where ex-Muslims outline exactly the problems they had with their own society's views. I've read other books on the subject, but can't recall the titles. That one was decent though.
The problem with Islam isn't so different from the problem with North Korea. They all want to stay in their little boxes and not be disturbed by modernity... or reality, for that matter. We should at least not make the mistake of failing to understand them, making the situation worse. We may eventually just have to stand up and say "We understand you believe this, but your actions are unacceptable and we're not going to take it anymore. None of us. Grow up!"
Something needs to be done. At the time of the attacks in France, 2000 people were slaughtered by terrorists in Nigeria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/-sp-boko-haram-attacks-nigeria-baga-ignored-media
An interesting alternative view....
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
"It is a sad state of affairs when Liberty means the freedom to insult, demean and mock people’s most sacred concepts,” the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf, an American who lives in California, told me in an email. “In some Latin countries people are acquitted for murders where the defendant’s mother was slandered by the one he murdered. I saw this in Spain many years ago. It’s no excuse for murder, but it explains things in terms of honor, which no longer means anything in the West. Ireland is a western country that still retains some of that, and it was the Irish dueling laws that were used in Kentucky, the last State in the Union to make dueling outlawed. Dueling was once very prominent in the West when honor meant something deep in the soul of men. Now we are not allowed to feel insulted by anything other than a racial slur, which means less to a deeply religious person than an attack on his or her religion. Muslim countries are still governed, as you well know, by shame and honor codes. Religion is the big one. I was saddened by the ‘I’m Charlie’ tweets and posters, because while I’m definitely not in sympathy with those misguided fools [the gunmen who invaded the newspaper], I have no feeling of solidarity with mockers.”
I completely concur with the sentiments here. Thanks, @Chaz
[lobster tears up sutras, kisses the Buddha in Thailand and is promptly arrested by the dharma police, Mr Cushion pleads innocence]
Keep up the good work guys. We iz Charlie's.
Yanks can be very annoying, but rather them than Russia, China or North Korea. Or ISIL.
Plus, nuking them is seriously lacking in compassion.
They won't nuke 'em, just overwhelm them with massive force. ISIL has territory and is now quite vunerable. And in a war situation we're not going to see an awful lot of compassion. I imagine the plans for Desert Storm are being dusted off as we speak.
I don't want to see a world dominated by religious fascists and Islamic fundamentalism. They're not much better than Nazis in my opinion, and will go the same way.
My youngest daughter lives in France.
She says that overwhelmingly, the opinion many people have now, of Muslims (in everyday, normal day-to-day living) is one of utter mistrust.
Apparently, a very high number of Muslim citizens were in Paris for the gathering of millions, but it seems although they were generally embraced and applauded for taking a stand and counting themselves amongst those condemning the atrocities of last week, there was a general atmosphere of "What are they doing here? Can we trust them? What have they got under their coats? You say you're against violence, but why should we believe you? it could just be a front to lull us into a false sense of security"...
This is the major problem that law-abiding, peace-loving, harmonious Muslims (ie, the majority) now face.
They're encountering walls of Mistrust.
Could this possibly be as a result of their hitherto tacit stance?
I'm genuinely asking....
Yes it is.
When I condemned the Sufis for promoting the frankly ridiculous heritage of a minor Arab illiterate who heard voices, they considered this against the dervish tradition. Not so.
I am on a Sufi forum, have heard no voice pro Charley and I am fed up trying to promote truth without alignment to those who do know better. However I also condemn imperialist self interest, oil hungry bankers, Israel Uber alles or the latest efforts to have the Dalai Lama elected pope.
Read the Koran, not much better than one might expect. Sufi Mystics . . . some of the greatest social change instigators since Jesus overturned the temple banking system.
Vive la revolution . . .
They're in between a rock and a hard place really. Mind you, did you see that Panorama documentary last night? It gave the impression that Islamic fundamentalism is on the increase in the UK. Somewhat worrying.
I hate to say it, but while I respect programmes like Panorama, I still come back to the way we are often manipulated by the Media, and always controlled (or open to the attempts thereof) by Governments, through the spread of Fear.
Either via religious means, or through the threat of aggression.
The two are nicely tied up together, currently, in a double-whammy approach and look at how successful such a two-pronged approach is turning out to be.
I don't believe everything I see on the BBC, but then I don't believe everything I see on the internet either. I guess it's a case of looking around and trying to piece together something resembling the truth.
Yes, and that's hard to do when so many outlets have 'an agenda' and pick sides..... Sifting 'your' way through the dross to get to the kernel of truth is hard slog and heavy going....
Aunty (BBC) is as biased as any state sponsored propaganda, however here is the nice youtube song they mentioned . . .
Good one..... and you still had 'naysayers' in the comments who came back with "singing and dancing is forbidden in the Qu'ran"....!
Oh, good grief....!
I think it's an understandable reaction to a change in status quo, in a traditionaly conservative culture with a big dose of racism thrown in.
We see the same thing here with latino immigrants. The only difference is we're not condemning Roman Catholicism.
Couldn't work out how to look at the comments @federica mentioned. It's great that there are happy muslims ... but is it just me being over-sensitive to feel somewhat excluded by this song/video?
I don't feel particularly happy about what happened in France nor that the muslim community seems to be keeping itself very much to itself in this video with no attention given to any other community.
But then happiness has never seemed a great goal to me - it comes and it goes. Wisdom is something I prefer to seek, having finally found peace (which also comes and goes
).
Boo - do feel a dog in the manger!![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
It's all seems too big and too complicated to me, and I don't think there's anything I can do personally which would make any difference anyway.
These days I find it more productive to focus on issues in my local environment, people I know, maybe do a bit of good in small ways.
Something from the founder of Charlie ....
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/charlie-hebdo-founder-says-hes-upset-slain-editor-charb-n286676
Altruism in the Face of Violence -- Matthieu Ricard
I get comfort and a good reality check regularly from this monk
In reflecting on this article, Ricard said
My understanding (however incomplete) of radical Islam is that their 'truth' is transcendent to any edicts of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is a 'check' against 'being enslaved by dogma' (from the article).
I like how Ricard acknowledges no ideology is exempt from self-examination, though he avoids outing the US for what it's done to fuel the fires on Islamic rage. It made me think that no matter WHAT egregious, immoral crap the US and whoever else has perpetrated, this violence is NOT justified.
It isn't justifiable for me to go up and spit in the face of my ex husband, no matter what he did to betray my trust, which is considerable and will effect me the rest of my life on many levels. If someone shouts insults at me, it doesn't justify me shouting insults back. Ricard mentions 'an eye for an eye' as a bottomless pit no amount of violence will ever fill in, but 'an eye for an eye' is implicit in normal human interaction. "He upset me so naturally I had to smack him, I can't let him get away with that!"
I remember right after 911 when the patriotism was dying back and the 'I told you so' crowd came forward, blaming US foreign policy for getting what was due to it. Your customer at Jack In The Box is rude so you spit in their hamburger, it just can't be allowed!
I call BS on justifying Islamic terrorism and violence with ANYTHING, including atrocities, that the US has done. BS on 'well, it's not an excuse, it's a reason' while I'm at it. Suggest to me how THAT is 'skillful' thinking.
Some of us will use this dilemma as an opportunity to gain insight, and pursue self-examination rather than hide behind thinly disguised hate rhetoric, so none of these people die or have their lives destroyed in vain.
These mad monkey mobsters that kill others who are not part of their klan interests are hell manifested. I refuse to think of them or call them 'religious' or Moslems and consider them as barely deserving to be regarded as human.
Too harsh? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Yeah . . . respecting their . . . whatever . . . as a 'religious' sentiment does sort defile religion itself. Not that I am an advocate of religion, or a defender, but sheesh people.
And yet they do self-identify as Islamic and religious.
Looking back at the last 2000 years I sometimes think the Abrahamic religions have given religion a bad. While Christianity was the same age that Islam now is, they were fully embroiled in the Inquisition.
I am Not Charlie
http://www.bobekblad.com/i-am-not-charlie-a-christian-response-to-the-killings-in-paris/
My husband commented that the original publication was a nod to free speech.
The more recent publication - drawn and printed in defiance - was actually a poke in the chest, and both provocative and ill-advised.
If you choose to exercise Free Speech and call someone out on a perceived foolishness, if they hit you over the head with a frying pan, it is both foolish and inadvisable to then turn round and say "and I still think you're a goddamn moron.
particularly if they're still threatening you with the frying pan.
Noam Chomsky called bullcrap on the French solidarity for freedom of speech, calling it 'complete fakery and fraud' . I like Chomsky because he doesn't mind pissing of ALL sides of an issue, and no one would know his name if he weren't a very good thinker.
Here's the video link if anyone is interested.
From @SarahT's quote:
I was nodding along until this last sentence. Provocation, frustration and resentment don't HAVE to lead to violence. It seems to be the radical way, but I hope the rest of us can see that violence is NOT an inevitability and therefore shouldn't be included as the inevitable, understandable outcome.
It seems important to the whole world to get this straight. No 'violence' is understandable and shouldn't be, right? In the name of human progress. That's a high falutin' ideal for a culture (and no one is there yet), but for individuals coming to their personal conclusions, it could be very helpful -- violence is never justifiable. It is never understandable or 'inevitable'. A standard to hold myself to (let's see how that goes!).
It seems to me that a lot of free speech is actually in direct opposition to the Buddhist concept of right speech.
Yes, but we can't impose our ideas of right speech on a secular republic, any more than Islamic fundamentalists can impose religious restrictions.
The other view is that one should not be intimidated by threats of frying pans.