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
OMG, I agree. Although my point still stands, and the two positions go along with my premise over time that little in life is either/or.
It does interest me that some people here who seem to be speaking up for unlimited freedom of speech still try to stifle freedom of speech here. (Not talking about you, SN).
>
All very well, but I'm talking about after they've already hit you with one....
There are always limits to free speech, cultural and political stuff. The French seem real keen on it though, historical I think.
I'd be the first to stamp on it. Please feel free to flag posts you feel violate this "right".
That implies 'right speech' and 'radical Islam' are somehow . . . relative. I don't think they are however each are deconstructed.
The IMPOSITION is not skillful, I agree there. Personally, 'right speech' is anything but a decree from God (Buddha), a dogma particular to Buddhism. It survives all sorts of logical analysis while radical Islam does not (by a long shot). Right speech doesn't just show up in Buddhism, it is present in modern psychology and a natural conclusion of sorts among the 'wise' or in Buddhist lingo, the 'noble ones'.
Yes, it was the imposition of another value system I meant.
As for right speech, I think the distinction you're drawing stems from Buddhism being a Dharmic religion and Islam being a Revealed religion ( that's probably another thread though! ).
No thanks. I don't see "stamping" on something as being the Buddhist way.
Moderation has nothing to do with "The Buddhist way".
Moderators don't opt for a 'Buddhist way' to deal with matters. Moderators opt for a way that is socially, universally acceptable when considering the standard rules and reg's of social interaction on a forum. They're the conventional rules applied in any situation where people are interacting.
That's not the way Moderation works, here or anywhere else.
I'm sorry but that was too funny -- couldn't help but picture Gautama putting his foot down (stamping...stomping) in his bare feet, no less.
:smirk:
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-says-hes-upset-with-slain-editor-charb/:
But did he want to drag so many others with him?
I'm sure they all knew what they were doing. I'm also sure the terrorists knew what they were doing, and don't forget they also targeted a Jewish supermarket - that is very revealing.
So who will these religious nutters target next? Maybe the Private Eye offices in London? Jewish targets in London? More bombs on the underground?
Victims included:
You reckon? I don't know what M Renaud's connection was with Charlie Hebdo or whether the caretaker's ideology went beyond taking care of the building but should such duty be expected of any police officer, just because an individual refuses to compromise?
So you're saying it's the editors fault that the terrorists murdered people? Hmmm. I don't think that trying to blame the victims of a terrorist attack is appropriate.
I'm sorry about the police officers of course, but they would have known the risks.
And what about the Jews murdered in the supermarket, was it their fault too?
And what about the victims of all the previous Islamic extremist attacks, was it their fault too?
I'm not sure that I am "blaming" anyone - just interested by others' takes as reported on Infowars in the particular instance of Charlie Hebdo (don't know enough to decide whether they are accurate or not and when I tried to look again at this page, it came up with "not known" so perhaps it was wrongly reported?) and pondering whether there might be what our legal system calls "contributory negligence" (is this ever a consideration?); whether it is skillful to mock when it is known that this causes offence and can be used to incite violence?
This sure doesn't stop me "praying for Paris" and for all whose security is threatened by radicalism of any kind.
I think it's not all a simple answer. And we may need to differentiate between "blame" and at least some "responsibility".
Of course, I would put the blame on the terrorists.
But perhaps the editors showed some "reckless disregard" in putting their workers in a situation that had already been highlighted as a risky course of action.
Of course, on the other hand, people who worked for the publication were adults, and should have been aware of the risks involved in working for a publication that had a reputation for taunting extreme Muslims.
whether it is skillful to mock when it is known that this causes offence and can be used to incite violence?
No, it isn't skillful, but then France is a secular republic with a strong tradition of free speech, and not a Buddhist country. It seems that so far the French have been unable or unwilling to compromise the principle of free speech in order to accommodate a religious minority who look over-sensitive to criticism. The problem now is that, from the French point of view, compromising free speech would give the impression of the terrorists having "won".
Or, could they start paying a little more attention to their ideal of fraternity? Not saying this is an answer - don't know - just continuing to ponder ...
I don't think that "skillful speech" is only a Buddhist concept.
I'm still not sure what the French mean by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberté,_égalité,_fraternité
Perhaps not, but it isn't the same as free speech.
During WWII the French motto was changed to 'Travail, Famille, Patrie' meaning "Work, Family, Fatherland' (note, not Motherland) But then the original motto was re-adopted in times of peace.
I'm sure they all knew what they were doing. I'm also sure the terrorists knew what they were doing...
Remember, on the Cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Oh, forgive me, this thread is not supposed to be about prayers, is it?
The thread was dedicated to the victims of the terrorist atrocities in Paris. Let's not forget them in all the politics.
Let us not forget them, nor the fact that they as mere fallible creatures did not fully know what they were doing.
As for free speech: It is just a bag of hot air. The only free thing is the air that we breathe. Let us just pray that it is polluted neither by toxic chemicals or toxic ideas.
I find this "blame the victim" approach very dubious, and I'm not going to be an apologist for Islamic terrorism.
What?
The Universal Declaration of a Human Rights has three relevant Articles on Freedom of Speech, namely Articles 1, 18, & 19:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 1 sets the Tone: All people are brothers and sisters, equal under the law and to be treated with respect. Respect is the Highest form of love, in that it does not grasp at things but would rather salute them and wish them to be well and independent. Above all, saith the First Article, all people everywhere are to be respected. Indeed, the very opening line of the Preamble states: ...Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Article 18 more or less is about freedom of religion and conscience; but this article, first and foremost, asserts the integrity of the person and how that must be maintained if any real value is put on the human life and experience.
Article 19, now, is the tricky one, as far as I see it. Remember The United Nations adopted this document on December 10, 1948, just a few years after the ending of WWII. The salient part of this article to me, though, is its pointed reference to the "freedom to hold opinions without interference." (Of course the receiving and imparting of information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers is absolutely essential and must not be impeded by any government.) This "freedom to hold opinions without interference," is a stalwart statement about the integrity of Ideas. It would defend people speaking out against injustice and lies and white-washings of foul deeds, and such. However, in light of Article 1 and the Preamble, I do not think the idea of "protected opinions" would go so far as to cover hate speech or unfair derogatory expressions that might incite resentment or even violent reactions.
As I continue to write this (I have some 3 hours left). I see @SpinyNorman, that you have posted two further comments. Are you really that gung-ho about "those terrorists?" Maybe a little more Metta meditation might be in order? I mean, I was hardly afforded time to give flesh to the bones of my ideas.
Anger solves nothing. A holy woman once advised:
My child, if you want peace of mind,
do not find fault with others.
Rather learn to see your own faults.
Learn to make Everyone your own. (tout le monde)
No one is a stranger, My Child!
This whole world is your own!
--Sri Sarada Devi
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Which is precisely what the cartoonists were doing.
We're all fallible creatures, but none of us deserve to be murdered for expressing a view. Not being murdered seems like the most basic human right, wouldn't you agree?
As for free speech would you rather live in a totalitarian state where free speech is regarded as an unnecessary luxury or as a thread to state control?
Continuing where I left off:
RESPECT. Everyone needs just a little respect.
Imagine your countrymen if the people at the helm of the national legislature (or, God forbid, Journalists!) started demeaning working class people or something. What an outcry there would be. And of course, you can't do that to Muslims, either, for that would be beyond the pale. So, just go after some guy who lived 1500 years ago, right? NOT!
MY freedom of speech extends only to my right to defend my own truth in court, in speech, or in writing, and to speak out for justice, common sense or results of sound inquiry. But it Certainly doth not extend to sounding the gongs of my prejudices in places where it may lead others to pain or into mischief.
>
Bullshit.
Respect is Earned, not a given.
I have a general level of respect for everyone, and then it's up to them, and their behaviour, as to whether it remains where it is, increases or decreases.
>
Your freedom of speech extends only to about an inch in front of your mouth.
After that, it's up to others to decide whether you speak wisely or out of turn.
That is THEIR choice.
But it's beholden upon them to return like for like.
To presume one can anihilate a host of people for offensive comments is frankly, beyond the pale.
Respectfully, honor is earned. Respect is what good people give out of the goodness of their hearts to all.
Sorry, @Federica, but you just lost me with your last sentence, "to presume one can annihilate a host of people for offensive comments..." I don't see anyone suggesting that is either valid or thinkable.
That has nothing to do with the Right of free speech, which I have been attempting to make less broad than does the Penner of the OP. Thus, again, you lose me!
prayer for the dead . . . and the living . . .
May we live in peace and respect.
Sorry for not making my points clearer! Those like myself who see a real cultural arrogance on the part of the West are calling for some examination of conscience. Can we entertain the notion that our ways might not be One-Size-Fits-All and also not the Complete Revelation of The Truth? Is it civil to anger others and complain that your civil liberties are being undermined if you're not allowed free range in incivilities? There have been links supplied in this very thread showing some real hubris on the part of the Western press. To wit:
http://www.infowars.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-says-hes-upset-with-slain-editor-charb/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
I think calling this "blaming the victim" is just a bit short-sighted. If you want a peaceful world, you'll surely want people open to universal goodwill and understanding. Our words and images are powerful, and reflecting on them a bit more before "uttering" them is good for everyone. People with kind intent will use kind words and will be seen as cooperators; people who insult will be seen as perpetrators of unpeaceful deeds.
Could it possibly be that Right Speech is the only speech that's truly Free? Might not all other lesser speech bind us?
On a personal note: In my own life I have found a certain "lusting" to be clever troublesome --it's something I really need to keep in check. Over the years I have become outwardly successful in not "showing out," as it were, as I did when younger; however, on the inside I'm all-too-often thinking of clever things to say to amuse people. I frankly find that part of life quite asinine and of little or negative personal profit. I can see a little bit of myself in Stephane Charbonnier "Charb" and vice-versa. That part is full of Ego and I dislike it, not only for the harm it can do but for its lack of depth.
RESPECT adds depth. Everyone needs at least a little respect. And the world will be a better place...
Cultural terrorism - associating Buddhists with the Zen inspired atrocities of Japan during WWII or women with a desire to be flirted with indiscriminately or Israel with pro-semitism and anti-Palistinian-semitism or the KKK with street cleaning duties or IBM with Holocaust facilitation, is a convenient way to align, misalign and follow the norm of our culture. Islam is not a culture of killers any more than America is a society of gung ho innocents, France a bunch of [insert stereo type of choice] etc.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt_a_Highway
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
I would suggest we can understand the insanity of radicalised marines, brainwashed cructaceans or the hateful Parisian killers . . .
We can given sufficient equanimity . . . something we can all hopefully develop . . . given time . . .
. . . and now back to the prayers . . .
I know it's a very complicated issue with lots of politics and history. It's true that the west has made the problem of Islamic fundamentalism much worse with it's military excursions into Iraq, Afghan and elsewhere. It's true that we're very myopic in the west and don't pay enough attention to the awful things are happening in other parts of the world, like with the recent Taliban and Boko Haram massacres.
And yet I still see militant Islam as a scourge, a form of religious fascism which will only cause further suffering, something will the world will have to deal with sooner or later. And I still see Islam as a religion which is desperately in need of reform, a religion which needs to leave behind the mediaevalism and fully join the 21st century.
But for now we remember the victims in Paris. And for them I say "vive la liberte".
This link includes the words:
Is abusing free speech helpful to harmony?
I thought it was a prayer for Paris? All of Paris? Of course that includes the victims but their struggle is over (for now). My prayer is that Paris (since this is within Europe and therefore a neighbour to me) will find the brotherhood, the harmony it professes to seek.
Is abusing free speech helpful to harmony?
It depends what is meant by "abusing". The French view is probably different from ours.
So why the ban on denying that the holocaust happened?
"Just to show balance, this is also extremely important."
That was covered earlier in the thread, and we now seem to be just going over the same ground.
I'd be happy if the thread is now closed.
Or just "canned," or whatever you call it, to keep it from being pulled to the "top" again. I thought people behaved quite decently on this thread.
>
Request granted.
If you ever want it re-opened, just say the word.