Alright, so, first off, mods have my absolute blessing (which is a weird thing to hear, coming from me, more on that later) to lock up this thread if this thread veers out of control.
I came here to clear up some possible misunderstandings, not to convince anyone that France is the best country in the world that you have to love inconditionally. You can check my history, I regularly post on the French subreddit, in French, using mainland French terms (so I am not some Québeccois jackass making himself out to be French).
As an addition, I am an atheist, with pagan roots (meaning that I embrace elements of a pagan ethos, Asentreue, to be precise). A lot of French people are agnostic, with catholics barely being a majority in 2016 (and I would say a number of them identify as catholics, but do not practice and only say they are catholics out of habit).
So, then, onto the main topic...
France is a republic, which is called laïque, meaning that the State is separate from religions (for example Atatürk copied the notion when he installed the Turkish Republic). There is no State religion (like in the UK) and no concordat, which is a contract between a State and religious authorities (like in Germany). The State does not police what is being preached in a religious context, except if there is a threat to public order. Conversely, French schools teach science, without any regard for religious sensitivities. There is none of the North American nonsense about "teaching the controversy" on evolution. The science has long been settled, evolution is real, moaning about it does not change that fact (keep this element in mind).
Laïcité also means that the State should not finance any specifically religious association or enterprise. This has had two effects: muslim associations turned to foreign States (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) for financing religious projects (creation of quranic schools, building of mosques), which has afforded these States some influence on French muslims (for better or for worse. Mostly worse.). As a second effect, some French towns and cities ended up financing associations, publicly advertised as muslim, in violation of laïcité, because they felt that there was a social need for these associations (and also because they could play it up with muslim voters).
This all means that when freedom of speech was used to criticise or mock a religion (I am talking about the ideology itself, not its adherents.), the French State would just figuratively shrug, say that freedom of speech covers criticism of religions and move on.
Enter Charlie Hebdo. First misconception: some say it is a far-right newspaper. False: on the French political spectrum, it is firmly left, sometimes even close to far-left. They have always condemned racism unequivocally. Second misconception: they are specifically targetting muslims. Charlie Hebdo has been consistent in mocking ALL religions. In fact, [Charlie Hebdo has been sued more often by christians than by muslims](https://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/).
So, Charlie Hebdo published drawings caricaturing Mohammed. The shitstorm that followed was pretty alarming. They were sued, but the courts considered that the caricatures were covered by freedom of speech. [The courts specifically considered that they targeted islamists](https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/03/23/charlie-hebdo-relaxe-dans-l-affaire-des-caricatures-de-mahomet_886999_3224.html) (one caricature, under the title "Mohammed is overtaken by extremists" represented Mohammed bemoaning the fact that he is "worshipped by morons", another showing freshly-exploded suicide bombers coming up to the heavens, with Mohammed telling them to "cut that shit out, we are out of virgins", which is a reference to islamists claiming that every killed jihadists has a number of virgins awaiting him in the heavens and the last showing a bearded, beturbaned guy with his head in the form of a bomb).
In 2015, a couple of murderous arseholes decided that they would strike back against unbelievers (their words) and shot up the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo. They killed a number of people there, then went on to kill a couple more, including two hostage crisis in a jewish supermarket and at a printing company. This led to the "je suis Charlie" meme, everybody sang kumbawa, but nothing really changed.
Come 2020, a teacher was teaching about freedom of speech in his class and they came to talk about these caricatures. In order to make a point about how these caricatures were overblown, he showed a couple of them to his class, but allowed those who felt that it would make them uncomfortable to leave the room beforehand. One father considered that it was unacceptable (even though his daughter was not even in class on that day and only reported hearsay to him) and launched a campaign on social media. This went as well as expected and it blew up (no pun intended). A few days later, a Chechen asylum migrant, who was in contact with jihadists, found out about the posts, travelled to the town where the teacher was, tracked him down, thanks to some school students and killed him, decapitating him. He was then shot by the police when he tried to attack them.
This of course prompted another blowout. The father has since been indicted for complicity in a terrorist attack. A mosque, which had reposted the threats that the father had expressed on social media, was closed down for six months. French authorities cracked down on muslim associations that were perceived as too close to islamism. The crackdown had actually begun before the assassination of the teacher, but it dramatically intensified after that. One of the points that the Interior minister is making is that foreign powers have too much influence in muslim associations.
Finally, onto the caricatures themselves and the taboo about drawing Mohammed. The people at Charlie Hebdo are not muslims. A number of them are not even religious. Not even taking into account that [said taboo is in fact recent](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555) as there have been a number of [historical depictions of Mohammed](https://www.muslimworldtoday.org/images_prophet_muhammad_islamic_art_history_clan_ibn_saud_took_muslims_hostage).
Therefore, why should they (or I) abide by some rule of a religion I do not believe in?
Some say that this is insulting to muslims, because it is like insulting their family. Mohammed has been dead (or gone) for more than a millenium. At this point, he is nobody's family. He is, at this point, a historical figure.
Some claim that this is an offense on muslims. To which I respond that the very name that muslims use to refer to atheists and pagans is used as an insult. And yet, no muslim has ever reflected upon the fact that this term could be offensive to atheists and pagans.
I will be happy to continue the discussion in a civil and grounded manner. Spitfires abstain. Sourceless whiners abstain too. Good day to all.
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://ift.tt/2TE8GhE
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours