[Peace-discuss] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia [2 Attachments]

Sun Jan 18 14:29:01 EST 2015

[Attachment(s) from Julian included below] 

This appalling action is the effect and the cause of truly alarming developments. 

Islamic 'extremists' have caused vastly more deaths of 'fellow' Muslims than of others. Muslem 'extremism' also accounts for 
In the UK there have only been two successful terror attacks since 2010, one by a Ukrainian rightist, the other the Lee Rigby killing. Less than 2% of attacks in Europe have been the work of Islamic terrorists [most have been separatists, some, like the Norwegian massacre have been neo-Nazi].
[See attachments for more details]

Nevertheless, given the mass slaughter of avowed Muslims, the occupation, bombing, and ruination of avowedly 'Muslim' countries, the destruction of ancient civilisations  covering a whole oil-rich region of the world, their being turned over to marauders and gangsters as 'failed states' - largely by nominally 'Christian' or 'Secular' ones - it is hardly surprising that the Middle Eastern civil wars are causing dangerous ripples in the 'West'. 

This is one cause for alarm. Much more serious to us in Europe and the USA is the danger from the extreme right which has not only the Muslim 'community' within its sights, but all the gains made by the labour movement and all the hopes for future generations. 

This is particularly terrifying because the State is their ultimate backer. It has moved within hours - or even in advance of the CH attacks - to a magnifies concerted attack on civil liberties - the extra arming of police, the mobilisation of tens/hundreds of thousands of troops, preparation of new legislation for further snooping powers  on the part of the secret state. 

(Is it naive 'conspiracy theory' stuff to suggest that [EDLleader] Tommy Robinsons' 'conversion' to non violence -  under the influence of a prison-sentence and the Home Office backed anti-Muslim Extremism Quilliam Foundation - was the result of a brutal deal or thuggish 'gentlemen's agreement'[most likely with money changing hands]. to exchange info and work on more sophisticated policy planning etc. ...? He claimed he was going to learn about lobbying and intends to start a new party......)

Here [for those who can see them] are links to two documentaries shown on UK TV where [at around 52+ mins on episode 2] one perceptive billionaire [Nick Hanauer] points out that he earns $10-20,000 an hour: "You show me a highly unequal society and I'll show you either a revolution or a police state" - and they go on to show clips of a fair pay  protest in Boston, the London riots of 2011 etc.]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04yn2yq/the-superrich-and-us-episode-2

But Nick Hanauer is not necessarily cleverer than the professionals who manage his affairs, his person and his property and that of his kind. What he understands and the media are not afraid to display to the public is certainly well understood by the state.

The State is now strutting about grandly and parading itself proudly with "Je suis Charlie" banners while preparing for war against its populations. 

 Islamophobia and Islamophilia are almost irrelevant details - useful ideological pawns for rival reactionary forces

Sonja Engelhardt sonjaengelhardt69 at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion] wrote:

I agree with Dave. 

A German newspaper accidentally printed an anti-semitic cartoon the other day it thought was one of CH's out of solidarity with this paper. They didn't know it was a fake, it looked pretty much the same as a lot of other cartoons of CH. 

Somebody from the Israeli embassy in Germany noticed the anti-semitic cartoon and complained. The German newspaper had to apologize.

This and seeing a lot of the CH's cartoons myself, show two things to me: first several of the cartoons in this paper are definitely offensive and racist (in my opinion) and secondly to be offensive against Muslims seems to be "your right" and part of exercising "free speech" but you cannot be offensive against Jews or Israelis. (And I am not saying you should be). 

I don't know CH and I don't have any interest in getting to know this magazine. All and all I am still shocked that the killing of 12 people in France brought 2 million on the streets and the killings of 2000 and more in Nigeria none. 

I do think that these are serious issues the left has to deal with.

Comradely,

Sonja

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Dave Savage dsavage_1960 at yahoo.com [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

"The font chosen (serif) is reminiscent of traditional right-wing political posters. Left-wing and communist posters in France usually use a sans-serif font. This is the first hint that the cartoon is mocking a right-wing element."

I'm sure the average Muslim immigrant in France is aware of the particular fonts used by the left. All Algerians would know this I'm sure.  But from what I've read, this magazine had a tiny ciurculation, almost nothing.  How come the immigrant population hasn't been drawn to such a defender of their rights in droves?

Dave

  _____  

From: "Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
To: "socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 4:59 PM 

Subject: Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia

Here's the explanation for that particular cartoon:

Rassemblement Bleu Raciste [ link ]

Themes: Racism, Front National

Publication date: 12/11/2013

Author: Charb (1967 - 2015)

Error! Filename not specified.

Translation

“RACIST BLUE UNION” 

Symbols

*	The font chosen (serif) is reminiscent of traditional right-wing political posters. Left-wing and communist posters in France usually use a sans-serif font. This is the first hint that the cartoon is mocking a right-wing element.
*	The blue and red flame logo on the bottom-left is the logo of the Front National, a far-right political party in France.
*	The person depicted is Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, drawn as a monkey. This is referencing various occasions of far-right activists depicting Taubira as a monkey (online sharing of photoshops, sound imitations, calling out, etc.).
*	The title is a play on words of Marine Le Pen's slogan “Rassemblement Bleu Marine” (Navy blue Union).

Satire

The cartoon was published after a National Front politician Facebook-shared a photoshop of Justice Taubira, drawn as a monkey, and then said on French television the she should be “in a tree swinging from the branches rather than in government” [Le Monde] (she was later sentenced to 9 months of prison). The cartoon is styled as a political poster, calling on all far-right “Marine” racists to unify, under this racist imagery they have chosen. Ultimately, the cartoon is criticising the far-right's appeal to racism to gain supporters.

The cartoon was drawn by Charb. He participated in anti-racism activities, and notably illustrated the poster (below) for MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples), an anti-racist NGO.

Richard

  _____  

From: "Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
To: "socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2015, 0:55
Subject: Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia

This webpage explains the meaning of the cartoons: http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#bleue-racist

Richard

  _____  

From: "John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
To: socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2015, 0:12
Subject: Re: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia

Then there is this CH cartoon which depicts a black administration official as a monkey. And you're telling me CH is not racist? 

John

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, John Reimann <1999wildcat at gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Roger. CH did not push the envelope or test the limits in the way that I would support. As with Roger, when I was in Egypt and everybody asked me my religion, I said I was an atheist and I got into several debates about "god". As I've recounted, when somebody suggested I read the Koran I suggested he read the Communist Manifesto. And I've written strongly attacking the muslim fundamentalists, like in my recent article on Boko Haram. 

There is one point, though, and that is that in criticizing the fundamentalists, I do think socialists have to explain why they have gotten a base. I believe that base is due to the collapse of the workers' organizations as an independent mass force in society. As a result, it is difficult for many workers, especially in the underdeveloped world, to see the class struggle as an avenue. That was clearly the case for one of the brothers who carried out the attack in Paris. He was an unemployed youth, in and out of prison, who was recruited to fundamentalism while he was locked up. Why wasn't he recruited to the class struggle and socialist revolution? And by the way, there have even been a few prisoners here in the US who were recruited to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism while in prison. Compare that to George Jackson, Eldridge Cleaver and others in the 60s and 70s.

I don't support the approach of CH at all and I agree with Roger that it could play into the racists' attitudes. And I also think that in general we have to be sensitive to different cultures' traditions and beliefs. If Guatemalan indians believe that taking their photo steals their soul, then as much as I don't agree, I won't take their picture. And if Muslims are insulted by my painting a cartoon of Muhammed, then what does it serve to paint it? It simply makes it more difficult to discuss our differences, including my atheism vs. their belief in Islam. And that has nothing to do with banning others from drawing cartoons of Muhammed, no more than my attacks on Christian fundamentalists here means I support banning them. I oppose banning them, either by law or by physical assault on them. But I also don't agree with their approach at all.

John Reimann

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:41 AM, RSilver100 at aol.com [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I agree. Socialists should make no concessions to religious superstition. 

For many years I was teaching at a secondary school in the East End of London where the majority of the students were Muslims (mostly from a Bangladeshi background). Flushed with the success of their Stop The War campaign, the SWP were busily constructing a blatantly communal Muslim party alongside George Galloway. There was an SWP member based at the school who tried hard to cultivate support among the students by constantly assuring them of his “profound respect for their faith”, etc. I took a different approach. When students asked me my religion, I would say I was an atheist. When one of them told me: “I believe there is only one God and only one prophet”, my reply was: “Sorry, Nabeel, to me that’s just a load of mumbo-jumbo.” Where the patronising condescension of the SWP-er gained him no credibility at all, I won their respect by treating them seriously and honestly. Many of them became enthusiastically involved in the left student journal that I established (which is still going strong twelve years later). 

We support unconditionally the democratic rights of the Charlie-Hebdo cartoonists. Of course they shouldn’t be banned, let alone executed. But satire is a weapon of the oppressed against their rulers; this is something quite different. The poem quoted by Richard offended the religion of the ruling establishment. Mohammed is a very soft target for these cartoonists. Their provocative images were published against the background of a growth of support for the Front National, the banning of the burqa, racist attacks on immigrants, etc. Whatever their intention, their cartoons end up playing into the hands both of the Islamophobic FN and the Islamic fundamentalists. 

Roger Silverman

In a message dated 17/01/2015 18:55:27 GMT Standard Time, socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com writes:

Censorship by public pressure is almost as bad as banning. We all self-censor to a certain extent in our dealings with others but we should defend the right of others who want to go further. They are the ones pushing back the boundaries. In Britain in 1977, Gay Times was convicted of Blasphemous Libel for publishing a poem that hinted a Roman soldier had sex with Christ on the cross. To my mind it wasn't a great poem and I wouldn't read it out to Christians but as a result of them pushing the boundaries, blasphemy is no longer a criminal offence in Britain.

Richard

"John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" wrote:

Nobody is proposing banning Charlie Hebdo or any journal like that. 

John

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

John, I think you were absolutely right in taking a principled stand against supporting the religious charter school, despite the accusations of racism.

On the point of whether it is right to use ridicule against religion; generally we should be sympathetic to people who have these backward illusions. I don't go around personally attacking (verbally or otherwise) those with a religious belief and generally I am in favour of using reason to combat religious mythology. But in a society where this is possible, it is certain that some will use satire to lampoon religion. Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of 60,000 in a country of 60 million, 0.1% of the population read it. It was on the edges of any debate on religion in France. No-one was forced to read it. Yet if we were to ban it, rational debate would also be censored. Once we give people the right not to be offended, then they will assume they have other rights, such as having their children 'educated' by religious charter schools and they will see those who oppose this 'right' as being racist. If we want to live in a secular society where public education is non-religious, then we have to defend the right to offend.

Richard

"John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

During the first Iraq war, we had an anti-war coalition here in Oakland. It was mainly run by the ISO, which has more or less the same politics as the SWP. An Islamic group came to the coalition asking for support. They were running a private school chartered by the Oakland school district. I opposed it on the grounds that (1) I'm against chartered schools; and (2) I'm especially against religious chartered schools. The ISO called me racist for opposing supporting them. I think I was right then and I'd take the same position now. 

However, it's one thing to take a clear, principled position on religion, especially fundamentalist versions of it. And it's something entirely different to belittle it in the way CH did. The former is an appeal to reason, to thinking things through, to class solidarity and class interests. The latter is simply aimed at humiliation.

I am not Charlie Hebdo and I don't support them. That has nothing to do with the attack on them, of course, which I unreservedly condemn. I also completely oppose all the claims in France about the French Republic's traditional values for equality, fraternity, etc. What nonsense. Where were these values when France was invading Vietnam, Algeria, Tunisia, etc.? Where were those values when their military was slaughtering families there? French capitalist society is just as riven by class interests, and the French capitalists just as much determine the course of society as their counterparts do everywhere else (including the mainly Islamic societies).

John

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks for posting this Farooq. I particularly like the phrase, “each religion is ‘differently’ flawed”. Whilst there is a need to be sensitive with believers, we must always remember that religions are reactionary ideologies that exist to ameliorate oppression and, as such, should be criticised and opposed.

The post raises some important issues:

“I am not here to refute or deny the West's  (continuing) history of imperialism and Islamophobia. It is also an unfortunate reality that Muslim immigrants in Europe continue to be marginalized. However, even though most of liberal response took a conscious effort to add caveats against direct causality, one couldn't help but notice an implicit argument that had the West not been Islamophobic/imperialistic, such massacres would not have happened. I beg to disagree”……

“… by failing to adequately criticize, or in many cases, even mention, the role of Islamic fundamentalism, progressive opinion has virtually given right-wing conservative opinion the monopoly on criticizing organized religion, specifically Islam.

 Progressive voices, for fear of being censured, and being labelled 'Islamophobic' have allowed the right -wing to engage in a crude demonisation of a religion and its followers. The aftermath of Paris would have been a good time for the Left to promote a reasoned critique of organized religion and fundamentalism.”……

“Islamic extremism is a problem, and imperialism is at best, a catalyst. These attacks were the handiwork of lunatics but lunatics too do not exist in a vacuum. Paris apart, there are Muslim societies where there is tacit support for violence against heresy (real or alleged).”

All of us who have lived and carried out political work in the inner cities have had to make compromises (on a daily basis) to engage with the Muslim community. But have we made too many compromises? In the desire for unity have we been too prepared to drop our criticisms of a religion particularly in its growing reactionary Salafist guise. Islamophobia should mean that we fight discrimination and prejudice against Muslims; it should not mean that we give up the right to criticise the religion. Much of the left in Britain has gone too far in crossing this divide, especially the SWP, who have made opportunist alliances with some pretty reactionary Muslim leaders.

As a result, a section of the Anglophone left were looking for a reason to downgrade the assassinations at Charlie Hebdo and so have an excuse not to join or be lukewarm towards the campaign in support of the right to criticise Islam. A few days ago, Tim posted a link that explained the meaning and the background to the cartoons and Charlie Hebdo, showing it uses satire to oppose racism as well as religion, https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left .

In Britain, as seems the case in France and the rest of Europe, there has been an increase in the religiosity of Muslims (at a time when British society, as a whole, is less religious than ever). As an example, when my children went to an inner-city primary school, the Muslim mothers who came to collect their children, were dressed in western clothes or saris. Now, a generation later at the same school, where I’m still involved as a governor, the present mothers, who in many cases were the same girls that were being collected then, are often turning up in the hijab, with their faces covered. I have no objection to people choosing what to wear and there are those who claim that the wearing of the hijab is liberating but I can’t think other than these British women are more oppressed than their mothers were. The reasons for the greater religiosity and therefore oppression are many, but we have to accept a certain amount of blame on the left because we have with-held criticism of Islam and its practices. Many of these women would undoubtedly like to live under a more liberal family regime and should have had the expectation that the left would fight their religious oppression. But, by and large, we have turned our backs on them by censoring ourselves in the criticism of their religion.

One of the gains of the Enlightenment, epitomised by the French Revolution, was the right to criticise religion. We should not go back to the days where religion was beyond criticism to the extent of risking a death penalty. The tradition of French anti-clerical satire, including Charlie Hebdo, is part of the progress of society.

Richard

  _____  

From: "farooq sulehria mfsulehria at hotmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>
To: Farooq soas <294785 at soas.ac.uk> 
Cc: socialistdiscussion <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com>; moderates <the-moderates at googlegroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2015, 8:27
Subject: [socialistdiscussion] Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia

Between Islamophobia and Islamophilia

http://www.viewpointonline.net/2015/01/vp234/between-islamophobia-and-islamophilia

Source: www.viewpointonline.net

On the morning of 6th of September, 1929, a man stood waiting outside the shop of Mahashay Rajpal, who hadn't arrived yet. As soon as Rajpal arrived, the man, Ilumuddin took out a dagger and stabbed Mahashay Rajpal. The reason: Rajpal was the publisher of a book known as Rangeela Rasool (The Colourful Prophet), which, as you can understand from the title offended a lot of Muslims. When Rajpal was tried in the court, a wine drinking, ham eating lawyer (and hence presumed 'secular'), otherwise known as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, appealed on behalf of the man and urged that "as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him." 

Less apologetically, Allama Iqbal, the Shair-e Mashriq (Poet of the East), praised Ilmuddin as a "great warrior". In modern day Pakistan, his name carries the title Ghazi/Shaheed and there is a Pakistani movie (http://www.newsplus24.com/2012/04/15/ghazi-on-screen/) that was made glorifying his vigilantism. 

Around seventy one years later, another follower of Ilmuddin was garlanded by lawyers for murdering a governor in Punjab. 

On the other side of the spectrum, the Pakistani Taliban recently attacked a religious congregation, in Rawalpindi on January 9, for taking part in festivities of eid-e milad (the prophet's birthday). It seems that not only is satirising the Prophet dangerous, but revering him can also land you in trouble. 

To those from the subcontinent, the old maxim  of 'Bakhuda deewana bashud, ba mohammad hoshyar' (Take liberties with God, but not a word against Mohammad) rings painfully true. Charlie Hebdo wasn't the first case of religious intolerance, or the apologia that consequently followed. And I do not think it will be the last.

As I write these lines, I am painfully aware that my cultural background  puts me in a tough spot, and I could all too easily be mistaken for a chauvinist Hindu who takes a certain glee in putting down Islam/Muslims, and thus invite allegations of being Islamophobic.

 It did occur to me that I should probably make my introductory paragraph more balanced, and include a few examples of Hindu extremism so as to convey my impartiality and avoid censure of some readers. Another closely related rhetorical trope often used by people like me to convey neutrality is to mention that all religions are equally 'evil', but that would mean being intellectually dishonest. Neither is my position the opposite: that some religions are more evil than others. Rather, as a skeptic, I hold the view that each religion is 'differently' flawed (I find the phrase evil too problematic), and each has its own peculiarities. For instance, Hinduism's dehumanisation of half of its followers by way of a sophisticated philosophy of segregation is problematic in a very different manner compared to Christianity's history of inquisitions or its anxiety about sex. It is inane to debate which is a greater 'evil'. Since it was the horrific massacre of Paris that led me to write this, my focus is disproportionately on Islam compared to other faiths. 

The massacre in Paris gave rise to a predictable reaction. Understandably, a lot of people expressed solidarity with the slain cartoonists, many well meaning, but also quite a few who felt a certain vindication of their Islamophobia. Sometimes the two overlapped. Then came the liberal response, which can be summed up as follows: Yes we are sad, and it shouldn't have happened. But Charlie Hebdo wasn't dyed in the wool either. But Islamophobia. But imperialism. 

I am not here to refute or deny the West's  (continuing) history of imperialism and Islamophobia. It is also an unfortunate reality that Muslim immigrants in Europe continue to be marginalized. However, even though most of liberal response took a conscious effort to add caveats against direct causality, one couldn't help but notice an implicit argument that had the West not been Islamophobic/imperialistic, such massacres would not have happened. I beg to disagree. 

First, as the examples from British India and Pakistan demonstrate, religious fundamentalists are often waiting to be provoked. Religious fanatics may use any pretext to justify their actions (imperialism is particularly fashionable in the context), but the bottom line is that those who want to be provoked, will be provoked (As the RSS/Hindu right in India does with impunity). Further, had imperialism been the target, it would have made far more 'sense' to attack government offices rather than cartoonists. Attributing their actions to imperialism is not only erroneous, but also obscures the agency of those who commit such massacres. 

Secondly, it provides cannon fodder to fundamentalists within a faith to justify their actions on real or perceived injustices. For instance, it is well known that American involvement was instrumental in formation of the Taliban, but the Taliban itself couldn't have been conceived in a vacuum without the agency of the Pakistani government and religious organizations, who continued to support such groups, long after the withdrawal of American support.  Further, such arguments also disempower those working from the inside to reform religions/communities. 

Next, coming to the issue of  Western hypocrisy towards free speech. There are ample examples of hypocrisy as far as free speech is concerned, the right wing trash Jylland Posten is what comes to mind immediately due to their refusal to caricature Jesus Christ, despite publishing cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (As an aside, it is not satirising Prophet Mohammad that I have a problem with. Only that the Jylland Posten’s cartoon was neither intelligent, nor satirical). But Jylland Posten is not the representative of European media. Just as the assassins of the cartoonists aren't representative of the 1.7 billion Muslims of the planet, the same discourtesy should also be extended to the Danish magazine.  

Another issue raised by an article I read on the Huffington Post was the Western double standards in maintaining a law against Holocaust denial while continuing to print cartoons ridiculing the Prophet. I agree that while the law forbidding Holocaust denial is perhaps not the wisest (Even if neo-Nazis are allowed to publish their hogwash, I doubt many people will believe it), but equating satire against a religion with denial of a historical incident is perhaps not on the same footing. 

Lastly, by failing to adequately criticize, or in many cases, even mention, the role of Islamic fundamentalism, progressive opinion has virtually given right-wing conservative opinion the monopoly on criticizing organized religion, specifically Islam.

 Progressive voices, for fear of being censured, and being labelled 'Islamophobic' have allowed the right -wing to engage in a crude demonisation of a religion and its followers. The aftermath of Paris would have been a good time for the Left to promote a reasoned critique of organized religion and fundamentalism. 

Between the extremes of Islamophobia and the uncritical acceptance of Islam as being peaceful, there is a middle ground of critique (Let's call it Islamo-criticism, or generally, religio-criticism) that progressives could have engaged in without feeling the need to be apologetic.

 Islamic extremism is a problem, and imperialism is at best, a catalyst. These attacks were the handiwork of lunatics but lunatics too do not exist in a vacuum. Paris apart, there are Muslim societies where there is tacit support for violence against heresy (real or alleged). There is a reason why no Pakistani government has dared repeal the blasphemy laws. Because it knows that any such move will be too unpopular. To give another example from the subcontinent, the spread of Hindutva as an ideology isn't solely the work of right-wing lunatics. It requires the tacit approval (or fearful silence) of a substantial segment of the population to sustain it. Babri Masjid was demolished in the minds of millions some time before it was actually razed to the ground in 1992. 

This takes me back to 2011. After Salman Taseer's assassination, many well intentioned Pakistani friends said that killing for blasphemy is un-Islamic, and accused the extremists of selective interpretation. The point is, as vast (and often contradictory) the corpus of Islamic law is, the liberals can also be accused of picking those interpretations that suit them. Neither has the monopoly on the truth. My question to them was: Assuming for a second that the extremist interpretation is indeed correct and killing for blasphemy is sanctioned in the religion, would that make the assassin's actions any more justifiable?  

-- 

"Poems don't belong to those who write them; they belong to those who need them" - from movie "Il Postino"
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com and //www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream 

-- 

"Poems don't belong to those who write them; they belong to those who need them" - from movie "Il Postino"
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com and //www.facebook.com/WorkersIntlNetwork?ref=stream 

Censorship by public pressure is almost as bad as banning. We all self-censor to a certain extent in our dealings with others but we should defend the right of others who want to go further. They are the ones pushing back the boundaries. In Britain in 1977, Gay Times was convicted of Blasphemous Libel for publishing a poem that hinted a Roman soldier had sex with Christ on the cross. To my mind it wasn't a great poem and I wouldn't read it out to Christians but as a result of them pushing the boundaries, blasphemy is no longer a criminal offence in Britain.

Richard

"John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nobody is proposing banning Charlie Hebdo or any journal like that. 

John

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Richard Evans redrichardevans at yahoo.co.uk [socialistdiscussion] <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

John, I think you were absolutely right in taking a principled stand against supporting the religious charter school, despite the accusations of racism.

On the point of whether it is right to use ridicule against religion; generally we should be sympathetic to people who have these backward illusions. I don't go around personally attacking (verbally or otherwise) those with a religious belief and generally I am in favour of using reason to combat religious mythology. But in a society where this is possible, it is certain that some will use satire to lampoon religion. Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of 60,000 in a country of 60 million, 0.1% of the population read it. It was on the edges of any debate on religion in France. No-one was forced to read it. Yet if we were to ban it, rational debate would also be censored. Once we give people the right not to be offended, then they will assume they have other rights, such as having their children 'educated' by religious charter schools and they will see those who oppose this 'right' as being racist. If we want to live in a secular society where public education is non-religious, then we have to defend the right to offend.

Richard

"John Reimann 1999wildcat at gmail.com [socialistdiscussion]" <socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

During the first Iraq war, we had an anti-war coalition here in Oakland. It was mainly run by the ISO, which has more or less the same politics as the SWP. An Islamic group came to the coalition asking for support. They were running a private school chartered by the Oakland school district. I opposed it on the grounds that (1) I'm against chartered schools; and (2) I'm especially against religious chartered schools. The ISO called me racist for opposing supporting them. I think I was right then and I'd take the same position now. 

However, it's one thing to take a clear, principled position on religion, especially fundamentalist versions of it. And it's something entirely different to belittle it in the way CH did. The former is an appeal to reason, to thinking things through, to class solidarity and class interests. The latter is simply aimed at humiliation.

I am not Charlie Hebdo and I don't support them. That has nothing to do with the attack on them, of course, which I unreservedly condemn. I also completely oppose all the claims in France about the French Republic's traditional values for equality, fraternity, etc. What nonsense. Where were these values when France was invading Vietnam, Algeria, Tunisia, etc.? Where were those values when their military was slaughtering families there? French capitalist society is just as riven by class interests, and the French capitalists just as much determine the course of society as their counterparts do everywhere else (including the mainly Islamic societies).

John