Posts made by Higgs

This is bullshit. The images and the story are over a year old. Which may be why the person who posted this story here didn't feel the need to link to an actual news story about it.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/images-church-attack-nigeria-date-2022-not-2023-violence-2023-12-29/

@lololulu19 But those are the wrong questions. The primary role of face-masks is not to prevent the wearer from getting infected, but rather to reduce the chances of them transmitting the virus to others if they are infected. And the role of vaccines is not primarily to prevent infection with the omicron variant, but rather to reduce the severity of infections by boosting T-cell immunity. Vaccination won't necessarily stop you from getting infected, but it will hopefully prevent you from becoming seriously ill.

As a simple Google image search could tell you, that image dates from November 2019. Try again.

https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/1197880442634096640?lang=en

Recently, a thread was removed from a post because it had become the focus of "political" comments to do with a major geopolitical conflict. The moderator who removed the posts did so on the grounds that "this is a positive community."

That's a questionable claim to start with, but if there is a policy against 'political' comments it seems to be very selectively applied. Perhaps this is because all comments here are really "political" - this is, whether we like it or not, a political site. Porn is always political, and gay porn is doubly political.

I can see the point of discouraging disruptive or bad-tempered comments (I think the thread concerned was neither of these things). But insisting on a blanket rejection of 'political' comments would actually result in the removal of a very significant proportion of the comments on this site.

At the very least, much more clarity is needed about what is and is not acceptable.

It's not so very long since gay men were criminals in parts of the US.

It's not altogether clear to me that LGBT people - even white ones - ought always to be on the side of law enforcement against those whom the law deems to be criminals.

You're being more than a little disingenuous about what happened here.

The meeting was not simply "a Jewish group" - it was a pro-Israel rally linked to right-wing political movements in Israel, and featuring former IDF soldiers speaking against the BDS movement.

The meeting attracted a counter-demonstration from critics of Israel and supporters of BDS.  Press reports suggest that the protest was mostly peaceful, and nobody was punished.

The only remotely surprising thing about any of this was that the University was seemingly unprepared for such a confrontation.

The National Post writes:

"Video posted to social media of the protest showed little outright violence, but many people jostling in an unruly crowd overseen by police, and loud chanting of “Viva viva Palestina,” “Occupation is a crime,” “viva intifada (uprising)” and “One two three four occupation no more five six seven eight Israel is an apartheid state.”

Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook told the Canadian Press there was a physical altercation involving several people, and one person suffered minor injuries.

There were no arrests although some people were removed by police.

The event was disrupted by the protest but managed to continue, aided by police barring the doors and eventually escorting attendees out. "

https://nationalpost.com/news/york-university-launches-review-after-event-with-ex-israeli-soldiers-met-with-massive-protest

First, I don't think any sort of knowledge is "objective" in the sense you seem to have in mind. Knowledge in fact seems to me to be subjective by its very nature - in the sense that knowledge cannot exist without somebody to know it (that is, a subject). This goes for scientific knowledge too, which is certainly verifiable, but only on its own terms (you might say that scientific truth is true, but only scientifically true!). It is not disparaging science in any way to say that it is not 'true' in the sense that (most) religious truth-claims are claimed to be true. And I find it a little worrying that many people who want to do away with religion propose to put science in its place. There may be systems of thought that can provide for us some or many of the things that 'religion' does, but I think it is putting far too much faith in science to expect it to assume that burden. In the same way, I don't really see how it can be true that religion "hampers scientific knowledge" (or if it does, it seems to be failing dismally). I don't think religion and scientific knowledge have much to do with each other at all.

You are quite right, however, to say that many features of modern religions are offensive to "common sense" - and this strikes me as one of their great advantages. Perhaps because I'm instinctively suspicious of "common sense" (or "popular wisdom"), I think texts and traditions that interrogate the consensus of the current moment are extremely valuable. The very fact that Christianity and Islam both challenge so many of the unquestioned assumptions of our liberal, secular and capitalist culture seems to me to be one of the things that makes them very powerful and often very unpopular: even where their demands seem bizarre or silly, they remind us that there are alternatives to the dominant moral and political discourses, and that things haven't always been the way they are. They question our historical narrative of moral and epistemological 'progress.'  And they hold out the possibility of a radically different system of value and of regime of truth.

These things are not separate things from the good (or bad) outcomes of religious faith; you can't just keep the love and charity and lose the pilgrimage and sacraments. Nor do I think that religions contain a generic and universal set of positive qualities that could simply be transferred without loss to humanism or rationalism (admitting that those quasi-religious traditions are  not without their own particular virtues). Whatever is good in Christianity belongs properly to Christianity, and while you might well think that the 'religious' virtues of humanism are superior, they are not identical or interchangeable.

@frontmen:

A think it CAN be generalized in terms of believing something there is no evidence for. People are being encouraged not to think for themselves and not to solve their own problems (mostly goes to christians). Furthermore, in some cases it gives excuses to do what you wanted to do anyway and making others believe you're doing the right thing.

Any PROs that religion might have, like the feeling of unity, charity, finding peace in troubling times… None of that is exclusive to religion and is, in my opinion, severly outweighed by critical thinking, free of any dogma.

But, of course, 'religious' people (and I think the word 'religion' is so problematic that I'm going to put it in scare-quotes) do indeed think there is evidence for their religion. This is precisely the point at issue. It is merely not the sort of evidence that atheists will accept.

Undoubtedly you are right that "sometimes" religion gives people excuses to do what they want to do anyway. But it is hardly unique in that regard: people do not have any difficulty, to my mind, in finding pretexts for doing things they really want to do. Religion can be useful for this, but it is not essential. And I would say 'religion' is rather better and more remarkable for sometimes making people do things they really do not want to do.

Of course, my list of 'pros' for religion would be rather different from yours. I would be prepared to admit that many of the things you list can come from other things - such as moral philosophies, political principles and so forth. But then, those things can often begin to look like 'dogmas'. And if they are not 'dogmas' - that is, firmly held beliefs - then they are very unreliable guides to moral action. And so the line between 'religious' and 'non-religious' belief-systems often looks extremely fuzzy. Perhaps in part because there is, to my knowledge, absolutely no commonly-agreed definition of just what a 'religion' is.

But I am not going to argue that 'religion'  (as commonly understood) is better at producing charity, unity, etc. than any other system. I'm merely questioning the assumption that if 'religion' was whipped away from the scene, the same qualities could be inculcated just as effectively by means of - say - utilitarianism or virtue ethics, without any of the risks that religion poses. I challenge the assumption merely that religion has no pros to speak of, or that its pros are clearly and evidently outweighed by cons. Both these claims strike me as rather difficult to argue even to a modest standard of proof.

Firstly, how on earth do you prove that someone is gay? It seems like the kind of allegation that anybody could launch against anybody, and which is very hard either to demonstrate or dispel. Anyone could start a rumour about anyone. These kind of tactics have very little credibility.

Secondly, what is actually achieved by this? How does it help anyone that a few priests are supposedly 'outed'? Does it improve perceptions of LGBT people? Does it build bridges with the Catholic Church? I suspect not. It just makes the activists involved look petty and spiteful, and probably entrenches anti-gay prejudice.

Finally, why is there an expectation that all gay people have to hold and express certain views?  Why is there an expectation that you're somehow a traitor or a hypocrite if you don't support gay marriage, or if you don't completely support secularism? I don't support gay marriage. I'm not a huge fan of secularism. Does that mean I'm a legitimate target for these people? That seems like the gay community turning on its own and enforcing its own hardline brand of dogmatism. And why is not openly discussing your sexual orientation equated with being "in the closet?" This kind of language and behaviour strikes me as very ugly.

I'm not sure how helpful I think it is to generalise in sweeping terms about "religion" - a term that encompases a huge swathe of human social, cultural and political life. Even generalising about specific religious traditions is hazardous (and I wouldn't recommend it, at least in the case of the larger and older traditions).

If you shared more about your experience it might be possible to consider more deeply the particular aspects of religious traditions that could be considered negative or positive.  And, for that matter, about the various ideological and philosophical systems that might replace them (none of which, in my view, are without their own considerable drawbacks).

@raphjd:

Maybe you should go to a muslim country and see how will they protect your human rights.

Go to a muslim ghetto anywhere in Europe and make sure they know you're gay.    I bet they treat you like you deserve.

The left is racist/islamophobic why excusing everything away that muslims do by saying they are too uncivilized to know better.

I have lived in Muslim countries. I have lived in predominantly Muslim countries where gay men are no less safe and accepted than they are in Europe (and rather safer than they are in France).  Your sweeping assumptions about Islam and about Muslims are based entirely on ignorance.

I certainly don't want to 'excuse' anything Muslims do. But I don't want to let LGBT people off with open bigotry and prejudice either. The contemptible fact is that since gays have become part of the liberal political establishment in much of the West, they have lost any interest they might once have had in a politics that liberates other marginal groups. Having exploited liberational rhetoric for our own ends, we have now drifted to comfortable complacency on the right wing of the political spectrum. This is why so many gays in France support Le Pen: because it is now safe for gay men to be racist and xenophobic, and indeed to utilise gay identity politics to justify racism and xenophobia.

And frankly, I think this is revolting. It is appallingly hypocritical to insist on the importance of 'human rights' for gay people while denying the same rights to other groups that suffer from far greater marginalisation.

@semurg30:

I hate politics. I'm gay, atheist and believe in science like climate change so I can't be accepted as a conservative. But I'm gay and refuse to support Muslims who gleefully slaughter our kind so I won't support liberals either. Can we scrap both movements and come up with some moderate party…one that believes in science and human rights but doesn't require you to support the people who want to slaughter you.

And will you support the human rights of Muslims too, or merely the human rights of groups to which you happen to belong?

@gaypraha2:

The party of Marine Lepen is not involved in religion. Catholics are mainly on Fillon side. you can't compare republicans from US to any party from France where as mention above is a secular country where most people are atheist.

As mentioned above, the French state does not keep any official records of religious affiliation, so I have no idea what the basis is of your statement that most French people are atheists. My own impression is the opposite - that much of France is conservative and Catholic, culturally if not in terms of regular practice. A 2009 IFOP poll claims that almost two thirds of French people claim to be Catholic, though a much smaller percentage regularly go to church. Whatever that makes France, it certainly doesn't make it a nation of atheists. Religious identity is still an awful lot more important in France than the consciously-secular French state would like to pretend.

It is true that the FN does not have a good relationship with the Church, and has been criticised by Catholic leaders, despite the fact that Le Pen consciously plays on the imagery and identity of France as a white Christian nation. So it will be interesting to see whether conservative Catholic voters line up behind Le Pen or sit on their hands.

Without doubting the basic truth of your story, the obvious question that springs to mind is: "how do you know you've just been groped/beaten up/threatened by a Muslim? Are they carrying prayer-mats and showing off their circumcision-scars?"

This isn't just a frivolous question, because the French state's commitment to extreme secularism means that people are, officially, without religion for virtually all public purposes. The French state doesn't collect information about religious populations. It doesn't register members of religions. And at a time when certain religious communities are under extreme scrutiny and suffering systematic discrimination, this official "see-no-evil" attitude to all religious identities is ludicrously out of touch with what is actually going on.

It also means that "Muslims" tend to be conflated with "Arabs" in French public discourse. The two terms are interchangeable - and so racial prejudice and religious prejudice form a toxic combination in France in a way that they don't in most other Western European countries.

The other thing to note is that homophobic violence and sexual violence against women certainly aren't new phenomena in France, and they are certainly not the exclusive preserve of Muslims/Arabs/immigrants. France is a surprisingly conservative country, and the growing visibility of LGBT people (and a very bitter public debate over gay marriage) has led to an increase in homophobic violence that isn't directly related to Muslims or Arab immigrants. Or at least, it doesn't seem to be. If the French state gathered statistics on such matters, we might be able to tell for certain.  Nor is sexual harassment of women a new phenomenon. The French government recently claimed that 100% of Parisian women who travel on public transport have experienced some form of unwelcome sexual behaviour from men. It is too easy simply to identify these kinds of crimes with visible minorities, when in fact they are deeply rooted in the culture of a country.

But I agree that France needs to have a sensible, adult debate about secularism and Islam. And it cannot do this while it tries to pretend that its minority communities don't exist, that the only identity that matters is French identity, and that radical secularism is necessary to keep the peace. The French state's attitude towards its own minorities needs to change, and the attitude of some minorities towards France needs to change too. This will have to happen sooner or later if the present deep divisions in French society are not to tear it apart. But voting for the Front national is not the way to bring those changes about. In my opinion, electing Marine Le Pen would be a very retrograde step that would exacerbate rather than relieve France's many very real problems.

Well please do take the time to educate me. I might return the favour. You must be aware, for instance, that the Law of 1905 was part of a war against the Catholic Church in France waged by a virulently anti-Catholic National Assembly,that it has repeatedly been condemned by the Vatican, and that it remains a battleground between Church and State - or at least, it was until very recently, when French politicians found it more expedient to turn the law against Muslims.

You must also be aware the the 2004 law banning religious symbols in public schools is enforced selectively, and overwhelmingly to the disadvantage of Muslim students. French Muslims perceive it as a calculated assault against their rights to be full members of the national community, and so far as I can see they are entirely correct. That is indeed what the law is intended to achieve: not to protect French secularism, but to force French Muslims to choose between being French and being Muslim.

@gaypraha2:

the topic was about france, and France doesn't work at all like US/UK concerning religion. It's not a country of communities. We have a law from 1905 saying the state is secular which is in fact incompatible with their views as they are very reluctant to obey these rules. Like no sign of your religion in public school. And no Jews and catholics apply these rules without making a fuss like they do.

And that, I think, is precisely the problem. The French adherence to the ideal of militant secularism in public life is, in my view, very deeply damaging. And the idea that France is somehow a single national community that must transcend all other loyalties is so obviously deluded that I amazed that so many French people still cling to it. France has never been like that. France has always been deeply divided - over politics, over religion, over regionalism and over language.  It is of course not true that "Jews and Catholics apply these rules without making a fuss." The 1905 secularism law is deeply loathed by many communities in France, and also ignored by many. But the law is also selectively applied: Jews who wear a kippah or Sikhs who wear a turban are not targeted for discrimination in France in the same way that women who wear the hijab are.

I have deep affection for France, but I dislike the hypocrisy that surrounds the public rhetoric of secularism. And I fear for France, because I think that the ideological pretence of being a single national community in which differences of ethnicity and religion don't matter is actually concealing deep and painful divisions that are manifested in a whole range of ways - including Islamist terrorism.  It is perhaps time for France to ask whether the law of 1905 really meets the needs and identity of French society in 2017.

@raphjd:

Look at the polls.   Muslims don't support western life, like the SJWs want us to believe.

Well when it comes to that, there are quite a lot of aspects of "Western life" that I don't support either, and I'm not a Muslim. And from your posts here I gather that there are quite a lot of aspects of "Western life" that you are critical of. (Your attitude towards the NHS, for instance, would certainly place you in a minority of the population).

Working out exactly what "Western life" is and what values are defining of "Western societies" is much more difficult than you might think. But rather than looking at tendentious polls I'd suggest you look at the evidence of your eyes:  Muslims are integrated into British life at every level. That's not to say there aren't problems and issues that need to be resolved, and maybe questions that Muslims need collectively to address.  But the fact that so many Muslims quite evidently do share "British values" and feel British makes a nonsense of the claim that there is some intrinsic problem with the nature of Islam that prevents Muslims from adopting any other national identity.  Quite obviously "Britishness" (or "Frenchness", or "Westerness") are not mutually incompatible with Islam. Or at least they do not need to be so.

@raphjd:

Muslims are always muslim first and last.  They don't care where they live, they always view themselves as muslim, not their nationality.

That's only partly true. Muslims are indeed Muslims first, always. Just as most Christians are - I hope - Christian first, Jews Jews first, and so on.  I don't see any point in having a religion unless it is a central and defining part of your identity. If it's just a hobby you have to give you something to do on Sunday mornings, then I don't see why you would bother (and I don't think it would do you any good). Hard as it may be for secularists to understand or accept, religion is - for almost all religious people - the central core of their identity and experience.

But it is a lie to say that Muslims have no sense of their nationality or loyalty to their country. This is totally and emphatically untrue. British Islam is an excellent example of a hybrid national/religious identity, and perhaps it is so strong because it has formed over a relatively long period of time. British Muslims are clearly different from Muslims everywhere else. They share an awful lot of British values. Many of them are much more proud of being British than their non-Muslim neighbours (almost absurdly so to my admittedly cynical eyes). And they play a major role in our public life: we now have a Muslim cabinet minister, a Muslim mayor of London, Muslim heads of Oxbridge colleges.

The suggestion that Islam is somehow antithetical to any other sort of identity or incapable of assimilation is simply and transparently false.

@jbo1:

The problem with mainstream politics in many European countries including France is that perfectly reasonable debates are being shut down and labelled as "racist" or "xenophobe" or "islamophobe" even when some of the key people leading those debates are immigrants or Muslims. There's a problem with Islamic ideology in Europe where second and third generation European-born, middle class people are becoming increasingly radicalized because they think their secular parents who immigrated from the Middle East or North Africa during the last century don't follow true Islam.

Terrorism is being normalized as part of daily life and it will certainly affect tourism revenue. I've been avoiding France and French airports due to the terrorism threat whenever I travel to Europe. There's no way to deny the problem when millennials and LGBT which are some of the most traditionally left wing groups out there are supporting a conservative candidate in large numbers.

I don't think this is true. I am ready to be corrected, but I am not aware of any reasonable public debate in France that has been "shut down" or labelled as racist and Islamophobic. In fact the public debate in France is extremely robust. This idea that people raising genuine and legitimate critiques of Islam are being oppressed and stifled just does not wash with me. In fact, I think this claim is itself an attempt to distract attention from a much bigger and more pressing problem in France: genuine institutionalised racism and prejudice in French society.

It is certainly true that second and third-generation Arabs are turning their backs on the liberalism of their parents, and questions need to be asked about why this is. It also needs to be asked why this is happening in France so much more than in other countries: radicalisation of young Muslims is not an exclusively French problem, but it seems to be a far more serious issue in France than in it is in - say - Britain or Germany or Scandinavia. France has a really serious problem with disaffected and marginalised young Muslims who were born in France but do not feel French, and feel they have no stake in their own country or in the values of the Republic. And it is of course perfectly legitimate to ask whether this problem is related to the nature of Islam. But it is also necessary to ask whether this problem has anything to do with the nature of France.

Finally, yes, terrorism is a fact of life. But it's nothing new. In much of Europe (Spain, Britain, Italy), terrorism has been a fact of life for decades. France has suffered terrorism continuously throughout the twentieth century from all manner of political and religious groups. It's nothing new, but it is a fact of life and people live with it: like the posters say, we "keep calm and carry on." You are considerably more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. You're more likely to slip and break your neck on a bathmat. So you might want to lower your umbrella when you go out in a storm, but avoiding French airports because of a negligible risk is just silly.