SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (59126)9/19/2002 11:20:42 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Don't dislike a religion in France or you can go to jail...

washingtontimes.com

French writer faces jail for calling Islam 'stupid'
By Philip Delves Broughton
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH

PARIS — Best-selling French writer Michel Houellebecq appeared in court this week facing the threat of a year in jail and a $51,000 fine because he said in an interview last year that Islam was a "stupid" religion.
During a raucous hearing, marked by a protest inside the courtroom by free-speech activists and the shouts of demonstrators outside, Mr. Houellebecq refused to apologize to the Muslim groups who accused him of inciting religious hatred.
"I have never shown the slightest contempt for Muslims, but I have always held Islam in contempt," Mr. Houellebecq told the court Tuesday.
The writer was being sued by four Muslim groups and a French human rights group over an interview with the Parisian literary magazine Lire, in which Mr. Houellebecq was described as hating Arabs and Muslims and failing to distinguish between the two. He also said in the interview that he rejected all monotheistic religions and that "the stupidest religion of all is Islam."
While the hearing is a civil trial, Mr. Houellebecq could be sentenced to jail if the panel of three judges hearing the case decides he is guilty of inciting racial hatred, which carries criminal penalties.
That was considered unlikely though. State prosecutor Beatrice Angelelli, in court to advise the judges, pointed out on Tuesday that it is legal in France to criticize a religion as long as one does not attack the followers of a faith.
"We are not here to make judgments on moral responsibilities. We are here to judge a criminal responsibility and, on strictly legal criteria, I ask you to drop the charges," the prosecutor said.
The judges will give their verdict on Oct. 22.
In the interview, Mr. Houellebecq said, "When one reads the Koran, one is devastated, devastated. At least the Bible is very beautiful, because the Jews have a sacred literary talent, which can excuse a lot of things.
"As a result, I have a residual sympathy for Catholicism, because of its polytheistic aspect. And then there are all those churches, windows, paintings and sculptures."
On Tuesday, he was asked whether or not he still thought Muslims were stupid. "I didn't say that," he said. "I said they practice a stupid religion." Asked if he was racist against Islam, he answered: "You can't be racist against Islam."
Talking about religious works, he said: "In reality, the monotheist texts preach neither peace, nor love, nor tolerance. They are texts of hate." In the interview to the magazine, he said the best tool against religion was irony, and that he hoped Islam would suffer the same fate as Catholicism — "remain vaguely official for a while and then decline gently."
Immediately after the interview was published last September, Mr. Houellebecq issued a statement saying it was a crude abbreviation and distortion of his meaning and that he was not a racist. The interview, he said, had lasted six hours and only a tiny portion of it had been printed.
Nevertheless, the published comments drew strong protests from France's Muslim community. "Words have a price. One can kill with a word. Freedom of expression stops at the point at which it does damage and the Muslim community feels insulted," said Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Paris mosque.
Though lionized as a writer, Mr. Houellebecq, 44, is not a popular figure on the French literary scene. He shot to international fame with the 1998 shock novel "Atomized."
While others may have had the entire French literary establishment cheering them on to defend free speech, Mr. Houellebecq has won the backing only of die-hard free-speech activists and a handful of fellow writers.
Some critics say Mr. Houellebecq's intention in giving the provocative interview may have been to boost sales for his book "Plateforme."
The book tells of a disillusioned young bachelor, Michel, who finds sexual and personal fulfillment in the fleshpots of Bangkok. He meets a woman with whom he sets up a hedonistic sex resort for tourists, which is a roaring success until attacked by Islamic activists.
The book was praised widely for laying bare the hollowness and absurdities of global society.
The case against Mr. Houellebecq comes at a time when the French publishing industry is feeling the heat from all manner of groups. Earlier this month, anti-pedophile groups succeeded in having a novel about a rapist removed from bookstores.
In an essay in the newspaper Le Monde last week, the heads of three of France's biggest publishers wrote: "Literature's calling is not to appease but rather to worry and to offend. It is there to provoke. Otherwise, what is the point? Nothing human, or inhuman for that matter, is off limits to literature."



To: Lane3 who wrote (59126)9/20/2002 4:35:14 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486
 
I don't think your side is communicating very effectively. Of course I have understood your arguments and they are sensible but part of that was directed at imposing or implying rediculousness on the other side (mine) of the argument to make yours stronger (nonsensical). You said earlier that you don't do team things. However, because you are attributing rediculousness to my position, I wonder.

I have made it clear that rescuing children from problems for which they need to accept responsibility is wrong. So, I would not consider this type of activity as a choice between duty (to public) and family. We are of course not talking about a fire fighter leaving a burning building to go pick the kids up from day care. To suggest that either of these situation types qualifies as putting family before duty (the opposing argument) is rediculous.

If you are confused about this then you have a filtering problem or you just like to push rediculousness into opposing views for the sake of adding volume to the discussion.

A rediculous scenario from the other perspective would be that you refused to stop attending to reports at the office before the 5 o'clock whistle even though your child called needing your attention to save his/her life or to defend against a serious threat.

I will make you a deal. I will not insist that this type of rediculousness is what you are basing your position on if you will refrain from the same.

What would be a real test would be a tragic crisis in which one's child would suffer or die from your neglect because you felt duty bound to serve the state in a crisis situation that only you could solve. I don't think this type of test happens in reality. It would make a great tear jerking movie if it did.

A Major General in the armed forces who had children at home who would suffer or die without his/her direct support should retire. There are plenty of people ready, willing, able, and eager to step up to a position like that. To hail the state and damn the family in a situation like this would be pathetic and evil. I actually think this is fairly common. People frequently make choices to seek higher status or increase their lot materially, while allowing family or dependants to be harmed by their neglect. This type of person would not get my support running for governer. Likewise a person who knows what is good for his family but sacrifices the lives, health, or well being of dependants so he/she can get or hold the office would not get my support for public office.

Now there is plenty of room in the above paragragh for us to draw dissagreement. I remember that the big argument for supporting bill clinton was that his supporters believed he was doing a good job of perfoming his duties. A big argument for not supporting him was that his character flaws and insistance on remaining in power were effecting dependant and supportive persons in a harmful way.

So in closing. My position is that family or dependants are more of a priority than duty to the state. You can retire, abstain, or change jobs when duty to the state is in conflict with your responsibilities to dependants. You can not ethically do the reverse.

cc chris