I would say "Keep flying the flag", if that expression, instead of simply being approving and encouraging, did not mean that either of us would be jumped on by a local Council or a bunch of suicidal-empathy supporters (who have never heard of Gad Saad or understood the phrase "suicidal empathy".)
The way Islam keeps a stranglehold over its people is through religion, the Q'oran. If we hold it in contempt and derision, how long before some muslims will start querying its value? Then the Iman loses his power and even possibly his voter base. Thus the panic over blasphemy.
Out of curiosity - Are you concerned that some governments are burning churches down or you are worried only how the priest's statement could impact the laws? You don't need to care about churches but after all they are cultural heritage even for those who don't believe in anything. At least this is what I think but, of course, I am sure there will be those who will disagree.
I can't speak for Andrew, but while I am concerned that churches are being burnt down, this article is about speech in response to events not the fact of the events themselves. Personally, I don't think the NZ FSU spokesperson needed to condemn the priest's words as divisive and inflammatory: it seems to me that they were a legitimate angry response to what he would consider an atrocity and I wouldn't have interpreted his words as a literal call for the tit-for-tat burning of mosques. But, this is the problem with legislating against speech, isn't it? - How to interpret it, who decides what is and isn't a criminal offence. It's all so vague and, consequently, a gift to any authoritarian, especially in this context, within a society in which Multiculturalist policy inevitably treats host citizens and minority immigrant communities by different standards.
Thank you for your comment! Actually the things are connected and what we see in modern society is direct result of our free speech obsession. If you constantly mock and diminish something eventually people start seeing it as useless and they no longer care about it. We allowed everything to be mocked and now we wonder why history doesn't matter, why religion doesn't matter, why cultural heritage doesn't matter, etc. We destroyed these things ourselves by devaluing them.
For example, if we constantly mock men as useless at some point women will say - well, what's the point marrying a man, he is useless. Then they won't think worth marrying, then you won't have families and children, etc. And it all started with a joke really which went out of control - men are useless. Do you know how many women believe that men are useless?
I would say "Keep flying the flag", if that expression, instead of simply being approving and encouraging, did not mean that either of us would be jumped on by a local Council or a bunch of suicidal-empathy supporters (who have never heard of Gad Saad or understood the phrase "suicidal empathy".)
The way Islam keeps a stranglehold over its people is through religion, the Q'oran. If we hold it in contempt and derision, how long before some muslims will start querying its value? Then the Iman loses his power and even possibly his voter base. Thus the panic over blasphemy.
Thanks Andrew, As a New Zealander I did not realise this. Thanks for your insight, if you ever need a place to stay in NZ, come visit us.
Out of curiosity - Are you concerned that some governments are burning churches down or you are worried only how the priest's statement could impact the laws? You don't need to care about churches but after all they are cultural heritage even for those who don't believe in anything. At least this is what I think but, of course, I am sure there will be those who will disagree.
I can't speak for Andrew, but while I am concerned that churches are being burnt down, this article is about speech in response to events not the fact of the events themselves. Personally, I don't think the NZ FSU spokesperson needed to condemn the priest's words as divisive and inflammatory: it seems to me that they were a legitimate angry response to what he would consider an atrocity and I wouldn't have interpreted his words as a literal call for the tit-for-tat burning of mosques. But, this is the problem with legislating against speech, isn't it? - How to interpret it, who decides what is and isn't a criminal offence. It's all so vague and, consequently, a gift to any authoritarian, especially in this context, within a society in which Multiculturalist policy inevitably treats host citizens and minority immigrant communities by different standards.
Thank you for your comment! Actually the things are connected and what we see in modern society is direct result of our free speech obsession. If you constantly mock and diminish something eventually people start seeing it as useless and they no longer care about it. We allowed everything to be mocked and now we wonder why history doesn't matter, why religion doesn't matter, why cultural heritage doesn't matter, etc. We destroyed these things ourselves by devaluing them.
For example, if we constantly mock men as useless at some point women will say - well, what's the point marrying a man, he is useless. Then they won't think worth marrying, then you won't have families and children, etc. And it all started with a joke really which went out of control - men are useless. Do you know how many women believe that men are useless?