SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the oh-good-stronger-copyright-laws-/s dept.
French president challenges 'inward-looking nationalist selfishness' in Europe:
Emmanuel Macron has outlined his vision for the future of the European Union in Strasbourg. The 40-year-old, who secured the French Presidency in May on a pro-EU platform amid a populist surge in the bloc, delivered his highly anticipated speech to over 700 MEPs in the European Parliament on Tuesday.
Macron challenged "inward-looking nationalist selfishness" amid populist sentiment in the bloc and pushed for a more united and reinvigorated Europe. "Nationalism will lead Europe into the abyss. We see authoritarianism rising all around us," he said. "The response should not be authoritarian democracy but the authority of democracy."
Macron also sought to tackle the "poisoned debate" on migration, proposing the creation of a European programme that could subsidise local authorities which host and integrate refugees.
In a speech which touched on a range of issues, Macron recommended that copyright law be tightened to protect artists' "genius" and reiterated his support for tougher environmental legislation.
Meanwhile, Macron wants to "reform" Islam:
Speaking alongside the flag-draped coffin of a police officer killed in a terrorist attack in southern France, President Emmanuel Macron last month lay blame on "underground Islamism" and those who "indoctrinate on our soil and corrupt daily." The attack added further urgency to a project already in the works: Macron has embarked on a controversial quest to change Islam in France — with the goal of integration but also preventing radicalization.
He has said that in the coming months he will announce "a blueprint for the whole organization" of Islam. And those trying to anticipate what that will look like are turning their attention to Hakim El Karoui, a leading voice on how Islamic traditions fit within French culture.
It's hard to miss that the man who appears to have Macron's ear on this most sensitive of subjects cuts a similar figure. Like the president, El Karoui is an ex-Rothschild investment banker with an elite social pedigree who favors well-tailored suits, crisp white shirts and the lofty province of big ideas. The latest of those ideas is this: that the best way to integrate Islam within French society is to promote a version of the religion "practiced in peace by believers who will not have the need to loudly proclaim their faith."
Also at BBC.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 19 2018, @02:58AM (7 children)
You pick any religion that is not completely pacifist, and I'll name an atrocity that people professing and citing that religion has committed. I can do the same for atheism, too: The Soviets in particular tried to kill off religious opposition.
I'm not objecting to the claim "Muslims have committed atrocities". I'm objecting to the claim "All Muslims are irredeemably evil and violent", which many many bigoted westerners firmly believe.
Meanwhile, in the Christian world, if you weren't Christian, you were put to death. And if you were the wrong kind of Christian (e.g. the Arians), you weren't considered Christian, and put to death. Heck, Christians were killing each other over being the wrong kind of Christian as recently as the 1990's. By comparison, the Abbasids were fairly reasonable. A good example of the difference was the treatment of Jews in Muslim Spain versus Christian Spain: The Christians were the ones that tried to wipe out the Jewish communities via the Inquisition.
The big problems in the Muslim world as it stands now really has 2 causes:
1. After the height of the Abbasids, some backwards thinkers started getting worried about the scientists discovering things that would contradict the Koran and other holy dogmas (sound familiar?), so between them and the Mongol invasion all that scientific stuff got pretty well shut down, leaving the people of the region in general embracing ignorance in a way that much of the rest of the world doesn't.
2. Western governments trying to set up the political structures of the Middle East to suit their own purposes without regard for the people living there. Those structures were and still are often brutally repressive dictatorships and monarchies. Torture, summary execution, firing into crowds of protesters, and numerous other atrocities are carried out by these governments while those governments remain firmly allied with Western states, including the US. The Western governments basically just want the oil and natural gas at a price their international oil cartels like. The people getting stomped on to make that happen turn to religion because it's the only structure they have with which to fight back. (Also worth mentioning: The only thing that makes Israel a bit different from the rest of 'em is that they have the backing of the US due in no small part to *their* sometimes-violent religious nutjobs.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Thursday April 19 2018, @06:22AM (1 child)
Well 'set up' is a bit strong, more like co-opt and bribe. Mostly accurate.
Accurate
Accurate
WTF? You lost me. The corrupt governments in the middle east *USE* religion to control the people getting stomped on.
Israel has an undue amount of influence in the US due to heavy lobbying and controlling investments in mainstream media outlets. Israel uses the US to magnify its control in the region, while the US encourages this to keep tension up in the middle east ... ensuring the other 'friendly' dictatorships don't change their position and keep enjoying the bribes ...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:46AM
Corrupt governments are not the only users of religion.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:46AM
To put that in perspective, Queen Elizabeth I of England is regarded by history as being a supporter of religious tolerance because in her rule she stopped the burning of people for being the wrong kind of Christian and introduced a small fine for people who did not go to Church (any flavour of Christian church). These policies were far more lenient towards people who were not members of the state-sanctioned brand of Christianity than most of Europe at the time.
Her reign was 1558-1603, beginning 41 years after the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:52AM (1 child)
From very near seats to that particular events, I must correct you: that is common misconception.
The killings were not between religious, but ethnic groups, who had many small differences in identity, largest one being the name (tautologically, the identity itself), but also having many common traits, most prominent being common language, believed by some to have grown apart (or stayed apart never becoming one nation) due to being of different faiths or Christian denomination.
In 1990's religious differences meant squat, and although the folks we are talking about claim to be religious, they clearly "wear" their respective religions like symbols of ethnic/national identity and have little to no interest in spirituality.
1990's were not fault of religion and were not dictated by religious dogma. Religion was just a decoration there, and a starter topic for showing intollerance. Main cause were historical debts, who did what to whom last time (WWII), and who was being traitor/ungrateful/didn't pay historical debts for ones wrongdoings in the past/wanted to dictate others how to live/ ... and there was a lot intentional poking of fingers in each others eyes in order to provoke the rip and extinguish any remnants of good will and friendliness or desire to mingle or even, God forbid, to stay together.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday April 19 2018, @07:41PM
It's often true that religion has been used by those with other goals to foment strife. The religion hasn't usually been primary.
E.g.: The Spanish Inquisition was sponsored by the government as a way to rip of the wealth of the Jews, and then continued against prosperous christians. It was first merely condoned by the Church, but then as the Church saw it as a way to get money, they pretty much took it over and continued it. Similarly in France against returning Crusaders. (Can't have too much sympathy for them, considering how they got their money in the first place.)
Similar events have frequently been used in less organized ways to reclaim any wealth had by social outcasts, e.g. old women. Sometimes there has been a sexual element. Frequently wealthy young women were the target, rarely men.
So if you say that the underlying reason wasn't religious arguments, I'll accept that. This doesn't mean that religion wasn't used as the, or a, justifier.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 19 2018, @01:32PM (1 child)
Citation needed. I went looking into that inquisition story, long ago. It just wasn't what it is portrayed as. There weren't tens of thousand of people put to death. Certainly not hundreds of thousands. Don't even try the millions. There were possibly thousands of people put to death by the inquisitors. More likely just several hundreds.
If the Jews suffered a pogrom during the inquisition years, I don't think we can just lump it in as part of the inquisition. Jews were attacked off and on throughout the centuries in Europe. They were attacked in all countries, and probably all cities. If there is any place in Europe that DID NOT blame the Jews for witchcraft, summoning demons, stealing money, or whatever, I'm not aware of that place. But, you'll have to demonstrate how and why the inquisitors decided to genocide the Jews. The claim doesn't stand on it's own.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday April 19 2018, @07:53PM
You're partially right. The numbers weren't as large as normally stated. It wasn't in the same league as Pot Pol. And most Jews were allowed to buy their way off...as long as they gave up all their wealth and fled. But some were believed to be more wealthy than was accurate, and they died of that belief.
OTOH, the inquisition lasted a long time, and was incredibly vile. Anyone who reads the part played in that by the Church and remains a member of a Christian Church is not religious, only socially conformist. (I would make exception for some modern groups like the Unitarian-Universalists, who have explicitly renounced many former doctrines. But not for the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, and many other similar groups I haven't looked at. I can accept that a Unitarian is a religious Christian.)
The Inquisition was basically a money stealing scam with religious backing. But the popular belief was that the religious backing was the reason. So I can't let the "religion" off the hook, and I certainly can't let the organizations that promulgated it while claiming love for humanity off the hook. The governmental participation was much less hypocritical. They didn't really hide that they were in it for the loot, not if you looked behind political speeches. (As far as political speeches, though, they lied as thoroughly as any modern politician. One should never believe a politician's speeches. Watch what they do/have done.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.