Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! 
[quote="BigMo420"]
| Quote: |
| You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
As Muhammad has been dead for about 1,400 years, I don't see how anybody could **** with him. As for these cartoons, we have a tradition of free press here in Europe. You might not like it, but it's no excuse to go round having riots. They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone.
| loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons.BigMo420, I honestly don't know whether Islam promotes this close-mindedness, nor do I care.
I'll only advice, as a human to fellow human, that you have a thing to improve in yourself - which is your lack of tolerance and understanding of others. That is, in my opinion, is one of the greatest virtues of a moral human being.
If you ask me, you need to question your religion, if it does not educate this value.
Now as a moderator to a user, please use clean language.
Thank you.
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me.
| BigMo420 wrote: |
Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
If you are so angry why don't you make some cartoons yourself about bush/jesus/god whatever??
If you don't get that in europe we make cartoons about everyone who's impartant. (You should infact thank those Danes they think that Mohammeds important)( 
). Anyway its just what some of us do. Make fun of each other and why some Muslims get so angry... I get it but you are just overreacting. | Lord Klorel wrote: |
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me. |
No, I don't agree at all. This is tantamount to blackmail - we won't insult you because you might riot. That is not acceptible. Freedom of speech does not work like that, it is not conditional.
BTW - Muslims and others frequently publish material which is insulting to individuals which are loved and praised by those in the West. Why should they not?
I do not think that insulting people simply for the sake of it is a very good idea. That is different, however, from saying it should be banned. Have you actually looked at the cartoons in question? | Bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them).The only way to make religion harmless is to look into it's culture. I do not care whether you're a muslim, a jew or a hindu, but if you are willing to kill (yeah, the artist has gotten his treats), for the sake of a symbol. - And the symbol alone, you might have gotten the wrong ideas.
The only way to make these drawings harmless, is to print them. To look at them, read them and understand them. To shake our heads in disagreement, agreement, and maybe even disgust. But hey, they are ONLY drawings, just symbols. Nothing more than what we make them.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them). |
So what you are saying is that if the possible repercussions of free-speech are violence then it should not be exercised? Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! |
As I said - this is unacceptible. Threats of violence are profoundly undemocratic. You are free to believe what you like but don't try and tell me what I should believe or do. If I want to make fun of the prophet then I will do so. If you threaten violence as a result then you are a terrorist and, under our laws, should be locked-up. | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! |
Aperantly people do make fun of him. And if you make such a fuzzzz about it make some Jesus cartoon.
Apart from that i find i a bit.... weird/funny, with the "praise" stuff. Are you a real fanatic muslim or is this... | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them). |
So what you are saying is that if the possible repercussions of free-speech are violence then it should not be exercised? Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
No, I personally don't care what they do either way. I just don't see a true, useful point to their actions when their only intentions are to stir people up. I don't condone suppression of freedom of speech, I don't condone the violence that ensues because of the actions by this paper, and I don't condone the intentional action of stirring up problems for the sake of stirring up problems. I don't honestly think, in this situation, that anyone is doing the "right" thing. Now, if they had other reasons for doing this or some logic behind this that would actually contribute something positive, fine. But I can't say I encourage people to purposefully insult people and stir up problems just because of free speech. That's not what free speech is about.i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*.
Aside from the inanity of the outrage (Has anyone even seen the Danish comics? They're not really that bad.), i'm baffled by the hypocrisy of it. i see a crowd of Muslims screaming murder that their "prophet" is depicted badly... while at the same time burning Danish flags and carrying around placards with defaced pictures of various presidents and other people and symbols.
Excuse me?
You want people to respect your icon... but you have the right to piss on (literally!) theirs? Excuse me?
And don't try and argue "well they did it to Mohamed, so we can do it to ___." Come on. That's the moral literacy of a three-year-old. If you claim defacing an icon is wrong, then you shouldn't freaking well be doing it yourself.
-----------------------
If i say i will draw picture of Mohamed bent over a desk with Osama taking him from behind, i dare you to stop me. Go ahead. Show me your "religion of peace". i say to liljp617 that i fully understand the possible consequences of making such a drawing... and i will not be cowed by terrorists. Yes, terrorists: people that try to use terror to achieve a goal. They will not scare me out of making that drawing if i want to. A drawing harms no one except people who want to control knowledge to control others.
i invite anyone to do the same with a picture of something or someone i hold dear. i don't really care. i might even laugh - if it's funny; if it's just offensive, i'll just roll my eyes. Either way i won't take to the streets and riot.
* see last panel of the comic. Absolutely agree with the above - and I will even go further. People who give-in to this terrorism (which it is, terrorism, pure and simple, let's be quite clear about that) are craven, and they should think long and hard about the benefits of free speech and other democratic freedoms that they take for granted.
Free-speech and other democratic rights were not just 'given'. People fought and died to win many of the rights we take for granted (and I'm not just talking about World Wars, the list includes trades-unionists, civil rights workers/activists, suffragettes and many others).
To voluntarily surrender those rights because some religiously inspired cranks don't like a few fairly tame cartoons, and use terrorism to try and make their point, is pathetic, weak and, frankly, disgusting.
Enjoying the freedoms we do comes at a price - being prepared to stand up for them, even when you strongly disagree with what is said. It's easy to stand-up for people when they say things you agree with, but the true test is to stand up for those whose views you find troubling or even abhorrant.
By all means object to the cartoons if they offend you - I will support your right to do so just as vehemently as I support the rights of the publishers and cartoonists. Threaten violence, however, and I call you a terrorist and I want to see you before the courts.
If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won.
Praise be unto all freedom of speech fighters!
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: |
| i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. | Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters.I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. As I said, if the paper has logic behind this or reasoning that will contribute something positive, fine. Post anything you want. But to do something insulting (whether it is insulting to non-Muslims is irrelevant) for nothing except insulting them is not justifiable to me. And I surely refuse to feed into them hiding behind a freedom that people died for. Not good use of freedom of speech to me. And of course, I don't agree with the riots when people died for the freedom to protest peacefully. Not taking any sides, because they're both disgraceful.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. |
I find your attitude troubling and depressing.
To equate violent suppression of free speech with publishing a tame cartoon is simply unbelievable. | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. |
I find your attitude troubling and depressing.
To equate violent suppression of free speech with publishing a tame cartoon is simply unbelievable. |
The cartoons are irrelevant. It has to do with the motive behind them. I'm sorry, my view of freedom of speech is that you should have at least some minuscule positive motive if you're going to purposely insult somebody. It's really not something that grants you the right to intentionally insult somebody just so you can get a laugh at their reaction. I honestly don't think that's what the people you speak of died for. Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I don't think either side is right in this. One may be more wrong than the other, yes, but that doesn't make the cartoons right. And obviously we're not going to agree, so enough of this.The cartoons were not reprinted simply to offend. They were reprinted as a specific gesture of solidarity with the original cartoonist - Kurt Westergaard - after a plot to assassinate him was uncovered. The publication by several Danish newspapers of the cartoons was a direct response to the attempted assasination and a statement of their commitment to free speech. I think they did exactly the right thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#February_2008_death_threat_and_resultant_reprinting Could have said that in the first place and the debate would have never started.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
| ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us. |
It is important for any free press that authority figures CAN be questioned, criticised, and yes ridiculed too. Only dictators demand otherwise.
I've seen all the cartoons, and although some of them could be seen as offensive, they all raise valid questions about how Islam is perceived throughout the world, and why a minority of extremists have managed to claim to represent their religion. | Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. As I said, if the paper has logic behind this or reasoning that will contribute something positive, fine. Post anything you want. But to do something insulting (whether it is insulting to non-Muslims is irrelevant) for nothing except insulting them is not justifiable to me. And I surely refuse to feed into them hiding behind a freedom that people died for. Not good use of freedom of speech to me. And of course, I don't agree with the riots when people died for the freedom to protest peacefully. Not taking any sides, because they're both disgraceful. |
Doing "insulting" things is what freedom is speech is all about. Otherwise it has no point. Anyone that criticizes an oppressive government is "insulting" that government's sovereignty. Anyone that speaks out against the evil being done by some group is "insulting" that group.
Just consider a realistic example. Suppose you were living in a country run by a small group of rich, elite people that lived off of the blood, sweat and tears of the poor majority. Suppose that a newspaper published a cartoon depicting those people as grossly decadent, while using depictions of the common folk as furniture, or even food. That's pretty offensive, i'd say - depicting these people as cannibals? Certainly offensive. By your logic, it would be wrong to print that image. However, it may serve as a powerful, visual criticism of an unjust society.
Now consider another realistic example. Suppose a cartoonist was deeply concerned that a religion was being co-opted by ruthless extremists. Suppose that he drew a cartoon showing the icon of that religion being turned into a weapon. Offensive? Certainly. And, you have explicitly declared it to be in contradiction to the spirit of freedom of speech (yes, explicitly - this is one of the Danish cartoons). However, it may serve as a powerful and graphic wake-up call to moderates that there is a serious problem in that religion that must be looked into.
A cartoonist - any artist - has a moral obligation to speak the truth as he or she sees it. We all do. If they feel that there is a problem that requires attention - and to hell with how unpleasant it may be to face that problem - then they have a moral obligation to bring that problem to our attention. Freedom of speech is supposed to protect someone when they act on that moral obligation. It is not supposed to protect your sensibilities from offence.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| The cartoons are irrelevant. It has to do with the motive behind them. I'm sorry, my view of freedom of speech is that you should have at least some minuscule positive motive if you're going to purposely insult somebody. It's really not something that grants you the right to intentionally insult somebody just so you can get a laugh at their reaction. I honestly don't think that's what the people you speak of died for. Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I don't think either side is right in this. One may be more wrong than the other, yes, but that doesn't make the cartoons right. And obviously we're not going to agree, so enough of this. |
The motive behind the cartoons is, was and always has been one of concern, backed up by a sense of civic responsibility. As i asked when i first entered this thread: have you seen them?
If someone just wants to insult people, well that's not exactly honourable. But they are protected by the same mechanism as someone that wants to stir people. It's not a perfect world. By protecting the freedom to criticize, we also protect the freedom to insult. There is no way to have one without the other.
The only justifiable reason for any form of censorship is to prevent greater harm... and even that is an iffy case because sometimes the harm caused by censorship is greater than the harm caused by allowing the message to get out. There is no aspect whatsoever of the whole Danish cartoon affair that causes harm. None. Zero. Zip. Thus, there are absolutely no grounds for any kind of censorship. In plain English, every person that says the Danes were wrong to print or reprint those cartoons is wrong. Even if they were meant as pure insult, they cause no harm. And, as is quite obviously clear just by looking at them, they were not meant as pure insult.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Could have said that in the first place and the debate would have never started. |
It should not be necessary. It does not matter whether they were standing up for free speech or reprinting then because they liked the colour scheme. Either way, you were defending an untenable position. Saying those cartoons should have been censored was wrong, and they were reprinted to criticize that wrong.
According to you, it was wrong to reprint those cartoons... up until you heard that they were reprinted in defiance of death threats. Excuse me? First you agree with the people making the threats (if not their methods, you certainly agreed with their principle), then you turn one eighty and agree with condemning them? Every school-age child knows that two wrongs do not make a right. Were the Danes right to print those cartoons or not? If they were right, then you were wrong, and so were those extremists. If they were wrong... then they are still wrong even though they did it to get back at the extremists, because two wrongs don't make a right. So which is it?This scares me. It's scary that so many people can be so idiotic and silly that they do such things just because some drawings. Like if you draw me then I'll kill you.
| Quote: |
San Franciscans have flocked to Dolores Park in the city to compete in, or watch, what has become an Easter Sunday tradition - the "Hunky Jesus" competition.
Officiated by a gay charity group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which has been active in San Francisco since 1979, the contest pits costumed and usually scantily clad men against each other for the distinction of being declared the most attractive Jesus.
Catholics have labelled the annual pageant blasphemous, considering that previous entrants have included "old school Jesus", "surfer Jesus" and "zombie Jesus", an irreverent take on the Easter message of Christ rising from the dead.
But the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence insist the contest is all part of their mission to "promote universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt". |
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/24/1206206986293.html
Sydney Herald 25 March
Notice that the Catholics have "labeled it blasphemous" rather than rioting and killing people.
A rather more mature and intelligent response than that which many muslims seem to take when mohammad is made fun of.
This , to me, sums up the difference between islam and most other religions in the world. Intelligence and mature thinking. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. |
You stick by a falsehood then. The newspapers are in the right in terms of the moral values of the country in which they were published and the maniacs who are rioting over a picture are in the wrong.
| Quote: |
| Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. |
Actually, it does give one that right. That's the whole point, people in authority aren't allowed to stop other people from saying things just because they don't like it.
Do you know what? If the Muslims had just accepted these cartoons as part of the rough and tumble of a free society, they would have been published and then forgotten about the next day. These cartoons have been republished as well as being aired all over the Internet because Muslims got upset and started rioting and handing out death threats. | jeremyp wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I stick by saying no one is in the right here. |
You stick by a falsehood then. The newspapers are in the right in terms of the moral values of the country in which they were published and the maniacs who are rioting over a picture are in the wrong.
| Quote: | | Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. |
Actually, it does give one that right. That's the whole point, people in authority aren't allowed to stop other people from saying things just because they don't like it.
Do you know what? If the Muslims had just accepted these cartoons as part of the rough and tumble of a free society, they would have been published and then forgotten about the next day. These cartoons have been republished as well as being aired all over the Internet because Muslims got upset and started rioting and handing out death threats. |
They have the right to do as they wish under freedom of speech (except the few things it officially limits). I recognize that. I still don't support their actions, nor do I support people rioting over ink on paper. I don't think the cartoonist should have to live in fear and hiding. I don't think anyone should. But we so often speak of these soldiers, these men and women who served our nations and died in battle so that we could continue to have our freedom, specifically freedom of speech/press. I'm sorry, I don't think those men and women died so everyone could go around blatantly and knowingly insulting people with no positive values in mind. There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. Obviously, these are just my opinions, I don't care if anyone really shares them and I personally don't see anything wrong with my stance. I'm neutral to the whole situation in terms of how it started and the reactions toward it. | liljp617 wrote: |
| There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. |
Really? Why is that? What does that even mean?
My way of life is founded on rational humanist principles and influenced by politics, money, friends and other external factors. I welcome criticism of my logic and principles - indeed I actively seek it out. If I am spouting nonsense then I wish to have it revealed to me, since I don't want to build my world-view on a lie.
Why is criticising my logic and humanist principles any different from criticising someone's religion?freedom of speech does apply to anything so why should they not be allowed to make fun of some muslim symbol? Ever heard of for example the "life of brian" which completely caricatures the life of jesus?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm sorry, I don't think those men and women died so everyone could go around blatantly and knowingly insulting people with no positive values in mind. |
You keep building this same straw man.
First, once again, these cartoons were not just "blatant and knowing insults with no positive values in mind". They were very artful criticisms of the growing danger of radicalism hijacking the religion of Islam. (And, in the light of the response, they were spot on.) Go ahead and check them out and you'll see.
Second, despite your meandering emotional rhetoric about the men and women that died to protect freedom of speech, you are actively campaigning against said freedom of speech. Freedom of speech exists to encourage and protect criticism, in the hopes that by allowing criticism to challenge everything, tyranny and injustice will be flushed out and defeated. The Danish cartoonists used that right - freedom of speech - to criticize what they saw as a growing threat (the subversion of Islam by radicals, and the use of the religion as an excuse for violence). If the Danish cartoonists had been murdered (and boy, did those radicals want to, at least judging by their rhetoric), those cartoonists would have been a part of the men and women that died for the right to free speech.
Third, who decides whether any given criticism is an insult, or a legitimate criticism? The people being criticized? Excuse me? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of free speech? ^_^; Seriously, think about it! Me: "i criticize governor Joe for being racist, because of his racist statements." Joe: "i find it insulting to be called a racist, so you don't have the right to make your criticism." Me: "Oh... well... snap." (If that sounds ridiculous, take a step back... isn't that exactly your argument: since Muslims find the depictions insulting, publishing them was wrong?) What about you? No, obviously not. Well, what about "the majority"? Well, shit, that'll make criticizing the majority's opinion pretty tough, won't it? ^_^; i hope you can see the problem now. Being able to shut people down just because you or someone claims their insulting is contrary to free speech.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. |
Let me make this absolutely clear, because either you are not getting it, or you are actively ignoring it: the Danish cartoonists did NOT say Islam was wrong, and they did NOT make fun of the religion. They criticized the fact that the religion is being subverted by radicals, and used by violent terrorists. READ THE CARTOONS, and you will see.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm neutral to the whole situation in terms of how it started and the reactions toward it. |
i am not neutral. Your mention of the men and women who have died for the right to free speech was a little bizarre, coming as it did in the middle of an attempt to undermine it. i certainly hope that i'm never called on to die for the sake of free speech, but i will just as certainly not back down and let it be abused in the way you are advocating.
You go ahead and be neutral if you want, but i am not. i am for freedom of speech. i openly and strongly support the rights of the Danish cartoonists, and anyone else, to speak their beliefs, and i openly and strongly condemn you, and all those rioting Muslims, and everyone else who would try to steal those rights away, and suppress free speech.
And of course, because i do support free speech, while i can tell you in no uncertain terms that your beliefs are completely wrong - and even absurd - i will not prevent you from airing them. By contrast, take a look at what you are advocating - you think (you have explicitly claimed!) that someone doesn't have a right to tell someone else their beliefs are completely silly (which, technically, is not what the Danish cartoonists did, but it is what you have been saying they did). Do you really think that counts as supporting free speech? | BigMo420 wrote: |
Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
Personally speaking, I think the Muslim world needs to get their heads out of their a****, to put it bluntly.
We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus.
We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things.
Islam the religion of peace? I would definately say that actions speak MUCH louder than words. | loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
have you ever been to a stand up comedy show?????? | Soulfire wrote: |
| We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus. |
Really? Hmm..funny that, because I'm old enough to remember when the Life of Brian (Monty Python) was first released. A lot of Christians were freaking out - chaining themselves to cinemas, demanding the film be banned, writing hate mail, death threats to the Python team, death threats to cinema owners, screaming abuse at anyone going to see the film.
The reason for their vitriolic anger? They said the film lampooned Christ (it didn't) and was disrespectful (it wasn't).
| Quote: |
| We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things. |
Oh yes 'you' do. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus. |
Really? Hmm..funny that, because I'm old enough to remember when the Life of Brian (Monty Python) was first released. |
You don't have to be that old to remember Gerry Springer the Opera. | Soulfire wrote: |
Personally speaking, I think the Muslim world needs to get their heads out of their a****, to put it bluntly.
We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus.
We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things.
Islam the religion of peace? I would definately say that actions speak MUCH louder than words. |
People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. While (most) Christians will not resort to violence given the same kinds of provocation that drive a significant portion of Muslims into a killing frenzy (and, if i recall, the number given in these forums - by a Muslim or Muslim supporter, no less - put the amount of murderous Muslims at least at 1 in 15... this is not just my opinion, this is a statistical fact), that is only true because the quirks of history happened to grant "your" religion with certain advantages that have made it undesirable to tolerate such volatility. If early Muslims had been anywhere near as good as early Christians at spreading and maintaining empires, they would have had to contend - as the Christians did - with maintaining control over such far-flung groups. Instead, for most of its history, Islam has been all clumped up in a single, rather tight-knit group, surrounded on all sides by enemies, while Christians were the ones doing most of the surrounding, all over the world. In other words, the only reason "you" are less likely to riot in the streets today is because "your ancestors" were so good at spreading Christianity at sword point in the past. i seriously doubt the Incas would be as impressed with the moral superiority of your peaceful nature as you seem to be.
Furthermore, unlike Islam, your religion is not sitting in the cross-hairs of the most powerful military in the world. In point of fact, your religion is the one sighting down the barrel at Islam. i would suggest that if your religion were not as tightly in control of the world's power as they are, they would be far less complacent, and far more dangerous. One needs only look at the Christian reaction when their power base is threatened to see how shallow their "peaceful" nature is. It's a pity i don't save the hate mails i receive, some of them are almost poetic in their ranting fury. And many - if not most - cite chapter and verse while spitting hatred at me. But there are plenty of public examples, freely found on the Frihost forums, if you do a little searching.
Personally, though, i'm not really into this "us-vs.-them" rhetoric. i have no particular problem with Muslims, provided they don't attempt to control anyone else's lives but their own. i'd even happily side with the moderates against the extremists...
... if only the moderates would get off their asses and get serious about doing something about the extremists. | loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons.[/quote]
If muslim insult non-muslim, it's JIHAD!Oh, right, I forgot Christianity was behind all the evil in the world.
My bad.
Sorry I bismirched the holy name of Islam.
Detect the sarcasm?
Ending point:
Everyone's guilty.
It might be best to discuss this matter a bit more calmly and objectively. Western society has gone through a long and painful process, beginning in the age of enlightenment and with the reformation, in redefining their concepts of religious beliefs, human rights and personal freedoms, a process many other societies and nations have not gone through (although a very good case could be made that Arab societies in the Middle East and North Africa were, until the late 1400s, way ahead not only in a number of sciences but with concepts such as tolerance, religious and other, as well as general respect for those with differing views, beliefs or customs). This process is still continuing to this day, attempting to eradicate discrimination, intolerance and racism. To put it into perspective:
- Growing up in a number of catholic countries, I an certain that similar cartoons directed at a Christian God (or his "Son") would have produced very similar reactions (and still would today).
- My grandmother, a good, deeply believing catholic woman, would never have thought of leaving her home without a headscarf.
- Christian (mostly catholic) pilgrimages and flagellations, although anachronistic to many of us, are still very much "en vogue" in many societies.
- Although the burning of books is, thankfully, no longer a wide spread practice, I do recall a number of cases where literary works are still banned from libraries and schools to this day, in the U.S and elsewhere and, unbelievably, discussions of the pros and cons of evolutionary theory vs. creationism is still being debated in otherwise sane, liberal, modern societies.
- If today, in 2008, I would answer a question asking me to state my religion, by saying that I do not believe in superstitions; that, to me, virginal births, burning bushes, some silly tablets with ten rules to follow or some goody-two-shoes Jesus chap spouting empty phrases is as idiotic and dimwitted as sacrificing goats or reading the future in the stars or by spilling the intestines of some poor animal on the ground, I am sure I would have immediately outstayed my welcome in quite a few households or communities. I might not be burned in effigy (perhaps?!), but I would probably have seriously scraped that thin coat of tolerance that most claim to hold so dear.
Having said that, if we examine many of the protests against items such as these cartoons or the (misquoted and misinterpreted) speech of the Pope shortly preceeding his trip to Turkey, I believe we can recognize that these are prompted and organized for reasons that have very little or nothing to do with religion. In my opinion, the agendas behind these protests can be grouped into two categories:
- Attempts to gain public support for, sometimes very differing, political goals in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and any number of countries in and around the Middle East.
- The expression of discontent with the policies of the west in these (and other) regions that are treated not with respect but simply as the source for raw materials (oil in the case of the Middle East) or cheap labour.
In conclusion, I will certainly defend the rights of those publishing these cartoons (especially and all the more in light of any threats of violence which will only strengthen my resolve) just as I defended the rights of Mr. Flynt in publishing Hustler magazine, but it would do well if we stand back to examine what it is that we are attempting to achieve. If it is our intention to "export" western values of tolerance and freedom to the Middle East and to other regions, then we should recognize that we have consistenty done an embarrassingly decrepid (read: piss-poor) job. Not only are we not practicing what we preach but we are consistenty doing the exact opposite and we should be deeply ashamed. | Soulfire wrote: |
Oh, right, I forgot Christianity was behind all the evil in the world.
My bad.
Sorry I bismirched the holy name of Islam.
Detect the sarcasm?
Ending point:
Everyone's guilty. |
i presume you mean all belief systems (or just religions?) are guilty, not all people. No one alive today is guilty because of the Inquisitions, or the Crusades, etc.
Yes, all belief systems are probably guilty of some crime at some point or another, and there is nothing to be gained by saying "my belief system's sins are not as bad as yours'". Pointing out how much better "we Christians" are than "you Muslims" doesn't do a thing toward ending religious intolerance... unless you are seeing something i am missing completely.
The fact is that Islam (like most older belief systems), has a veritable stream of crimes against humanity that it is guilty of. Fine. Whatever. Ancient history. The only time that fact matters is when some radical Muslim struts around shouting about how awesomely perfect his or her religion is (or when someone tries to claim that religion in general is awesomely perfect). In that case, these people need to be educated about the facts. (And of course, replace Christian, Hindu or whatever, and you get the same truth.) Once they have been clued in to the truth - assuming they listen - that fact goes back into the pile in case its needed again.
But that ancient history has no bearing on the behaviour of Muslims today, and certainly no bearing on the behaviour of those rioting protesters. Their sin is not being Muslim. Their sin is being ****** stupid. If Islam is the cause of that stupidity, then we can start discussing whether or not Islam itself is bad. But at no point does history come into play, and the religion itself is innocent until proven guilty in this particular case.
Now... as for whether or not the religion really is guilty in this particular case...
| MaxStirner wrote: |
Having said that, if we examine many of the protests against items such as these cartoons or the (misquoted and misinterpreted) speech of the Pope shortly preceeding his trip to Turkey, I believe we can recognize that these are prompted and organized for reasons that have very little or nothing to do with religion. In my opinion, the agendas behind these protests can be grouped into two categories:
- Attempts to gain public support for, sometimes very differing, political goals in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and any number of countries in and around the Middle East.
- The expression of discontent with the policies of the west in these (and other) regions that are treated not with respect but simply as the source for raw materials (oil in the case of the Middle East) or cheap labour.
|
i am not going to comment on the response to the Pope's speech, since this thread is solely about the cartoons and resulting protest. But neither of these reasons adequately explains or justifies the protests to the Danish cartoons. This had nothing to do with politics (except that the cartoons happened to be political commentaries) or economics. This was most certainly a religious uprising - you can see it in the original cause, the statements of the rioters, the demands and threats they made, and so on. Every aspect of this whole thing says that it was religiously motivated. The only point that politics entered into the game was when the protesters claimed they were victims of a hate crime, and the government should have done something about it but did not because it was an anti-Muslim government - but that's just flat out stupid because the cartoons don't and never would constitute a hate crime. (Then later, of course, they claimed that all of Europe was anti-Muslim because they would not censor the cartoons or punish the publishers... but that's still just stupidity, not politics.)
The whole thing is quite simply summarized:
- Newspaper suspects media industry self-censorship against criticizing religion (in this case, Islam and its connection to terrorism).
- Newspaper requests and then prints items in defiance of this censorship (and out of the original concern about the relationship between Islam and terrorism).
- Religion reacts... badly... claiming discrimination (when in fact, the printing was deliberately and explicitly in defiance of discrimination, and the items printed themselves are not discriminatory - the reason they claim the cartoons are discriminatory is because the religion itself generally does not allow them (this is equivalent to a Hindu claiming McDonald's is discriminatory against Hinduism because it serves beef, which Hinduism generally does not allow)).
If you can find a political motivation in any of that, you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. | Indi wrote: |
| If you can find a political motivation in any of that [read complete posts above if needed], you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. [italics added] |
I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts:
- The cartoons were originally published in late Sept. 2005. Apart from a small (and peaceful) demonstration of about 3.000 to 8.000 persons (depending on source) in front of the newspaper offices as well as two crank calls threatening the cartoons' authors, not much can be recorded, either within Denmark or abroad, that could be interpreted as violent.
- The only other notable events that I am aware of were (a) a request by a number of ambassadors of Middle East nations requesting a meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen (which was turned down) and (b) a complaint filed by a number of Muslim organizations with the danish police.
- In October and November a number of newspapers reprint the cartoons (or to be more exact, some of the cartoons.) Again, smaller, peaceful protests are organized and a number of complaints through diplomatic channels are lodged, but nothing else.
- Especially interesting were the cartoon reprints by the Egyptian El Fagr newspaper which failed to trigger any type of protest, either by government or religious organizations, or any impromptu "grass roots" protests.
- In early December, a rumor asserting (and later proved as untrue) that a 10.000 US$ reward had been offered for the deaths of the cartoonists, made its round through many western newspapers which blew this out of proportion. It was subsequently discovered that a Pakistani political party (Jamaat-e-Islami) had suggested that such reward could / should be offered by the (Pakistani) government.
- By the end of 2005, all types of complaints are lodged (mostly through diplomatic channels, incl. the UN) but again, the reaction "on the streets" is in general temperate.
- I find it indicative, that serious protests begin months later (in Jan and Feb 2006) only when religious and and political groups and a number of governments pick up the subject. Especially interesting is the fact that protests begin in those countries where such demonstrations are usually prohibited, unless of course the state or meaningful ruling political interests deem it opportune: Libya, Syria and Iran.
- Protests by Muslim organizations in Europe and a number of other more moderate nations with Muslim communities are, in comparison, small and peaceful.
Although the 2006 protests were, for the most part, instigated by religious organizations, it should be remembered that in many Middle Eastern countries, there is no or little separation of church and state and that most of these groups have paramount political interests, and occurrences such as these cartoons are simply a welcome tool to mobilize and radicalize their supporters, who are critical of the west generally. One could claim that these parties / organizations in Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and even Iraq and Turkey were simply indignant at seeing their beliefs ridiculed and had no political motives, but that does seem a bit far-fetched and untypical. One could even argue that the original publication of the cartoons by a right-wing Danish paper with a notorious anti-immigration editorial line, may have had a political component, especially since a similar cartoon contest involving christian / catholic symbols and figures, was considered and then turned down, fearing it would be "deeply offensive to Christians".
In my opinion, the lack of protests concerning these cartoon until this theme was picked up by political interest groups, is more than indicative to "find[ing] a political motivation in any of that [protests]". It is certainly true that many Middle Eastern societies do not separate church and state as we in the west have come to doing (although the influence of the Church, especially in the U.S. but also in a number of European nations seems at times clearly visible, including the current presidential elections), it seems obvious to me that, as was and is usual, these political interests were the catalyst.
On a personal note: One of my better customers here in Frankfurt is an Iranian based software company and I have had the opportunity not only to get personally acquainted with many of my Iranian colleagues, but have visited their offices in Tehran. Although certainly subjective, I find time and time again that we tend not to differentiate sufficiently between political rhetoric coming out of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries, and the usually much more moderate population. Certainly there are religious zealots very actively attempting to sow dissent in these areas, but even most of these use religion much more as a tool to attain their political goals and do not act simply out an earnest inner conviction.You've gotta be kidding, right?
In what way can these contries benefit from a hate towards Denmark? Are they going to invade Denmark or what?
so what if they republish
will MF Hussain have the guts to draw Mohammad
so much for his painting of a Hindu godess naked
| catscratches wrote: |
| You've gotta be kidding, right? |
I didn't intend to imply that I was "kidding", no. These organizations, parties and states "benefit" in the same ways that they have always benefitted: by purposefully misinterpreting and exaggerating statements made by western politicians, media and others who, usually (but not always!) without malice, address subjects which can touch a raw nerve if someone manages to put the right spin on them. If the U.S. President, for example, speaks of a "crusade" against terror, then this word alone will have very different connotations for different people, just as the word "genocide" might, to some, be a very abstract concept, but others might very well lead them to recall the deaths of their own families in their lifetimes.
| catscratches wrote: |
| In what way can these contries benefit from a hate towards Denmark? Are they going to invade Denmark or what? |
Certainly not, and I am unaware that I in the least suggested that this might be the case. It would surely have suited them better, if it had been a U.S., British, French or German newspaper that published the cartoons (although some did reprint them in part), but the fact that they were printed in a western European paper, and given that Western support was of course forthcoming pro press freedom, was sufficient to make an issue out of this matter. The fact that they DID manage to mobilize sympathizers and they DID get world-wide press coverage and they DID excise apologies from any number of western institutions and they DID stir up a heated discussion on this subject matter (including FriHost), is, I believe, proof enough, that they (at least partially) attained their goals. Every real or imagined injustice, and every action that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as such, will suffice for someone to spin it to his advantage. It's politics 101: say anything in the least bit controversial and, no matter who true this might be, you will get hammered by those who are so very adept at miss- or out-of-context- quoting. | MaxStirner wrote: |
| I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts: |
Well, i've looked over your facts, and i still don't see it. But i'm beginning to suspect that the problem is that you and i have different definitions of the word "motivation". See, in my definition, "motivation" means "motivation"... that which motivates doing something. In yours, judging by the facts you offer as evidence, "motivation" means "action"... that which was done. Or possibly "goal"... that which one hoped to gain from an action or that which one hopes an action will accomplish.
Since you took such painstaking effort to spell out your facts, i will take the same effort to spell out why i don't think they measure up.
First, imagine this scenario. There is a man who hates black people - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - just because he thinks they are subhuman savages. One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood. The first man, enraged by this, burns down the black man's home and shoots the black man dead. Now, i think we can all agree here that nothing about this scenario was political. The motivation was racial supremacist bigotry, the action was violence, and the goal was the elimination of the neighbour. So far everything is clear.
Now, let's reboot the scenario. There is a man who hates black people - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - just because he thinks they are subhuman savages. One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood. The first man, enraged by this, goes to his local parliamentary representative and pressures him to file a motion in congress to make it illegal for black people to live in his district. In this case, the action was clearly political (and the goal was to create a law to eliminate the neighbour). But... isn't the motivation still racial supremacist bigotry? Did his motivation change simply because the way he chose to carry out his desires changed? No, it did not. Even though the action was political, the motivation was still racist nonsense.
Before we return to the Danish cartoon case, let's consider one further twist.
There is a man who hates liberals - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - and his neighbourhood is just barely conservative (one more liberal vote would change the local government). One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood and announces he will be voting liberal. The first man, enraged by this, burns down the black man's home and shoots the black man dead. Now... this motivation is clearly political. But the action is not (and the goal is to prevent a liberal government from coming to power).
So you can have a political action without a political motivation, and you can have a non-political action with a political motivation.
Now let's consider the Danish cartoon case.
Do we have political actions? Yes. You listed several of them. Do we have non-political actions? Yes. (Despite your dishonest whitewashing of the situation, the facts are that there were violent riots and deaths - and i don't really see the relevance that it just so happened that the original few didn't happen to be among them... the fact remains that there was violence. Furthermore, those so-called "crank calls" were death threats and bomb threats. Those are not "crank calls", those are criminal offences (and if you don't agree, call two random offices downtown... ask the first if there's a Seymour Butts there, and tell the second there's a bomb in the building... and let's let the police decide).)
But as the examples show, it doesn't matter whether the actions were political or not. It also doesn't matter what the goals of those actions happened to be. The question remains: was the motivation political or religious?
i still can't see any rational explanation for a political motivation for getting angry at a comical depiction of Mohammed. i see a religious motivation. i see political actions being undertaken due to an underlying religious anger at the insulting depictions of Mohammed.
Certainly there were several political goals - one of which was the undermining of freedom of speech and freedom of expression... but why did those rioting Muslims want to undermine those things? What was the motivation? To me it seems clear. Freedom of expression weakens the apparent sanctity of their religion. In other words, they want to destroy freedom of expression because it threatens their religion. Motivation: religious.
And certainly some political groups did use the riots to their advantage... but does that mean the riots were politically motivated or does it mean that political groups opportunistically used religiously motivated riots to their own ends? Again, it seems clear to me. Those people that were on the streets rioting were not doing it for political reasons. Were they? Tell me what you think: if we pulled the average rioter aside and asked them, "Why are you rioting?" what do you think they would say? Would they say, "Because of the socio-political inequities that exist in Europe!" or, "Because the Prophet is holy and should not be mocked!" Well? What do you think?
To me, seems pretty obvious.
And if all of that doesn't make it obvious enough, this should put the nail in the coffin. If the motivation really was for political reasons, what was the goal? Apparently, it was the destruction of freedom of expression - if we pretend the motivation wasn't religious, then that would appear to be that the ultimate motivation was that freedom of political expression itself is in some way undesirable. Ok, fine. That would be a political motivation, and it seems to fit everything the protesters do and say. But... if that really is the underlying motivation... then... essentially... you have a bunch of people speaking out... against speaking out. Hm. Houston, we have a problem here. Because... if that's what's really going on, then these people who are apparently against freedom of expression - tens of thousands of protesters worldwide, and millions of vocal supporters - are ****** idiots. They're dumb as toast. Because they're against a political idea that they want (because it allows them to express and control their political agenda).
i have a problem with saying millions and millions of people are that stupid and mixed up. Yeah, sure, people may be stupid and mixed up... but their heads are not usually so completely far up their own asses that they're too stupid to recognize such a good thing while they're actually taking advantage of it (not to mention the leaders of this revolt would have to be that stupid, too, which is an even bigger stretch). i don't see it.
On the other hand, a religious motivation completely solves this paradox. They don't really care about their political rights. They're pissed off that their religion is not taken seriously. And everything follows simply and logically from that.
But hey, you know, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. Maybe they really do have political motivations for this outrage. How can we be sure?
Well, why don't we let them speak for themselves?
Mr. Protester, tell us, what about this affair angers you the most? The abuse of freedom of expression, or the fact that Islam was insulted?
So, i'll put you down under religious rage then?
What about you, sir? Do you agree?
Ah, i see, the other guy wasn't quite specific enough about how this extermination is to take place.
Any comments from the group?
i see a pattern here.
Well it seems that the issue is the "insult" to Islam. Alright, but is this a political insult? Some kind of social disenfranchisement?
Hm, well blasphemy doesn't sound like a political concern to me.
Ladies, do you agree that this insult is religious in nature?
That appears to be a yes.
What about you, Miss? What political statement do you feel compelled to make by this incident?
Well, i'm torn between Clinton and Obama myself... what political office is Allah running for again?
Now people, Mr. Stirner here insists that this is about politics, so surely you must have some statements to make about some of the politicians involved. Anyone? Anyone has anything to say about Anders Fogh Rasmussen or Jacques Chirac (i guess Sarkozy now, eh)? Hey, are we for or against Socialdemokraterne?
Moses... Abraham... Jesus... i'm pretty sure those aren't political names.
Now you may balk and claim that i am being unfair and only cherry-picking the most extreme slogans and ignoring the ones that seem more politically oriented. You're right. ^_^ But so what? i am aware that more... civilized... protesters generally carried placards with one of three "political" messages. In essence, they were: "****** European imperialism," "Down with freedom of expression" and "Everyone who isn't offended by this is an ******". Sure they sound political-ish, but they're not. The publication of cartoons by a privately owned media company is in no way related to European imperialism, and anyone who was even remotely concerned about European imperialism would know this (and there are tons of more pressing things to protest about if that's really where your concern lies). i've already covered why the freedom of expression argument is lame. And if that last counts as a political message... no, i'm not even gonna grace that with a metaphor... it's too stupid.
So i say again... whence the political motivation? To me, it's plain as day religiously motivated. Just because the religious motivations led to political actions, and just because political groups opportunistically took advantage of the outrage to further their political agendas, the fact does not change... the underlying motivation, the thing that set it all off, and the real reason people are killing each other in the streets is, was and probably always will be... religion.
(Incidentally, i think this quote of yours needs to be highlighted to show you just how wrong-headed your methodology is. You see, you are not trying to understand what is really causing these protests. You are determined to believe that it is political in nature, and you are selectively highlighting certain facts and downplaying others in order to force the evidence to fit your belief. The cases of the "prank phone calls" and the "peaceful protesting" i mentioned above are two examples - in one you distort the nature of what really happened and in the other you focus on the few instances that support your beliefs and ignore the ones that done... both very, very bad things to do if you are serious about the truth. But nothing highlights how wrong-headed your approach is as well as... your own highlighting. ^_^ Now, this is exactly what you wrote, how you wrote it: "only when religious and and political groups and a number of...". Now, what if you were trying to argue that the motivation was religious? Would you have done this: "only when religious and and political groups and a number of..."? ^_^; You also... bizarrely... point out that the religious groups that filed protests are also political groups because they have no separation of church and state, and thus their protests are political. Huh? ^_^; But they're still religious groups right... so why can't their protests also be religious? Why bend over backward to desperately try to pin political motivations on these protests when they plainly have a religious basis, the protesters explicitly claim that their indignation is based on religion and political motivations just don't make sense (why in the hell would people in Lebanon give a crap about the social strata of Denmark!?!?)! ^_^; Ockham's razor, man. Use it. See what falls out.)
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | If you can find a political motivation in any of that [read complete posts above if needed], you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. [italics added] |
I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts:
- The cartoons were originally published in late Sept. 2005. Apart from a small (and peaceful) demonstration of about 3.000 to 8.000 persons (depending on source) in front of the newspaper offices as well as two crank calls threatening the cartoons' authors, not much can be recorded, either within Denmark or abroad, that could be interpreted as violent.
- The only other notable events that I am aware of were (a) a request by a number of ambassadors of Middle East nations requesting a meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen (which was turned down) and (b) a complaint filed by a number of Muslim organizations with the danish police.
- In October and November a number of newspapers reprint the cartoons (or to be more exact, some of the cartoons.) Again, smaller, peaceful protests are organized and a number of complaints through diplomatic channels are lodged, but nothing else.
- Especially interesting were the cartoon reprints by the Egyptian El Fagr newspaper which failed to trigger any type of protest, either by government or religious organizations, or any impromptu "grass roots" protests.
- In early December, a rumor asserting (and later proved as untrue) that a 10.000 US$ reward had been offered for the deaths of the cartoonists, made its round through many western newspapers which blew this out of proportion. It was subsequently discovered that a Pakistani political party (Jamaat-e-Islami) had suggested that such reward could / should be offered by the (Pakistani) government.
- By the end of 2005, all types of complaints are lodged (mostly through diplomatic channels, incl. the UN) but again, the reaction "on the streets" is in general temperate.
- I find it indicative, that serious protests begin months later (in Jan and Feb 2006) only when religious and and political groups and a number of governments pick up the subject. Especially interesting is the fact that protests begin in those countries where such demonstrations are usually prohibited, unless of course the state or meaningful ruling political interests deem it opportune: Libya, Syria and Iran.
- Protests by Muslim organizations in Europe and a number of other more moderate nations with Muslim communities are, in comparison, small and peaceful.
Although the 2006 protests were, for the most part, instigated by religious organizations, it should be remembered that in many Middle Eastern countries, there is no or little separation of church and state and that most of these groups have paramount political interests, and occurrences such as these cartoons are simply a welcome tool to mobilize and radicalize their supporters, who are critical of the west generally. One could claim that these parties / organizations in Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and even Iraq and Turkey were simply indignant at seeing their beliefs ridiculed and had no political motives, but that does seem a bit far-fetched and untypical. One could even argue that the original publication of the cartoons by a right-wing Danish paper with a notorious anti-immigration editorial line, may have had a political component, especially since a similar cartoon contest involving christian / catholic symbols and figures, was considered and then turned down, fearing it would be "deeply offensive to Christians".
In my opinion, the lack of protests concerning these cartoon until this theme was picked up by political interest groups, is more than indicative to "find[ing] a political motivation in any of that [protests]". It is certainly true that many Middle Eastern societies do not separate church and state as we in the west have come to doing (although the influence of the Church, especially in the U.S. but also in a number of European nations seems at times clearly visible, including the current presidential elections), it seems obvious to me that, as was and is usual, these political interests were the catalyst.
On a personal note: One of my better customers here in Frankfurt is an Iranian based software company and I have had the opportunity not only to get personally acquainted with many of my Iranian colleagues, but have visited their offices in Tehran. Although certainly subjective, I find time and time again that we tend not to differentiate sufficiently between political rhetoric coming out of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries, and the usually much more moderate population. Certainly there are religious zealots very actively attempting to sow dissent in these areas, but even most of these use religion much more as a tool to attain their political goals and do not act simply out an earnest inner conviction. |
I'm quite glad that they did it again and didn't let the rioting muslims shut them up. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate muslims or the islam, but I think they're soooooo overreacting.
If the muslims would make funny cartoons of the pope, the (catholic) christians would maybe be like "hey, that's so not okay, don't do this, bad people." but I doubt they would burn flags and boycott eastern products.
Might be that I'm wrong there. I just don't like religious fanatics, no matter what religion they have. And often "religions" (I over-simplify here) annoy me with their whinyness. Does noone care about my feelings as an atheist? 
| Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
The ip addresses of Billy Hill and the topic starter do indeed match (same isp). Good catch!I don't really understand why it's unacceptable for a non-Muslim to create an image of Mohammad. I can very easily see how it would be dire sacrilege for a Muslim to do it... but for a non-believer??
For a non-believer, it is simply an image, it holds no meaning. Therefore its creation is not forbidden, as it doesn't represent an infraction upon their belief structure. It's empty and hollow. The dictates of a particular culture/religion do not hold sway over the actions and beliefs of those outside of its sphere of influence or subscription. Sure, it might not make the believers happy, but, it's not causing them any harm either.
Certainly, rioting over the actions of non-believers is an infraction upon the teachings of Mohammad, is it not?? Certainly the violence is a worse infraction than the creation of an image?? Right?
Wrong + Wrong =/= Right
Indignation may be warranted, but not violence.
That is very well put Ankhanu.
Indi, your post is exactly what I had wanted to say but could not put into words myself.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Indi, your post is exactly what I had wanted to say but could not put into words myself. |
It boggles my mind that people are actually arguing in support of the Muslim indignation and suggesting that the Danish newspapers were wrong to publish the cartoons. And it doesn't even matter that they weren't even insulting - even if they were, Denmark is not a totalitarian state (ironically like all modern Muslim states are), and there is no rational reason for a free country to make being an ass illegal.
Let's consider the worst case scenario, and pretend that Jyllands-Posten just published bunch of cartoons making fun of Mohammed... for the hell of it. Well, so what if they did? Should it be possible to sue? Should they be fined? Should the editors be jailed? And even if they should not be punished, should they have been prevented (if it was possible)?
Much of the noise Muslim groups are making (once we ignore the really stupid stuff) centres around their claim that this constitutes hate-speech. Does it? Let's think about that.
If i said: "Moses was a doody head," is that hate-speech? Of course not. -_- Is it polite? No. But that doesn't make it morally wrong. And it certainly doesn't make it dangerous. Who suffers directly or indirectly by my calling Moses a doody head? Am i encouraging that suffering? Condoning it? If i said: "Moses is a doody head, but i like Jews," is there anything contradictory in that? No. So clearly making fun of a religious icon is not hate speech.
What if i said: "Jews are doody heads," is that hate-speech? Well this one's a little bit trickier, but let's apply the same test. If i said: "Jews are doody heads, but i don't think they should be harassed or hurt in any way," am i being contradictory? No, not at all. Calling Jews doody heads is rude and more than a little ignorant, but it is not hate-speech.
But what if i said: "Jews should be rounded up and shipped out of the country on leaky boats"? Is that hate-speech? Same test: "Jews should be rounded up and shipped out of the country on leaky boats, but i don't think Jews should be harassed or hurt in any way," is that contradictory? Well, yes. Yes, it is. That is hate-speech. Hate-speech is speech that directly encourages harm to a group or person. Making fun may be a component of hate-speech, but it is not hate-speech in and of itself.
So let's review. Even if Jyllands-Posten had said: "Mohammed is a jerk." (which they did not)... even if Jyllands-Posten had said: "Muslims are jerks." (whcih they did not)... that is still not hate-speech. Rude? Certainly. Ignorant? Most likely. Dangerous? Hardly. Hate-speech? Not in the least. If Jyllands-Posten had said: "Muslims should be killed." (which they obviously did not), that would have been hate speech. (And of course, what Jyllands-Posten really said was primarily "we should not be afraid to criticize Islam". Individual cartoons had different messages, but they were mostly concern about how Islam is being hijacked by extremists and terrorists. How anyone can rationally consider that insulting, let alone hate-speech (!), boggles my mind.)
i don't know how people can seriously defend the kind of censorship Muslims are demanding with a straight face. They are not demanding that hate-speech should be made illegal - it already is - they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! It's absurd what they are demanding! And even more absurd is the fact that they are demanding that it be illegal to say "Mohammed is a doody head" even while they chant "Jyllands-Posten/Denmark/Europe is a bunch of doody heads"!!!
The whole thing is so bloody stupid it makes me cry.Then read Bondings' post above and stop snapping at the bait. You could've done that a long time ago, instead of... | Bikerman wrote: |
| My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters. |
| Indi wrote: |
| i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in. |
By the way... | Quote: |
| they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! |
We've got some of those here ourselves... | Arnie wrote: |
Then read Bondings' post above and stop snapping at the bait. You could've done that a long time ago, instead of... | Bikerman wrote: | | My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters. |
| Indi wrote: | | i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in. |
By the way... | Quote: | | they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! |
We've got some of those here ourselves... |
i still don't know - or care - who "Billy Hill" is. i also don't know - or care - why you or Bondings think he is so important.
The questions raised in this thread are valid questions - and unlike most of the threads in this forum, they are valid questions in both philosophy and religion. If you don't want to talk about them because you don't like the person who started the thread and/or you think it was started rudely... then fine. Don't talk about them. Cheerio.
But we're having a discussion about the implications of free speech and the relationship to religious beliefs - questions raised by the publication of those cartoons and the surrounding protests. i don't think anyone else here is interested in your little witch-hunt, or whoever it is you are after - i think they're all interested in those (very valid) issues. If you have something relevant to say regarding those questions, then by all means feel free to join in the discussion. But if all you are interested in doing is insulting people engaging in the discussion without a clue of what is really going on, perhaps there are other threads where you can be more productive and less antagonistic and offensive.I don't think he's important, I'm trying to make you stop crying. But if you insist... have fun.
OI think its exaggeration to say "Freedom of Speech", while speech is not limited to say something but even drawings and photography are freedom of speech.
OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots.
| daljirman wrote: |
| OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots. |
I'm quite certain that such images have been published...Free speech is the most important thing to human development, during the european dark ages scientific development was non existent, in muslim countries however progress was made in medicines, philosophy, astronomy etc.
After the dark ages in the EU the grip of the church declined and people were more and more able to say what they wanted so we made progress, we rediscovered ancient greek writings because of the muslims.
From then free speech became more and more important, and look where did that brought us?
Instant data communication
Modern medicine
Fast travel
We discovered DNA
Invented microwaves
And the list goes on and on... >
What did religion bring us? NOTHING? We weren't discussing stuff on the internet right now on this forum were it for religious fanatics.
Yeah, and our points would probably be in the minus. But thankfully there are also anti-anti-homosexual fanatics. Seems like just another religion. | Arnie wrote: |
| I don't think he's important, I'm trying to make you stop crying. But if you insist... have fun. |
i appreciate your concern, but given that i weep at the stupidity of millions and millions of protesters, i'm not clear on how hearing about "Billy Hill" is supposed to make me feel better.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| daljirman wrote: | | OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots. |
I'm quite certain that such images have been published... |
Didn't someone (*cough*bikerman*cough* ^_^; ) post a video of one of the popes, parodying some ceremony of theirs as a Star Wars Galactic Empire ceremony? It might have been Benedict, i can't recall - but i have certainly seen pictures comparing JP2 with Emperor Palpantine. And then, of course, there is the song "Pope Raper"....
As far as i'm concerned this is not simply an issue of "Muslims are crazier than non-Muslims". Do they have the right to be angry at someone mocking Mohammed? Do they have the right to protest? Do they have the right to punish the mockers? Do they have the right to pass laws preventing people from mocking Mohammed?
In my mind, the answers are: Yes. Yes. No. No.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Free speech is the most important thing to human development, during the european dark ages scientific development was non existent, in muslim countries however progress was made in medicines, philosophy, astronomy etc.
After the dark ages in the EU the grip of the church declined and people were more and more able to say what they wanted so we made progress, we rediscovered ancient greek writings because of the muslims.
From then free speech became more and more important, and look where did that brought us?
Instant data communication
Modern medicine
Fast travel
We discovered DNA
Invented microwaves
And the list goes on and on... >
What did religion bring us? NOTHING? We weren't discussing stuff on the internet right now on this forum were it for religious fanatics. |
Well, free speech is important... but it should have limits, shouldn't it? What about privacy? What about secrets (like trade secrets)? What about hate-speech? And given that there should be limits to free speech - what are those limits? Do they include protecting sensitive religious folk from having their icons insulted?
Religion itself isn't the enemy of free speech. Religion is only the enemy of free speech when it becomes totalitarian, and it is unfortunate that that seems to be the way most religious folk think their religion should be. i am not Christian or Muslim... yet both Christians and Muslims believe that i should be subject to their rules. i think not. (And as Bikerman has pointed out elsewhere, the situation is not symmetric. Christians and Muslims say i should be subject to their rules, but i don't say Christians or Muslims should be subject to my rules. As far as i'm concerned, they can do whatever they want, provided they don't harm anyone who does not consent to being harmed by them... unfortunately, it is that last part that causes all the friction.)"Right" in the sense that they know it will sell really well and noone got slain after them, you mean.
A big thing most people miss is that Islam in itself is quite tougher as a religion than other semitic cults most westerners follow, imposing some (by default) stiffer restrictions on what's wrong and what's not; casually, depicting their prophet IS wrong and thusly it gets (at the very least) some serious disapproval. It just works that way.
In most muslim minds (not even considering radicals to whom it's inconceivable) it'd be like giving away pamphlets of a poorly photoshopped Christ getting sodomized by a horse, for instance. Go tell the Westboro Church about your freedom of speech when you try that one.
| Indi wrote: |
Well, free speech is important... but it should have limits, shouldn't it? What about privacy? What about secrets (like trade secrets)? What about hate-speech? And given that there should be limits to free speech - what are those limits? Do they include protecting sensitive religious folk from having their icons insulted?
Religion itself isn't the enemy of free speech. Religion is only the enemy of free speech when it becomes totalitarian, and it is unfortunate that that seems to be the way most religious folk think their religion should be. i am not Christian or Muslim... yet both Christians and Muslims believe that i should be subject to their rules. i think not. (And as Bikerman has pointed out elsewhere, the situation is not symmetric. Christians and Muslims say i should be subject to their rules, but i don't say Christians or Muslims should be subject to my rules. As far as i'm concerned, they can do whatever they want, provided they don't harm anyone who does not consent to being harmed by them... unfortunately, it is that last part that causes all the friction.) |
Well the cartoons are about the islam being highjacked by extremists, what is wrong about that? If they feel offended, don't say anything and it all will blow over in a few days. It wasn't even the intention of the cartoonists to insult muslims or anything so why we prevent these cartoons to be published. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| It wasn't even the intention of the cartoonists to insult muslims or anything... |
LOL...have you even seen the cartoons? 'Muhammed' dressed in a turban with a lit bomb (the black Tom & Jerry types) strapped to his head. That's not insulting? You'd get similar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that, etc.
So along these lines, jewwatch.com is a racist, anti-semitic site, while islam-watch.org is a perfectly informational site following the rules of Freedom of Speech? Congratulations 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | It wasn't even the intention of the cartoonists to insult muslims or anything... |
LOL...have you even seen the cartoons? 'Muhammed' dressed in a turban with a lit bomb (the black Tom & Jerry types) strapped to his head. That's not insulting? You'd get similar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that, etc.
So along these lines, jewwatch.com is a racist, anti-semitic site, while islam-watch.org is a perfectly informational site following the rules of Freedom of Speech? Congratulations |
I don't really think we'd get similiar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that as he was preaching for peace more than anything else.
No matter what the sites tell, you'll have to get your information from multiple sources. Same applies for a pro-islamic site. Also I wouldn't really take the statement "Islam is the best religion" (or Christianity, or Buddhism or anything) as a fact just because I have multiple sources. So well, you can take facts from such sites as long as you back it up with other sources. | catscratches wrote: |
| I don't really think we'd get similiar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that as he was preaching for peace more than anything else. |
And Muhammed wasn't? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | It wasn't even the intention of the cartoonists to insult muslims or anything... |
LOL...have you even seen the cartoons? 'Muhammed' dressed in a turban with a lit bomb (the black Tom & Jerry types) strapped to his head. That's not insulting? You'd get similar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that, etc.
So along these lines, jewwatch.com is a racist, anti-semitic site, while islam-watch.org is a perfectly informational site following the rules of Freedom of Speech? Congratulations |
Hmm the cartoons "stated" that islam had been highjacked by extremists and suicide bombers. It was against fundamentalists, I still don't get how they are offended. And by responding to those cartoons as they did didn't did them or their religion any good.
Maybe its me but those cartoons are VERY VERY tame compared to jewwatch, nevertheless both are very different, while these cartoons merely state that the islam is highjacked by extremists, jewwatch try's to make jew's as bad as possible.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | I don't really think we'd get similiar reactions from Indians for making Ghandi like that as he was preaching for peace more than anything else. |
And Muhammed wasn't? |
Though Ghandi has never stated that someone should be killed, the koran says multiple times kill.....
(gay's, non-believers etc.etc.etc.) | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Hmm the cartoons "stated" that islam had been highjacked by extremists and suicide bombers. It was against fundamentalists... |
Err...No. They didn't have extremists dressed in funny turbans with bombs strapped to their heads, they had Muhammed dressed in a funny turban with a bomb strapped to his head. Muhammed is a figure representing Islam, extremists aren't. If you're insulting Muhammed, you're insulting Islam, just like if you're insulting Jesus you're insulting Christianity (though nowadays 99% of Christianity isn't from Jesus)..
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Tue May 20, 2008 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Though Ghandi has never stated that someone should be killed, the koran says multiple times kill.....
(gay's, non-believers etc.etc.etc.) |
Name such instances. If possible, give the two verses before and after it and let's see if it's the same meaning. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Hmm the cartoons "stated" that islam had been highjacked by extremists and suicide bombers. It was against fundamentalists... |
Err...No. They didn't have extremists dressed in funny turbans with bombs strapped to their heads, they had Muhammed dressed in a funny turban with a bomb strapped to his head. Muhammed is a figure representing Islam, extremists aren't. If you're insulting Muhammed, you're insulting Islam, just like if you're insulting Jesus you're insulting Christianity (though nowadays 99% of Christianity isn't from Jesus).. |
Well after all those southpark series the streets in the US should have been filled with people, however, they are not... further: I know very well what it depicts I have seen it, the point is of that cartoon is the message behind it, wich i have explained.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | Though Ghandi has never stated that someone should be killed, the koran says multiple times kill.....
(gay's, non-believers etc.etc.etc.) |
Name such instances. If possible, give the two verses before and after it and let's see if it's the same meaning. |
Very well:
EDIT: i deleted the text it was long and klicking on the link is better;
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 20, 2008 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total | Quote: |
| Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98 |
No killing here.
| Quote: |
| On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161 |
No killing here, either.
| Quote: |
| Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191 |
Did you read the line directly before that?: 'You may fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors.' So basically it is saying attack only when you are being attacked at. Also, your translation is a bit skewed. Another translation for 2:191 says: 'You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.'
| Quote: |
| Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39 |
8:39 actually states: 'You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then God is fully Seer of everything they do.' This means if you attack us, we can fight for our right to worship Allah (God).
| Quote: |
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you. |
Actually, the translation is: 'Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. God knows while you do not know.' This does not necessarily mean fighting will be imposed on you by God; perhaps in a situation of danger, you will have to fight whether you like it or not.
| Quote: |
| ..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43 |
3:140-3:143 in old fashioned English is actually: '(140) If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And Allah loveth not those that do wrong. (141) Allah's object also is to purge those that are true in faith and to deprive of blessing those that resist faith. (142) Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? (143) Ye did indeed wish for death before ye met him: Now ye have seen him with your own eyes, (And ye flinch!)'
And in modern, simplified English: '(140) If you suffer hardship, the enemy also suffers the same hardship. We alternate the days of victory and defeat among the people. GOD thus distinguishes the true believers, and blesses some of you with martyrdom. God dislikes injustice. (141) GOD thus toughens those who believe and humiliates the disbelievers. (142) Do you expect to enter Paradise without GOD distinguishing those among you who strive, and without distinguishing those who are steadfast? (143) You used to long for death before you had to face it. Now you have faced it, right before your eyes.'
We're beginning to see the same pattern now, and there's no use in going through all the verses you've provided.
Whenever God tells you to kill someone, it is because they attack you first. If there are verses that say non-believers will go to Hell...well, since God doesn't exist, you've got nothing to worry about.1st okay I just quoted it my bad i should have researched that. But with of research i would find that one verse on gays back. It said to kill them for me that is enough...
As for saying that they are enemy's, what do you do with enemys? kill them, it gives an opening to kill people, the koran only finds muslims important and non-believers are not.
For the curses, if you kill curses they are gone, (so killing non believers is good)
It leaves openings for killing rather wide ones too. And so people may read it in sucha a way to start wars.
But this is about cartoons not about ghandi, but i will post any verses that will find that encourage violence.
some sites about violence:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_peace.html
And most religious books, shristian, muslim or jewish all state something like the jihad or something and the jihad isn't really nice is it?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 20, 2008 9:07 pm; edited 2 times in total I don't get what you're trying to say; the verses telling to kill people also say only kill them if they show aggression first.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Well the cartoons are about the islam being highjacked by extremists, what is wrong about that? If they feel offended, don't say anything and it all will blow over in a few days. It wasn't even the intention of the cartoonists to insult muslims or anything so why we prevent these cartoons to be published. |
Yes, that's all true. (Although, there is one other aspect, besides just showing the corruption of Islam by extremists, that motivated the publication. The newspaper editors were upset that Danish newspapers were censoring themselves, that they were too afraid to criticize Islam or anything to do with it - including extremism - because they were afraid of the response from offended Muslims. So they went out and specifically asked for cartoons that were critical of Islamic extremism, and published them all together for two reasons. One, as you say, to criticise the hijacking of Islam by extremists. Two, to assert their right to criticise Islam - to assert their right to free speech and that they should not be afraid to publish the truth, even if it offends. Later republications, of course, are more about reason two.)
But what if the cartoons were intended to make fun of Islam itself? Would that change anything? If the cartoons had been intended to make fun of Mohammed - and not make any other message - would the protesters be right to say they should not have been published?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Hmm the cartoons "stated" that islam had been highjacked by extremists and suicide bombers. It was against fundamentalists... |
Err...No. They didn't have extremists dressed in funny turbans with bombs strapped to their heads, they had Muhammed dressed in a funny turban with a bomb strapped to his head. Muhammed is a figure representing Islam, extremists aren't. If you're insulting Muhammed, you're insulting Islam, just like if you're insulting Jesus you're insulting Christianity (though nowadays 99% of Christianity isn't from Jesus).. |
^_^; You're not really big on symbolism and representation, are you? Let me see if i can draw this out in detail.
If you wanted to represent Islam being corrupted by violent extremists you would take a symbol of Islam and show it being corrupted by a symbol of violent extremists. Follow? Now, what is a symbol of Islam? Mohammed. What is a symbol of violent extremists? A bomb works. Still following? Therefore, if you take an image of Mohammed, and show it being corrupted in some way by the image of a bomb... you're still with me, right?... you are creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence.
Which is what the Danish cartoonist that drew that image did.
If you drew a picture of an extremist with a bomb on his head... what exactly do you think that would say? Because you have removed all mention of Islam - you took out Mohammed - so how exactly is that supposed to depict the religion being corrupted?
Incidentally, if you wanted to depict Christianity being corrupted by... oh, let's say consumerism... you would take a symbol of Christianity - Jesus is a good one - and show it being corrupted by a symbol of consumerism - a pile of shopping bags works. The result:
Another example - a painting by Robert Cenedella.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me. |
Muhhamad need not be a great figure in European countries as Islam has always caused trouble and bloodshed in Europe. Secondly the cartoons did not depict Muhhammad in a bad way, the objection was muhhamad can not be depicted in any visible form.
If muhhammad did exist he must have had a face and anybody has a right to imagine it and put it on a paper.
If you dont publish them they will think you are scared and you will weaken the foundations over whish Denmark is built. Democracy and Freedom of speech. | truespeed wrote: |
Another example - a painting by Robert Cenedella.
|
I particularly dont see anything wrong with the cartoons of jesus either. I dont see how it insults a Christian. | akshar wrote: |
| Lord Klorel wrote: | ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me. |
Muhhamad need not be a great figure in European countries as Islam has always caused trouble and bloodshed in Europe. Secondly the cartoons did not depict Muhhammad in a bad way, the objection was muhhamad can not be depicted in any visible form.
If muhhammad did exist he must have had a face and anybody has a right to imagine it and put it on a paper.
If you dont publish them they will think you are scared and you will weaken the foundations over whish Denmark is built. Democracy and Freedom of speech. |
While I'm not going to get into the debate again on the cartoon topic, I will say the bolded part goes both ways. Europe (and the Western world in general) had its fair share of bloody runs in the Middle East.@liljp617
It might be true the other way than I would say a muslim cartoonist has a right to draw similar cartoon about jesus Christ as well.
Come to India and you will see that the Famous Artist from India Hussein has drawn nude potraits of all HIndu Gods and godesses having incestous sex etc etc
My Islamic rule Hussein should be burnt alive than..
| akshar wrote: |
@liljp617
It might be true the other way than I would say a muslim cartoonist has a right to draw similar cartoon about jesus Christ as well.
Come to India and you will see that the Famous Artist from India Hussein has drawn nude potraits of all HIndu Gods and godesses having incestous sex etc etc
My Islamic rule Hussein should be burnt alive than.. |
I don't think muslims are allowed to draw Jesus either. I think he was a prophet or something. | catscratches wrote: |
| I don't think muslims are allowed to draw Jesus either. I think he was a prophet or something. |
Yeah, so was Moses, David, Solomon, Adam, Noah, etc. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | I don't think muslims are allowed to draw Jesus either. I think he was a prophet or something. |
Yeah, so was Moses, David, Solomon, Adam, Noah, etc. |
So why don't you write something about some jewish devine spirit/prophet etc.? People aren't allowed to paint him. Why don't you do that? Instead of that some extremists try to kill some people. | akshar wrote: |
@liljp617
It might be true the other way than I would say a muslim cartoonist has a right to draw similar cartoon about jesus Christ as well.
Come to India and you will see that the Famous Artist from India Hussein has drawn nude potraits of all HIndu Gods and godesses having incestous sex etc etc
My Islamic rule Hussein should be burnt alive than.. |
I don't care about cartoons. I was merely responding to your point that Islam has caused a lot of violence and bloodshed in Europe. Europe isn't all that innocent in the Middle East either was the purpose behind the post. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | | I don't think muslims are allowed to draw Jesus either. I think he was a prophet or something. |
Yeah, so was Moses, David, Solomon, Adam, Noah, etc. |
So why don't you write something about some jewish devine spirit/prophet etc.? People aren't allowed to paint him. Why don't you do that? Instead of that some extremists try to kill some people. |
i don't really think tit for tat is the most mature way to deal with the situation. ^_^;
First, clearly every Muslim that protested or that supported the protesters needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that non-Muslim Danish cartoonists are not required to follow Muslim rules. i mean... seriously, duh.
But many questions remain that deserve discussion. What is the appropriate response for a devout Muslim when they see something sacrilegious? As absurd as their protest is, is it actually the right thing for them to do (many religions require absurd things from their followers, after all) given the actions of Jyllands-Posten (and everyone else that reprinted the cartoons)? i mean, hell, it beats going on a killing spree, which is perfectly allowed within the bounds of the religion. i've already outlined why the protests are illogical, and why they make absolutely no sense (and are even wrong) from a secular sense... but let's look at it from a Muslim point of view. What would Brian Boitano do... if he were devoutly Muslim? Clearly these cartoons were offensive to Muslims - even some of the Muslims on Frihost were offended - and if the prohibition against making images of Mohammed is strictly textual (is it?) then they have every right to be. So... what should they do? What is the textual response required (that is, what does the Qur'an or Hadith say they should do)? And what do modern, progressive Muslims believe? Does any of it make sense from an Islamic (non-secular) perspective?@ above indi
True not really mauture, but they have to do something.
I faguely remember a southpark episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0BGwPHvskI
I think they should pay more attention to free speech etc. maybe they can learn something. And also protesting against something only will caused that it will be published around the world. | Indi wrote: |
| Arnie wrote: | Then read Bondings' post above and stop snapping at the bait. You could've done that a long time ago, instead of... | Bikerman wrote: | | My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters. |
| Indi wrote: | | i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in. |
By the way... | Quote: | | they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! |
We've got some of those here ourselves... |
i still don't know - or care - who "Billy Hill" is. i also don't know - or care - why you or Bondings think he is so important. |
Billy Hill is a banned user who, after being banned, registered another account (BigMo) to stir things up on these forums. I don't think he is important, he is simply a troll.
For your information also, Billy Hill is not a muslim, but most likely a conservative American who does not like muslims. He made the post appear like being made by a muslim to stir things up, like previously mentioned.
That of course doesn't mean that this topic isn't interesting or that the discussion should stop. | Bondings wrote: |
Billy Hill is a banned user who, after being banned, registered another account (BigMo) to stir things up on these forums. I don't think he is important, he is simply a troll.
For your information also, Billy Hill is not a muslim, but most likely a conservative American who does not like muslims. He made the post appear like being made by a muslim to stir things up, like previously mentioned.
That of course doesn't mean that this topic isn't interesting or that the discussion should stop. |
Billy hill was one of the "less pleasant" people, I remember him...
But i agree this topic is a good topic so we should continue. Can we go back on topic again?I got him banned
Serve him right, innit. Well, it was too long for me to read all your talking guys, so I'll cut it short and jump right to my point.
I'm a Muslim and I see that there's no harm will be caused to Prophet mohammed if some paintings, pictures, images, etc were published about him making fun of him or insulting him. For me, Prophet Mohammed is a pure human sent by God to guide mankind to peace and heaven in the after life. A man at this level with the almighty God is completely safe and saved by God himself.
What really drive me crazy is publishing wrong and false information about Prophet Mohammed and even misleading for the purpose of driving people to hate Islam and nothing more.
Another point, It drives me crazy to insult him but I know that he is protected and it won't degrade him. But it never means that I or any good and understanding muslim of Islam will kill or harm anyone in its name.
Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!
It is that to me...
| TrueFact wrote: |
Well, it was too long for me to read all your talking guys, so I'll cut it short and jump right to my point.
I'm a Muslim and I see that there's no harm will be caused to Prophet mohammed if some paintings, pictures, images, etc were published about him making fun of him or insulting him. For me, Prophet Mohammed is a pure human sent by God to guide mankind to peace and heaven in the after life. A man at this level with the almighty God is completely safe and saved by God himself. |
Well, that would seem to be a perfectly reasonable stance. | Quote: |
| What really drive me crazy is publishing wrong and false information about Prophet Mohammed and even misleading for the purpose of driving people to hate Islam and nothing more. |
Not very nice, it's true. Unfortunately free speech means allowing this sort of behaviour unless it is specific incitement. In this specific case it wasn't | Quote: |
| Another point, It drives me crazy to insult him but I know that he is protected and it won't degrade him. But it never means that I or any good and understanding muslim of Islam will kill or harm anyone in its name. |
Unfortunately that is only your opinion. There are many people who think differently. They are, of course, a very small minority but, to them, it is probably you who are a bad Muslim and them who are the 'real' Muslims. Islam is not, of course, unique in this. Christianity has been schisming for centuries and different sects have been killing each other for as long.I think people should take sentiments into considerations when doing such things
But I don't know why should someone be offended by cartoons
But in this case a an attack was perpetrated in Karachi
and lives were lost
hence these cartoon authors no matter what the status of free thought in their mind should refrain as there is more loss that gain at least in terms of human lives
Al-Qaida: We bombed embassy over cartoons http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11631196/
A Web posting late Wednesday purportedly by al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the suicide attack against Denmark's Embassy in Pakistan that left six people dead.
The statement said Monday's bombing in Islamabad was carried out to fulfill the promise of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to exact revenge over the reprinting in Danish papers of a cartoon of Islam's Prophet Muhammad. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24976215/ | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I think people should take sentiments into considerations when doing such things But I don't know why should someone be offended by cartoons
But in this case a an attack was perpetrated in Karachi
and lives were lost hence these cartoon authors no matter what the status of free thought in their mind should refrain as there is more loss that gain at least in terms of human lives |
So if someone takes lives, or threatens to do so, then free speech must be curtailed? I think not. Free speech is not a simple profit-loss account and to treat it as such is reprehensible.I agree entirely with you that free speech is important
But by not publishing such cartoons if the author thinks that he has saved a few innocent lives
then I guess there is no harm from refraining from publishing these cartoons
Actually I and definitely think human life is more valuable than free speech
I agree the authors have put their own lives in jeopardy but they cannot go on and put others lives and that too innocent lives
What did the author of the cartoon gain by publishing them
can you answer that
what is the motivation to publish these cartoons
will they continue to do so if the lives of their near and dear ones are endangered
actually they are least bothered about lives in Karachi ( innocent lives)
can you give an answer to that
Please get this straight that FREE SPEECH is important and it should not be impinged upon I agree to that
I am not talking about curtailment I am talking about restraint and refrainment they are too entirely different things
Simply consider this scenario
you have the choice to speak anything freely
But you are warned that the consequences of the speech will take lives 1000s of miles away from where you are
will you head to the warning and show restraint or will you say that no matter where lives are lost I have the right to free speech
actually by not making the free speech you do not forfeit the rights of free speech but you actually show a mature behavior where yo value lives more than free speech
THere is an example of here in India
MF Hussain painted a Hindu female God nude there was hue and cry by fundamentalist
I thought MF did no wrong course I believe in free expression
But MF thought of just drawing a portrait of Mohammad he receive threats on his life and he did not do so
Actually he is a coward he withdrew because he valued his life more than free speech
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
actually by not making the free speech you do not forfeit the rights of free speech |
Yes, you do.
If no one ever does anything cause they'll get threatened to their lives, then it's not free speech.
If it is, then there was free speech in the Soviet union as well. You could publish anything you wanted, you would just get threatened to your life and eventually killed. Still free speech, no? | catscratches wrote: |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
actually by not making the free speech you do not forfeit the rights of free speech |
Yes, you do.
If no one ever does anything cause they'll get threatened to their lives, then it's not free speech.
If it is, then there was free speech in the Soviet union as well. You could publish anything you wanted, you would just get threatened to your life and eventually killed. Still free speech, no? |
All true - and then there's the practical question. If you let threats silence you from saying something that you felt needed to be said, then all anyone would have to do to control all speech is make some nasty threats.
i mean, come on, how can anyone seriously argue for silence in the face of threats of violence? That's victim mentality, like the people who don't report crimes by gangs because they fear retribution - which, naturally, only allows for more crimes, and more threats, and so on. The cycle doesn't end until people start speaking out and stop living in fear. Giving into threats like that doesn't solve anything. It only creates more threats, and gives the people evil enough to make those threats a free hand.
The Danish cartoons are a perfect example of this. They were originally commissioned and published because the editors believed that newspapers were being pressured not to publish criticisms of Islam. They published those cartoons to send a message: "we are not going to be silenced by fear". To censor that message because of fear is not only hypocritical... it's bloody absurd.
And to blame them for the deaths that resulted from their choice is as evil and ass-backwards as blaming a rape victim for the rape. Seriously, who is the criminal in this scenario: a person going to report a company for illegally dumping hazardous chemicals is told that if they go to the police, some random stranger will be killed - but they report them anyway. i think it's pretty damn clear who is in the wrong here, and there is no grey area about it. | Indi wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
actually by not making the free speech you do not forfeit the rights of free speech |
Yes, you do.
If no one ever does anything cause they'll get threatened to their lives, then it's not free speech.
If it is, then there was free speech in the Soviet union as well. You could publish anything you wanted, you would just get threatened to your life and eventually killed. Still free speech, no? |
All true - and then there's the practical question. If you let threats silence you from saying something that you felt needed to be said, then all anyone would have to do to control all speech is make some nasty threats.
i mean, come on, how can anyone seriously argue for silence in the face of threats of violence? That's victim mentality, like the people who don't report crimes by gangs because they fear retribution - which, naturally, only allows for more crimes, and more threats, and so on. The cycle doesn't end until people start speaking out and stop living in fear. Giving into threats like that doesn't solve anything. It only creates more threats, and gives the people evil enough to make those threats a free hand.
The Danish cartoons are a perfect example of this. They were originally commissioned and published because the editors believed that newspapers were being pressured not to publish criticisms of Islam. They published those cartoons to send a message: "we are not going to be silenced by fear". To censor that message because of fear is not only hypocritical... it's bloody absurd.
And to blame them for the deaths that resulted from their choice is as evil and ass-backwards as blaming a rape victim for the rape. Seriously, who is the criminal in this scenario: a person going to report a company for illegally dumping hazardous chemicals is told that if they go to the police, some random stranger will be killed - but they report them anyway. i think it's pretty damn clear who is in the wrong here, and there is no grey area about it. |
I am NOT blaming the cartoonist for the deaths
but actually talking about restraint in freedom of speech at times restraint should be excersied if it is for the good
and the rape and hazard example is a poor analogy if not an absurd one
In rape it is an act of crime as is in hazard where peoples life is in danger
but not ( restraint from ) publishing the cartoon is not a crime there you see the analogy is pretty poor I bet for arguments sake one can get better analogies | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
and the rape and hazard example is a poor analogy if not an absurd one
In rape it is an act of crime as is in hazard where peoples life is in danger
but not ( restraint from ) publishing the cartoon is not a crime there you see the analogy is pretty poor I bet for arguments sake one can get better analogies |
You miss the point (again!).
Not reporting a rape is not a crime. Not reporting a company which dumps chemicals is not a crime. Not offending muslim terrorists is not a crime.
Rape is a crime, dumping toxic chemicals is a crime, terrorism is a crime.
Should we therefore not report rape, not report the company and not offend the terrorists? Or should we take a stand and report the rape, report the company and report the terrorists?
The cartoons were one way of drawing attention to terrorism - satire is often used in this manner. They were NOT an attack on Muslims, they WERE an attack on those Muslim terrorists who threaten freedom of speech.
If you report a gang-land criminal then you might reasonably fear reprisals for you, your family and your associates. Does that mean it is wrong to do so?
No it damn well doesn't. | Bikerman wrote: |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: | and the rape and hazard example is a poor analogy if not an absurd one
In rape it is an act of crime as is in hazard where peoples life is in danger
but not ( restraint from ) publishing the cartoon is not a crime there you see the analogy is pretty poor I bet for arguments sake one can get better analogies |
You miss the point (again!).
Not reporting a rape is not a crime. Not reporting a company which dumps chemicals is not a crime. Not offending muslim terrorists is not a crime.
Rape is a crime, dumping toxic chemicals is a crime, terrorism is a crime.
Should we therefore not report rape, not report the company and not offend the terrorists? Or should we take a stand and report the rape, report the company and report the terrorists?
The cartoons were one way of drawing attention to terrorism - satire is often used in this manner. They were NOT an attack on Muslims, they WERE an attack on those Muslim terrorists who threaten freedom of speech.
If you report a gang-land criminal then you might reasonably fear reprisals for you, your family and your associates. Does that mean it is wrong to do so?
No it damn well doesn't. |
You having been missing my point right through
I am actually asking the difference between restraint and refrainment as against curtailment
is making cartoons of mohhamad equivalent to reporting the terrorists ?
please do explain!?
Again I am not saying it is (If you report a gang-land criminal then you might reasonably fear reprisals for you, your family and your associates. Does that mean it is wrong to do so?) wrong
I have been asking the same thing in my previous posts
What is the valued of excersiing restraint
Quote "If you report a gang-land criminal then you might reasonably fear reprisals for you, your family and your associates. Does that mean it is wrong to do so?
No it damn well doesn't"
I entirely agree that is not wrong to do so
but imagine that the threat starts to come true only here that it is not someone near to you
and imagine if you have four associates and three gets killed will you continue to report or will you take an alternative method so that your objective of reporting is fullfilled and the fouth associte is also free
actually that would be equivalent to exterminating the Mus terrosists
1. By not reporting ( by excersing restraint)the rape you actually commit a crime ( Figurative ) ( agreed)
2. By not reporting the ( by excersing restraint) harzard you again commit a crime ( Figurative )( agreed)
3. By not drawing a cartoon of Mohamod do you commit a crime or
you are actually fueling the ego by drawing mahamood and setting a chain of provocation
But I must agree that the cartoonist can always say that I did not ask you to see the cartoon
because logic says that If the muslims do not want to see the face of Moha then simply close their eyes and ignore the drawings
But we all know that a percentage of raving mad fundas
actually it is all one big vicious circle
Believe me I am the first guy who says why the F*^k should you care if I draw something in the cartoon just don't see that if you don't like it
but a larger sense of responsibility should be shouldered by someone
Here is the issue is more than simple crime reporting and abbeting or ignoring a crime
The cartoom reappersed just to counter the death threat on the cartoonist but
the cartoonist is covered by security and is safe
but the cartoonist's action is triggereing mindless killing a few 1000 kms away
that actually pains me
it is my emotional responseI don't think you really have a point.
Yes, the cartoons ARE reportage - reporting something means bringing it to public attention.
By not speaking out against terrorism you are not committing a crime - you are behaving in a craven and cowardly manner, but not criminal.
Restraint is not the issue. If I see a gangland killing then should I restrain myself or should I speak out?
Just because criminal lunatics don't like the truth does not mean you don't tell the truth.
If you are a politician or a diplomat then you have certain responsibilities - that would include seeking consensus and not 'inflaming' situations.
If you are a reporter/editor you (should) have the responsibility to tell it as you see it. If you are a cartoonist you draw cartoons.
Don't tell me the cartoonists are 'safe'. Remember Salman Rushdie? When will he be 'safe'?
Anyway - I'm not really interested in your 'emotional response'. I've said all I wish to say on the matter.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I don't think you really have a point.
Yes, the cartoons ARE reportage - reporting something means bringing it to public attention.
By not speaking out against terrorism you are not committing a crime - you are behaving in a craven and cowardly manner, but not criminal.
Restraint is not the issue. If I see a gangland killing then should I restrain myself or should I speak out?
Just because criminal lunatics don't like the truth does not mean you don't tell the truth.
If you are a politician or a diplomat then you have certain responsibilities - that would include seeking consensus and not 'inflaming' situations.
If you are a reporter/editor you (should) have the responsibility to tell it as you see it. If you are a cartoonist you draw cartoons.
Don't tell me the cartoonists are 'safe'. Remember Salman Rushdie? When will he be 'safe'?
Anyway - I'm not really interested in your 'emotional response'. I've said all I wish to say on the matter. |
Actually I don't think you will ever get the point
Please answer this
Is drawing a cartoon of Mohammad called fighting against terrorism Quote"By not speaking out against terrorism you are not committing a crime - you are behaving in a craven and cowardly manner, but not criminal" unquote" Do you meant that drawing cartoons is speaking against terrosim
or is it just a satire
I actually I care less what you are interested in ('m not really interested in your 'emotional response'. I've said all I wish to say on the matter) I cant always say what you are interested in remember this a public forum!Is exercing restraint from drawing the same cowardliness
Consider this
The Cartoonist saying these two different versions 1. I don't care how many people die because of my cartoon I have the right to exercise me freedom of expression I have all the security I need I don't care if innocent people in Karachi don't have security
2. I am pained that my cartoon in which I only excersied my freedom of expresion has led ot mindless killings far away although I am protected here I think Human lives are more important than just freedom of expression hence I will refrain from indulging in such an excersice
but this does not mean that I a coward
which of the above statements is statesman like
what do you all think freedom of expression is all about
it is about human values
if a cartoon to make a few laugh is going to be the cause of death of several people
don't you all think that human value should prevail
Denmark if it hates terrorists
It can always send an army to fight them
or at least send money and medicine to help those who have been affected by terrorists
Remember this historical event
Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";
But the Truth prevailed
Galileo was not a coward he did see others being burnt at stake
It is just that some people in the present time ( funda Muslims) are still thinking like the Popes of that era
They will learn or they will loose
History tells us
so why not stop cartoons and actually fight them the terorrists
Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem is still amazingly current these days...
| Quote: |
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up. |
edited
Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
If one does a careful study of the media and the press in the West, and the kind of journalism that people feed off every day, I have to ask, how free is the freedom of the press in the West really? If freedom of press is something that is paid for and dictated by Editorial Boards and Election Campaigns as is custom in the Western world how free can it really be? I find the more money that is exchanged with regard to reporting and writing of articles, the less free the press could ever be. Amazing that the West puts such a high premium on science, however reporting in the press can border on the rediculous, with statistical errors and nonsense stories. Feed the masses with what they need to know in order to control their behaviour, and YES I include here advertising campaigns AND cartoons, how free can freedom of press really be in the West?
| deanhills wrote: |
| If one does a careful study of the media and the press in the West, and the kind of journalism that people feed off every day, I have to ask, how free is the freedom of the press in the West really? If freedom of press is something that is paid for and dictated by Editorial Boards and Election Campaigns as is custom in the Western world how free can it really be? I find the more money that is exchanged with regard to reporting and writing of articles, the less free the press could ever be. Amazing that the West puts such a high premium on science, however reporting in the press can border on the rediculous, with statistical errors and nonsense stories. Feed the masses with what they need to know in order to control their behaviour, and YES I include here advertising campaigns AND cartoons, how free can freedom of press really be in the West? |
It does not necessarily follow that because people get paid to print the news that the news is biased. It doesn't even follow that just because a media outlet is owned by the government that that media outlet will be biased. It does not matter who pays a journalist's cheque. It matters who edits the paper's content. Or to put it another way, even if Fox is owned by News Corp, there is no reason to assume that Fox is biased toward News Corp - as long as News Corp does not dictate the editing policy (directly or indirectly), Fox's editors are free to say what they like about News Corp.
Of course, in practice there will always be some pressure on the media, direct or indirect, and nothing can stop that anywhere, ever. It's a fact of life. But the neat thing about the press is that it only takes a very, very small group of honest people to break a story (it can be as little as one person, although typically it will be two - a reporter and an editor), and that the cultural climate of journalism is to reward people that break big stories, even if (sometimes even especially if) those stories really put egg on the faces of the people in power, or the owners of the media.
The Jyllands-Posten case is an excellent study. The editors at Jyllands-Posten believed that there was an indirect pressure on media in Denmark to avoid associating terrorism with Islam. They believed that out of fear of reprisal editors were avoiding making that connection, even though - in the eyes of Jyllands-Posten's editors - it was something that needed to be discussed (for example, you cannot hope to make a serious effort toward curing or even understanding HIV without talking about the link between HIV and promiscuous behaviour - similarly, they believed you cannot hope to end or even understand Middle-Eastern terrorism without talking about the link between it and Islam). Now, if the press operated the way you are implying they do, nothing would have ever been done. But, of course, all it took was a very small group of courageous people... a couple of editors and the contributing cartoonists... and lo, the story broke.
And that's the way it's always going to work. There will always be interests pressuring the media to control what gets printed, and there will always be small groups of people who are brave enough to flip them off and do what they feel is right (and, those people will always be rewarded for their bravery - those Jyllands-Posten editors are probably never going to hurt for work in journalism again for the rest of their lives).
What you are asking for is a stable system of free press, where freedom is always free, and there are never any pressures or problems. i don't see that as ever being possible. What we have is a very unstable system, where there are pressures against free press, and pressures for. As long as the system remains unstable, the truth will out eventually - maybe not as quickly or cleanly as it would in a stable free system, but eventually. It may not be as perfect as a stable free system, but it's certainly not even close to being a stable non-free system (which is what dictators want). In the system as it exists maybe there is a lot of fluff, and a lot of noise made over things that don't really matter while really major issues are underplayed... but as the saying goes, the truth is out there, if you care enough to look for it. It's not perfect, but it's good enough.
(Incidentally... "... the West puts such a high premium on science..."??? ^_^; No. Just... no. ^_^; Not even close. The West has little to no interest in science, except when it's really cool, or really controversial. See for yourself. Stop ten random people on the street and ask where stem cells come from... and remember, stem cells are a hot button issue. They won't have a clue. ^_^)Am I the only one who thinks that rioting over cartoons is the only rediculous thing here?
Thanks Indi ... Enjoyed reading your reply to my "freedom of the press" point of view.
I really do not trust what I read in the newspapers. When there is a very important story breaking with statistics I usually check a number of news reports to get the facts that look the same. Such as when Lady Di passed away.
Think I have given up on the press. Much nicer to look at good movies.
What are stem cells and why are they a hot button issue? 
| Quote: |
| Am I the only one who thinks that rioting over cartoons is the only rediculous thing here? |
I think I would not describe the rioting as rediculous. Rather very sad. Possibly there is much more to the rioting than the cartoon justified and the cartoon was just the catalyst to give permission to those that want to riot to riot. I feel sorry for the cartoonist. Must be a heavy responsibility to carry. | Bikerman wrote: |
| The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
"Tough"? Really?
I don't think it's fair that one group of people should suffer because the values of a second group allow for actions which offend that first group.
Ie. in group A nudity is taboo, and not allowed to be printed in popular press. Group B however is the large scale equivilant of a nudist colony, whereby it is acceptable to print nude pictures of people without their permission. Is it okay for group B to print nude pictures of members or icons of group A?
From my point of view no, group B should limit their behaviour regarding group A as per A's moral/social/etc limitations. I mean, group B may have no concept of clothes or how on earth people could see each other's bodies as embarrassing or offensive... but that doesn't change things for group A.
It may seem an extreme... and rather silly... example, but from my own observation having travelled around the Middle East, the depiction of Islamic religious figures is taken more seriously than in any Christian denomination. It is inherently offensive to Muslims on a level whereby one feels exposed.
I don't think that because we can tolerate the figural representation of "our" religious icons in the media, we can tell another culture that is offended to suck it up.
Hmmm...
=> Jess | blackheart wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
I don't think it's fair that one group of people should suffer because the values of an second group allow for actions which offend that first group. |
Well I disagree. What is to stop ANY group making ridiculous demands on the grounds they might be offended? There are various Christian sects with outrageous (by my standards) beliefs. Should I avoid mentioning evolution because creationists find it offensive? Or should I be able to demand that creationist propoganda be banned because I find it offensive (and I do!) ?
| Quote: |
| Ie. in group A nudity is taboo, and not allowed to be printed in popular press. Group B however is the large scale equivilant of a nudist colony, whereby it is acceptable to print nude pictures of people without their permission. Is it okay for group B to print nude pictures of members or icons of group A? |
Bad example. If nudity is taboo in group A then how would group B get nude pictures of them? If group B want to publish nude pictures of themselves then they should be allowed to - what the hell business of Group A is it? If group B obtained nude pictures of group A without their consent then that would presumably involve trespassing on their private property - something covered already by the law.
| Quote: |
| From my point of view no, group B should limit their behaviour regarding group A as per A's moral/social/etc limitations. I mean, group B may have no concept of clothes or how on earth people could see each other's body's as embarrassing or offensive... but that doesn't change things for group A. |
What happens when group A have a taboo which says that women should all wear a headscarf ? Does that mean that group B must also require their women to do so? Of course not. When you visit a country then you abide by the laws and customs of that country (unless you are a complete idiot). What we do in our own countries is decided by our own laws and customs and if other countries don't like it - tough!
| Quote: |
| It may seem an extreme... and rather silly... example, but from my own observation having travelled around the Middle East, the depiction of Islamic religious figures is taken more seriously than in any Christian denomination. It is inherently offensive to Muslims on a level whereby one feels exposed. |
Don't care. If they don't like it then they can choose to ignore it, ban it in their own countries or hold peaceful protests (boycot the paper or whatever). All those are reasonable measures. | Quote: |
| I don't think that because we can tolerate the figural representation of our religious icons in the media, we can tell another culture that is offended to suck it up. |
Well I do - in fact I insist that we can. What is published in a western democracy should NOT be limited by what might cause offense. That is how censorship starts. I presume you would have banned the Satanic Verses by Rushdie because Muslims were offended? I presume you would ban 'The Life of Brian' because Christians were offended? Where would you stop? | Bikerman wrote: |
| blackheart wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
I don't think it's fair that one group of people should suffer because the values of an second group allow for actions which offend that first group. |
Well I disagree. What is to stop ANY group making ridiculous demands on the grounds they might be offended? There are various Christian sects with outrageous (by my standards) beliefs. Should I avoid mentioning evolution because creationists find it offensive? Or should I be able to demand that creationist propoganda be banned because I find it offensive (and I do!) ?
|
Evolution is a theoretical belief, which although contradicting some excerpts of religious doctrine is not in itself prohibitted by the religion itself.
Beyond that it is inherently forbidden by the faith, the visual depiction of the prophet is to the Islamic community as urinating in holy water would be to the Christian community. It is inherently beyond reproach. You just don't do it.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Ie. in group A nudity is taboo, and not allowed to be printed in popular press. Group B however is the large scale equivilant of a nudist colony, whereby it is acceptable to print nude pictures of people without their permission. Is it okay for group B to print nude pictures of members or icons of group A? |
Bad example. If nudity is taboo in group A then how would group B get nude pictures of them? If group B want to publish nude pictures of themselves then they should be allowed to - what the hell business of Group A is it? If group B obtained nude pictures of group A without their consent then that would presumably involve trespassing on their private property - something covered already by the law.
|
Let's say group A is reflective of our western society, and the pictures were taken of women sunbaking (topless) on a beach. Or group B could perhaps draw satyrical charicatures of respectable members of group A naked.
Another example could be how men are taken on tours in India to tourist beaches marketed in such a way which encourage that they can take pictures of Western women sunbaking topless. Although the women may not be that bright to be sunbaking topless in India (IMO disrespecting local culture), should these men be allowed to upload this pictures to the internet that the women may not even be aware were taken? What about in Japan where reality shows frequently place spycams in toilet to record their stunts - I'd sure as hell protest if a clip of me urinating before being jetesoned pantless out of my cubicle were aired.
Or take it as a moot point. There may be physical or legal limitations on means of obtaining nude pictures of group A, however the issue in this real circumstance is that there aren't tangible limitations on visual representation of the prophet. Anyone can pick up and pen and draw him.
So should there not be a moral limitation? If there were a legal (loophole?) means of group B obtaining pictures of group A wouldn't you hope that similar moral limitations would apply to their conduct?
Also, I never said group B shouldn't print pictures of themselves.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | From my point of view no, group B should limit their behaviour regarding group A as per A's moral/social/etc limitations. I mean, group B may have no concept of clothes or how on earth people could see each other's body's as embarrassing or offensive... but that doesn't change things for group A. |
What happens when group A have a taboo which says that women should all wear a headscarf ? Does that mean that group B must also require their women to do so? Of course not. When you visit a country then you abide by the laws and customs of that country (unless you are a complete idiot). What we do in our own countries is decided by our own laws and customs and if other countries don't like it - tough!
|
Ah, I see. Poor wording on my part.
"their behaviour regarding group A" - as in, their behaviour directly involving or affecting members of group A... not the behaviour of members of group B in general.
Although... actually, there's a lot of work being done by international (Western) bodies in countries such as India trying to change the cultural values surrounding the role and treatment of women. (Amongst other things).
So what a modern country can do within it's own borders is not finite. (Unless you're North Korea, of course 
).
The issue with press is also that it is not fixed to it's own country, particularly with the advent of the internet no matter what you print it's going to have international audience. I'm pretty sure the UN would step in if the age of consent somewhere were 13, and pictures of said children were being printed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | It may seem an extreme... and rather silly... example, but from my own observation having travelled around the Middle East, the depiction of Islamic religious figures is taken more seriously than in any Christian denomination. It is inherently offensive to Muslims on a level whereby one feels exposed. |
Don't care. If they don't like it then they can choose to ignore it, ban it in their own countries or hold peaceful protests (boycot the paper or whatever). All those are reasonable measures.
|
Hey, I don't support violent protest, I just don't think one can justify reprinting the cartoon. I can't see sufficient need of the cartoons to justify the offence to such a large group of people, and I don't see why one group should have to suffer for another's moral standard.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | I don't think that because we can tolerate the figural representation of our religious icons in the media, we can tell another culture that is offended to suck it up. |
Well I do - in fact I insist that we can. What is published in a western democracy should NOT be limited by what might cause offense. That is how censorship starts. I presume you would have banned the Satanic Verses by Rushdie because Muslims were offended? I presume you would ban 'The Life of Brian' because Christians were offended? Where would you stop? |
This isn't a matter of conceptual insult, the issue with the cartoons isn't even their message - there would be no great issue if the same concept were put into words - as you've said it's the representation of the prophet which is offensive.
In fact, at least in Australia, freedom of speech is not finite. We have freedom of speech on political matters, and cannot act purely to insult. I.e. yes we may make our humorous point about Islam orally or in text, but no we should not print an image of the prophet as it is offensive and not neccessary in making our point.
I suppose if we differ in our interpretation of freedom of speech, I'm not going to be able to swing you my way. but to me at least it's important that one doesn't unneccessarily offend others.
=> JessCant agree more with black!
| blackheart wrote: |
Evolution is a theoretical belief, which although contradicting some excerpts of religious doctrine is not in itself prohibitted by the religion itself.
Beyond that it is inherently forbidden by the faith, the visual depiction of the prophet is to the Islamic community as urinating in holy water would be to the Christian community. It is inherently beyond reproach. You just don't do it. |
Evolution is a carefully chosen analogy.
Although there is no scriptural reference which says evolution is 'evil' or 'prohibited' as a doctrine, there are many Christians who believe it to be so.
Although there is no scriptural reference which says depicting the prophet is evil or prohibited, there are many Muslims who believe it to be so. *
| Quote: |
| Let's say group A is reflective of our western society, and the pictures were taken of women sunbaking (topless) on a beach. Or group B could perhaps draw satyrical charicatures of respectable members of group A naked. |
If you sunbathe naked on a public beach then why should you be upset if someone snaps a piccy of you? You have no right to privacy in such a case and neither should you expect such a right. As for satirical cartoons - what is the problem? This is common practice in the media - have you read any satirical mags recently?
| Quote: |
| Another example could be how men are taken on tours in India to tourist beaches marketed in such a way which encourage that they can take pictures of Western women sunbaking topless. Although the women may not be that bright to be sunbaking topless in India (IMO disrespecting local culture), should these men be allowed to upload this pictures to the internet that the women may not even be aware were taken? |
Same comment as before - if you choose to sunbathe naked in a public place then you have forfeited any right to privacy and I have no sympathy at all. The fact that they are also behaving offensively to local custom merely compounds their complicity and they should have NO option to prevent such pictures being taken and distributed. I see absolutely no issue here.
| Quote: |
| What about in Japan where reality shows frequently place spycams in toilet to record their stunts - I'd sure as hell protest if a clip of me urinating before being jetesoned pantless out of my cubicle were aired. |
I think you will find that Japanese law prohibits any such intrusion. 'Reality Shows' the world over do stupid and offensive things - but only to people who 'sign up'.
| Quote: |
| Or take it as a moot point. There may be physical or legal limitations on means of obtaining nude pictures of group A, however the issue in this real circumstance is that there aren't tangible limitations on visual representation of the prophet. Anyone can pick up and pen and draw him. |
I still don't see your point. Are you saying that cartoonists should be censored? I don't care if Muslims find cartoons of the prophet insulting, just as I don't care if Christians find the Life of Brian insulting. Why should I care? I don't share their beliefs and no damage is being forced upon them. To suggest that restrictions should be placed on perfectly legal actions simply because some group or other finds it offensive is the thin end of the bigotted wedge. | Quote: |
| So should there not be a moral limitation? If there were a legal (loophole?) means of group B obtaining pictures of group A wouldn't you hope that similar moral limitations would apply to their conduct? |
No, why should it? If group A have a taboo on nudity and yet choose to display their naked bodies in public then I call them hypocrites, and I don't give a damn about whether they are photographed or not. If they are photographed in private then a law has been broken and should be enforced. | Quote: |
| So what a modern country can do within it's own borders is not finite. (Unless you're North Korea, of course ). |
I don't understand that sentence. Not finite = infinite... | Quote: |
| The issue with press is also that it is not fixed to it's own country, particularly with the advent of the internet no matter what you print it's going to have international audience. I'm pretty sure the UN would step in if the age of consent somewhere were 13, and pictures of said children were being printed. |
The UN would have no real role in that. I'm sorry to have to break bad news but there are such pictures all over the internet. The age of consent is 12 in some countries but that has little to do with child porn which is produced illegally and is illegal to distribute in all countries I can think of. | Quote: |
| Hey, I don't support violent protest, I just don't think one can justify reprinting the cartoon. I can't see sufficient need of the cartoons to justify the offence to such a large group of people, and I don't see why one group should have to suffer for another's moral standard. |
What has the size of the group got to do with it? Are you suggesting that a smaller group can be insulted with no problems? Printing a cartoon causes no suffering. If idiots and bigots want to cause suffering because they don't like the cartoon then blame the idiots and bigots. You don't support violent protest but you DO support the aims of that protest - to enforce censorship. | Quote: |
| This isn't a matter of conceptual insult, the issue with the cartoons isn't even their message - there would be no great issue if the same concept were put into words - as you've said it's the representation of the prophet which is offensive. |
As I said - tough! | Quote: |
| In fact, at least in Australia, freedom of speech is not finite. We have freedom of speech on political matters, and cannot act purely to insult. I.e. yes we may make our humorous point about Islam orally or in text, but no we should not print an image of the prophet as it is offensive and not neccessary in making our point. |
I think you mean not infinite? I also think you are wrong about your own laws - can you please tell me which law forbids cartoons of the Prophet in Australia? I've spent quite a bit of time there and I know of no such law...
| Quote: |
| I suppose if we differ in our interpretation of freedom of speech, I'm not going to be able to swing you my way. but to me at least it's important that one doesn't unneccessarily offend others. |
I normally don't try to offend for the sake of it - such behaviour is crass. It is not, however, illegal and nor should it be. In the case of the cartoons a particular point was being made and it was legitimate, legal and, I believe, completely justified.
* There are many depictions of Muhammed in Islamic texts and artwork.
For example
I cannot help but agree with Blackheart:
| Quote: |
I suppose if we differ in our interpretation of freedom of speech, I'm not going to be able to swing you my way. but to me at least it's important that one doesn't unneccessarily offend others.
|
There has to be some limits to freedom of speech on the level of not offending others and being decent and polite to your fellow inhabitants of the world. There are certain things that are sacred, so we do not necessarily have to understand why they are sacred, except to respect that they are sacred. The fact that it is sacred should be enough inducement to act with discretion and care of our speech.
For me there are no longer clear-cut boundaries in the world where you can say: "This is how we do it in the West - and tough if you feel offended because you have different beliefs in the East". What is said in a Western city, publicly and reported in the international media, has an effect on everyone. It certainly has an affect on Westerners in the Middle East in the form of embarassment, as whoever did the cartoon, showed very poor judgment. Lack of respect and understanding. Lack of form. | deanhills wrote: |
I cannot help but agree with Blackheart:
| Quote: | I suppose if we differ in our interpretation of freedom of speech, I'm not going to be able to swing you my way. but to me at least it's important that one doesn't unneccessarily offend others.
|
There has to be some limits to freedom of speech on the level of not offending others and being decent and polite to your fellow habitants of the world. There are certain things that are sacred, so we do not necessarily have to understand why they are sacred, except to respect that they are sacred. The fact that it is sacred should be enough inducement to act with discretion and care of our speech. |
So if you think that killing abortion doctors is a sacred duty then I should respect that belief? If you believe that the world was created by the Great Green Arkleseizure then should I respect that belief? Why? Why should I be forced to respect things that I find nonsensical, or even repugnant? You do not enforce respect, you earn it.
What you are describing is being a reasonable, tolerant person. I have no problem with that - I regard myself as such a person. That does not mean that I have to avoid offending on issues I find offensive or immoral, or that I should be silent on things I find nonsensical, propogandist or dangerous. To suggest that the law should enforce such behaviour is misguided.
There seems to be some confusion and some hypocrisy about the issues here.
Is the problem depicting the Prophet? Muhammed was a historical figure. Why should ANY group claim editorial rights to a historical personage? It's also hypocritical since Muhammed is depicted in many Islamic texts and art works (as previously explained). | Bikerman wrote: |
| So if you think that killing abortion doctors is a sacred duty then I should respect that belief? If you believe that the world was created by the Great Green Arkleseizure then should I respect that belief? Why? Why should I be forced to respect things that I find nonsensical, or even repugnant? You do not enforce respect, you earn it. |
So I think the Denmark cartoon so Muhammed were quite offensive and immoral like you find the killing of abortion doctors. If those cartoons are under freedom of speech why should I be forced to respect that? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | So if you think that killing abortion doctors is a sacred duty then I should respect that belief? If you believe that the world was created by the Great Green Arkleseizure then should I respect that belief? Why? Why should I be forced to respect things that I find nonsensical, or even repugnant? You do not enforce respect, you earn it. |
So I think the Denmark cartoon so Muhammed were quite offensive and immoral like you find the killing of abortion doctors. If those cartoons are under freedom of speech why should I be forced to respect that? |
You don't have to respect the cartoons or the cartoonists. You can protest all you like about them. You do so under a banner of freedom of speech and I will support your rights to that freedom. If you don't believe in freedom of speech then that is your problem - the majority do, the law enforces it, and if you don't like it you can lump it. Killing (either abortion doctors or cartoonists) is illegal as well as immoral, so people who kill on religious grounds are common criminals and will be rightly locked-up. People who encourage such behaviour are also criminals and should be prosecuted under incitement law.
This is my whole point - you do not have to respect things you find offensive or nonsensical. You DO have to respect other people's right to hold such beliefs, but that does not mean you cannot speak or protest against such beliefs in a lawful manner. It is symmetrical - it applies equally to all sides be they atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. | blackheart wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
"Tough"? Really?
I don't think it's fair that one group of people should suffer because the values of a second group allow for actions which offend that first group.
Ie. in group A nudity is taboo, and not allowed to be printed in popular press. Group B however is the large scale equivilant of a nudist colony, whereby it is acceptable to print nude pictures of people without their permission. Is it okay for group B to print nude pictures of members or icons of group A?
From my point of view no, group B should limit their behaviour regarding group A as per A's moral/social/etc limitations. I mean, group B may have no concept of clothes or how on earth people could see each other's bodies as embarrassing or offensive... but that doesn't change things for group A.
It may seem an extreme... and rather silly... example, but from my own observation having travelled around the Middle East, the depiction of Islamic religious figures is taken more seriously than in any Christian denomination. It is inherently offensive to Muslims on a level whereby one feels exposed.
I don't think that because we can tolerate the figural representation of "our" religious icons in the media, we can tell another culture that is offended to suck it up.
Hmmm...
=> Jess |
*raises hand*
i'm sorry to butt in, but it seems to me that a key fundamental problem with the above position has been overlooked. A couple of posters have skirted around it - Bikerman, for example, almost hit it exactly, but was aiming at a broader target - but none have pulled it out and stated it clearly and simply.
So i'll try.
blackheart, i am going to attempt to take the core argument of your posting, only i'll word it a little differently. Here goes: you say that it is wrong for members of one culture to act in ways - specifically to say or do things - that would be found offensive by another culture (in this case, it is wrong for (theoretically Protestant Christian) Danes to publish images that Muslims find offensive).
Now, to put it another way... you are quite literally saying that the behaviour of people in one culture should be dictated by another culture's whims.
Here's the problem.
Culture A can tell culture B how to behave (don't publish nude pictures of us). But then... assuming fairness... shouldn't culture B also be able to tell culture A how to behave (take your clothes off... or, at the very least, suck it up and deal with the fact that we want to publish nude pictures of you)?
In other words, you are saying that Muslim culture should dictate how Danish people behave. Alright, if you say so. But then... shouldn't Danish culture also dictate how Muslim people behave?
You see, you think you are being open-minded and fair... but in reality, you are simply favouring one party (in this case, Muslims) over another (Danes). Now, the opposite is also wrong: Danish people dictating policy to Muslims would be equally wrong.
But... that's not what is happening... is it?
Jyllands-Posten is a Danish newspaper, published by Danish people for a Danish audience. If Muslims do not like what this Danish paper prints... tough. Let them read a Muslim paper.
Freedom means being able to control your own destiny (for example, by choosing not to read Jyllands-Posten because they offend you, and reading something that does not offend you instead). It does not mean being able to control other peoples' destiny (for example, Muslims telling Danes what to print). | Indi wrote: |
blackheart, i am going to attempt to take the core argument of your posting, only i'll word it a little differently. Here goes: you say that it is wrong for members of one culture to act in ways - specifically to say or do things - that would be found offensive by another culture (in this case, it is wrong for (theoretically Protestant Christian) Danes to publish images that Muslims find offensive).
|
I don't believe that it's wrong to act in ways that are offensive to another culture in the broadest sense - i.e. I don't think we all need to eat Kosha, start wearing headscarves or covering our shoulders - however I do think it's important not to act in such a way that has a universal affect on that other culture.
I.e. my not wearing a headscarf does not directly affect or impact upon those parts of the world where one must, however in printing an image of the prophet an image has been printed. It's a permanent action that when committed by one entity undermines the efforts of another.
The message itself within the cartoon, although derogative, is not the issue. Even if it were some kind of praiseful propaganda outlining the merits of Islam, the depiction of Muhammad in any form would still have been found offensive.
I'm willing to concede that the whole nude photos thing is a pretty weak attempt at an drawing a comparison, but I found it difficult to identify something on the same level of offence to people.
It could, say, be seen as someone urinating on bibles on a television station in country X, people from a "X" Christian minority then demanding that such actions be stopped, the video then making it onto international television/youtube, and the global Christian community taking offence. I can imagine similar riots following such an action.
But even then, I don't know if urinating on bibles/holy water/etc would still equate to what it means for a bootleg image of the prophet to be printed.
| Quote: |
Now, to put it another way... you are quite literally saying that the behaviour of people in one culture should be dictated by another culture's whims.
Here's the problem.
Culture A can tell culture B how to behave (don't publish nude pictures of us). But then... assuming fairness... shouldn't culture B also be able to tell culture A how to behave (take your clothes off... or, at the very least, suck it up and deal with the fact that we want to publish nude pictures of you)?
|
Ditching the nudity itself, you're thus saying that the right to commit the action would be equal to the right to ask that the action be ommitted? And conversely, one has as little right to commit the act as they do to censor it?
Why is it in the case of the Danish cartoons the right to perform the action is considered greater than that of the right to maintain the non-action?
It's my understanding that if at such a stalemate, nonaction is usually opted for above allowing the action. (i.e. in "I want mum to be cremated/donate her organs/etc" v. "I don't want mum to be cremated/donate her organs/etc", mum's probably going to just get buried the traditional way)
| Quote: |
In other words, you are saying that Muslim culture should dictate how Danish people behave. Alright, if you say so. But then... shouldn't Danish culture also dictate how Muslim people behave?
|
If there were equivilant, justifiable offence to be taken by a Danish person of an action undertaken by an Islamic person, then yes. Although I'm not sure what you could do to offend a country as opposed to a faith (which has outlined doctrine on universal conduct).
| Quote: |
You see, you think you are being open-minded and fair... but in reality, you are simply favouring one party (in this case, Muslims) over another (Danes). Now, the opposite is also wrong: Danish people dictating policy to Muslims would be equally wrong.
But... that's not what is happening... is it?
|
You think policy and law is a reflection of right and wrong in a moral sense? In part, that's even why we have courts - for those instances where what is wrong has not yet been defined in the context of the law.
| Quote: |
Jyllands-Posten is a Danish newspaper, published by Danish people for a Danish audience. If Muslims do not like what this Danish paper prints... tough. Let them read a Muslim paper.
|
Denmark is a country, Islam is a religion. Denmark may be restricted to set borders, however religion is universally applicable.
In fact, from memory, the initial protests against the cartoons were instigated by Danish Islamic organisations, and it was only as the images were printed in a bunch of other countries that it became controversial internationally.
| Quote: |
Freedom means being able to control your own destiny (for example, by choosing not to read Jyllands-Posten because they offend you, and reading something that does not offend you instead). It does not mean being able to control other peoples' destiny (for example, Muslims telling Danes what to print). |
It doesn't matter to Islamic people wether they physically see the cartoon or not, it matters to them that bootleg images of the prophet are being printed at all. They can choose not to read it, however they can't choose to alter the fact that ink set to the form of Mohammad has been irreversibly put to paper.
Perhaps that's why the urinating on Bibles wouldn't equate, because really you'd need an equivilant number of Bibles to the images being printed being urinated on constantly to grasp the same sense of continuous violation of one's core beliefs.
Also, in most countries, an individual does not have infinite freedom, as there are restrictions whereby if the positive public interest in receiving the action is less the negative interest/harm then the action is not allowed.
I said elsewhere that the same message could be put forward in text and it would be just as effective. But I realised that's a moot point as they pitched it as a PR stunt gauging what reaction they'd get for printing the images in the first place?
Which would then indicate they were only intending to provoke?
Should one be free to express onself if that expression is purely to cause harm to another such as to draw a reaction?
I don't see real justification for it myself. It's no better than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"... or "bomb" on a crowded aeroplane...
*Interesting to note, (perhaps more directed at Bikerman?) actions constituting blasphemy are considered a legitimate limitation on the conventional right to freedom of expression in the UK.
Last edited by blackheart on Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:11 pm; edited 4 times in total | Bikerman wrote: |
Not reporting a rape is not a crime. Not reporting a company which dumps chemicals is not a crime. Not offending muslim terrorists is not a crime. |
A bit of a left field point I suppose, but criminal law in at least our countries includes not only acts, but ommissions. In some circumstances, your first two examples would be considered a crime.
I.e. if you knew somebody was raping people, and allowed them to do so by willfully not notifying the authorities, you could be charged with some degree of accessory. | blackheart wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Not reporting a rape is not a crime. Not reporting a company which dumps chemicals is not a crime. Not offending muslim terrorists is not a crime. |
A bit of a left field point I suppose, but criminal law in at least our countries includes not only acts, but ommissions. In some circumstances, your first two examples would be considered a crime.
I.e. if you knew somebody was raping people, and allowed them to do so by willfully not notifying the authorities, you could be charged with some degree of accessory. |
Not reporting a rape is not (necessarily) the same as failing to report a rapist. Most women do not report rapes. They are committing no crime. If you are saying that not reporting a company which dumps chemicals is a crime then please tell me what act that is under.
I'm also waiting for you to back up the following assertion which you made previously | Quote: |
| We have freedom of speech on political matters, and cannot act purely to insult. I.e. yes we may make our humorous point about Islam orally or in text, but no we should not print an image of the prophet as it is offensive and not neccessary in making our point. |
Exactly where is that written in Australian legislation?
You keep repeating that the offence is the depiction of the prophet. As I have pointed out, Muhammed is a historical figure - nobody 'owns' the right to edit history. As I also pointed out Muhammed is pictured in many Islamic texts and art works. Do you see Muslims saying that these are outrages or should be burned? Of course not. Rank hypocrisy - if the image is 'friendly' then it is OK but if not then 'no images should be made'.
You also have not addressed the issue of how this applies to other groups. Should we ban anything that any religious group find offensive? The Life of Brian? The Jerry Springer Opera? The Satanic Verses?
| Quote: |
| *Interesting to note, (perhaps more directed at Bikerman?) actions constituting blasphemy are considered a legitimate limitation on the conventional right to freedom of expression in the UK. |
Yes - a deeply unpopular law which is a hang-over from the past. It is bigotry at its worst (it only applies to the Church of England - no other religion is covered) and there are moves afoot to repeal it. It is actually an excellent example of the sort of nonsense that occurs when you legislate on these matters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm | Quote: |
| So if you think that killing abortion doctors is a sacred duty then I should respect that belief? |
Killing has been a crime for many centuries I believe. And so is rioting. Not only in Denmark. But in all countries of the world. This is a rediculous analogy. There is an enormous difference between killing abortion doctors as a crime and making fun of something that is held deeply sacred in religion. There is no comparison.
| Quote: |
| Why should I be forced to respect things that I find nonsensical, or even repugnant? You do not enforce respect, you earn it. |
I agree. Respect is earned, not deserved or enforced. The cartoon did not earn my respect. It showed lack of education and poor judgment.
| Quote: |
| What you are describing is being a reasonable, tolerant person. I have no problem with that - I regard myself as such a person. That does not mean that I have to avoid offending on issues I find offensive or immoral, or that I should be silent on things I find nonsensical, propogandist or dangerous. To suggest that the law should enforce such behaviour is misguided. |
I did not make a suggestion that there should be a law or that there should be enforcement of the law. When I made the reference to limits of freedom it was not made literally. But along common sense lines. If you do not understand why something is held sacred, then in the interest of respect of others it is best to leave it alone. Maybe your focus is on the rioters. Mine is on all of the peaceloving Muslims of the world who like you and I are tolerant reasonable people. The rioters broke the law and need to be tried for that. The cartoonist may not have broken the law, but as a member of the Western press definitely succeeded to offend millions of peaceloving non-rioting god-fearing Muslims about something that they hold deeply sacred. | deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | | So if you think that killing abortion doctors is a sacred duty then I should respect that belief? |
Killing has been a crime for many centuries I believe. And so is rioting. Not only in Denmark. But in all countries of the world. This is a rediculous analogy. There is an enormous difference between killing abortion doctors as a crime and making fun of something that is held deeply sacred in religion. There is no comparison. |
There is a comparison. I drew an analogy between the beliefs - not the act. One belief is that abortion is murder and that killing is therefore justified in order to save a greater number of lives. Another belief is that depicting the prophet is blasphemy (and under Sharia law the punishment is death). If you respect the second belief then why do you not respect the first?
This is the problem when you talk about 'respecting beliefs'.
| Quote: |
| I agree. Respect is earned, not deserved or enforced. The cartoon did not earn my respect. It showed lack of education and poor judgment. |
I think the people concerned are well educated and I think their judgement was fine. | Quote: |
| I did not make a suggestion that there should be a law or that there should be enforcement of the law. When I made the reference to limits of freedom it was not made literally. But along common sense lines. |
How else do you limit freedom other than by legislation? | Quote: |
| If you do not understand why something is held sacred, then in the interest of respect of others it is best to leave it alone. |
Whereas if you understand but disagree then you should be free to criticise. | Quote: |
| Maybe your focus is on the rioters. Mine is on all of the peaceloving Muslims of the world who like you and I are tolerant reasonable people. The rioters broke the law and need to be tried for that. The cartoonist may not have broken the law, but as a member of the Western press definitely succeeded to offend millions of peaceloving non-rioting god-fearing Muslims about something that they hold deeply sacred. |
No - it goes without saying that the rioters are criminals and should be punished. My point is that the cartoons themselves were/are justified as well as legal - they were making a legitimate and important point. The fact that one group were offended is unfortunate but not a reason for censorship.I didn't respond to this for a time, but the last posts are about free speech so i'll give you my thoughts on it.
I think that free speech is "sacred" you can think everything what you want. If you think that the holocaust was great? Go ahead think it.
I do not respect that view nor do I support it. But I don't go and try to intimidate them.
Since if we are not allowed to picture mohammed anymore what will be the next step? No ridiculing other religions. And then it goes on and on.
| Quote: |
The fact that one group were offended is unfortunate but not a reason for censorship.
|
Who mentioned anything about censorhips or laws? Why should one have a law in order to be considerate to others? Why did the cartoonist draw that specific cartoon? What contribution did it make to any one? Who needed a cartoon like that? What purpose was served? Was it newsworthy? Who benefitted by it? What was the purpose of the cartoon? Free speech? You gotta be kidding me!!!!! | deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | The fact that one group were offended is unfortunate but not a reason for censorship.
|
Who mentioned anything about censorhips or laws? Why should one have a law in order to be considerate to others? Why did the cartoonist draw that specific cartoon? What contribution did it make to any one? Who needed a cartoon like that? What purpose was served? Was it newsworthy? Who benefitted by it? What was the purpose of the cartoon? Free speech? You gotta be kidding me!!!!! |
I would assume the purpose was
A) Comedy
B) (In the case of the reprint) a pure signal that they're not going to back down from some bloodthirsty radicals
C) (In the case of the reprint) They're not going to let the cartoonist continue to get constant death threats and be in hiding without someone standing up for him.
No cartoon in any newspaper is "newsworthy." Hell, 95% of the newspaper isn't newsworthy. | liljp617 wrote: |
| No cartoon in any newspaper is "newsworthy." Hell, 95% of the newspaper isn't newsworthy. |
If the newspaper is deliberately printing something to make a point, how free is freedom of speech in this instance? Is this about freedom of speech at all? | deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | No cartoon in any newspaper is "newsworthy." Hell, 95% of the newspaper isn't newsworthy. |
If the newspaper is deliberately printing something to make a point, how free is freedom of speech in this instance? Is this about freedom of speech at all? |
The cartoons were reprinted solely in the name of freedom of speech to show they wouldn't back down from rioting radicals with death threats. Nor would they allow the cartoonist to hide in fear and take constant death threats alone without any support.
The reprinting of the cartoons has everything to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is generally used to deliberately make a specific point...I don't know what your question means on how free is freedom of speech. It's as free as it ever has been and will be. | blackheart wrote: |
I don't believe that it's wrong to act in ways that are offensive to another culture in the broadest sense - i.e. I don't think we all need to eat Kosha, start wearing headscarves or covering our shoulders - however I do think it's important not to act in such a way that has a universal affect on that other culture.
I.e. my not wearing a headscarf does not directly affect or impact upon those parts of the world where one must, however in printing an image of the prophet an image has been printed. It's a permanent action that when committed by one entity undermines the efforts of another. |
Oh my goodness. ^_^; i can't believe no one else has said anything about this.
i'm not even going to comment on just how silly or cowardly it is until i can get some clarification, because, frankly, it's so weird i can't even wrap my head around it. So explain this idea to me in some more detail. i assume it's ok for a woman in a free, Western society not to cover her face even though it is a huge offence to many Muslims... but it wouldn't be ok for a picture of her to appear in a nationally published paper? While you may not affect the other side of the world by not wearing a headscarf normally, what if you were a movie star in a major, culturally important movie?
(And my personal favourite, from Anna, is: "Does that mean all porn stars should be circumcised?")
| blackheart wrote: |
| The message itself within the cartoon, although derogative, is not the issue. Even if it were some kind of praiseful propaganda outlining the merits of Islam, the depiction of Muhammad in any form would still have been found offensive. |
To some Muslims. Not all. Why do those Muslims get to define the rules for everyone... and not even just all Muslims... everyone?
| blackheart wrote: |
It could, say, be seen as someone urinating on bibles on a television station in country X, people from a "X" Christian minority then demanding that such actions be stopped, the video then making it onto international television/youtube, and the global Christian community taking offence. I can imagine similar riots following such an action.
But even then, I don't know if urinating on bibles/holy water/etc would still equate to what it means for a bootleg image of the prophet to be printed. |
Oh please. ^_^; i can't even fathom what headspace you must be in to not realize now nasty Christianity has been slandered over the years. i mean, where to start? How about heavy metal songs. ^_^; "Jesus ate my beef". Heh.
| blackheart wrote: |
| Ditching the nudity itself, you're thus saying that the right to commit the action would be equal to the right to ask that the action be ommitted? And conversely, one has as little right to commit the act as they do to censor it? |
Possibly? ^_^; i guess. i have no idea what you just said.
What i said was that if Muslims can tell Danes what they can and can't do, why can't Danes tell Muslims? Your answer... when you eventually gave one... is that you don't think Danes deserve to have their concerns be taken as seriously as Muslims, because Danish culture is defined by geography and not by religion.
| blackheart wrote: |
Denmark is a country, Islam is a religion. Denmark may be restricted to set borders, however religion is universally applicable.
In fact, from memory, the initial protests against the cartoons were instigated by Danish Islamic organisations, and it was only as the images were printed in a bunch of other countries that it became controversial internationally. |
*facepalm*
Ok... first of all... Denmark is a country. Danish is a culture. Danish culture not restricted to Denmark. i dare to you find a community of Danes in your area and tell them they're not really Danish because they don't live in Denmark. If i tried that with the Poles here, i'd be shot. i know people who've never even been to Poland, but they still identify with Polish culture, right down to the zrazy. Culture is culture. It is not country. A culture may be isolated within a country, or it may not, and a country may be dominated by a culture, but that does not make the two the same. Even if Denmark were nuked off the planet tomorrow, Danish culture would continue to exist.
Second, a religion is most certainly NOT "universally applicable". It is applicable within members of that religion and no one else. In other words, a religion only applies to its members. i dare you to attempt to make other people to "apply" your religion.
The members of a religion all make up the culture of that religion, which is why i say that in the end all you're doing is telling one culture that their concerns matter less than the other culture's.
| blackheart wrote: |
| It doesn't matter to Islamic people wether they physically see the cartoon or not, it matters to them that bootleg images of the prophet are being printed at all. They can choose not to read it, however they can't choose to alter the fact that ink set to the form of Mohammad has been irreversibly put to paper. |
How melodramatic.
Strip away the poetry and religious indignation and you are saying that no one has the right to say or do things that Muslims don't like, even if Muslims don't see it.
| blackheart wrote: |
| Also, in most countries, an individual does not have infinite freedom, as there are restrictions whereby if the positive public interest in receiving the action is less the negative interest/harm then the action is not allowed. |
Absolutely correct. In free countries speech is restricted in special cases where that speech will cause harm... real harm, that is... as in people dying or starving... not pissy religious types getting their knickers in a knot. Offence is not harm.
However, in free countries speech is also required in special cases where not speaking will cause harm. Dictatorial types often forget that second part.
| blackheart wrote: |
I said elsewhere that the same message could be put forward in text and it would be just as effective. But I realised that's a moot point as they pitched it as a PR stunt gauging what reaction they'd get for printing the images in the first place?
Which would then indicate they were only intending to provoke? |
That lie has been debunked so many times in this thread it is not funny any more. And i tire of hearing it repeated.
You want to know exactly why those cartoons were printed? i will tell you exactly why, in the words of the editors of Jyllands-Posten. Hopefully this will teach you a lesson of what free speech really means, but i doubt it.
See the end of this post.
| blackheart wrote: |
Should one be free to express onself if that expression is purely to cause harm to another such as to draw a reaction?
I don't see real justification for it myself. It's no better than "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"... or "bomb" on a crowded aeroplane... |
i say again. There is real harm, and then there is imaginary harm. Offence is not real harm.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre will likely cause real harm. Calling someone's religion stupid (if that was what was done, which it wasn't) will not.
Now, putting aside your false claim for the moment - that this was done simply to cause a reaction - let's take seriously the question of whether or not those cartoons cause real harm. Well, do they? Seriously, do they? There's a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head. Who dies because of that? Is it calling anyone to hurt anyone else?
Go on. Tell me exactly how this causes really harm, other than pissing off religious nuts (because most Muslims i talked to really couldn't care less - so it must only be the nuts).
-----------
Now, to serious business.
You are not the first person in this thread to try this tactic. Several people have tried to claim that Jyllands-Posten printed these cartoons just to piss Muslims off. That is a bald-faced lie.
How can i prove this? Quite simple.
If you have actually seen these cartoons in their original printing - and it's been reprinted so many times i won't believe you can't find it - then you would have seen that there are 12 cartoons, printed in a ring around a block of text. Look right on the Wikipedia page for the controversy and it's right there in front of you.
What you may not know is what that block of text says.
This translation is not an official translation, but it should suffice. i have added my comments in red.
| Quote: |
Recently comedian Frank Hvam stated that he "dares not take a piss on the Qur'an on TV" (He said he would happily piss on the Bible, but was afraid to piss on the Qur'an.). An illustrator who is going to depict the prophet Mohammed in a children's book wants to appear anonymous. So do West European translators of a collection of essays critical of Islam. A leading art gallery removed a piece of artwork in fear of the reaction from Muslims. During this theatre season, three shows are being staged with bite and satire directed at US president George W. Bush, but there it not one show about Osama bin Laden and his allies. And during a meeting with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen an Imam urged the government to assert its influence on the Danish media, so they will portray a more positive picture of Islam.
The above examples are cause for concern, whether the perceived fear is based on a false premise or not. (That sentence is CRUCIAL!!!) The fact is that it is there, and that it leads to self-censorship. Public space is being intimidated. Artists, authors, illustrators, translators and people from the theatre are giving a wide berth to the most important cultural meeting of our times, the one between Islam and secular, Western society with its roots in Christianity.
Ridicule
Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They are demanding a special position when they insist on special considerations for their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with a temporal democracy and freedom of expression, where you must be ready to tolerate scorn, mockery and ridicule. It is definitely not always sympathetic or nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but it is of minor importance in this context.(The second CRUCIAL point!!!)
Thus it is not by coincidence that people in totalitarian societies end up in prison for telling jokes or depicting dictators in a critical way. As a rule, this happens with reference to it being offending to the feelings of the people. In Denmark it has not come to this point, but the above examples show that we are approaching a slippery ground, where no one can predict where self-censorship will end.
12 illustrators
That is why the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish Illustrators Association to draw Mohammed, as they see him. 12 out of about 40 have replied to our request, and we bring their drawings on this page under their individual names. They are: Arne Sørensen, Poul Erik Poulsen (PEP), Rasmus Sand Høyer, Erik Abild Sørensen, Franz Füchsel, Peder Bundgaard, Bob Katzenelson, Annette Carlsen, Lars Refn (We'll talk about him in a sec. ^_^), Jens Julius Hansen, Claus Seidel and Kurt Westergaard.
Only 25 out of 40 are active, and some of the active illustrators are subject to competition clauses. A few have presented an argument for not wanting to participate, others have referred to their pressing work assignments, while others have not reacted at all. |
There it is.
That - in the words of Flemming Rose, Cultural Editor of Jyllands-Posten - is why the cartoons were printed. Not out of spite. Not to tease Muslims. Not to stir up trouble. But to demonstrate that freedom requires courage.
i would like everyone to note a few things.
First, note that first crucial point. They didn't say that Muslims were terrorists or even bad. What they said was that people were afraid to criticize Islam. AND! They explicitly said that that fear might not be justified. But - they said - that doesn't matter. The fear exists. And that was the problem.
To put it in simple English for those who don't see the implication of that: Jyllands-Posten said that the whole affair had nothing to do with Islam!!! They said that what they were concerned about was people afraid to speak out. It just so happened that the topic people were afraid to speak out on was Islam. In another time, it might have been something else. The topic does not matter. The fear to speak freely does. And this is the first crucial point of the Jyllands-Posten affair.
Second, blackheart, note the second crucial point. Even before the controversy happened, they already knew your "arguments". They were well aware that people would cry foul and say that speech that ridicules should be censored. Only... they recognized it as how dictatorships work.
As they put it, a free culture, with freedom of expression, is not always nice or sympathetic. And they state outright that making fun of other cultures (they just say "religion") for the hell of it ("at any price") is wrong. But... they say... when there is a reason, ridicule must be tolerated for the sake of freedom, it should not be censored for the sake of protecting feelings. And this is the second crucial point of the Jyllands-Posten affair.
In other words, they recognize that some people might be offended by the cartoons, but they feel that their reasons for publishing those cartoons - to show that fear of criticizing Islam is unjustified - was good enough reason to warrant offending people. (It's rather like showing pictures of mutilated corpses to blow the whistle on a genocide. Yes, showing mutilated corpses for the hell of it is a bad thing (it grosses people out, it offends them). But to bring a genocide to light, it is damn well justified.)
There's one more thing i think needs to be dealt with.
i've highlighted one of the names on the list: Lars Refn. If you look at the original cartoons, you will notice in the bottom left-hand corner there is one of what looks like a cheeky Arab boy, showing off something he has written on a chalkboard. What's written on the chalkboard? In Farsi, it says: "JYLLANDS-POSTEN EDITORS ARE A BUNCH OF REACTIONARY SHIT-DISTURBERS."
Let me make what just happened clear. ^_^; Jyllands-Posten said: "You are free to say what you want." And one artist said, "Ok, then i'll say, 'you guys are a bunch of jerks'." AND THEY PRINTED IT! ^_^; (And that is not the only cartoon that has nothing to do with Islam. The one by Bob Katzenelson in the top left is making fun of the fuss, too, as is the one in the middle.) That is what freedom of speech means: freedom to say what you believe, along with the requirement to have to put up with what other people say - even when it makes fun of you. Jyllands-Posten demonstrated their commitment to that ideal admirably.
Some people might argue that Lars Refn (and Bob Katzenelson and Annette Carlsen) are cowards for not speaking out when given the chance... but that's freedom too. They had the right to speak, and the opportunity, and they chose not to. So be it.
But you want to hear something really stupid?
Lars Refn, the one guy out of the twelve who didn't depict Mohammed in any way shape or form - he drew a schoolboy named Mohammed, not the prophet Mohammed - was the first to get death threats.
^_^ | Indi wrote: |
To some Muslims. Not all. Why do those Muslims get to define the rules for everyone... and not even just all Muslims... everyone?
^_^ |
Yes why do they there ever so many cultures and religions and whynot the Mus just and define rules for themselves
| Indi wrote: |
How about heavy metal songs. ^_^; "Jesus ate my beef". Heh.
^_^ |
Oh please Indi you could have just said " How about songs...."
I love heavy metal ... anyway thats OK
I just wonder where do yo get the time to give such elaborate answers
I am just trying to keep my page up | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I just wonder where do yo get the time to give such elaborate answers
I am just trying to keep my page up |
That is so true. Although very well written and thoroughly substantiated can be exhausting to keep up Indy, especially in the middle of the night when my eyes tend to cross over. Is it possible to put a summary at the bottom of the posting or at the top?
Not to take anything away from it, all of it is good and very thorough. All of it much appreciated.What is it that you people have decided
IS it right or wrong to publish cartoons that have reliogios and polituical repercussions
| deanhills wrote: |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: | I just wonder where do yo get the time to give such elaborate answers
I am just trying to keep my page up |
That is so true. Although very well written and thoroughly substantiated can be exhausting to keep up Indy, especially in the middle of the night when my eyes tend to cross over. Is it possible to put a summary at the bottom of the posting or at the top?
Not to take anything away from it, all of it is good and very thorough. All of it much appreciated. |
The first part was me lashing out at the stupidity of blackheart's claims that we should all be subject to the rules of Islam (and not just Islam in general... strict Islam) whenever we might be seen by Muslims. He wasn't clear about his claims, and they sounded so whacked out that i can't believe what i read is what he actually meant... so i asked for a clarification, but didn't get one yet. i spent some time pointing out that these offended Muslims aren't even all Muslims, but just some, and that other religious groups get their fair share of ridicule and take it too (he claimed that people don't mock Christianity as badly as they mock Islam).
i also took the air of his attempt to say that everyone should respect Islam's quirks because it's a "religion", whereas no one has to respect the quirks of Danish culture because it's a "culture". i pointed out that both Islam and Danish are cultures (Danish culture is not restricted by Denmark's borders or Danish citizenship), so ultimately all he was doing was saying that Islam's culture was more special than Danish culture.
Finally, i explained the difference between restricted speech and non-restricted speech in a free country. Restricted speech is speech that causes harm, speech that directly results in death, suffering or starving. Offence is not harm, it is offence. Take two identical people with equal prospects for being able to survive, then offend one - do they now have different chances of survival? i challenged him to explain to me exactly how making fun of Mohammed hurts people, as in literally hurts them, not pisses them off.
And then, i presented the original article published by Jyllands-Posten, translated into English, to finally prove once and for all that they did not intend to insult Muslims or Islam. It was about freedom, and had little to do with Islam except that happened to be what was making people afraid to speak (in another time or place, it might have been making fun of Nazis, or being "un-American" in the McCarthy years).I think Indi better be posting summaries of the post at the end before there is an outcry
and public demand!
| Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | yagnyavalkya wrote: | I just wonder where do yo get the time to give such elaborate answers
I am just trying to keep my page up |
That is so true. Although very well written and thoroughly substantiated can be exhausting to keep up Indy, especially in the middle of the night when my eyes tend to cross over. Is it possible to put a summary at the bottom of the posting or at the top?
Not to take anything away from it, all of it is good and very thorough. All of it much appreciated. |
The first part was me lashing out at the stupidity of blackheart's claims that we should all be subject to the rules of Islam (and not just Islam in general... strict Islam) whenever we might be seen by Muslims. He wasn't clear about his claims, and they sounded so whacked out that i can't believe what i read is what he actually meant... so i asked for a clarification, but didn't get one yet. i spent some time pointing out that these offended Muslims aren't even all Muslims, but just some, and that other religious groups get their fair share of ridicule and take it too (he claimed that people don't mock Christianity as badly as they mock Islam).
i also took the air of his attempt to say that everyone should respect Islam's quirks because it's a "religion", whereas no one has to respect the quirks of Danish culture because it's a "culture". i pointed out that both Islam and Danish are cultures (Danish culture is not restricted by Denmark's borders or Danish citizenship), so ultimately all he was doing was saying that Islam's culture was more special than Danish culture.
Finally, i explained the difference between restricted speech and non-restricted speech in a free country. Restricted speech is speech that causes harm, speech that directly results in death, suffering or starving. Offence is not harm, it is offence. Take two identical people with equal prospects for being able to survive, then offend one - do they now have different chances of survival? i challenged him to explain to me exactly how making fun of Mohammed hurts people, as in literally hurts them, not pisses them off.
And then, i presented the original article published by Jyllands-Posten, translated into English, to finally prove once and for all that they did not intend to insult Muslims or Islam. It was about freedom, and had little to do with Islam except that happened to be what was making people afraid to speak (in another time or place, it might have been making fun of Nazis, or being "un-American" in the McCarthy years). |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
What is it that you people have decided
IS it right or wrong to publish cartoons that have reliogios and polituical repercussions |
What are religious and political repercussions and how do they have anything to do with what a newspaper publishes? If people want to publish anything (limiting libel I would assume), they can. If people wish to get angry over that, they can. Perfectly legal on both accounts. The problem arises when people want to use violence and death threats to portray their anger.
I guess to answer your question, it's perfectly fine and right. Politicians are never excused from being made fun of or having their image construed by the press, so I don't think that's a big problem. And religion is no more special than any other aspect of people. It isn't on a pedestal and is subject to the same criticism as anything else. If people want to cry about it, they can go cry to their god =) | liljp617 wrote: |
| If people want to publish anything (limiting libel I would assume), they can. |
(FYI, libel counts as restricted even under free speech because it causes harm. Calling a scientist an ****** does not harm him in any way, thus, it is not libel. It may offend him, but it won't harm him. Calling him a liar or a fraud does harm him - it ruins his professional reputation, which is his livelihood - and thus, it is libel (unless you can prove that it is true).) | Indi wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | If people want to publish anything (limiting libel I would assume), they can. |
(FYI, libel counts as restricted even under free speech because it causes harm. Calling a scientist an ****** does not harm him in any way, thus, it is not libel. It may offend him, but it won't harm him. Calling him a liar or a fraud does harm him - it ruins his professional reputation, which is his livelihood - and thus, it is libel (unless you can prove that it is true).) |
Guess I used the wrong word. Probably should have replaced 'limiting' with 'excluding.' I meant that anything can be published as long as it's not libel, for the reasons you posted. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | If people want to publish anything (limiting libel I would assume), they can. |
(FYI, libel counts as restricted even under free speech because it causes harm. Calling a scientist an ****** does not harm him in any way, thus, it is not libel. It may offend him, but it won't harm him. Calling him a liar or a fraud does harm him - it ruins his professional reputation, which is his livelihood - and thus, it is libel (unless you can prove that it is true).) |
Guess I used the wrong word. Probably should have replaced 'limiting' with 'excluding.' I meant that anything can be published as long as it's not libel, for the reasons you posted. |
No, i wasn't specifically directing that at you - it was in general, so i probably should have used something other than FYI. i have said a couple times that some speech should be restricted even in a free society - i just took advantage of your mention of libel to explain why.
Of course, there are other kinds of speech that are not libellous, but should still be restricted even in a free society. It should still be illegal to divulge private or state secrets like proprietary information, personal information or information that might lead to undercover policemen being in danger, or military intelligence gathering mechanisms being compromised.
But all of that is stuff that results in real harm. Offence is not real harm, and there is no reason to protect against it in a free society.let the publish what they wont
Gulf countries controls like 50% of Oil
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me. |
I wouldn't give a damn if individuals loved and praised by us are insulted in some Muslim country. I really wouldn't.The cartoons of mohammad ali! He was the greatest boxer in my aspect!
But I don't mind cartoons of the greatest! Infact - Ali and Superman was in the same cartoon once! Fighting aliens in the boxingring!
(this was a post of ironi - Is there any anger of a boxer taking the muslim name?????)
The only way to make religion harmless is to look into it's culture. I do not care whether you're a muslim, a jew or a hindu, but if you are willing to kill (yeah, the artist has gotten his treats), for the sake of a symbol. - And the symbol alone, you might have gotten the wrong ideas.
The only way to make these drawings harmless, is to print them. To look at them, read them and understand them. To shake our heads in disagreement, agreement, and maybe even disgust. But hey, they are ONLY drawings, just symbols. Nothing more than what we make them.
| zeroburnrox wrote: |
| The only way to make religion harmless is to look into it's culture. I do not care whether you're a muslim, a jew or a hindu, but if you are willing to kill (yeah, the artist has gotten his treats), for the sake of a symbol. - And the symbol alone, you might have gotten the wrong ideas. |
I have to disagree with this. Why should it be up to me to look into religious beliefs? Why can I not simply assume that those with such beliefs will not try to inflict them, or their morality, on me? Surely the onus is on the religious to behave themselves, not on me to look into and understand their beliefs?
| Quote: |
| The only way to make these drawings harmless, is to print them. To look at them, read them and understand them. To shake our heads in disagreement, agreement, and maybe even disgust. But hey, they are ONLY drawings, just symbols. Nothing more than what we make them. |
Quite right! | spinout wrote: |
The cartoons of mohammad ali! He was the greatest boxer in my aspect!
But I don't mind cartoons of the greatest! Infact - Ali and Superman was in the same cartoon once! Fighting aliens in the boxingring!
(this was a post of ironi - Is there any anger of a boxer taking the muslim name?????) |
(You do know that the boxer in question is quite Muslim, hm? And he was probably given the name by the head of the Nation of Islam. In fact, he's so devoutly Muslim, it broke up at least one of his marriages.)I have not read the boigraphy (quite old today, hard to find), but the films n all the fights. Well, a slave name or a muslim name? Maybe he'd be better off with the name Johansson. He could be a brother of Ingemar
Religions tend to be so strange... Or it is a genetical problem? Not just the muslims - meaning all the religious people. I don't see what's wrong with it.
People have made fun of Jews since the dawn of time, and we don't LIKE it, but we sure don't have riots and kill people over it.
Furthermore, if Muslims are angry that they and their prophet are being portrayed inappropriately, why not behave like civilized human beings and dispel the stereotypes? They're only making it worse for themselves.
Or, better yet, why not accept it as part of life that people will make fun of each other? Laugh a bit. Life's hard enough as is.
| BigMo420 wrote: |
Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
In the aftermath of the controversy over the cartoons of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the Internet edition of the Norwegian daily Dagbladet interviewed Kurdish Iraqi Islamist Mullah Krekar. In it, Krekar expounded his views on relations between Islam and the West. Krekar, whose real name is Najm Al-Din Faraj Ahmad, came to Norway as a refugee in 1991, where he established the Islamist Ansar Al-Islam organization. He is currently slated for deportation from Norway.
The following are excerpts from the interview:(1)
| Quote: |
"The Western Way of Thinking has Taken its Materialism, Egoism, and Savagery From the Ancient Greeks and Romans"
Krekar: "On one side stands the Western way of thinking. This is a way of thinking that has taken its materialism, egoism and savagery from the ancient Greeks and Romans. This is a way of thinking that has altered true Christianity. An example of this is that Western Christianity [today] accepts men having sex with men. That was never accepted by Jesus. On the other side stands Islam, and now the West is trying to take over and change Islam in the same way that Christianity was debased."
Interviewer: "Do you mean that this is a war between civilizations?"
Krekar: "No. There is only one civilization. But there are different ways of thinking about it, and our way of thinking in Islam stands in opposition to the Western way of thinking. Today it is our way of thinking that comes in and shows itself stronger than theirs. Islam has a stable foundation: one God, one Prophet, one Koran, and one tradition. This generates hatred among [those with a] Western way of thinking, and leads the losing party to use violence. And that is the violence and war against Islam."
Democracy is Just an Excuse - It's Islam the West Can't Stand
Interviewer: "What grounds do you have for saying that there is a war against Islam?"
Krekar: "The spread of democracy is just an excuse. The same with the hunt for Osama bin Laden - it's just an excuse. It is Islam that the West can't stand... The attack on Islam is like a hand. One finger is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another finger is the imprisonment of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay. The third finger is the publishing of the pictures of the Prophet Muhammad. We must see things as they are, and those pictures [of Muhammad] are one part of the military fight that the West is conducting against Islam..."
"By 2050, 30% of the European Population Will Be Muslim"
Interviewer: "What do you mean when you say that the Islamic way of thinking is stronger than the Western way of thinking?"
Krekar: "We have no fear of the Western way of thinking. It can never win. In Iraq the two sides stand one against the other. On the side of Islam stand men who love death and who are willing to become martyrs for what they believe in. On the other side stand soldiers who fight for $1000 a day. The number of dead American soldiers is proof of failure. The same is true in Afghanistan. From 2001 to 2004, there were five suicide attacks. In 2005 there were 17.
"While the front of the U.S. and its allies is becoming smaller, Islam is widening its front. The reports from Guantanamo show the same. They are trying to rip belief from the hearts of the Muslims. It doesn't work. In Denmark they published cartoons, but the result was only to encourage people to rally behind Islam. I and all Muslims are proof [of this]. They have not managed to change us. It is we who will change them."
Interviewer: "How?"
Krekar: "Look at the development of the population in Europe, where the number of Muslims increases like mosquitoes. Each Western woman in the E.U. produces, on average, 1.4 children. Each Muslim woman in these same countries produces 3.5 children. By 2050, 30% of the European population will be Muslim..."
We are Fighting for the Same Goal as bin Laden - Just Under Different Circumstances
Interviewer: "Is it right to import the military part of the war that is underway into Europe?"
Krekar: "No. This I cannot support. But Muslims who go to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight, that is an honor. It is an honor in itself if it violates the laws here in Europe."
Interviewer: "'In itself,' meaning [that European law is violated by] fighting together with Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and other groups that use terror?"
Krekar: "Those who say that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist are themselves killing our women, children, and civilians. This is what we see and know. We are not influenced by the U.S.'s words against bin Laden, since they are talking about someone we know. We are fighting for the same goal, just under different circumstances.
"The goal is Islamic rule in an Islamic state. Shi'ite Muslims have achieved this goal in Iran, and they are so strong that the West doesn't dare attack. This is the only way we can maintain a balance [of power] and achieve a lasting peace."
Interviewer: "Is the goal to re-establish the Caliphate - the Islamic rule that was established by the Prophet?"
Krekar: "Yes. Our Caliph is dead and we are orphans. Therefore we are fighting, like the Jews fought under David Ben-Gurion, for our own state, a state ruled by a true Islamic ruler."
Bin Laden is a Good Person to Rule the Caliphate
Interviewer: "What borders should the Caliphate have?"
Krekar: "It doesn't matter. Things are born, and then they grow bigger. The essential thing is Islamic rule. That was why the West destroyed the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan. They feared the Islamic state."
Interviewer: "Who should rule the new Caliphate?"
Krekar: "It doesn't have to be a cleric. A good human being is enough."
Interviewer: "Is bin Laden such a person?"
Krekar: "Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri are among several good people. Weren't Jewish leaders also terrorists before they had their own state?..."
Life in Europe has No Value for Muslims
Interviewer: "Most of the Muslims in the Western world have made these countries their home. What is your message to them?"
Krekar: "Muslims in the West and in Norway don't want to understand that this is not their country. The Muslim state will be their home, no matter where it is located. Muslims in the West are like the Jews were. We are homeless and weak, and will remain so until we create our own country. Life here has no value for Muslims."
Interviewer: "What do you say to Muslims in the West who fully participate in both society and political life?"
Krekar: "They can participate in elections and elect Carl I. Hagen or Kristin Halvorsen, but in itself they have no value for society. When we get our own country, like the Shi'ites created in Iran, then Muslims will have full political and economic control."
Interviewer: "What role do you see Muslims in Europe playing?"
Krekar: "We have no role to play at this point. Our position is to maintain our numerical strength. But now you are putting us in the role of the accused. It is you and the West who should be telling us what [the West] can do for us. The West should protect Islam, and not the other way around."
Interviewer: "Isn't it that same freedom of expression and freedom of religion that allowed the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons also your best protection for expressing your views and beliefs?"
Krekar: "I am protected by the law in this country, but it is not a law that protects Muslims in particular. Neither could it protect Muslims against the attack that these cartoons were. It is not the West that is the victim in this case."
|
Endnote:
(1) Dagbladet (Norway), March 13, 2006. | spinout wrote: |
The cartoons of mohammad ali! He was the greatest boxer in my aspect!
But I don't mind cartoons of the greatest! Infact - Ali and Superman was in the same cartoon once! Fighting aliens in the boxingring!
(this was a post of ironi - Is there any anger of a boxer taking the muslim name?????) |
There are some Muslim intellectuals who understand the wrongness of the Muslim rage against the West. As an example it is interesting to take a look to Bahraini columnist Abdallah Al-Ayoubi in an article in the Bahraini daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej: "...The harm to the Muslim religion has not been caused only by the publication, in Danish papers, of cartoons disparaging the Prophet Muhammad or by the film... produced by the Dutch MP. There are many [other], graver, dangers that Muslim religion is exposed to. They come from those who use religion as a cover for their criminal conduct, which they attribute to the teachings of the Islamic faith...
| Quote: |
"Humane and noble [religious] precepts have been destroyed by extremist 'Islamic' movements such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and others, that perpetrate hideous crimes against innocent [people] in their own countries as well as in other, non-Muslim, countries... When base, despicable acts are carried out by [Muslim] societies and nations, they cause tremendous harm to [Islamic] religious teachings.
"This is what happened, for example, as a result of the September 11th crimes against the U.S., and as a result of the attacks in London and Madrid that followed in their wake.
"The Muslim nations must first and foremost purge themselves of [elements] that use Islam and its teachings as a disguise [i.e.] in order to present their crimes against humanity as jihad in the name of Allah... It is inconceivable that the teachings [of Islam] should justify the murder of dozens, [even] thousands, of innocent people. It is such iniquities that have corrupted the image of Islam in the eyes of non-Muslims...
"[Muslim] nations must adopt the language of reason... in order to deal with the attacks on [Islam], and to wage war against 'Islamic' extremism, which has distorted Muslim religious teachings...
"Those who harm the Muslim religion must be confronted, using sound logic rather than emotion; up until now, responses to attacks [on Islam] have been based not rationality but on pathos. The exaggerated reactions to the Danish press's publication of the offensive cartoons were manifested in setting fire to Danish diplomatic representations - although the Danish government bears no responsibility for these cartoons.
"Such [responses] will not only fail to prevent harm to [Islam], but will actually magnify it..."
|
Source: Akhbar Al-Khaleej (Bahrain), March 31, 2008. | GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote: |
| Mullah Krekar |
That man is an idiot.
| GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote: |
| Akhbar Al-Khaleej |
This man has some sense.
The question that remains is whether a voice of reason will reach the masses that are listening to the first idiot. | GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote: |
| BigMo420 wrote: | Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
In the aftermath of the controversy over the cartoons of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the Internet edition of the Norwegian daily Dagbladet interviewed Kurdish Iraqi Islamist Mullah Krekar. In it, Krekar expounded his views on relations between Islam and the West. Krekar, whose real name is Najm Al-Din Faraj Ahmad, came to Norway as a refugee in 1991, where he established the Islamist Ansar Al-Islam organization. He is currently slated for deportation from Norway.
The following are excerpts from the interview:(1)
| Quote: | "The Western Way of Thinking has Taken its Materialism, Egoism, and Savagery From the Ancient Greeks and Romans"
Krekar: "On one side stands the Western way of thinking. This is a way of thinking that has taken its materialism, egoism and savagery from the ancient Greeks and Romans. This is a way of thinking that has altered true Christianity. An example of this is that Western Christianity [today] accepts men having sex with men. That was never accepted by Jesus. On the other side stands Islam, and now the West is trying to take over and change Islam in the same way that Christianity was debased."
Interviewer: "Do you mean that this is a war between civilizations?"
Krekar: "No. There is only one civilization. But there are different ways of thinking about it, and our way of thinking in Islam stands in opposition to the Western way of thinking. Today it is our way of thinking that comes in and shows itself stronger than theirs. Islam has a stable foundation: one God, one Prophet, one Koran, and one tradition. This generates hatred among [those with a] Western way of thinking, and leads the losing party to use violence. And that is the violence and war against Islam."
Democracy is Just an Excuse - It's Islam the West Can't Stand
Interviewer: "What grounds do you have for saying that there is a war against Islam?"
Krekar: "The spread of democracy is just an excuse. The same with the hunt for Osama bin Laden - it's just an excuse. It is Islam that the West can't stand... The attack on Islam is like a hand. One finger is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another finger is the imprisonment of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay. The third finger is the publishing of the pictures of the Prophet Muhammad. We must see things as they are, and those pictures [of Muhammad] are one part of the military fight that the West is conducting against Islam..."
"By 2050, 30% of the European Population Will Be Muslim"
Interviewer: "What do you mean when you say that the Islamic way of thinking is stronger than the Western way of thinking?"
Krekar: "We have no fear of the Western way of thinking. It can never win. In Iraq the two sides stand one against the other. On the side of Islam stand men who love death and who are willing to become martyrs for what they believe in. On the other side stand soldiers who fight for $1000 a day. The number of dead American soldiers is proof of failure. The same is true in Afghanistan. From 2001 to 2004, there were five suicide attacks. In 2005 there were 17.
"While the front of the U.S. and its allies is becoming smaller, Islam is widening its front. The reports from Guantanamo show the same. They are trying to rip belief from the hearts of the Muslims. It doesn't work. In Denmark they published cartoons, but the result was only to encourage people to rally behind Islam. I and all Muslims are proof [of this]. They have not managed to change us. It is we who will change them."
Interviewer: "How?"
Krekar: "Look at the development of the population in Europe, where the number of Muslims increases like mosquitoes. Each Western woman in the E.U. produces, on average, 1.4 children. Each Muslim woman in these same countries produces 3.5 children. By 2050, 30% of the European population will be Muslim..."
We are Fighting for the Same Goal as bin Laden - Just Under Different Circumstances
Interviewer: "Is it right to import the military part of the war that is underway into Europe?"
Krekar: "No. This I cannot support. But Muslims who go to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight, that is an honor. It is an honor in itself if it violates the laws here in Europe."
Interviewer: "'In itself,' meaning [that European law is violated by] fighting together with Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and other groups that use terror?"
Krekar: "Those who say that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist are themselves killing our women, children, and civilians. This is what we see and know. We are not influenced by the U.S.'s words against bin Laden, since they are talking about someone we know. We are fighting for the same goal, just under different circumstances.
"The goal is Islamic rule in an Islamic state. Shi'ite Muslims have achieved this goal in Iran, and they are so strong that the West doesn't dare attack. This is the only way we can maintain a balance [of power] and achieve a lasting peace."
Interviewer: "Is the goal to re-establish the Caliphate - the Islamic rule that was established by the Prophet?"
Krekar: "Yes. Our Caliph is dead and we are orphans. Therefore we are fighting, like the Jews fought under David Ben-Gurion, for our own state, a state ruled by a true Islamic ruler."
Bin Laden is a Good Person to Rule the Caliphate
Interviewer: "What borders should the Caliphate have?"
Krekar: "It doesn't matter. Things are born, and then they grow bigger. The essential thing is Islamic rule. That was why the West destroyed the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan. They feared the Islamic state."
Interviewer: "Who should rule the new Caliphate?"
Krekar: "It doesn't have to be a cleric. A good human being is enough."
Interviewer: "Is bin Laden such a person?"
Krekar: "Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri are among several good people. Weren't Jewish leaders also terrorists before they had their own state?..."
Life in Europe has No Value for Muslims
Interviewer: "Most of the Muslims in the Western world have made these countries their home. What is your message to them?"
Krekar: "Muslims in the West and in Norway don't want to understand that this is not their country. The Muslim state will be their home, no matter where it is located. Muslims in the West are like the Jews were. We are homeless and weak, and will remain so until we create our own country. Life here has no value for Muslims."
Interviewer: "What do you say to Muslims in the West who fully participate in both society and political life?"
Krekar: "They can participate in elections and elect Carl I. Hagen or Kristin Halvorsen, but in itself they have no value for society. When we get our own country, like the Shi'ites created in Iran, then Muslims will have full political and economic control."
Interviewer: "What role do you see Muslims in Europe playing?"
Krekar: "We have no role to play at this point. Our position is to maintain our numerical strength. But now you are putting us in the role of the accused. It is you and the West who should be telling us what [the West] can do for us. The West should protect Islam, and not the other way around."
Interviewer: "Isn't it that same freedom of expression and freedom of religion that allowed the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons also your best protection for expressing your views and beliefs?"
Krekar: "I am protected by the law in this country, but it is not a law that protects Muslims in particular. Neither could it protect Muslims against the attack that these cartoons were. It is not the West that is the victim in this case."
|
Endnote:
(1) Dagbladet (Norway), March 13, 2006. |
so wait is this guy comparing western politics too islam as a religion, cause i am pretty certain most of western christians who want to live by the bible arent greedy or war like (apart from a minority).
the world will never stop these useless fights unless all religion is abolished or everyone takes on 1 religion.Cartoons are funny.Lets just have fun. | mikakiev wrote: |
| Cartoons are funny.Lets just have fun. |
I wish all people could see it that way. | catscratches wrote: |
| mikakiev wrote: | | Cartoons are funny.Lets just have fun. |
I wish all people could see it that way. |
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen without a bitter, bitter fight.
i have been told that this thread was started by a shit-disturber who just hated Islam and wanted to pick a fight. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But what is true is that this is a serious - life or death - issue, that needs serious consideration.
Now, you may think i'm being a little over-dramatic - because we're just talking about cartoons, and Muslims with a bug up their ass, right? No one takes cartoons - or Muslims with bugs up their asses - seriously, right?
No, this is a deadly serious issue, and it is already causing ripples at the highest levels of international politics. Just see this Maclean's article, about a brewing fight in the United Nations Human Rights Commission based on the issue raised by these cartoons.
i promise you, you haven't heard the last of the furor started by those cartoons. In the past religious rights were never really that big a deal, because religions had all the power anyway, so they could give themselves whatever rights they felt they needed. The situation is changing, and we are coming to a point where we have to seriously consider exactly what rights religions should have - if any. And no matter what conclusion we come to... someone's not going to be happy about it.
Oh yes, there's gonna be a lot more fighting about this. | Indi wrote: |
| i have been told that this thread was started by a shit-disturber who just hated Islam and wanted to pick a fight. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. |
Don't be silly, we know it's true. | Indi wrote: |
i promise you, you haven't heard the last of the furor started by those cartoons. In the past religious rights were never really that big a deal, because religions had all the power anyway, so they could give themselves whatever rights they felt they needed. The situation is changing, and we are coming to a point where we have to seriously consider exactly what rights religions should have - if any. And no matter what conclusion we come to... someone's not going to be happy about it.
Oh yes, there's gonna be a lot more fighting about this. |
I wouldn't put religion at the centre piece of the debate. The cartoons were a cheap attempt to aggrevate some Muslims. What has the Muhammad got to do with terrorism? "Modern" terrorism did not exist in that part of the world back then (I would say it began in Europe around 70CE - but certainly not in Arabia for a long long time after then - certainly not as early as 700CE).
The point is, this article made a mockery of an entire race of people who followed this man. Yes, if men are evil, they should be propogated as evil. However, in a cartoon and on a sensitive topic, this is not the way to do things. The media is a powerful tool, and many people would blindly follow the "biased" media as easily as some people blindly follow religion. If the publishers of the cartoons really had some "stick" with Islam or the Prophet, then constructive debates are encouraged.
Certainly not cheap attempts to defame an entire race without hard evidence -- This reminds me of 1920s of the era of the Protocols of the elders of Zion and the Internation Jew.
Let's learn from history rather than repeat it.
I really don't get both sides: not the ones printing them, not the cartoonist and not the muslims getting outraged. Leave eachother be...stop fighting. Even if via drawing | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| I wouldn't put religion at the centre piece of the debate. The cartoons were a cheap attempt to aggrevate some Muslims. |
No they were not, and that has been discussed and repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in this thread.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| What has the Muhammad got to do with terrorism? "Modern" terrorism did not exist in that part of the world back then (I would say it began in Europe around 70CE - but certainly not in Arabia for a long long time after then - certainly not as early as 700CE). |
These cartoons have next to nothing to do with terrorism. And they have very little to do with Muhammad (a few of them don't even depict Muhammad, and only half of them depict him in a way that could arguably considered insulting). You, i'm afraid, are completely ignorant as to the whole affair.
One side of this story has gotten all the attention, unfortunately, and it is the Muslim opinion... which is, frankly, plain wrong. That is the side you are viewing this from.
Why can i say that this view is simply wrong? Because of this: "The cartoons were a cheap attempt to aggrevate some Muslims." That's a flagrant lie. And it's obviously a lie, because we know exactly what the cartoons were attempting to do. How do we know this?
Have you seen the cartoons?
Have you seen that big block of Danish text right smack dab in the middle of the cartoons?
Have you ever wondered what it says?
Don't you think that might be important?
Well, if you can't read Danish, i translated it... right here in this thread. If you care about the truth - about what those cartoons were really about - you might want to read that before shooting off your mouth in ignorance any further.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| The point is, this article made a mockery of an entire race of people who followed this man. Yes, if men are evil, they should be propogated as evil. However, in a cartoon and on a sensitive topic, this is not the way to do things. The media is a powerful tool, and many people would blindly follow the "biased" media as easily as some people blindly follow religion. If the publishers of the cartoons really had some "stick" with Islam or the Prophet, then constructive debates are encouraged. |
All of the above paragraph is complete and utter bullshit. Not a word of it is relevant to the issue at all.
Before jumping to a conclusion as to what "the point" of an incident is, you might actually want to research the incident. For example, at least two of the cartoons feature a caricature of a blond-haired man with glasses and a big nose. Aren't you the least bit curious as to who that is? And why he is included in cartoons intended to "aggrevate some Muslims (sic)"? (Hint! He's a writer! And he's the cause of the whole incident!)
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Certainly not cheap attempts to defame an entire race without hard evidence -- This reminds me of 1920s of the era of the Protocols of the elders of Zion and the Internation Jew.
Let's learn from history rather than repeat it. |
To learn from history, one has to study it, not listen to how a bunch of loudmouth bullies redefine it. Study the incident, and see what you learn from it.
| protoolsman wrote: |
| I really don't get both sides: not the ones printing them, not the cartoonist and not the muslims getting outraged. Leave eachother be...stop fighting. Even if via drawing |
That is because you don't understand both sides. There are two sides to this affair, but one is quiet, and subtle - and the other is loud and threatening. You have only heard the loud and threatening side, and then people responding to their threats. i promise you that you have literally no clue as to what this whole thing is really about.
And i'll bet that when you actually hear the side you haven't heard... the side of the people who originally commissioned and published those cartoons... you'll agree with it, and that the Muslim response is simply flat-out wrong.
And the reason i'm so confident about that is that whenever i've sat down with anyone - even Muslims - and explained what the whole thing is really about, they always agree that the Muslim response was wrong. Some say "totally wrong", some say "overblown but understandable", but no one has yet said the Danish editors were wrong to publish the cartoons, once they hear the real reason they were published (although in some cases, i've had to rub their faces in the hypocrisy of the Muslim outrage before they'll finally admit it).
You're half right in that both of the sides that you've seen are wrong - the outraged Muslims and the retaliatory non-Muslims who tell them to suck it up. The Muslims are wrong because... well in order to explain that, i'd have to go over the whole affair again... and it's all in this thread already. The non-Muslims are wrong because it is wrong to make fun of of other people's beliefs simply because you don't share them, and you want to piss the people off because their beliefs are different and you don't like them. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT ORIGINALLY HAPPENED. That's what the Muslims are saying originally happened, but they are lying. Yes, it has happened afterwards - but that's not the original reason those cartoons were published.
And when you learn the original reason those cartoons were published... well, then you'll see what this is really all about. i seriously doubt you'll be able to sit on the fence then. | Indi wrote: |
One side of this story has gotten all the attention, unfortunately, and it is the Muslim opinion... which is, frankly, plain wrong. That is the side you are viewing this from.
|
My view is simple. Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel. The people in their masses are largely influential to what the media says, and will believe it at will especially at times when they are very fragile (e.g. hyperinflation in germnay or 911 in America).
Sure, the mainstream media is effective on some political issues, but the remaining 99% is a bunch of lies and utter bullshit.
Here are a few things to think about:
- Truthfully, tell me is the America media denying the Iraqi's right to resist occupation when the Allied governments of the world supported the Free France movement right to resist against the Vichy puppet regime that was established in France by Nazi Germnay during WW2?
- Is the American blood of 3000 on 911 worth anymore than the blood of the "3000 innocent" Afghan men women and children slaughtered by the American terrorists within 3 months after 911?
I don't hear a minute silence for the Afghans.
- Are the brainwashed terrorists who carpet bombed kabul using stealth bombers killing thousands of innocent civilians any different to the terrorists who flew the planes in the WTC?
If you can provide a "serious" rebuttal to any of the above 3 statements, then yes, the mainstream media is a suitable channel to incite deep questions on sensitive topics.
But if you can't, then continue to watch your media. Let it fool you, and continue with your biased one sided views. As Samuel Adams said in one of his quotes. "crouch down and go lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains be set slowly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
| Indi wrote: |
Have you seen the cartoons?
|
Yes. Stupid question. If I haden't I wouldn't have responded.
| Indi wrote: |
Have you seen that big block of Danish text right smack dab in the middle of the cartoons?
|
Yes.
| Indi wrote: |
Have you ever wondered what it says?
Don't you think that might be important?
|
According to wikipedia.. The face of Muhammad?
| Indi wrote: |
Well, if you can't read Danish, i [with emphasis] translated it...
|
You can read and translate Danish?
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | The point is, this article made a mockery of an entire race of people who followed this man. Yes, if men are evil, they should be propogated as evil. However, in a cartoon and on a sensitive topic, this is not the way to do things. The media is a powerful tool, and many people would blindly follow the "biased" media as easily as some people blindly follow religion. If the publishers of the cartoons really had some "stick" with Islam or the Prophet, then constructive debates are encouraged. |
All of the above paragraph is complete and utter bullshit. Not a word of it is relevant to the issue at all.
|
Extremely relevant. The very fact that the media is sensitive when it comes to topics of American-state terrorism, but dumbs down an entire nation when it comes to portraying religious fanatics. ANd the majority of those who listen to the mainstream media, are hugely influenced by it. The recent example of a 70 year old women saying "he is Arab" regarding Obama (although he isn't) at a McCain speech illustrates just one example of many of American stupidity due to their dumbed down media. The lies on Ahmedinejhad wanting to wipe Israel off the map is another.
Like I say, another lie for another war. These cartoons are no different.
| Indi wrote: |
Before jumping to a conclusion as to what "the point" of an incident is, you might actually want to research the incident. For example, at least two of the cartoons feature a caricature of a blond-haired man with glasses and a big nose. Aren't you the least bit curious as to who that is? And why he is included in cartoons intended to "aggrevate some Muslims (sic)"? (Hint! He's a writer! And he's the cause of the whole incident!)
|
One of the cartoons feature the Prophet with a bomb symbolising his turban (or vice versa).
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Certainly not cheap attempts to defame an entire race without hard evidence -- This reminds me of 1920s of the era of the Protocols of the elders of Zion and the Internation Jew.
Let's learn from history rather than repeat it. |
To learn from history, one has to study it, not listen to how a bunch of loudmouth bullies redefine it. Study the incident, and see what you learn from it.
|
I agree with you on this point. Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Britain wrote history then, America are writing it now.
Who is writing the history of the Muslims post 1492? They offered much to the world, much of it gone unnoticed. They founded western secular thought (averrorism), modern algebra, modern medicine, modern surgery, modern universities, they spoke of love when no other nation literally "could", their poetry and literature reached out to the stars. They revived and translated the great ancient texts of Plato and Archamedies which would have otherwise been forgotten. They taught the West chivalry, and a "knight in shining armour" is not simply an Arabic phrase but represented the very people they were. Some of their work were hugely critical of religion (e.g. Omar khayyam), and others even Christian Europe called for the death of such people (Averroes and Avicenna), yet they lived freely in the more technologically advanced Muslim world. More books ewre written in arabic than any othe rlanguage in the world. Arabic was the international language of science and diplomacy. But like with all things, it came to an end.
But let's be honest, Bin Laden did not come out of a clear blue sky. Let us not forget American terrorism prior to 911 in the Middle East. The way the Muslims are reacting is not that I, and many others would approve of. But who are we to deny them of having "ill-feelings" towards the West as a direct reuslt of American foriegn policy?
There are many many Muslims that are saddened at the state of the Muslim world today, but when from one side of the middle East right the way to the other, you have leaders established almost entirely by the Anglo-American governments, who should this blame/hate be aimed at?
And until you understand what I wrote, you will understand the behaviour of the Muslims today, and the reason why the cartoons offended so many Muslims. It was because of Islam that their reached these great heights (unlike Christianity, which led to the darkages in Europe). It was Muslim text that inspired the renaissance in Europe.
Muslims no longer have the treasure they once had, and like with the Mongrals conquest of Baghdad - the city once known as the houses of Wisdom or centre of excellence, Muslims feel they are trampled all over.
But the words of Omar Khayyam over a century ago remain true: "The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on." | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| My view is simple. Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel. |
And if anyone disagrees?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
The people in their masses are largely influential to what the media says, and will believe it at will especially at times when they are very fragile (e.g. hyperinflation in germnay or 911 in America).
Sure, the mainstream media is effective on some political issues, but the remaining 99% is a bunch of lies and utter bullshit. |
It does not follow from the fact that most of the media is crap, that we should censor it. No matter how you try to pretty that claim up, it's a stupid argument.
Furthermore, you still don't get what the whole affair was about. How many times am i going to have to repeat this before you get it: Jyllands-Posten was not trying to insult or incite Muslims. They were not trying to mock Mohammad. This is a fact, and it's easily proved.
You have bought into the lies being spread by the Muslims reacting to the article. You have not even heard the side of Jyllands-Posten yet. i know this for a fact because of the things you say, like: "Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel." The truth is that the original article had nothing to do with criticizing Mohammad. NOT ONE BLOODY THING. Here's a little game to try: there were 12 cartoons. List all that you think criticized the Prophet, or insulted him, and say why they're insulting. See if you can get five. See... if this whole thing really was about insulting or criticizing Mohammad... shouldn't at least... oh, i don't know... half of the cartoons actually insult or criticize Mohammad? At least?
Think i'm wrong with my assessment of your understanding of this affair? Then show me. Tell me why you think Jyllands-Posten published those cartoons. Back it up with evidence. Show your work.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Here are a few things to think about:
- Truthfully, tell me is the America media denying the Iraqi's right to resist occupation when the Allied governments of the world supported the Free France movement right to resist against the Vichy puppet regime that was established in France by Nazi Germnay during WW2? |
i don't know? ^_^; i don't even care. Let me offer you something to think about:
Exactly what do Danish cartoons about Islam have to do with the American media? Or Iraq?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
- Is the American blood of 3000 on 911 worth anymore than the blood of the "3000 innocent" Afghan men women and children slaughtered by the American terrorists within 3 months after 911?
I don't hear a minute silence for the Afghans. |
Again, what do dead Afghans, American blood or 911 have to do with Danish cartoons?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| - Are the brainwashed terrorists who carpet bombed kabul using stealth bombers killing thousands of innocent civilians any different to the terrorists who flew the planes in the WTC? |
i don't know ^_^; except that the former declared war and tried to minimize civilian casualties while the latter snuck onto a passenger plane and murdered people in a country that thought it was at peace?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
If you can provide a "serious" rebuttal to any of the above 3 statements, then yes, the mainstream media is a suitable channel to incite deep questions on sensitive topics.
But if you can't, then continue to watch your media. Let it fool you, and continue with your biased one sided views. As Samuel Adams said in one of his quotes. "crouch down and go lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains be set slowly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." |
You want to hear something funny? i'm not American. It's not my media. ^_^;
It's also not Danish media. ^_^;
You're wires are crossed, dude. These are two entirely separate issues that you're trying to mix up.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Have you seen the cartoons?
|
Yes. Stupid question. If I haden't I wouldn't have responded. |
Stupid answer. Tens of thousands of Muslims who rioted hadn't seen them. And you're quoting their lines.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Have you ever wondered what it says?
Don't you think that might be important?
|
According to wikipedia.. The face of Muhammad? |
i'm reminded of old Bugs Bunny cartoons, where Bugs would pretend to speak in a foreign language. One of the gags was that he would utter one syllable, and the subtitle translation would be a paragraph long... then he would speak for a minute straight, and the subtitle translation would be one word.
Because if you think that whole big block of text translates to four English words... you're about on the level of Elmer Fudd on this one, buddy. ^_^;
"The Face of Mohammad" would be the title. You're judging the entire essay based on the title? ^_^; And furthermore, based on your interpretation of the title (because it doesn't mean what you think it means).
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Well, if you can't read Danish, i [with emphasis] translated it...
|
You can read and translate Danish? |
Not alone, but i can talk to people who do. If you don't trust my translation, you're free to try to translate it yourself. If you do an honest job of it, you'll get the same thing, more or less.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | The point is, this article made a mockery of an entire race of people who followed this man. Yes, if men are evil, they should be propogated as evil. However, in a cartoon and on a sensitive topic, this is not the way to do things. The media is a powerful tool, and many people would blindly follow the "biased" media as easily as some people blindly follow religion. If the publishers of the cartoons really had some "stick" with Islam or the Prophet, then constructive debates are encouraged. |
All of the above paragraph is complete and utter bullshit. Not a word of it is relevant to the issue at all.
|
Extremely relevant. The very fact that the media is sensitive when it comes to topics of American-state terrorism, but dumbs down an entire nation when it comes to portraying religious fanatics. ANd the majority of those who listen to the mainstream media, are hugely influenced by it. The recent example of a 70 year old women saying "he is Arab" regarding Obama (although he isn't) at a McCain speech illustrates just one example of many of American stupidity due to their dumbed down media. The lies on Ahmedinejhad wanting to wipe Israel off the map is another.
Like I say, another lie for another war. These cartoons are no different. |
No, it's still bullshit. Nothing here has anything to do with America or American state terrorism. Or Obama or McCain. Or Ahmedinejhad or Isreal. And the original Danish cartoons were not about portraying religious fanatics. So... ya... total and complete bullshit.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Before jumping to a conclusion as to what "the point" of an incident is, you might actually want to research the incident. For example, at least two of the cartoons feature a caricature of a blond-haired man with glasses and a big nose. Aren't you the least bit curious as to who that is? And why he is included in cartoons intended to "aggrevate some Muslims (sic)"? (Hint! He's a writer! And he's the cause of the whole incident!)
|
One of the cartoons feature the Prophet with a bomb symbolising his turban (or vice versa). |
And one of the cartoons doesn't feature the Prophet at all. (And two more are stretching it.) How odd, hm? i mean... if they point was to insult Mohammad... what, did someone screw up? ^_^;
i want you to note something here about where your headspace is at. Note that i wrote a paragraph suggesting careful research into the incident, and even pointing out something you can use to start your research. Your immediate reply to that was to point out one of the three or so cartoons that does actually criticize Mohammad... and nothing else. Did you do any more research? Nope. Did you look at any of the other cartoons that weren't insulting and wonder why they were there if the point was to insult? Nope.
You don't see a problem with that? It would be like if - oh, let me make up a random example here - if i were to respond to someone claiming that Islam wasn't all bad by pointing out 9/11. That wouldn't be very rational, eh? Think about that.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
I agree with you on this point. Winston Churchill once said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Britain wrote history then, America are writing it now.
Who is writing the history of the Muslims post 1492? They offered much to the world, much of it gone unnoticed. They founded western secular thought (averrorism), modern algebra, modern medicine, modern surgery, modern universities, they spoke of love when no other nation literally "could", their poetry and literature reached out to the stars. They revived and translated the great ancient texts of Plato and Archamedies which would have otherwise been forgotten. They taught the West chivalry, and a "knight in shining armour" is not simply an Arabic phrase but represented the very people they were. Some of their work were hugely critical of religion (e.g. Omar khayyam), and others even Christian Europe called for the death of such people (Averroes and Avicenna), yet they lived freely in the more technologically advanced Muslim world. More books ewre written in arabic than any othe rlanguage in the world. Arabic was the international language of science and diplomacy. But like with all things, it came to an end.
But let's be honest, Bin Laden did not come out of a clear blue sky. Let us not forget American terrorism prior to 911 in the Middle East. The way the Muslims are reacting is not that I, and many others would approve of. But who are we to deny them of having "ill-feelings" towards the West as a direct reuslt of American foriegn policy?
There are many many Muslims that are saddened at the state of the Muslim world today, but when from one side of the middle East right the way to the other, you have leaders established almost entirely by the Anglo-American governments, who should this blame/hate be aimed at? |
Not a word of this is relevant. This is about Danish cartoons, in a Danish newspaper, in Denmark. Muslim history has nothing to do with it (it really doesn't - if you'd learn what the fuss is really about, you'd see what i mean), nor does Bin Laden, American foreign policy or "Anglo-American" (?) governments (of which i am quite sure Denmark is not).
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
And until you understand what I wrote, you will understand the behaviour of the Muslims today, and the reason why the cartoons offended so many Muslims. It was because of Islam that their reached these great heights (unlike Christianity, which led to the darkages in Europe). It was Muslim text that inspired the renaissance in Europe.
Muslims no longer have the treasure they once had, and like with the Mongrals conquest of Baghdad - the city once known as the houses of Wisdom or centre of excellence, Muslims feel they are trampled all over.
But the words of Omar Khayyam over a century ago remain true: "The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on." |
Most of what you wrote above is bizarrely off-topic rambling.
i say again, you are wrong to criticize an action that you do not fully understand... and you simply do not understand the action that Jyllands-Posten took. It has nothing to do with America's "war on terror" or any of the other crap you brought up. It has nothing to do with how badly Muslims are portrayed in American media (or even Danish media for that matter!!!!!).
In fact... it's all about a children's book. ^_^;I have just seen the cartoons for the first time,looking at them, i am surprised they caused so much offence and so much debate,as they are not that bad,a couple were quite funny in a half smile kind of way,but offensive? I find it hard to believe any Muslim could be offended by them.
| Indi wrote: |
It does not follow from the fact that most of the media is crap, that we should censor it. No matter how you try to pretty that claim up, it's a stupid argument.
|
I never said "censor the news". I believe in an open and free media without spin and without bias.
But news simplified into a cartoon denegrating an entire race of people's faith (i.e. based entirely on lies), is not the type of media I would support, or be inclined to publish.
Like I said, once its been debated in the academic arena and "proved" to be a lie. Then yes, by all means mock men who follow such dispicable icons. But only when it has left the academic arena.
| Indi wrote: |
You have bought into the lies being spread by the Muslims reacting to the article. You have not even heard the side of Jyllands-Posten yet. i know this for a fact because of the things you say, like: "Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel." The truth is that the original article had nothing to do with criticizing Mohammad. NOT ONE BLOODY THING. Here's a little game to try: there were 12 cartoons. List all that you think criticized the Prophet, or insulted him, and say why they're insulting. See if you can get five. See... if this whole thing really was about insulting or criticizing Mohammad... shouldn't at least... oh, i don't know... half of the cartoons actually insult or criticize Mohammad? At least?
|
I don't think you quite understand what the cartoon is about.
Let me quote what you have said in your previous post.
| Indi wrote: |
If you wanted to represent Islam being corrupted by violent extremists you would take a symbol of Islam and show it being corrupted by a symbol of violent extremists. Follow? Now, what is a symbol of Islam? Mohammed. What is a symbol of violent extremists? A bomb works. Still following? Therefore, if you take an image of Mohammed, and show it being corrupted in some way by the image of a bomb... you're still with me, right?... you are creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence.
|
This is a bunch of crap from you.
First, the symbol of Islam is not Muhammad. It is the cresent (if anything).
Do you see the face of Muhammad on Muslim country flags? in mosques? in the Quran? in Muslims's bedrooms? or in their homes? Does the name Islam have any links with Muhammad like Christianity does with Christ?
I think you get the point. Muhammad is not a symbol for Islam. And in no way can it be. Islam existed long before Muhammad.
For you to undertsand what the symbol for Islam is, you must understand what the meaning of "Islam" is. And obviously your clueless.
So therefore, to imply that a religion is corrupted by violence such as Islam, you would need to show that the cresent is corrupted, or the Quran or something of that nature. To display a picture of a Prophet, of which (most) Muslims themselves do not depict to avoid leading to idolotry (as with Christianity), and then go beyond that and "corrupt" it with bombs, is INDEED being aimed directly at "Muhammad" and his followers, and a cheap smear at that.
| Indi wrote: |
I don't know? ^_^; i don't even care. Let me offer you something to think about:
Exactly what do Danish cartoons about Islam have to do with the American media? Or Iraq?
|
I'm sorry but was it not you who posted this:
| Indi wrote: |
i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*.
|
Don't shy away now. As you have just shown, Islamic terrorism was not created from the Danish cartoons.
But I can say whole heartedly, that it was created in revenge of American terrorism, and I can provide you ample examples.
The Danish cartoons have everything to do with Iraq and the American media. The Danish cartoons as you have said previously was an attempt in "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence."
Let us go to the origins of the violence. Pick one example, go on. Okay I will pick one for you. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Before 1917, did Jews and Muslims live in hostility (under Muslim occupation)? The ansewr is no, and most if not all historians would side by me on this one. That is Muslims and Jews lived in peace under Muslim occupation. In fact, you look at any era before 1945, you would find that Muslims treated Jews better than Christians treated Jews.
What changed after 1917? For one the Balfour declaration (rooted with pro-Christian Zionism and anti-semetism - from the British govt) in which the British promised a Jewish state for the Jewish people (which the pro-Zionists under Herzl wanted it to be modern day Israel). Then you had the migration of Jews, and the sykes-picot agreement (Galloway said it was "where Britain commited the original sin"). By 1947, the Palestinians were forced out of their homeland, for a crime commited in Europe. And the INternational community (basically the West) supported such idea.
Now think of this scenario. You are living in UK. Suddenly, the world decided that Wales should be given to Jews and that Wales would become a Jewish homeland. Such law would be obviously illegal. And you were told because of the crimes commited by say, China against the Jews, they therefore deserved a homeland in Wales for some bizarre reason (i.e. they once lived there 2000 years ago, but never looked back until now). What would you do? Legally try to protest? Yes, but who to. Would you resist? Of course you would. You have just been kicked out your own homeland, who wouldn't.
Now tell me, are you to condemn the Palestinians their right to resist?
| Indi wrote: |
Again, what do dead Afghans, American blood or 911 have to do with Danish cartoons?
|
Are you contradicting yourself again? What were the Danish cartoons about?
Was 911 violence done by Muslims? Was 911 one example in your comic link (i quoted before)? Did not the actions on 911 influence the author of the comic?
Please don't be stupid and contradict yourself.
| Indi wrote: |
I don't know ^_^; except that the former declared war and tried to minimize civilian casualties while the latter snuck onto a passenger plane and murdered people in a country that thought it was at peace?
|
loll @ the former decalred war and tried to minimize civilians.
The statistics speak for themselves. Count the dead. How many civlians have America killed? How many civilians did Bin Laden followers kill?
AlQaeda followers are evil terrorists without a doubt, but the American Nazi Criminals are by far worse.
| Indi wrote: |
You want to hear something funny? i'm not American. It's not my media. ^_^;
It's also not Danish media. ^_^;
You're wires are crossed, dude. These are two entirely separate issues that you're trying to mix up.
|
Do I care about you? No I don't sorry.
I am dicussing the topic. Danish media produced a cartoon portraying Islam in the world, NOT IN DENMARK. Therefore, my replys answer the violence of Islam IN THE WORLD.
I think you are confused here.
| Indi wrote: |
Stupid answer. Tens of thousands of Muslims who rioted hadn't seen them. And you're quoting their lines.
|
Tens of thousands of Americans (no sorry "Millions") still believe America went to Iraq to bring democracy and peace. And you're quoting their lines.
| Indi wrote: |
i'm reminded of old Bugs Bunny cartoons, where Bugs would pretend to speak in a foreign language. One of the gags was that he would utter one syllable, and the subtitle translation would be a paragraph long... then he would speak for a minute straight, and the subtitle translation would be one word.
|
I'm reminded of an idiot who backs up her evidence of a danish cartoon by displaying the violence commited by Muslims across the globe. But when someone argues with her regarding the violence committed around the world, she says, "What has that to do with Denamrk?"
| Indi wrote: |
Because if you think that whole big block of text translates to four English words... you're about on the level of Elmer Fudd on this one, buddy. ^_^;
|
And you're on the level of George W Bush.
| Indi wrote: |
No, it's still bullshit. Nothing here has anything to do with America or American state terrorism. Or Obama or McCain. Or Ahmedinejhad or Isreal. And the original Danish cartoons were not about portraying religious fanatics. So... ya... total and complete bullshit.
|
Again, it is entirely relevant. Your pea-sized brain cannot understand that Islamic terrorism is in response to American terrorism.
The only difference is that we term "Islamic terrorism" under religion not nationalism. We judge it collectively and not individually. For instance, Iraqi's resitsing occupation is an exmaple of Islamic terrorism, not nationalism - as if we have deprived the entire Muslim world of their nationalism but permitted it for everyone else.
| Indi wrote: |
I want you to note something here about where your headspace is at. Note that i wrote a paragraph suggesting careful research into the incident, and even pointing out something you can use to start your research. Your immediate reply to that was to point out one of the three or so cartoons that does actually criticize Mohammad... and nothing else. Did you do any more research? Nope. Did you look at any of the other cartoons that weren't insulting and wonder why they were there if the point was to insult? Nope.
|
Yes I did, I read your previous posts, and it re-affirmed my belief. I have answered this earlier in my post.
| Indi wrote: |
Not a word of this is relevant. This is about Danish cartoons, in a Danish newspaper, in Denmark. Muslim history has nothing to do with it (it really doesn't - if you'd learn what the fuss is really about, you'd see what i mean), nor does Bin Laden, American foreign policy or "Anglo-American" (?) governments (of which i am quite sure Denmark is not).
|
Okay lets have your way now. This was about a Danish cartoon, in a Danish newspaper, in Denmark. So forget about 9/11, forget about all the violence commited by Muslims around the world - you cannot use that evidence to support this cartoon as it doesnt exist in your view. So let us look at this cartoon in an isolated incident a sandbox if you want.
We get one conclusion: The cartoon is a total load of bullshit! Period. And if speading lies by the media was against that nation's constitution (but in America/Canada it isn't), such men should be prosecuted under law. Hanged, drawn and quartered, if that law is still applicable - as seriously (like the elders of zion), this would lead to the second holocaust in Europe and the Muslims will be on the receiving ends. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
I think you get the point. Muhammad is not a symbol for Islam. And in no way can it be. Islam existed long before Muhammad.
For you to undertsand what the symbol for Islam is, you must understand what the meaning of "Islam" is. And obviously your clueless. |
Err, what?
You think that Islam existed before Muhammad and you think that Indi is clueless?
Perhaps you can explain this to me? since I was under the impression that Islam originated with Muhammed. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | I think you get the point. Muhammad is not a symbol for Islam. And in no way can it be. Islam existed long before Muhammad.
For you to undertsand what the symbol for Islam is, you must understand what the meaning of "Islam" is. And obviously your clueless. |
Err, what?
You think that Islam existed before Muhammad and you think that Indi is clueless?
Perhaps you can explain this to me? since I was under the impression that Islam originated with Muhammed. |
Okay, I expressed two major points here:
1. Muhammad is not the symbol of Islam.
2. Islam existed long before Muhammad.
The first, I think you would agree with me.
The second, requires more understanding of Islam than anything.
Islam means submission and comes from the root word "peace". Islam is "probably" the only religion in the world that is not tied to a particular person or place. For instance, Judas is tied with Jews (ie. Juds), Christ with Christianity, Sindh/Hindustan with Hinduism, Budda with Buddism, you get the point.
So therefore Islam does not mean he who follows Muhammad but he who submits himself to the universal God. The Bible is from God, so is the Psalams of David, and the ten commandments of Moses and the Torah and so forth. Therefore, whosoever followed these scriptures were indeed Muslims. Jesus, in the views of Muslims, was Muslim. So was Abraham, Moses and the rest of the Prophets and Messenegers for they only spoke what God commanded them to. And whosoever followed such people were Muslim too. So therefore Islam (he who is a Muslim follows Islam) existed long before.
The reason why Christians are called Christians and Jews as Jews is because their books were corrupted (and the Quran still refers to them as the people of the book). For instance, the trinity was a Roman invention. Had they belived in their scripture full-heartedly and had it not been corrupted, the comforter that the Christians prayed for was Muhammad (the anointed one), and Jesus was no more than the "son of man" which he himself stated. This hence would have led them to the Quran - the final testament confirming that what came before it. However, prior to Muhammad (and Jesus), faithful Chrstians and Jews who believed in their scripture (without idoltry) would hence die as Muslims (i.e. submitting themselves to God).This is retrospective nonsense, similar to the idea that Mormons can retrospectively baptise their descendants to get them into heaven. It is also drivel. The idea that someone can retrospectively categorise people as belonging to their religion, when those people expressed a different faith during their life, is arrogant, offensive, and patronising.
The simple fact is that Islam, as a religion, originates with Muhammad. It is an article of faith for all believers in Islam that Muhammad was the 'final' prophet and therefore it makes no sense at all to talk about Islam before Muhammad just as it makes no sense to talk about Christianity before Jesus.
PS - no I don't agree that Muhammad is not a symbol of Islam. Muhammad is THE symbol of Islam - he just isn't used in iconography. Ask any Muslim about the core of their faith and Muhammad will be in the first sentence or two.
The crescent existed as a symbol well before Muhammad and can be dated back to the Byzantine empire. It was only adopted as a Muslim symbol in the 15th century when the Turks conquered Constantinople. Even today many Muslims do not recognise the crescent as a symbol for Islam because they regard it as an idolatrous pagan icon.
| Bikerman wrote: |
This is retrospective nonsense, similar to the idea that Mormons can retrospectively baptise their descendants to get them into heaven.
The simple fact is that Islam, as a religion, originates with Muhammed. It is an article of faith for all believers in Islam that Muhammed was the 'final' prophet and therefore it makes no sense at all to talk about Islam before Muhammed just as it makes no sense to talk about Christianity before Jesus.
|
It makes absolute sense. You still don't seem to understand the definition of Muslim and Islam. Translate it, and you will understand.
Muslims believe in all the prophets of book, and they don't deny the miracles done by the prophets e.g. Jesus curing the sick
| Quran (3:49) wrote: |
"... and He (God) will make him (Jesus) a messenger to the children of Israel (saying): 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord that I fashion for you, out of clay, the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by permission of God. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead by permission of God. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. 'Lo! Herein verily is a sign for you, if ye are to be believers.' "
|
The only difference is in interpretation of the events. Let's look at another event, Noahs ark. Christians believe that all animals of Earth 2by 2 went into that ark and the flood filled the world. Muslim view is that it was 2 by 2 of mankind, and it was only in the area of where Moses lived.
These are subtle differences which can easily be distorted. The concept of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are closely linked, and have a great deal of cohesion between each other more so than any other religions. The Quran is like the next edition of a book. It addressed where the book was being distorted prior to it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
PS - no I don't agree that Muhammed is not a symbol of Islam. Muhammed is THE symbol of Islam - he just isn't used in iconography. Ask any Muslim about the core of their faith and Muhammed will be in the first sentence or two.
The crescent existed as a symbol well before Muhammed and can be dated back to the Byzantine empire. It was only adopted as a Muslim symbol in the 15th century when the Turks conquered Constantinople. Even today many Muslims do not recognise the crescent as a symbol for Islam because they regard it as an idolatrous pagan icon. |
Firstly, regarding crescent, I mentioned "if anything". I agree that the symbol was adopted later, but I took this view, as many Muslims take this view, based on Islamic events revolve around the moon, due to their calendar. Otherwise the only symbol for Islam I can think of is the declaration of faith.
And of course, Muhammad will be in their first sentence or two. Because Muslims believe Muhammad is the final messenger. That is not to say that Jesus was any less of a Prophet than Muhammad.
But I don't see how that adds weight to your argument. The Quran is not mentioned in the first sentence or two, yet the Quran is given preference "by all Muslims" over hadith (statements by Muhammad). | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| It makes absolute sense. You still don't seem to understand the definition of Muslim and Islam. Translate it, and you will understand. |
Nonsense. A person who does not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet is NOT a Muslim.
What right have you, as a believer in one faith, to say that people who died professing Christianity or Judaism were, in fact, really Muslims?
As I said before, it is arrogant, offensive, patronising drivel. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | It makes absolute sense. You still don't seem to understand the definition of Muslim and Islam. Translate it, and you will understand. |
Nonsense. A person who does not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet is NOT a Muslim.
|
Correct (of post-Mohammedam). I still don't think you understand what I said.
| Bikerman wrote: |
What right have you, as a believer in one faith, to say that people who died professing Christianity or Judaism were, in fact, really Muslims?
As I said before, it is arrogant, offensive, patronising drivel. |
Wrong. I said they died as Muslims (ie. submitting themselves to God). Did not Jesus die submitting himself to God? And not Moses? And not Abraham? Please tell me how it is insulting?
In fact, you could say the star, moon, sun are Muslim because they follow God's orders. It has nothing to do with Muhammad (but rather God's message). | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | | It makes absolute sense. You still don't seem to understand the definition of Muslim and Islam. Translate it, and you will understand. |
Nonsense. A person who does not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet is NOT a Muslim.
|
Correct. I still don't think you understand what I said. |
I understood OK...I just don't think you do. If a Muslim believes that Muhammad was the final prophet then how can ANYONE who died before Muhammad be classified as a Muslim (even in death)? It is nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
What right have you, as a believer in one faith, to say that people who died professing Christianity or Judaism were, in fact, really Muslims?
As I said before, it is arrogant, offensive, patronising drivel. |
Wrong. I said they died as Muslims (ie. submitting themselves to God). Did not Jesus die submitting himself to God? And not Moses? And not Abraham? Please tell me how it is insulting?
In fact, you could say the star, moon, sun are Muslim because they follow God's orders. |
It is insulting because people who died as Jews had a certain belief about the afterlife. People who died as Christians had another, different, belief. Muslims have yet another belief.
It is insulting because Islam derives from the earlier religions and re-writes the scriptures of those religions, adding insult to injury by claiming that only the Quran is the 'real' word of God and that the previous scriptures were debased.
How would you like it if I defined a new religion - Bikermanism - and defined it in such a way that anyone who previously thought they were Muslim is, in fact, a Bikermanist, and that Bikermanism is actually the correct version of the Quranic teachings, because the original was actually misunderstood by Muhammad because Muhammad was a simpleton?
How do you like them apples? | Bikerman wrote: |
I understood OK...I just don't think you do. If a Muslim believes that Muhammad was the final prophet then how can ANYONE who died before Muhammad be classified as a Muslim (even in death)? It is nonsense.
|
I'll you simply then:
A Muslim is defined as he who follows Islam.
Islam is defined as he who submits himself willingly to God.
Therefore, all Prophets and Messengers are Muslim.
That is all Islam and Muslim mean. There is nothing more. It is the belief in Gods true message. Period.
| Bikermanism wrote: |
How would you like it if I defined a new religion - Bikermanism - and defined it in such a way that anyone who previously thought they were Muslim is, in fact, a Bikermanist, and that Bikermanism is actually the correct version of the Quranic teachings, because the original was actually misunderstood by Muhammad because Muhammad was a simpleton?
How do you like them apples? |
By all means, do so. For the Quran stated when it arrived: "Truth has now arrived and falsehood perished. For falsehood by nature is bound to perish".
Islam has the best laws in my opinion. The forbidding of Interest is one. We would not be in the financial crisis was it not for interest. You bring your laws, and compare it to the Quran. See ifyou can derive better ones. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | I understood OK...I just don't think you do. If a Muslim believes that Muhammad was the final prophet then how can ANYONE who died before Muhammad be classified as a Muslim (even in death)? It is nonsense.
|
I'll you simply then:
A Muslim is defined as he who follows Islam.
Islam is defined as he who submits himself willingly to God.
Therefore, all Prophets and Messengers are Muslim.
That is all Islam and Muslim mean. There is nothing more. It is the belief in Gods true message. Period. |
LOL..'true' being defined by the Quran, of course, which nobody before Muhammad could possibly have read because it didn't exist.
| Quote: |
By all means, do so. For the Quran stated when it arrived: "Truth has now arrived and falsehood perished. For falsehood by nature is bound to perish".
Islam has the best laws in my opinion. The forbidding of Interest is one. We would not be in the financial crisis was it not for interest. You bring your laws, and compare it to the Quran. See ifyou can derive better ones. |
Oh I can easily do so.
The Bikermanist bible says that truth has now arrived and that all falsehood has now perished. What was understood in the Quran as 'God' is actually a massive mistake, caused by wishful and muddy thinking and vested interest - there is no such thing as God.
Bikermanists believe in the following commandments (paraphrased from Dawkins). | Quote: |
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder
6. Always seek to be learning something new
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything, including these commandments. |
Now it goes without saying that Muslims are really Bikermanists (because I say so) and that when they die there will be no Day of Standing Up or Day of Separation. It also follows that there will be no physical resurrection or other metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
There you go - be happy, you are now, officially, a Bikermanist. | Bikerman wrote: |
LOL..'true' being defined by the Quran, of course, which nobody before Muhammad could possibly have read because it didn't exist.
|
Wrong. If they followed their scriptures in its uncorrupted form, then they died as those "who submitted themselves to God" ie. Muslims. It is 'true' according to what their scripture stated.
The bible has gone under many revisions and translations since it advent, from armeic, hebrew, greek, latin, to old english, new english etc etc.
| Quote: |
Bikermanists believe in the following commandments (paraphrased from Dawkins).
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
|
Islam has them already.
"He is not a believer until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself." (hadith by prophet)
| Quote: |
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm
|
Do not cause mischeif on the Earth (quran)
| Quote: |
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
|
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts– these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).” (Quran 2:177)
| Bikerman wrote: |
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
|
"'Speak the truth, even if it is bitter" - Muhammad
"Helped the oppressed and the oppressor." [helping the oppressor]"By helping him not to oppress"
-Muhammad
| Bikerman wrote: |
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder
|
hmm... ill get back to u on this one.
| Bikerman wrote: |
6. Always seek to be learning something new
|
"Acquire knowledge: it enables its possessor to distinguish right from the wrong, it lights the way to heaven; it is our friend in the desert, our society in solitude, our companion when friendless- it guides us to happiness; it sustains us in misery; it is an ornament among friends and an armour against enemies. " - Muhammad
"That person who shall pursue the path of knowledge, God will direct him to the path of Paradise; and verily the superiority of a learned man over an ignorant worshipper is like that of the full moon over all the stars. " - Muhammad
"To listen to the words of the learned, and to instil into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises." - Muhammad
| Bikerman wrote: |
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
|
Speak to truth even if it bitter
| Bikerman wrote: |
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
|
Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind" (Quran 5:32).
"Let not the enmity of others make you sway from justice; be just, that is only nearer to piety."(Quran 5:2).
| Bikerman wrote: |
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
|
"To listen to the words of the learned, and to instil into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises." - Muhammad
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr." - Muhammad
| Bikerman wrote: |
10. Question everything, including these commandments. |
"That person who shall pursue the path of knowledge, God will direct him to the path of Paradise; and verily the superiority of a learned man over an ignorant worshipper is like that of the full moon over all the stars. " - Muhammad
Bring me something new that you have and Islam does not. or even tell me something that you hate about Islam. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | LOL..'true' being defined by the Quran, of course, which nobody before Muhammad could possibly have read because it didn't exist.
|
Wrong. If they followed their scriptures in its uncorrupted form, then they died as those "who submitted themselves to God" ie. Muslims. It is 'true' according to what their scripture stated.
The bible has gone under many revisions and translations since it advent, from armeic, hebrew, greek, latin, to old english, new english etc etc. |
LOL...and, of course, a 7th century sheep-herder was well aware of these revisions and translations and came up with the only 'real' version. How do we know this? Because, of course, God told him - just as he did with every other version of the Abrahamic faiths.
As to the rest - I'm glad that you agree that the Quran is just Bikermanism dressed up in mumbo-jumbo. Obviously I don't expect you to realise that your Quran is actually debased (just as you wouldn't expect a 2nd century Christian to realise that his scriptures were debased) but you obviously agree with the major tenets of my new faith and it follows, therefore, that you are now a Bikermanist. Even if you don't think you are, you are (because I choose to define you as one, just as you choose to define believers before Muhammad as dying as Muslims). Welcome. (Sorry about the afterlife, but that's just the way it is).
PS - I don't 'hate' Islam. I just don't believe it (or any other supernatural faith system). | Bikerman wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | LOL..'true' being defined by the Quran, of course, which nobody before Muhammad could possibly have read because it didn't exist.
|
Wrong. If they followed their scriptures in its uncorrupted form, then they died as those "who submitted themselves to God" ie. Muslims. It is 'true' according to what their scripture stated.
The bible has gone under many revisions and translations since it advent, from armeic, hebrew, greek, latin, to old english, new english etc etc. |
LOL...and, of course, a 7th century sheep-herder was well aware of these revisions and translations and came up with the only 'real' version. How do we know this? Because, of course, God told him - just as he did with every other version of the Abrahamic faiths. |
You are arguing without evidence? Did the bible get corrupted? If so, there was a reason for the Quran. God sent messagers to guide humanity after they strayed away. God never sent a messenger or a prophet to a people that were already believing the true message. This is same in Bible as it is in Torah and the Quran. That is why prophets and messengers were sent. And if you agree that the Bible is corrupted, then how can you disagree that something would come after it?
Like I said, the law of the Quran is the supreme law. It is the best way of life. Islam forbids Interest. It permitted polygmy in a society where it made sense, yet it makes no compulsion on polygmy (i.e. in today's society where it won't make sense). Yet no law or religion at that time put a restriction on polygmy when Islam did. Islam made compulsory inheritence for women, when again no other religion or law at that time stated it. Islam permitted the divorce, it showed us how to do good business, and offered much more.
| Bikerman wrote: |
As to the rest - I'm glad that you agree that the Quran is just Bikermanism dressed up in mumbo-jumbo. It follows, therefore, that you are now a Bikermanist. Welcome.
|
You still haven't offered anything new that is better.
| Bikerman wrote: |
PS - I don't 'hate' Islam. I just don't believe it (or any other supernatural faith system). |
[/quote]
If you can seriously rebuke anything that Islam offers, I like to hear it. If you can't, then as the Quran states, "to you belong your way, and to me mine". Your in no position therefore to criticise it. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| You are arguing without evidence? Did the bible get corrupted? If so, there was a reason for the Quran. God sent messagers to guide humanity after they strayed away. God never sent a messenger or a prophet to a people that were already believing the true message. This is same in Bible as it is in Torah and the Quran. That is why prophets and messengers were sent. And if you agree that the Bible is corrupted, then how can you disagree that something would come after it? |
This is a nonsense argument. If indeed the OT and NT were corrupted by translation errors then you get a scholar of Greek/Hebrew to look at it, not a shepherd. Jews believe that the OT is the divinely inspired word of God. Christians believe that the NT is the divinely inspired word of God. Muslims believe that the Quran is the same. There is no difference - it is all a matter of faith.
Your argument is completely illogical. Books A and B, you say, are corrupted, therefore it follows that Book C is both inevitable and true. Complete nonsense.
| Quote: |
| Like I said, the law of the Quran is the supreme law. ... |
Another nonsense argument. The Quran might work for some, but it doesn't work for me and many others, so by what right can you call it 'supreme'? This is the sort of language which makes Islamaphobes really angry and which provokes the sort of negative response which you decry. | Quote: |
| You still haven't offered anything new that is better. |
On the contrary - I have offered you a set of commandments which, you say, you already obey, and I have removed the necessity to believe in supernatural mumbo-jumbo which contradicts modern science. I would say that is a considerable improvement. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | You are arguing without evidence? Did the bible get corrupted? If so, there was a reason for the Quran. God sent messagers to guide humanity after they strayed away. God never sent a messenger or a prophet to a people that were already believing the true message. This is same in Bible as it is in Torah and the Quran. That is why prophets and messengers were sent. And if you agree that the Bible is corrupted, then how can you disagree that something would come after it? |
This is a nonsense argument. If indeed the OT and NT were corrupted by translation errors then you get a scholar of Greek/Hebrew to look at it, not a shepherd. Jews believe that the OT is the divinely inspired word of God. Christians believe that the NT is the divinely inspired word of God. Muslims believe that the Quran is the same. There is no difference - it is all a matter of faith.
Your argument is completely illogical. Books A and B, you say, are corrupted, therefore it follows that Book C is both inevitable and true. Complete nonsense.
|
OT and NT are corrupted by translation errors. This is a fact. For any translation, would naturally cite errors (for it would be a translation biased by the translator). Think about it.
And The Prophet (you call shephard) was illiterate. he coudln't "look" at it anyways.
The Quran is in arabic, and remains in Arabic. And no translation would ever replace its text, or be a substitute for it.
My argument is logical. I am saying the NT was reveal because people of the OT went astray and ignored its teaching., andit got corrupted. The Quran was revealed because the people of the NT went astray and ignored its teachings, andit got corrupted.. There is no book after the Quran because the Quran has yet to be corrupted.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Another nonsense argument. The Quran might work for some, but it doesn't work for me and many others, so by what right can you call it 'supreme'? This is the sort of language which makes Islamaphobes really angry and which provokes the sort of negative response which you decry.
|
loll.. sorry to get you angry . I meant that if you analyse every single law of the Quran, you will see that among all the laws of our era (no mater where in society progression we are), it will still be better, morally, ethically and what not. Don't judge the actions of so-called Muslim nations established by the Anglo-Americans (i.e. Saudi Arabia or the Taliban in afghanistan), but judge what the Quran states.
Yea and I understand your negative response. It makes me angry when America goes bombing the world and enforcing their ideologies on others when all they ever bring dictatorship not democracy, and war not peace. Almost true in every single war post WW2 they were engaged in. They funded almost every terrorist organisation since WW2. DYK: They would have invaded Italy in 1948 also (under the threat of communism 
) -- Sad but true.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| On the contrary - I have offered you a set of commandments which, you say, you already obey, and I have removed the necessity to believe in supernatural mumbo-jumbo which contradicts modern science. I would say that is a considerable improvement. |
Yet you have failed to offer a verse from the Quran that contradicts modern science. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| My argument is logical. I am saying the NT was reveal because people of the OT went astray and ignored its teaching., andit got corrupted. The Quran was revealed because the people of the NT went astray and ignored its teachings, andit got corrupted.. There is no book after the Quran because the Quran has yet to be corrupted. |
Your argument is completely illogical. The only grounds for believing that the Quran is accurate is faith - exactly the same applies to the OT and NT. You choose to believe that an illiterate shepherd had a 'divine inspiration' and wrote the Quran over many years. Fair enough, but don't try to pretend that this is in any way more credible, as 'divine revelation' than any 'divinely inspired' translation of the NT - it simply isn't. Both rely entirely on faith.
| Quote: |
| loll.. sorry to get you angry . I meant that if you analyse every single law of the Quran, you will see that among all the laws of our era (no mater where in society progression we are), it will still be better, morally, ethically and what not. Don't judge the actions of so-called Muslim nations established by the Anglo-Americans (i.e. Saudi Arabia or the Taliban in afghanistan), but judge what the Quran states. |
Yet you judge the OT and NT by the followers who 'went astray and forgot it's teachings'. How, then, am I supposed to judge the Quran if not by the behaviour of its followers?
If you want specific examples, then I find the Quranic teachings on women offensive. This is not simply the behaviour of the western supported/established Islamic states - it is common to many Islamic countries and is based on the words in the Quran:
2:228 Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them.
2:282 A woman is worth one-half a man.
4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women.
and so on.
| Quote: |
| Yet you have failed to offer a verse from the Quran that contradicts modern science. |
I could spend all day citing the Quran creation myth and showing why it is nonsense. There is little point since I have done this comprehensively in other threads and a quick search should reveal the postings in question. | Bikerman wrote: |
2:228 Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them.
2:282 A woman is worth one-half a man.
|
This verse is regarding a financial transaction. It did not say a women is "worth" less than a man. It said that 2 women witnesses are required. There was a reason for this: as men predominently engaged in finance at that time period. Women were usually not invovled. Hence the reason, if one errs, the other can help. IN today's society where women can work, it wold be different.
Also, note that a women was able to be witnesses. How many other civilizations practiced this?
| Bikerman wrote: |
4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women.
|
The word "charge" in fact means "stand over" in the guardian sense. This verse is regarding the physical mould of man. Men are built. For instance, if there was a robbery, would you tell the women to defend the house with a baseball bat or a man? Then who is better in this state.
The Quran re-affirms equality when it states "created men and women equaly"
Sure some things men excel over women, and others women over men. But overall, they are created equally.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I could spend all day citing the Quran creation myth and showing why it is nonsense. There is little point since I have done this comprehensively in other threads and a quick search should reveal the postings in question.
|
Ill do it next time,, remind me
[MOD -I accidentally edited your posting instead of replying...I hope I have restored the original, my mistake.]Errr...no. The first verse is to do with divorce. If you want the complete verse then it reads:
| Quote: |
The divorced women shall wait three menstruations. It is not lawful for them to conceal what GOD creates in their wombs, if they believe in GOD and the Last Day. The husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes, if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably. Thus, the man's wishes prevail. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
|
The second verse is indeed to do with finance and says that two women can stand-in as a witness in place of one man. The reason for this is given in the annotations from several sources | Quote: |
| It is a recognized fact that women are more emotionally vulnerable than men. |
Really? I think not.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
The word "charge" in fact means "stand over" in the guardian sense. This verse is regarding the physical mould of man. Men are built. For instance, if there was a robbery, would you tell the women to defend the house with a baseball bat or a man? Then who is better in this state.
The Quran re-affirms equality when it states "created men and women equaly"
Sure some things men excel over women, and others women over men. But overall, they are created equally. |
Nope - that is not what it says. Take two common translations;
| Roswell wrote: |
| 4;34 Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! |
Now let's take the one most sympathetic to your beliefs;
| Ali wrote: |
| 4:34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means for Allah is Most High, Great. |
The meaning is clear, and unacceptable. | Bikerman wrote: |
Errr...no. The first verse is to do with divorce. If you want the complete verse then it reads:
| Quote: | The divorced women shall wait three menstruations. It is not lawful for them to conceal what GOD creates in their wombs, if they believe in GOD and the Last Day. The husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes, if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably. Thus, the man's wishes prevail. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
|
|
I don't know what translator you use, but I would use Yusuf Ali or Pickthall - the most common translators. Pickthall translation: "Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
| Bikerman wrote: |
The second verse is indeed to do with finance and says that two women can stand-in as a witness in place of one man. The reason for this is given in the annotations from several sources
|
Like I said, I discussed this already. The idea of having 2 women as witnesses can only exist in finance. And this was due to the time where predominently men engaged in finance. The Quran further states 'if one errs, the other can help', which supports my arguement taht this is the case.
Which annotations from several sources? Quote it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | It is a recognized fact that women are more emotionally vulnerable than men. |
Really? I think not.
|
This seems to be a made up quote. I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Nope - that is not what it says. Take two common translations;
| Roswell wrote: | | 4;34 Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! |
Now let's take the one most sympathetic to your beliefs;
| Ali wrote: | | 4:34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means for Allah is Most High, Great. |
The meaning is clear, and unacceptable. |
Loll at Roswell - not a common translation. And I believe he was Christian.
The second is Yusuf Ali translation, yes that is common.
And let me discuss the second one, and now you will realise the importance of translation.
The arabic word "darabah" was translated to beat in the above quote. The word "darabah" can mean beat (roswell used it as scourge which I believe is an overstatement), but it has several other meanings, that include send away. In the view of other scholars, this verse indicated that a women should be directed to the womens quarters (much like what you had during victorian times). This is again why I say the translation of a text can never be a replacement of the original.
And again I see the verse supporting what I said before. That is that at the beginning it says that men support women "from their means", and hence they are their maintainers and protectors. That was society then. Now we live in a society where women can work, and hence that statement can not be used in today's context. That is not to say that the Quranic stateemnt is not valid, as it is since the condition for why they are maintainers and protectors of women is given.First you question the translations and say I should use Ali. When I do use Ali then you say that the translation is actually mistaken. You cherry-pick from the Ali translation - taking the bit that makes the Quran look reasonable and re-defining the bit that makes it look bad. Thoroughly dishonest (like most theology).
You say that Pickthall is a reasonable alternative to Ali, well let's see what Pickthall says about 4:34
| Pickthall wrote: |
| Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other*, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. |
Now, can we find ANY translation of the Quran that does NOT include the word 'beat' or 'scourge'? I can't find a single one. For example, the Shakir translation: | Shakir wrote: |
| Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others* and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. |
I actually chose translations which I thought would be favourable to your points, not mine. I could have chosen much more 'extreme' translations had I wanted to (such as the Saudi Wahhabi translation commonly circulated in Mosques here in the UK).
I also took several sources for the annotations - the one quoted comes from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.html (which is a very liberal Islamic site). I did not put words in ANYONE'S mouth - I do not do that, as should be apparent from my previous postings. Neither do I 'make things up' to support my points, and I find that suggesting insulting, since I take a great deal of time and effort to support my contentions.
* Note that EVERY translation says that men are superior to women - not because they maintain them (note the word AND), but because Allah made them that way. To argue that this refers only to physical prowess in disingenuous.
The fact is that the Quran was written in 7th century and reflects the thoughts of that time, just as the OT reflects the customs and practices of Jews in pre-Christian times. I've actually defended the Quran in other threads when it was attacked as a terrorist manual. I think that some parts of the Quran are perfectly reasonable, especially given when it was written. The problem is that it was written centuries ago and we have moved on. If you treat it like many Christians treat the bible (as a rough guide and not a literal text) then there is no great harm in it. The problem comes when you treat it as the inerrant word of God (just like the creationists treat the bible).
The only practical way to judge a faith system is by the behaviour of the believers, not by the scriptures they claim to follow. I don't judge all Christians to be anti-scientific charlatans - just those who call themselves creationists. I don't judge all Muslims to be misogynistic terrorists - just those whose actions define them as such. | Bikerman wrote: |
First you question the translations and say I should use Ali. When I do use Ali then you say that the translation is actually mistaken. You cherry-pick from the Ali translation - taking the bit that makes the Quran look reasonable and re-defining the bit that makes it look bad. Thoroughly dishonest (like most theology).
|
You are right. I do not believe that a single Quran "translation" can be considered 100% accurate translation. Thus, I do "cherry-pick" and at my will. All translations would inevitably be biased in portraying the translators views. ANd even the arabic text of the Quran, and in fact no literature piece is an exception, will be prone to different interpretations of the same text.
Is it dishonest of me? Hell no. Always keep an open mind is what I say. After all, translations are writen by mortal men - whom, like all of us, are far from perfect.
| Bikerman wrote: |
You say that Pickthall is a reasonable alternative to Ali, well let's see what Pickthall says about 4:34
| Pickthall wrote: | | Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. |
|
Like I said, get the arabic word which the translor used for "scourge". It is "darabah". And in a hadith of the prophet - not sure on its authenticity but I heard in a talk by Yusuf Estes (a convert to Islam), in reply the prophet gave an example by taking out his toothpick and "tapping" it against the questioner(or was it himself?). That was said to be the meaning of "darabah" in that specific verse.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Now, can we find ANY translation of the Quran that does NOT include the word 'beat' or 'scourge'?
|
Yes, there are plenty.
Ahmed Ali (promenant translator) translation states:
"Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great."
Also, I think there Quran by IRF (headed by Dr Zakir Naik). Maybe I can provide links if you want. Another I heard in America they were to translate one as send away as oppose to beat. The Quran has been translated in many languages
The word "darabah" has many meanings and thats the beauty of still having the original text.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I can't find a single one. For example, the Shakir translation: | Shakir wrote: | | Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. |
|
Ahmed Ali is one - which I have just quoted.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I actually chose translations which I thought would be favourable to your points, not mine. I could have chosen much more 'extreme' translations had I wanted to (such as the Saudi Wahhabi translation commonly circulated in Mosques here in the UK).
|
It is sad. To see translations of the Quran funded by the govt of Saudi Arabia is indeed depressing. No doubt has political spin attached. And then to give it out for free ensuring a widespread circulation is worse 
.
And Thank God you didnt! .
I am not fully aware of their political and other views, but I do know two main things:
1. They follow the Quran literally (and nothing more) - i.e. disregard statements of the prophet
2. They derive hidden texts (da vinci code if you like) from the Quran (i.e. number 19 and stuff like that).
I do not share their views on the two points. That is as much as I know about them. Im not sure about the rest of their faith.
With regards to economy, politics and everything else: I have my own view of which most conforms to religion. I don't think any of my ways of handling economy, politics etc would go against religion. Chomsky and Galloway are my idols in this field, but most is my own understanding.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Note that EVERY translation says that men are superior to women - not because they maintain them (note the word AND), but because Allah made them that way.
|
Be careful here: you said "superior". In the shakir translation you quoted, it mentions: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property;"
I do not see how you justify that the meaning is superiority (as in overall). And superiority in what sense?
Men are "PHYSICALLY superior" than women. That is a fact. You look at athletics, their bodies, and whatever, the body of a man physically is superior than a women, and the theory of evolution agrees on this point - since the male is always the one to hunt for food and to protect the female and hence the bodies of males have adapted in such manner.
And likewise I can say, women are MENTALLY superior (in terms of multitasking for instance) than men. This is also a fact. Is it sexist? No, it is the truth. Similarly, the same is the case for race on some areas, such as dark people have "superior" skins in avoiding skin cancer at hot temperature than lighter people. Is that racist? Then sue the NHS.
Don't be confused that the verse is implying that men are BETTER than women, as this is not the case, and no translation says that. Re-read the shakir translation I posted, and you will see.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The fact is that the Quran was written in 7th century and reflects the thoughts of that time, just as the OT reflects the customs and practices of Jews in pre-Christian times. I've actually defended the Quran in other threads when it was attacked as a terrorist manual.
|
The words of the Quran remain true and ever so important today. As I mentioned many times, the idea of eliminating interest is one of the greatest laws it has. Not only does Islam state what is bad, it provides a solution and suggest alternatives. Shariah-compliant banking is the fasting growing banking secotr in the world (or one of the fastest). Who would have thought, ethical and interest-free banking can exist in a banking industry.
And if you quote in context, you will understand that the Quran does not make compulsry any law that is restricted to a particular time (i.e. polygmy 1000 years ago). Like I said before, polygamy made sense then, but it doesnt now - and not because people's thoughts have changed, but because the environment that we live in has changed.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I think that some parts of the Quran are perfectly reasonable, especially given when it was written. The problem is that it was written centuries ago and we have moved on. If you treat it like many Christians treat the bible (as a rough guide and not a literal text) then there is no great harm in it. The problem comes when you treat it as the inerrant word of God (just like the creationists treat the bible).
|
Without context, nothing has meaning. When you look at the Quran, you must look at it in context. For instance, Islam permits polygmy and was the first religion/constitution to set a limit on the amount of women a man can marry. It made sense 1400 years ago for polygmy - given that females live long and survive disease more than males during infancy, that men went to battle and women did not, and that women were financially dependant upon men. And Islam permits it but set a limit to 4 (reasonable limits), but adds if you cannot do justice marry only one. So in today's society, where the above conditions are not true (at least in the West and the farEast) then 1:1 marriage is right (although in a truely free society, there would be a slight more number of females than males).
| Bikerman wrote: |
The only way to judge a faith system is by the behaviour of the believers of that faith, not by the scriptures they claim to follow. |
Wrong. The views of people always change. And you should know that it is foolish of you to judge a book by its cover.
For instance, you may notice that I am deeply against American foriegn policy. But I believe that the American constitution is the best written constitution in the world. The constitution is what America truly stands for, even if their leaders behave otherwise. Election is soon, and their leader will change.
But their constitution, is their deep values of that nation. That cannot change (technically it can, but it won't be the same constitution). Even if they don't abide by it (like they didn't in the 1960s or even now), the words are there and will remain forever. Martin Luther King belived in so much hope for America not because of the people, but because of her constitution. His "I have a dream speech" bears testomony to this.
So the only way I will hate America (the entity, the country) is if I was to hate her constitution. And to that, I respect her constitution.
What I hate is her foriegn policy due to the behaviour of her leaders (and her leaders can change anyday). And/But the constitution, is nothing more than lifeless words on paper everlasting, can never ever be held responsible.Well, I've said all I wish to say in this debate - I'm content to let others judge based on those contributions.
One final point, however | Quote: |
So the only way I will hate America (the entity, the country) is if I was to hate her constitution. And to that, I respect her constitution.
What I hate is her foriegn policy due to the behaviour of her leaders (and her leaders can change anyday). And/But the constitution, is nothing more than lifeless words on paper everlasting, can never ever be held responsible. |
I detect some hypocrisy here.
| Polemistis wrote: |
| The War on terrorism will not be completed, until the biggest terrorist of them all - AMERICA is destroyed. |
It seems to me that you defined the 'entity' by the actions of its leaders in that statement, just as others define Islam by the actions of some Muslims...
PS - I would not normally 'quote mine' in a discussion of this type, but you did invite this with your statements above.... | Bikerman wrote: |
Well, I've said all I wish to say in this debate - I'm content to let others judge based on those contributions.
One final point, however | Quote: |
So the only way I will hate America (the entity, the country) is if I was to hate her constitution. And to that, I respect her constitution.
What I hate is her foriegn policy due to the behaviour of her leaders (and her leaders can change anyday). And/But the constitution, is nothing more than lifeless words on paper everlasting, can never ever be held responsible. |
I detect some hypocrisy here.
| Polemistis wrote: | | The War on terrorism will not be completed, until the biggest terrorist of them all - AMERICA is destroyed. |
It seems to me that you defined the 'entity' by the actions of its leaders in that statement, just as others define Islam by the actions of some Muslims... |
Loll no hypocrisy... America has fed virtually every terrorist organisation on the face of this Earth. If you want the end to the war on terrorism, it would mean an end to the current American foriegn policy - and hence the end of America.
The only reason why America (the entity/country) is maintaining supremecy in the world is through funding terrorism i.e. vietnam, AlQaeda/muhajdeen in afghanistan 1970s, iran-contra affair (which kindof backfired), funding Israel, supporting Saddam Hussein (which backfired), funding the Saudis, in el salvador, the coup in Venezuela, something also in guatemalea (i.e. the banana countries), panoma, and so on.
Whenever I insult America, I am referring to her foriegn policy. Not her people, not her laws, not anything else. I respect her constitution and her people. America has contributed a lot of good to this world in the field of science and technology and knowledge.
I however, have no respect for her foreign policy, and those who fight to defend her foreign policy (i.e. US soldiers aka brainwashed terrorists).
PS: I should choose my words carefully, that is use "US govt foriegn policy" over "America" as this would be politically correct. In future, I will try. Most of the cases I mean "US govt foriegn policy" over "America". | ThePolemistis wrote: |
I never said "censor the news". I believe in an open and free media without spin and without bias.
But news simplified into a cartoon denegrating an entire race of people's faith (i.e. based entirely on lies), is not the type of media I would support, or be inclined to publish. |
And if that were the type of media we were talking about here, that would be a relevant point. But it's not and never has been. i say again, if you've seen the cartoons, give me 5 - less than half! - explain how they denigrate an entire race, or an entire faith.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
You have bought into the lies being spread by the Muslims reacting to the article. You have not even heard the side of Jyllands-Posten yet. i know this for a fact because of the things you say, like: "Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel." The truth is that the original article had nothing to do with criticizing Mohammad. NOT ONE BLOODY THING. Here's a little game to try: there were 12 cartoons. List all that you think criticized the Prophet, or insulted him, and say why they're insulting. See if you can get five. See... if this whole thing really was about insulting or criticizing Mohammad... shouldn't at least... oh, i don't know... half of the cartoons actually insult or criticize Mohammad? At least?
|
I don't think you quite understand what the cartoon is about.
Let me quote what you have said in your previous post.
| Indi wrote: |
If you wanted to represent Islam being corrupted by violent extremists you would take a symbol of Islam and show it being corrupted by a symbol of violent extremists. Follow? Now, what is a symbol of Islam? Mohammed. What is a symbol of violent extremists? A bomb works. Still following? Therefore, if you take an image of Mohammed, and show it being corrupted in some way by the image of a bomb... you're still with me, right?... you are creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence.
|
This is a bunch of crap from you. |
*sigh* Ok, i'm going to go over this very slowly, in small words.
That cartoon was drawn by a cartoonist. If he wanted to criticize Islam, then yes, as i explained, that's a good way of going about it. And, presumably, he did want to criticize Islam... because it looks like he did.
But, and this is point 1: criticizing the hijacking of Islam by extremists is NOT the same as "denigrating an entire religion". Is this really that difficult to understand? Here, because most people can't think clearly when their religion is involved, here's an outside example. If i said, "Man, Mastercore is being taken over by a bunch of ignorant bean counters", am i saying "Mastercore is a horrible company", or am i saying "i don't like what the new people are doing with Mastercore"? Now, if i said "Islam is being taken over by extremists", am i saying "Islam is a stupid religion", or am i saying "i don't like the people that are taking over Islam"? Take your time now. Think about it.
Now, the next point.
That cartoon was drawn by a cartoonist. But they were requested and published by a newspaper editor. They are two different people. Can you understand that? One person drew each cartoon, so that's 12 cartoonists, and then yet another person - a thirteenth person - requested and published them. Different people. Now, you know that the cartoonist probably wanted to criticize Islam... and you seem unable to understand that that doesn't necessarily mean the publisher did too.
And this is point 2: the motivations of the cartoonists is NOT the same as the motivation of the newspaper in requesting and publishing those cartoons. i've already pointed out to you that your theory is plain wrong - not all of the cartoons insult Islam - and some don't even picture Mohammad. So unless some of the artists just screwed up (and the publisher just printed them anyway), that means it obviously wasn't the goal of the publisher. Clearly that makes no sense.
On the other hand, if the goal was something else - something that you just haven't got yet, even though i've dropped a dozen clues - and that some cartoonists used that opportunity to criticize Islam and others didn't... well that makes sense now.
So now, your task - assuming you care about being a rational human being - is to find out what that something else is. THEN you can say whether or not they were justified in publishing anything.
Until then, you're just an ignorant loudmouth - you don't really know what you're shouting mad about.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
First, the symbol of Islam is not Muhammad. It is the cresent (if anything).
Do you see the face of Muhammad on Muslim country flags? in mosques? in the Quran? in Muslims's bedrooms? or in their homes? Does the name Islam have any links with Muhammad like Christianity does with Christ?
I think you get the point. Muhammad is not a symbol for Islam. And in no way can it be. Islam existed long before Muhammad. |
i'm going to ignore that last comment, because it's just too crazy. ^_^; You'll also find me entirely unmoved by the rest of your ranting against me... because it's all based on stupidity. What did i say? Here, i'll show you. "Now, what is a symbol of Islam? Mohammed." See what i said? Did i say Mohammad was the symbol of Islam? No, i said he was a symbol. A. As in, one of many. As in, not the only one. As in, not even necessarily the primary one. Follow?
Now, am i wrong? Is Mohammad not a symbol of Islam? If so, then you should have no problem with the cartoons. But you do. Thus, obviously, Mohammad is a symbol if Islam. QED. ^_^;
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| For you to undertsand what the symbol for Islam is, you must understand what the meaning of "Islam" is. And obviously your clueless. |
Now, just stop there. Tell me why i must understand what the meaning of "Islam" is. Seriously. Tell me why. Is it because i would be a complete idiot to criticize something i didn't understand? Why yes, it sure sounds like that's what you're saying.
Now, i have no interest in criticizing Islam, so i don't really care what the meaning of "Islam" is... but... you're criticizing the Danish cartoons... so... i assume you know what their meaning is... right? ^_^ Right? So tell me: why were those cartoons published?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
I don't know? ^_^; i don't even care. Let me offer you something to think about:
Exactly what do Danish cartoons about Islam have to do with the American media? Or Iraq?
|
I'm sorry but was it not you who posted this:
| Indi wrote: | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*.
|
Don't shy away now. As you have just shown, Islamic terrorism was not created from the Danish cartoons.
But I can say whole heartedly, that it was created in revenge of American terrorism, and I can provide you ample examples. |
What the hell are you talking about? i never claimed Islamic terrorism was created from the Danish cartoons.
I posted that cartoon to show the hypocrisy of the so-called peaceful Muslims who rioted over the cartoons, but didn't lift a finger at all of the atrocities committed in the name of their own religion.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
The Danish cartoons have everything to do with Iraq and the American media. The Danish cartoons as you have said previously was an attempt in "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence."
Let us go to the origins of the violence. Pick one example, go on. Okay I will pick one for you. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Before 1917, did Jews and Muslims live in hostility (under Muslim occupation)? The ansewr is no, and most if not all historians would side by me on this one. That is Muslims and Jews lived in peace under Muslim occupation. In fact, you look at any era before 1945, you would find that Muslims treated Jews better than Christians treated Jews.
What changed after 1917? For one the Balfour declaration (rooted with pro-Christian Zionism and anti-semetism - from the British govt) in which the British promised a Jewish state for the Jewish people (which the pro-Zionists under Herzl wanted it to be modern day Israel). Then you had the migration of Jews, and the sykes-picot agreement (Galloway said it was "where Britain commited the original sin"). By 1947, the Palestinians were forced out of their homeland, for a crime commited in Europe. And the INternational community (basically the West) supported such idea.
Now think of this scenario. You are living in UK. Suddenly, the world decided that Wales should be given to Jews and that Wales would become a Jewish homeland. Such law would be obviously illegal. And you were told because of the crimes commited by say, China against the Jews, they therefore deserved a homeland in Wales for some bizarre reason (i.e. they once lived there 2000 years ago, but never looked back until now). What would you do? Legally try to protest? Yes, but who to. Would you resist? Of course you would. You have just been kicked out your own homeland, who wouldn't.
Now tell me, are you to condemn the Palestinians their right to resist? |
What in the hell are you talking about now? First, i never claimed the Danish cartoons started Islamic terrorism - because that's just bloody stupid. i don't know why you'd even think someone would think that. And if that one cartoon was an attempt to show Islam corrupted by violent extremists... i still don't see what the hell any of that has to do with America or Iraq. Even you didn't explain why. You just said the Danish cartoons are related to America and Iraq - with no explanation or evidence - and then went off on some kind of rant about the history of Israel and Palestine?!?! The hell?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Again, what do dead Afghans, American blood or 911 have to do with Danish cartoons?
|
Are you contradicting yourself again? What were the Danish cartoons about?
Was 911 violence done by Muslims? Was 911 one example in your comic link (i quoted before)? Did not the actions on 911 influence the author of the comic?
Please don't be stupid and contradict yourself. |
Ok, in order:
- Contradicting myself where?
- i know what the Danish cartoons are about. You don't. i've been asking you to explain how they are related to Afghanistan, Palestine and whatever the hell else you want to bring up. You're not answering.
- Of course. So what? Was the massacre of the Banu Qurayza done by Muslims? Yes... but so what? None of that has to do with why the Danish newspaper printed those comics.
- Yes. So what? The Danish newspaper didn't make that comic, and neither did any of the artists.
- i don't know? Maybe. But so what? You're picking on one of a dozen cartoons - the one that is most critical of Islam. What about all the others? Was the author of this cartoon influenced by 9-11? What does that cartoon have to do with American media, Iraq, Israel or any of the other random crap you've brought up?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
loll @ the former decalred war and tried to minimize civilians.
The statistics speak for themselves. Count the dead. How many civlians have America killed? How many civilians did Bin Laden followers kill?
AlQaeda followers are evil terrorists without a doubt, but the American Nazi Criminals are by far worse. |
AND WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE DANISH CARTOONS!?!?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
You want to hear something funny? i'm not American. It's not my media. ^_^;
It's also not Danish media. ^_^;
You're wires are crossed, dude. These are two entirely separate issues that you're trying to mix up.
|
Do I care about you? No I don't sorry.
I am dicussing the topic. Danish media produced a cartoon portraying Islam in the world, NOT IN DENMARK. Therefore, my replys answer the violence of Islam IN THE WORLD.
I think you are confused here. |
Extremely. ^_^;
You are not discussing the topic. You are introducing all kinds of random peripheral crap that obviously bothers you in some kind of way, and trying your damnedest to find an excuse to make it topical. This latest attempt - "Danish media produced a cartoon portraying Islam in the world, NOT IN DENMARK. Therefore, my replys answer the violence of Islam IN THE WORLD." - is completely idiotic. Which of the Danish cartoons even mentions the world? And - yet again - can you tell the difference between a cartoonist and publisher? The cartoonist (of one or two of the cartoons) may have wanted to criticize Islam... but that doesn't mean the publisher of the paper did. It also doesn't mean that's why they asked those cartoonists to draw cartoons about Mohammad. Why is that so difficult to understand?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Stupid answer. Tens of thousands of Muslims who rioted hadn't seen them. And you're quoting their lines.
|
Tens of thousands of Americans (no sorry "Millions") still believe America went to Iraq to bring democracy and peace. And you're quoting their lines. |
What lines?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| I'm reminded of an idiot who backs up her evidence of a danish cartoon by displaying the violence commited by Muslims across the globe. But when someone argues with her regarding the violence committed around the world, she says, "What has that to do with Denamrk?" |
An idiot now, hm? ^_^;
Well, an idiot i may be, but at least i can tell the difference between a cartoonist and a publisher.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Because if you think that whole big block of text translates to four English words... you're about on the level of Elmer Fudd on this one, buddy. ^_^;
|
And you're on the level of George W Bush. |
What the hell are you talking about? ^_^;
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
No, it's still bullshit. Nothing here has anything to do with America or American state terrorism. Or Obama or McCain. Or Ahmedinejhad or Isreal. And the original Danish cartoons were not about portraying religious fanatics. So... ya... total and complete bullshit.
|
Again, it is entirely relevant. Your pea-sized brain cannot understand that Islamic terrorism is in response to American terrorism.
The only difference is that we term "Islamic terrorism" under religion not nationalism. We judge it collectively and not individually. For instance, Iraqi's resitsing occupation is an exmaple of Islamic terrorism, not nationalism - as if we have deprived the entire Muslim world of their nationalism but permitted it for everyone else. |
My pea-sized brain doesn't care about Islamic terrorism or American terrorism here, because that's not why the cartoons were printed. My pea-sized brain was big enough to tell me that before i jump to conclusions about why something was done, i should go look for evidence. Looking for evidence is the mark of a rational person. Shouting insults while refusing to look for evidence is the mark of a religious extremist.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
I want you to note something here about where your headspace is at. Note that i wrote a paragraph suggesting careful research into the incident, and even pointing out something you can use to start your research. Your immediate reply to that was to point out one of the three or so cartoons that does actually criticize Mohammad... and nothing else. Did you do any more research? Nope. Did you look at any of the other cartoons that weren't insulting and wonder why they were there if the point was to insult? Nope.
|
Yes I did, I read your previous posts, and it re-affirmed my belief. I have answered this earlier in my post. |
My previous posts reaffirmed your belief that these cartoons had something to do with Palestine? ^_^; You might want to check them again.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Not a word of this is relevant. This is about Danish cartoons, in a Danish newspaper, in Denmark. Muslim history has nothing to do with it (it really doesn't - if you'd learn what the fuss is really about, you'd see what i mean), nor does Bin Laden, American foreign policy or "Anglo-American" (?) governments (of which i am quite sure Denmark is not).
|
Okay lets have your way now. This was about a Danish cartoon, in a Danish newspaper, in Denmark. So forget about 9/11, forget about all the violence commited by Muslims around the world - you cannot use that evidence to support this cartoon as it doesnt exist in your view. So let us look at this cartoon in an isolated incident a sandbox if you want.
We get one conclusion: The cartoon is a total load of bullshit! Period. And if speading lies by the media was against that nation's constitution (but in America/Canada it isn't), such men should be prosecuted under law. Hanged, drawn and quartered, if that law is still applicable - as seriously (like the elders of zion), this would lead to the second holocaust in Europe and the Muslims will be on the receiving ends. |
Yeeaaahhh... you don't really know how to do this "isolated sandbox" thing very well if you can go from isolated sandbox to Muslim holocausts in Europe in the space of like four sentences. ^_^;
Furthermore... you do realize that there were 12 cartoons, right? Not just the one. You might want to look at the others before you execute the staff of Jyllands-Posten.
And furthermore... don't you see your own raging hypocrisy? On the one hand you want people executed for criticizing Islam... on the other you've spent several posts now ranting and raving about American media and America in general. Why shouldn't you be executed for that? Why are your beliefs sacred, but not other peoples'? | Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | I never said "censor the news". I believe in an open and free media without spin and without bias.
But news simplified into a cartoon denegrating an entire race of people's faith (i.e. based entirely on lies), is not the type of media I would support, or be inclined to publish. |
And if that were the type of media we were talking about here, that would be a relevant point. But it's not and never has been. i say again, if you've seen the cartoons, give me 5 - less than half! - explain how they denigrate an entire race, or an entire faith.
|
Okay lets begin
Numero Uno: the bomb disguised as a turban on a man that supposedly is to resemble Muhammad. This signifies that Muhammad is the root of all terror.
Deux: The crecent and star (see this is where the symbol of islam has been used, not the above pic) over the right eye of a man - maybe to express that they blindly follow their religion (if so, the man is not muhammad). But this then therefore signifies taht there lies something wrong with Islam itself (yet the author has not expressed what in this case - therefore it leads us to believe its the religion itself).
Trois: on the top right appears a man standing with a brown beard. His turban has horns on it that signifies it being like a raging bull or maybe the vikings (war perhaps) - although the man tries to appear like an angel (the yellow on top of his head "almost" looks like a yellow ring, and his white clothing).
To be honest, this cartoon represents a bunch of crap.
quattre: there appears a pic of a man whose eyes have been masked but the eyes of the ladies on his either side are not. (It would hav bin nice if we had jus one author so at least we know if they mean Muhammad by the similarity of drawings )
So this man is presumed to be Muhammad -judging by the title - but if the author had any knowledge of Islam, history or anything he would have know not to draw the sword of Muhammad the way he drawn it. So what does this cartoon express? That Muslims blindly do wrong i.e. kill, and as if to say that Islam is the wrong that they are blindly following. Sure he has a point if anyone blindly follows anything, but the women in the background are not blinded yet they are covered from head to "presumably" toe, which clearly indicates that this is not what he intends.
cinq: a man walking in desert (red turban this time) looking all tired and a donkey in the background. Again this shows crap, except to depict Muhammad as a form of an image. Albeit, the black beard(without any gray) does represent the youth, and considering Muhammad was around late 50s of the era he(author) speaks of (and if anything the beard should be red), the author is simply drawing crap.
[quote="ThePolemistis"] | Indi wrote: |
You have bought into the lies being spread by the Muslims reacting to the article. You have not even heard the side of Jyllands-Posten yet. i know this for a fact because of the things you say, like: "Sure, you can criticise the Prophet. But do not use the mainstream media as that channel." The truth is that the original article had nothing to do with criticizing Mohammad. NOT ONE BLOODY THING. Here's a little game to try: there were 12 cartoons. List all that you think criticized the Prophet, or insulted him, and say why they're insulting. See if you can get five. See... if this whole thing really was about insulting or criticizing Mohammad... shouldn't at least... oh, i don't know... half of the cartoons actually insult or criticize Mohammad? At least?
|
I don't think you quite understand what the cartoon is about.
Let me quote what you have said in your previous post.
| Indi wrote: |
But, and this is point 1: criticizing the hijacking of Islam by extremists is NOT the same as "denigrating an entire religion".
|
I totally agree.
| Indi wrote: |
Is this really that difficult to understand? Here, because most people can't think clearly when their religion is involved, here's an outside example. If i said, "Man, Mastercore is being taken over by a bunch of ignorant bean counters", am i saying "Mastercore is a horrible company", or am i saying "i don't like what the new people are doing with Mastercore"? Now, if i said "Islam is being taken over by extremists", am i saying "Islam is a stupid religion", or am i saying "i don't like the people that are taking over Islam"? Take your time now. Think about it.
|
Okay, I don't have time for your out-of-this-world analagies, I already stated I agree in my former post.
But, and here is point 1 from me: let's say if the author was trying to criticise Islam - the religion in the cartoon as a violent religion. How he portray it?
| Indi wrote: |
That cartoon was drawn by a cartoonist. But they were requested and published by a newspaper editor. They are two different people. Can you understand that? One person drew each cartoon, so that's 12 cartoonists, and then yet another person - a thirteenth person - requested and published them. Different people. Now, you know that the cartoonist probably wanted to criticize Islam... and you seem unable to understand that that doesn't necessarily mean the publisher did too.
|
This tells us absolutely nothing. The publisher is different to the cartoonist, who is different to the printing press, who is different to the editor, who is different to blah blah blah. No views are alike in the field of jouranlism. Each has different motives, their views of religion, views on covering sensetive topics, views on dumbing it to cartoons, views on money, views on providing media for the "danish" people etc etc.
| Indi wrote: |
And this is point 2: the motivations of the cartoonists is NOT the same as the motivation of the newspaper in requesting and publishing those cartoons. i've already pointed out to you that your theory is plain wrong - not all of the cartoons insult Islam - and some don't even picture Mohammad. So unless some of the artists just screwed up (and the publisher just printed them anyway), that means it obviously wasn't the goal of the publisher. Clearly that makes no sense.
|
Did the cartoonist or the publisher draw the cartoons? You don't have to agree to publish something. One guy famously said: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."
What is it to us on the views of the publisher when he decided to publish the cartoons. It is like saying there a publisher who goes: "hey, I will print out the protocols of the elders of zion, but in good faith to somehow "help" jews". Your chatting sh!t Indi, and you know it!!
| Indi wrote: |
On the other hand, if the goal was something else - something that you just haven't got yet, even though i've dropped a dozen clues - and that some cartoonists used that opportunity to criticize Islam and others didn't... well that makes sense now.
|
And if you wanted tea without milk, and poured milk into it; the milk will still be there. It will affect the taste. No matter how nice the tea was before the milk, it won't be the same after it. And you can't take out the milk once you poured it in.
| Indi wrote: |
So now, your task - assuming you care about being a rational human being - is to find out what that something else is. THEN you can say whether or not they were justified in publishing anything.
|
I outlined my view quite clearly in the media I support. Sensetive issues require suitable mediums. Seriously, why are cartoons used in tabloids? Cus they are for a dumbed down audience. Do dumb people like to read - no, it involves thinking deeply. Cartoons tell a story - almost without thinking.
| Indi wrote: |
Until then, you're just an ignorant loudmouth - you don't really know what you're shouting mad about.
|
And your chatting sh!t like always.
| Indi wrote: |
i'm going to ignore that last comment, because it's just too crazy. ^_^; You'll also find me entirely unmoved by the rest of your ranting against me... because it's all based on stupidity. What did i say? Here, i'll show you. "Now, what is a symbol of Islam? Mohammed." See what i said? Did i say Mohammad was the symbol of Islam? No, i said he was a symbol. A. As in, one of many. As in, not the only one. As in, not even necessarily the primary one. Follow?
|
I think you still are confused.
Listen carefully to what you are saying in that small world in your head.
You are saying that Muhammad (the person- not in name, but person) is a (one of many) symbol to represent a religion that is completely against idoltry?
Think carefully, then come back to me
| Indi wrote: |
Now, am i wrong? Is Mohammad not a symbol of Islam? If so, then you should have no problem with the cartoons. But you do. Thus, obviously, Mohammad is a symbol if Islam. QED. ^_^;
|
I say it again in words, Muhammad, the person as in pictorial form, is NOT the symbol, or a symbol of Islam. It never was, and it never will be. Ask any Muslim, read any tafseer, hadith, question any scholar, and any book (Muslim sources only of course) that explicitly or implicity states that Muhammad (graphically) is a symbol of Islam.
If Muhammad was a symbol of Islam, then your comments may add weight. But for now, and forever, they will be meaniningless.
| Indi wrote: |
Now, i have no interest in criticizing Islam, so i don't really care what the meaning of "Islam" is... but... you're criticizing the Danish cartoons... so... i assume you know what their meaning is... right? ^_^ Right? So tell me: why were those cartoons published?
|
To criticise Islam, and to get your facts wrong are two seperate issues. I told you the symbol of Islam. And you have no interest in learning about it, because you have no interest to criticise it. Yet, without any facts at all, you state that Muhammad (the person in pictorial form) is a symbol of Islam.
To shout out lies Indi, should be a crime. And you Indi, should get your head checked.
Cite me evidence, and prove me wrong.
| Indi wrote: |
What in the hell are you talking about now? First, i never claimed the Danish cartoons started Islamic terrorism - because that's just bloody stupid. i don't know why you'd even think someone would think that.
|
Did I EVEN say that? Cite evidence. You lie too much. Re-read. Quote the sentence where I even said such a thing.
| Indi wrote: |
And if that one cartoon was an attempt to show Islam corrupted by violent extremists... i still don't see what the hell any of that has to do with America or Iraq. Even you didn't explain why. You just said the Danish cartoons are related to America and Iraq - with no explanation or evidence - and then went off on some kind of rant about the history of Israel and Palestine?!?! The hell?
|
FFS, is your brain dead? Seriosuly? I couldn't have explained more.
Damn, I am tired of explaining, but I will do it one final time on this point, and I pray that you understand this time, I seriously do cus your doing my head in.
Look now.
You said and I quote: that the cartoons were "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence."
You also said: "i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*." in which the image linked was located at: http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/gitatvilmars.jpg.
What did u mean by "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence."? What violence exactly?
Did you mean the insurgency (I call it a civil war - but for the emotionally retarded it's insurgency) in Iraq? Did you mean 911 (u linked to the other cartoon remmeber)? Did you mean the taliban fighting the Americans? Did you mean AlQaeda whose mouths were "literally" fed from the hands of America thanks to Jimmy Carter? Don't you want to goto the root cause of this violence? It would be foolish if you don't.
And if you do, and I'm sure you do as the root cause is more important than the cause of violence, then it is ever so imperative that WE DO discuss Iraq, America, Afghanistan, Israel and every other damn country. There is much more to history than 911.
And my second point: I re-iterate what you said "religion being corrupted by violence". You say it as if you deprived every Muslim in teh world of their nationalism - Whenever they fight, it is for their religion, not the sovereignty of their nation. You think Iraqi's are fighting for religion when they kill American soldiers? You think Afghans fight for their religion when Americans die. You think 911 was done for Islam?
Have you ever thought that it could possibly revolve around nationalism, or the sins that the American foriegn policy committed prior to the "Muslims" committing this sort of "violence" which resulted in this violence/hate/revenge. These actions of Muslims are wrong - they should never kill civilians. But the actions of American foriegn policy, is in no better position. And you have no right to ever state that "Islam" is being corrupted by violence, without looking at it from the other side of the picture.
I tried explaining further with Israel and Palestine, and Free France Movement, but you STILL DID NOT GET IT. Your poltical knowledge is indeed woeful, or heavily biased. You state that Islam is "being corrupted by violence" yet you discourage me at every attempt to analyse this very violence in question.
| Indi wrote: |
Ok, in order:
- Contradicting myself where?
- i know what the Danish cartoons are about. You don't. i've been asking you to explain how they are related to Afghanistan, Palestine and whatever the hell else you want to bring up. You're not answering.
|
I have described it in the post above. Read and re-read. If your still clueless, read your own posts from the beginning of this thread. if you still can't grasp it, read my posts in response to your posts. Still no there? Get your head examined.
| Indi wrote: |
Of course. So what? Was the massacre of the Banu Qurayza done by Muslims? Yes... but so what? None of that has to do with why the Danish newspaper printed those comics.
|
Lolll.. you inserted two words, and you can't stop taking teh smurk off your face. The law of Moses was implemented at Banu Qurayza - a law detailed in the old testament. The Muslims judged them by their (the Jews) own laws (exactly how it was detailed in the old testament), and yet you complain when Muslims judge non-Muslims by Muslim laws. And you still try to complain now. Can they ever be right?
And if you were to ask my view on the massacre of Banu Qurayza, then in my opinion, it was wrong. The Muslims should never had done that. But no-one's history is perfect, we are but mortal men. I can quote you bad about any civilization in the world. And so what?
| Indi wrote: |
Yes. So what? The Danish newspaper didn't make that comic, and neither did any of the artists.
|
No you quoted that comic, as if it was to provide weight to your arguement. And now you cannot defend it.
*By comic, I assume your talking about the link of the picture your provided earlier in your posts.
| Indi wrote: |
i don't know? Maybe. But so what? You're picking on one of a dozen cartoons - the one that is most critical of Islam. What about all the others? Was the author of this cartoon influenced by 9-11? What does that cartoon have to do with American media, Iraq, Israel or any of the other random crap you've brought up?
|
Well,, if you remain consistent with your notion taht teh cartoons were "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence.", then we must relate 911, iraq, american media, israel, and loads of other bunch of crap to draw meaning on the type of violence that you are talking about, and whether religion is behind it.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
loll @ the former decalred war and tried to minimize civilians.
The statistics speak for themselves. Count the dead. How many civlians have America killed? How many civilians did Bin Laden followers kill?
AlQaeda followers are evil terrorists without a doubt, but the American Nazi Criminals are by far worse. |
| Indi wrote: |
AND WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE DANISH CARTOONS!?!?
|
Now you are backing down. You started talking about bringing peace and I told you to count the dead, and you went off the tangent again. Listen to yourself, and you will understand.
| Indi wrote: |
Extremely. ^_^;
You are not discussing the topic. You are introducing all kinds of random peripheral crap that obviously bothers you in some kind of way, and trying your damnedest to find an excuse to make it topical. This latest attempt - "Danish media produced a cartoon portraying Islam in the world, NOT IN DENMARK. Therefore, my replys answer the violence of Islam IN THE WORLD." - is completely idiotic. Which of the Danish cartoons even mentions the world? And - yet again - can you tell the difference between a cartoonist and publisher? The cartoonist (of one or two of the cartoons) may have wanted to criticize Islam... but that doesn't mean the publisher of the paper did. It also doesn't mean that's why they asked those cartoonists to draw cartoons about Mohammad. Why is that so difficult to understand?
|
SHit, what the ****** are you on about? what have you bin smoking? seriously.
You said: the cartoons were "creating a graphical representation of the religion being corrupted by violence."
Read them lines carefully. Now read my posts again.
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Stupid answer. Tens of thousands of Muslims who rioted hadn't seen them. And you're quoting their lines.
|
Tens of thousands of Americans (no sorry "Millions") still believe America went to Iraq to bring democracy and peace. And you're quoting their lines. |
What lines?
|
This line:
| Indi wrote: |
I don't know ^_^; except that the former declared war and tried to minimize civilian casualties while the latter snuck onto a passenger plane and murdered people in a country that thought it was at peace?
|
Like I said, statistics! See, the difference between me and you: I provide facts. You provide opinionated statements, that can only fool the foolish. Count the dead and you will see the truth in your statement and in mine.
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | I'm reminded of an idiot who backs up her evidence of a danish cartoon by displaying the violence commited by Muslims across the globe. But when someone argues with her regarding the violence committed around the world, she says, "What has that to do with Denamrk?" |
An idiot now, hm? ^_^;
Well, an idiot i may be, but at least i can tell the difference between a cartoonist and a publisher.
|
Like I said, is it relevant?
Gordon Brown leads the labour party in the UK. Sure their views maybe different from each other, but will that ever affect what Gordon Brown does in the short term?
| Indi wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Because if you think that whole big block of text translates to four English words... you're about on the level of Elmer Fudd on this one, buddy. ^_^;
|
And you're on the level of George W Bush. |
What the hell are you talking about? ^_^;
|
What the hell you talking about?
| Indi wrote: |
My pea-sized brain doesn't care about Islamic terrorism or American terrorism here, because that's not why the cartoons were printed. My pea-sized brain was big enough to tell me that before i jump to conclusions about why something was done, i should go look for evidence. Looking for evidence is the mark of a rational person. Shouting insults while refusing to look for evidence is the mark of a religious extremist.
|
lol,, okay where the heck is the evidence you provided. Do you want me to quote what you have said in previous posts AGAIN, for like the 100th time??????????
and loll @ the mark of a religious extremist. This is what your media (in fact all mainstream media around the world) does to you - dumbs you down. Since when did I say the actions of the "muslim terrorists" were ever right? I did mention however, that the "american terrorists" were far worse.
My evidence: count the dead, and by whom they were kill by.
| Indi wrote: |
My previous posts reaffirmed your belief that these cartoons had something to do with Palestine? ^_^; You might want to check them again.
|
You might want to re-read the statements you made!
| Indi wrote: |
Yeeaaahhh... you don't really know how to do this "isolated sandbox" thing very well if you can go from isolated sandbox to Muslim holocausts in Europe in the space of like four sentences. ^_^;
|
but seriously, this is the sandbox approach you are using. You are isolating everything else, and jus looking at the cartoons. You talk about the cartoons being in response to Muslim violence around the world, but yet you cannot define this violence, or goto the roots of it. You use violence as a sort of trademark that you cannot question or defend , but you jus allowed to say it.
| Indi wrote: |
Furthermore... you do realize that there were 12 cartoons, right? Not just the one. You might want to look at the others before you execute the staff of Jyllands-Posten.
|
loll @ execute the staff. Did I ever talk about the punishment for the staff? They are free to live as far as i'm concerned. Why kill? The world is depressing as it is from American statesponsored terrorism and proxy wars.
Live and let live!. To be at wrong is not the same as to be executed.
| Indi wrote: |
And furthermore... don't you see your own raging hypocrisy?
|
raging huh?
| Indi wrote: |
On the one hand you want people executed for criticizing Islam...
|
Who do I want executed?? Quote Indi, quote. Dont lie.
| Indi wrote: |
on the other you've spent several posts now ranting and raving about American media and America in general. Why shouldn't you be executed for that? Why are your beliefs sacred, but not other peoples'? |
See, you have just missed the entire point of my article. I will write in caps to stress my point.
I NEVER EVER SAID THAT IT WAS WRONG TO INSULT ISLAM. NEVER. NOT ONCE.
I DID SAY THE CHOICE OF MEDIUM (I.E. A CARTOON) WAS AN UNSUITABLE MEDIUM.
Now, you said why i shouldn't be executed for my view on the american media and american foriegn policy. but heyy i said
IT IS PERFECTLY RIGHT TO CRITICISE ISLAM IN AN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT
and Indi, where are we?, are we not on this forum to learn? Don't we want to know other people's views? Hence, it is perfectly acceptable here.
INSULT ISLAM AT WILL HERE (with Evidence). I WILL NOT HOLD IT AGAINST YOU - IN FACT, YOU WILL BE TRUER IF YOU DID. QUESTION EVERYTHING. BUT PLEASE NOT AS A CARTOON.
Whatever I have said about American foriegn policy, it was with evidence. It is not biased. It is factual. I can back up my statements from prominent scholars such as Noem Chomsky - argueably the most cited living author.
And heck, I talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, yet I love the American govt far far better than the govts in the Muslim world. I mean it. The arab/muslim world is full of belly dancing retarded backward rulers. The seperation of state and religion is one of the best ideas man has come up with - and with the American constitution, the world is in great debt. But you should portray the other side once in a while - makes you have a less biased view.How is a cartoon an unsuitable medium? Political cartoons have been used for hundreds of years to get across ideas in a simple, eloquent manner. Such as this 17th century woodcut from the Prodestant Reformation depicting the Pope as the Devil:
An image can evoke much stronger reactions than just words, they can convey meaning in a very visceral way. You can say that "Fanatical Muslim extremist terrorists are giving all of Islam a bad name and making Mohammad look bad." as many times as you like, but it's just not going to have the same impact as a picture of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban. In fact, people have been saying for years that the moderate Muslim community needs to stand up and do something to condemn the actions of their more extreme brethren, but so far they haven't been listening.
In this case, they were paying attention, but instead of taking heed of the message, they are attacking the messenger.
And all of the ones that I have seen have been far milder than the image above. Much more subtle.
(and I did get a chuckle from the "We're all out of virgins" one.)
And if it is that you belive them to be irreverent because they are humorous, let me point out that people have been using comedy to speak truth to power since the advent of the sacred fools and court jesters. | BigMo420 wrote: |
| You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
Possibly a little bit of a crude way of putting it, however yes deities in other peoples religions should be respected whatever the circumstance. I don't think I'm on either side with this comic issue.
Also what Helios said. I don't think you should be possibly a close minded as you are being, I'm not saying the comic writer is in the right I'm just saying I think people take it a little too seriously.Ok, i gotta ask this of Frihost Muslims. ^_^; Because i've waited days to see if anyone will respond, and - unsurprising to me - no one has.
It is a common refrain from Muslims that "the media are characterizing all Muslims as extremists or terrorist". That is half true, because while it is certainly true that the vast majority of instances of Muslims in the media are crackpots, it is not the media's fault. It is the fault of Muslims. And this case, right here, is a perfect example of what i mean.
i asked ThePolemists to explain to me how five of the Danish cartoons "denigrated an entire race, or an entire faith" (as he claimed they did). Now, it was a trick question, because i know they don't. i know one or two of the cartoons were somewhat controversial about Islam/Mohammad, but the rest were all jabs at Danish politics or simple illustrations (and there is a reason they did simple illustrations, related to the Danish politics that the cartoons are really all about - which he doesn't know about or understand, but i will not explain it again here).
Needless to say, ThePolemistis did respond, and i have reproduced that response exactly below (along with links to the cartoons he describes). i will not add my own comments at the time. Because i want to hear what Muslims think. Because the only Muslims i ever hear are the crazies - and not because of the media, because plenty of sane Muslims had plenty of chance to step up and say that they don't agree with the nonsense ThePolemistis is spouting, and not a single one did. i have waited for Muslims to step up themselves and show us all they are not whackjobs, and they have disappointed me, so now i have to actually beg them to show us that they don't really support this crap. It's sad, but it's true, and it's certainly not the media's fault.
So how about it, Muslims of Frihost? Are you going to sit quietly back and let the following quote represent the Muslim opinion here? Because it's the only voice we're hearing here. Silence implies consent. What else can i assume but that everyone who lets this fruitcake speak for them agrees with his ranting, and thinks that images like this "denigrate" an entire race or religion.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Numero Uno: the bomb disguised as a turban on a man that supposedly is to resemble Muhammad. This signifies that Muhammad is the root of all terror.
Deux: The crecent and star (see this is where the symbol of islam has been used, not the above pic) over the right eye of a man - maybe to express that they blindly follow their religion (if so, the man is not muhammad). But this then therefore signifies taht there lies something wrong with Islam itself (yet the author has not expressed what in this case - therefore it leads us to believe its the religion itself).
Trois: on the top right appears a man standing with a brown beard. His turban has horns on it that signifies it being like a raging bull or maybe the vikings (war perhaps) - although the man tries to appear like an angel (the yellow on top of his head "almost" looks like a yellow ring, and his white clothing).
To be honest, this cartoon represents a bunch of crap.
quattre: there appears a pic of a man whose eyes have been masked but the eyes of the ladies on his either side are not. (It would hav bin nice if we had jus one author so at least we know if they mean Muhammad by the similarity of drawings )
So this man is presumed to be Muhammad -judging by the title - but if the author had any knowledge of Islam, history or anything he would have know not to draw the sword of Muhammad the way he drawn it. So what does this cartoon express? That Muslims blindly do wrong i.e. kill, and as if to say that Islam is the wrong that they are blindly following. Sure he has a point if anyone blindly follows anything, but the women in the background are not blinded yet they are covered from head to "presumably" toe, which clearly indicates that this is not what he intends.
cinq: a man walking in desert (red turban this time) looking all tired and a donkey in the background. Again this shows crap, except to depict Muhammad as a form of an image. Albeit, the black beard(without any gray) does represent the youth, and considering Muhammad was around late 50s of the era he(author) speaks of (and if anything the beard should be red), the author is simply drawing crap. |
| Indi wrote: |
Ok, i gotta ask this of Frihost Muslims. ^_^; Because i've waited days to see if anyone will respond, and - unsurprising to me - no one has.
It is a common refrain from Muslims that "the media are characterizing all Muslims as extremists or terrorist". That is half true, because while it is certainly true that the vast majority of instances of Muslims in the media are crackpots, it is not the media's fault. It is the fault of Muslims. And this case, right here, is a perfect example of what i mean.
i asked ThePolemists to explain to me how five of the Danish cartoons "denigrated an entire race, or an entire faith" (as he claimed they did). Now, it was a trick question, because i know they don't. i know one or two of the cartoons were somewhat controversial about Islam/Mohammad, but the rest were all jabs at Danish politics or simple illustrations (and there is a reason they did simple illustrations, related to the Danish politics that the cartoons are really all about - which he doesn't know about or understand, but i will not explain it again here).
Needless to say, ThePolemistis did respond, and i have reproduced that response exactly below (along with links to the cartoons he describes). i will not add my own comments at the time. Because i want to hear what Muslims think. Because the only Muslims i ever hear are the crazies - and not because of the media, because plenty of sane Muslims had plenty of chance to step up and say that they don't agree with the nonsense ThePolemistis is spouting, and not a single one did. i have waited for Muslims to step up themselves and show us all they are not whackjobs, and they have disappointed me, so now i have to actually beg them to show us that they don't really support this crap. It's sad, but it's true, and it's certainly not the media's fault.
So how about it, Muslims of Frihost? Are you going to sit quietly back and let the following quote represent the Muslim opinion here? Because it's the only voice we're hearing here. Silence implies consent. What else can i assume but that everyone who lets this fruitcake speak for them agrees with his ranting, and thinks that images like this "denigrate" an entire race or religion.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Numero Uno: the bomb disguised as a turban on a man that supposedly is to resemble Muhammad. This signifies that Muhammad is the root of all terror.
Deux: The crecent and star (see this is where the symbol of islam has been used, not the above pic) over the right eye of a man - maybe to express that they blindly follow their religion (if so, the man is not muhammad). But this then therefore signifies taht there lies something wrong with Islam itself (yet the author has not expressed what in this case - therefore it leads us to believe its the religion itself).
Trois: on the top right appears a man standing with a brown beard. His turban has horns on it that signifies it being like a raging bull or maybe the vikings (war perhaps) - although the man tries to appear like an angel (the yellow on top of his head "almost" looks like a yellow ring, and his white clothing).
To be honest, this cartoon represents a bunch of crap.
quattre: there appears a pic of a man whose eyes have been masked but the eyes of the ladies on his either side are not. (It would hav bin nice if we had jus one author so at least we know if they mean Muhammad by the similarity of drawings )
So this man is presumed to be Muhammad -judging by the title - but if the author had any knowledge of Islam, history or anything he would have know not to draw the sword of Muhammad the way he drawn it. So what does this cartoon express? That Muslims blindly do wrong i.e. kill, and as if to say that Islam is the wrong that they are blindly following. Sure he has a point if anyone blindly follows anything, but the women in the background are not blinded yet they are covered from head to "presumably" toe, which clearly indicates that this is not what he intends.
cinq: a man walking in desert (red turban this time) looking all tired and a donkey in the background. Again this shows crap, except to depict Muhammad as a form of an image. Albeit, the black beard(without any gray) does represent the youth, and considering Muhammad was around late 50s of the era he(author) speaks of (and if anything the beard should be red), the author is simply drawing crap. |
|
Loll... more lies by Indi
Point 1: I speak as a human being and not as a Muslim with my comments. I have never tried to represent the Muslim point. Islam is a religion: a belief system and not all my belief systems revolve around Islam - certainly not my political one. I don't think I have ever quoted the Quran or hadith to promote my politcal agenda. Accuse my political statements siding with political scholars/men such as Chomsky and Galloway, then by all means I am guilty. Handcuff me now, and throw away the key.BUT NEVER EVER bring my personal religious views into question and judge me on that, certainly if I MYSELF never do so. It simply shows your utter stupidity and little scope for debate you really have to offer. Why do you have the right not to speak on behalf of athiest, but yet to subject me to speak for Muslims. I do not, and never intend to, speak as a Muslim. Get that in your thick skull first.
And to quote my view again regarding the topic of the cartoons.
Firsly, cartoons are open to interpretation. Without any written form to suppliment it, it is in the eye of the beholder to assume what the author portrays. I can have my view of the cartoons, and so could you. But your view of the cartoons can in no way be correct more so than mine.
Secondly, and this is what you really need to grasp, and the reason why I hold this feeling against the cartoons.
The bias against the Muslims within the western media (I say western, because if you watch Muslim media - e.g. Al Jazeera you will see the bias against the American foriegn policy), is akin or was akin to the bias against the Jews in the early 1900s in Western Europe. Proof of this is with the protocols of the elders of zion, which was distributed so vividly within Europe, espcially Eastern Europe such as Russia. Other books include the International Jew by Henry Ford (yes - Ford Motors - perhaps the biggest US supporter in Nazi war efforts). During this period, you also had grave cartoons against Jews. Like now we have cartoons graphically illustrating as Muslims as terrorists (the danish cartoons), you then had cartoons illustrating Jews are those with power and wealth (at a time when Germany was suffering from poverty due to WW1). Yes Jews were wealthy and powerful in Europe at that era. So these cartoons were not wrong (in the factual sense). Similarly, Muslims ARE committing terrorism around the world (they are not the only ones), but they are - so the danish cartoons are not wrong in the factual sense either.
And history exists so we can learn from it. Given the Nazi propoganda towards Jews in this form, it led to the holocaust in which the Nazis commited the worst EVER crimes against humanity. And given the propoganda against Muslims (fudged with lies - e.g. Iraq war, Ahmedinejhad statements etc), it woulkd not be foolish to comtemplate (if you dare) that the Muslims too may share this same fate.
But are we to "slightly" hinder the path to pure freedom of speech by banning a cartoon (which is based on (mis)interpretation)? But if we do, then it is certainly for the greater good. By all means have discussions in the academic arena and deep debates, but let us not lead ourselves to yet another holocaust in Europe once again ridduled on lies and deceit, just like WW2, just like Iraq, and just like any other American f-in war since WW2.The media wants us to buy their newspaper / watch their nes reports / whatever. To do so, they must find interesting things to report about. Bombings are always interesting as they provoke emotions in the viewer. It's not media's fault that most bombings happen in the Middle-East, done by muslims. In contradiction: If a Swede would perform a bombing, it would get far larger headlines than the usual Middle-East stuff (in Sweden, at least).
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
And history exists so we can learn from it. Given the Nazi propoganda towards Jews in this form, it led to the holocaust in which the Nazis commited the worst EVER crimes against humanity. And given the propoganda against Muslims (fudged with lies - e.g. Iraq war, Ahmedinejhad statements etc), it woulkd not be foolish to comtemplate (if you dare) that the Muslims too may share this same fate.
But are we to "slightly" hinder the path to pure freedom of speech by banning a cartoon (which is based on (mis)interpretation)? But if we do, then it is certainly for the greater good. By all means have discussions in the academic arena and deep debates, but let us not lead ourselves to yet another holocaust in Europe once again ridduled on lies and deceit, just like WW2, just like Iraq, and just like any other American f-in war since WW2. |
I do not see the relevancy of Nazi propaganda to either a perceived threat to Muslims nor the cartoons that have been published. I do believe the cartoons were in poor taste, but as much as the Danish have to follow the rule of the land when they are visiting the Middle East, possibly Muslims need to do the same when they are in Denmark.The comparison is odious.
Cartoons have been used as a tool of satire and ridicule for centuries. There is a long standing tradition in the UK, dating back to Hogarth and even before. Politicians, as a class of people, are ridiculed routinely in the press in cartoons. Are we to say that this is on a par with the Holocaust - the very suggestion is objectionable.
Quite aside from that fact that, as Indi has already pointed out, the cartoons were NOT commissioned to ridicule Islam, the notion that this is comparable with what happened in Nazi Germany is an example of Godwin's Law at it's very basest.
PS - let's be clear here. I am very familiar with Chomsky - I have read a great deal of his work and agree with much of it. Galloway is a different matter - he is a self-serving, self-publicising, champagne socialist (and I say that as a socialist myself). Chomsky does indeed compare the actions of post-war US regimes with those of Nazi Germany - but, importantly, he is not comparing the treatment of Muslims with the treatment of the Jews. He is making a wider point about the attack on civil liberties in the US and the conduct of US foreign policy. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Loll... more lies by Indi |
i can't imagine why you are surprised. i mean, if you define "lie" as "anything that disagrees with your own warped view of the world", and you keep spouting bigoted, ignorant crap, then most certainly i will by lying quite a bit.
Ah, but let's talk lies, shall we? Let me tell you about a group of liars that you might find familiar, who are quite relevant to this discussion. And unlike you, i don't define relevant as "any random thing i can think up in my warped global perspective that i think i can possibly relate to this issue". Nope, this group is relevant to this discussion by my definition of relevance.
The group of liars i will discuss now are the Muslims that started this global controversy.
Now, bear in mind that every bit of info i will share here now is fact, and you can go look it up yourself if you doubt me. You see, i don't define "lie" as saying something i don't like. i define as saying something in contradiction with reality.
So let me set the scene. The Danish cartoons were published on Sept 30, 2005. (i will not say why, because i have already explained in detail, and you seem so determined to believe it was to smear Islam, facts don't seem to matter to you). Immediately some Muslim leaders in Denmark sent messages to Muslim dominated countries, telling them to petition the government to censor the newspaper. The government replied that they don't censor, and that there are hate speech laws in Denmark, and if the Danish Muslims really believed that the cartoons were hate speech they could take it to court. The case was thrown out, of course.
And that should have been the end of that.
Of course it wasn't.
And now the real story begins.
A couple of Danish imams then made up a 40 page report about the cartoons and began touring Islamist countries to provoke responses. It contained gems like this line: "Even though Danes belong to the Christian faith, the secularizations have overcome them, and if you say that they are all infidels, then you are not wrong." It also contained the 15 cartoons that Jyllands-Posten published.
Wait, wait... 15? Weren't there only 12?
Indeed there were. However, these imams inserted additional cartoons... real nasty ones, including one of Mohammad being anally raped by a dog... just to spice up the pot. Honest? Hardly.
Oh, but there's more. As we now know, at least two out of three of these additional cartoons were, in fact, forgeries. Famously, one that was supposed to be an illustration of Mohammad as a pig... was in reality a photo taken at a French pig-calling contest. The other is a drawing of Mohammad as an evil paedophile... but it looks like it was drawn as a sketch, and handwriting analysis has suggested the person that wrote the caption was a native writer of Arabic... not Latin.
Oh, but there's more! You see, these imams, after having travelled all over the Middle East to smear Denmark and incite Muslim riots against the cartoons found themselves in a pickle. The riots they stirred up got so nasty in some places that Denmark offered to freely transport any Danish citizens and their families back to Denmark from the troubled areas. Are you guessing i am about to suggest one of the lying imams took advantage of this to move his family to Denmark? ^_^ You're darn right.
Oh, but there's still more!!! After doing all of this, one of the imams has made a name for himself by appearing on both Danish television and Al-Jazeera. Ah, but on Danish television he denounces the riots... while on Al-Jazeera he denounces Denmark!!! ^_^;
So, sure, call me a liar. ^_^ Apparently it puts me on the same side as your heroes.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Point 1: I speak as a human being and not as a Muslim with my comments. I have never tried to represent the Muslim point. Islam is a religion: a belief system and not all my belief systems revolve around Islam - certainly not my political one. I don't think I have ever quoted the Quran or hadith to promote my politcal agenda. Accuse my political statements siding with political scholars/men such as Chomsky and Galloway, then by all means I am guilty. Handcuff me now, and throw away the key.BUT NEVER EVER bring my personal religious views into question and judge me on that, certainly if I MYSELF never do so. It simply shows your utter stupidity and little scope for debate you really have to offer. Why do you have the right not to speak on behalf of athiest, but yet to subject me to speak for Muslims. I do not, and never intend to, speak as a Muslim. Get that in your thick skull first. |
My thick skull has no interest in what you intended. The fact of the matter is that i asked you to justify Muslim anger over these cartoons, and explain why they are insulting, and you replied. Now, your reasons were so ignorant and so bigoted, that i cannot believe that all (or even the majority of) Muslims agree with your reasons for why the cartoons are insulting. So i asked if Muslims agree, and pointed out that by being silent, they leave me to presume they do.
This is how it works for us "athiests (sic)", too. If i were to stand up and say "'athiests' think X is bad because of Y", and it is not true for all "athiests", i expect them to stand up and say "no, that is not what i believe and you are misrepresenting all of us". i do this too, all the time - whenever i see someone posting something ignorant about atheists or what they believe even when it is an atheist doing it, i stand up and say i disagree.
That is what i am asking for here. You have explained why the cartoons insult Islam. i think your reasons are ignorant and hateful, but no other Muslim has offered me any other reasons. So i asked them to speak up if they disagree (i should not have to - if they disagree with you, they should speak up on their own to protect the integrity of Islam). They have declined. This leads me to conclude that Muslims on Frihost are ok with your justifications for how the cartoons insult Islam - uninformed as your justifications may be.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
And to quote my view again regarding the topic of the cartoons.
Firsly, cartoons are open to interpretation. Without any written form to suppliment it, it is in the eye of the beholder to assume what the author portrays. I can have my view of the cartoons, and so could you. But your view of the cartoons can in no way be correct more so than mine. |
*facepalm*
Ok, do you really want me to show you how stupid you are?
Alright, here goes.
As you say above: "Without any written form to suppliment it, it is in the eye of the beholder to assume what the author portrays."
Sounds logical.
Oh... but... wait a minute... didn't you say you saw the cartoons? Let's look at them again: wiki
Gee. Do you think that huge, freaking, three-column block of text in the middle of the page might count as a written supplement? ^_^;
Oh, but maybe you didn't notice that befor- wait a minute... didn't we discuss this block of text before? Didn't i tell you that it explains what the cartoons are really about? Didn't you reject this as not important?
Well now it seems to be pretty damned important, eh? Because the truth is, your interpretation of the cartoon is based solely on ignorance, coloured by your own personal biases. On the other hand, my interpretation is based on laborious research about the reason they were published, the people that published them, and what they said they were trying to represent.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Secondly, and this is what you really need to grasp, and the reason why I hold this feeling against the cartoons. |
No, see, this is what you need to grasp: i don't care about your warped view of world politics or the bug up your ass you have about America - you cannot condemn someone to death for hate speech (as you say should be done) unless they have actually spoken hatefully.
And - furthermore - you do not determine whether someone has spoken hatefully just based on your own personal ignorances and biases. You cannot look at something that someone did and say "they must be [h]anged, drawn and quartered" (your own words, by the way, and you called me a liar for saying wanted the cartoonists put to death... do you really think you can hang, draw and quarter them... and they'll live?!?!) simply because it offends you.
In order to determine whether or not a crime against Islam has been committed, it must first be determined whether a crime against Islam was even intended. It was not. i say this as a fact, based on what Jyllands-Posten said before, during and after the publication, the circumstances that led to the cartoons and the words of the cartoonists. You say it was because of... Americans in Germany... Jews in Kazakhstan... and other random shit that i didn't really understand and don't really care about. Fact: Jyllands-Posten wrote - explicitly - before, during and after the publication, about why they were doing it. And no part of it had anything to do with insulting Islam (in fact, they specifically say that - they specifically in clear Danish say that they realize some might find it insulting, but the higher purpose that the are really printing them for is more important). Their justification is coherent, cohesive, and matches all the facts we know - so it is probably true.
Therefore:
- The cartoons were not intended to insult Islam. As for what they were intended to accomplish, go look that up, if you care.
- The right to free speech includes the right to criticize a religion - even if it did not include the right to insult a religion (which it does), criticizing is ok. And all of the "insulting" cartoons are justifiably criticisms of various aspects of Islam - such as extremism in various forms - and so, cannot be justifiably censored.
- The vast majority of the Muslim outrage is based on sheer ignorance - including your own. It is a fact that the Muslim leaders that stirred up the riots did so with false cartoons (and then hid behind Danish protections when the shit hit the fan). Many Muslim leaders have since come forward and admitted they had not even seen the cartoons at the time, and were shocked at how tame they were.
All of which leads me to conclude that the newspaper and cartoonists were in the right and Muslims were in the wrong.If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won.
| easysolution wrote: |
| If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won. |
Or he'll be killed. I agree with your point, but if I were in his shoes, I would likely do my best not to be murdered.Havent read the previous discussion. But those retards should try to learn the concept of freedom of speech. That would do them and their countries a lot of good too.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| easysolution wrote: | | If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won. |
Or he'll be killed. I agree with your point, but if I were in his shoes, I would likely do my best not to be murdered. |
You are free to make that choice, although i question the honour in taking advantage of a free society while not taking part in maintaining it.
However, you still have a responsibility as a citizen in a free society to not help destroy the rights of others. When someone is trying to censor someone else, you should not step in to help unless you are damn sure you know why they are being censored. Stepping forward to criticize the cartoonists before understanding what and why they published means you have gone from not only not helping freedom... to actively being part of destroying it. | Indi wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | easysolution wrote: | | If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won. |
Or he'll be killed. I agree with your point, but if I were in his shoes, I would likely do my best not to be murdered. |
You are free to make that choice, although i question the honour in taking advantage of a free society while not taking part in maintaining it.
However, you still have a responsibility as a citizen in a free society to not help destroy the rights of others. When someone is trying to censor someone else, you should not step in to help unless you are damn sure you know why they are being censored. Stepping forward to criticize the cartoonists before understanding what and why they published means you have gone from not only not helping freedom... to actively being part of destroying it. |
Of course, this is much easier to say when you don't have a thousand nutcases who want your head. Just saying...most people would do everything possible to avoid being murdered over a cartoon.A swedish artist who made mohammad cartoons had to live under police protection for a great while (Lars Vilks), for what I know he still might be... I hear that Islam is a religion of peace, and maybe that's right, but there sure are a lot of its followers that are giving the world another view. There has been numerous for christians very offending artwork exhibitions, for an example, one where Jesus is being pictured as a homosexual with his disciples and others in very repulsive ways.
What did christians do? Did anyone threaten the artist, was any violence used in any way? All that happened was that christians found it was offensive, and said so. I think churches refused to let the artwork be displayed in their buildings.
Can you see the difference?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Of course, this is much easier to say when you don't have a thousand nutcases who want your head. Just saying...most people would do everything possible to avoid being murdered over a cartoon. |
Yeah, right. ^_^; i have a million nutcases after my head, and i didn't even have to draw any cartoons. If i even show my face in certain countries - or certain parts of certain countries - i'll be dead in minutes, and probly made into an entertaining little web video to be shown on al-Jazeera. But i am not going to convert to Islam just to save my life from those wackjobs, nor am i going to stop writing about reason.
There will always be people who will try to threaten you with force to get their way. These Islamists are hardly new in that regard, and there is nothing novel about their reaction to the cartoonists. If what you said was really true - if you really believed that you should do everything possible to avoid being murdered over something stupid (like walking around with or without a beard or burqua or turban or rosary or uncircumcised... whatever) - then you must have an interesting life trying to please every wacko that pops up every other day. ^_^;
Of course, obviously, that's not really what you believe. You do stand up for at least some rights, and even though there are extremists out there spewing venom and death there are some things that you just can't be bothered to do to placate them... no matter how trivial the thing may be. Statistically, you probly eat meat, despite the threats of ALF terrorists. If you just went veg you'd be safe from them. Would you? So why should a professional cartoonist who makes a living by expressing criticisms of the world around him stop making cartoons because of an al-Qaida terrorist?
Besides, you still don't get it. This is not about cartoons. This is about freedom - the freedom to express opinions and beliefs and to criticize things that you believe are wrong with the world around you. It just so happens that editorial cartoons happen to be the medium these people use. Don't trivialize them for that - they are every bit as courageous as the person that writes editorial articles that challenge and criticize evil and corrupt regimes. You apparently don't think that freedom of speech is worth standing up for in the face of threat, and if that's what you believe then fine, but don't belittle these cartoonists for doing it just because you look down on the medium they use for their free speech. | LimpFish wrote: |
A swedish artist who made mohammad cartoons had to live under police protection for a great while (Lars Vilks), for what I know he still might be... I hear that Islam is a religion of peace, and maybe that's right, but there sure are a lot of its followers that are giving the world another view. There has been numerous for christians very offending artwork exhibitions, for an example, one where Jesus is being pictured as a homosexual with his disciples and others in very repulsive ways.
What did christians do? Did anyone threaten the artist, was any violence used in any way? All that happened was that christians found it was offensive, and said so. I think churches refused to let the artwork be displayed in their buildings.
Can you see the difference? |
There are many examples where Christians have gone the same way as the muslims in this situation, however they are much less common now. | LimpFish wrote: |
A swedish artist who made mohammad cartoons had to live under police protection for a great while (Lars Vilks), for what I know he still might be... I hear that Islam is a religion of peace, and maybe that's right, but there sure are a lot of its followers that are giving the world another view. There has been numerous for christians very offending artwork exhibitions, for an example, one where Jesus is being pictured as a homosexual with his disciples and others in very repulsive ways.
What did christians do? Did anyone threaten the artist, was any violence used in any way? All that happened was that christians found it was offensive, and said so. I think churches refused to let the artwork be displayed in their buildings.
Can you see the difference? |
Hmm...but you ignore cases where Christians HAVE made death threats against artists producing work that they found offensive. Jerry Springer the Opera, Life of Brian - these are two examples that spring to mind.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article410579.ece
Please don't try to persuade me that Christians are all law abiding people who don't threaten others - this is a nonsense.
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html^^
And of course the humorous "cracker thief" story...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | A swedish artist who made mohammad cartoons had to live under police protection for a great while (Lars Vilks), for what I know he still might be... I hear that Islam is a religion of peace, and maybe that's right, but there sure are a lot of its followers that are giving the world another view. There has been numerous for christians very offending artwork exhibitions, for an example, one where Jesus is being pictured as a homosexual with his disciples and others in very repulsive ways.
What did christians do? Did anyone threaten the artist, was any violence used in any way? All that happened was that christians found it was offensive, and said so. I think churches refused to let the artwork be displayed in their buildings.
Can you see the difference? |
Hmm...but you ignore cases where Christians HAVE made death threats against artists producing work that they found offensive. Jerry Springer the Opera, Life of Brian - these are two examples that spring to mind.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article410579.ece
Please don't try to persuade me that Christians are all law abiding people who don't threaten others - this is a nonsense.
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html |
But was there official spokesmen for entire COUNTRIES supporting those death threats? | LimpFish wrote: |
| But was there official spokesmen for entire COUNTRIES supporting those death threats? |
Well, that is hardly likely because most Western democracies are, at least in name, secular. Even GW Bush would not presume to speak on behalf of Christianity...or, maybe he would...remember the 'atheists are not real Americans' quote? That might not be a death threat but it is a prettty appalling thing to say about millions of fellow citizens. | Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | But was there official spokesmen for entire COUNTRIES supporting those death threats? |
Well, that is hardly likely because most Western democracies are, at least in name, secular. Even GW Bush would not presume to speak on behalf of Christianity...or, maybe he would...remember the 'atheists are not real Americans' quote? That might not be a death threat but it is a prettty appalling thing to say about millions of fellow citizens. |
I'll take that as a no. | LimpFish wrote: |
| I'll take that as a no. |
Take it as anything you want. You originally asked if Christians were involved in death threats (in fact, you stated that they didn't do such things). The reality is that they are and do. If it gives you comfort that the secular leaders of Christian countries do not call for the death of offenders against the Christian faith then take comfort where you find it - I think you are deluding yourself. | Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | I'll take that as a no. |
Take it as anything you want. You originally asked if Christians were involved in death threats (in fact, you stated that they didn't do such things). The reality is that they are and do. If it gives you comfort that the secular leaders of Christian countries do not call for the death of offenders against the Christian faith then take comfort where you find it - I think you are deluding yourself. |
I thought the following partial quote from a posting by Indi under the Islam and Democracy thread was an educational one for me from an insight point of view. I am not an expert on the subject, but learned a lot from it and thought the insight might have some relevancy to this thread as well:
| Quote: |
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The United States is majority Christian, unfortunately, yet we still manage to pull off a democracy.
Partial quote from Indi's response:
That is in large part because although the population is Christian, neither the government nor the laws are - because of the principle of separation of church and state. That is how the country was founded (not as a Christian country, despite what the majority of Americans apparently believe). And even though Christianity has tried desperately to muscle in on the government since the beginning, it has only had very moderate success at best.
i think a large part of the "maturing" of Christianity has nothing to do with Christianity itself, but is rather due to the fact that a long time ago, the reigns of power were seized by people who were quite hostile to Christianity. These people established stable, well-designed nations that by and large survive right to this day - and enshrined in the establishment of these nations are restrictions on Christianity (and all religion). In order to survive within these nations, Christianity has had to learn restraint... and it's benefited well, because these nations were so well designed that they thrived, and by riding on their backs Christianity has thrived as well.
By contrast, Islam has existed in areas that have been entirely Islamic. Nothing has ever put restrictions on Islam - it's just grown like a cancer, entirely unchecked. If someone were to wipe out every single nation in the Middle East and replace them all with countries that incorporate rules that put restrictions on Islam - while creating modern, pseudo-democratic states - Islam will have to learn restraint in order to exist within these new nations... and after a hundred years or so, Muslims will be completely confused by the kind of thinking that is rampant today (just as Christians are about the thinking of their intellectual ancestors from only a hundred or so years ago). They'll probably even try to claim that democracy was an Islamic idea to begin with (as Christians do), rather than something Islam has fought tooth and nail against (as Christianity did). |
Yes, I would agree to a large extent with that. I would qualify it slightly though. During the Islamic 'Golden Age' - say 800CE to the start of the Crusades in 1095 CE - I would say that Islam existed in relative peace with the other two faiths in the countries newly conquered. I think much of the current 'backwardness' of Islamic states (in terms of human rights, technological progress, religious freedoms etc) can be traced back to the splintering of the Ottoman empire, from the late 16th century onwards and culminating in the defeat in WW1 which led to the Islamic nation states we see today.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | I'll take that as a no. |
Take it as anything you want. You originally asked if Christians were involved in death threats (in fact, you stated that they didn't do such things). The reality is that they are and do. If it gives you comfort that the secular leaders of Christian countries do not call for the death of offenders against the Christian faith then take comfort where you find it - I think you are deluding yourself. |
As always you bend and twist facts to make them fit into your very narrow and deranged world view. In fact, I did never say that christians has never been involved in death threats (even though it is almost true, it rarely happens), I was comparing the mohammad cartoons with the most similar happening to christians, the art exhibition Ecce Homo where Jesus and his disciples were pictured as homosexuals. And i concluded the reactions took very different forms, i.e. violence and death threats from the muslims and spoken criticism from the christians.
The artist I spoken about preciously was living under death threat and still is, the swedish and danish embassies were bombed and burned in the middle east. Yet I havent hear the leader of my or their country "call for the death" of the offenders, but instead calling to understanding of eachother's cultures, freedom of speech, mutual respect etc.
And for Indi's post or whoever it was , America (maybe even more so than European countries) is like almost every western country fundamentally based on the christian values. Yes, in America church and state are separated, but the christian values are evident in your laws and values, same with Sweden, who actually did not separate church and state until about 10 years ago.If something is almost true then it is false.
Death threats from Christians occur on a very regular basis. Some of them are actually carried out.
You may wish to look at the 7 murders carried out by Christians in the US protesting about abortion. You might like to look at the 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. You might like to look at the more than 600 threats of bio-terrorism from such groups (mostly involving Anthrax lookalikes). You might wish to consider the 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
Now, you might well point out that this is not the same as protesting about a depiction of Jesus, and I would agree. I have roundly condemned the Muslim reaction to the Danish Cartoons, and I have done so repeatedly and in very strong terms. To give the impression, however, that Christians are somehow above the use of violence, when they believe it is justified, is simple wrong. It is clearly historically wrong - I could spend all day pointing out atrocities committed by Christians in pursuit of their beliefs - but it is also wrong in the world today, as the above references clearly show.
PS - please avoid personal insults such as 'very narrow and deranged world view' since it adds nothing to the debate. | LimpFish wrote: |
| And for Indi's post or whoever it was , America (maybe even more so than European countries) is like almost every western country fundamentally based on the christian values. Yes, in America church and state are separated, but the christian values are evident in your laws and values, same with Sweden, who actually did not separate church and state until about 10 years ago. |
If America was founded on "Christian values", then why were its values so different to all of the other Christian nations in the world at the time, and the ages before it?
And... come on, seriously... how can you really expect anyone to take that claim seriously when the number one, primary Christian value - acceptance of Christ - is totally absent from the founding documents?
You "Christian values" are actually mostly American values (if you are American, otherwise they will be the values of whatever culture you happen to be in). You will find that Christians elsewhere in the world do not have the same values... which is pretty odd if they all have "Christian values", don't you think? | LimpFish wrote: |
| Yet I havent hear the leader of my or their country "call for the death" of the offenders, but instead calling to understanding of eachother's cultures, freedom of speech, mutual respect etc.. |
How about Sept 11 killings, the rhetoric by Western leaders that followed the killings, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq? The latter was not only the United States, but included a number of "Christian" countries? | deanhills wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | Yet I havent hear the leader of my or their country "call for the death" of the offenders, but instead calling to understanding of eachother's cultures, freedom of speech, mutual respect etc.. |
How about Sept 11 killings, the rhetoric by Western leaders that followed the killings, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq? The latter was not only the United States, but included a number of "Christian" countries? |
This was regarding a terrorist act that killed thousands of people. I doubt western countries would have done this because of a cartoon that depicted Jesus in a not-positive way. As a matter of fact I'll say that that woul'd never happen. Comparing responses to cartoons and killings of thousands of people isn't an argument in my book. | Indi wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | And for Indi's post or whoever it was , America (maybe even more so than European countries) is like almost every western country fundamentally based on the christian values. Yes, in America church and state are separated, but the christian values are evident in your laws and values, same with Sweden, who actually did not separate church and state until about 10 years ago. |
If America was founded on "Christian values", then why were its values so different to all of the other Christian nations in the world at the time, and the ages before it?
And... come on, seriously... how can you really expect anyone to take that claim seriously when the number one, primary Christian value - acceptance of Christ - is totally absent from the founding documents?
You "Christian values" are actually mostly American values (if you are American, otherwise they will be the values of whatever culture you happen to be in). You will find that Christians elsewhere in the world do not have the same values... which is pretty odd if they all have "Christian values", don't you think? |
With christian values, I mean such things as that everyone's regarded equally in the eyes of the law. Freedom of speech, freedom of opinion. Many "christian" countries in the past has claimed to be christian and had none of those things, I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that if you base your laws on the Bible, your society will have laws that gives everyone equal status in the eyes of the law, freedom of speech, equality between women and men, etc. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say to push christianity onto someone, so your statement that a christian country has to make everyone accept Christ is tottally irrelevant. I guess that's whay differs between christianity and many other religions, it's not about deserving salvation, just accepting it, by free will.
I know Christians throughout the world vary a little bit in values, but it is mostly minor things. I've been around the world and worked with christians in humanitary work in a few different countries, with christians from at least 20 countries, and the differences were only regarding specific things, such as child spanking or if you were able to join the army as a christan etc.
You are probably thinking of that it differs between different "kinds" of christianity, like orthodox, catholic, evangelical, etc. Which is another thing. | LimpFish wrote: |
| With christian values, I mean such things as that everyone's regarded equally in the eyes of the law. Freedom of speech, freedom of opinion. Many "christian" countries in the past has claimed to be christian and had none of those things, I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that if you base your laws on the Bible, your society will have laws that gives everyone equal status in the eyes of the law, freedom of speech, equality between women and men, etc. |
Whoa. ^_^; Freedom of speech? Equality between women and men? Do share with us the verses in the Bible where those are prescribed, hm? You see... the Bible i read includes such lovely gems as "the man is the head of the woman". Not much equality there. But i will not call you a liar if you can show me some Bible verses that support your claims.
| LimpFish wrote: |
| Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say to push christianity onto someone, so your statement that a christian country has to make everyone accept Christ is tottally irrelevant. |
That's... interesting... because i didn't make that statement. O_o What i said was that if America really is a Christian country, it's funny that there is no mention of Jesus Christ, or even just accepting a saviour from sin, in its founding documents. There is a mention of God, yes... but not Jesus... so how do you know America was founded on Christian principles and not Jewish principles - they have a god, too, after all - or Muslim principles, or even Mormon principles? All they say is "God". How do you know it's the Christian god? i mean you might have a case if most of the leaders of the founding of the country were Christian... but they weren't... they were mostly quite vocally anti-Christian. So you'll have to pardon my scepticism about this so-called Christian country that wasn't founded by Christians and doesn't have a word about Christianity in its founding documents. | Indi wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | With christian values, I mean such things as that everyone's regarded equally in the eyes of the law. Freedom of speech, freedom of opinion. Many "christian" countries in the past has claimed to be christian and had none of those things, I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that if you base your laws on the Bible, your society will have laws that gives everyone equal status in the eyes of the law, freedom of speech, equality between women and men, etc. |
Whoa. ^_^; Freedom of speech? Equality between women and men? Do share with us the verses in the Bible where those are prescribed, hm? You see... the Bible i read includes such lovely gems as "the man is the head of the woman". Not much equality there. But i will not call you a liar if you can show me some Bible verses that support your claims.
| LimpFish wrote: | | Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say to push christianity onto someone, so your statement that a christian country has to make everyone accept Christ is tottally irrelevant. |
That's... interesting... because i didn't make that statement. O_o What i said was that if America really is a Christian country, it's funny that there is no mention of Jesus Christ, or even just accepting a saviour from sin, in its founding documents. There is a mention of God, yes... but not Jesus... so how do you know America was founded on Christian principles and not Jewish principles - they have a god, too, after all - or Muslim principles, or even Mormon principles? All they say is "God". How do you know it's the Christian god? i mean you might have a case if most of the leaders of the founding of the country were Christian... but they weren't... they were mostly quite vocally anti-Christian. So you'll have to pardon my scepticism about this so-called Christian country that wasn't founded by Christians and doesn't have a word about Christianity in its founding documents. |
It can only be the God of christians, (and jews since they have the same God, they just dont accept Jesus as God in flesh) because mormons believe that anyone can become a God, (thus having infinite numbers of gods in infinte numbers of universes and muslims do not call their God "God", but "Allah".
Also,
If it was founded on muslim principles, the laws would not, just like in muslim countries, support equality among people or inbetween the sexes. Jews and christians and other "infidels" would not have the same status as muslims. The laws would not be there for the people, but to uphold the religion.
Founding it on mormon principles is just a unrealistic idea, considering they are a cult that have no credibility. They have prophesied about the world's ending several times that obviously didn't happen, believe(d) that black people were the sons of Satan, etc etc.
So no, it could not be the "jewish god", "mormon god" or "muslim god" that is mentioned. | LimpFish wrote: |
| So no, it could not be the "jewish god", "mormon god" or "muslim god" that is mentioned. |
The meaning attached to God mentioned in the literature of Governments in the Western World has been changing Limpfish. For example, in certain schools in the West and specifically in Europe, children at schools are not really allowed to celebrate Christmas, as allowance is made for all religions and for celebrations not to the exclusion of the other. People are thinking differently than before so as to allow freedom of all religions in the country and not to discriminate against faith and belief. So think Indi is right here. Perhaps you happen to be Christian, and maybe the President of the United States and his family are Christian, but there are many groupings in the United States who belong to different religions and would associate the references to God in Government literature differently. Including Moslems, Jewish etc. The presumption is Christian of course, but the presumption has been changing, especially in the latter years. | LimpFish wrote: |
It can only be the God of christians, (and jews since they have the same God, they just dont accept Jesus as God in flesh) because mormons believe that anyone can become a God, (thus having infinite numbers of gods in infinte numbers of universes and muslims do not call their God "God", but "Allah".
Also,
If it was founded on muslim principles, the laws would not, just like in muslim countries, support equality among people or inbetween the sexes. Jews and christians and other "infidels" would not have the same status as muslims. The laws would not be there for the people, but to uphold the religion.
Founding it on mormon principles is just a unrealistic idea, considering they are a cult that have no credibility. They have prophesied about the world's ending several times that obviously didn't happen, believe(d) that black people were the sons of Satan, etc etc.
So no, it could not be the "jewish god", "mormon god" or "muslim god" that is mentioned. |
^_^; So... to follow your logic... since you have... "proved"... that it can't be the "Mormon god", "Muslim god" or... "Jewish god" (!?!?)... that means you've wiped out every single other possibility that could possibly be!!! Which... logically... leaves you with the only possible conclusion... Christianity. ^_^;
Wow. ^_^;
Ok, i'm not even going to touch your logic because... well, because it's just so bad. ^_^;
Instead, i am going to focus on your facts.
First, your description of Mormonism... just plain wrong. Totally wrong. You seriously have no idea. Exaltation is the belief that they can become like Jesus... but it doesn't make them God.
Second, "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God", and Muslims use that as God's "name" now in order to differentiate him from the Christian god in the English language. 300 years ago, they probably would not have bothered, and when writing an English document, would have simply wrote "God", not "Allah". (Incidentally, the Christian god is "Jehovah", but you don't use that name unless you are differentiating him from other gods. So by your own logic, because the founding documents don't mention "Jehovah", it can't be the Christian god ^_^.)
Third, if it was actually founded on Christian principles, it would not support equality between the sexes either. You have probably never read the Bible - most people that speak well of it haven't. If you ever get around to it, look at what it says about equality between the sexes. If America really were a Christian country, women would not be allowed to go out without their head covered. (Yes. That is in the New Testament.)
Fourth, if you believe Christian governments have traditionally been nicer than Islamic ones, you must have never read about the Dark Ages.
Fifth, calling Mormonism a cult is just religious intolerance.
Sixth, you know... Christianity doesn't have that stellar a history when it comes to apocalyptic prophesies or race relations either. You do know about the age of slavery, don't you? That was a Christian institution! And Jesus told people that they would live to see the end of days! That was 2000 years ago. Do you know any 2000 year old people? Furthermore, even today Christian groups are still lipping off about how we live in the "end times". The lady the Americans almost made Vice President is one of them.
Now... all that ignorance aside, here are the real facts. Most of the principles among the founding fathers were very anti-Christian. They were, in fact, deist. And in fact, most of the founding documents use explicitly deist logic. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is not Christian logic. Christian logic would be "God teaches us that..." or "As the Bible says...". "Self-evident truths" is the fingerprint of deism.
| deanhills wrote: |
| The presumption is Christian of course, but the presumption has been changing, especially in the latter years. |
The presumption is Christian in some countries. Not all. i seriously doubt the presumption in Japan is Christian.
And, as a matter of fact, the presumption in the US is not Christian. It is, in fact, deist. It's pretty plainly obvious given that several of the most prominent of the founding fathers were openly hostile to Christianity... and most of the founding documents plagiarize liberally from John Locke. | Indi wrote: |
The presumption is Christian in some countries. Not all. i seriously doubt the presumption in Japan is Christian.
And, as a matter of fact, the presumption in the US is not Christian. It is, in fact, deist. It's pretty plainly obvious given that several of the most prominent of the founding fathers were openly hostile to Christianity... and most of the founding documents plagiarize liberally from John Locke. |
Thanks Indi, I meant something different, but it did not come out like that. What I tried to say unsuccessfully was that that had been the original presumption, but that it had changed over the years. Thanks for the education of "deist". Just learned something new again. Right on the number. Checked it up on Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
Deism is the belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian[1], Islamic and Judaic teachings.
Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which he does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human life or suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.
Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the United Kingdom, France and the United States, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism, and Unitarian Universalism, which developed from it. It continues to this day in the form of classical deism and modern deism.
|
While I was doing my search I arrived at an interesting link about whether Thomas Jefferson was a Deist? Indi, in your opinion, was he? Sort of fits in naturally with your reference to the founding fathers and perhaps my "presumption" was definitely wrong from the beginning in the US history. Possibly deist from the founding of the US? Very interesting article.
This is the link to the Web page:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm
Think this was the most educational part in it for this thread:
| Quote: |
Deism in American political philosophy a defense of God's presence in public life
By Edward Mahaney-Walter
Herald Opinions Columnist
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Virginia legislation mandating the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance and a minute for silent prayer or reflection at the beginning of the school day seemed unfair. Wasn't it an introduction of religion into the classroom? What might Muslim or atheist students think? Didn't the Constitution protect me from such top-down piety?
It is the nature of humans to search for a spiritual and moral framework in which to orient themselves. Who is in charge? What is right? Where did I come from, and what is death? The answers are as multitudinous as the questions. Some cherish the moment, some plan for the future, some value loyalty, others prize above all self-determination, but such questions form the foundations of all mythologies, theologies and philosophies.
I have come to realize that my concern over the mention of God in the public forum was misplaced. Our nation is based on a belief in a Deity for reasons deserving continued adherence. The protestations of individuals such as Lisa Lau '03 ("Confessions of an American Atheist," 1/30) are based on a confused understanding of the nature of the belief in God expressed in American government, and of the nature of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Jefferson and other founders were Deists, believing in a universal God and a scientific universe. Since their writings constitute the legal foundation of the government, it is worth noting what they wrote and from where they derived their principles: Natural Law. Drawing from Locke, the Declaration of Independence grounds its legitimacy in the people; but why are the people the ultimate authority? Because "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and institute governments to secure these rights. While discarding divine right to rule, the founders did not subscribe to the theory that the state is the ultimate power, which fostered its own form of authoritarian government in the USSR.
Thus we come to, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By the "due process" clause of the fourteenth amendment, this sentence is extended to apply to the states. Your right to worship God in your own way is protected by the second part. The first prohibits establishment of a state religion, but is often seen as a prohibition against recognizing the existence of any power greater than ourselves and our works, which is absurd because the legitimacy of the government is based on the God-given right to representative rule.
To understand the meaning of the establishment clause, one has to know why it was written. The memory of religious wars and the Churches of England and Rome that drove dissenters to America was fresher then, and the clause was intended to protect the citizenry from the establishment of a state church or public sponsorship of such institutions. This interpretation has been upheld by Supreme Court cases that removed state-written prayers from the books or struck public funding of parochial systems, such as Wallace v. Jaffree and Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Now let us examine the references to God in our government, and determine whether they constitute propagation of religion, or merely refer to faith in the Creator. The national motto is "In God We Trust." It became the official state motto during the Eisenhower administration, also when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. The intent was clearly to remind the citizenry of the presence of God in the character of this nation, not to make him a Catholic God or a Shiite Allah. But this is not the origin of the phrase, which was already present on coinage.
It arose in the dark days of the Civil War, when a Rev. Watkinson of Pennsylvania wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, "Dear Sir...You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic (were) shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason ...at we were a heathen nation? What I propose is ... the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW. This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object ... This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed." The suggestion was incorporated in much its present form by the end of the war by the Treasury Department. While a Christian heritage was assumed by the minister, Watkinson referred back to our founding documents and believed that such broad ideals had universal appeal.
During the Enlightenment, many prominent figures broke not merely with the Church, but with the Bible. Yet Napoleon, a product of the French Revolution, is quoted as gazing at the bright Egyptian night sky and asking his generals who, if not God, formed that starry vastness. Thomas Paine, who wrote "The Age of Reason" as a critique of a literal interpretation of the Bible, nonetheless expounded the glory of a secular belief in God through appreciation of his majestic creations.
To return to the pledge, it is this Deism that is the basis of America and that is reflected by children every morning across six time zones. It draws from the universal basis of the great religions: a transcendent creating (and destroying) force of which gods may be individual aspects, which humans can become closer to through right living. Although it may be personified, its essence is not found in gender or name. I would have no problem pledging allegiance "under Allah" in school if I was speaking Arabic, if no recourse was made to specific scriptures, because Allah is simply a word expressing a belief in one force guiding the universe. I do not doubt Lau's ability to be moral without subscribing to a specific religion, but she probably believes that men have a right to govern themselves. However, if we are born deserving life, liberty and happiness, we must get these rights from somewhere beyond ourselves. Even atheists presumably believe that the universe had an origin and is governed by a set of laws, including the natural laws of Locke, although they do not believe in a revealed spiritual framework.
This appeared in The Brown Daily Herald on Friday, February 1, 2002
|
Indi, the selfproclaimed expert in all kinds of religion: You say Exaltation is the belief that they can become like Jesus, not God? Well how weird then that in the doctrine of the Law of Eternal Progression, central theological axiom of the LDS-church says:
"As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become."
I think that needs no further explanation.
Regarding muslims, all muslims I've met around the world, use the word Allah. Even in Indonesia, the worlds biggest muslim nation, on distant islands where there are no christians or other religions, they use the word Allah. Perhaps you do not know that reading the Koran is not allowed in any other language than the old type of arabic that Muhammed spoke in his time? And this is probably the reason why people dont say his name in any other way either.
I have studied the Bible, and the more I listen to you, the more I'm certain I've studied it way MORE than you too. Yes, the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife, but did you ever bother to read past that line?
| Quote: |
| 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. |
Here's another one:
| Quote: |
| 7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner |
The Bible for sure presents men and women equal, they are both worth as much. But it does state that the man is the head of the family. But as you can see, it says that the man should lead the family being considerate to his wife and her needs.
Regarding the head coverings, you might wanna do som research on where in the bible it says so and why. I'll give you a fast explanation, The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth (thus the book having the name Corinthians). In the Corinthian culture at the time, a woman covering her head during prayer and worship was a symbol of respect for her husband, symbolizing them having a good relationship (this also sheds some light on the fact why Paul brings up that men are the head of women, Christ is the head of men, etc). This means women not covering their heads in church, would be a rebellious act, perhaps stirring emotions and causing gossip. Not because God tells anyone to cover their head, but because of the culture in Corinth.
I'm sorry, but I'm not at all surprised that this text is in the new testament as you clearly thought and hoped i would be.
I've never said christian governments traditionally has been "nicer". A lot of bad stuff has (falsely) been done under the name of christianity, the Dark Ages is an example of that. You would however not find any christians today that would approve of what happened then. But you could easily today find millions of muslims approving of killing the artists that made the Muhammed cartoons. That's kind of my point.
I have friends that grew up mormons but broke out. If you try tell them Mormonism is not a cult, they'll probably slap you. And I think they would know.
Again, regarding slavery and prophecies, a lot of stuff that is not good has been done, and people has tried to justify it through christianity, which obviously was wrong. I know in America they had trouble with slavery for example, and that it was "cleared" to be a christian thing somehow. Same thing here, very sad, but no one christian would approve of it today.
I'm not sure what exact passage you are referring to regarding Jesus telling people to live to see the end of days, tell me and I'll explain the misunderstanding. Regarding people today saying we live in the end times, the Bible does leave room for interpretation which obviously makes up for different theories. However, what happened in mormonism was that the full authority leader of the whole cult prophesied the end of the world several times, and at least once that moses and abraham would come back, he even built them a temple to stay in. (But when they never showed up he moved in there himself). People having different theories and a leader to make a prophecy are two very different things. This is like if the pope would prophesy the end of the world and it didnt happen (I am not catholic, or agree with all their beliefs, just making a comparison).
I dont even feel like I need to comment on the "fingerprint of deism". That is not an argument for anything. Christians (generally speaking), unlike muslims, are not afraid of the thought of state and religion separated. The absense of God in political documents is not a sign of anything. | Bikerman wrote: |
If something is almost true then it is false.
Death threats from Christians occur on a very regular basis. Some of them are actually carried out.
You may wish to look at the 7 murders carried out by Christians in the US protesting about abortion. You might like to look at the 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. You might like to look at the more than 600 threats of bio-terrorism from such groups (mostly involving Anthrax lookalikes). You might wish to consider the 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
Now, you might well point out that this is not the same as protesting about a depiction of Jesus, and I would agree. I have roundly condemned the Muslim reaction to the Danish Cartoons, and I have done so repeatedly and in very strong terms. To give the impression, however, that Christians are somehow above the use of violence, when they believe it is justified, is simple wrong. It is clearly historically wrong - I could spend all day pointing out atrocities committed by Christians in pursuit of their beliefs - but it is also wrong in the world today, as the above references clearly show.
PS - please avoid personal insults such as 'very narrow and deranged world view' since it adds nothing to the debate. |
My point still stands that no christians except for small and very extreme groups support those kind of actions. With Islam we got governments and millions of people supporting violence as long as it's towards jews, christians or westeners.
And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. | LimpFish wrote: |
| And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. |
In another thread there was a discussion about communists killing left right and centre, now it has become atheists? I believe the killing in the Soviet Union had to do with a despotic country, which was at war, and had brutal rules for dealing with its enemies, both domestic, being its own citizens, and from other countries. The Soviet Union has had this template of brutality in the dealings with its enemies both internal and external for centuries, and it is ingrained in its history. Communism, theism or atheism did not feature that much when the killing took place. Although granted, people in the Soviet Union were forced to follow communism that was defined by the State, and which deliberately excluded religion. People who practised religion were liable for persecution. The degree of violence and killings was still the same though. Brutal to the nth degree. | LimpFish wrote: |
| My point still stands that no christians except for small and very extreme groups support those kind of actions. With Islam we got governments and millions of people supporting violence as long as it's towards jews, christians or westeners. |
Define small and extreme. Throughout history Christians have been responsible for a huge amount of killing. If you are saying that only a few Christians indulge in violence nowadays, then that is probably correct but much more to do with other social factors than with the religion itself. Not many western Muslims are killers either. Christianity has benefited from the social context in which it exists. That context is, today, largely secular. Christians can no longer exercise their bigotry with impunity because the rest of us will not allow it. We have, effectively, removed most of the power of that particular religious grouping to dictate what the rest of society will do. This has led to an evolution in Christianity which means that most modern Christians are fairly 'civilised'.
Islam, on the other hand, still exists in theocratic societies, and has not benefited to the same extent. If you compare current Islamic theocracies with pre-secular western theocracies then there is very little difference in terms of religiously inspired violence. | Quote: |
| And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. |
a) The Soviet Union was not an 'atheist country'. It was a Marxist country ruled (at this time) by a megalomaniac leader called Stalin. This is a stupid attempt to smear atheists, just as it would be stupid of me to blame the holocaust on Hitler's Christianity. I don't, and you simply reveal your desperation by doing so.BIkerman when you say "only a few Christians indulge in violence nowadays", I am sure you mean "violence in the name of their religion". Otherwise you would have to count all the professed Christians who pulled the triggers and dropped the bombs and gave the orders that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Iraq recently.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The Soviet Union was not an 'atheist country'. It was a Marxist country ruled (at this time) by a megalomaniac leader called Stalin. This is a stupid attempt to smear atheists, just as it would be stupid of me to blame the holocaust on Hitler's Christianity. I don't, and you simply reveal your desperation by doing so. |
I don't know my view on that to be honest. Given what Hitler said in many public and private discussions/speeches, a lot of the atrocities he committed were self-proclaimed to be "for God" or were at least remotely motivated by his view that he was doing "God's work" (to my knowledge). I could be wrong. I'm kind of on the fence on that at the moment. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The Soviet Union was not an 'atheist country'. It was a Marxist country ruled (at this time) by a megalomaniac leader called Stalin. This is a stupid attempt to smear atheists, just as it would be stupid of me to blame the holocaust on Hitler's Christianity. I don't, and you simply reveal your desperation by doing so. |
I don't know my view on that to be honest. Given what Hitler said in many public and private discussions/speeches, a lot of the atrocities he committed were self-proclaimed to be "for God" or were at least remotely motivated by his view that he was doing "God's work" (to my knowledge). I could be wrong. I'm kind of on the fence on that at the moment. |
Ascribing Hitler's action to a religion is a mistake; his use of religion was the same as most rightwing dictators. Remember the Nazi's early slogan was "Church, Children and Kitchen", or in other words, "God and Family Values", which is the same message the right wing of the USA puts out. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Ascribing Hitler's action to a religion is a mistake; his use of religion was the same as most rightwing dictators. Remember the Nazi's early slogan was "Church, Children and Kitchen", or in other words, "God and Family Values", which is the same message the right wing of the USA puts out. |
Depends on how one looks at Hitler's brand of religion. Think Hitler's real religion was national socialism, and God, Hitler himself. Hence: "Heil Hitler". References to God were made for protocol reasons perhaps and were part of a political propaganda campaign. | handfleisch wrote: |
| BIkerman when you say "only a few Christians indulge in violence nowadays", I am sure you mean "violence in the name of their religion". Otherwise you would have to count all the professed Christians who pulled the triggers and dropped the bombs and gave the orders that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Iraq recently. |
Yes, you are quite right - I was referring to those who kill or commit violence explicitly in the name of their religion. | Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | My point still stands that no christians except for small and very extreme groups support those kind of actions. With Islam we got governments and millions of people supporting violence as long as it's towards jews, christians or westeners. |
Define small and extreme. Throughout history Christians have been responsible for a huge amount of killing. If you are saying that only a few Christians indulge in violence nowadays, then that is probably correct but much more to do with other social factors than with the religion itself. Not many western Muslims are killers either. Christianity has benefited from the social context in which it exists. That context is, today, largely secular. Christians can no longer exercise their bigotry with impunity because the rest of us will not allow it. We have, effectively, removed most of the power of that particular religious grouping to dictate what the rest of society will do. This has led to an evolution in Christianity which means that most modern Christians are fairly 'civilised'.
Islam, on the other hand, still exists in theocratic societies, and has not benefited to the same extent. If you compare current Islamic theocracies with pre-secular western theocracies then there is very little difference in terms of religiously inspired violence. | Quote: | | And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. |
a) The Soviet Union was not an 'atheist country'. It was a Marxist country ruled (at this time) by a megalomaniac leader called Stalin. This is a stupid attempt to smear atheists, just as it would be stupid of me to blame the holocaust on Hitler's Christianity. I don't, and you simply reveal your desperation by doing so. |
1. Yes, I was talking about the presence, not the past. And I agree, in no way can you compare the magnitudes of christian and muslim violence today, they're simply in different leagues.
2. Quote from Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| Although the Soviet Union was officially secular, it supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion, though according to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. The state was separated from church by the Decree of Council of People's Comissars on January 23, 1918. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. |
Maybe not entirely atheist country, but pretty much.
I'm not even gonna comment on you bringing Hitler in as an example, it's either a little sarcasm to bringing that up, or you really don't know what you're talking about. Quote from Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness..." |
| deanhills wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. |
In another thread there was a discussion about communists killing left right and centre, now it has become atheists? I believe the killing in the Soviet Union had to do with a despotic country, which was at war, and had brutal rules for dealing with its enemies, both domestic, being its own citizens, and from other countries. The Soviet Union has had this template of brutality in the dealings with its enemies both internal and external for centuries, and it is ingrained in its history. Communism, theism or atheism did not feature that much when the killing took place. Although granted, people in the Soviet Union were forced to follow communism that was defined by the State, and which deliberately excluded religion. People who practised religion were liable for persecution. The degree of violence and killings was still the same though. Brutal to the nth degree. |
My point exactly is to point out, which Bikerman and many others deny, that an atheist country is not less prone to be violent and dangerous than a christian or religious one. It is not either MORE prone, that is not what I'm trying to say. Just trying to explain that atheism is not any better. | LimpFish wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | LimpFish wrote: | | And as for atheists being better than christians, or muslims, or any religious group regarding violence and killings. Have your heard about the Soviet Union? Entirely atheistic country, more people killed in their concentration camps than in the Nazi ones. |
In another thread there was a discussion about communists killing left right and centre, now it has become atheists? I believe the killing in the Soviet Union had to do with a despotic country, which was at war, and had brutal rules for dealing with its enemies, both domestic, being its own citizens, and from other countries. The Soviet Union has had this template of brutality in the dealings with its enemies both internal and external for centuries, and it is ingrained in its history. Communism, theism or atheism did not feature that much when the killing took place. Although granted, people in the Soviet Union were forced to follow communism that was defined by the State, and which deliberately excluded religion. People who practised religion were liable for persecution. The degree of violence and killings was still the same though. Brutal to the nth degree. |
My point exactly is to point out, which Bikerman and many others deny, that an atheist country is not less prone to be violent and dangerous than a christian or religious one. It is not either MORE prone, that is not what I'm trying to say. Just trying to explain that atheism is not any better. |
I can assure you nobody really knows as there has never been a fully, truly atheist country that we're aware of to my knowledge. | LimpFish wrote: |
| My point exactly is to point out, which Bikerman and many others deny, that an atheist country is not less prone to be violent and dangerous than a christian or religious one. It is not either MORE prone, that is not what I'm trying to say. Just trying to explain that atheism is not any better. |
Err...can you name an 'atheist' country? The USSR was never atheist - even at the height of Stalinism there were significant numbers of religious believers. It is impossible to give accurate figures, because they simply were not kept. What we can say, from various sources, is that the USSR, at the height of communist rule (2nd world war onwards), was probably about 1/3rd religious.
You equate atheism with socialism/communism but it just won't work. Consider Cuba - perhaps the last example of a 'communist' state. Does Cuba have a significant number of religious people? You bet it does. About 60% of the population are Catholic.
I have never said that atheist countries (even if that meant something, which I question) could not be violent places - of course they could. It is entirely feasible for a country which had a vast majority of atheists to be a very nasty country indeed. (It is, however, unlikely that such nastiness would be a result of atheism - why would people use a lack of belief in God(s) to justify barbarity?)
What I said was that we KNOW FOR A FACT that countries governed by religion - theocracies - tend to be very nasty places indeed. We have many examples, both historical and contemporary. | Bikerman wrote: |
The USSR was never atheist - even at the height of Stalinism there were significant numbers of religious believers. It is impossible to give accurate figures, because they simply were not kept. What we can say, from various sources, is that the USSR, at the height of communist rule (2nd world war onwards), was probably about 1/3rd religious.
You equate atheism with socialism/communism but it just won't work. Consider Cuba - perhaps the last example of a 'communist' state. Does Cuba have a significant number of religious people? You bet it does. About 60% of the population are Catholic.
I have never said that atheist countries (even if that meant something, which I question) could not be violent places - of course they could. It is entirely feasible for a country which had a vast majority of atheists to be a very nasty country indeed. (It is, however, unlikely that such nastiness would be a result of atheism - why would people use a lack of belief in God(s) to justify barbarity?)
What I said was that we KNOW FOR A FACT that countries governed by religion - theocracies - tend to be very nasty places indeed. We have many examples, both historical and contemporary. |
Thanks for this excellent explanation. Chris, how would you describe China as not completely an atheist country? Would buddhism, moslem beliefs and a scattering of christian feature in the religious side of China? You mentioned Russia as marxist, what would China be?The most common religion in China would be Buddhism, followed by Taoism. It is very difficult to get accurate numbers. During the Maoist 'cultural revolution', religion was suppressed and the state liked to (and still does) claim that only about 50-100 million Chinese were/are religious (about 8%). This is clearly absurd and other sources put the figure at around 30-40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China | Bikerman wrote: |
| Yes, I would agree to a large extent with that. I would qualify it slightly though. During the Islamic 'Golden Age' - say 800CE to the start of the Crusades in 1095 CE - I would say that Islam existed in relative peace with the other two faiths in the countries newly conquered. I think much of the current 'backwardness' of Islamic states (in terms of human rights, technological progress, religious freedoms etc) can be traced back to the splintering of the Ottoman empire, from the late 16th century onwards and culminating in the defeat in WW1 which led to the Islamic nation states we see today. |
I would agree. I would say the downfall of the Muslim Empire began around 1492 - the year the catholics under ferdinand d took Muslim Spain and kicked the Muslims and Jews out or put them to death.
Muslims still made contribution after this towards science and technology, but this was chiefly to inspire the Europe revolution and the renaissance period, and colonialism -- for instance averroe's philosophy rather than their own world.
But like with all nations, the balance of power never lies in the same place for all times.... | Bikerman wrote: |
The most common religion in China would be Buddhism, followed by Taoism. It is very difficult to get accurate numbers. During the Maoist 'cultural revolution', religion was suppressed and the state liked to (and still does) claim that only about 50-100 million Chinese were/are religious (about 8%). This is clearly absurd and other sources put the figure at around 30-40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China |
Is buddhism a religion? | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | The most common religion in China would be Buddhism, followed by Taoism. It is very difficult to get accurate numbers. During the Maoist 'cultural revolution', religion was suppressed and the state liked to (and still does) claim that only about 50-100 million Chinese were/are religious (about 8%). This is clearly absurd and other sources put the figure at around 30-40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China |
Is buddhism a religion? |
Officially not, but since it has a lot in commen with other religions, customs, temples, monks, preists etc.etc.etc. it is often counted as a religion. | Bikerman wrote: |
The comparison is odious.
Cartoons have been used as a tool of satire and ridicule for centuries. There is a long standing tradition in the UK, dating back to Hogarth and even before. Politicians, as a class of people, are ridiculed routinely in the press in cartoons. Are we to say that this is on a par with the Holocaust - the very suggestion is objectionable.
|
So you are saying you were perfectly happy with the way Jews were portrayed prior to WW2 in the media? Specially, I am talking about Nazi and Soviet propoganda against them.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Quite aside from that fact that, as Indi has already pointed out, the cartoons were NOT commissioned to ridicule Islam, the notion that this is comparable with what happened in Nazi Germany is an example of Godwin's Law at it's very basest.
|
I think its a perfect example.
| Bikerman wrote: |
PS - let's be clear here. I am very familiar with Chomsky - I have read a great deal of his work and agree with much of it. Galloway is a different matter - he is a self-serving, self-publicising, champagne socialist (and I say that as a socialist myself). Chomsky does indeed compare the actions of post-war US regimes with those of Nazi Germany - but, importantly, he is not comparing the treatment of Muslims with the treatment of the Jews. He is making a wider point about the attack on civil liberties in the US and the conduct of US foreign policy. |
Chomsky is a legend.
Galloway is legend too -- but I think it is because he is a vocal politician and speaks about the evils of US and UK foriegn policy so passionatly the reason why you really hate him. Chomsky is the complete opposite vocally.
and Of course, Chomsky is not simply talking about US involvement in middle East. His message is against the entire US foreign policy post WW2. In one of his articles, he stated that every post WW2 president would be hanged if the nuremberg laws were placed on them. I don't think he is far off.
But if you remove the extermination camps (for now), how can you explain that treatment against Jews was worse than the treatment against Muslims in places like Palestine (where they are forced into ghettos, a wall around them, denied rights etc etc), or srebrenica - where they were put in concentration camps and put to death and so on.
Did the world ever mourn at the millions of innocent Muslims that have died and are dying now as a direct result of American foriegn policy, like the world mourned when 3000 innocent Americans died on 911?
Heck no. And Who is crying for the Palestinian children who are dying at a ratio of 10:1 compared to Israeli children? Does the mainstream media ever report the Palestinian-Israeli issue without spin?? There is nothing more bias in the media than the Arab-Israeli conflict. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Heck no. And Who is crying for the Palestinian children who are dying at a ratio of 10:1 compared to Israeli children? Does the mainstream media ever report the Palestinian-Israeli issue without spin?? There is nothing more bias in the media than the Arab-Israeli conflict. |
Think that that was almost exclusively what I have been seeing on TV right from day one of the most recent Israeli-Palestinian War. Photos of horror in Gaza over and over again, people who reacted with outrage, especially in the UK, also in Athens, everywhere in favour of Palestine and the Palestinians who had been hurt. The reporters on TV and the news mention that missiles are being fired from Hamas in Gaza on Israel, and then tell us about people dying in Israel, but I have not yet seen one single photo of a dead person in Israel, as the media is camped around Gaza and the Palestinians. I'm not sure where you are looking, but this one you have very wrong. The bias is definitely on the side of Palestine and Hamas. And now I would like to ask you why has Hamas been firing missiles into Israel when there was supposed to be a peace treaty in place, and second, when they heard Israel had enough, and HAD BEEN WARNED by the big countries that Israel may attack them if they do not stop firing missiles into Israel, WHY did Hamas still continue with firing missiles? Hamas was also fully aware that there were no clear military targets in Gaza as Hamas very cleverly has its military living among its citizens, so when Hamas still continued with its missiles it knew it was putting its citizens at risk. So my only logical deduction is that Hamas sees its own citizens in Gaza as a worthy sacrifice in its war with Israel. Yes, point fingers at Israel if you like, but at least then point a number of fingers at Hamas too. Some of the responsibility for the killing of innocent women and children in Gaza has to be given to Hamas. As well as those who have been assisting Hamas with training, smuggling of weapons in underground tunnels and through Egypt. | deanhills wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Heck no. And Who is crying for the Palestinian children who are dying at a ratio of 10:1 compared to Israeli children? Does the mainstream media ever report the Palestinian-Israeli issue without spin?? There is nothing more bias in the media than the Arab-Israeli conflict. |
Think that that was almost exclusively what I have been seeing on TV right from day one of the most recent Israeli-Palestinian War. Photos of horror in Gaza over and over again, people who reacted with outrage, especially in the UK, also in Athens, everywhere in favour of Palestine and the Palestinians who had been hurt. The reporters on TV and the news mention that missiles are being fired from Hamas in Gaza on Israel, and then tell us about people dying in Israel, but I have not yet seen one single photo of a dead person in Israel, as the media is camped around Gaza and the Palestinians. I'm not sure where you are looking, but this one you have very wrong. The bias is definitely on the side of Palestine and Hamas. And now I would like to ask you why has Hamas been firing missiles into Israel when there was supposed to be a peace treaty in place, and second, when they heard Israel had enough, and HAD BEEN WARNED by the big countries that Israel may attack them if they do not stop firing missiles into Israel, WHY did Hamas still continue with firing missiles? Hamas was also fully aware that there were no clear military targets in Gaza as Hamas very cleverly has its military living among its citizens, so when Hamas still continued with its missiles it knew it was putting its citizens at risk. So my only logical deduction is that Hamas sees its own citizens in Gaza as a worthy sacrifice in its war with Israel. Yes, point fingers at Israel if you like, but at least then point a number of fingers at Hamas too. Some of the responsibility for the killing of innocent women and children in Gaza has to be given to Hamas. As well as those who have been assisting Hamas with training, smuggling of weapons in underground tunnels and through Egypt. |
No its not,, listen carefully how the media portrays things. The media is never objective on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, especially if your sources are CNN, CBS or faux news.
Take one example:
The entire western media reported Ahmedinejhad wanting to "wipe out" israel from "the map". Top policians in the US, and Europe quoted these lines many many times, include David Cameron leader of conservatives in the UK, former PM Blair, and Bush in the US.
Yet, Ahmedinejhad NEVER said them words.
It was a lie perpetuated in the media.
The media is pro-Israeli. That is a fact.
You have not seen any pics of dead in Israel because ONLY 5 innocent Israelis have died (this was perhaps a week back). The rest are military.
It is Israel who are the child murdering, killing innocent civilians.
But it is funny how media fails to state that the Palestinians have a right to resist occupation. For the last 60 years of occupation, has the media ever reported it as an occupation where Israel is in fact OCCUPYING Palestinian land? I don't think so.
We are witnessing the holocaust of the Palestinian people, and shame on us on how we are portraying Israel to be David and the Palestinians as Goliath. It is far from the truth. Chomsky said nothing is more bias than the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.
Goto [url]ifamericansknew.org[/url] for real info on the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict and how the media is overtly biased in favour of the illegal state of Israel.
And how the heck? Israel BROKE THE CEASEFIRE FIRST LAST YEAR. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | The most common religion in China would be Buddhism, followed by Taoism. It is very difficult to get accurate numbers. During the Maoist 'cultural revolution', religion was suppressed and the state liked to (and still does) claim that only about 50-100 million Chinese were/are religious (about 8%). This is clearly absurd and other sources put the figure at around 30-40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China |
Is buddhism a religion? |
Officially not, but since it has a lot in commen with other religions, customs, temples, monks, preists etc.etc.etc. it is often counted as a religion. |
but isn't that order? Having beauracracy and order is not same as religion.
But I accept that the defnition of religion can be extended. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
No its not,, listen carefully how the media portrays things. The media is never objective on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, especially if your sources are CNN, CBS or faux news.
|
I think the newspaper reports I see and the ones you see must be different. Perhaps because I am in the Middle East. I do however get international channels, BBC, Skynews, Euronews, Fox News, CNN (I do not watch CNN) I also read English newspapers as the newspapers here are not the best, and I read news on the Internet. | deanhills wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | No its not,, listen carefully how the media portrays things. The media is never objective on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, especially if your sources are CNN, CBS or faux news.
|
I think the newspaper reports I see and the ones you see must be different. Perhaps because I am in the Middle East. I do however get international channels, BBC, Skynews, Euronews, Fox News, CNN (I do not watch CNN) I also read English newspapers as the newspapers here are not the best, and I read news on the Internet. |
Do you watch Al-Jazeera then?
That is a true alternative media compared to the pro-Israeli mainstream western media. It is critical of US and Israeli foreign policy.
Too bad the US forces keep bombing their building despite them giving co-ordinates on where it is. Cus freedom of speech and liberty is so good as long as you don't criticise the US foreign policy right?[quote="jeremyp"] | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Quote: | | You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
As Muhammad has been dead for about 1,400 years, I don't see how anybody could **** with him. As for these cartoons, we have a tradition of free press here in Europe. You might not like it, but it's no excuse to go round having riots. |
I do not agree, if somebody insulted somebody inportant to me i would stand up for my beliefs, if you let one person insult you. The whole world will, and i think the muslims are trying to say that even though there are some religious radicals, we are not radicals, and we have the same right as any other religion which all have religious radicals, (e.g Ku Klux Klan), to be respected. | ParsaAkbari wrote: |
| jeremyp wrote: | | BigMo420 wrote: | | You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
As Muhammad has been dead for about 1,400 years, I don't see how anybody could **** with him. As for these cartoons, we have a tradition of free press here in Europe. You might not like it, but it's no excuse to go round having riots. |
I do not agree, if somebody insulted somebody inportant to me i would stand up for my beliefs, if you let one person insult you. The whole world will, and i think the muslims are trying to say that even though there are some religious radicals, we are not radicals, and we have the same right as any other religion which all have religious radicals, (e.g Ku Klux Klan), to be respected. |
Err...respect is a two-way street. I fail to see why I should respect Islam or Christianity or any other religious belief system. I do, of course, respect people's right to hold to such faith systems, and I will defend their right to do so (as I have many times). That does not mean that I consider myself bound by their faith system and it certainly does not mean that I feel any obligation to obey their religious 'code' of behaviour.
Why on earth you think that any religion has the right to be 'respected' is beyond me. Respect is earned, not assumed. I see nothing in Islam, Christianity or any other religious faith system to demand my respect. It is surely enough that I respect your right to believe what you like - when you start insisting that I respect your faith system then you step over the mark. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I fail to see why I should respect Islam or Christianity or any other religious belief system. I do, of course, respect people's right to hold to such faith systems, and I will defend their right to do so (as I have many times). That does not mean that I consider myself bound by their faith system and it certainly does not mean that I feel any obligation to obey their religious 'code' of behaviour. |
I'm confused Chris. What's the difference between respecting the right of a person to have a religion, and the religion itself? How can you not respect the religion, but respect the right of the person to have the religion you do not respect? | deanhills wrote: |
| I'm confused Chris. What's the difference between respecting the right of a person to have a religion, and the religion itself? How can you not respect the religion, but respect the right of the person to have the religion you do not respect? |
The same way you can respect the right of someone to wear a hat, while at the same time thinking that their hat is the stupidest thing you've ever seen. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | I fail to see why I should respect Islam or Christianity or any other religious belief system. I do, of course, respect people's right to hold to such faith systems, and I will defend their right to do so (as I have many times). That does not mean that I consider myself bound by their faith system and it certainly does not mean that I feel any obligation to obey their religious 'code' of behaviour. |
I'm confused Chris. What's the difference between respecting the right of a person to have a religion, and the religion itself? How can you not respect the religion, but respect the right of the person to have the religion you do not respect? |
As Indi says, the issue is one of freedom of speech, belief and expression. I support such freedoms whole-heartedly. That means I support the right of anyone to believe, say, and do anything they want within the normal legal bounds of society. That does NOT mean I have to respect what they say, believe or do and nor should it because I expect THEM to respect MY right to differ.
It is very easy to respect people's right to freedom of expression when they are saying things you agree with, or do not find objectionable. It is much more difficult when you profoundly disagree, or find their comments insulting, bigoted or stupid. Thus I support the right of the National Front (right-wing racist party) to hold meetings and express their poisonous views, but I certainly do not respect those views and opinions. The same applies to religion. | Bikerman wrote: |
As Indi says, the issue is one of freedom of speech, belief and expression. I support such freedoms whole-heartedly. That means I support the right of anyone to believe, say, and do anything they want within the normal legal bounds of society. That does NOT mean I have to respect what they say, believe or do and nor should it because I expect THEM to respect MY right to differ.
It is very easy to respect people's right to freedom of expression when they are saying things you agree with, or do not find objectionable. It is much more difficult when you profoundly disagree, or find their comments insulting, bigoted or stupid. Thus I support the right of the National Front (right-wing racist party) to hold meetings and express their poisonous views, but I certainly do not respect those views and opinions. The same applies to religion. |
Thanks Chris. Must take a very SUPER and thick-skinned person to be able to do that. For example some people who are religious, may have the perception that the beliefs of atheists break their rules completely (because of a lack of understanding), for example zealots would see atheism as a clear case of going to hell and of course judge the atheist by implication at the same time. So if you come across a person like that, do you still respect that person's right to freedom of expression to judge another person's belief as OK or not OK? How could you really divorce the two from one another? I would have imagined you would have developed an instant dislike to this person and tell him/her what to do with him/herself, perhaps even felt like committing serious bodily harm? How could you still respect the freedom of expression of that person when he/she is obviously not respecting yours?The simple answer is that it is the only ethical course available to me. As soon as you impose your viewpoint on others then you are a despot and you deny their human freedoms. History is replete with examples of this and it is never positive. Each person should live their life according to their own ethical/moral precepts. My own take is that freedom of expression is a vital human freedom and, although others might try to deny my own, to reciprocate would be to deny my own ethical sensibilities. That means I will fight for the religious zealots right to express their belief. By fight I mean that I will stick up for it, as a matter of principle. I will also speak in the strongest terms AGAINST such beliefs, whilst defending the right of such people to respond.
Free speech is NOT easy - it is very difficult.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The simple answer is that it is the only ethical course available to me. As soon as you impose your viewpoint on others then you are a despot and you deny their human freedoms. History is replete with examples of this and it is never positive. Each person should live their life according to their own ethical/moral precepts. My own take is that freedom of expression is a vital human freedom and, although others might try to deny my own, to reciprocate would be to deny my own ethical sensibilities. That means I will fight for the religious zealots right to express their belief. By fight I mean that I will stick up for it, as a matter of principle. I will also speak in the strongest terms AGAINST such beliefs, whilst defending the right of such people to respond.
Free speech is NOT easy - it is very difficult. |
Thanks Chris, as you said before, that is the more difficult to do. But to me it shows enormous integrity. I more than respect that in a person. | deanhills wrote: |
| Thanks Chris, as you said before, that is the more difficult to do. But to me it shows enormous integrity. I more than respect that in a person. |
i honestly don't think this requires any great integrity, and i am pretty sure you do it already. Most people do. They're just used to hearing that they should "respect other people's beliefs", and so they think that is the thing to do... but in reality no one really does.
Do you eat any of pork, beef or coffee? If you do, then you are in violation of the beliefs of either Muslims, Hindus or Mormons (or some or all of the above). How you could do something so flagrantly against their creed if you truly "respected their beliefs"? The answer is: you can't, so you simply don't respect their beliefs.
But that doesn't make you a bigot, obviously. You don't hate Muslims, Hindus or Mormons (i assume), you just don't respect their beliefs. i also assume you would never dream of feeding pork to a Muslim on purpose, or doing anything to prevent them from choosing not to eat pork. In other words, you don't respect their beliefs at all... but you do respect their rights to those beliefs. Which is exactly what Bikerman was saying.
And, let's be realistic - there is no possible for anyone to respect all or even most beliefs that all the various groups have, because so many of them directly contradict. Most people probably don't even know what the beliefs of even the more popular religions are... which means it is impossible for them to respect them because how you can respect something you've never even heard of? But there is no reason you cannot respect the rights of these groups to believe what they want to believe (with certain restrictions, of course). And that is what most people do.
The problem is a clever twisting of words used by groups to prevent criticism of their beliefs. You see, because Bikerman and i are explicitly clear that while we do respect anyone's right to believe whatever nonsense they want to (again, with restrictions - but i will not keep repeating that), that doesn't mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves, we can criticize other people's beliefs without being hypocrites or bigots. We can say that we think your beliefs are crazy while still respecting your freedom to both have those beliefs and share them with others. That is good for free speech, but it is bad for groups that do not want their beliefs criticized. They would love to have you "respect their beliefs" unconditionally, simply because anything else would be bigotry... then they could believe what they wanted to, no matter how shaky and foolish, without ever having to face any kind of contradictory reality. And anyone who says they do not respect those beliefs will be labelled a bigot without any kind of questioning on why they do not respect those beliefs, or any questioning of the beliefs either. A great way to protect nonsense beliefs with no basis in reason or reality... but a bad way to encourage the free exchange of ideas.
i encourage everyone to be less sloppy with the terminology, and say clearly that you respect the right to believe, not the belief itself... unless you do respect the belief itself, of course, which, in the case of religions, would make you a member of that religion. | Indi wrote: |
i honestly don't think this requires any great integrity, and i am pretty sure you do it already. Most people do. They're just used to hearing that they should "respect other people's beliefs", and so they think that is the thing to do... but in reality no one really does.
Do you eat any of pork, beef or coffee? If you do, then you are in violation of the beliefs of either Muslims, Hindus or Mormons (or some or all of the above). How you could do something so flagrantly against their creed if you truly "respected their beliefs"? The answer is: you can't, so you simply don't respect their beliefs. |
You really got me thinking on this one. The first thought that came to mind was that the only part I do not respect about Muslims is that they generally think Westerners are infidels. Not overtly. But when you get to know Muslims, you understand that. I doubt that they would ever admit it though as I do not think they are aware of it. So by not being a Muslim you are probably already in violation of their beliefs. I can't say I do not respect their beliefs as I do not know much about the Muslim religion. What I see are people who generally treat me with great respect and courtesy, warmth and hospitality, not to forget generosity. I admire how disciplined their society is, how much they care about their families. There are so many good things to admire and to respect. Perhaps those qualities I admire can be a manifestation of what they believe in. So I would say the only part I do not respect is their judgment of those that are not Muslims to be less than Muslims and this obviously varies in intensity relative to how extreme the Muslims are. In fact thinking about it, it is the judgment stuff that I cannot respect in any religion. Along the lines of God's exclusive chosen people and everyone outside of the religion are sinners or have it completely wrong. | deanhills wrote: |
You really got me thinking on this one. The first thought that came to mind was that the only part I do not respect about Muslims is that they generally think Westerners are infidels. Not overtly. But when you get to know Muslims, you understand that. I doubt that they would ever admit it though as I do not think they are aware of it.
|
That is completely untrue. First, you must make the distinction between Westerners.
There are Muslims living in the West, do these Muslims hate those Muslims? Obviously not.
It is not the west the Muslims hate, it is Western govts.
And even still, its not [u]all[u] Western govts they hate, it is the imperalist powers chiefly the US, the Brits, and perhaps the French.
And with good reason. The US has ****** the world with their nazi-like criminal acts and lawlessness and choas they have created in almost every corner of the world,, vietnam, panama, japan, iraq and afghanistan is just a few that bear testimony to this in which hundreds of millions of innocent men, women and children died for the sin of not living the "American" way of life or adhering to the American ideology.
Or how about the Brits when they waged war against China, after the Chinese govt believed it was wrong for Britain to sell opium to the Chinese people which led to teh Opium wars?
It is not Muslims that hate these govts, the world hates them.
Tell me one, JUST ONE, nation that actually is a "WILLING" (ie. without being bullied) FRIEND of the United States.
Europe hates the US, Israel hates the US, the entire middleEast EVEN WITH THE AMERICAN IMPOSED PUPPET GOVTS hate the US, the Far East hate teh US, and the South American countries hate the US maybe on leiu (or moreso) with arabs, and hence the US dare set foot on that region.
And its not the people they hate,, ITS THE GOVTS!!!
| deanhills wrote: |
So by not being a Muslim you are probably already in violation of their beliefs. I can't say I do not respect their beliefs as I do not know much about the Muslim religion. What I see are people who generally treat me with great respect and courtesy, warmth and hospitality, not to forget generosity. I admire how disciplined their society is, how much they care about their families. There are so many good things to admire and to respect. Perhaps those qualities I admire can be a manifestation of what they believe in. So I would say the only part I do not respect is their judgment of those that are not Muslims to be less than Muslims and this obviously varies in intensity relative to how extreme the Muslims are. In fact thinking about it, it is the judgment stuff that I cannot respect in any religion. Along the lines of God's exclusive chosen people and everyone outside of the religion are sinners or have it completely wrong. |
Have you been brainwashed? The Iraqis are resisting US occupation. The Afghans are resisting US occupation. You see this when your beloved American murdering soldiers/rapists come back home dressed in the stars and stripes and in coffins. The vietnamese resisted US occupation. The Venezuelans resisted US occupation. The people of Panama resisted US occupation. The El Salvadorians resisted US occupation. The Guatamaleons resisted US occupation.
Since when the heck did religion ever come into this??? It is called nationalism and being free from oppression and occupation.
Leave the world in peace, the US govt and her soldiers will be loved.[quote="ParsaAkbari"][quote="jeremyp"] | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Quote: | | You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
As Muhammad has been dead for about 1,400 years, I don't see how anybody could **** with him. As for these cartoons, we have a tradition of free press here in Europe. You might not like it, but it's no excuse to go round having riots. |
What? You do not agree that it unacceptable to riot?
| Quote: |
| if somebody insulted somebody inportant to me i would stand up for my beliefs |
I would also stand up for the person that was important to me. However, rioting is not an acceptable form of "standing up".
| Quote: |
| we are not radicals, and we have the same right as any other religion which all have religious radicals, (e.g Ku Klux Klan), to be respected. |
You have the right to be treated decently. Respect, however, is something that should be earned. People were killed by some of these rioters. The perpetrators do not deserve respect. And note, by "perpetrators" I mean the low life scum that committed murder because they were upset at a cartoon, I do not mean "all muslims". | Indi wrote: |
| i honestly don't think this requires any great integrity, and i am pretty sure you do it already. Most people do. They're just used to hearing that they should "respect other people's beliefs", and so they think that is the thing to do... but in reality no one really does. |
Who says that people should "respect other people's beliefs?" Well I'm sure people say it all the time; I probably just never pay attention to it. That's complete nonsense to me. Why should I respect anyone's beliefs? I don't expect people to respect my beliefs. I respect some beliefs and some people respect mine. It really comes down to if you agree with their beliefs or not. I didn't respect Hitler's beliefs, I don't respect any religious beliefs, and I actually have very little respect for most beliefs.
What you do have to do, however, is respect someone's right to beliefs - which I do. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even though I very rarely actually respect their believes. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i honestly don't think this requires any great integrity, and i am pretty sure you do it already. Most people do. They're just used to hearing that they should "respect other people's beliefs", and so they think that is the thing to do... but in reality no one really does. |
Who says that people should "respect other people's beliefs?" Well I'm sure people say it all the time; I probably just never pay attention to it. That's complete nonsense to me. Why should I respect anyone's beliefs? I don't expect people to respect my beliefs. I respect some beliefs and some people respect mine. It really comes down to if you agree with their beliefs or not. I didn't respect Hitler's beliefs, I don't respect any religious beliefs, and I actually have very little respect for most beliefs.
What you do have to do, however, is respect someone's right to beliefs - which I do. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even though I very rarely actually respect their believes. |
Excellently put. i don't respect most of Hitler's beliefs either. i also don't respect most of the beliefs of the Pope and a good chunk of Barack Obama's beliefs (and i like Barack). But in all cases, i respect their rights to believe what they want... although, that doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of others, whatever they believe.
Although, i disagree with saying that respecting belief is equivalent to agreeing. For example, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have strong views about religious liberalism that i don't share... but i understand how they come to those beliefs, and i respect them - even as i vocally disagree.^^Good point, Indi. I didn't think about that. I would still say that people often respect other beliefs because they agree with them, but that is obviously not always the case. I respect why people would want abortion to be illegal (as long as they aren't murdering people who work at abortion clinics) even though I'm pro-choice (although I am against abortion, but I believe in the right to choose more than I am abortion).
| Indi wrote: |
| What you do have to do, however, is respect someone's right to beliefs - which I do. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even though I very rarely actually respect their believes. |
How can one respect another person's right to belief when we do not know whether they are capable of exercising that right? For example, there is only a small percentage of people in the world who can debate meaningfully about beliefs, can define what beliefs are, have studied their religions etc. An overall majority would not have a clue what they really believe in. I probably fall into that category as well. So how can I expect anyone to respect my right to a belief when they do not even know whether I am capable of exercising that right? I would not be able to respect their respect of my right to believe. It would be completely meaningless. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | What you do have to do, however, is respect someone's right to beliefs - which I do. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even though I very rarely actually respect their believes. |
How can one respect another person's right to belief when we do not know whether they are capable of exercising that right? For example, there is only a small percentage of people in the world who can debate meaningfully about beliefs, can define what beliefs are, have studied their religions etc. An overall majority would not have a clue what they really believe in. I probably fall into that category as well. So how can I expect anyone to respect my right to a belief when they do not even know whether I am capable of exercising that right? I would not be able to respect their respect of my right to believe. It would be completely meaningless. |
Ummm... first off... you quoted the incorrect person. I am the one who said what you quoted - not Indi.
Second, why shouldn't I be expected to respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even if they don't know what they believe? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Not everyone has to have a clear idea of what they believe, but I still need to respect that they have the right to believe. In the United States, most people do not smoke. I still respect everyone's right to smoke if they wish. In the United States, many people do not vote. I still think everyone should have the right to vote if they choose. Just because someone doesn't exercise a right doesn't mean that it should be stripped away from them. | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! |
Muhamed was a drug addict who spent all his life drinking, smoking weed and raping sheep.
There, I insulted Muhamed.
Not because I care/hate/dislike that work of fiction, but because loonatics like you are ready to kill other people, riot and start arsons all over the freedom of speech.
Well I hope you do, and I hope you get shot for it.
(but I do dislike Islam, Mohammud is only good for decorating toilet paper). | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Ummm... first off... you quoted the incorrect person. I am the one who said what you quoted - not Indi.
Second, why shouldn't I be expected to respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want even if they don't know what they believe? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Not everyone has to have a clear idea of what they believe, but I still need to respect that they have the right to believe. In the United States, most people do not smoke. I still respect everyone's right to smoke if they wish. In the United States, many people do not vote. I still think everyone should have the right to vote if they choose. Just because someone doesn't exercise a right doesn't mean that it should be stripped away from them. |
Perhaps that makes it personal to you then, rather than a universal truth? I.e. saying you respect people's rights to believe what they want to believe is something that is meaningful to you only, and pretty meaningless to everyone else. Who cares about this, when you tackle them on their beliefs in the next breath? In fact, it is almost like setting up your poor non-atheist victims. The one moment you sanctimoniously and very generously tell them you respect their right to believe what they want to believe. Then the very next moment you do a hard tackle on the soundness of their beliefs. Almost the equivalent of telling someone you respect their right to breathe the same air that you are breathing, and then giving them a mighty big punch when you cannot agree with their method of breathing. | deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps that makes it personal to you then, rather than a universal truth? I.e. saying you respect people's rights to believe what they want to believe is something that is meaningful to you only, and pretty meaningless to everyone else. Who cares about this, when you tackle them on their beliefs in the next breath? In fact, it is almost like setting up your poor non-atheist victims. The one moment you sanctimoniously and very generously tell them you respect their right to believe what they want to believe. Then the very next moment you do a hard tackle on the soundness of their beliefs. Almost the equivalent of telling someone you respect their right to breathe the same air that you are breathing, and then giving them a mighty big punch when you cannot agree with their method of breathing. |
That is a ridiculous analogy, with no relation to what Afaceinthematrix said. An equivalent analogy using breathing would be: you respect someone's right to breathe, but you think they way they are breathing (for example, through a straw) is stupid, and you tell them so. What is so crazy about that?
As i mentioned elsewhere, it is just like respecting someone's right to own a car, but telling them that you think their car is a piece of crap. If you insulted my car, how does that imply you don't respect my right to own a car? If i care about your opinion, i can change my car to one you prefer. If i don't... so what? i still have a car, and you can't take it away from me. You don't need to like it to agree that i have a right to own it. | Indi wrote: |
| As i mentioned elsewhere, it is just like respecting someone's right to own a car, but telling them that you think their car is a piece of crap. If you insulted my car, how does that imply you don't respect my right to own a car? If i care about your opinion, i can change my car to one you prefer. If i don't... so what? i still have a car, and you can't take it away from me. You don't need to like it to agree that i have a right to own it. |
So does that then mean that you do not respect that person's right to own a car that is a piece of crap? Only the right to own a car? Your respect can end at the end of having the right to own a car, and you can then be as disrespectful about the rest as you want to be? And so when you tell this guy his car is a piece of crap, do you start your sentence with: "I respect your right to own a car, BUT *$% ......?" That does not make sense to me at all. Either you respect or you do not respect. The part where you say that you respect his right to own a car belongs to you and is not applicable to the owner of the car. As none of that respect shows itself when you tell him that his car is a piece of crap. | deanhills wrote: |
| So does that then mean that you do not respect that person's right to own a car that is a piece of crap? Only the right to own a car? Your respect can end at the end of having the right to own a car, and you can then be as disrespectful about the rest as you want to be? And so when you tell this guy his car is a piece of crap, do you start your sentence with: "I respect your right to own a car, BUT *$% ......?" That does not make sense to me at all. Either you respect or you do not respect. The part where you say that you respect his right to own a car belongs to you and is not applicable to the owner of the car. As none of that respect shows itself when you tell him that his car is a piece of crap. |
Hmmm.... No. He's still respecting your right to own a piece of crap car even though he doesn't like the Hummer (which I truly think is a piece of crap car). I see people driving around all the time in those inefficient beasts and I do not respect the car. But I respect the owner's right to own the car. If I didn't respect the owner's right to own the car, I would steal it, or key it, or tag it, or slash the tires, etc. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | As i mentioned elsewhere, it is just like respecting someone's right to own a car, but telling them that you think their car is a piece of crap. If you insulted my car, how does that imply you don't respect my right to own a car? If i care about your opinion, i can change my car to one you prefer. If i don't... so what? i still have a car, and you can't take it away from me. You don't need to like it to agree that i have a right to own it. |
So does that then mean that you do not respect that person's right to own a car that is a piece of crap? Only the right to own a car? Your respect can end at the end of having the right to own a car, and you can then be as disrespectful about the rest as you want to be? And so when you tell this guy his car is a piece of crap, do you start your sentence with: "I respect your right to own a car, BUT *$% ......?" That does not make sense to me at all. Either you respect or you do not respect. The part where you say that you respect his right to own a car belongs to you and is not applicable to the owner of the car. As none of that respect shows itself when you tell him that his car is a piece of crap. |
That's a little absurd. ^_^; You mean you can't grasp the difference between respecting someone's right to property and respecting their property?
Let me put it this way: i used to drive a truly piece of shit car. i don't even know what model it was originally, but it had parts from Suzuki, Pontiac and GM (among others). The hatchback would only close if you twisted while closing. And you could see with the naked eye that the entire car frame had been bent. There's no way it would even be allowed on the road in North America.
i thought that car was the biggest heap of junk i had ever seen in my life, and i didn't believe it should even be on the road myself! So, by your logic, because i didn't respect my car... i didn't respect my right to own that car? Or any car?
Come on. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
| That's a little absurd. ^_^; You mean you can't grasp the difference between respecting someone's right to property and respecting their property? |
Sorry, you must be right, as you are the more experienced debater, my mind just cannot work its way around this. If I respect my right to own a car, I would respect the car I own. If I do not respect the car I own, how can I respect my right to own a car?
If someone is really fat and the other person has no respect for the fat person, because that person is fat, do you think the person could have a respect for the fat person's right to be fat?
Maybe I will get it some time later. I genuinely can't see the difference. | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | That's a little absurd. ^_^; You mean you can't grasp the difference between respecting someone's right to property and respecting their property? |
Sorry, you must be right, as you are the more experienced debater, my mind just cannot work its way around this. If I respect my right to own a car, I would respect the car I own. If I do not respect the car I own, how can I respect my right to own a car?
If someone is really fat and the other person has no respect for the fat person, because that person is fat, do you think the person could have a respect for the fat person's right to be fat?
Maybe I will get it some time later. I genuinely can't see the difference. |
Come on =/ I know you're more intelligent than this from your other posts.
You can approve/disapprove of something, but still respect the right to it. In your example of the obese person, yes, you can have respect for their right to be that way (you may disapprove because it's unhealthy, etc.).
I can disagree/disapprove of something you say, but I respect your right to freedom of speech. | liljp617 wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | That's a little absurd. ^_^; You mean you can't grasp the difference between respecting someone's right to property and respecting their property? |
Sorry, you must be right, as you are the more experienced debater, my mind just cannot work its way around this. If I respect my right to own a car, I would respect the car I own. If I do not respect the car I own, how can I respect my right to own a car?
If someone is really fat and the other person has no respect for the fat person, because that person is fat, do you think the person could have a respect for the fat person's right to be fat?
Maybe I will get it some time later. I genuinely can't see the difference. |
Come on =/ I know you're more intelligent than this from your other posts. |
Thanks for the compliment liljp617, but I think we have just sorted this out in another thread. Intelligence has little to do with arriving at the truth, it can be helpful as a tool, but I sometimes wonder whether it stands in the way of clear thinking by making thinking more complicated than what it should be.
I truly believe that if you cannot respect the religion of someone to the extent of really taking his/her religious beliefs apart, that you cannot respect his/her right to have those religious beliefs. If you respected his/her right, you would say so, and then proceed cautiously with criticism of his/her religious beliefs. The moment you tackle that person's beliefs as super nonsense, the respect of that person's right to his/her belief evaporates. It becomes ridicule, lack of respect for that person to have a different set of beliefs to your set of beliefs.
Last edited by deanhills on Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:26 pm; edited 2 times in totalI really don't understand what the problem is.
I respect anyone's right to have any religious view they wish. I will defend that RIGHT but not the BELIEF. It is that simple. Freedom of expression and belief is fundamental. If you want to believe in sky fairies then that is your right - it is NOT my right to discriminate against you or otherwise try to force you to change that belief in anything other than a reasoned debate. I certainly do not have to respect your beliefs to respect your right to hold them - the two things are entirely distinct.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I really don't understand what the problem is.
I respect anyone's right to have any religious view they wish. I will defend that RIGHT but not the BELIEF. It is that simple. Freedom of expression and belief is fundamental. If you want to believe in sky fairies then that is your right - it is NOT my right to discriminate against you or otherwise try to force you to change that belief in anything other than a reasoned debate. I certainly do not have to respect your beliefs to respect your right to hold them - the two things are entirely distinct. |
Thanks Chris. I only understand this because you and Indi have explained it to me. But when I see some of the debates in the religious forum, I don't see an opening statement which says although I respect your right to have your beliefs, I do not respect your beliefs. More like you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and idiotic to think the way you do, nixing beliefs completely. Where is the respect for the right to have that belief in the tackling of the belief in that way?
Last edited by deanhills on Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | I really don't understand what the problem is.
I respect anyone's right to have any religious view they wish. I will defend that RIGHT but not the BELIEF. It is that simple. Freedom of expression and belief is fundamental. If you want to believe in sky fairies then that is your right - it is NOT my right to discriminate against you or otherwise try to force you to change that belief in anything other than a reasoned debate. I certainly do not have to respect your beliefs to respect your right to hold them - the two things are entirely distinct. |
Thanks Chris. I only understand this because you and Indi have explained it to me. But when I see some of the debates, I do not see the respect for the right to have a belief when the belief is tackled in very certain confrontational language. I don't see an opening statement which says although I respect your right to have your beliefs, I do not respect your beliefs. More like you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and idiotic to think the way you do, nixing their beliefs completely. Where is the respect for the right to have that belief in the tackling of the belief in that way? |
I don't see a problem there either. Many people have beliefs that I find totally objectionable and will certainly speak out in very strong terms against. Xenophobes and other bigots annoy the hell out of me with their beliefs. Now, the question is, given the opportunity would I FORCE them to abandon their beliefs (supposing I had some magic switch that I could push). The answer is NO. I do not believe that I (or anyone else) have the right to do so. In other words, I respect their right to their beliefs even though I find the beliefs themselves contemptible. I will certainly argue in the strongest terms that they are wrong and even that they should be ashamed of themselves. That is entirely distinct from upholding their right to those beliefs. Respecting the right to belief is not the same as encouraging or even being neutral towards the belief itself. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | I really don't understand what the problem is.
I respect anyone's right to have any religious view they wish. I will defend that RIGHT but not the BELIEF. It is that simple. Freedom of expression and belief is fundamental. If you want to believe in sky fairies then that is your right - it is NOT my right to discriminate against you or otherwise try to force you to change that belief in anything other than a reasoned debate. I certainly do not have to respect your beliefs to respect your right to hold them - the two things are entirely distinct. |
Thanks Chris. I only understand this because you and Indi have explained it to me. But when I see some of the debates, I do not see the respect for the right to have a belief when the belief is tackled in very certain confrontational language. I don't see an opening statement which says although I respect your right to have your beliefs, I do not respect your beliefs. More like you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and idiotic to think the way you do, nixing their beliefs completely. Where is the respect for the right to have that belief in the tackling of the belief in that way? |
I don't see a problem there either. Many people have beliefs that I find totally objectionable and will certainly speak out in very strong terms against. Xenophobes and other bigots annoy the hell out of me with their beliefs. Now, the question is, given the opportunity would I FORCE them to abandon their beliefs (supposing I had some magic switch that I could push). The answer is NO. I do not believe that I (or anyone else) have the right to do so. In other words, I respect their right to their beliefs even though I find the beliefs themselves contemptible. I will certainly argue in the strongest terms that they are wrong and even that they should be ashamed of themselves. That is entirely distinct from upholding their right to those beliefs. Respecting the right to belief is not the same as encouraging or even being neutral towards the belief itself. |
Thanks. That is nice to know. I'm learning
