lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Muslim anger at Mohammed Cartoon & Freedom of speech
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-17-2006, 07:55 AM   #81
Aristotélēsticus
Forumite
 
Aristotélēsticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the Source
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by txa1265
Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?
Mike
what about those who did not protest? those who did protest against the bombing in Jordan? those who protest against the bombings in spain and londodn in the arabic countries? those who protest against 9/11? those who are fighting terrorism everyday in jornals and blogs? those who paied thier lives because thier writings about al-quaida? it is not thier fault if you dont know about them, and it is not thier fault if most of your country's media are bush supporters and wanted to show you that we are primitive people who lives on oil and women and that your leader is the one who will free us and shift us into civilization.
Aristotélēsticus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 08:18 AM   #82
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korfredonn The Ecclesiastes
I think that this will be the last thing I post here, coz you don’t seem to get me and you keep going on circles around the same thing…
That tends to happen here. Can't think of a single thread that has ever ended in total agreement. thats debates for you.

Quote:
Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?
That would help. Though the media is always more likely to show negative events than positive. And extremists are always likely to make more noise than liberals. I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.

Quote:
while in the Koran god said:
"Christians, Jews, Zoroasters and every other religion, he who was good hearted and hath faith in his god, he shall not fear, for god will grant him a place beside him"
Interesting. Though from what i understand there are different interpretations. As I understand it Islam used to be pretty moderate, but the House of Saud has been promoting a more extreme interpretation of islam that is a lot less tollerant of non-muslims (kuffir?).
They fund huge numbers of religious schools around the world, and as part of this funding they insist on sending their translations of the koran and one of their teachers to the schools.
If anything is responsible for the spread of hard-line islam in the world it is the saudi royal family.

So you might find that these days not alot of muslims would agree with your translation given above.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 08:27 AM   #83
txa1265
Father Jedi
 
txa1265's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Marlborough, MA, USA
Posts: 3,199
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.
That is an *excellent* point - which I saw cropping up with his 'media are pro-Bush' statement, when in reality the media almost monolithically *hate* Bush (except for 'fair & balanced TV') but will tend to give any president the benefit of the doubt. Of course, they are all royally peeved when they get screwed over, like with the build-up to Iraq ... or the Cheney thing.

Mike


Dopelar effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
txa1265 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 08:28 AM   #84
Aristotélēsticus
Forumite
 
Aristotélēsticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the Source
Posts: 605
@toms: i am not talking about total agreement here, what i am saying is that i did say in almoast every post that the mobs are wrong, but i find in everypost someone said, hey you are wrong the mob are violent, what i meant to say, is that we do have agreement on this point so what is the benefit of keeping mention it.

i am with you of what've said about saud, the translation of Koran to other languages galong with thier own intrepretions, gives a wrong believes to those in foregin countries especially in pakestan and afghanestan.
Aristotélēsticus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 08:39 AM   #85
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by txa1265
Either people agree explicitly or implicitly with the behavior, don't care enough to oppose it, or are scared to oppose it.
And that's one of the big problems, how people fear reprisals for supporting or opposing a point of view. It may sound over the top that people have ended up dead for being on the side of one opinion or another, but the sad fact is people have been specifically targeted for opposing militant Islam, for supporting militant Islam. No wonder there is not many people speaking out. Our world is decidedly more reasonable than the one the people who instigate violence and hatred come from.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 11:58 AM   #86
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I think we can all generally agree on several things: 1) the mobs of Muslims that have resorted to violence are wrong; 2) All Muslims aren *not* violent; 3) the Koran (I have actually studied it in some detail) does not advocate violence; 4) individuals (clerics and the influential figures) are good at manipulating the beliefs of good Muslims into thinking violence is the right thing to do.

I think what we disagree on is the validity cartoon depictions of Muhammed or Islamic figures and to what degree should actions like this be tolerated. I'm in complete agreement with those Muslims who are upset with the depictions. Fine. They can protest, boycott, whatever. But the overwhelmingly prominent reaction from both religious and governmental sources from within the Islamic religion was one of violence - either in deed or word.

This, I assert, serves to effectively demonstrate the very point that the cartoons were making.

I also assert that those in Western society has the right and duty to speak out against religion using cartoons, essays, satire, parody, ridicule, whatever. This is called Free Speech and Freedom of the Press --moreover, it is a principle of Freedom of Religion, ironically.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 01:47 PM   #87
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Well I can see moderate muslims in the countries where the riots are taking place being afraid to speak out for fear of being targetted by violence themselves, but in other parts of the world they ought to speak out. The same issue was trotted out when 9/11 happened. Various talking heads asserted that no muslims denounced 9/11 because secretly they were all glad that American infidels died or something. From what I remember it was basically just rhetoric. There weren't any million man marches against it, but suffice to say they weren't silent either.

I guess that's the thing though, when you're considered a "strange" religion (Muslims are only 3% of the US population, last I checked, but 1% more than Jews, who are generally well respected in the country) people don't trust you and assume the worst about you. One bad apple spoils it all for your public and you have to work extra hard to live it down. It's not fair, but that's how fickle public perception is.

I agree the mobs around the world is shameful and an embarrassment to any Muslim who seeks peace. All the more reason to denounce them I guess...


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2006, 03:21 PM   #88
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Certainly in countries where militant Islam is the rule clerics and supporters of the Muslim faith would not want to speak out, and I urge them to get out of those places no matter how much they love it, if they can. But even in civillised societies reprisals can occur, from those who believe America and the west should be exterminated, by racist bigots who see all Muslims as terrorists. I know myself that I would not push for, say, aboriginals to either live like native aboriginal people or to be treated the same as everyone else, not to be given all the benefits they recieve because of the trauma over the stolen generation, white man discovering Australia, playing the race card as a get out of jail free card, or openly criticise the call to change the Australian flag to the Aboriginal one and the national anthem to a didgirido. That's because if I did that, all the half caste criminals, all the ones that attack white man would come after me. I know that is a rough comment to make about them, but that's how it stands. You cannot criticise them even if what you say is true.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-19-2006, 12:41 PM   #89
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
It sounds like this is one area in religion where Skin has a leg up on me. I've studied Islam, but not the Qu'ran per se. I've probably read only a dozen or so passages from it (have my own translation, but haven't read the whole thing). Similarly with the Hadith, I've only read a few select passages and don't really have a working knowledge of the thing as a whole.

I got the impression that it was in some ways like interpreting the Bible, some isolated texts appear to advocate violence, while others appear to advocate peace. So those in favor of violent action selectively quote the more forceful passages, applying them to current events to suit their agenda and so forth. Of course Muslim apologists for the peace side will tell you Jihad is more about the personal struggle for holiness and a just society rather than armed conflict against "unbelievers". And to them, even holy struggle against unbelievers should be defensive in nature, similar to Christian Just War theological principles. Of course there is where you get all kinds of interpretations seeking to justify what's going on. Like calling suicide bombers "martyrs" rather than suicides, because martyrs go to heaven, while suicides go to hell, in Islamic thought. Muslims aren't supposed to fight other Muslims, so if you want to do that you label your opponents apostates, so if they're not really Muslims, it's okay to fight them. And so on...


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 05:09 AM   #90
lord ignarn
Junior Member
 
lord ignarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My fortress in Ziost
Posts: 258
You see, it´s allways the same fight between the most fanatical elements and the moderate ones, same in all the religions. The fanatics use to be leaded by priests that use sacred texts in their own benefice. Meanwhile the moderates suffer with the situation. The same applies to the "heretics".

I think that we can say that all this crisis has been heated up just to show the force of some fanatics, using the religion as they wish. And right now, with some deaths in demonstrations, and some boicot the whole crisis has gone away. At least now it doesn´t interest to feed more the anger.

Or that seems. Why has all this finished so suddenly?, is it really finished?


"Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest. And like a forest it's easy to lose your way to get lost When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself..."

Hattori Hanzo.
lord ignarn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 05:12 AM   #91
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Hell no!

Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 05:26 AM   #92
lord ignarn
Junior Member
 
lord ignarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My fortress in Ziost
Posts: 258
What do you mean, Nancy? This isn´t finished?

Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.


"Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest. And like a forest it's easy to lose your way to get lost When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself..."

Hattori Hanzo.
lord ignarn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 05:38 AM   #93
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord ignarn
What do you mean, Nancy? This isn´t finished?
Oh I don't think so, not by a long shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord ignarn
Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.
No, the act of 'free provocation' is not something that should be encouraged. It could be argued that the Muslim extremists are doing just that with their competition for a holocaust cartoon. But as cliched as the saying is, two wrongs do not always make a right. In this instance the issue had died, but had been dragged up again for little other than to poke fun at it. On the other hand, if someone were to draw me as...I dunno, Aayla Secura, I'd laugh. There is a diffirence between feeling as though you are being persecuted and not being able to take a joke or take criticism, and the Danish cartoons on their own would fall into the latter catagory, but now that you mention it I find myself agreeing with you that this cartoon has pushed the issue into provocation.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 01:20 PM   #94
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord ignarn
Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.
There are those that would disagree, and I'm one. If a religious cult (or religion) has an effect on society at large, then it is the duty of freethinkers to criticize that religion or cult. Particularly if the effect is deleterious. The Muslim cults in Europe (and I wish Shadow T was posting lately to offer an insight) have presented their European hosts with guests that are violent and beligerant. This is evident in the response of a Muslim cult that murdered Van Gogh about a frickin' movie! Europeans perceive the Muslim religion as oppressive, particularly to women, and there is a certain level of resentment by Europeans to have to accomadate their religious superstitions. The resentment has been met with violence and beligerance.

This type of behavior from a guest in your home would receive criticism and even eviction, if not phyiscal response! The people don't have a way to evict or respond phsyically in a legal manner, so they resort to criticism through ridicule -a time honored tradition among Europeans dating to before Islam. The ridicule included parody of their religion as violent and oppressive -they responded with VIOLENCE!

It would seem that the criticisms are valid.

Moreover, the Islamic immigrants are eager to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the freedoms in European nations, but they object to those freedoms when they interfere with their own superstitions.

Any religion that ALLOWS itself to be coopted by a violent minority to oppress or disrupt a society with violence or death deserves whatever criticism it gets. F*** em.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 01:52 PM   #95
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Without asking the question if all of the groups we're discussing are united (or are all the protesting Muslims part of a single denomination? Is this a pan-Islamic phenomena?)...

You're assuming that members of the 'Freethought' groups will respond to any effect religion has on society. I would hazard to suggest that they will only react if said effect is in disagreement with their own agenda. I'm sure Freethinkers would not begrudge people who donate to disaster relief charities based on religious convictions.

Oh wait, perhaps they would! I think I remember a conversation from awhile back that relief donations were just a front for covert missionizing efforts! But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.

Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.

That is to say "No wonder they are so violent, their religion is false."

I'm in agreement that the violent reaction certainly reflects badly on them and is inappropriate. I have no problem with responding to this. But it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed. The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. It would be considered outrageous if Christians argued that a Christian world-view be adopted as the only means of opposing Islamic miscreants in much the same way. Thus this sort of argumentation is a fine rhetorical strategy when preaching to one's choir, it doesn't work in a larger context of mixed beliefs (such as here).

If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).

If Freethought is arguing that "political corretness" that tends to shield Islam from criticism in the public sphere (I think of our president's continual use of "religion of peace" to refer to Islam, which one could argue is political pandering to a minority of Americans of course) should be eliminated, then I tend to agree. Just because you're a minority does not mean you should be above criticism. Of course it's not American Muslims (right?) that are rioting in response to the Muhammad cartoons.

While I do not personally feel in any way attracted to the Muslim faith (though I admire any religion's actions that promote helping the poor, etc), nor do I espouse the desire to wipe out religions I disagree with (though I certainly wouldn't encourage people to join certain ones), I can still denounce their actions as uncalled for, and damaging to the human community as well as to their own credibility. Use of violence against unpopular speech labels oneself as barbaric.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-22-2006, 01:57 PM   #96
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
PS: The issue of "provocation" is a thorny one, and one I'm not prepared to debate here at least for awhile. The issue of hate speech laws, "don't yell 'movie' in a crowded firehouse", etc. is a whole big issue in its own right. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I had to get my thoughts out for now. I'll probably check back here and see what has developed in the meantime. Of course its sad when it takes a tragedy to spark discussion, but I enjoy the discourse all the same.


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2006, 02:49 PM   #97
lord ignarn
Junior Member
 
lord ignarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My fortress in Ziost
Posts: 258
Skin Waker, I didn´t mean to defend the free provocation, it´s just that the people can easily be tricked and said wath to do and think, without asking the reason. That is what must be put into question, if we see a critic we should thinkwhy the critic is done, and then see witch our position on that subjet is. Try to justify our believings it´s a good thing, so we rose stronger in those believings.

You can call it faith if you want, but a well based faith won´t fall because a cartoon or a sligth critic.

Once more, I didn´t mean to hurt you, Skin Walker.


"Revenge is never a straight line. It's a forest. And like a forest it's easy to lose your way to get lost When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior's only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself..."

Hattori Hanzo.
lord ignarn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2006, 03:42 PM   #98
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
lord ignarn , I felt no sense of beligerance or animosity from you because of your opinion, I hope I didn't convey that in my post. I was just in a heated discussion with some friends (heated but friendly) over the same topic and perhaps some of my thoughts bled over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan
But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.

Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.

it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed.
Freethinkers do, indeed, speak up about the deleterious effect of religions. But when I'm speaking of freethinkers, I'm using the small "f" not the big "F." I'm not talking about an organization that is aligned against religion (such organizations exist), but rather those that are opposed to the imposition and harm that some religions (mostly the Abrahamic, big-3) and exist in various positions in a given society, perhaps even religious themselves!

So I don't think these freethinkers (the individuals, not the few organizations) are suggesting that "religions are only capable of violence" nor are any that I've come across believe that "their [the religious] freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed."

I'm saying, that free thinking individuals (those not encumbered by the dogma and doctrine of religious superstition to the point that they cannot think for themselves) have a duty to speak out against any entity or institution that advocates violence or creates a deleterious situation for a their society. This is true whether we are talking about individual cults of Islam, Christianity, political parties, special interest groups, etc. This criticism should be open and allowed and should be such that it provokes thought (not violence).

Whether or not the cartoonists should have provoked in the manner they chose or not isn't debatable to me. They have the right. The onus of civility falls on the ridiculed to NOT PROVE THEM RIGHT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurgan
The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. [...] If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).
Again, no real free thinker would set a goal for "wiping out religious beliefs." Mainly because it would be illogical to conclude that such a condition could be "wiped out" given that religion and belief are probably one of the very things that make us human. Indeed, I've often speculated that it is the condition of belief itself that helped give rise to technological development in Homo sapiens, though this would, perhaps, be suited for another thread. Free thought doesn't imply the denouncement of religion "whatever the occasion." If so, then you would see free thinkers speaking out against and making cartoons about the Navajo Way, Buddhists, or other benevolent or indigenous religions. We don't see this.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2006, 07:40 AM   #99
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Well, the British National Party is apparently planning to reproduce the cartoons in its flyers.. and thats never a good sign. Because their intention is never satire or freedom of speech... but to forment divides in the most racially charged bits of the UK so that they can win seats in elections.

In an amazing change from their usual "bull in a china shop" approach the UK press has so far refrained from reprinting the cartoons... even the Daily "All problems are due to asylum seeking muslim terrorist rapists" Express!



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2006, 03:30 PM   #100
Joe©
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
I think they really need to calm down and all, so many groups are insulted by the press. I also don't think they are gaining themselves anything by roiting, in fact its only making things worse, at first I thought "stupid danes look what you did" because the cartoons were out of line. But after the Islamics started to flip out I really could care less.
I hope everyone chills out soon. This is causing more problems than it really should...
Joe© is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 02:03 PM   #101
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I felt this issue was interesting enough to get its own thread.
When you think about it its a pretty complex issue..
I fail to see how it's more "complex" than - say - the creationist teach the controversy scam. The imamic outrage has about the same merit. Blasphemy is central to maintaining a civilised society, and if fascist extremists can't take that, then they can take a hike.

Quote:
On the other hand its obviously something that is very dear to the heart of a lot of muslims
Your point? Stupidity is stupidity. That the fascist extremists hold their stupidity very dear doesn't make it any less stupid. Why should we wrap morons in cotton?

Quote:
(and not just the extremists [...]).
I disagree. Anyone who takes blasphemy personally (or even seriously) is, by definition, an extremist.

Quote:
So where does freedom of speech end, and causing needless insult begin?
Insults against religion are never 'needless'. Religion - all religion - must be kept in its place through the repeated and forceful application of denigration, insult, mockery, and blasphemy. And if that ruffles some feathers, well too friggin bad. Domesticating religion is like toilet training a dog. There'll be a lot of bitching and whining about it, and sometimes it requires you to use a newspaper as a blunt instrument.

Quote:
However pictures of mohammed are forbidden in the quran to prevent idolatary.. so the book's illustrator stayed annonymous for fear of hatred.
No. Not for fear of hatred. For fear of hate crimes which is something altogether different.

Quote:
To prove they WEREN'T scared of hated a danish paper printed a fairly insulting image of mohammed as a mad bomber... and then got in loads of grief and had to appologise. There it ended... almost.

Then, as a lot of people in europe take freedom of speech very seriously, a french paper reprinted the cartoon...
No, let's get the chronology right.

Inbetween those two events, a small group of fascist imams who have consistently been engaged in fifth-collumn activities in the name of the global caliphate (their phrase), and many of whom are active members of the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party, went on a propaganda tour to the Middle East.

It's not exactly clear what the hell they were doing down there, and they've repeatedly been caught lying about it with a straight face, but the general facts are known.

Additionally Abu Laban has been caught lying to a live mike about how many moslims the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] actually represent. It turns out that these fascist swines inflated the number of their supporters by more than an order of magnitude.

Further, the same Abu Laban - and other representatives of the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] and/or Hizb al Tahrir (it's not exactly clear who or what these fascists actually represent), has repeatedly been caught flat-out lying about the interviews they've given to various non-western media ("I did not have an inapropriate relationship with that TV-station").

And that is what set off the affair.

Quote:
Muslim in europe march in protest, with banners calling for attacks on denmark. But aren't they exercisig the same freedom of speach they are so upset about the paper using?
Hypocricy has never bothered fascists. It didn't bother the Sturmabteilung, it doesn't bother Rushdoony or Ratzinger, it won't bother Hizb al Tahrir.

Quote:
Do they just need to "toughen up" and become immune to such things in the same way christians have... or would that be a sign of islam becoming marginalised in their lives like christianity has in a lot of our lives?
Yes and yes.

Quote:
On the other hand, i remember major protests and threats from christians in the UK outside the theatre showing Jerry springer the Opera... because it featured an insulting portrayal of jesus - so maybe we aren't so differnent after all.
I'm surprised that you include yourself in that 'we.' I certainly don't.

Quote:
On a side note... on the same day this all broke out two British National Party leaders were aquitted of "incitement to racial hatred" charges in the british courts over speaches they made about immigrants and asylum seekers.. they hailed this as a great day for free speech.
Fascism should not be censored. It should be exposed. Keep shining light into the gutter of racist/nationalist/theocratist organisations, and they'll have to clean up or be marginalised. The very fact that the pathetic enablers and appeasers in parts of the western press has so far refused to subject the wingnut moslims to that treatment accounts in large part for their present inanities.

Quote:
[Y]ou shouldn't purposefully do something like that knowing full well that it will be viewed as offensive. It's like deciding it'd be a good idea to urinate on a crucifix and then masturbate on a bible.
In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?

Quote:
[T]hey shouldn't have printed it in the first place. Respect for other people ranks way higher for me than to have the right to say something.
Why do you respect fascism? Should we also refrain from printing a picture of a pig in a HiPo uniform because it would insult the tender sensibilities of neo-nazis?

Quote:
I believe that even if the danish paper didn´t do the right thing publishing the cartoons
Why?

Quote:
If the freedom of speech lets Arabian newspapers publish offensive cartoons for the christians, the same freedom of speech lets the danish publish those cartoons. Another thing is that either we don´t know or we don´t care of those "agressions" against "us". Maybe this is because we have left aside the era of the fanatism. And Why?
The Pain has a nice take on that:

Quote:
There’s something kind of poignant and pathetic about the footage of furious Arabs whapping American and Danish flags with shoes and setting them on fire, as though this could hurt us in the same way that the cartoons of Mohammed have hurt them. They have, as the saying goes, obviously mistaken us for someone who gives a ****.

[...]

The bemused incomprehension I feel for those outraged rioters is that of a culture that no longer believes in the image contemplating one that still does, passionately and literally. Of course it’s also that of someone who’s enjoyed relative safety, privilege, and luxury his whole life rolling his eyes at the paranoia and rage of people who’ve always been threatened, oppressed, and impoverished. However, although this may make their reaction more understandable, I am not sure it makes it any less stupid or wrong.
Emphasis mine.

Quote:
Plain and simple it was just darn rude of the Danes to publish that.
Your point?

Quote:
It was disrespectful to Muslims,
So what?

Quote:
and abusing their 'freedom'.
Why?

Quote:
Freedom of Speech means that we have a right to speak freely, but that doesn't negate the use of respect for others.
Respect is not something you have a right to. Respect is something you earn. And so far, Islam has done nothing to earn my respect. I will tolerate it, but I will not go out of my way to avoid hurting the tender sensibilities of the followers of a doctrine that I view as a medieval leftover.

Quote:
It was pointless for a picture of Mohammed to be published;
Au contraire. It was a submission in a domestic Danish debate about how we deal (or fail to deal) with Islamic extremists like Abu Laban, Abdul Wahid Pedersen, Fatih Alev, and Ahmed Akkra. It was an attack on theocratic fascists - whatever name they choose to go by. I fail to see how anti-fascism can ever be pointless.

Quote:
the only purpose it served was to cause trouble, and, of course, prove that they have Freedom of Speech so they can publish anything they damn well want to.
Not quite. This 'issue' has had several important and desirable consequences, including but not limited to:
  • The formation of the organisation 'Democratic Moslims,' by moslim anti-fascists to combat the illegitimate, anti-democratic, and medieval doctrines of the Hizb al Tahrir party, and their sister organisation, the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic].
  • Highlighting of the fact that the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] is, in fact, nothing more than useful idiots, gophers, apologets, enablers, and spokespeople for the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party.
  • Highlighting of the fact that the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party and their sister organisation, the Islamic Society of Denmark, do, in fact, represent less than ten percent of all Danish moslims.
  • Highlighting of the fact that the prominent Danish imams (Pedersen, Laban, et al are nothing but pathetic liars and apologets.

All of these are important contributions to the fight against fascism in Denmark.

Quote:
A little respect will go a long way.
Respect for what? Medieval dogma? The fascist doctrines of the illegitimate and anti-democratic Hizb al Tahrir party? Barbaric 'cultures' where blasphemy is still taboo?

Give me one good reason. And peace in our time doesn't count.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 03-01-2006 at 02:51 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 02:54 PM   #102
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Meh - stupid v.Bulletin chewed up my post when it got too long...

Quote:
No one ever has any right to treat the beliefs of other's as if they aren't true and therefore those belifs don't matter.
Why not? Why can we not tell creationists that their lunacy is - well - lunacy? Why can we not tell the RCC that their dogmatic and inhumane stand on contraceptives is - well - dogmatic and inhumane? Why can we not tell Pastafarians that their silly insistence on wearing pirate garb is - well - silly?

Quote:
Everyone has their beliefs and almost everyone thinks that they are right. Sure there are those that will question what they've been taught, but the truth is that folks believe what they know is right.
How did 'think is right' mutate to 'know is right' all of a sudden? If they 'think' something is right and act like they 'know' it's right, then they will be mocked. And for good reason.

Quote:
So while you may not aggree with what someone else knows to be true,
Knows to be true? Or wishes to be true?

Quote:
or what someone totally adheres to as part of their religion, that doesn't make it okay to publish something that obviously goes against another religion, e.g. Muslim.
Why not?

Quote:
My point here is this: No matter what you believe so deeply to be true, others should be respected in their beliefs, even if you don't agree.
Why should we respect creationists for their creationism? Why should we respect holocaust-deniers for their holocaust-denial?

Quote:
Freedom of Speech is just that 'Freedom', but the freedom to say or publish anything, doesn't mean that respect should be tossed out the window.
And who are to judge what constitues legitimate critisism and what is respectless provocation? The Papacy? The Imams? The Brownshirts?

As Dark Matter so eloquently puts it on Pharyngula:

Quote:
There will be no "respectful observance of areas of expertise", there will be only *incremental surrender* to theocrats if one is foolish enough to think the theoctats will stay in their "backyard".

Anyone who believes this is fooling himself (or engaging in willful blindness)
Quote:
So fine, Muslims need to 'toughen up'. If that's the case then every religion needs to as well.
That's the point.

Quote:
But I think that this should be double sided: Meaning that folks of different beliefs shouldn't say/do/publish things that are obviously going to be hurtful to others.
The cartoons were only hurtful to extremists. I fail to see why we should 'respect' extremists, or walk on rotten eggs around their tender sensibilities.

Quote:
One thought: If making pictures of mohammed is forbidden to prevent idol worship.. and obviously this cartoon was never intended and would never be taken as an idol to worship... then technically it wouldn't be against Islamic law... but the original pro-islam kids book would be.


Quote:
But it is rude.
Duh. Being rude is the friggin' point of newspaper cartoons! Newspaper cartoons were introduced in Denmark as a means to attack political opponents.

They were employed forcefully by the liberal movement that fought for a democratic constitution. They were later employed forcefully by the liberal movement to attack Estrup's provisional rule. And they were employed - forcefully - to attack the nazi swines who occupied our country from '40 to '45.

Why shouldn't we use them against fundamentalist swines as well?

Quote:
Another, talking now about activities in western countries, not in islamic ones: If muslims that come to western countries make use of freedom of speech to call for the death of those making such cartoons.. or attacks on the countries that the papers were in.. do they then lose the right to complain about the cartoon. Because if they want the freedom to make their comments surely they can't deny it to others.
As I said before, hypocricy doesn't bother these people. Like creationists, they have no problem with Lying for Jesus (or, in this case, Mohammed). Like creationists, they have no problem using special pleading and double standards. And like creationists, they must be ridiculed and denigrated at every turn. If we wish to retain our freedom, fundamentalist fascists must be denied.

Quote:
I gotta say, considering the amount of "mobs burning flags" media coverage, i'm a little surprised that most of you fel the paper was at fault.
I'm not. The most chilling discovery I made during this entire 'controversy' was that most self-proclaimed intellectuals in the West has learned nothing at all from the Rushdie debacle. They are still appeasing. They are still enabling. They are still apologising. They are still bartering fruitlessly for peace in our time.

Quote:
There's a difference between calling for action and making slighted drawings of a religious figure.
Yes, calling for action against an independent newspaper because it printed something blasphemous is illegitimate. Slighting a religious figure is an act of patriotic anti-fascism.

Quote:
Also slander and libel aren't exactly protected by freedom of speech, therefore this isn't exactly covered by that.
The cartoons are neither. Slander and libel are untrue accusations or usupported and denigrating comments made against a person or group of persons. The cartoons are an attack on a religious cult. Religious cults - like political parties - are not legal persons, and so enjoy no protection from attacks of this sort. Secondly, it turned out that the attack was not at all unsubstantiated - which is the requirement for a slander charge.

Quote:
You can't just spout off any and everything you think and believe it's part of your freedom of speech, you actually have to have support to your claims.
Which unsupported assertions were made? I don't see any.

Quote:
While none of you can really do much about it, I could call you all thick-headed fag-hags, this doesn't make it true nor is it covered by free speech. It falls under slander(spoken)/libel(written) and harassment.
Because it is directed at a person or group of persons. Religious cults/religious figures are not persons, and so calling the Q'ran an immature, retarded piece of utter bovine manure has nothing to do with slander.

Quote:
The issue of free speech and free press is a tricky one,
No! It's a card-board-cut-out bolted-down right. Claiming otherwise is nothing but apologetics for censorship.

Quote:
and in truth, freedom of speech and press is meant to protect the few and innocent.
The freedom of the press is meant to ensure that a free, honest, and open debate can be advanced. The freedom of the press is meant to prevent fascists like Abu Laban and the Hizb al Tahrir party, and despots like 'President' George W. Bush from silencing dissenting voices.

But I believe that we have here the crux of your hypocricy: You view Moslems as a persecuted minority, and so they should be protected at all cost. You are wrong on every level: Moslems aren't persecuted; Islam is. Islam should not be protected because it is being persecuted; persecution of religious cults is an essential component of civilised society. And no-one should be protected at all cost. No amount of oppression - real or imagined - justifies silencing blasphemers.

Quote:
What this newspaper has done is effectively done the exact opposite of what the rights are there for.
I beg to differ. JyllandsPosten has contributed more than any other Danish newspaper - or, for that matter, electronic news agency - to the battle against neo-religion. JyllandsPosten is the only news agency in Denmark to consistently (and in the face of massive reader protest) argue against creationism. JyllandsPosten is the only newspaper in Denmark to consistently argue that religion should have no part in the political process. JyllandsPosten is the only news agency in Denmark to consistently point out that religious arguments cannot and must not be given any weight in a serious debate.

It is greatly ironic - and more than a little tragic - that a conservative newspaper should be the one to lift the heritage of Voltaire, Descarte, Brandes, and Ibsen. This, more than anything, shows that the Left is no longer deserving of the name. That those who profess to be left-of-centre are all too often nothing of the sort: Far too many hide behind pious masks of 'respect' or 'understanding' or 'cultural diversity', when they should be saying 'apologetics' and 'fear' and 'appeasement'. I spit upon their lies and their cowardice.

Quote:
And even if you are very offended by a "blasphemy" you can´t burn the Danish embassy at Beirut. Acts like this can turn in a very serious diplomatic crisis,
Not to be a nitpicker, I was of the impression that the diplomatic crisis caused the assaults on the embassies, not the other way about... OTOH, you are certainly right that assaulting embassies is over the top. Burning flags is distasteful, but it's beginning to loose its lustre from overuse. But assaulting embassies is, IMHO, a definite no-no.

Quote:
Whats the matter? they don´t understand that in Europe the gobernments aren´t responsible of the newspaper publications? they don´t know that the people from the country isn´t guilty?
Actually, I think that's no, they don't, and no, they don't. I don't think any of us (save perhaps our American comrades) can imagine what it's like to live in a country where the government has absolute control over the media. By the same token, why should we expect people with far less opportunity to get foreign stimuli to be able to imagine a government that can't just pick up the phone and tell a major newspaper to shut up and sit down.

To the second question: What is your impression of the average Saudi? And why should we expect the saudis to have a more nuanced view of the average Dane than we have of them?

Quote:
I don´t want to sound it like a menace, but maybe the countries will start helping less the arabs in Palestina and other places. If they are democratic "in their way" we are democratics in our way.
I don't want to sound like a nitpicker, but I can't divine your point from that mess. But if your point is what I think it is, it would be a Bad Idea.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 03-01-2006 at 05:22 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 03:22 PM   #103
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,349
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
Anyone who takes blasphemy personally (or even seriously) is, by definition, an extremist.
What definition is that?

Prime is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 03:25 PM   #104
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?
A better question would be how is that a good idea?


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 03:29 PM   #105
txa1265
Father Jedi
 
txa1265's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Marlborough, MA, USA
Posts: 3,199
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
What definition is that?
What are you, a frickin' idiot?!?!

Main Entry: ex·trem·ist
Pronunciation: ik-'strE-"mi-s&t
Function: noun
1 : Anyone who takes blasphemy personally
2 : Anyone who takes blasphemy seriously

See?!? QED!




Mike


Dopelar effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
txa1265 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 05:20 PM   #106
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
A lot of people can take blasphemy seriously and not not strap bombs to their bodies to seek some great reward by killing infidels in a suicide attack. Yes, that is critical of Islamic extremists, but that is certainly...with the possible exception of genocide of Jews or homosexuals or those who are an affront to some religion, the most extreme action in the name (so the people who perpetrate these acts justify) of religion.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 05:23 PM   #107
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
In my opinion, this smells to be a plan to increase the tension in the world, plan prepared by the fanatics.
That's not how I read the situation. I think that what we see here is the result of decades of pent-up frustration with European and American policies in the Middle East. I don't believe that there's a 'master plan' to harness that anger and frustration - if for no other reason than the fact that it would be impossible to conceal such a plot.

What I think we're seeing is a foreign policy crisis engineered by a cabal of fascist imams who have chosen an issue that they knew they could use to inflame passions and link to the aforementioned arrogant and short-sighted Western policies in the Middle East. And they have succeeded because they have chosen a proxy conflict in which no democratic government can back down.

The cartoons are not the issue. Banning blasphemy in our newspapers will not help prevent similiar crises in the future. Arrogant, short-sighted, and counter-productive Western policies in the Middle East over the past five decades are the ultimate cause of this crisis. And it is for that policy that we should apologise, not for a wholly legitimate use of the freedom of the press to attack a fascist cult.

Quote:
Quote:
...We're talking about an evangalistic cult that is bent on world domination and death to those that don't believe it.
Um, no. It's only the 'religious nutters' within Islam that want that
And the cartoons were aimed at those extremists.

Quote:
I think Muslims have a right to feel insulted by cartoons that mock their faith or criticize their prophet.
This isn't over their right to feel insulted... They can feel insulted all day long for all I care. It's about whether their religious feelings should be allowed to censor what an independent newspaper publishes on its editorial pages.

Quote:
The papers had every right to publish those cartoons, but really should have stopped and considered the reactions they might receive before publishing them. It seems like a bit of a deliberate provocation if you ask me.
They did, and it was. As I have previously explained - at lenght - the deliberate provocation was a legitimate part of a domestic Danish debate, and there were - and are - very compelling reasons to publish such provocations.

Quote:
Like I said, the reactions prove the very point the cartoons were illustrating: religion is a problem for society more than an answer.
And the real irony of the whole farce is that the article surrounding the cartoons contained several inflammatory accusations (not made by the paper, BTW) about islamic wingnuttery. If the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] hadn't made a big issue out of the cartoons, they could have complained about 'baseless accusations' and 'gross misrepresentations.'

And who knows, they might actually have had a case. Of course, they wouldn't have had a cause, and I get the distinct impression that fundies are more than willing to sacrifice the former to obtain the latter.

Quote:
And all this flag burning must be making a lot of money for the flag making business.
The protesters make their own flags. They are quite adept at that (as well they should be, considering how many American and Israeli flags they've burned over the years )

Quote:
I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I think it would be hillarious to see Muslims treated with the same 'haha, you ****ers are rediculous' scrutiny that Christians come up against anymore. Especially here. Everyone is SOOO scared to offend the poor, oppressed Muslim. ****ing lame. ONOES!PLEAESTONOTBEBLOWINGMYASSUPTHNXBYE! **** a Muslim. And a Christian. And an atheist. And anybody who looks like one of those.
I cannot condone the language used, but I agree with the substance.

Quote:
But even though most Christians and Jews have decided to forgo this particular battle, should that mean that every group should be expected to follow suit, and not react when something they hold Holy is thrust in their face?
This isn't a Christianity vs. Islam issue. It's a Secularity vs. Theocracy issue. If Christianity likes allowing people to make graven images, well, no skin off my nose. But that's beside the point. If Islam wants to bar me from making (or publishing) graven images, then Islam will have to shut up and sit down. No skin off my nose, either.

Quote:
And again,.. my big problem with what the papers did is that it seemed somewhat like a deliberate provocation: "Let's go out of our way to come up with something that Muslims will surely find offensive!"
Why is that a problem?

Quote:
Kinda like flushing the Koran...
Not at all. The Q'ran is a book, and destroying books has - ah - negative connotations.

Quote:
A little effort towards cultural sensitivity can go a long way.
Why should we be 'sensitive' to a culture that we find fundamentally repulsive?

Or, more to the point, why should we not view Islam as part of our culture? When the Christian part of our culture was acting up like Islam is now, Christianity was subjected to much the same treatment Islam is being subjected to now. Systematic ridicule. Systematic denigration. Deliberate offense and blasphemy. In short, a systematic campaign to make it shameful to publicly profess to be a practicing Christian.

Now Islam is part of our culture. Why should we not do the same thing again? Why is it OK to try to stamp out Christianity from our culture, but not OK to do the same thing to Islam? After all, I don't hear any of you complaining about Henrik Ibsen's plays...

Quote:
Especially if we are really trying to convince the Muslims of the world that "War on Terror" isn't really shorthand for "New Western Christian Crusade to rid Islam from the Planet."
First things first: The WoT is a ridiculously stupid con-job. I will not sacrifice the freedom of the press to a made-up con-job any more than I will sacrifice the right to privacy or the right to a fair trial. Or, for that matter, the prohibition against torture. If the freedom of the press makes life tough on the WoT, then so much the better.

Quote:
We can work on thickening skin later...
"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

- Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965)


Quote:
Catholics don't believe crucifixes, nativity scenes, etc violate the 2nd commandment because those things are not being worshipped. What is being represented by them (God) is [...] Additionally, praying to anyone else like saints is not a violation either, because we aren't worshipping them, just asking for their help to worship God.
Those differences are one of those theological distinctions I've never been quite able to grasp. But thanks to Kurgan for trying to clear things up in his following post anyway.

Quote:
I believe that no one has the right to make fun of another religion...
So sharp jokes about Creationism is a no-no? And calling FSMism a 'joke religion' is out of the question too, I suppose?

Quote:
especially if it is so controversial right now...
There is no controversy. The imams have no valid complaints.

Quote:
Freedom of speech/press does exist, but it comes to a point where you have to say "that's not right." think of it this way...They have rules in school saying that you cannot swear and can't wear vulgar shirts, and stuff like that. Apply that to real life and it basically is saying that you have freedoms but don't abuse them.
Again: Who is to judge what is use and what is abuse? You? The Pope? Abu Laban? Isaac Newton? Jan Guillou? Until you can answer that question, your comment is vacuous.

Quote:
Somebody might reverence a statue of Jesus or a carving of the ten commandments for what it represents, rather than the object itself, as if it had any real power. Compare to issues about flag burning, etc.
What makes flag burning distasteful is not so much the offense some people might take at seing their flag burned, as it is the fact that the flag represents the sovereignty of a country: If you haul in the flag, it is a universal signal of surrender; When you conquer a fortress, you raise your flag over it; Embassies and border guard posts use flags to denote the fact that you enter an area that is under the sovereignty of the country in question; Sailing under a country's flag means that you are governed by the laws of that country, etc, etc.

Much the same goes for vandalising books. It's not so much the fact that the books themselves have emotions attatched to them, it's the fact that vandalising them sends the message that you are not interested in debating their content. Vandalising a flag sends a very real message: We do not acknowledge your sovereignty, the same way that vandalising a book sends the clear message: We will not even consider your points. And we will use force to prevent others from considering your points.

Be back later.

- JS

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 05:28 PM   #108
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
What definition is that?
That would be this one:

Main Entry: Extremist
Part of Speech: Noun
Definition: Zealot
Synonyms: agitator, die-hard, fanatic, radical, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, ultraist

My emphasis.

Quote:
Quote:
In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?
A better question would be how is that a good idea?
In the same way that singing rude songs about nazis is a good idea.

Quote:
A lot of people can take blasphemy seriously and not not strap bombs to their bodies to seek some great reward by killing infidels in a suicide attack.
Uh-huh. One need not murder people directly to be an extremist. Jerry Falwell and Pat(wa) Robertson, or Rushdoony, Ahmanson, and Shaeffer, for instance, are all extremists, but none of them murder people (OK, one might argue that Pat(wa) Robertson does by proxy, but that's for another time). Yet no-one is (hopefully) in any doubt that these are radical fascist extremists who must be denied and defeated.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 05:38 PM   #109
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
I had the amazing opportunity yesterday to speak with some aid worker/missionaries who have been working in Afghanistan for the past 4 years, and one of the things we discussed was the cartoon controversy.

They said that the town they work in has had a little bit of violence, but not much. Basically what would happen is that a gang of extremists would come into town to stir people up & try to start a riot. The thing that kept them from major violence in their town was that the local mullas weren't buying into the hatemongering (the quick response of local police & German military helped, too). I don't know if this is typical of the violence, but if it is, it's kind of a good sign - that the violence is primarily being perpetrated by smaller groups.

Another thing that they said was that very no one that they had come into contact with was really upset about the cartoons, and that they believed that the rioting really had nothing to do with the cartoons - the cartoons were more of an excuse for extremists to whip up anti-Western violence.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 05:57 PM   #110
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
And the cartoons were aimed at those extremists.
Except they affect more than just the extremists. Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq. Sure, a few bad guys get hurt, but so do a lot of innocent civilians. Only no physical damage, and in the form of illustration.

I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.

And no Shadow, I don't believe Muslims should be protected. But I do feel innocent people should be free from attack. You bring up examples of nazi's and other political figures. Well, those are guided attacks against a very obvious enemy. This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland". And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.

Basically, they should have put more thought into this, if their target was the militant groups.

I do however feel quite a lot of the groups protesting/attacking/etc. are being complete and utter ****wads.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2006, 06:54 PM   #111
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In the same way that singing rude songs about nazis is a good idea.
I still fail to see the good idea part. Microwave popcorn is a good idea. The internal combustion engine is a good idea. The theory of relativity is a good idea. Wanking off on a bible and singing anti nazi songs, however entertaining as they might be, don't really seem to rate as a good idea, to me anyway.


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 09:23 AM   #112
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Sith
Except they affect more than just the extremists.
I happen to subscribe to the notion that being offended by blasphemy is extremism.

Quote:
Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq. Sure, a few bad guys get hurt, but so do a lot of innocent civilians. Only no physical damage, and in the form of illustration.
My emphasis. Hurt feelings are part and parcel of a living democracy. Sorry, Sithy, cost of doing business.

Quote:
I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.
How? I've still not seen a single convincing argument that the cartoons target Muslims. They target Islam, I get that. But that's not the same as targetting Muslims.

Quote:
I do feel innocent people should be free from attack. You bring up examples of nazi's and other political figures. Well, those are guided attacks against a very obvious enemy.
So are these. The enemy is Islam. The week before, the enemy attacked was Christianity. And a while back the same paper printed a scathing editorial condemning creationism. I fail to see the difference.

Quote:
This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland".
No, here's the difference: You choose to take Islam seriously. You do not choose to be born in Germany. And Germany is not naziland anymore, so calling Germany that would be factually wrong. I don't see any statements in those cartoons - be they explicit or implicit - that are factually wrong.

Quote:
And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.
Uh, nope. Israel is a Jewish country. Does that imply that all Israeli are Jews?

Quote:
Basically, they should have put more thought into this, if their target was the militant groups.
Their target was the extremist groups, which is a rather wider cathegory. And, as I stated above, the provocation had several desireable effects vis-a-vis our battle against said extremist groups. That some people get a little riled up is just too bad.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 09:42 AM   #113
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Sith
Except they affect more than just the extremists.
Of course they do. That is part of the point. Moderate and mainstream Islam has failed to contain its extremist minority. This is probably because there is a very large, perhaps majority, number of Muslims that silently agree with the extremist position. They agree vocally on occasion but they agree mostly by not opposing the militants and extremists. They ALLOW the violence to occur. The cartoons force them now to address and the STILL DON'T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Sith
Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq.
Its nothing like "bombing" a city in Iraq. A cartoon is an illustration. A bomb is an high explosive. One is printed on paper and distributed to those willing to purchase it. The other is delivered by someone with the direct intent to kill others. If someone dies over a cartoon, it says FAR, FAR more about the people doing the killing than it does about the cartoonists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Sith
I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.
And, as I've argued, every Muslim should be the target because they allow the extremists and militants to exist and proliferate within their religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Sith
This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland". And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.
And you should be free to draw and publish a cartoon that makes that statement. But if the cartoon is in a widely read publication, you'll deserve the ridicule and counter-parody that you'll get. You won't have citizens of Germany marching on the American embassy, burning flags or killing American tourists and businessmen over it. They'll probably respond with cartoons depicting the genocide of the Native Americans.

While we're on the subject of Free Speech and criticizing the Muslim world for taking a hard line approach to it, we cannot forget that there is a major Free Speech violation going on in Austria right now that serves to remind me just how medieval some of Europes laws still are.

David Irving was jailed for 3 years in a sentence handed to him for violating an Austrian law that says it is a crime if a person “denies, grossly trivializes, approves or seeks to justify the National Socialist genocide or other national socialist crimes against humanity.”

Irving had traveled to Austria in November, 2005 to deliver a lecture to a far-right student fraternity, but was arrested on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. After pleading guilty to the charge, Irving told the court, “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” and “The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.”

David Irving was, and probably still is, a Holocaust denier in spite of his comment above. But should one be jailed in Western society for dissenting against an accepted and popular view? Isn't that just one step from being jailed for dissenting from a state accepted religion or even a policy? Today, you may be imprisoned or fined for dissenting from the accepted Holocaust history in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

This is a bad law in my view. Irving is a putz, but he shouldn't be jailed for it.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 10:56 AM   #114
Aristotélēsticus
Forumite
 
Aristotélēsticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the Source
Posts: 605
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that it’s a war against religion made by anti-religious like you… well I am sorry if my words seemed a bit offensive, but the theory that you've propose might be wrong, coz now everybody is speaking about a religious war, most of Moslems think that other religions are attacking them and what made them more sure about it is the imprisoning of David Irving, which represented that the west world is dealing seriously with other religions while they attack Islam in the name of freedom of speech…
what David Irving did was also a freedom of speech (in your point of view), and when Iran president mocked of the holocaust they attacked him while they called mocking of Islam freedom of speech, so that double-face dealing make us wonder about the seriousity of those who speak in the name of freedom.
Aristotélēsticus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 02:06 PM   #115
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
so that double-face dealing make us wonder about the seriousity of those who speak in the name of freedom.
There's no contradiction. I'm in favor of ridicule and dissent, even when its wrong. I'm also in favor of mocking that ridicule and dissent with counter-arguments and counter-ridicule.

The killing of people and the destruction of private property and the call to murder a person by a "religious figure" is wrong. Moreover, it serves to demonstrate the very point of the cartoons: that Islam tolerates violence to obtain its goals.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice

Last edited by SkinWalker; 03-03-2006 at 12:18 AM. Reason: I can take a hint :)
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 02:26 PM   #116
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
@Korf: I have a friend. He's called Uppercase Letters. I think you should meet him, he's a really nice guy.

@Skin: No, that's not what I mean. That's what the talk.origins regulars call argumentum ad CAPSLOCK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korfredonn The Ecclesiastes
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that it’s a war against religion made by anti-religious like you…
War is the wrong term, we didn't start it, and - so far - the casualties have been limited. But substantially, you're right.

Quote:
the theory that you've propose might be wrong, coz now everybody is speaking about a religious war, most of Moslems think that other religions are attacking them
Quite apart from the fact that the connection between my 'theory' and Moslem sentiments is not crystal clear, there are (at least) three seperate issues here to be adressed:

1) The relationship between Islam and other religions. The concept of religious war is as old as religion itself, and frankly I could hardly care less which nutjob mythology is attacking and which is being attacked this week.

2) The relationship between Islam and secular society. Here, Islam is clearly overstepping the boundries of its domain, and must be put back where it belongs. And if the mullahs and ayatollah-wanna-bes don't get it, then too bad for them.

3) The relationship between other religions and secular society. This is an entirely seperate issue from #2. Several other religions are doing their dead level best to pollute society. They must be denied. Failure to do so is not only hypocricy, it is - ultimately - a problem for civilisation. This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Quote:
and what made them more sure about it is the imprisoning of David Irving, which represented that the west world is dealing seriously with other religions
Maybe it's just my evil, secularist mindset, but I fail to see how imprisoning a holocaust-denier represents 'dealing seriously with other religions.' Perchance you could enlighten us?

Quote:
while they attack Islam in the name of freedom of speech…
No. We attack Islam in the name of civilisation, democracy, and progress. We defend freedom of speech, when madhat imams challenge our right to attack Islam.

Quote:
what David Irving did was also a freedom of speech (in your point of view),
I must have missed the post where I expressed my support for the imprisonment of Irving. Could you please point it out for me?

Quote:
and when Iran president mocked of the holocaust they attacked him while they called mocking of Islam freedom of speech,
Two points. One: When was his right to believe in historical revisionism challenged? When was his right to express such beliefs challenged?

Two: Holocaust denial is not an attack on a religion. It is not an attack on a doctrine or mythology. It is not an attack on a political position. At best, it is a show of ignorance unworthy of the president of a nuclear power to be. At worst, it is an out-and-out lie.

The holocaust, the Inquisition, the persecution of Gallilei and the banning of Copernicus' Revolutions are historical facts. Denying them is the historical equivalent of Young-Earth Creationism.

And, in case you missed the point the first time around, the mockery of Islam was not freedom of speech. It was covered by the freedom of the press. Which is not quite the same thing.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 02:29 PM   #117
Aristotélēsticus
Forumite
 
Aristotélēsticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the Source
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
There's no contradiction. I'm in favor of ridicule and dissent, even when its wrong. I'm also in favor of mocking that ridicule and dissent with counter-arguments and counter-ridicule.

The KILLING OF PEOPLE and the DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY and the CALL TO MURDER A PERSON by a RELIGIOUS FIGURE is wrong. Moreover, it serves to DEMONSTRATE THE VERY POINT OF THE CARTOONS: that Islam tolerates violence to obtain its goals.
do you always act like that??????

nobody is talking about you, yu've said that you do not approve the jailing of DI, i'm talking about the countries that deal with some people deferently thatn others, the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust are the same countries that reprinted the cartoons in teh name of freedom of speach, and are the same countries that forbade "al-manar" tv from showing by accusing them of being anti-semitics, so where is the freedom of speach that they are talking about!!!!!!!!

and again, its not Islam that is violence, read its book to know, its only a few people who are using Islam to acheave thier goals, there are alot of muslems who did protest against Ben-laden, and there are alot of those (and i am one of them) who did not protest in the last accidents...so your problem is not with any religion itself, its with those who are in power and using thier power in the name of the religion, not only Islam but all of others...
Aristotélēsticus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 02:49 PM   #118
Aristotélēsticus
Forumite
 
Aristotélēsticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the Source
Posts: 605
@ ShadowTemplar : when i said "they" i wasnt talk about you, i respected your beliefs, i have some anti-religion friends and i know your point of view and i am not inteding to change it coz i believe in the freedom of people, so i didnt mean that you support the imprisonment of Irving coz i wasnt talking about you...so i hope i've cleared my point of view.

i know that the holocaust thing is a historical fact and i am not against it, but if one is then he is free, there are alot of historical facts that people do not believe in, and its thier right to not believe in it...and for the facts, Iran president was attacked by Bush and other europian leaders because of his sayings.
Aristotélēsticus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2006, 03:01 PM   #119
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korfredonn The Ecclesiastes
do you always act like that??????
Yep, that's Skin in a nutshell. Although he doesn't usually shout that much.

Quote:
i'm talking about the countries that deal with some people deferently thatn others, the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust
Uh-huh. Most civilised countries 'take a stand' against holocaust denial, because holocaust denial is historical revisionism. But I will note that, contrary to the impression one gets from reading Korf's posts, it is criminalised only in a small minority of Western countries.

Quote:
are the same countries that reprinted the cartoons in teh name of freedom of speach, and are the same countries that forbade "al-manar" tv from showing by accusing them of being anti-semitics, so where is the freedom of speach that they are talking about!!!!!!!!
In Denmark, where the cartoons in question were published, anti-semitism and historical revisionism (including, but not limited to holocaust denial) is perfectly legal.

So even if one accepts the implicit equivocation of editorial cartoons and historical revisionism - something I'm not prepared to grant - there is still no case for condemning the cartoons.

BTW, this is what the reference to al-Manar TV is about. The station is (AFAIK) prevented from broadcasting in and to 'only' France and Australia. I am in no position to offer qualified opinions on whether the ban is legitimate.

But I'll note that, contrary to the impression given by the phrase "the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust are the same countries that forbade 'al-manar' tv." France and Australia constitutes a small minority of the countries where the cartoons have been published.

I will also note the discrepancy in the severity of the attack on the respective religions: The Zion hoax that was allegedly reiterated by al-Manar TV is far more elaborate and strongly worded than the Danish cartoons. Whether that consideration is relevant is, however, not for me to say.

Quote:
its not Islam that is violence, read its book to know,
Theological considerations are largely irrelevant when evaluating a religion. The relevant consideration is the role of the religion in question in society and the role it has played in history. And when evaluated against that standard, Islam is no better than Christianity, and should be fought with the same vigour.

Quote:
its only a few people who are using Islam to acheave thier goals,

[...]

so your problem is not with any religion itself, its with those who are in power and using thier power in the name of the religion, not only Islam but all of others...


Pic courtesy of WinAce - Late and lamented.

Quote:
@ ShadowTemplar : when i said "they" i wasnt talk about you,
Ah, OK. My fault for replying to a thread without reading it all the way through first. Me bad.

Quote:
i respected your beliefs,
Past tense?

Quote:
for the facts, Iran president was attacked by Bush and other europian leaders because of his sayings.
Weeell, methinks the Iranian president was attacked because he is the Iranian president, and some of our politicos want a Short, Victorious War against Iran...

But in all seriousness, I've never ever heard anybody challenge his right to think and say those things (OK, maybe Dubya does, but Dubya doesn't give a rat's turd for civil liberties anyway...). Several have expressed their concern that a man with those views is governing a future nuclear power. But that's an altogether different story.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 03-02-2006 at 03:14 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-03-2006, 01:21 PM   #120
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,349
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
That would be this one:

Main Entry: Extremist
Part of Speech: Noun
Definition: Zealot
Synonyms: agitator, die-hard, fanatic, radical, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, ultraist

My emphasis.
Don't see "taking blasphemy seriously" as part of that definition...

Prime is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Muslim anger at Mohammed Cartoon & Freedom of speech

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.