I don't know where you got the idea that religion isn't a powerful force in the west, but you're wrong.Because religion isn't such a great power in the western countries anymore, we may not understand why they got so angry about the cartoons.
Islamic Cartoons
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Well, if Danish law says you can sue for offenses like this, then they could go do that.
It's not really a free country unless you can say what you want.
Maybe it's a much bigger thing than cartoons.
This can be a test-run, to see how much the mobs can silence Europeans. Will Islam get special protections under EU law?
It makes me wonder what the next "insult" will be.
-n
It's not really a free country unless you can say what you want.
Maybe it's a much bigger thing than cartoons.
This can be a test-run, to see how much the mobs can silence Europeans. Will Islam get special protections under EU law?
It makes me wonder what the next "insult" will be.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Clinton in Pakistan: Convict cartoon publishers
Says press should not be allowed to criticize other faiths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 17, 2006
3:50 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Former President Bill Clinton today called for the conviction of European papers that published satirical cartoons of Muhammad, according to reports in the Islamic press and elsewhere.
Clinton condemned the publication of the caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers, according to the reports.
He said religious convictions of the people should be respected at all costs and no media should be allowed to play with the religious sentiments of people of any faith.
"I strongly disagree with the creation and publication of cartoons that are considered blasphemous by the Muslims around the world," he said. "I thought it was a mistake."
Talking to reporters after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad, Clinton said he disagreed with the caricatures and that the publication was against religious and ethical norms. Clinton said he had no objection to peaceful demonstrations, but condemned the violent response. He said it was the time to promote inter-faith harmony and stand together on the issue.
He said the people's religious convictions should be respected at all costs and that media should not be permitted to criticize other faiths. He said the media could criticize any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths.
Clinton said people in the U.S. had also condemned the publication and were deeply concerned over it. He said Americans respected Islam, as it was the fastest-growing religion in the U.S. Clinton also visited President Pervez Musharraf and both men discussed the India-Pakistan peace talks and progress in Afghanistan.
Says press should not be allowed to criticize other faiths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 17, 2006
3:50 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Former President Bill Clinton today called for the conviction of European papers that published satirical cartoons of Muhammad, according to reports in the Islamic press and elsewhere.
Clinton condemned the publication of the caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers, according to the reports.
He said religious convictions of the people should be respected at all costs and no media should be allowed to play with the religious sentiments of people of any faith.
"I strongly disagree with the creation and publication of cartoons that are considered blasphemous by the Muslims around the world," he said. "I thought it was a mistake."
Talking to reporters after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad, Clinton said he disagreed with the caricatures and that the publication was against religious and ethical norms. Clinton said he had no objection to peaceful demonstrations, but condemned the violent response. He said it was the time to promote inter-faith harmony and stand together on the issue.
He said the people's religious convictions should be respected at all costs and that media should not be permitted to criticize other faiths. He said the media could criticize any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths.
Clinton said people in the U.S. had also condemned the publication and were deeply concerned over it. He said Americans respected Islam, as it was the fastest-growing religion in the U.S. Clinton also visited President Pervez Musharraf and both men discussed the India-Pakistan peace talks and progress in Afghanistan.
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
wolfpac444
- Your Friendly Admin
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: 24 Mar 2003 00:07
I was a little skeptical when I first read this. I tried to find some other source that corroborated this article but was unable to. I did however find this: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3446HighDemonslayer wrote:Clinton in Pakistan: Convict cartoon publishers
Says press should not be allowed to criticize other faiths
Former President Bill Clinton today called for the conviction of European papers that published satirical cartoons of Muhammad, according to reports in the Islamic press and elsewhere.
Clinton condemned the publication of the caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers, according to the reports.
He said religious convictions of the people should be respected at all costs and no media should be allowed to play with the religious sentiments of people of any faith.
Mike Hansen
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Interesting, I was shocked, maybe skeptical, if Clinton actually said that Europeans who did the cartoons should be convicted. To me it would seem reasonable on first glance, because of.....
A. The bandwagon of western leaders advocating censorship, and groveling after the insult.
B. Support of EU speech control, by certain American "leaders".
Maybe the giveaway is that the WND story only had 1 quote attributed to Clinton. The rest is second-hand something.
Look at the similarity of these 2 sentences:
"I had no objections to Muslims who were demonstrating in a peaceful way their convictions.
"I had no objections to Muslims who were demonstrating in a peaceful way for their convictions.
The first sentence is constructed exactly like I would expect Bill Clinton to say it, with a short pause after "peaceful way...." I didnt listen to the qando video, im just guessing.
The translation could insert a "for" and change the meaning entirely.
p.s. on second thought, you could interpret the first sentence to mean ..."demonstrating (for the conviction of the publishers)."
I don't know what English-to-Arabic-and-back-to-English translated looks like.
-n
A. The bandwagon of western leaders advocating censorship, and groveling after the insult.
B. Support of EU speech control, by certain American "leaders".
Maybe the giveaway is that the WND story only had 1 quote attributed to Clinton. The rest is second-hand something.
Look at the similarity of these 2 sentences:
"I had no objections to Muslims who were demonstrating in a peaceful way their convictions.
"I had no objections to Muslims who were demonstrating in a peaceful way for their convictions.
The first sentence is constructed exactly like I would expect Bill Clinton to say it, with a short pause after "peaceful way...." I didnt listen to the qando video, im just guessing.
The translation could insert a "for" and change the meaning entirely.
p.s. on second thought, you could interpret the first sentence to mean ..."demonstrating (for the conviction of the publishers)."
I don't know what English-to-Arabic-and-back-to-English translated looks like.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I see what you're getting at Nathen - apart from the typical Clinton smear that is getting a little boring. Would I be right in saying that you think it's wrong to censor criticism of religion and you think the West is pandering to the demands of Islam?
As I stated earlier I disagree with this sentiment - at least in the issue of the cartoons. I think there is a clear distinction between the right to free speech and the right to insult people. I don't think people should have a right to insult and I think the cartoons in question had no meaning apart from as insults.
If I were to say something like: "I think all Christians are dirty stinking c*nts" - I'd expect that statement to be censored - on this forum or anywhere else (in fact I did censor it to some degree myself because otherwise it would have been too inappropriate even as an example). I can easily express the same opinion without making the statement as an insult. "I am opposed to Christianity because I believe it oppresses people of other cultures and women". I believe I have a right to say the second statement regardless of if it's true or not but definitely do not have any right to say the first statement. The same goes with the cartoons - you just need to look at them to see that they're not at all appropriate to be published.
That's not to excuse the violence - I don't believe there could be any excuse for that kind of violence - however it's easy to understand where it comes from and predictable. I can think of plenty of ideas of cartoons that would lead to similar violence in the US. I once told a fairly bad taste joke about Osama Bin Ladin at a cigar forum in responce to a group of American's telling anti French jokes and recieved some fairly violent threats - I imagine that if a US paper published something along those lines it would envoke some strong reactions. The Iranian anti jewish cartoons won't have the same effect because their leader is already known to be a crazy extremist and I think that the American's who would be insulted probably already think that the Iranian government is evil etc.
As I stated earlier I disagree with this sentiment - at least in the issue of the cartoons. I think there is a clear distinction between the right to free speech and the right to insult people. I don't think people should have a right to insult and I think the cartoons in question had no meaning apart from as insults.
If I were to say something like: "I think all Christians are dirty stinking c*nts" - I'd expect that statement to be censored - on this forum or anywhere else (in fact I did censor it to some degree myself because otherwise it would have been too inappropriate even as an example). I can easily express the same opinion without making the statement as an insult. "I am opposed to Christianity because I believe it oppresses people of other cultures and women". I believe I have a right to say the second statement regardless of if it's true or not but definitely do not have any right to say the first statement. The same goes with the cartoons - you just need to look at them to see that they're not at all appropriate to be published.
That's not to excuse the violence - I don't believe there could be any excuse for that kind of violence - however it's easy to understand where it comes from and predictable. I can think of plenty of ideas of cartoons that would lead to similar violence in the US. I once told a fairly bad taste joke about Osama Bin Ladin at a cigar forum in responce to a group of American's telling anti French jokes and recieved some fairly violent threats - I imagine that if a US paper published something along those lines it would envoke some strong reactions. The Iranian anti jewish cartoons won't have the same effect because their leader is already known to be a crazy extremist and I think that the American's who would be insulted probably already think that the Iranian government is evil etc.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
"Censorship" as you asking me if I disagree with, and the example in your next paragraph are two different animals.
So I'll posit this:
1. I think it is wrong for American, or European media to be censored by their governments if the media criticize religion.
2. I think it is wrong for American, or European media to be fined money, or have it's editors imprisoned, for criticizing religion.
jeremy said:
------------------
(...)and you think the West is pandering to the demands of Islam?
-------------------
I don't like the way you asked that question, you are implying that EVERY Muslim is exactly the same, not me.
I think the West is catering to the muscle-flexing of murderous, rioting lunatics,which we hope are a tiny minority of Muslims.
The quisling Western leaders don't see it quite my way, partially because of fear, perhaps justifiable, of the toppling off their own governments, should someone domestic DARE to publish something unacceptable to the so called "Arab Street".
But in appearance, it's appeasement.
The more they scream ,and burn churches ,and beat Christian children and clergy to death in the street , and destroy every embassy, burn every Danish business...etc etc etc because of CARTOONS ,the more the infidel leaders will grovel and beg for forgiveness, and make concessions.
Hell, those cartoon could have been drawn by an atheist.
Ill do the rest in Part 2.
-n
So I'll posit this:
1. I think it is wrong for American, or European media to be censored by their governments if the media criticize religion.
2. I think it is wrong for American, or European media to be fined money, or have it's editors imprisoned, for criticizing religion.
jeremy said:
------------------
(...)and you think the West is pandering to the demands of Islam?
-------------------
I don't like the way you asked that question, you are implying that EVERY Muslim is exactly the same, not me.
I think the West is catering to the muscle-flexing of murderous, rioting lunatics,which we hope are a tiny minority of Muslims.
The quisling Western leaders don't see it quite my way, partially because of fear, perhaps justifiable, of the toppling off their own governments, should someone domestic DARE to publish something unacceptable to the so called "Arab Street".
But in appearance, it's appeasement.
The more they scream ,and burn churches ,and beat Christian children and clergy to death in the street , and destroy every embassy, burn every Danish business...etc etc etc because of CARTOONS ,the more the infidel leaders will grovel and beg for forgiveness, and make concessions.
Hell, those cartoon could have been drawn by an atheist.
Ill do the rest in Part 2.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Jeramy said:
----------------------
Yes, i think it's wrong
As I stated earlier I disagree with this sentiment - at least in the issue of the cartoons. I think there is a clear
distinction between the right to free speech and the right to insult people.
-------------------------
Who said there is a "right to insult people? In America at least, someone's Free speech rights are not cancelled out by
an imaginary "right to not be insulted."
Getting in someones face , on the street, and insulting their religion , or using a racial slur, are fighting words, and so you probably deserve to be punched in the face a few times.
If you want to be a moron,and get up at a podium wearing a white robe and spew all kinds of Nazi-shit, that's within your
rights. Assuming ,you have a beefy police presence to prevent the mob from tearing you to pieces.
Incitement to violence is probably illegal, though.
Jeramy said:
---------------
I don't think people should have a right to insult and I think the cartoons in question had no meaning apart from as
insults.
-------------
Ok, we know you would approve the use of power to silence speech you , or others deem insulting, by levying fines and/or jail time.
Jeramy said:
-------------------------------------------
If I were to say something like: "I think all Christians are dirty stinking c*nts" - I'd expect that statement to be
censored - on this forum or anywhere else (in fact I did censor it to some degree myself because otherwise it would have
been too inappropriate even as an example).
-----------------------------------------
Definately, the forum, and the moderators "reserve the right", so to speak, to censor the content on their property, I
agree.
I agree that is a good policy for us.
The "or anywhere else" part I don't agree. We could jail half of Hollywood, and many modified members .
Jeramy said:
-----------------------------
I can easily express the same opinion without making the statement as an insult. "I am opposed to Christianity because I
believe it oppresses people of other cultures and women". I believe I have a right to say the second statement regardless of
if it's true(.....)
------------------------------------
Whoa, better be careful with this one, and where you say stuff like that. That is a well structured sentence expressing your opposition.
What if you instead you said for example,you opposed homosexuality ,because you believe it does (something negative) .....
Would you have no right to say that? What sanctions should you pay?
How must a statement in opposition to a belief be worded in order to not offend?
How many debates about things religious or otherwise, become off limits, because of possible insults?
Jeramy said:
------------------------------------------
That's not to excuse the violence - I don't believe there could be any excuse for that kind of violence - however it's easy
to understand where it comes from and predictable. I can think of plenty of ideas of cartoons that would lead to similar
violence in the US.
--------------------------
Really, what kind of cartoons would lead to similar violence in the US?
You better be specific of which group (not a Muslim group, that's to easily predictable) you think would be offended , and by what.
Give us an interesting, or boring scenario or two, of Cartoon Riots U.S.A-style.
I am thinking up an over-the-top ,fictional response to some past, semi-recent "bashing", and how over insane the
response would be , even before it approached today's "Toon riots".
I'll do that next post.
-n
----------------------
Yes, i think it's wrong
As I stated earlier I disagree with this sentiment - at least in the issue of the cartoons. I think there is a clear
distinction between the right to free speech and the right to insult people.
-------------------------
Who said there is a "right to insult people? In America at least, someone's Free speech rights are not cancelled out by
an imaginary "right to not be insulted."
Getting in someones face , on the street, and insulting their religion , or using a racial slur, are fighting words, and so you probably deserve to be punched in the face a few times.
If you want to be a moron,and get up at a podium wearing a white robe and spew all kinds of Nazi-shit, that's within your
rights. Assuming ,you have a beefy police presence to prevent the mob from tearing you to pieces.
Incitement to violence is probably illegal, though.
Jeramy said:
---------------
I don't think people should have a right to insult and I think the cartoons in question had no meaning apart from as
insults.
-------------
Ok, we know you would approve the use of power to silence speech you , or others deem insulting, by levying fines and/or jail time.
Jeramy said:
-------------------------------------------
If I were to say something like: "I think all Christians are dirty stinking c*nts" - I'd expect that statement to be
censored - on this forum or anywhere else (in fact I did censor it to some degree myself because otherwise it would have
been too inappropriate even as an example).
-----------------------------------------
Definately, the forum, and the moderators "reserve the right", so to speak, to censor the content on their property, I
agree.
I agree that is a good policy for us.
The "or anywhere else" part I don't agree. We could jail half of Hollywood, and many modified members .
Jeramy said:
-----------------------------
I can easily express the same opinion without making the statement as an insult. "I am opposed to Christianity because I
believe it oppresses people of other cultures and women". I believe I have a right to say the second statement regardless of
if it's true(.....)
------------------------------------
Whoa, better be careful with this one, and where you say stuff like that. That is a well structured sentence expressing your opposition.
What if you instead you said for example,you opposed homosexuality ,because you believe it does (something negative) .....
Would you have no right to say that? What sanctions should you pay?
How must a statement in opposition to a belief be worded in order to not offend?
How many debates about things religious or otherwise, become off limits, because of possible insults?
Jeramy said:
------------------------------------------
That's not to excuse the violence - I don't believe there could be any excuse for that kind of violence - however it's easy
to understand where it comes from and predictable. I can think of plenty of ideas of cartoons that would lead to similar
violence in the US.
--------------------------
Really, what kind of cartoons would lead to similar violence in the US?
You better be specific of which group (not a Muslim group, that's to easily predictable) you think would be offended , and by what.
Give us an interesting, or boring scenario or two, of Cartoon Riots U.S.A-style.
I am thinking up an over-the-top ,fictional response to some past, semi-recent "bashing", and how over insane the
response would be , even before it approached today's "Toon riots".
I'll do that next post.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I found it fairly difficult to follow your arguement. However I wanted to be clear on something - the right to free speech is definitely not a right to insult and under Australian and American law you can definitely be charged for things like "slander" and "verbal abuse". That's a fact - it's not a matter of opinion. I'm guessing you believe that people should be allowed to be as verbally offensive as they like without any legal ramifications - luckily we live in a world where you are not in control and what you believe people should be allowed to do is not the case. I have not been argueing the philosophy of free speech and where the boundries should be drawn. I don't think that's an issue in this case. The fact is a newspaper in Denmark commissioned a group of cartoonists to draw up a series of cartoons aimed at "testing muslim tolerance to free speech" - that's a fact - the fact is the aim of the cartoons was to be as insulting to Islam as possible and to see how they react. That's not something anybody is disputing - including the cartoonists and the editor of the paper. In a county like Australia we have laws that would result in serious ramifications for people stirring up racial violence - which is exactly what happened.HighDemonslayer wrote:Jeramy said:
----------------------
Yes, i think it's wrong
As I stated earlier I disagree with this sentiment - at least in the issue of the cartoons. I think there is a clear
distinction between the right to free speech and the right to insult people.
-------------------------
Who said there is a "right to insult people? In America at least, someone's Free speech rights are not cancelled out by
an imaginary "right to not be insulted."
Getting in someones face , on the street, and insulting their religion , or using a racial slur, are fighting words, and so you probably deserve to be punched in the face a few times.
If you want to be a moron,and get up at a podium wearing a white robe and spew all kinds of Nazi-shit, that's within your
rights. Assuming ,you have a beefy police presence to prevent the mob from tearing you to pieces.
Incitement to violence is probably illegal, though.
Jeramy said:
---------------
I don't think people should have a right to insult and I think the cartoons in question had no meaning apart from as
insults.
-------------
Ok, we know you would approve the use of power to silence speech you , or others deem insulting, by levying fines and/or jail time.
Jeramy said:
-------------------------------------------
If I were to say something like: "I think all Christians are dirty stinking c*nts" - I'd expect that statement to be
censored - on this forum or anywhere else (in fact I did censor it to some degree myself because otherwise it would have
been too inappropriate even as an example).
-----------------------------------------
Definately, the forum, and the moderators "reserve the right", so to speak, to censor the content on their property, I
agree.
I agree that is a good policy for us.
The "or anywhere else" part I don't agree. We could jail half of Hollywood, and many modified members .
Jeramy said:
-----------------------------
I can easily express the same opinion without making the statement as an insult. "I am opposed to Christianity because I
believe it oppresses people of other cultures and women". I believe I have a right to say the second statement regardless of
if it's true(.....)
------------------------------------
Whoa, better be careful with this one, and where you say stuff like that. That is a well structured sentence expressing your opposition.
What if you instead you said for example,you opposed homosexuality ,because you believe it does (something negative) .....
Would you have no right to say that? What sanctions should you pay?
How must a statement in opposition to a belief be worded in order to not offend?
How many debates about things religious or otherwise, become off limits, because of possible insults?
Jeramy said:
------------------------------------------
That's not to excuse the violence - I don't believe there could be any excuse for that kind of violence - however it's easy
to understand where it comes from and predictable. I can think of plenty of ideas of cartoons that would lead to similar
violence in the US.
--------------------------
Really, what kind of cartoons would lead to similar violence in the US?
You better be specific of which group (not a Muslim group, that's to easily predictable) you think would be offended , and by what.
Give us an interesting, or boring scenario or two, of Cartoon Riots U.S.A-style.
I am thinking up an over-the-top ,fictional response to some past, semi-recent "bashing", and how over insane the
response would be , even before it approached today's "Toon riots".
I'll do that next post.
-n
It's obvious that people have different opinion - and we are definitely a good example of people with different opinions - however for the sake of the arguement I'm sure it would be better to stay with reality instead of argueing about how you like reality to be.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Jeremy said:
---------------
I found it fairly difficult to follow your arguement. However I wanted to be clear on something - the right to free speech is definitely not a right to insult and under Australian and American law you can definitely be charged for things like "slander" and "verbal abuse".
---------------------------------------
So you must not have even read very far into my post.
Near the top, I say that religious or racial intimidation or threatening of ones' person probably deserves an immediate response, and perhaps charges later for the bully.
Cartoons are probably not covered under American slander or verbal abuse laws. Especially if someone in Crapistan is offended.
J said:
----------------
That's a fact - it's not a matter of opinion. I'm guessing you believe that people should be allowed to be as verbally offensive as they like without any legal ramifications
---------------
You guessed wrong,and I never said that.
J said:
----------------
In a county like Australia we have laws that would result in serious ramifications for people stirring up racial violence - which is exactly what happened.
--------------
So if an insult occurs, but the people insulted just sit at home and stew with rage, is that legal, because there was no violence?
If racial violence occurs, was the speech that inflamed it become illegal, or be the basis for criminal charges?
Could a racial group use violence, or the threat of violence, in order to muzzle their opponents, and to get a certain amount of "free pass" to commit violence?
I have to ask these questions, because I start to see a model for other religious groups to follow.
I'll stop fretting about free speech in Europe and Australia, I don't know the laws there, and if they want to submit, fine.
However, the EU and the U.N. (maybe the I.C.C.) will try to foist some kind of special protections for Muslim beliefs on the USA, it's just a matter of time.
-n
---------------
I found it fairly difficult to follow your arguement. However I wanted to be clear on something - the right to free speech is definitely not a right to insult and under Australian and American law you can definitely be charged for things like "slander" and "verbal abuse".
---------------------------------------
So you must not have even read very far into my post.
Near the top, I say that religious or racial intimidation or threatening of ones' person probably deserves an immediate response, and perhaps charges later for the bully.
Cartoons are probably not covered under American slander or verbal abuse laws. Especially if someone in Crapistan is offended.
J said:
----------------
That's a fact - it's not a matter of opinion. I'm guessing you believe that people should be allowed to be as verbally offensive as they like without any legal ramifications
---------------
You guessed wrong,and I never said that.
J said:
----------------
In a county like Australia we have laws that would result in serious ramifications for people stirring up racial violence - which is exactly what happened.
--------------
So if an insult occurs, but the people insulted just sit at home and stew with rage, is that legal, because there was no violence?
If racial violence occurs, was the speech that inflamed it become illegal, or be the basis for criminal charges?
Could a racial group use violence, or the threat of violence, in order to muzzle their opponents, and to get a certain amount of "free pass" to commit violence?
I have to ask these questions, because I start to see a model for other religious groups to follow.
I'll stop fretting about free speech in Europe and Australia, I don't know the laws there, and if they want to submit, fine.
However, the EU and the U.N. (maybe the I.C.C.) will try to foist some kind of special protections for Muslim beliefs on the USA, it's just a matter of time.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
People need to stop catering to extremist islamics. It appears like the Islamic culture is stuck in the middle ages and it's ridiculous how people are so fearful of these illiterates.
I'm all for peacefully protesting against those Muhammed cartoons, but come on these protests have been anything but peaceful. It makes me sick to see the world living in fear of islamic-facism. They're willing to slaughter their own just as they are willing to slaughter "infidels". Example: iraqi civil war. The whole middle east lives in turmoil and fear.
Extremists practice killing just as much as I practice footbag. I hope there's a surge of zero tolerance for extremists, but by the looks of things in Iraq right now, I'm thinking they're doing a pretty good job of wiping out their own population.
I'm all for peacefully protesting against those Muhammed cartoons, but come on these protests have been anything but peaceful. It makes me sick to see the world living in fear of islamic-facism. They're willing to slaughter their own just as they are willing to slaughter "infidels". Example: iraqi civil war. The whole middle east lives in turmoil and fear.
Extremists practice killing just as much as I practice footbag. I hope there's a surge of zero tolerance for extremists, but by the looks of things in Iraq right now, I'm thinking they're doing a pretty good job of wiping out their own population.
Nhan Ho
In Nigeria right now Christians are brutally murdering large numbers of Muslims. Therefor Christians are horrible people who brutally murder people based on their religion.
Do you agree with this statement? Is there a flaw in my logic? What is that flaw?
In my opinion racist uninformed people are far more to blame for the problems in the world than Islamic fundamentalists (who are really just a section of the various racist uninformed people fucking the rest of us over).
Do you agree with this statement? Is there a flaw in my logic? What is that flaw?
In my opinion racist uninformed people are far more to blame for the problems in the world than Islamic fundamentalists (who are really just a section of the various racist uninformed people fucking the rest of us over).
I would have to agree with Nhan to some extent. I am certainly against Islam due to the fact that it seems to promote Religion as a political system. Such as Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, are there any others? I am against this because it goes completely against the idea of a free society that we in the West somtimes take for granted but something that our fathers and grandfathers were willing to give their lives for.
I also would be against a social system that was controlled by any religion, i.e. the Cathlic church and it's influence on europe through much of the last millenium.
Fortunately, for the moment at least, Christians seem to accept the fact that a democratic free society is the best option. Although I did see an interview with some guy in America who had started a movement to attempt to get all Christians in America to move to South Carolina so that they could effectively set up a Christian state to outlaw such things as abortion. I would have to say that idea is just as scary to me as the thought of a Muslim state in the US or Australia.
In relation to the killings in Nigeria, i'm not sure that the killings can be attributed to murders based on religion. I believe that in Nigeria there are many different tribes who have had a long history of fighting and the fact that the may be of one religion or another is only a matter of differentiation and not the actual reason for the killings.
Ok so I might be completely wrong on that one but was worth a shot. Basically I think the example of Nigeria is just one good example of a situation where you have different groups who place the value of say religion or it could be nationality ahead of the value of human life and having the freedom to believe whatever you want. That sucks!
I also would be against a social system that was controlled by any religion, i.e. the Cathlic church and it's influence on europe through much of the last millenium.
Fortunately, for the moment at least, Christians seem to accept the fact that a democratic free society is the best option. Although I did see an interview with some guy in America who had started a movement to attempt to get all Christians in America to move to South Carolina so that they could effectively set up a Christian state to outlaw such things as abortion. I would have to say that idea is just as scary to me as the thought of a Muslim state in the US or Australia.
In relation to the killings in Nigeria, i'm not sure that the killings can be attributed to murders based on religion. I believe that in Nigeria there are many different tribes who have had a long history of fighting and the fact that the may be of one religion or another is only a matter of differentiation and not the actual reason for the killings.
Ok so I might be completely wrong on that one but was worth a shot. Basically I think the example of Nigeria is just one good example of a situation where you have different groups who place the value of say religion or it could be nationality ahead of the value of human life and having the freedom to believe whatever you want. That sucks!
Scott Kirchner
http://www.ausfootbag.org
http://www.ausfootbag.org
What you're saying is that because there are some religious dictatorships in some countries you're opposed to the whole religion? That sounds like racism to me. Incidentally Indonesia is a democracy and has never been a religious dictatorship - it did have a dictator for a long time after it was granted sovereignty from the Western oppressive control it was under but that was under Suharto who was (like Saddam Hussain) a secular leader and there was a clear separation between government and religion. Other Islamic democracies include - Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Lebannon, Malaysia, Morroco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Turkey and Yemen.Scott wrote:I would have to agree with Nhan to some extent. I am certainly against Islam due to the fact that it seems to promote Religion as a political system. Such as Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, are there any others? I am against this because it goes completely against the idea of a free society that we in the West somtimes take for granted but something that our fathers and grandfathers were willing to give their lives for.
I'd suggest you do a little research before expressing your opinions. The violence in Nigeria began with some Muslims protesting about the cartoons this topic is about - some Christians then retaliated with their own violence and riots. Nigeria is a very troubled country - it's the largest producer of oil in Africa and has been heavily exploited by the west for a long time. Like most of Africa - different religions managed to live side by side without serious problems for hundreds of years before their exploitation by the west that has led directly and indirectly to their demise.In relation to the killings in Nigeria, i'm not sure that the killings can be attributed to murders based on religion. I believe that in Nigeria there are many different tribes who have had a long history of fighting and the fact that the may be of one religion or another is only a matter of differentiation and not the actual reason for the killings.
Ok so I might be completely wrong on that one but was worth a shot. Basically I think the example of Nigeria is just one good example of a situation where you have different groups who place the value of say religion or it could be nationality ahead of the value of human life and having the freedom to believe whatever you want. That sucks!
.What you're saying is that because there are some religious dictatorships in some countries you're opposed to the whole religion? That sounds like racism to me
I wouldn't say it's racism because it has nothing to do with race, it is more to do with religion. Prejudice might be the right word, I would certainly say that I have a negative view of religion in general, which you could attribute to personal experiences and not necessarily a completely informed view, so yes I probably am prejudice.
Well I don't have time to do a complete study of Nigerian history or Islam or Christianity for that matter so I simply use the information that is at my disposal to form an opinion. And i'm not saying that my opinion is right but I'm just saying that it's pretty complicated and your simplistic explanation of Christians killing Muslims is not necissarly the correct one either.I'd suggest you do a little research before expressing your opinions. The violence in Nigeria began with some Muslims protesting about the cartoons this topic is about
The violence in Nigeria began with some Muslims protesting about the cartoons this topic is about
From a BBC news report:
More than 50,000 people have been killed in communal clashes in one Nigerian state in less than three years, a new government study says.
To sum up:
I don't have a problem with people practicing religion, I just don't agree with religon influencing government. Of course this is almost impossible in reality but I think religion (all of them) have a tendancy to reduce personal freedoms and that is not the sort of govenment I want.
That's just my opinion, so call me what you want but I've got to get back to work
Scott Kirchner
http://www.ausfootbag.org
http://www.ausfootbag.org
I think a large proportion of the reaction is totally overboard, but that the extremeist reaction has become the "muslim" reaction. This to me is the core problem - the media incites extremeist muslims - then points them and says that ALL muslims are a threat to free speech, democracy etc etc. I know alot of muslims who simply feel that the cartoons are blasphemy and those responsible will be punished by God. I don't think its fair to say that muslims are against free speech because they don't want ppl to depict their prophet, most don't believe ppl should be stopped by force, they simply believe its a sin. The problem with this theory is when religion and state become one, and so you have islamic nations closing embasies and punishing ppl who dont toe their religious line. Again though closing embasies is fine, a nation feels disrespected and acts accordingly, its not like any islamic states have declared war on anyone over this, the ppl perpetrating violence are violent ppl who should not be taken as representatives of the broader muslim community.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
I think the media for the most part are more sympathetic towards the muslims. That's why you don't see the cartoons being published or shown. It's just politically incorrect, and they just don't want to appear prejudice. But I'm basing this on the American media. And I think most extremists are brought up to detest western ideas. So I think the way the media affects extremists in that way.dyalander wrote:This to me is the core problem - the media incites extremeist muslims - then points them and says that ALL muslims are a threat to free speech, democracy etc etc.
Nhan Ho
I haven't posted in a long long time, but I stumbled on this topic. I probably won't get involved in this discussion.
I saw a documentary on terrorism, specifically in Europe about a month ago. It dealt with recruiting, and the ways in which the European countries deal with these extremists.
It mainly informed about the type of people they are recruiting, typically in coffee shops, and mosques in europe. One of the things that was stated by an arab investigator working in Amsterdam, was that the majority of the people who are recruited by these manipulative recruiters are young men who have come to Europe to go to school, and that a majority are secular students, who may have come from a muslim family, but were many times no longer practicing muslims. He stated that many of them felt isolated in this new country, and homesick for their families, and that this state of mind, mixed with the inherant naievity of youth, made them vulnerable to a recruiter, who can seemingly explain to them why they are feeling this way, and what they need to do. Basically they take them under their wing, when they are feeling apathetic, and are able to manipulate them in a manner to believe their bullshit ideology.
I am writing this because I saw someone say that these extremists are "brought up" to detest western ideas. I think that is a common misconception, and I can easily see how one would think that with the lack of in depth news coverage on the subject, but I think that in general this is not true, although there may be some cases where it is. I don't know, I just thought that I would share some information that I found interesting.
-Bijan
PS Everyone should have access to FSTV(Free speech Television). It has alot of well done documentaries that take on issues that you may never see on broadcast, or even basic cable news channels.
I saw a documentary on terrorism, specifically in Europe about a month ago. It dealt with recruiting, and the ways in which the European countries deal with these extremists.
It mainly informed about the type of people they are recruiting, typically in coffee shops, and mosques in europe. One of the things that was stated by an arab investigator working in Amsterdam, was that the majority of the people who are recruited by these manipulative recruiters are young men who have come to Europe to go to school, and that a majority are secular students, who may have come from a muslim family, but were many times no longer practicing muslims. He stated that many of them felt isolated in this new country, and homesick for their families, and that this state of mind, mixed with the inherant naievity of youth, made them vulnerable to a recruiter, who can seemingly explain to them why they are feeling this way, and what they need to do. Basically they take them under their wing, when they are feeling apathetic, and are able to manipulate them in a manner to believe their bullshit ideology.
I am writing this because I saw someone say that these extremists are "brought up" to detest western ideas. I think that is a common misconception, and I can easily see how one would think that with the lack of in depth news coverage on the subject, but I think that in general this is not true, although there may be some cases where it is. I don't know, I just thought that I would share some information that I found interesting.
-Bijan
PS Everyone should have access to FSTV(Free speech Television). It has alot of well done documentaries that take on issues that you may never see on broadcast, or even basic cable news channels.