EPTNew Prohibitions on Muhammad Cartoons? - Page 29
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
This video... they display all the signs and they won't even deny it...they even admit it... and the young children are all doing it too... | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
| ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
On January 16 2011 13:57 nalgene wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osEGyzVkmk4&feature=related This video... they display all the signs and they won't even deny it...they even admit it... and the young children are all doing it too... Do you realise this is the lunatic fringe of crazy people? How can you seriously draw that those conclusions? The mainstream muslim community in no way supports these eccentrics. This is like tainting all americans with the views of that crazy pastor guy who wanted to burn Qurans or all Jews or French with the openly racist far right. I dont think you would even see Al Jazeera show something as blatantly bias and anti-islamic. How can any fair newsworthy organisation show a piece like this without giving a balanced picture. Is CNN impartial? no These fringe idiots give the majority of muslims a bad name granted. Their views are small-minded and laughable. Giving them the right to publicize their views unnopposed without a counterbalance view of the majority is down right unfair and inflammatory. Would this count as anti-islamic propaganda? yes | ||
|
DorN
Germany90 Posts
On January 17 2011 00:41 xarthaz wrote: It is a violation of the intellectual property of Allah Yes your right but until Allah choses to sue those people you should calm down. | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
On January 16 2011 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Sorry guys but muslim traditions are completely polar opposite of Western values , they have no place in our society.Beware this video is highly disturbing.(55% of UK Muslims marry their 1st cousins leading to a 13 times more likely chance for disabled children) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WArDxFmt7Zs This is a cultural tradition originating from the indian subcontinent. It is just that a high number of british muslims come from this area. It is not exclusive to muslims at all. Yes this is a problem and communities are working to change ideas and perceptions, but this takes time. Calling this a generic "muslim" problem is unfair and not well though. Other cultures have and still practice this behaviour. If anything it is islamaphobic. Unfortunately you have been suckered into believing this propaganda and think badly of all muslims as a result. Ask the british royal family about their heritage. Your disgust at this problem seems limited in perspective and anti-islamic. | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
On January 16 2011 03:19 FezTheCaliph wrote: I feel that a prohibition of Muhammed comics is a bad idea. As I Muslim I don't like the comics, but I agree that it's not something to kill over. Protest, sure. Boycott, absolutely. Or better yet, don't read them. I feel that the Muslims who take things that far just give the rest of us a bad rap. Then again they wouldn't call me a true believer, according to their warped terms of it. That being said, I think the cartoons and cartoonists are pretty stupid. I have yet to see a single Muhammed cartoon done well. None have actually been funny or thought provoking. Just simply offensive. Since they are made purely to offend(in my opinion) the Muslims who carry this out are playing right into the hands of the cartoonists. I share your thoughts. I would add it is insensitive of the cartoonist to draw them knowing the offense they cause to some muslims. I didnt think he knew that at the time, but I think he would now. Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
It's not just the adults who display those traits, they're raising their spawn to do the same... While I may/may not share the same views of those cartoonist, I support their rights to express what so ever... This guy betrayed his own people to help the Israelites arrest some of his own kin Converted to Christianity He realized his own people were... "This is not my father's will, this is his God's will" " targets civilians " " their goal to target civilians " - these are coming from the Son of the founding father of the Evil Hamas of the Gaza... " arrested for throwing stones at settlers " - when he was young His brother says his "book is full lies" | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
Using the same logic as your posts, I could post videos of israeli soldiers abusing palestinians (to show you that "muslims" are supressed) freedom fighters perhaps? What happened in South Africa not so long ago?. But, this is a distraction from the main issue of the topic You have not really contested any of the points I have made in my posts and replies. Islamaphobia? Your opinions are not well thought out and are essentially based on "propaganda". I have tried to be objective, yet all I see from yourself and are responses are thoroughly biased opinion and videos which are generally islamaphobic. I have stated my view Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized. This is probably the mainstream view. I have been told courtesy is something which is big in England compared to other countries round the world. Open a new thread if you want to debate the israeli/palestinian crisis or how islam is bad. I would be happy to hear your arguments and objectively show you the facts and realities of the matter. | ||
|
etch
Canada176 Posts
What you seem to be advocating is a de facto ban on these depictions. We typically don't pull any punches "out of courtesy" regarding anything else, why should religion be any different? You don't have a right to not be offended. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ill paraphrase one of my earlier posts in this thread: To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity. It deeply offends me in many ways. But you will never hear me say that all religion should be banned, nor will you hear me say that people should be non-religious out of courtesy as to not offend my delicate sensibilities. Because you don't have a right to not be offended. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19130 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On January 15 2011 08:16 TMStarcraft wrote: Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument. Surely an omniscient being would be able to tell that you are full of it and send you to hell accordingly. Also, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is a logical fallacy. If god has the power to see into the future (omniscience), then he cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change his actions in the future. However if he is omnipotent, then he cannot be omniscient because the future which he saw is no longer true. But to address OP, freedom of speech must be protected. I don't have to respect your views any more than you have to respect mine, but that doesn't give you or myself the right to go around taking the lives of others. You (plural) can believe anything you want, that is your right to do so. However, the second your beliefs start to interfere with society at large, then we have a problem. You can believe in god, allah and whatnot, but the second you start killing people because you believe that it is a sin against allah to publish his picture, it is not we who have to curtail our freedom of expression to extinguish your blood lust. Sweet Jesus...you're like the fifth person to point this out... "And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there..." | ||
|
CJ_Soviet
United States37 Posts
Who is a better person, a religious individual who does the 'right thing' because they want to go to heaven, or the atheist who does the right thing because they understand the importance of respecting others? As a whole, many religious individuals, especially extremists, do the 'right thing' completely in self interest, every 'good' action they take is in an attempt to better their own position with God and in life. Which person is the more morally enlightened individual, the atheist attempting to be selfless, or the fanatic that only helps others to secure his own success and love from the creator he so deeply believes in? I am damn tired of the deeply religious sitting on their throne of perfect morality while they condemn other individuals for their self interest. Believe what you want, but don't think that just because you praise and worship some unfathomable being that you are better than others who don't. Whether you're a Muslim committing acts of terrorism or a Christian oppressing homosexuals you harm all that is good in human nature. It disgusts me. | ||
|
UberThing
Great Britain410 Posts
On January 17 2011 03:09 etch wrote: What you seem to be advocating is a de facto ban on these depictions. We typically don't pull any punches "out of courtesy" regarding anything else, why should religion be any different? You don't have a right to not be offended. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ill paraphrase one of my earlier posts in this thread: To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity. It deeply offends me in many ways. But you will never hear me say that all religion should be banned, nor will you hear me say that people should be non-religious out of courtesy as to not offend my delicate sensibilities. Because you don't have a right to not be offended. Fair enough. I agree that people do not have a right to not be offended. I am not advocating any kind of ban. As humans, shouldnt we try and avoid offending others for no purpose? I can see why people would get annoyed about about something they care very dearly about. It is the cartoonists right to draw whatever he wants. But I think you are mistaken if you think there is no self-censorship. Say if a cartoonist draws cartoons which take the piss out of the victims of genocide or terror attacks. He has the right to offend. There would be outrage in the Western world and rightly so with similarities to the islamic reaction. Remember holocaust denial (as insulting as it is) is a crime in several european countries and you get jail time. Delicate sensitivities? We already do not have the freedom to express some views. David Irving (a historian) was tried in Austria for his book on holocaust denial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709012.stm Death threats? Can you see the similarities? Isnt this worse as it is law? Shouldnt you be showing the same outrage against these law? I agree we have the right to offend others But we shouldnt out of courtesy (unless we are purposely trying to prove something) | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 17 2011 04:10 UberThing wrote: Fair enough. I agree that people do not have a right to not be offended. I am not advocating any kind of ban. As humans, shouldnt we try and avoid offending others for no purpose? I can see why people would get annoyed about about something they care very dearly about. It is the cartoonists right to draw whatever he wants. But I think you are mistaken if you think there is no self-censorship. Say if a cartoonist draws cartoons which take the piss out of the victims of genocide or terror attacks. He has the right to offend. There would be outrage in the Western world and rightly so with similarities to the islamic reaction. Remember holocaust denial (as insulting as it is) is a crime in several european countries and you get jail time. Delicate sensitivities? We already do not have the freedom to express some views. David Irving (a historian) was tried in Austria for his book on holocaust denial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709012.stm Death threats? Can you see the similarities? Isnt this worse as it is law? Shouldnt you be showing the same outrage against these law? I agree we have the right to offend others But we shouldnt out of courtesy Sometimes we need to offend others for a greater good (truth is always offensive to someone, and often more important). I agree that European holocaust denier laws are an excellent example of hypocrisy in this department. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On January 16 2011 04:43 Krikkitone wrote: To answer this. As a Christian I avoid "making fun of" God, but... I may joke about him in the same way I might joke about a friend.. particularly with those who understand that disrespect is not intended. (some jokes about someone can be in good taste) As for the other humans in the bible besides Christ, they are Only human, worthy of some respect because God did things through them, but most of them had some tremendous screwups that are worth mocking (I'm afraid they'll kill me because my wife is hot... maybe if I say she's my sister I'll be OK.. Abraham.. now admittedly I don't live in the violence of the Bronze Age,, but seriously??) and much more importantly I believe that the defense of His good name is far to important to be entrusted to human governments (or human vigilantes). All violations will eventually be punished by Him (whether on the violator on on Christ as a substitution). Human governments (and vigiliantes) just mess it up (as seen by the Middle Ages when non-heretics would be deemed as heretic by a corrupt government and evil would be rewarded and good punished) Human governments (although not vigilantes) are suitable for handling evils like violence and fraud. They are not good for handling evils like blasphemy and heresy and sins of the mind and heart. (history has shown us that) God can handle that Himself. (otherwise .. well the Koran is blasphemy.. as is the Book of Mormon, etc. and I don't trust any human institution to not eliminate Truth in the attempt to eliminate falsehood) Now, I do agree Christian culture has a potentially unique perspective on this because 1. Governments didn't start claiming to rule in the name of Christ for a few hundred years after Christ came 2. All specifically governmental advice is from the Old Testament and to the Jewish government 3. There exists the idea of a separation between God's government and man's government "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar render unto God that which is God". The New Testament is very clear that Politics and Government is not the realm of religion and the two are separate. Separation of Church and state is not only an American principle but a Biblically sound one as well. As far as I know Islam does not have such a probation and may even promote theocratic governments. "And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there..." "Threat" would be a more accurate word. | ||
|
ramen-
90 Posts
On January 17 2011 07:37 Jswizzy wrote: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar render unto God that which is God". The New Testament is very clear that Politics and Government is not the realm of religion and the two are separate. Separation of Church and state is not only an American principle but a Biblically sound one as well. As far as I know Islam does not have such a probation and may even promote theocratic governments. That may be a modern interpretation, but it was not practiced that way in Europe for hundreds of years. Here's an article you can read about the concept of Divine Right. Also, please avoid citing "as far as I know" as an authoritative source, since it doesn't really mean anything. | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
legally, there should be no issues with depicting images of muhammad. but if you piss off some muslims, you just created a problem for yourself and people around you. its not just about laws or restrictions, its sometimes just about what other people will do in response, in any way. same goes for everything you do and say, people will not always respond as you expect, and that factor must always be considered. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On January 17 2011 01:16 UberThing wrote: This is a cultural tradition originating from the indian subcontinent. I don't care what it is , they should have banned marriages between 1st cousins long ago to prevent this sort of this happening.It is a tragedy to see , and these fools continue to deny that marrying family relations has anything to do with it. As for the royal family remark you are talking about hundreds of years ago , not the 21st century.It is time to start living in that century , especially for these backwards muslims. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On January 17 2011 07:54 ramen- wrote: Also, please avoid citing "as far as I know" as an authoritative source, since it doesn't really mean anything. Actually that was meant to be more of a question or inquiry. As I would like someone more familiar with Islam to answer it. Also Divine Right was only accepted in a time when the majority of people were illiterate and could not read the Bible for themselves and instead had to accept the interpretation of clergy who were themselves mostly the sons of Aristocracy and had an agenda in promoting the concept of Divine right. Also my personal thoughts on the matter are that: None of the 3 monotheistic religions can exist in full with our western liberal societies. | ||
| ||
