Friends of AM23's Threatening to Kidnap Westerners for Depiction of Mohammed

[quote name='mykevermin']Someone ought to compare the IP addresses of PAD and TDH.[/QUOTE]
I never thought of PAD as a Jew...or as a defender of Jews.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I beg you to stop being the silent majority. Stand up to the violent minority which disgrace your entire religion. Teach your brothers tolerance and to respect freedom of expression.[/QUOTE]

Is this something you, yourself, would be willing & capable of doing? Assuming that you belonged to some religious sect and this sect had a lunatic fringe of militants who embraced violence, how would you go about "standing up" to them and teaching them the error of their ways?
 
Whole lotta paranoid people here.

I'm flattered I'm tied to an online conspiracy.

Amazing what can happen when you spend the week in Detroit.
 
Not so much a conpsiracy, but between TDH's name-calling, way of framing thread titles, and coupled with a rare leave of absence on your behalf for roughly a week or so (or it seemed that way) - not to mention "Quackzilla's Dead Kitten," I decided that there were too many similarities to you, and it's something you'd done before.
 
It's entirely possible that other people think 'zo is a crackpot.

It's not lke that's not something that hasn't been proffered before.

Week long absence, see signatrue, learn signature, love signature.

Oh and all of you Cincinnati, Indy, Denver and Seattle fans? It's going to be there for a looooooong time. Single greatest playoff run in NFL history.

Not the greatest Super Bowl, maybe not the greatest team to ever take the field but you're never going to see a 6 seed beat a 3, 1, 2 and 1 seed ever again. Truly a historical run.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's entirely possible that other people think 'zo is a crackpot.

It's not lke that's not something that hasn't been proffered before.

Week long absence, see signatrue, learn signature, love signature.

Oh and all of you Cincinnati, Indy, Denver and Seattle fans? It's going to be there for a looooooong time. Single greatest playoff run in NFL history.

Not the greatest Super Bowl, maybe not the greatest team to ever take the field but you're never going to see a 6 seed beat a 3, 1, 2 and 1 seed ever again. Truly a historical run.[/QUOTE]
I hate Pittsburgh, but they truly deserved to win, they beat a lot of good teams.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I hate Pittsburgh, but they truly deserved to win, they beat a lot of good teams, and laid out the quarterbacks in others.[/QUOTE]

Corrected. ;)
 
[quote name='RBM']Is this something you, yourself, would be willing & capable of doing? Assuming that you belonged to some religious sect and this sect had a lunatic fringe of militants who embraced violence, how would you go about "standing up" to them and teaching them the error of their ways?[/QUOTE]

Well, I was raised strict Independant Baptist. To explain, girls wearing pants were immoral, at one time the preacher taught that TV was immoral, long hair was immoral, "rock music" was immoral, drinking is immoral, hell anything secular was immoral. Now, even in that isolated group I never heard anything advocating any type of terrorism or violence, while they were strictly anti-abortion for example I never heard anyone suggest we bomb clinics or something. Although there was picketing. Even on that fringe group of Christians, violence was not advocated as a way to impress their beliefs on others.

I, as soon as possible rejected that group of people. Which, is one simple reaction to people that do not support your ideals. Seperate yourself from them. I can't really even make comparisons between Islam and my upbringing because aside from Eric Rudolf (no Christians I knew embraced him or his actions) I can't think of any terrorist type Christians.

So, what do I advocate Muslims do? Well, stop telling every non-Muslim that Islam is a peacefull religion and start making it one.

A: The powers that be need to start imprisoning terrorists and people that use violence as a means of indimitation. This won't happen because many states either support terrorism or in the least advocate violence and intimidation against people that share different beliefs.

B: Muslim leadership needs to decry the violence, decry the terrorism. Fatwa's are something that people in positions of power can use within the Islamic world. Unfortunately, they tend to be used by people telling others to kill Westerners and the like. Fatwa's condemning violence are few and far between. Mind you, as I said almost anyone in power can put one out. SO PUT THEM OUT!

C: Lead by example. Have peacefull protests, don't spread hate and intollerance. I loath racism. Can I eliminate it? Of course not, but I live my life by example. I will argue with anyone I know (white, black, hispanic, etc..) that says racist shit. I have had untold discussions on the matter. Obviously, people like me are having a influence because things have come a long way. Muslims can do the same, but many choose not to. If Muslims took this simple approach, if they told their violent brothers they disagree. If they protested the violence, if they spoke out against the actions do you really think we would see so much? No, we would not. Much like we have marginalized (and more importantly pacified) the KKK in our society they could marginalize the terrorists in theirs but they choose not to.
 
So, you say that they should all become peaceful and stop the violence. Say that they did actually do this, would that stop the pictures from being made? Would it stop the pictures from being published?
No, it wouldn't, especially with people like you making and posting hateful pictures to make them mad in the defense of "freedom".
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I have said many times that it is a violent minority.
As I said on the little page I made:
To any Muslims that are viewing this. You no doubt are offended, and you have a right to be. I beg you to stop being the silent majority. Stand up to the violent minority which disgrace your entire religion. Teach your brothers tolerance and to respect freedom of expression.[/QUOTE]

Why should you expect them to exercise such control over other individuals? Last I checked I don't see reasonable christians being able to silence the radical ones who call for assasinations, clinic bombing etc. Those voices are organized and represented higher than population statistics would indicate.

Well, I was raised strict Independant Baptist. To explain, girls wearing pants were immoral, at one time the preacher taught that TV was immoral, long hair was immoral, "rock music" was immoral, drinking is immoral, hell anything secular was immoral. Now, even in that isolated group I never heard anything advocating any type of terrorism or violence, while they were strictly anti-abortion for example I never heard anyone suggest we bomb clinics or something. Although there was picketing. Even on that fringe group of Christians, violence was not advocated as a way to impress their beliefs on others.

I, as soon as possible rejected that group of people. Which, is one simple reaction to people that do not support your ideals. Seperate yourself from them. I can't really even make comparisons between Islam and my upbringing because aside from Eric Rudolf (no Christians I knew embraced him or his actions) I can't think of any terrorist type Christians.

So, what do I advocate Muslims do? Well, stop telling every non-Muslim that Islam is a peacefull religion and start making it one.
Click to expand...

Well, there are alot more terrorist supporting christians than rudolph. Pat Robertson, for example, if a muslim said similar things he would clearly be labeled a terrorist supporter. For all the things robertson has been called the term terrorist has not been used in any mainstream outlet, and he's still very popular.

But you separated yourself from them. You wanted muslims to actively change them, something you haven't done with christian groups. You have distanced yourself from, and denounced, some of them. So have muslims. But you want them to go above and beyond, something christians have not done.

A: The powers that be need to start imprisoning terrorists and people that use violence as a means of indimitation. This won't happen because many states either support terrorism or in the least advocate violence and intimidation against people that share different beliefs.
Click to expand...

That's done in most places. But what do you do with groups like hamas (even pre election)? Are they to be treated like the IRA, a political (and in hamas case also social) organization that, among other things, uses terrorist tactics? Or are they to be treated as purely a terrorist organization? The latter is an oversimplified view in my opinion. Because of all the various other aspects of the organization supporters and members would be considered terrorists when they haven't participated in any such behavior.

B: Muslim leadership needs to decry the violence, decry the terrorism. Fatwa's are something that people in positions of power can use within the Islamic world. Unfortunately, they tend to be used by people telling others to kill Westerners and the like. Fatwa's condemning violence are few and far between. Mind you, as I said almost anyone in power can put one out. SO PUT THEM OUT!
Click to expand...

They do, and fatwa's are issued for many, many different things. Problem is only the violent ones get western media attention.

C: Lead by example. Have peacefull protests, don't spread hate and intollerance. I loath racism. Can I eliminate it? Of course not, but I live my life by example. I will argue with anyone I know (white, black, hispanic, etc..) that says racist shit. I have had untold discussions on the matter. Obviously, people like me are having a influence because things have come a long way. Muslims can do the same, but many choose not to. If Muslims took this simple approach, if they told their violent brothers they disagree. If they protested the violence, if they spoke out against the actions do you really think we would see so much? No, we would not. Much like we have marginalized (and more importantly pacified) the KKK in our society they could marginalize the terrorists in theirs but they choose not to.
Click to expand...

Much of that has been done to little success. And, with the way muslims are viewed by westerners (and how they view western actions), there's a tendency to make such actions pointless. One of the best examples is the difference between the first and second intifada, the first one being hevily protests and demonstrations (which were often fired upon), particularly in the beginning. The second being much more violent (protests still occuring, but with no media coverage and usually not large scale), mainly because the peaceful method did not work as far as many were concerned.
 
Oh good God.

STFU.

Mainstream Islam has been unmasked by this whole fiasco. We were told that militant Islam was not representative of the faith. We were told that there were 10,000 or less truly terrorist minded Muslims in the world.

So what happens to dispell that myth?

The Palestinians elect, in an overwhelming majority, a terrorist organization masking itself as a fundamental religous party (Not that the PLO's descendent Fatah party wasn't terrorist at heart.) that calls for the destruction of Israel. We have the bearded Hitler in Iran ready to bring miltary strikes on his country from what will, no doubt, include 12+ nations for more of the same anti-Semitic remarks and wishes of destruction on the West and the Jewish state. Then we have 100's of thousands of Muslims taking to the streets burning, rioting and calling for destruction of the West in more than 20 countries, including the capital of Britain!

Now let's measure this up by Western protest standards. There were roughly 100,000 protestors at the RNC. Many people wouldn't want to march, many are sympathetic, some just don't care enough to organize and get out and carry placcards. However those 100,000 marchers translated to 48 million actual votes against a Republican candidate. So that's a magnification factor of nearly 500 voters for every single street marcher.

Now let's say 500,000 Muslims have taken to the streets from London, Beruit, Damascus, Cairo and the other dozen or so countries. Probably a low estimate. Let's call it an even 1,000,000.

Use the same markers I used for the RNC protest 500 voters called to action for every street marcher. You're now looking at 250,000,000 Muslims in support of 500,000 marchers. If 1,000,000 marchers turned out? 500,000,000 Muslims support their actions.

More or less you're looking at 1/6th to 2/5ths of Muslims in support of the outlandish reactions that we've seen.

So much for the "they're just a few radicals" argument.

Whoknows, your ignorance knows no bounds. Do we see violent reactions from Christians and Jews to perceived blasphemy to their religions? Was Rolling Stone firebombed for picturing Kanye West as Christ on their recent cover? Were merchants threatened with economic sanctions by Christian groups for carrying the issue?

No?

Wow, amazing how they can publish what they want, even if it's blasphemous and offensive in their full intended context.

Maybe Western religions need to be more like Islam and burn down a few distribution centers, publishing offices and threaten reporters and publishers with mutilation and death. Maybe that might stop the horrible injustices in the world.
 
[quote name='whoknows']So, you say that they should all become peaceful and stop the violence. Say that they did actually do this, would that stop the pictures from being made? Would it stop the pictures from being published?
No, it wouldn't, especially with people like you making and posting hateful pictures to make them mad in the defense of "freedom".[/QUOTE]

What?

Dude, the pictures have a right to be published. It is the violent reaction that is the problem. So you are actually advocating them using violence to "force" the free press into submission? Is that really your viewpoint? Freedom of expression is only valid for Muslims?

Alonzo, I already addressed the radical Christians. I can think of one "known" Christian terrorist. I, at no point in my life saw anyone support his stance. Hell, when I was a kid I stood in the road and held up a sign condemning abortion. None of the hundreds of people there suggested or advocated any form of violence. The "violent radicals" in Christianity are marginalized I assure you. I do not ask the muslims to completely silence their violent counterparts, I merely ask them to speak louder than their violent counterparts. Something they as of yet are not doing.

As far as Pat Robertson, he's not a terrorist. I don't like the guy, but the most "terroristic" think he has done is called for a dictator's assasination. Not a good idea, but far from a terroristic statement. Once again, don't like the guy but comparing him to a real terrorist is just you spinning things like when you compared a bomb in a turban to assraping children. No, it is not like that. I don't know how you got so backwards that a small transgression from the "right" equals a huge transgression from the "left". Nope, it doesn't. Stop being so frigging slanted.

Hamas? I think their election puts some things in perspective. As I said, the violent thugs are speaking loudest. Even in elections. I ask the Muslims to take a stand, going to the polls and voting for someone that doesn't support terrorism and the complete destruction of a nation is a start. Yet they fail to do it. Now, how to you deal with Hamas? I don't know how you can, you try to get them to renounce their terrorist ways, if they do not you can not deal with them.
 
Here is the real story of these protests..

But before we explain that, it's time to address a few other issues. The first issue is whether or not it is inflammatory or offensive to Islam to depict the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) at all. Traditionally, the answer is the Qur'an (the Muslim equivalent to the Christian Bible) does not forbid it, it only forbids "idolatry", which would imply worshipping a statue or other representation of Mohammed (PBUH). The Hadith, which has no equivalent in Christianity but is equivalent to Judaism's Talmud, and is somewhat of a secondary literary source of the Muslim faith, prohibits any pictures or drawings of sacred figures, including Mohammed (PBUH). That being said, in practical terms, it occurs quite regularly.

There are images similar to Orthodox Christian ikons that are commonplace in Shi'ite communities, especially in Iran. There are also Muslim works of art depicting Mohammed (PBUH) in Central Asia, and neither these nor those in Iran are considered inflammatory and neither are they censored.

There are a number of depictions of Mohammed (PBUH), some in very unflattering situations, in Christian churches in Europe, especially Italy. The famous book/poem "Inferno" by Dante makes a very unflattering reference to Mohammed (PBUH) and there are several pieces of artwork depicting Dante's descriptions.

There have been several derogatory or potentially inflammatory usages of Mohammed (PBUH) in American entertainment vehicles, perhaps the most famous being South Park. And last but not least, there is an actual sculpture of Mohammed (PBUH) on the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Mohammed (PBUH) has been depicted, painted or made appearances in animated cartoons on many, many occasions and yet there's been no rioting, storming of embassies and CNN coverage. The question becomes, not why were the Danish cartoons offensive or inappropriate, but why is there such a strong reaction now?

Denmark has a long history of multi-cultural tolerance, including their famous solidarity stand with Jewish citizens during World War 2. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten itself was surprised by the strong reaction to their cartoons and even apologized publically for any offense they may have caused. And for 2 months, there was hardly a peep from any Muslim group outside a small protest in Denmark itself and somewhat larger protests in Pakistan.

So what triggered this? Well it takes a blog to explain it. What CNN and the other traditional media failed to tell you is that the thousand gallons of fuel added to the fire of outrage came from none other than our old pals Saudi Arabia.

While it was a minor side story in the western press, the most important of Muslim religious festivals recently took place in Saudi Arabia - called the Hajj. Every able-bodied Muslim is obligated to make a pilgrimage once in their lifetime to Mecca, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. This pilgrimage can be done at any time of the year but most pilgrims arrive during the Muslim month known as Dhu al-Hijjah, which follows a lunar calendar that does not exactly match the western Gregorian calendar.

The most recent Hajj occurred during the first half of January 2006, precisely when the "outrage" over the Danish cartoons began in earnest. There were a number of stampedes, called "tragedies" in the press, during the Hajj which killed several hundred pilgrims. I say "tragedies" in quotation marks because there have been similar "tragedies" during the Hajj and each time, the Saudi government promises to improve security and facilitation of movement to avoid these. Over 251 pilgrims were killed during the 2004 Hajj alone in the same area as the one that killed 350 pilgrims in 2006. These were not unavoidable accidents, they were the results of poor planning by the Saudi government.

And while the deaths of these pilgrims was a mere blip on the traditional western media's radar, it was a huge story in the Muslim world. Most of the pilgrims who were killed came from poorer countries such as Pakistan, where the Hajj is a very big story. Even the most objective news stories were suddenly casting Saudi Arabia in a very bad light and they decided to do something about it.

Their plan was to go on a major offensive against the Danish cartoons. The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after, Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state) began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons. The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark. When that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests. After two weeks of this, the Libyans decided to close their embassy in Denmark. Then there was an attack on the Danish embassy in Indonesia. And that was followed by attacks on the embassies in Syria and then Lebanon.

Many European papers, including the right-wing German Springer media group, fanned the flames by reprinting the cartoons. And now you have the situation we are in today, with lots of video footage of angry crowds and the storming of embassies and calls for boycotts of Danish and European products.

Saudi Arabia's influence on the Sunni Muslim world is incalculable. The sermons from high-ranking Muslim clerics are read and studied by Muslims around the world, who in turn give sermons to their local congregations. While the Saudis do not have direct control of the world's Sunni flocks, their influence is similar somewhat to the Pope's pronouncements and the sermons that Catholic priests give to their flocks the following Sundays. Saudi Arabia also finances a number of Muslim "study centers", where all the literature and material is provided by the Saudi government, filled with hatred for Jews and other extremely racist material. For them to promote an idea based on religion, including "outrage" at some cartoons published months earlier, is standard operating procedure.

Of course there is more than Saudi Arabia's hand at play here. The issue has metamorphed from religious outrage at a dozen cartoons to a clash of those who feel they are oppressed and downtrodded by the Christian world and those they consider their oppressors. That's why there was anti-Christian rioting in Lebanon, where the two religious groups have a long and tumultous co-existance.

As I sat there watching CNN (International) with my friend today, I could not help but note the number of Saudi flags that the various rioters were waving in Lebanon and Syria. Coincidence? I think not. Look for yourself - they are green with a large expanse of Arabic writing in white above a sword.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748

The point is Muslim behaved rationally and peacefully until the Saudi Radicals nudged the direction of the protests. So all of you "we've unmasked Islam"...no. Read some history, do some research instead of checking out fat chicks on the 'net.

Think about it. The original cartoon appeared in Sept. 30 2005. If islam is the savage religion we are told, something would've happened then. Granted there are some pitifully violent and ignorant members of the protest.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']What?

Dude, the pictures have a right to be published. It is the violent reaction that is the problem. So you are actually advocating them using violence to "force" the free press into submission? Is that really your viewpoint? Freedom of expression is only valid for Muslims?[/QUOTE]

If they have a "right to be published" and are published even though it is known that it will make many people angry, then the violent actions shouldn't have been a suprise. What good were the drawings trying to show? That predjudice against a religion won't get any negative response? If that is what they wanted, why didn't they publish drawings claiming Jesus is a homosexual or a pedophile? For one, it probably isn't true, and also it would have been there to make people mad and show prejudice, because seriously there isn't any other reason to do something like that.

And no, Freedom of Expression isn't valid for only Muslims, but there is a difference between expressing something meaningful, and then expressing hateful things for the sole reason of angering people (a.k.a. the drawings).

And using "force" to get what someone wants is something Mr. Bush has done many times. Hell, he didnt like Saddam Hussein so he made up a bullshit story about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so he could invade Iraq. Then in his State of the Union speech he decides that the 9/11 attacks didn't come from Afghanistan, but no, they came from Iraq instead.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']
Alonzo, I already addressed the radical Christians. I can think of one "known" Christian terrorist. I, at no point in my life saw anyone support his stance. Hell, when I was a kid I stood in the road and held up a sign condemning abortion. None of the hundreds of people there suggested or advocated any form of violence. The "violent radicals" in Christianity are marginalized I assure you. I do not ask the muslims to completely silence their violent counterparts, I merely ask them to speak louder than their violent counterparts. Something they as of yet are not doing. [/quote]

At that particular one, I've personally encountered pro life protestors advocating violence (or, if not advocate, endorse) and I've personally encountered counter-anti war protestors advocating (and engaging in/initiating) violence.

But, in our world, you can only speak as loud as the media allows.

As far as Pat Robertson, he's not a terrorist. I don't like the guy, but the most "terroristic" think he has done is called for a dictator's assasination. Not a good idea, but far from a terroristic statement. Once again, don't like the guy but comparing him to a real terrorist is just you spinning things like when you compared a bomb in a turban to assraping children. No, it is not like that. I don't know how you got so backwards that a small transgression from the "right" equals a huge transgression from the "left". Nope, it doesn't. Stop being so frigging slanted.
Click to expand...

If a muslim cleric were to say similar things (assasination and other things), then yes, he would be grouped with terrorist supporters. I have no doubt in that.

Hamas? I think their election puts some things in perspective. As I said, the violent thugs are speaking loudest. Even in elections. I ask the Muslims to take a stand, going to the polls and voting for someone that doesn't support terrorism and the complete destruction of a nation is a start. Yet they fail to do it. Now, how to you deal with Hamas? I don't know how you can, you try to get them to renounce their terrorist ways, if they do not you can not deal with them.
Click to expand...

That's not a good example of muslims supporting terrorism. Electing al qaeda is. To palestinians hamas is a provider of social services (hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens etc.), something the PA often did/could not provide. They are seen as honest and untainted by corruption, unlike Fatah. Resistence to Israel is seen as legitimate. What brands them as terrorist is one of the methods of resistance that they use. Obviously that criticism is valid, but the organization appears very different to onlookers as it does to people who live where it is active. And, consistent with most countries, when attacked populations often support right wing groups. This is true in Israel, in the u.s., and in palestine.

In palestine many saw a vote for Fatah as a vote for corruption, failure and incompetence.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's not a good example of muslims supporting terrorism. Electing al qaeda is. To palestinians hamas is a provider of social services (hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens etc.), something the PA often did/could not provide. They are seen as honest and untainted by corruption, unlike Fatah. Resistence to Israel is seen as legitimate. What brands them as terrorist is one of the methods of resistance that they use. Obviously that criticism is valid, but the organization appears very different to onlookers as it does to people who live where it is active. And, consistent with most countries, when attacked populations often support right wing groups. This is true in Israel, in the u.s., and in palestine.

In palestine many saw a vote for Fatah as a vote for corruption, failure and incompetence.[/QUOTE]

I can't beleive I'm saying this but Alonzo's making a good point. Their fledgling citizens may have voted power to a reactionary faction, but it is basically a protest to a blatantly corrupt power structure that's been stealing from the people for decades. When Hamas fails to deliver in their promises for a better Palestine, they'll be voted out just as fast as they came in. It's great how that democracy thing can work, isn't it ? I see this as a sign of maturity in the palestinian population which could turn out to be a good thing.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I can't beleive I'm saying this but Alonzo's making a good point. Their fledgling citizens may have voted power to a reactionary faction, but it is basically a protest to a blatantly corrupt power structure that's been stealing from the people for decades. When Hamas fails to deliver in their promises for a better Palestine, they'll be voted out just as fast as they came in. It's great how that democracy thing can work, isn't it ? I see this as a sign of maturity in the palestinian population which could turn out to be a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Or Hamas will suspend the elections indefinitely, much like they were suspended between 1996 and 2006.
 
Here's an interesting article written by the co-chairs (one jewish, one muslim) of the canadian association of jews and muslims:

The Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims has watched with dismay and pain the controversy over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad and the violent reaction that it has caused in many Muslim countries.

As an organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, we question the stand taken by many in the West that this is a debate over freedom of expression "even when the material offends."

The debate is not over freedom of the press, it is about the power of the press to use democracy as a sword (not a shield). Such freedom must be balanced against other values, such as not promoting hatred or encouraging racism.

The cartoons provoke outrage because they demean and vilify Muslims and Islam and do not protect their freedom from such disrespectful treatment. More ominous, such depictions lower our guard against the loss of civil liberties by such demeaned groups.

Cartoons depicting Jews as less human or worthy of respect set the tone for the slippery slope toward the Holocaust and ongoing anti-Semitism. No one would consider it "freedom of expression" if in the guise of a debate or exercising their "right to caricature," someone began questioning the Holocaust.

Cartoons can create tremendous harm.

Freedom of the press in a civil society assumes responsible judgment and has reasonable boundaries. Genocide begins with everyday images that reinforce stereotypes and lay the ground for hate and erosions of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.

For Muslims, these images set the bar lower for extra legal surveillance, racial profiling, detention without trial and acts of racism and discrimination. In the press, strongly held differences of opinion are to be cherished, but holding the personal identity and beliefs of groups up to ridicule is a breach of judgment, taste and a violation of freedom of the press. We have to guard against "copy cat" behaviour in Canada. Publication of such material would be divisive and could create a rift in Canadian society which prides itself on so many diverse groups living in harmony.

Jews and Muslims and others who have experienced such disrespect need to stand together, to say, "We need protection from such abuses of power by the press."
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1139179809872&call_pageid=970599119419

I think the dehumanizing aspect is valid, and think they make good points about freedom of expression. Some examples go a little farther than I'd take it, but the general concepts behind them I agree with.
 
[quote name='whoknows']If they have a "right to be published" and are published even though it is known that it will make many people angry, then the violent actions shouldn't have been a suprise. What good were the drawings trying to show? That predjudice against a religion won't get any negative response? If that is what they wanted, why didn't they publish drawings claiming Jesus is a homosexual or a pedophile? For one, it probably isn't true, and also it would have been there to make people mad and show prejudice, because seriously there isn't any other reason to do something like that.

And no, Freedom of Expression isn't valid for only Muslims, but there is a difference between expressing something meaningful, and then expressing hateful things for the sole reason of angering people (a.k.a. the drawings).

And using "force" to get what someone wants is something Mr. Bush has done many times. Hell, he didnt like Saddam Hussein so he made up a bullshit story about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so he could invade Iraq. Then in his State of the Union speech he decides that the 9/11 attacks didn't come from Afghanistan, but no, they came from Iraq instead.[/QUOTE]

#1: Let's make this clear since I am tired of hearing about it. The Koran considers Jesus to be a Apostle of Allah. The Bible and the Koran have overlapping characters (like Moses, considered the forunner of Mohammed). They also have different takes of course, in the Koran Jesus is annointed by Allah. For them to defame him would be for them to mock their own religion. They even give Jesus the acronym PBUT (peace be unto them), which is in recognition of him being considered one of the assisting prophets. So enough with the Jesus comparisons, it shows ignorance on the matter and makes no sense to draw the comparisons. Muslims tend to bring it up because he's one of the few things they won't make fun of. They can't make fun of God or Jesus since God is just Allah and Jesus is one of their prophets. They do however love to make fun of Jews and the United States.

#2: I'm not suprised by the violence, I am stating that the "free press" should not bow to it. To submit is to let them win, letting them win rewards their actions and will only result in more violence.

#3: I really don't want to sink into a war in Iraq debate, because this is not the issue. But your assertions are not accurate. First off, the WMD story was not fabricated by Bush, it was "fabricated" by the intelligence communities of the world including but not limited to France, Russia and Britain. So, for you to assert that Bush just made it up is you showing your ignorance yet again. Secondly, it was never a freedom of speech issue. If he wanted to go to war with Saddam over something Saddam said I'd be the first to try and stop him. The war was over a lot of things, and whether or not you justify it voilence was not used because Saddam made fun of Mickey Mouse. I am not saying force is never justified, I never once said that. I'm saying force in relation to THIS ISSUE is not justified.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I think the dehumanizing aspect is valid, and think they make good points about freedom of expression. Some examples go a little farther than I'd take it, but the general concepts behind them I agree with.[/QUOTE]

I think, as most rational people would, we would all agree with that. Printing that type of vulgar material is irresponsible in the sense that they probably knew it would incite violence. However, it doesn't excuse the violence. We should all be expected to act appropriately, control our emotions, and use our cerebral weapons as swords to counter such attacks, and not swords themselves.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I think, as most rational people would, we would all agree with that. Printing that type of vulgar material is irresponsible in the sense that they probably knew it would incite violence. However, it doesn't excuse the violence. We should all be expected to act appropriately, control our emotions, and use our cerebral weapons as swords to counter such attacks, and not swords themselves.[/QUOTE]

The real irony about this whole thing is that violence is directed towards those who had no hand in the cartoons, all while the state-controlled media in many Muslim authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt regularly portray Jews as bloodsucking murderers and their religious faith as an abomination. If you're a Muslim and are getting your panties in a twist over these cartoons and you live in the Arab world, look in the mirror, buddy.
 
I recommend a hearty war of cultures.

NATO alliance players and all who wish to join in the pile on versus the vermin of the middle east. Winner gets to take over the whole of Glassparkinglotistan and gets mineral rights to said new country.
 
The US secretary of state has accused Iran and Syria of fuelling anti-Western sentiment, in a row over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
Condoleezza Rice said both countries went out of their way to exploit Muslim anger at the caricatures.

The accusation came as the UK embassy in Iran came under attack. Western embassies in Syria and Lebanon were burnt down over the weekend.

Protests continue elsewhere, with four killed in an Afghan demonstration.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4694876.stm

Maybe they're behind this:

Anger and confusion

The last cartoon on the page goes back to the theme of artistic freedom: a cartoonist draws an Arab face with headdress, inscribed "Mohammed", but he crouches over it and shields it with his hand.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoons do not include some images that may have had a role in bringing the issue to international attention.

Three images in particular have done the rounds, in Gaza for example, which are reported to be considerably more obscene and were mistakenly assumed to have been part of the Jyllands-Posten set.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm

The article says danish muslims used them to illustrate the islamophobia in denmark, but other groups could be deliberately spreading them and using them to mislead people.
 
The drawings were first published in September in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The issue reignited last week after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and many European newspapers reprinted them this week.
Click to expand...

If CNN wanted to gain some intellectual respectability, they could at least investigate why it's taken over 5 months to drum up a muslim frenzy over these cartoons.
 
I do think the proof is growing that certain groups have intentionally fueled this issue, if not created it entirely.

In the long run, this is still probably a good thing for the Western world to witness. Some of the "powers that be" in the Islamic world routinely fuel hatred and the like. It has often been used as a way to solidify their support. For instance, when Saddam took power he claimed the people he executed were Zionists. He also, during the first Persian Gulf war both declared Jihad and tried to instigate Israel into responding to his SCUD attacks. Most of us also know that he gave the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber around 50,000 dollars. A fact that is still praised on many Islamic sites.

Many muslims are kept under foot, highly restricted and highly controlled. The way they make this work is to get them to embrace their suffering, to place the blame on other people if not learn to love it entirely. For instance, for them if freedom of speech means freedom to publish those cartoons then who wants freedom of speech? May be the government censored and run newspapers are a good thing. Or, if being free to do what I want, means women are also free to do what I want may be its better if I have to do what I'm told, etc, etc, etc...

The governments then also have a ace card to play whenever they want. If they see support waining, they just have to bring up Palestine, or America or blame the west on one thing or another and viola, the people are forgetting that things suck because the government is treating them like shit and go out and attack some embassies or plot to attack western interests when they should be trying to figure out how to overthrow their governments.

Of course, the real problem is the fact that they don't know how to deal with any other realities. Let the Palestinians vote and they vote for Hamas. They've been taught to think a certain way for so long that most can't help but think that way. Same goes for elections in Pakistan, Iraq and even Turkey. The violent radicals get a lot of votes because the Islamic world has taught them to think a certain way for so long. In fact, that is one reason I think this issue has to be confronted. One reason I will not back down. They HAVE to see our way of life and they have to learn to tolerate if not accept it. Their future as well as ours depends on them learning to toss aside all the bullshit they have been taught in favor of grasping western ideals and sensibilities. We can't just try to win them over with friendship and olive branches, we have to show them that they can not change our way of life.
 
The problem is the west always views its ways as superior, and thikgs everyone else is backwards. Regardless of your opinion on that, it's hard not to see why people view it as "cultural imperialism" and why people react strongly to it. You explicitly stated that in your response. Your solution to not changing our way of life is to fundamentally change theirs. I'm not interested in arguing how correct/wrong that is, I'm just stating that a view such as that is clearly going to cause conflict. We westerners get all huffy when we have to hear people speaking another language, most non-western countries have to put up with a lot more of our culture than we do with theirs.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The problem is the west always views its ways as superior, and thikgs everyone else is backwards. Regardless of your opinion on that, it's hard not to see why people view it as "cultural imperialism" and why people react strongly to it. You explicitly stated that in your response. Your solution to not changing our way of life is to fundamentally change theirs. I'm not interested in arguing how correct/wrong that is, I'm just stating that a view such as that is clearly going to cause conflict. We westerners get all huffy when we have to hear people speaking another language, most non-western countries have to put up with a lot more of our culture than we do with theirs.[/QUOTE]

Someone is going to win, I vote for less opression bro. I said before "may be its arrogant of me" but, you know what? They want to impress their way of life on me and I in fact do not want to impress my way of life on them. I just want to make it clear that my way of life won't change. If they come into my world, they play by our rules, we shouldn't change to cater to them. Or do you think we should?

We are not talking about these pictures being published in Islamic nations and Islamic newspapers. Heck, I haven't gone to a SINGLE islamic outlet of any sort and published the pictures. So, I'm not going into their terroritory they are coming into mine. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You should read some of the responses to my picture and ones I uploaded. Telling me that they'll laugh when I'm in hell, bla bla bla bla bla. Once again coming into MY territory, I'm not going into theirs.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The problem is the west always views its ways as superior, and thikgs everyone else is backwards. [/QUOTE]

But that's exactly what they think about us- that their ways are superior and we are backwards. They have no real tolerance for co-existence as evidenced by the virtual rioting becuase of cartoons published in Denmark. How many Danes are trying to take over Islam and supplant their customs for ours? None that I can see.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But that's exactly what they think about us- that their ways are superior and we are backwards. They have no real tolerance for co-existence as evidenced by the virtual rioting becuase of cartoons published in Denmark. How many Danes are trying to take over Islam and supplant their customs for ours? None that I can see.[/QUOTE]

My point wasn't that only one side did it (though one side gets the brunt of it), but that its occurence will cause tension.

Though only the most radical muslims are trying to take over denmark. The issue here is respect, and especially since denmark has a significant muslim population and there has been increasing intolerance (counter to traditional danish values) against muslims in recent years. They see extreme disrespect from denmark, as a country, and are responding in kind by protesting against them. And most protest, and especially protestors, have not gone beyond protesting.

Lack of familiarity with the danish political system plays a significant role here though. It's seen as a direct attack on their culture and many seem to find the danish government personally responsible, and a stumbling danish government kept making it worse.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Someone is going to win, I vote for less opression bro. I said before "may be its arrogant of me" but, you know what? They want to impress their way of life on me and I in fact do not want to impress my way of life on them. I just want to make it clear that my way of life won't change. If they come into my world, they play by our rules, we shouldn't change to cater to them. Or do you think we should?

We are not talking about these pictures being published in Islamic nations and Islamic newspapers. Heck, I haven't gone to a SINGLE islamic outlet of any sort and published the pictures. So, I'm not going into their terroritory they are coming into mine. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You should read some of the responses to my picture and ones I uploaded. Telling me that they'll laugh when I'm in hell, bla bla bla bla bla. Once again coming into MY territory, I'm not going into theirs.[/QUOTE]

Western culture, particularly economics and entertained, is being adopted by many societies. Still they all put their own spin on it. But no one society is going to "win". The europeans advocated your view for a long time, best summed up in the poem "white man's burden". Aside from being bigotted it simply doesn't work.

Also, considering you take "their" religious figures into "your" territory, with the purpose of mocking them, you shouldn't be suprised when they enter. Most people get a laugh when people screw with racist message boards, I don't see the difference here. You just happen to be in the group being opposed, that's all.

Also, if you've ever been to a protest, it is the norm for "counter" protestors to show up wherever protestors do.

It's also funny that you're complaining about people exercising free speech. Funny, you have a problem with that only when you're the target.
 
I have no problem with them exercising free speech, I don't know how many times I have to say that but I have said I respect the rights of the protestors.

Once again, you have to put your "left-wing colored glasses on" with each issue, can you be objective for once? I respect their right to complain, bicker, even tell me I'm going to hell. I just used that as a example because I'm not the one trying to force my belief on them, they are trying to force their belief on me. The point was I'm not going to their country, their newspapers or their sites and I'm not telling them what they can and can't say. They however ARE telling me how to live and coming to my sites and what not. As a matter of fact, they have even taken to blaming my country, although America if anything has come out in support of the radicals unfortunately. I respect their right to free speech, since when have I said they do not have a right to express themselves?

Also, you speak of intolerance towards Muslims. Sure, some countries are really intolerant. Most, however are tolerant to the point that their god damned patience runs out. I'm sure you will claim Holland is becoming intolerant as well. Or Australia. Hmm, let me see. A man makes a movie that portrays Islam in a negative light and he is brutally murdered in Holland. Muslim youths move into a area in Australia and rapes incease rapidly.

Who here is acting out? The fact is that in many parts of the world you have Muslims moving into western countries and behaving barbarically. Killing people that speak out against their religion, mistreating "infidel" women, etc... and in this case you can draw the comparison because Islam, at least as some practice is allows for the abuse of women and killing infidels. So, countries start to become "intolerant" of those beliefs. Big suprise, what would you have them do?
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I have no problem with them exercising free speech, I don't know how many times I have to say that but I have said I respect the rights of the protestors.

Once again, you have to put your "left-wing colored glasses on" with each issue, can you be objective for once? I respect their right to complain, bicker, even tell me I'm going to hell. I just used that as a example because I'm not the one trying to force my belief on them, they are trying to force their belief on me. The point was I'm not going to their country, their newspapers or their sites and I'm not telling them what they can and can't say. They however ARE telling me how to live and coming to my sites and what not. As a matter of fact, they have even taken to blaming my country, although America if anything has come out in support of the radicals unfortunately. I respect their right to free speech, since when have I said they do not have a right to express themselves?[/quote]

They're protesting bigotted cartoons, you're protesting their protests. No ones telling you how to live, and unless your life consists of bigotted drawings, they're not trying to tell anyone how to live. When people tell me not to call jews kikes and blacks nigers they're doing it to teach me to show respect.

Also, you speak of intolerance towards Muslims. Sure, some countries are really intolerant. Most, however are tolerant to the point that their god damned patience runs out. I'm sure you will claim Holland is becoming intolerant as well. Or Australia. Hmm, let me see. A man makes a movie that portrays Islam in a negative light and he is brutally murdered in Holland. Muslim youths move into a area in Australia and rapes incease rapidly.
Click to expand...

I've been pointing to denmark as an increasingly intolerant country for years, it's not something I recently "discovered". In fact the act of the one muslim you mentioned led to a string of arson (bombs and fire) and vandalism by "white" danish citizens on mosques and childrens schools. I don't know about you but I think "white" danes easily exceeded what was done to van gogh. And the australian acts you are referring to are a particular group of youth, the suggestion that it has something to do with muslims as a group is adsurd. And unless you think it is perfectly acceptable for palestinians to be anti-semitic then your argument here is pointless.

Who here is acting out? The fact is that in many parts of the world you have Muslims moving into western countries and behaving barbarically. Killing people that speak out against their religion, mistreating "infidel" women, etc... and in this case you can draw the comparison because Islam, at least as some practice is allows for the abuse of women and killing infidels. So, countries start to become "intolerant" of those beliefs. Big suprise, what would you have them do?
Click to expand...

Countries always hate immigrants. It wasn't long ago that Irish, Italians etc. were targets of such hatred, and you could easily justify by focusing on individual instances like you have done. You want to learn about people in a certain country (say muslims in denmark) you would do yourself a disservice to focus on the most visible, ie. the ones that make the news. Hell, can you even think of another danish muslim besides the one who killed van gogh? And besides christianity, "as some practice" allow/have allowed the subordination of women and the killing of others, it all depends on where you look. In africa you can even find christians engaging in cannibalism, and not as a benign ritual.

The whole point is the individual, while often more visible, isn't indicative of the whole.

You have a very simplistic view of cross cultural relations.
 
You love using the word biggoted (sic), yet besides not being able to spell it what do you know about it? "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." We tend to use it towards racists, but it has a very broad meaning. Even at that calling the drawings bigoted is a reach, at least if you are referring to the original published pictures. They were caricatures, political satire. Saying they are bigoted is to assume you know more about the artist than you really do.

Secondly, you're helping me understand Pittsburghafterdark's comment about you in your signature. You keep trying to compare making fun of religion (a belief system) to racists (people biased against race). Secondly, any sensible person could argue that the cartoons were directed specifically at radical Muslims and not Muslims in general. If having a problem with radical Muslims makes me a bigot then sign me up!

I was not defending intolerance, and I specifically said some are intolerant and unjustifiably so. But, I think the actions of some Muslims goes well beyond typical immigrant behavior. I can not and will not justify violence against Muslims. You'll never see me do that, it is wrong, period. However, I think there is ample proof that Muslims have certain value systems that are out of touch with the western countries that they choose to live in. The end result goes from minor offenses (like continuing to treat women subserviently, even in a western country) to more violent offenses like murdering people that don't like your religion or mistreating women of a different religion.

Does this justify all the actions of others? Does this mean that I think Christians are great? No, dude... when this issue came up I posted a picture of the "Jesus dildo" on my website. I even linked to it in my initial discussions of this topic. For the record, I can't recall any attacks on the http://www.divine-interventions.com, even though they clearly mock Jesus, The Virgin Mary, Moses and Buddha. The point I was making then was that my forum, had a thread about God being "dead". It had a topic linking to the Jesus dildos. It had all that stuff but not until I posted a picture making fun of Mohammed did I have ANYONE tell me to censor the site. That's friggin' backwards. But enough with the Christians did this and they don't make fun of their prophet Jesus stuff. I'm not here to defend them and I never had a problem with mocking what I see as a backwards religion. If you have a problem with that? Too bad, Christians exist and practice their beliefs, well I exist and practice mine. I can live with them, I can live with Muslims and they can learn to live with me. That is my belief system, those are my values. I respect their rights and I respect my rights granted to me by the Bill of Rights and people who fought to protect those rights.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']You love using the word biggoted (sic), yet besides not being able to spell it what do you know about it?[/quote]

:applause: It only has one g, better fix that before someone notices.

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." We tend to use it towards racists, but it has a very broad meaning.
Click to expand...

Is there a point here? You're complaining about my use of it yet you define it in exactly the way I'm using it.

Even at that calling the drawings bigoted is a reach, at least if you are referring to the original published pictures. They were caricatures, political satire. Saying they are bigoted is to assume you know more about the artist than you really do.

Secondly, you're helping me understand Pittsburghafterdark's comment about you in your signature. You keep trying to compare making fun of religion (a belief system) to racists (people biased against race). Secondly, any sensible person could argue that the cartoons were directed specifically at radical Muslims and not Muslims in general. If having a problem with radical Muslims makes me a bigot then sign me up!
Click to expand...

I can argue a lot of things, something doesn't have to be accurate to provide a good argument for it. There's no basis for arguing that they're directed at just radicals, and the use of a person important to all muslims argues against that.

But hatred of a race or a religion isn't very different in the end.

I was not defending intolerance, and I specifically said some are intolerant and unjustifiably so. But, I think the actions of some Muslims goes well beyond typical immigrant behavior. I can not and will not justify violence against Muslims. You'll never see me do that, it is wrong, period. However, I think there is ample proof that Muslims have certain value systems that are out of touch with the western countries that they choose to live in. The end result goes from minor offenses (like continuing to treat women subserviently, even in a western country) to more violent offenses like murdering people that don't like your religion or mistreating women of a different religion.
Click to expand...

The major religions all have value systems that can fit such ends, and they do throughout the world in varying degrees, particularly in the subjugation of women. It's also not universal in any of the major religions.

I'm not here to defend them and I never had a problem with mocking what I see as a backwards religion. If you have a problem with that? Too bad, Christians exist and practice their beliefs, well I exist and practice mine. I can live with them, I can live with Muslims and they can learn to live with me. That is my belief system, those are my values. I respect their rights and I respect my rights granted to me by the Bill of Rights and people who fought to protect those rights.
Click to expand...

Again, there's a difference between what's legal and what's respectful. People can practice their beliefs, prejudices (in most cases) etc., just as people can demonstrate their outrage at such behaviors. But there is no right as to respect for your beliefs, and I doubt many people are going to respect the beliefs of someone who finds their religion to be backwards.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']:applause: It only has one g, better fix that before someone notices.

Is there a point here? You're complaining about my use of it yet you define it in exactly the way I'm using it.[/QUOTE]

That's what I get for typing up stuff in the middle of the night. I got it backwards, you thought it had two ts, not two gs. I'm sorry, I'll call that one a tie.

My point is that I think it is a stretch to call the cartoonists bigots without knowing much about them. The key is "intolerance". One definition of the word does indeed pertain to recognizing the beliefs of others. But, as I thought we have already clearly established here, moderate Muslims are not offended by images of Muhammed. If the artists shows intolerance in general, it was towards a radical view of Islam. And, if we are to show respect to all religious beliefs we couldn't do anything. Making us all bigots. As I have also pointed out, eating at Burger King is really, really offensive to Hindus. So, if you do it by your interpretation we are bigots. I mean, I covered this all long ago. Using a condom? That could make you a bigot by the strictest of definitions.

The real bigoted response was the response by the radical Muslims. Consider the second definition of tolerance: " Leeway for variation from a standard." I have said many times that they need to learn such tolerance. Funny how you can be so left that you're backwards. The cartoonists are bigots but what is the radical response then? I'm not here to suggest another Crusade, I'm not here praising Slobodan Milošević or advocating his way of doing things. Does that mean everyone sympathetic to the cartoonists thinks like I do? Of course not, but I have yet to see any proof that the newspaper or any kind of organized support for them is in this vein. Yet, of course I've seen the Holocaust being praised by the people that opposed the cartoons, I've seen calls for destruction of the Western world and Western entities so from what I've seen the bigots are clearly on the other side of this issue for the most part.

Also, who said that there is any "hatred" here? Once again, you don't know enough about the artists to say they hate Islam. As a matter of fact I KNOW they don't all hate Islam. One cartoon in particular was very respectful of Mohammed, and a few were just there to make fun of the paper for running the story/contest. So, hatred? I don't hate Christianity, but I'm more than willing to poke fun at it.

As I've said, I have no problem at all with outrage, I have no problem at all with protests. Even the ones with signs saying horrid shit. I've said it several times. That is their right. The violence, the death threats, the kidnappings, the burnings, the shootings, etc... that is the stuff I have a problem with (as anyone who looked at my simplistic stick figure could see). Free speech is valid, including a right to hate me, to speak hatefully of me if one wishes. To dislike and not respect my beliefs. Sure, they can do that as long as they don't try to keep me from having my opinions, from asserting my viewpoints within my realms. And, in truth they have done that, attacking two sites I contribute to. And by the way, such attacks are not legal and are not within the realm of free speech since they are acts of vandalism. I have a right to say what I want, but I don't have a right to spray paint what I want on a building I do not own, for instance.

Anyway, I understand you are more or less arguing this point because you are somewhat sympathetic to one side and seem to need to counter the "right-wing" reaction to it. But, I think you are going beyond a reasonable stance in some things you are saying. Another thing I've said before is that fact that if we lived in a world in which we had to follow all the "rules" of the radical Islamic society, we couldn't even be here discussing this issue. I doubt you really want to live in a world like that, no matter how sympathetic you might seem to their cause.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']That's what I get for typing up stuff in the middle of the night. I got it backwards, you thought it had two ts, not two gs. I'm sorry, I'll call that one a tie.[/quote]

You said I used the term bigot a lot, and you pointed out an obvious typo since if I didn't know how to spell it I would have made the mistake every time I used the term bigot or bigoted. That's not a tie.

My point is that I think it is a stretch to call the cartoonists bigots without knowing much about them. The key is "intolerance". One definition of the word does indeed pertain to recognizing the beliefs of others. But, as I thought we have already clearly established here, moderate Muslims are not offended by images of Muhammed.
Click to expand...

You're wrong if you think moderate muslims aren't offended by muhammed wearing a bomb.

But with artists you have to go by the artists work, and the work represents that.

If the artists shows intolerance in general, it was towards a radical view of Islam. And, if we are to show respect to all religious beliefs we couldn't do anything. Making us all bigots. As I have also pointed out, eating at Burger King is really, really offensive to Hindus. So, if you do it by your interpretation we are bigots.
Click to expand...

But that absurd definition I'm still not. But burning effigies of Ganesha, Krishna or Vishnu would be an attack on hinduism and therefore offensive. Eating beef is a totally separate issue without any connection to hinduism being brought into the mix. People in a foreign land eating at burger king is not offensive to hindu's (and I know very religious hindu's who will eat there just not eat beef). There is no involvement of their beliefs. There's no attack on their beliefs. There is a direct attack on islam (or any religion) when you display their main figure in the way muhammed was displayed.


I mean, I covered this all long ago. Using a condom? That could make you a bigot by the strictest of definitions.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you covered, you should realize that arguing a point is vastly different from convincing someone of it. And suggesting use of a condom is being a bigot (I assume you refer to the "little people" in semen) is ignorant of science.

The real bigoted response was the response by the radical Muslims. Consider the second definition of tolerance: " Leeway for variation from a standard." I have said many times that they need to learn such tolerance.
Click to expand...

Tolerance, as used in reference to cultures and opinions is not "tolerance of intolerance". Because I oppose the KKK does not make me intolerant. No group is tolerant of attack on it, that does not make intolerant in any real sense.

Funny how you can be so left that you're backwards. The cartoonists are bigots but what is the radical response then?
Click to expand...

Violence, incitement to violence (or many similar things that I don't feel like listing), the majority do not fit that mold. Simply opposing an attack on your religion is not a radical position.


I'm not here to suggest another Crusade, I'm not here praising Slobodan Milošević or advocating his way of doing things. Does that mean everyone sympathetic to the cartoonists thinks like I do? Of course not, but I have yet to see any proof that the newspaper or any kind of organized support for them is in this vein. Yet, of course I've seen the Holocaust being praised by the people that opposed the cartoons, I've seen calls for destruction of the Western world and Western entities so from what I've seen the bigots are clearly on the other side of this issue for the most part.
Click to expand...

You pick out the ones that best fit your perspective. Of course the ones that catch your attention will also catch the media's attention. How often have you heard "there was a protest in istanbul, nothing happened"? Not very often. And when you have a protest and a few people go crazy, or do something to catch attention (ie. call for death), they will become the focus. They will often have more effect than hundreds of others who did nothing.


Also, who said that there is any "hatred" here? Once again, you don't know enough about the artists to say they hate Islam. As a matter of fact I KNOW they don't all hate Islam. One cartoon in particular was very respectful of Mohammed, and a few were just there to make fun of the paper for running the story/contest. So, hatred? I don't hate Christianity, but I'm more than willing to poke fun at it.
Click to expand...

You don't know enough about reading comprehension, since if you did you would repeatedly see me refer to a select few, particularly the one with a bomb. But, then again, it's much easier to argue when you make up the opposing argument.

As I've said, I have no problem at all with outrage, I have no problem at all with protests. Even the ones with signs saying horrid shit. I've said it several times. That is their right. The violence, the death threats, the kidnappings, the burnings, the shootings, etc... that is the stuff I have a problem with (as anyone who looked at my simplistic stick figure could see). Free speech is valid, including a right to hate me, to speak hatefully of me if one wishes. To dislike and not respect my beliefs. Sure, they can do that as long as they don't try to keep me from having my opinions, from asserting my viewpoints within my realms. And, in truth they have done that, attacking two sites I contribute to. And by the way, such attacks are not legal and are not within the realm of free speech since they are acts of vandalism. I have a right to say what I want, but I don't have a right to spray paint what I want on a building I do not own, for instance.
Click to expand...

So the whole is responsible for the actions of the few? That certainly is a common perspective, but popularity has little to do with accuracy.

But you have a right to speak out against them, they have a right to speak out against you, you're not intolerant for vocally opposing what you deem to be radicals, so why are they intolerant again? The vast majority are not engaging in such actions, yet you deem them intolerant for protesting on this scale. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from repurcussions (in terms of speech that is).

Anyway, I understand you are more or less arguing this point because you are somewhat sympathetic to one side and seem to need to counter the "right-wing" reaction to it. But, I think you are going beyond a reasonable stance in some things you are saying. Another thing I've said before is that fact that if we lived in a world in which we had to follow all the "rules" of the radical Islamic society, we couldn't even be here discussing this issue. I doubt you really want to live in a world like that, no matter how sympathetic you might seem to their cause.
Click to expand...

Since when is respecting other peoples religious beliefs the mark of a radical society? If you don't want protests then don't say them, if you don't care then say such things. Protesting certain speech does not run counter to free speech as long as it remains at the level of speech, and for the majority it has.

I've also denounced the radical of both sides and supported the moderates of both sides. Also not agreeing with your perspective does not make a stance unreasonable.

I do wonder though how many muslims you know or have known?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You're wrong if you think moderate muslims aren't offended by muhammed wearing a bomb. [/QUOTE]

The part of the term "bigot" that applies here is intolerant. You can label them a bigoted because they show intolerance to a certain religion, which is probably in keeping with the definition. My argument was that you couldn't know the intentions of the artists. It would appear to me that they were addressing radical Muslims and in that case if they were being bigots it was in regards to radical Islam and not the moderate counterparts. In the end, calling them a bigot refers to what they had in mind, not how others choose to react.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']But that absurd definition I'm still not. But burning effigies of Ganesha, Krishna or Vishnu would be an attack on hinduism and therefore offensive. Eating beef is a totally separate issue without any connection to hinduism being brought into the mix. People in a foreign land eating at burger king is not offensive to hindu's (and I know very religious hindu's who will eat there just not eat beef).[/QUOTE]

Let us make this clear. Laws in India forbid the slaughter of cows. Cows are considered sacred and killing cows is forbidden by the book of Vedah. One need look no further than the name they chose for the Brahman cow to realize that yes they are indeed SACRED! It is funny that you think eating cows is not offensive to Hindus, people have been killed before for such acts in India. These have been isolated events, but once again my point is that you can not expect us all to live by a particular religions rules and ways. Once again, most Muslims in truth believe that images of Mohammed are ok. They just don't want to see him made fun of, but to pretend that is somehow more sacred than the tenets of other religions is just you grasping at straws.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Tolerance, as used in reference to cultures and opinions is not "tolerance of intolerance". Because I oppose the KKK does not make me intolerant. No group is tolerant of attack on it, that does not make intolerant in any real sense.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, think this over long and hard and then explain to me why the artists are bigots again. It is all a matter of perspective is it not? If they view Islam as intolerant (and believe me, many people do) then how is their intolerance of it bigotry?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But you have a right to speak out against them, they have a right to speak out against you, you're not intolerant for vocally opposing what you deem to be radicals, so why are they intolerant again? The vast majority are not engaging in such actions, yet you deem them intolerant for protesting on this scale. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from repurcussions (in terms of speech that is)[/QUOTE]

Don't put words in my mouth. I've said and I continue to say that my quarrel is with the people who wish to silence the media through threats and intimidation. Everyone has a right to a opinion, my fight is with the people that want to force theirs on me. I understand free speech, believe me. I said it before, boycotts? Sure, fine go ahead. If a Muslim dude wants to say he won't let Danish people in his store? Good for him. But it is the death threats, the kidnappings and the using violence and intimidation that I have had a problem with. And I continue to say this. Repercussions are fine, I am responding in the way I see fit and others of differing opinions will as well. But, I am obeying the law and I am respecting their basic human rights. Unfortunately not everyone on the other side of the issue is doing this and these are the people I wish to stand up to and the ones that need to learn a certain amount of tolerance.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I've also denounced the radical of both sides and supported the moderates of both sides. Also not agreeing with your perspective does not make a stance unreasonable.

I do wonder though how many muslims you know or have known?[/QUOTE]

My perspective is that the press had a right to address this issue, whether or not I like what they did. It is the right I protect, the right I agree with and I while I think the response has been unreasonable the "fight" I have (once again) is with the violent thugs and not people like you who merely wish to pick one side of the issue or another.

And finally, personally? People I knew fairly well?? I don't know, about ten. Of course more through the internet.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']The part of the term "bigot" that applies here is intolerant. You can label them a bigoted because they show intolerance to a certain religion, which is probably in keeping with the definition. My argument was that you couldn't know the intentions of the artists. It would appear to me that they were addressing radical Muslims and in that case if they were being bigots it was in regards to radical Islam and not the moderate counterparts. In the end, calling them a bigot refers to what they had in mind, not how others choose to react.[/quote]

Well either they're a bad artist who doesn't know how to convey a message, or their artwork, and probably the artist, is bigoted. You seem to assume that D.W. Grifith is the norm for artists. Essentially he was the director for the incredibly racist, pro klan movie "birth of a nation" that was released to massive success, including support from woodrow wilson, in 1915. But the man was simply interested in good stories (which, admittedly, it is), indicative of that he had previously made a movie about love between a chinese man and a white woman, she was killed by her incredibly abusive father when he found out. That's not normal for an artist. And it's unlikely that anything similar happened here. The artist was, in all likelihood, not simply drawing a political cartoon for the sake of art, but because he had a message to convey. They attacked the central figure of islam and branded him as a terrorist essentially. There's nothing there suggesting it was only attacking the radical part, that's a message that the viewer may add to it, but it's not suggested in the cartoon.


Let us make this clear. Laws in India forbid the slaughter of cows. Cows are considered sacred and killing cows is forbidden by the book of Vedah. One need look no further than the name they chose for the Brahman cow to realize that yes they are indeed SACRED! It is funny that you think eating cows is not offensive to Hindus, people have been killed before for such acts in India. These have been isolated events, but once again my point is that you can not expect us all to live by a particular religions rules and ways. Once again, most Muslims in truth believe that images of Mohammed are ok. They just don't want to see him made fun of, but to pretend that is somehow more sacred than the tenets of other religions is just you grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

Let's make this clear, you can buy beef in india. You can buy cowhide in india. And, in fact, India is a major exporter of beef and indian muslims, christians and sikhs do eat it, and also less devout hindu's living overseas (I know a few who eat beef). Slaughter is not allowed in most provinces, but it is in a few. That being said, there is no attack on hinduism by eating beef. Eating beef in a hindu temple or in a way directly drawing hindu beliefs into it, would be offensive. But eating beef totally separate from them is not offensive. It's not something they like, but it's like how I don't like you eating pork. I'm not offended by it, it's not an attack on my beliefs, I just think it's wrong.

Though most muslims don't think drawing the face of muhammed is ok, the body varies more but the face is of particular importance.



Hmm, think this over long and hard and then explain to me why the artists are bigots again. It is all a matter of perspective is it not? If they view Islam as intolerant (and believe me, many people do) then how is their intolerance of it bigotry?
Click to expand...

If you want to go that route them almost no one's a bigot. The klan views blacks as inferior, violent and incapable of properly governing things, so then it's not a bigoted view to want to keep them in their place and away from power. Some atheists think all religion is dangerous and their followers are mindless sheep, so it's not bigoted to want to oppose them. Some muslims view the west as out to destroy Islam and muslims, so openly attacking or opposing it is merely self defense and therefore not bigoted. Nazi's view jews as organizers of the destruction of society and out to keep all the money and power to themselves, therefore they're not bigoted. If you have that loose of a definition of bigotry then there really is no bigotry in the world. Every group has a reason to hate another, and there perspective tells them it's legitimate.



Don't put words in my mouth. I've said and I continue to say that my quarrel is with the people who wish to silence the media through threats and intimidation. Everyone has a right to a opinion, my fight is with the people that want to force theirs on me. I understand free speech, believe me. I said it before, boycotts? Sure, fine go ahead. If a Muslim dude wants to say he won't let Danish people in his store? Good for him. But it is the death threats, the kidnappings and the using violence and intimidation that I have had a problem with. And I continue to say this. Repercussions are fine, I am responding in the way I see fit and others of differing opinions will as well. But, I am obeying the law and I am respecting their basic human rights. Unfortunately not everyone on the other side of the issue is doing this and these are the people I wish to stand up to and the ones that need to learn a certain amount of tolerance.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe you can put words in your own mouth then:

A: I have no problem with trading barbs with the "peaceful" protestors. Let them cheer their terrorists on, let them show their true colors and I in turn will do my best to insult them back. After all, I am not chanting "death to Muslims" or any silly pathetic bigoted shit like that.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a connection between protesting offensive speech and an attack on free speech in your mind. Then there also seems to be little recognition (you say things to that effect, then counter them with comments after it) that the majority are not like the above description. That's partly the fault of the media, something that BBC, at least, seems to be attempting to rectify. The headline article currently has this picture displayed:

41318624lovafp6tn.jpg




My perspective is that the press had a right to address this issue, whether or not I like what they did. It is the right I protect, the right I agree with and I while I think the response has been unreasonable the "fight" I have (once again) is with the violent thugs and not people like you who merely wish to pick one side of the issue or another.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be illegal, but I think newspapers should show self restraint and refrain from attacking religions, ethnic groups etc. That's a moderate view more than anything.

edit: I found this
Earlier this week, the editor of the paper's Sunday edition defended a decision three years ago not to publish five unsolicited cartoons of Jesus' resurrection.

"I turned them down because they were not good - their quality was not good," Jens Kaiser said.
He said he should have been honest with the cartoonist, instead of telling him in an e-mail that readers would not enjoy the drawings because they would "provoke an outcry".
Click to expand...

That's from the same paper that sparked the outrage. They gave 2 reasons, the reason told to the cartoonist is very relevant to this dispute but, if he is being truthfull in saying he lied to the cartoonist, then it isn't. But it's interesting to think about.
 
The more I read about this the less I think the paper created this outrage and the more I think some sick fuck in Denmark created the controversy himself. I mean, 3 cartoons out of the offending lot weren't even published.

You don't think someone created this out of a desire to call attention to himself and a desire to make the "West" out to be evil and incite a backlash do you? NAAAAH COULDN'T BE!

Well, then how did it take 4 months for these cartoons to cause such riots if they weren't an artificial Muslim Media Event?
 
Many moderate Muslims in Denmark have been shocked by the violence and deaths around the world prompted by the row over Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
Rabih Azad-Ahmad, chair of the Multicultural Association, said the row had become too confrontational. ....

"I didn't know there were so many Muslims in Denmark who are supporting Western values," said Soren Espersen, an MP for the populist Danish People's Party.

His comments mark a turnaround for the party, which has grown to be the country's third largest on a political platform of nationalism and xenophobia.

They are also likely to have been welcomed by a group of Danish writers who warned two months ago that the harsh tone in the national debate about Muslims and integration was comparable to Nazi rhetoric against Jews.

"Politicians and the media have a tendency to see Muslims only as criminal, anti-social elements and as potential rapists," the writers said in an open letter........

While most Danish Muslims are satisfied by the apology already issued by Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoons, half of Danes still think that the paper could do more to appease the Arab world.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4692318.stm

Two points in posting that. One to show the atmosphere towards muslims in denmark, which give credibility to the idea that they were direct attacks on Islam. The second to show that even the extremist politicians are beginning to realize it doesn't have to be so much of a muslim vs. west (or christian) situation, even though it's a common opinion on both sides of the issue.
 
We're running around in circles here. I've explained my viewpoint, you've explained my viewpoint and freedom of expression abounds on this forum. Good for us.

I don't agree with some of your points and when you get down to it I feel you are of the opinion that we are obligated to go out of our way to appease the more radical religious groups because they happen to be more sensitive.

I do not consider this logical. Freedom of expression, in my mind should not be relative to how others feel about. Understand this, I do not believe the Swastika should be illegal, as it is in some countries. Why? Because it is a matter of freedom of expression. I am pretty much a Libertarian in this regard, racists have a right to express their racism, bigots of all sorts have a right to expression their views.

The gray area, to me comes when one advocated violence. I think it is hard to really deal with that issue. For instance, one person might be advocating terrorism, one might advocate killing the president, another one suggest killing all minorities, another might suggest we kill the President of Iran and a fifth might advocate going to war with North Korea. I, for one would look at those statements and only be able to defend the latter two (mind you I'm not suggesting I want to do either but I can certainly seen someone saying that). That, to me is when freedom of expression reaches the gray area. In this regards, I have yet to see ANY newspaper on this issue cross over into this area. I did, however see MANY "peaceful" protestors cross over into this area. I, even go so far as to credit those people with the right under "freedom of expression" even though they are clearly pushing the boundaries.

We can not agree on simple things. You compare this issue to racism and I continue to disagree with that assertion. Race is not a belief, race is not a way of life. Race is not a set of ideals and "race" does not have a set of teachings to go along with it. Race does not advocate killing infidels, race is in truth intangible aside from the solitary aspect of cosmetics. Comparing race to religion is like comparing non-toxic paint to the United States Congress. One is entirely superficial and the other is wrought with complexities and idiocrasies. Until we can determine the difference between the two, there's no point in us discussing things further.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']We're running around in circles here. I've explained my viewpoint, you've explained my viewpoint and freedom of expression abounds on this forum. Good for us.

I don't agree with some of your points and when you get down to it I feel you are of the opinion that we are obligated to go out of our way to appease the more radical religious groups because they happen to be more sensitive.

I do not consider this logical. Freedom of expression, in my mind should not be relative to how others feel about. Understand this, I do not believe the Swastika should be illegal, as it is in some countries. Why? Because it is a matter of freedom of expression. I am pretty much a Libertarian in this regard, racists have a right to express their racism, bigots of all sorts have a right to expression their views.[/quote]

But, to play devil's advocate, isn't the nazi swastika (it's a commonly used symbol) often used as a weapon? Should burning crosses be legal when displayed in an otherwise legal fashion (not on someones lawn and not in a place where fire is illegal)?


We can not agree on simple things. You compare this issue to racism and I continue to disagree with that assertion. Race is not a belief, race is not a way of life. Race is not a set of ideals and "race" does not have a set of teachings to go along with it. Race does not advocate killing infidels, race is in truth intangible aside from the solitary aspect of cosmetics. Comparing race to religion is like comparing non-toxic paint to the United States Congress. One is entirely superficial and the other is wrought with complexities and idiocrasies. Until we can determine the difference between the two, there's no point in us discussing things further.
Click to expand...

Explain to me, in practice, what the diffrence is between being prejudice towards race and being prejudice towards religion? What makes one significantly worse than the other?

You can't force people to believe something they don't, or not believe what they do. You can't change that. You can only change the outward appearance of their beliefs. That being said most muslims are easily identifiable as a non white race (and hindu's and sikhs are often assumed to be muslims), so most people who is truly bigoted against muslims also harbor similar feelings to anyone who looks muslim, even if they don't know specifically.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can't force people to believe something they don't, or not believe what they do. You can't change that. You can only change the outward appearance of their beliefs. [/quote]




That being said most muslims are easily identifiable as a non white race (and hindu's and sikhs are often assumed to be muslims), so most people who is truly bigoted against muslims also harbor similar feelings to anyone who looks muslim, even if they don't know specifically.
Click to expand...

That's a particularlly biggoted thing to say about biggots. "Most" is an unfair blanket statement about muslim haters. Many biggots I know are selective in their hate and don't mix their hatred for hindus with their hatred for muslims.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, to play devil's advocate, isn't the nazi swastika (it's a commonly used symbol) often used as a weapon? Should burning crosses be legal when displayed in an otherwise legal fashion (not on someones lawn and not in a place where fire is illegal)? [/QUOTE]

As much as I hate to say it, yes those should be allowed. You can, of course get into the realm of psychological harm, and I do think you can prevent said things from being show in public places and the like but the right of someone to do said things on his private property in keeping with his any homeowner's agreements he may or may not have signed? It is his right, I can't advocate him doing it but freedom of expression includes freedom to be a jackass. I know you're just arguing to argue now though, the devil's advocate part was a bit of a giveaway.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Explain to me, in practice, what the diffrence is between being prejudice towards race and being prejudice towards religion? What makes one significantly worse than the other?[/QUOTE]

Well, you tell me? I was once involved with a Indian woman. The first time she was pointed out to me, my friend said something about "that Hindu over there" being hot. She was in fact not a Hindu, she was a Protestant and married to a preacher at that. Of course that is another story. Anyway, here you have two groups commonly identified together. Hindu and Indian. Her being a Indian told someone almost nothing factual about her. You could look at her and go, well she must be from India. No, she was not her parents were. She was a South African Indian. You could look at her and go, well she must be a Hindu. No, and while she wasn't a very good Christian she certainly belonged to the faith. Once I know her religion, I can and do make many judgements about her. A good Christian probably doesn't get involved with minors 16 years younger than them. I can judge her according to her religion because her religion dictates certain behavior and beliefs. If she strays from them, or even if she follows them it can subject her to criticism. However, I can find no logical grounds to judge her according to her race. She did not choose it, she didn't not ask for it and it only provided a cosmetic feature, no more, no less.

Now, take Arabs for instance. You'll notice this is the first time in my discussions on the board I even used the term. Now, I'll skip the argument of what dictates a race and just take it for granted that they are considered one. A Arab might be VERY likely to be a Muslim. I would say it is approaching a 95% chance. Yet, I refuse to judge a Arab superficially. Now, Islamic culture might put a great deal of pressure on a Arab to be a Muslim. To the extent that they might even fear violence. And that is one reason I limit my criticism to some protestors and the violent Muslims. If I judge a religion's followers, I think it goes without saying that I spare people practicing it because of coercion. I've made a point of saying things like "violent minority" and the like.. But, even if I did not, Islam has a set of beliefs. Islam has prophets which are open to criticism. Once I determine someone is a Muslim, I can now judge them accordingly.

Race, allows me to do no more than make assumptions and the like. There is nothing factual (once again beyond cosmetics) for me to judge a person on, merely on the basis of race. As a matter of fact race can be VERY misleading as I said before. A religion tells me a LOT about a person, it tells me what belief systems they have and/or if they follow it. That can tell me the character of the person, the fervor of the person as well as allow me to determine if I can get along with them and the like. Race? All that can allow a person to do is make assumptions, which are often incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top