[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Nothing of the above in any way compares with threatening to kill people over drawings on Facebook. (I mean, does it get any more trivial? To say nothing of the fact that the whole thing is just a parody of the sort of trivial things like cartoons that the radical Islamic world goes apeshit over quite often.)

Your 'point' it seems to me is the usual tact of for some odd reason wanting to say "See? Christians behave just like radical Muslims!!" as an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims. And yet you can never point to an actual non-stretched to breaking point example, because as anyone can clearly see, most Christians (and most other religions as well) even on their worst days rarely behave anywhere near as badly as much of the Muslim world seems to delve into every other day. Those not suffering from P.C. disease can simply recognize this fact and move on.

First of all .... I haven't "excused" anything. Again, you show that you see what you want to see instead of what was written. What I said was this ...

Originally Posted by OAW

Regardless, this is one those circumstances where just because you CAN do something ... doesn't mean you SHOULD. It's unnecessarily provocative ... to say the least. I recall many people being highly inflamed over the Piss Christ exhibit. Many Christians considered it blasphemous ... regardless of the intent of the artist.

The way I see it ... people should at least show a minimum level of respect for other people's hot button religious sensitivities. And if they don't ... then at least be an equal opportunity offender (e.g. South Park). But for those jumping on this latest bandwagon all I will say is that if you would take offense to people (especially foreigners) making a mockery of things you consider blasphemous in your own religion ... then perhaps you should check yourself. You know ... the Golden Rule and all that jazz.

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

Originally Posted by OAW

Here in the US we have "freedom of speech" and all that. And that's a good thing. But at the same time it's really not a good idea for a white person to walk around calling random black people "n*gger" to their face. One could do it if they chose to ... but they really shouldn't be shocked if at some point they catch a beat down in the process. I mean .... I'm just saying.

Same principle applies with this Facebook situation. Those who deliberately stir up a hornet's nest shouldn't be surprised if somebody gets stung.

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

Originally Posted by OAW

I just don't find it necessary to deliberately antagonize people like this. Just to tell yourself that you have "freedom of speech" ... something you already know?

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

My "point" is that this entire exercise is pretty childish and stupid. Just as childish and stupid as the "radical Muslims" threatening to kill people because of it.

It IS unnecessarily provocative. And the ridiculous reaction of "radical Muslims" doesn't change that fact.

It IS considered to be blasphemous by Muslims ... radical or otherwise. And just because some in the West think it's a game doesn't change that fact.

Many Christians DID consider the Piss Christ exhibit to be blasphemous. And the fact that they didn't threaten to kill people because of it doesn't change that fact. The analogy I made was that certain things are considered to be disrespectful or even "blasphemous" or "sacrilegious" in Christianity as it is in Islam. I made no analogy regarding the reaction of either group whatsoever.

It IS a case of people trying to deliberately stir up a hornet's nest. And the fact that the hornet is eager to sting when provoked is already a known fact. It is a HORNET (aka "radical Muslim") after all.

It IS a case of people trying to deliberately antagonize the Muslim community ... radical or otherwise. And the fact that some in the West think it's a joke doesn't change the fact that many in the Muslim community don't find it "funny".

And I for one don't feel the need to stoop to such a level ... which is why I have chosen not to participate in the foolishness.

OAW

[BadKosh]

So Facebook and YouTube have been blocked in Pakistan. I guess that is the modern way of sticking your head in the sand?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Making any image or visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is strictly forbidden in Islam. Muslims of all stripes consider it blasphemous to say the least. It's my understanding that the reason for this was to prevent Muhammad from being "deified".

If this is so, why are there images Muhammad drawn by Muslim in books, on coins, and in mosques?
Mohammed Image Archive

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If this is so, why are there images Muhammad drawn by Muslim in books, on coins, and in mosques?
Mohammed Image Archive

Surely you aren't suggesting that because a religious prohibition isn't always enforced it's not still a religious prohibition?

Actions which demand the death penalty in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, breaking the Sabbath, converting people to another religion, cursing your parents, etc. .... even BLASPHEMY are all punishable by death according to the Old Testament. Just because "Judeo-Christian" societies no longer go there doesn't change what's written in their scriptures. And truth be told ... such societies no longer go there primarily because their governments and societies are secularized which has a moderating effect on the more "outlandish" aspects of their religious heritage.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First of all .... I haven't "excused" anything. Again, you show that you see what you want to see instead of what was written. What I said was this ...

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

The fact that you brought it up in the first place, when it's in NO WAY comparable with the actual subject. Here you are, in a thread about people threatening to KILL people over drawings on facebook, chiding Christians about 'taking offense' to something- and then largely leaving out what was truly offensive to many, IE: government using their tax money to fund a (negative) religious image.

The issue here of course, has nothing to do with your attempted comparison of merely 'taking offense' but rather, actual threatened violence. And (as usual) over something completely trivial.

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

Now how is that "an attempt to excuse the insanity of radical Muslims"?

Is it really that complicated for you? Your whole premise is, if an extremist says you shouldn't do something because it offends the extremist, then you shouldn't do it. So basically, with that attitude, extremists control free speech.

And not only speech- where does it end?

So if an extremist gets upset over a gay person being openly gay- should gay people not be openly gay? After all, an extremist has told them they will get upset by it, and will be voilent over it. So the whims of extremists should control how people behave and live? Right? After all, we wouldn't want to be "unnecessarily provocative".

My "point" is that this entire exercise is pretty childish and stupid. Just as childish and stupid as the "radical Muslims" threatening to kill people because of it.

Right, so people drawing pictures and posting them are 'just as childish and stupid' as people threatening to kill other people over trivial things. Man, your 'moral compass' (or COMPLETE lack thereof) has you hopelessly lost in the fog if you think those things are in anyway comparable.

It IS considered to be blasphemous by Muslims ... radical or otherwise. And just because some in the West think it's a game doesn't change that fact.

So freakin' what.

A black person going out with or marrying a white person is considered to be "blasphemous" by white supremacists.

So it white supremacists issued an 'edict' whereby they threaten to murder people for drawing pictures of white people and black people together, should everyone cow-tow to that? Is drawing a picture that goes against some such 'edict' handed down by kooks to be considered "unnecessarily provocative"?

In a free society (unlike the societies these radical Muslims live in) since the F when did what some bunch of kooks consider to be blasphemous trump free speech?

Many Christians DID consider the Piss Christ exhibit to be blasphemous. And the fact that they didn't threaten to kill people because of it ...

Makes it a USELESS example in a discussion that IS about people threatening to kill other people over free speech. You just want to wax that under the table, for whatever P.C. reason. Now ask the same silly question again about what you're trying to excuse, even as you attempt to change the ACTUAL subject with a bad example.

And I for one don't feel the need to stoop to such a level ... which is why I have chosen not to participate in the foolishness.

Well good for you. That's just it- you can CHOOSE not to participate.

Just as Muslims can choose not to get worked up over (as you say) foolishness on Facebook. (And really, what else is on Facebook?)

Why is it no big deal to you (and most everyone) to just ignore it, and yet other people not only won't ignore it, but are willing to threaten violence and KILL over it?

The real question you might ask yourself, is just what is wrong with people that let 'foolishness' get to them so much. Try looking into that without the filter of P.C. disease sometime.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Is it really that complicated for you? Your whole premise is, if an extremist says you shouldn't do something because it offends the extremist, then you shouldn't do it. So basically, with that attitude, extremists control free speech.

And not only speech- where does it end?

No ... that's NOT what my premise is. That's what YOU say it is. What I actually said is pretty clear (at least for those who aren't trying to twist it into what they want it to be):

Originally Posted by OAW

The way I see it ... people should at least show a minimum level of respect for other people's hot button religious sensitivities. And if they don't ... then at least be an equal opportunity offender (e.g. South Park). But for those jumping on this latest bandwagon all I will say is that if you would take offense to people (especially foreigners) making a mockery of things you consider blasphemous in your own religion ... then perhaps you should check yourself. You know ... the Golden Rule and all that jazz.

Now if you wish to criticize me for saying that people ought to remember the Golden Rule in all of this then knock yourself out. Like I said at first ... just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you always SHOULD. I gave a simple example earlier. We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a white person CAN go around calling black people "n*gger" to their face ... it's really not something they SHOULD do. REGARDLESS of the reaction of the person at hand. Whether they ignore that speaker, smile at him, or beat him to within an inch of his life is beside the point. The behavior itself is the issue I was speaking to ... not the reaction to it.

Simply put, it's my position that people shouldn't engage in behavior toward other people that they would take offense at if that same or similar behavior was coming their way. Period. IOW, you shouldn't go around mocking or disrespecting other people's religion if you would have a problem with other people mocking or disrespecting your own. Those of us who have this little thing we call "home training" understand that. So if you have a problem with that "moral compass" ... then I suggest you take it up with my mother.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now if you wish to criticize me for saying that people ought to remember the Golden Rule in all of this then knock yourself out.

That's a really dumb thing to try and argue, since I'd guarantee you NO ONE who's drawing a picture really cares if someone else also draws a picture and posts it on the web. This just goes to show your viewpoint is so distorted, that you don't even realize what's actually being discussed, and then flail around blindly trying to evoke the Golden Rule of all things over what people do ON FACEBOOK. It's why you have to MAKE UP ridiculous comparisons like...

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a white person CAN go around calling black people "n*gger" to their face ... it's really not something they SHOULD do.

Which again is just you proving how distorted your view is, since NO ONE is advocating any such thing. Drawing a picture does not equal going around calling someone a racial slur. This whole distorted argument of yours just goes to prove how you view EVERYTHING through a warped prism of race. It's really sad. You of all people REALLY need to free your mind.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by OAW 

IOW, you shouldn't go around mocking or disrespecting other people's religion if you would have a problem with other people mocking or disrespecting your own.

As an atheist, I regularly get disrespected by all manner of religious individuals. Now those people are increasingly getting protection from the state, which means they can mock and disrespect my absence of superstition as much as they like, whereas I am not allowed to say anything back.

Doesn’t seem right to just sit around passively whilst a theocracy is being built around you.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's a really dumb thing to try and argue, since I'd guarantee you NO ONE who's drawing a picture really cares if someone else also draws a picture and posts it on the web. This just goes to show your viewpoint is so distorted, that you don't even realize what's actually being discussed, and then flail around blindly trying to evoke the Golden Rule of all things over what people do ON FACEBOOK. It's why you have to MAKE UP ridiculous comparisons like...

I'm going to try this one more time. Let's review the part of my previous post you chose not to respond to because it's very illuminative of what I'm talking about:

Originally Posted by OAW

Simply put, it's my position that people shouldn't engage in behavior toward other people that they would take offense at if that same or similar behavior was coming their way.

I'm going to ask you to try to think a little more abstractly and not get so caught up in the specifics of this situation. Because basic concepts seem to elude you on this as a result.

Guess what? You are right. NO ONE who's drawing a picture of Muhammad and posts it on the web will care if someone else draws a picture and posts it on the web. That is so true. But it also completely misses the point. You see non-Muslims don't get to decide what Muslims should or should not be offended by when it comes to Islam. Just like non-Christians don't get to decide what Christians should or should not be offended by when it comes to Christianity. Just like non-Native Americans don't get to decided what Native Americans should or should not be offended by when it comes to using Native American imagery and sacred symbols as mascots and logos for sports teams.

So again, try to elevate your thinking beyond the specifics of the MECHANISM when it comes to the "Golden Rule" in this situation. Your position here seems to be that "It's cool for these people to draw a picture of Prophet Muhammad because they won't care if Muslims drew a picture of Jesus". And my contention is that a deeper and more mature understanding of the "Golden Rule" in this situation says that ....

Originally Posted by OAW

IOW, you shouldn't go around mocking or disrespecting other people's religion if you would have a problem with other people mocking or disrespecting your own.

The MECHANISM by which that mockery or disrespect takes place is not the issue.

What this comes down to is that if Action A is considered to be disrespectful or blasphemous to Islam by Muslims .... then you simply shouldn't go there if you would be offended by Muslims (or anybody else) doing Action B that you consider to be disrespectful or blasphemous to your own religion. The comparison in this situation is not that Action A = Action B. Maybe they are the same, maybe not. The mechanism is NOT the point. The reaction to the mechanism is NOT the point. The comparison is that Action A and Action B are BOTH considered to be disrespectful and blasphemous by the affected peoples.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Which again is just you proving how distorted your view is, since NO ONE is advocating any such thing. Drawing a picture does not equal going around calling someone a racial slur. This whole distorted argument of yours just goes to prove how you view EVERYTHING through a warped prism of race. It's really sad. You of all people REALLY need to free your mind.

Actually this just proves once again that you see what you want to see. That comment wasn't made to "equate" drawing a picture with a racial slur. The point was in direct response to those who try to portray this as a "freedom of speech" issue. All I said was that just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Which should be a pretty basic concept to comprehend ... especially in light of the example that I gave. But since the particular analogy that I used seems to have limited your ability to recognize basic logic and common sense, then perhaps these might get through to you ....

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a man CAN go around calling women a "b*tch" to their face ... it's really not something they SHOULD do.

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a heterosexual person CAN go around calling gay people "f*ggot" to their face ... it's really not something they SHOULD do.

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a person CAN go around insulting people to their face ... it's really not something they SHOULD do.

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a person CAN go around disrespecting other people's religion ... it's really not something they SHOULD do. Even if that person doesn't consider their actions to be disrespectful.

I really don't see how I can make this any more clearer than that.

OAW

[BadKosh]

The disrespect is the problem of the receiver to deal with. Cultural immaturity has been a big problem for them for centuries. They are even killing each other over little picky crap. The drawings just highlight their emotional issues due to their religious mentality.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

We have "Freedom of Speech" and all that. But just because a person CAN go around disrespecting other people's religion ... it's really not something they SHOULD do. Even if that person doesn't consider their actions to be disrespectful.

The ugly medieval 'tards waived that right when they wrote "Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son" on the inside of the dome of the rock and "Is it not a falsehood of their own devising, when they say, 'God hath begotten (a son)'? They are indeed liars" in their shitty book.

(Italics mine)

Oh, and your use of the smiley is offensive to my religion. Please stop offending. Not really. I just made that up to show you how stupid that quote of yours above (in italics) is.