Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A question about freedom of speech

A question about freedom of speech
Thread Tools
bboisvert
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:43 AM
 
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Some people have argued about this being a issue of free speech, the publication of those pictures by the Danish News paper. But really how does speech related to images. Nothing is prevented in writing a article about the prophets in the religion, which is where the freedom of speech comes into play in my humble opinion. And the arguments about, “we should print something even if it offends a group of people because its our right” well I dare them to publish pictures of a child being raped and see what kind of reaction they get. Fact is just because it is not offensive to use, should have no baring on our rights when you consider how offensive it is to some one else. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]And the republishing of those pictures, a Canadian company in Alberta included are only doing this not for news reasons but to rub salt into a open wound to stir things up more. I really want to see how far freedom of speech can go really I do. I want to see pictures of penises and vagina’s in the news paper. Sure it will offend some people but not all which is good enough reason to do it. I want to see pictures of a burning bible, pictures of Mohamed having sex, I want to see pictures of dead bodies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Now that you are thinking about what I have said about a burning bible, dead bodies and such im sure your thinking to yourself well this is different its offensive to me. Well isn’t that the issue. The original cartoons where offensive to some one else. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Brian[/FONT]
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 03:31 AM
 







Well, it's like this. We take ofense to their lack of respect for us. They call us infidels, and they kill inicent Christians. So screw them.
     
Kr0nos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the dancefloor, doing the boogaloo…
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
And the arguments about, “we should print something even if it offends a group of people because its our right” well I dare them to publish pictures of a child being raped and see what kind of reaction they get. Fact is just because it is not offensive to use, should have no baring on our rights when you consider how offensive it is to some one else.
OTOH, what if some group of people in Oregon found the depiction of naked "elbows" to be highly offensive, and because some fashion magazine in Zaire printed a picture of a woman in a short sleeved shirt, the followers of that particular cult started a big hoopla.

Can you even imagine a 11 year old kid being accidentally killed during riots in Portland over an African publication?

Yes, this is so absolutely absurd, it's even scary.

Bottom line, I think these people need to take a big swig out of the STFU cup and cool down. It's a fu<kin' cartoon folks.

If I change my way of living, and if I pave my streets with good times, will the mountain keep on giving…
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 09:12 AM
 
Free speech, at least in America, covers satire, which these images would fall under. There is no law which prohibits anyone, once again, in America, from publishing critical comments on any religion (or race, or ideology). The presumption that you make, that the images are offensive and by that litmus alone not be published is not enough. Because anything anyone says could be deemed offensive to someone somewhere it would put quite a crippling blow on free speech. The example that you gave about publishing pictures of child rape is not an apple and oranges comparison but more like apples and onions.

Child pornography, molestation and rape (adult or child) are all against the law, therefore publishing images of any of those topics or acts would, unless within a very very narrow scope, also be against the law and falls outside the protection of free speech. [Edit: actually adult rape is not against the law to portray, as evidenced by any CSI type TV show.] Saying you think Islam is a religion that promotes militarism and hypocritically supports terrorism against others (which was the gist of the more offensive cartoons) does not equate to yelling fire in a crowded theater or images of child rape. Certainly the publication would be offensive to Muslims but that in and of itself is not reason to curtail it. I find the writings of Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity to be highly offensive, hate filled and at best embellishments of fact and yet I would not want them to be censored. For censorship to take place the bar must be set quite high and offensivness within the confines of the law does not pass that level. I would suggest that everyone use their God (or Allah) given ability to simply ignore something that offends them.

Also, one has to know the argument for original publication of the images, it wasn't, as you said, to insult Islam for the sake of insulting Islam. It was to make a point, that many many illustrators and publications within Europe had developed a sense of self censorship of Islamic topics out of nothing more than a fear of reprisals from Islamic extremists. I think the point was well proven, given the reaction in the Islamic world to the images. The republication of the images in some show of solidarity with the Danish publishers was, I'll agree, pointless. At this point of the debate the support for free speech and the Danish publication could have been made, as you said, with a well worded editorial. Once the argument was made I really don't see the point in fueling the flames more, though I will concede that those publications still retained the right to do so. Other publications printed them because the topic, following the protest, was newsworthy and I do agree with publication on those grounds, to some extent. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran them with an explanation that it wasn't an attempt to insult Islam but that the cartoon controversy was news worthy enough that they felt their readers should decide whether the images were insulting or not.

We should also note that the protest coming out of the Islamic states are being fueled by those with certain agendas, the toppling of a local government, the promotion of Western and Islamic confrontation and are being allowed by local governments to happen for their own geopolitical and internalized agendas. (When was the last time a spontaneous demonstration happened in Damascus?). Some are even circulating images that didn't even appear in the Danish paper (one was a poorly Photoshopped image of a pig calling contest in France) to keep the anger alive. They are also hypocritical considering how Islamic media protrays Jews and 'infidels' in their press with barely a ripple of protest. It makes me question the strength of a religion when it cannot absorb some exteral (and relevant I might add) criticism without resorting to violence. It reminds me of the Penn Gilette (of Penn and Teller) joke - he had a friend who was wearing a Mason's ring and he said, "Hey you can't wear that, your not a Mason" and his friend said, "It's OK, I'm not a Mason."

Have you noticed that here in the West, even with sizeable Muslim populations, the protest have been pretty small and peaceful for the most part. I would say that some of the signs carried by the protestors in London, "Behead thos who insult Islam", "Britain your 9/11 is coming", etc. were much more offensive and inciteful than the cartoons themselves.

As for your ending rant, well, you can see pictures of a burning Bible in the newspaper if there is some issue revolving around it, for instance the New York Times published a picture of a piece of art with the Virgin Mary made out of dung and a picture of a crucifix in a bucket of urine. (Ironically the NYT refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons as it would insult Islam) As far as dead bodies, apparently your not watching the news out of Iraq. Mohammed having sex, well, if it was tastefully done I don't see why not, he did have children so we know he did have sex. if it was pornographic then see my comments above vis-a-vis your child rape comment.
( Last edited by RIRedinPA; Feb 20, 2006 at 09:53 AM. )
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Some people have argued about this being a issue of free speech, the publication of those pictures by the Danish News paper. But really how does speech related to images.
It's a form of expression, therefore speech. What about writing or speaking is so magical that only these two forms of expression ought to be protected?
Nothing is prevented in writing a article about the prophets in the religion, which is where the freedom of speech comes into play in my humble opinion.
What's the difference between an image and a written opinion?
And the arguments about, “we should print something even if it offends a group of people because its our right" well I dare them to publish pictures of a child being raped and see what kind of reaction they get
Should? No. Only that nobody should be prevented from publishing something just because it offends someone. It is perhaps quite rude, but rudeness is not a crime, and it should not be a crime.
Fact is just because it is not offensive to use, should have no baring on our rights when you consider how offensive it is to some one else.
Neither you nor anyone else has any intrinsic right to not be offended, nor should you. If you don't like it, don't read it. I don't have that right either, but I have a mature enough attitude about my faith to not get worked up over a negative portrayal in artwork. And believe me, my faith has gotten far worse portrayal in the media than these cartoons.
I really want to see how far freedom of speech can go really I do. I want to see pictures of penises and vagina’s in the news paper. Sure it will offend some people but not all which is good enough reason to do it. I want to see pictures of a burning bible, pictures of Mohamed having sex, I want to see pictures of dead bodies.
Go right ahead. All you have to do is convince someone to print them.
Now that you are thinking about what I have said about a burning bible, dead bodies and such im sure your thinking to yourself well this is different its offensive to me. Well isn’t that the issue. The original cartoons where offensive to some one else.
Yes, but once again, I have a mature enough attitude to know that even if I'm offended, it's their right to publish it. I simply won't read them, and that will be enough for me. Why would this not be enough for you? Are you that insecure in your beliefs?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
It's a form of expression, therefore speech. What about writing or speaking is so magical that only these two forms of expression ought to be protected?
Well we already have limits on some images, already pointed out in this thread. What’s one more image being limited.

What's the difference between an image and a written opinion?
What’s the difference between a picture of a penis and the word penis. For example, the word penis used here would not get this post locked or myself banned. If I had posted a picture of a penis the results would be very different.


Should? No. Only that nobody should be prevented from publishing something just because it offends someone. It is perhaps quite rude, but rudeness is not a crime, and it should not be a crime.
But we already do prevent or in many cases publishers already keep from publishing things that would be very offensive to the general public here. The issue is more to do with how insensitive we are of things that are offensive to other while its not offensive to us.


Neither you nor anyone else has any intrinsic right to not be offended, nor should you. If you don't like it, don't read it. I don't have that right either, but I have a mature enough attitude about my faith to not get worked up over a negative portrayal in artwork. And believe me, my faith has gotten far worse portrayal in the media than these cartoons.
There has been a lot of bad press for the Islamic faith too. And I didn't see any riots about it. This issue has to do with violating a very important part of the faith, not insulting the faith but violating that there is to be no images of the prophets. See its not about how insulting the cartoons are. While the reaction would have been smaller, even good cartoons or pictures would have violated the faith.

Go right ahead. All you have to do is convince someone to print them.
Pretty hard to convince some one to print something that is illegal

Yes, but once again, I have a mature enough attitude to know that even if I'm offended, it's their right to publish it. I simply won't read them, and that will be enough for me. Why would this not be enough for you? Are you that insecure in your beliefs?
I'm no religious so the reaction in my opinion was silly, but I also try to be understanding of all cultures, faiths and people as well. Just because I don't believe in something, I do not have the desire to go trample upon it.

Can I ask you a question, why don't we see more racist comments in publications. When was the last time you read the word ****** in a news paper? I think it was the late 60's you would still get publications using that word. Publications sensor themselves on some things and no others. That’s where I have the issue. Its how they pick what to sensor and what not to.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Well we already have limits on some images, already pointed out in this thread. What’s one more image being limited.
Pictures of child porn is not exactly the same as a drawing of some guy named mohammed with a bomb in his turban. If you find those two images comparable, then you should seek help. Muslims have no right not to be offended. Muslims have no right to dictate their perverse laws on to others. Muslims also have no right to set embassies on fire. Muslims also have no right to threaten people over cartoons. Muslims also have no right to issue fatwas against people. Meanwhile, non-Muslims have every right to draw cartoons of whatever they please. That's the way it is and nobody can change that.

If islamic extremists continue to force their laws unto others then those fascist morons should be eliminated in a timely fashion. Between my freedom of speech and their death, I'll choose the latter option.
     
Rolling Bones
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Six feet under and diggin' it.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:34 PM
 
They want their jihad. We'll try and kill as many as possible.

Eventually the rest of the west will see it too.
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Pictures of child porn is not exactly the same as a drawing of some guy named mohammed with a bomb in his turban. If you find those two images comparable, then you should seek help. Muslims have no right not to be offended. Muslims have no right to dictate their perverse laws on to others. Muslims also have no right to set embassies on fire. Muslims also have no right to threaten people over cartoons. Muslims also have no right to issue fatwas against people. Meanwhile, non-Muslims have every right to draw cartoons of whatever they please. That's the way it is and nobody can change that.

If islamic extremists continue to force their laws unto others then those fascist morons should be eliminated in a timely fashion. Between my freedom of speech and their death, I'll choose the latter option.
Yet it is ok for us to force western values upon Muslims such as equality for woman, freedom of the press, and personal liberties. Seems pretty one sided to me how we can force our values on Islamic states and we cringe at the idea of them forcing some of there values on us. Ideal I think it would be a better world if we took the best from both worlds and an understanding of both worlds into account when deciding and doing things, and only once we all have an understanding and respect for the differences of both worlds will we see peace.

Until then you may continue to be blind to other cultures, as many in those other cultures will continue to be blind towards us and we will continue down this current path of blood and violence. I just hope at some point in my life every one wakes up and open their eyes to understanding.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Ideal I think it would be a better world if we took the best from both worlds and an understanding of both worlds into account when deciding and doing things, and only once we all have an understanding and respect for the differences of both worlds will we see peace.
Call me a bigot I don't mind, but there is no good coming from the Islamic world and I do not want any of their values in the civilized west.

It's our way or the highway as far as I'm concerned.
     
Rolling Bones
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Six feet under and diggin' it.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:46 PM
 
Culture is not always goody goody.
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Call me a bigot I don't mind, but there is no good coming from the Islamic world and I do not want any of their values in the civilized west.

It's our way or the highway as far as I'm concerned.
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Shows your lack of understanding, because of how many Muslim friends I have, I looked into the religion more deeply then most. And there are lots of good things in it. I suggest you research it a little bit more before making such a statement. Because its simply not true. [/FONT]
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Shows your lack of understanding, because of how many Muslim friends I have, I looked into the religion more deeply then most. And there are lots of good things in it. I suggest you research it a little bit more before making such a statement. Because its simply not true. [/FONT]
Starting on 9/12/2001, I have also looked quite a bit into the Islamic world, and the more I find out, the more I don't like it. My opinion is not based on ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is based upon a lot of research, reading vast amounts of information and just seeing what's going on in the world.
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
Starting on 9/12/2001, I have also looked quite a bit into the Islamic world, and the more I find out, the more I don't like it. My opinion is not based on ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is based upon a lot of research, reading vast amounts of information and just seeing what's going on in the world.
[FONT=Verdana]Ah but did you look at the faith itself? Much of what goes on in the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Middle East[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] and well most of the Islamic world is a corrupted version of the faith. Those that are true to the religion itself are also horrified at what is going on in the Islamic world and upset about how the faith is being twisted for power and control and slandered by those that don't really understand it. [/FONT]
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Well we already have limits on some images, already pointed out in this thread. What’s one more image being limited.


What’s the difference between a picture of a penis and the word penis. For example, the word penis used here would not get this post locked or myself banned. If I had posted a picture of a penis the results would be very different.




But we already do prevent or in many cases publishers already keep from publishing things that would be very offensive to the general public here. The issue is more to do with how insensitive we are of things that are offensive to other while its not offensive to us.



There has been a lot of bad press for the Islamic faith too. And I didn't see any riots about it. This issue has to do with violating a very important part of the faith, not insulting the faith but violating that there is to be no images of the prophets. See its not about how insulting the cartoons are. While the reaction would have been smaller, even good cartoons or pictures would have violated the faith.



Pretty hard to convince some one to print something that is illegal



I'm no religious so the reaction in my opinion was silly, but I also try to be understanding of all cultures, faiths and people as well. Just because I don't believe in something, I do not have the desire to go trample upon it.

Can I ask you a question, why don't we see more racist comments in publications. When was the last time you read the word ****** in a news paper? I think it was the late 60's you would still get publications using that word. Publications sensor themselves on some things and no others. That’s where I have the issue. Its how they pick what to sensor and what not to.[/QUOTE]
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Well we already have limits on some images, already pointed out in this thread. What’s one more image being limited.
Because you want to limit the image based soley on the fact that a certain group of people fine it offensive, whereas images that are limited now are because of a legal or other mitigating reason.

What’s the difference between a picture of a penis and the word penis. For example, the word penis used here would not get this post locked or myself banned. If I had posted a picture of a penis the results would be very different.
It all depends on the context. If the image is in a human anatomy book there is nothing sexual in its intent and can generally be viewed by all, if it's at full mast about to blow where it is displayed and to whom has to be regulated. All the same, the image of the penis is not being disallowed, someone of the legal age can view it as they please. Once again, your making an apples and oranges argument. Those who are offended by penises have the option to avoid viewing it. You want to take that option away.

But we already do prevent or in many cases publishers already keep from publishing things that would be very offensive to the general public here. The issue is more to do with how insensitive we are of things that are offensive to other while its not offensive to us.
See my response above to your penis comment. Once again your mixing things up. Name something that is banned from being published solely on the grounds that some select group of people find it offensive. The Supreme Court has routinely sided with the argument that speech of any kind cannot be censored soley because some group finds it offensive, even those critical of religion or the government itself. Muslims have recourse over something published which they find offensive, and which many of the moderate are using - boycott - in this case they are wrongly boycotting products from Denmark, but what one can do is boycott the products of those who advertise in the media which the offensive material appeared. Pinch them in the pennies to make them change. Lobbing a molotov cocktail at the embassy of the country where the offensive material appeared does little but solidify stereotypes and heighten the resolve of the free press not to be intimaded by the violent few who seemingly now represent the many.

There has been a lot of bad press for the Islamic faith too. And I didn't see any riots about it. This issue has to do with violating a very important part of the faith, not insulting the faith but violating that there is to be no images of the prophets.
One would have to be Muslim to violate that rule. Since I am not part of the Islamic faith I can't possibly violate any of the rules established for it's adherents.

See its not about how insulting the cartoons are. While the reaction would have been smaller, even good cartoons or pictures would have violated the faith.
The cause of the street riots are irrelevant. The fact that they occurred are. A religion that cannot absorb criticism from outside is, in my opinion, a pretty weak belief system. This should have been laughed off, the publisher ridiculed for his attempts to stereotype and Islam should have moved on to the bigger issues facing it.

I'm no religious so the reaction in my opinion was silly, but I also try to be understanding of all cultures, faiths and people as well. Just because I don't believe in something, I do not have the desire to go trample upon it.
That's a great belief system, one I actually use myself. However, I don't place any religion above the fundamental rights we in the West have.

Can I ask you a question, why don't we see more racist comments in publications. When was the last time you read the word ****** in a news paper? I think it was the late 60's you would still get publications using that word. Publications sensor themselves on some things and no others. That’s where I have the issue. Its how they pick what to sensor and what not to.
Times change. I would say the difference between using the word ****** and the Mohammed cartoons are the former exists soley as a derogatory term, such as kike or kaifa or mick or wop. You won't find those in the paper as well. However, the intent of the Mohammed images were not to be derogatory towards followers of the Islamic faith, rather their intent was to foster debate and address a certain point.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
[FONT=Verdana]Ah but did you look at the faith itself? Much of what goes on in the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Middle East[/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] and well most of the Islamic world is a corrupted version of the faith.
What evidence do you have to offer in support of your claim that the forms of Islam practiced by the radicals and terrorists are corrupted? Simply because you believe you looked into the religion to some degree certainly does not mean your understanding is correct, let alone superior to the understanding of the faith's own adherents. A huge portion of the Islamic world is radicalized, and it's obvious the radicals are setting the course. The furor of Muslims living not just in the middle east but also Europe over simple cartoons is proof positive of that assertion. So while it would be pleasant to believe those who claim "true" Islam is not bellicose, such a belief contradicts reality. It's nothing more than a convenient lie propagated by the politically correct and those who wish to conceal the truth face of Islam for political gain.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
What evidence do you have to offer in support of your claim that the forms of Islam practiced by the radicals and terrorists are corrupted? Simply because you believe you looked into the religion to some degree certainly does not mean your understanding is correct, let alone superior to the understanding of the faith's own adherents. A huge portion of the Islamic world is radicalized, and it's obvious the radicals are setting the course. The furor of Muslims living not just in the middle east but also Europe over simple cartoons is proof positive of that assertion. So while it would be pleasant to believe those who claim "true" Islam is not bellicose, such a belief contradicts reality. It's nothing more than a convenient lie propagated by the politically correct and those who wish to conceal the truth face of Islam for political gain.
Or it's simply the truth that bigots such as yourself and OBL & co ignore for their own gain.

There is somewhere between 1-2 billion Muslims in this world. If the majority of us would believe in the version OBL and you believe is the truth every single person in this world would be in danger.

But you want to believe that and you want to continue to spread that lie because it's convenient for you. Because as long as you are able to shift the focus on the tiny minority of extremists the horror and crimes committed by your own nation in the name of your own religion goes unnoticed.

So continue spreading the lie. If you repeat it often enough it will become the "truth".

But I'll tell you one thing. The more you (the West) vilify Islam the more you make certain that we (Western and "moderate" Muslims - also known as the majority of Muslims) will not side with you in the future.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
What evidence do you have to offer in support of your claim that the forms of Islam practiced by the radicals and terrorists are corrupted? Simply because you believe you looked into the religion to some degree certainly does not mean your understanding is correct, let alone superior to the understanding of the faith's own adherents. A huge portion of the Islamic world is radicalized, and it's obvious the radicals are setting the course. The furor of Muslims living not just in the middle east but also Europe over simple cartoons is proof positive of that assertion. So while it would be pleasant to believe those who claim "true" Islam is not bellicose, such a belief contradicts reality. It's nothing more than a convenient lie propagated by the politically correct and those who wish to conceal the truth face of Islam for political gain.
That really depends on how we define "true" Islam. What makes it true? Being practiced by a lot of people?

Actually, let's broaden the issue. A huge portion of Christians throughout history have been Catholics. Is Catholicism the only sect we can call the "true" Christianity, and anything any other sect says doesn't actually represent a true Christian viewpoint? And the form of Catholicism practiced through most of history was pretty bellicose as well…
( Last edited by Chuckit; Feb 20, 2006 at 04:54 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 07:49 PM
 
In the world today, there are two Islams. The religion of peace, as embraced by von Wrangell and many Western Muslims, does indeed exist. But the religion of hate, as preached by Osama bin Laden and which those such as Big Mac so despise, also exists. Rightly or wrongly, these very different faiths have the same name.

I think we could all agree that the religion of hate needs to be removed. The problem is that many Western Muslims are not prepared to truly denounce the followers of the religion of hate, because they don't understand that it's not the same as their own faith; they've been duped by false Muslims into believing that they are brothers. Meanwhile, many of the "Islamophobes" deny the existence of the religion of peace, preparing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. If both sides could simply get onto the same page as to what Islam is -or rather, what the Islams are- then I think there could be much better progress on this.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
In the world today, there are two Islams. The religion of peace, as embraced by von Wrangell and many Western Muslims, does indeed exist. But the religion of hate, as preached by Osama bin Laden and which those such as Big Mac so despise, also exists. Rightly or wrongly, these very different faiths have the same name.

I think we could all agree that the religion of hate needs to be removed. The problem is that many Western Muslims are not prepared to truly denounce the followers of the religion of hate, because they don't understand that it's not the same as their own faith; they've been duped by false Muslims into believing that they are brothers. Meanwhile, many of the "Islamophobes" deny the existence of the religion of peace, preparing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. If both sides could simply get onto the same page as to what Islam is -or rather, what the Islams are- then I think there could be much better progress on this.
Well said, but those that keep attacking all Muslims not realizing their is two kinds are just helping force the good and bad Muslims into one, creating a common enemy out of fear by forcing all to be defensive.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2006, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Well said, but those that keep attacking all Muslims not realizing their is two kinds are just helping force the good and bad Muslims into one, creating a common enemy out of fear by forcing all to be defensive.
I've been saying something similiar all along, and maybe the Good ones should seperate themselves from the Bad ones, maybe create a new branch of the religion, so we can tell who's who. Any mosque that doesn't belong to or joins the "Good" Islam will be shut and any country which doesn't join the "Good" Islam will be considered an enemy. The "Bad" Islam must be erradicated. If the "Good" doesn't distance themselves from the "Bad", then I reckon things will become "Bad" for the "Good".
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
I've been saying something similiar all along, and maybe the Good ones should seperate themselves from the Bad ones, maybe create a new branch of the religion, so we can tell who's who. Any mosque that doesn't belong to or joins the "Good" Islam will be shut and any country which doesn't join the "Good" Islam will be considered an enemy. The "Bad" Islam must be erradicated. If the "Good" doesn't distance themselves from the "Bad", then I reckon things will become "Bad" for the "Good".
OK, the "Good Islam" will henceforth be called "Islam," since that is what their religion prescribes it be called.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
bboisvert  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead
I've been saying something similiar all along, and maybe the Good ones should seperate themselves from the Bad ones, maybe create a new branch of the religion, so we can tell who's who. Any mosque that doesn't belong to or joins the "Good" Islam will be shut and any country which doesn't join the "Good" Islam will be considered an enemy. The "Bad" Islam must be erradicated. If the "Good" doesn't distance themselves from the "Bad", then I reckon things will become "Bad" for the "Good".
Doubt it would make a difference. People that hate, will continue to hate. Those like me that know the difference already separate the good from the bad with out them having to do anything.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 01:20 AM
 
There is no question in my mind that anyone has the right to print those cartoons.

Everyday I choose not to say things I have the right to. I don't tell my wife when I think she's having a bad hair day.

Sometimes, having the right to say something is not as important as having the sensibility not to say it.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
There is no question in my mind that anyone has the right to print those cartoons.

Everyday I choose not to say things I have the right to. I don't tell my wife when I think she's having a bad hair day.

Sometimes, having the right to say something is not as important as having the sensibility not to say it.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!

BINGO!

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 05:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
The problem is that many Western Muslims are not prepared to truly denounce the followers of the religion of hate, because they don't understand that it's not the same as their own faith; they've been duped by false Muslims into believing that they are brothers.
We denounced it long before you realised it was a problem. We've worked against them for such a long time. We've asked you for your help and we've pointed out what actions you shouldn't undertake because it makes them stronger.

You've never listened. You've never helped.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
There is no question in my mind that anyone has the right to print those cartoons.

Everyday I choose not to say things I have the right to. I don't tell my wife when I think she's having a bad hair day.

Sometimes, having the right to say something is not as important as having the sensibility not to say it.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Kr0nos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the dancefloor, doing the boogaloo…
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 06:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Sometimes, having the right to say something is not as important as having the sensibility not to say it.
While I agree with this point, it won't be radical Muslims (or anybody besides me actually) that will decide where I'll be drawing the line.

Thank you.

If I change my way of living, and if I pave my streets with good times, will the mountain keep on giving…
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kr0nos
While I agree with this point, it won't be radical Muslims (or anybody besides me actually) that will decide where I'll be drawing the line.

Thank you.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
There is no question in my mind that anyone has the right to print those cartoons.

Everyday I choose not to say things I have the right to. I don't tell my wife when I think she's having a bad hair day.

Sometimes, having the right to say something is not as important as having the sensibility not to say it.
Well put, but would you advocate for my death if I published something which you found offensive or which went against one of the tenents of your religion?
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Well put, but would you advocate for my death if I published something which you found offensive or which went against one of the tenents of your religion?
Of course not, and I've maintained that I am disgusted by the violent response to these cartoons.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
we've pointed out what actions you shouldn't undertake because it makes them stronger.
That's the whole point of this discussion right here. THEIR behavior has everything to do with how THEY choose to respond to a situation. It is NOT up to us in the West to go around trying not to offend Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.) with our free speech practices. It is up to Muslims to realize and accept, yes accept, that their religious practices can never take precedence over free speech rights in the West.

So, if Muslims choose to not make free speech rights take precedence over their religious beliefs, that is their choice. But, they CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to make that choice if they live here in the West. If you are a Muslim living in a secular Western country you need to accept that others rights to say things offensive about your religion trumps your rights to try and stop them from doing so. Or you need to get the Hell out.

Now, if you are a Muslim living in a religious non-Western country then by all means you can expect that your religious practices should trump any government-sanctioned rights.

So, to re-iterate it is NOT up to us in the West to "not undertake certain actions" for fear of offending Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.).
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
That's the whole point of this discussion right here. THEIR behavior has everything to do with how THEY choose to respond to a situation. It is NOT up to us in the West to go around trying not to offend Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.) with our free speech practices. It is up to Muslims to realize and accept, yes accept, that their religious practices can never take precedence over free speech rights in the West.

So, if Muslims choose to not make free speech rights take precedence over their religious beliefs, that is their choice. But, they CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to make that choice if they live here in the West. If you are a Muslim living in a secular Western country you need to accept that others rights to say things offensive about your religion trumps your rights to try and stop them from doing so. Or you need to get the Hell out.

Now, if you are a Muslim living in a religious non-Western country then by all means you can expect that your religious practices should trump any government-sanctioned rights.

So, to re-iterate it is NOT up to us in the West to "not undertake certain actions" for fear of offending Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.).
Right on.

No religion, ideology or personal beliefs trumps free speech. Period. If you don't like that then by all means boycott our products, don't visit our lands, cut yourself off from us completely but do not expect us to live under the dictates you do because some aspect of my life violates a tenant you have chosen to live under.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Of course not, and I've maintained that I am disgusted by the violent response to these cartoons.
To me that's the whole point of the debate. Islamist want us to change our lifestyle because a certain aspect of it violates a tenant THEY have chosen to live under.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
That's the whole point of this discussion right here. THEIR behavior has everything to do with how THEY choose to respond to a situation. It is NOT up to us in the West to go around trying not to offend Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.) with our free speech practices. It is up to Muslims to realize and accept, yes accept, that their religious practices can never take precedence over free speech rights in the West.

So, if Muslims choose to not make free speech rights take precedence over their religious beliefs, that is their choice. But, they CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to make that choice if they live here in the West.
This isn't just about the most recent attack on Islam and Muslims. And I have never said we should ban free speech. I've told you this several times before. Perhaps I'm just wasting my time discussing this with you since it's quite obvious that you don't listen to what I say.
If you are a Muslim living in a secular Western country you need to accept that others rights to say things offensive about your religion trumps your rights to try and stop them from doing so. Or you need to get the Hell out.

Now, if you are a Muslim living in a religious non-Western country then by all means you can expect that your religious practices should trump any government-sanctioned rights.
Yet another thing I (and others) have pointed out to you. I don't live in a secular Western country nor a religious non-Western country. And Denmark is neither of those as well.
So, to re-iterate it is NOT up to us in the West to "not undertake certain actions" for fear of offending Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, etc.).
If you want to help us decrease radicalism in the Muslim world you should try to listen to what we Muslims say. I'd better repeat what I said earlier. We shouldn't ban free speech. But just because something is legal it doesn't make it morally right.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Right on.

No religion, ideology or personal beliefs trumps free speech. Period. If you don't like that then by all means boycott our products, don't visit our lands, cut yourself off from us completely but do not expect us to live under the dictates you do because some aspect of my life violates a tenant you have chosen to live under.
And perhaps for once try to listen to what the very few Muslims left around here have said.

But I guess it is easier for people like yourself to put all Muslims in the "extremist nutjobs" group.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
And perhaps for once try to listen to what the very few Muslims left around here have said.

But I guess it is easier for people like yourself to put all Muslims in the "extremist nutjobs" group.
But there ARE some Muslim, as you call them, "extremist nutjobs" out there who must be recognized but who would remain unrecognizable until the time of their choosing. What to do?

I wonder what the Muslim reaction would be if non-Muslims who lived in Iran or Egypt or Indonesia or some other predominantly Muslim nation lived among the people there and at a time of their choosing became suicide martyrs. What would the governments do? How would the people react?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter
But there ARE some Muslim, as you call them, "extremist nutjobs" out there who must be recognized but who would remain unrecognizable until the time of their choosing. What to do?

I wonder what the Muslim reaction would be if non-Muslims who lived in Iran or Egypt or Indonesia or some other predominantly Muslim nation lived among the people there and at a time of their choosing became suicide martyrs. What would the governments do? How would the people react?

The same can be said of Christians, Jews, Hindus...
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
The same can be said of Christians, Jews, Hindus...
Well said.

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
art_director
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 03:17 PM
 
What is about religion that makes people go all freaky?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
If you want to help us decrease radicalism in the Muslim world you should try to listen to what we Muslims say. I'd better repeat what I said earlier. We shouldn't ban free speech. But just because something is legal it doesn't make it morally right.
I don't disagree with you. You ARE correct that "just because something is legal it doesn't make it morally right". But, whether or not it is morally right for me to say something offensive about Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha has nothing to do with its legality.

Those in the Muslim world who are offended by these cartoons want us in the West to change our laws to make morally offensive speech against Muslims illegal. And I will NOT accept that. I want people to have the legally protected right to engage in behavior some religious folks find morally offensive.

Oh, and you have said that those of us in the West "should try to listen to what we Muslims say" in regards to decreasing radicalism in the Muslim world. what are some of the specific things non-radical Western Muslims want those of us in the West to do to help decrease radicalism in radical, non-Western countries.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
I don't disagree with you. You ARE correct that "just because something is legal it doesn't make it morally right". But, whether or not it is morally right for me to say something offensive about Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha has nothing to do with its legality.

Those in the Muslim world who are offended by these cartoons want us in the West to change our laws to make morally offensive speech against Muslims illegal. And I will NOT accept that. I want people to have the legally protected right to engage in behavior some religious folks find morally offensive.

Oh, and you have said that those of us in the West "should try to listen to what we Muslims say" in regards to decreasing radicalism in the Muslim world. what are some of the specific things non-radical Western Muslims want those of us in the West to do to help decrease radicalism in radical, non-Western countries.
This is a great way to address the situation:

"As it turns out, depictions of Muhammad are not prohibited by the Koran. A statue of him stands in the U.S. Supreme Court building and paintings of him hang in some museums in the Muslim world. The "prohibition" is political, not Koranic."
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/c..._121867_121867

I think a formal proposition between the several leading Muslim organizations around the world and the leading newspaper and broadcast organizations might be an idea to explore.

The proposition would be for Muslims to agree in theory to the right of free expression, even that which might risk offending their political sensibilities. (As established above, it is not a Koranic offense, but a political one to create images of the prophet.)

And the publishers and broadcasters would agree to the heightened importance of images of the prophet but would uphold the principle of free expression and reserve the right, in theory, to publish anything it wanted without regard for whose feelings might be bruised.

And the understanding would be that the images wouldn't be published and the Muslim population wouldn't riot
Neither side would compromise on what it held dear. However both would exercise restraint and show some respect for the other's sensibilities.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 04:23 PM
 
Except that the people offended and the people offending them are neither the leading Muslim organizations nor the leading newspaper and broadcast organizations.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by art_director
What is about religion that makes people go all freaky?
I believe it has SOMETHING to do with power. Something to do with the nature of the belief system. And something to do with a dominant or recessive "fuzzy" gene which makes people not only want to tell others what to do (control) but also to obsess over what others think (co-dependence).
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Except that the people offended and the people offending them are neither the leading Muslim organizations nor the leading newspaper and broadcast organizations.
Good point. However, at a certain point leadership must exert itself.

The publishing world can band together to self govern and this minor player (newspaper) can be invited into their larger, more prestigious tent to abide by their rules of conduct or else be otherwise shunned by their peers.

The Muslims would see this and take heart.

The Muslim world can create tighter associations between the Imams and or existing non-violent Islamic groups and by so doing act in a unified manner to tell ALL the miscreants that NO respected Muslim cleric condones this behavior. And if they continue this nonsense they will be acting outside of the teachings. They would NOT be defending the prophet but defaming him with their actions.

The Free world will see this and take heart.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2006, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
In the world today, there are two Islams. The religion of peace, as embraced by von Wrangell and many Western Muslims, does indeed exist. But the religion of hate, as preached by Osama bin Laden and which those such as Big Mac so despise, also exists. Rightly or wrongly, these very different faiths have the same name.

I think we could all agree that the religion of hate needs to be removed. The problem is that many Western Muslims are not prepared to truly denounce the followers of the religion of hate, because they don't understand that it's not the same as their own faith; they've been duped by false Muslims into believing that they are brothers. Meanwhile, many of the "Islamophobes" deny the existence of the religion of peace, preparing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. If both sides could simply get onto the same page as to what Islam is -or rather, what the Islams are- then I think there could be much better progress on this.
Excellent post.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,