[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

I wasn't really referring to Russia - more other Muslim countries - but literally Russia is East

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

But the point I'm trying to make is that many nations which disagreed with us concerning the decision to go to war are now supporting each other's rights of free speech. This is taking place in the face of radical Islamists (or "Islamo-fascists" as Michael Savage says). I think the riots in France probably hurt the cause of many semi-moderate Muslims, including those that have joined in on the riots.

[von Wrangell]

In an interview with Jörgen Steen Nielsen, Islam expert Tariq Ramadan describes in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information the recent escalation in the dispute surrounding the Mohammed cartoons as crazy. "On both sides there are people with a vested interest in an escalation of the dispute. They goad the other side with overreactions and provocations, and pull a lot of people in their wake. On the Muslim side the dictatorial regimes are using the conflict to demonstrate that they are the best defenders of Muslims and Islam. On the European side there's a right-wing bloc which has made it their business to spread an image of Muslims as undermining freedom of expression and wanting to change Western society. It will take clever and sensible people on both sides to put an end to the insults and overreactions."

http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/t...--a_chronology

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

On the European side there's a right-wing bloc which has made it their business to spread an image of Muslims as undermining freedom of expression and wanting to change Western society

You're not providing any of your own input. If I wish to read islamofascist propaganda, I know where I can find it.

Nobody is spreading an image of Muslims as undermining freedom of expression and wanting to change Western society, they are spreading FACTS. That is exactly what the islamofascists have been doing for a while now. Banning piggy banks, banning ice cream wrappers at Burger King and now they want to kill over a cartoon. Down with the Islamofascists !

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...alComment/home

Thanks.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

In short, it became a simplistic polarization: an alleged clash of two civilizations -- the religious and the liberal.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

On both sides there are people with a vested interest in an escalation of the dispute. […] On the Muslim side the dictatorial regimes are using the conflict to demonstrate that they are the best defenders of Muslims and Islam. On the European side there's a right-wing bloc […]

So which is it? The left or the right? Shouldn't you make your mind up?

[von Wrangell]

This one requires registration so I'll post it here.

The freedom that hurts us

Printing cartoons of Muhammad creates fear and insecurity in Muslims across Europe

Sarah Joseph
Friday February 3, 2006
The Guardian

The battle is set, of religious extremism versus freedom of speech. These are the lines drawn, or so we are told, in the escalating tensions worldwide surrounding the printing of images of Muhammad in Denmark and elsewhere in Europe.
Although the media is only now picking up on this story, my inbox has been receiving messages about these cartoons for weeks. The messages range from high-pitched to very thoughtful, but not one of them says, "Yeah, whatever ... "

There's no apathy surrounding this issue. This is because of the love felt for the prophet and religious norms in Islam. But also because it feeds into profound feelings of disempowerment, fear and insecurity among Muslims that Europe would do well to understand. In Britain, we should realise that Muslims here will be angry if the pictures are gratuitously published in British papers - not just because of the insults to Muhammad, but because it makes them feel disempowered. Protesting is the only way to regain some self-respect.

First, the easy part. Any depiction of Muhammad, however temperate, is not allowed. There are but a few images of him in Muslim history, and even these are shown with his face veiled. This applies not only to images of Muhammad: no prophet is to be depicted. There are no images of God in Islam either.

So there is hurt and anger, and the messages I receive reflect that. In response, they suggest different approaches. One is through lobbying: distributing the phone numbers of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the Danish ambassador, Denmark's parliament and everything else Danish, and urging Muslims to make their feelings known. We also have the boycott approach - "the only language the west understands" - listing every Danish product that one can buy. I also get messages from the great optimists, suggesting we use the controversy to explain the real nature of Muhammad, who returned insults with kindness. Indeed, Muslims would do well to remember that.

I have also been receiving other messages. These are the most worrying, and the ones of which Europe must take note. These are the messages of resignation. The messages that discuss exit strategies. The messages that question the very future of Muslims in Europe.

Why such hand-wringing over a few cartoons? The key is in the images themselves: Muhammad with turbaned bomb, Muhammad declaring that paradise had run out of virgins for suicide bombers, Muhammad with sword and veiled women. Muhammad in every Orientalist caricature. Muhammad as a symbol for Islam and Muslims. These are the stereotypes that, as Muslims, we face daily. The looks on the tube, the suspicion, the eyes on the bags we carry. There is no denying the feeling of being pushed against a wall, of drowning in the stereotypes that abound. This is no way to live, and it is certainly no springboard for making a major contribution to the society you live in.

The messages to my inbox of resignation, of fear, come with good reason. Some countries that have reprinted the images - Spain, France, Italy and Germany - have a nasty history of fascism. Just last week we had Holocaust memorial day. The Holocaust did not occur overnight. It took time to establish a people as subhuman, and cartoons played their part. Does Europe not remember its past and the Nazi propaganda of Der Stürmer?

Now the great shape-shifter of fascism seems to have taken on the clothes of "freedom of speech". If these cartoons were designed to provoke Muslim fundamentalists, maybe they have done more to reveal the prejudices of Europe. Europe has a history of turning on its minorities. Will that be its future too?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...701139,00.html

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

So which is it? The left or the right? Shouldn't you make your mind up?

Liberal in the correct European version. Not the US-version of the word.

[von Wrangell]

As for call for Muslims speaking out against Terrorism etc. It would be very easy to find if you just wanted to find it.

One example is the "Not in Our Name" petition from CAIR. Just under 700.000 Muslims have signed that one.

“We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

“As it states in the Quran: ‘Oh you who believe, stand up firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be against rich or poor; for God can best protect both. Do not follow any passion, lest you not be just. And if you distort or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do.’” (Quran 4:135)

[von Wrangell]

And one last post today. This one is especially to my brothers and sisters in Islam who might be reading.

What Would Muhammad Do?
By Ibrahim Hooper

[Ibrahim Hooper is National Communications Director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties group. He may be contacted at: [email protected] ]

“You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

That description of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad is a summary of how he reacted to personal attacks and abuse.

Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.

These traditions are particularly important as we witness outrage in the Islamic world over cartoons, initially published in a Danish newspaper, that were viewed as intentional attacks on the prophet.

Peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests have occurred from Gaza to Indonesia. Boycotts have targeted companies based in Denmark and in other nations that reprinted the offensive caricatures.

We all, Muslims and people of other faiths, seem to be locked into a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility based on self-perpetuating stereotypes.

As Muslims, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, “What would the Prophet Muhammad do?”

Muslims are taught the tradition of the woman who would regularly throw trash on the prophet as he walked down a particular path. The prophet never responded in kind to the woman’s abuse. Instead, when she one day failed to attack him, he went to her home to inquire about her condition.

In another tradition, the prophet was offered the opportunity to have God punish the people of a town near Mecca who refused the message of Islam and attacked him with stones. Again, the prophet did not choose to respond in kind to the abuse.

A companion of the prophet noted his forgiving disposition. He said: “I served the prophet for ten years, and he never said ‘uf’ (a word indicating impatience) to me and never blamed me by saying, ‘Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?’” (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Even when the prophet was in a position of power, he chose the path of kindness and reconciliation.

When he returned to Mecca after years of exile and personal attacks, he did not take revenge on the people of the city, but instead offered a general amnesty.

In the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, God states: “When (the righteous) hear vain talk, they withdraw from it saying: ‘Our deeds are for us and yours for you; peace be on to you. We do not desire the way of the ignorant’. . .O Prophet (Muhammad), you cannot give guidance to whom you wish, it is God Who gives guidance to whom He pleases, and He is quite aware of those who are guided.” (28:55-56)

The Quran also says: “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best who have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance.” (16:125)

Another verse tells the prophet to “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

These are the examples that Muslims should follow as they express justifiable concern at the publication of the cartoons.

This unfortunate episode can be used as a learning opportunity for people of all faiths who sincerely wish to know more about Islam and Muslims. It can also be viewed as a “teaching moment” for Muslims who want to exemplify the prophet’s teachings through the example of their good character and dignified behavior in the face of provocation and abuse.

As the Quran states: “It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Liberal in the correct European version. Not the US-version of the word.

So what is it? The liberals (in the correct European version) or the right? Shouldn't you make up your mind?

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What Would Muhammad Do?

[…]

Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

[Super Mario]

The Koran says no likeness of God is possible. It does not say humans can't create human, animal or symbol metaphors for mystic concepts. It says not a word that Muhammed can't be drawn. That one comes from one of the Ten Commandments of Judaism which from what I know was a law forced on the Jews by a Persian King at the time the Torah was being written.

Islam warns that if you draw figures then they will be worshipped instead of God. You can draw what you want. If you worship it that is your own problem. God is just another fictional character.

[Weyland-Yutani]

This affair does not symbolize the confrontation between the principles of Enlightenment and those of religion, nor a fracture between the West and Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

There is no conflict between enlightenment and religion. There is no conflict between religion and science. I would ask this man how he came to this conclusion. There is a confrontation between cultures here, not religion. Not culture and religion.

The Koran does not forbid depictations of Mohamed. That is cultural among many who consider themselves Moslems. Just like the debate about the hijab in France the other day. Not religious in any way, but cultural.

I agree with most things that are written above, but I do not agree with his mixing of culture and religion. A very dangerous road and stupid. Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; Si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.

There is a religious freedom in the West but there is not cultural freedom. Nor is there cultural freedom in any country or continent of the world except the Antarctic.

What the author of this article has to understand is that religion is culture but culture is not religion. Thus consideration is made in the West for all religions but not all cultures. This is a clash of cultures first and foremost.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/t...--a_chronology

Yes, this I agree with. Therefore it is stupid of Western muslims who realize this to get all agitated over these cartoons and play right into the hands of the puppetmasters.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by PacHead

You're not providing any of your own input. If I wish to read islamofascist propaganda, I know where I can find it.

Nobody is spreading an image of Muslims as undermining freedom of expression and wanting to change Western society, they are spreading FACTS. That is exactly what the islamofascists have been doing for a while now. Banning piggy banks, banning ice cream wrappers at Burger King and now they want to kill over a cartoon. Down with the Islamofascists !

I would be inclined to agree with you and I do agree with your last statement, but you are an anti-European opportunistic bigot and you flaunt it.

An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Respect has to be earned.

cheers

W-Y

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

It's "You shall not murder".

Which complicated things a bit.

No it's "YOU SHALL NOT KILL". -The Vatican


Misinterpret your own religion if you have to, dont mess around with mine.

And no, its nowhere nearly as complicated as yours. it's simple. unlike yours, which is why every war on earth today is between a muslim community/nation and someone else.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

No it's "YOU SHALL NOT KILL". -The Vatican


Misinterpret your own religion if you have to, dont mess around with mine.

And no, its nowhere nearly as complicated as yours. it's simple. unlike yours, which is why every war on earth today is between a muslim community/nation and someone else.

Well said. It is indeed "You shall not KILL". Simple.

Offtopic: Therein lies also the strength of organized religion. Those who dare to interpret the Bible or whatever ancient book of faith they use themselves are treading dangerous ground. United we stand, divided we fall.

That was the reason for the inquisitions back in the day before the Church was strong enough and the purpose of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today.

cheers

W-Y

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Monique

.......If you want the world to see you as peaceful you do not go crazy about drawings that most of the people in the world would not be able to read (since they are in Danish). I guess they have nothing to do, but to cause troubles.

à propos de traduction, un mot à Monique,
Tu écris:

All it does really it portrays these Muslims like a bunch of
animals without any selft restraint. Those comics again are in
Danish, not many people speak Danish ……………

Those comics are in Danish…
yes, you need a translation to understand why the caricature is disturbing to Islam,


Tu as trop de haine envers les Musulmans, Monique. Les caricatures en français, tu les comprends, du moins je l'espère, allez, bye.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

There is no conflict between enlightenment and religion. There is no conflict between religion and science. I would ask this man how he came to this conclusion. There is a confrontation between cultures here, not religion. Not culture and religion.

The Koran does not forbid depictations of Mohamed. That is cultural among many who consider themselves Moslems. Just like the debate about the hijab in France the other day. Not religious in any way, but cultural.

I agree with most things that are written above, but I do not agree with his mixing of culture and religion. A very dangerous road and stupid. Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; Si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.

There is a religious freedom in the West but there is not cultural freedom. Nor is there cultural freedom in any country or continent of the world except the Antarctic.

What the author of this article has to understand is that religion is culture but culture is not religion. Thus consideration is made in the West for all religions but not all cultures. This is a clash of cultures first and foremost.

cheers

W-Y

It’s not the depiction the cause of the outrage, but how depicted.
The bomb touched religion and culture, as the Prophet (pbuh) is seen as the Messenger .




enlightment
I think there are conflicts between science and religion: the “theory of evolution” revisionists, or the Euro/Afro centrist domination schemes during older civilizations, no doubt many more conflicts exist. Word conflicts. During times of crisis religion becomes involved with culture.

Useless provocations, both in the balance, are worse. Could this story reach boil cot, boycott on oil, could China have priorities when time comes to chose?

It's also a shame the comics persist in the Medias. Two days ago, the Rolling Stones had their microphone silenced.
This freedom of speech polemic is a hypocrite excuse for turmoil. Freedom of speech is just another taboo. Also, Media twists facts and often follow rumours..

It’s a shame for Danes, they don’t deserve these hateful outbursts, and they are non aggressive, humanitarian people. Danes, struggling through this experience for the sake of a few right wing philosophers doing a fear test.
Extremes are testing extremes, and religion is turned into politics.
.


I hope different cultures and religions will communicate on all levels, for tolerance and understanding.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I would be inclined to agree with you and I do agree with your last statement, but you are an anti-European opportunistic bigot and you flaunt it.

An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Respect has to be earned.

cheers

W-Y

I'm not anti-Europe at all, you could not be more mistaken. I am anti-socialists, and against the people who have ruined Europe by importing extremely many fanatical people to Europe. I am anti-cowards, which has been the stance of much of Europe for a while now. I am anti-anti-American European bigots and other mentally challenged people who have been blind to the problems in their own backyard. I am not anti-Europe though and it seems as if I will be more supportive of Europe in the future, because they are finally starting to wake up and see things the way I do, which is the correct way.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by swrate

It’s not the depiction the cause of the outrage, but how depicted.
The bomb touched religion and culture, as the Prophet (pbuh) is seen as the Messenger .

Irrelevant argument. It doesn't matter how bad or not the cartoons were. That changes nothing.

[swrate]

….Tariq Ramadan…..
People like him are badly needed, for communication and dialogue, he is a brilliant orator.
A charismatic moderate person. A mediator.


thanks for the links articles, posts, blog everything
.

There is a big danger when communities feel a threat to their traditions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinia, Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt …..) positions radicalize and extreme groups flourish. On both sides.
They go backwards, cling to their own traditions, (religion culture)and restrict freedom, i.e. Iraq …… do woman have more or less freedom and autonomy then before “democratisation”?

moderatly revolted student movements are all over, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=22050

......with the image we send, that means many recruits for the Hezbollah…
Other countries other movements, official or unofficial parties.


Fundamentalist activist youth becomes sadly brainwashed, Youssef Chahine’s film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119629/#comment
Al massir , Destiny describes it well. A very good film, it won a César in Cannes.

Extremists are feared in M-E, & security enforcement is tight. Violent actions are condemned by a majority. i.e. Lebanese Interior Minister resigned, was sorry he failed to prevent the riots. People lose their freedom, are assassinated, sad sad sad,
How can the M-E stop a huge fire when fuel is constantly added to it from all sides? and how can Muslims regain a sense of pride after such a blow?

[Spliffdaddy]

Why is it when there's a global crisis, the solution is to talk and discuss and "open a dialogue"?


Isn't that exactly what always starts the global crisis to begin with?


My solution is for everybody to shut the hell up and stop talking.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by swrate

It’s not the depiction the cause of the outrage, but how depicted.
The bomb touched religion and culture, as the Prophet (pbuh) is seen as the Messenger .




enlightment
I think there are conflicts between science and religion: the “theory of evolution” revisionists, or the Euro/Afro centrist domination schemes during older civilizations, no doubt many more conflicts exist. Word conflicts. During times of crisis religion becomes involved with culture.

Useless provocations, both in the balance, are worse. Could this story reach boil cot, boycott on oil, could China have priorities when time comes to chose?

It's also a shame the comics persist in the Medias. Two days ago, the Rolling Stones had their microphone silenced.
This freedom of speech polemic is a hypocrite excuse for turmoil. Freedom of speech is just another taboo. Also, Media twists facts and often follow rumours..

It’s a shame for Danes, they don’t deserve these hateful outbursts, and they are non aggressive, humanitarian people. Danes, struggling through this experience for the sake of a few right wing philosophers doing a fear test.
Extremes are testing extremes, and religion is turned into politics.
.


I hope different cultures and religions will communicate on all levels, for tolerance and understanding.

The depictations of your religious leader were meant to be offensive, you realize this? It is in response to the islamic extremests who have been wreaking havoc in the West lately. Remember? Killing innocent people? Well, they first and foremost, are being mocked because moderate and sensible people wouldn't lose control over their excremental functions over something like this. Something they can see through. Something, when seen in perspective, is fantastically trivial. One newspaper in Denmark. Have a cow.

***

If you think there is conflict between science and religion you are mistaken. By definition and for all practical purposes science does not touch religion. It can't because science is a methodology which relies on tangible and testable things. Can you test God?

I am a Catholic biologist. I know evolution exists and I can prove it. It is not tought in books, it is testable and is happening all around us. There is no conflict with religion here.. at least if your religion is Catholicism. I do not know if the Koran denies evolution or if it touches on the subject.

In conflict people find solace and answers in religion, it is a natural and common reaction. Islamic extremests and troublemakers have been reversing this order. Finding religion and using it to create conflict. I care not about their motives. Suffice to say, religion - in this case Islam - is used to create conflict. It and it alone.

***

You write:

"Useless provocations, both in the balance, are worse. Could this story reach boil cot, boycott on oil, could China have priorities when time comes to chose?"

I ask:

Are you trying to be funny with word play in a language you can't actually speak? Either way I don't understand the sentance I quoted above. Sorry, perhaps you should keep your sentances simple if you wish to be understood.

***

It is actually pretty good that the comics persist in the media. Continued exposure of offensive material numbs one. A few decades ago sex on TV would have been a serious taboo, now it is ok after 9 in the evening. Perhaps it is time Moslems get exposed by depictations of their prophet? Not that they aren't. You can buy pretty pictures and icons of him in Iran for instance. I guess you're not in Iran.

As for the Superbowl Halftime show. Yeah, I watched it and the game. I always do and this halftime show was no exception from the rest. Every single profanity or possible profanity edited out. The NFL gets to decide this. They think it is good for ad revinue to be 100% non-insulting. They're in it for the money. That was so called self-censoring and you'd be wise not to use that as an example of western hypocracy. There is probably enough of it, but not there. The NFL is quite consistant when it comes to this.

The media is also in it for the money. They have their target groups and they censor themselves accordingly. Yeah there is free speech but there is also the freedom not to speak. The Americans on this forum love to talk about the bias of their media. CNN vs Fox News etc. and I suppose there is some difference between how they report. It is all in what they say and what they choose not to say. They are - however - free to say anything. They're on cable! Are they hypocrites at Fox News when they don't publish or talk much about a story that puts communism in a positive light? Hardly, they just know that their Republican viewers would change the channel. The media is biased, but rarely is it hypocratic. Perhaps if they declared themselves fair and balanced and then didn't deliver on it.. but AFAIK the Jyllands Posten is not known and never has tried to become known for being a bastion of neutrality. It is a popular right-wing-ish Danish newspaper and they were acting the part. No hypocracy going on and their readers were no doubt pleased and laughed at the Mohamed cartoons.

***

I agree the Danes do not deserve anything good or bad for which a newspaper publishes. A paper neither the people of Denmark have direct or indirect control over. The right-wing people in Denmark are playing this marvelously. They are gaining support and sympathy and intolerance against Muslims grows. They are pleased. Who is to thank.. well Muslims. The Muslims who got all outraged *beyond* what is expected. So are the Muslims who react like this just this stupid or can't they control their mouth and limbs? It must be one of the two, because their reactions make no sense for civilized people.

cheers

W-Y

[swrate]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Irrelevant argument. It doesn't matter how bad or not the cartoons were. That changes nothing.

of course, the depiction changes everything:
A Messenger is not supposed to carry a bomb, but to bring peace.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by PacHead

I'm not anti-Europe at all, you could not be more mistaken. I am anti-socialists, and against the people who have ruined Europe by importing extremely many fanatical people to Europe. I am anti-cowards, which has been the stance of much of Europe for a while now. I am anti-anti-American European bigots and other mentally challenged people who have been blind to the problems in their own backyard. I am not anti-Europe though and it seems as if I will be more supportive of Europe in the future, because they are finally starting to wake up and see things the way I do, which is the correct way.

Fair enough, you are honest with your feelings. That is good. And you speak Norwegian, which enables you to get a deeper view into European life - although as you probably know, of all the countries in Europe Norway is probably *the* most socialist country.

I would suggest Italian for some serious right-wing European POV.

I myself consider me to be a moderate conservative. Old fashioned even.

cheers

W-Y

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Fair enough, you are honest with your feelings. That is good. And you speak Norwegian, which enables you to get a deeper view into European life - although as you probably know, of all the countries in Europe Norway is probably *the* most socialist country.

Yes, I know, Norway has been horribly socialist and that's why I haven't been visiting there too often lately. That will change soon. There is one country that is far worse than Norway though I
believe in terms of being socialist and naive, and that would be Sweden. They have no idea what's in store for them.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"

I'm just going to take a wild guess here: fear?

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The depictations of your religious leader were meant to be offensive, you realize this? It is in response to the islamic extremests who have been wreaking havoc in the West lately. Remember? Killing innocent people? Well, they first and foremost, are being mocked because moderate and sensible people wouldn't lose control over their excremental functions over something like this. Something they can see through. Something, when seen in perspective, is fantastically trivial. One newspaper in Denmark. Have a cow.

***

If you think there is conflict between science and religion you are mistaken. By definition and for all practical purposes science does not touch religion. It can't because science is a methodology which relies on tangible and testable things. Can you test God?

I am a Catholic biologist. I know evolution exists and I can prove it. It is not tought in books, it is testable and is happening all around us. There is no conflict with religion here.. at least if your religion is Catholicism. I do not know if the Koran denies evolution or if it touches on the subject.

In conflict people find solace and answers in religion, it is a natural and common reaction. Islamic extremests and troublemakers have been reversing this order. Finding religion and using it to create conflict. I care not about their motives. Suffice to say, religion - in this case Islam - is used to create conflict. It and it alone.

***

You write:

"Useless provocations, both in the balance, are worse. Could this story reach boil cot, boycott on oil, could China have priorities when time comes to chose?"

I ask:

Are you trying to be funny with word play in a language you can't actually speak? Either way I don't understand the sentance I quoted above. Sorry, perhaps you should keep your sentances simple if you wish to be understood.

***

It is actually pretty good that the comics persist in the media. Continued exposure of offensive material numbs one. A few decades ago sex on TV would have been a serious taboo, now it is ok after 9 in the evening. Perhaps it is time Moslems get exposed by depictations of their prophet? Not that they aren't. You can buy pretty pictures and icons of him in Iran for instance. I guess you're not in Iran.

As for the Superbowl Halftime show. Yeah, I watched it and the game. I always do and this halftime show was no exception from the rest. Every single profanity or possible profanity edited out. The NFL gets to decide this. They think it is good for ad revinue to be 100% non-insulting. They're in it for the money. That was so called self-censoring and you'd be wise not to use that as an example of western hypocracy. There is probably enough of it, but not there. The NFL is quite consistant when it comes to this.

The media is also in it for the money. They have their target groups and they censor themselves accordingly. Yeah there is free speech but there is also the freedom not to speak. The Americans on this forum love to talk about the bias of their media. CNN vs Fox News etc. and I suppose there is some difference between how they report. It is all in what they say and what they choose not to say. They are - however - free to say anything. They're on cable! Are they hypocrites at Fox News when they don't publish or talk much about a story that puts communism in a positive light? Hardly, they just know that their Republican viewers would change the channel. The media is biased, but rarely is it hypocratic. Perhaps if they declared themselves fair and balanced and then didn't deliver on it.. but AFAIK the Jyllands Posten is not known and never has tried to become known for being a bastion of neutrality. It is a popular right-wing-ish Danish newspaper and they were acting the part. No hypocracy going on and their readers were no doubt pleased and laughed at the Mohamed cartoons.

***

I agree the Danes do not deserve anything good or bad for which a newspaper publishes. A paper neither the people of Denmark have direct or indirect control over. The right-wing people in Denmark are playing this marvelously. They are gaining support and sympathy and intolerance against Muslims grows. They are pleased. Who is to thank.. well Muslims. The Muslims who got all outraged *beyond* what is expected. So are the Muslims who react like this just this stupid or can't they control their mouth and limbs? It must be one of the two, because their reactions make no sense for civilized people.

cheers

W-Y

We are supposed to be civilized and show respect,whatever religion and even if none imo. when you touch something that deep, beliefs, and trash them, it causes serious damage and problems.
the Holy Quran does not deny evolution theories.
they are no contradictions between nature and God, many between science and science or science and religion some of the believers of a religion were totally opposed to Darwin, in a huge thread of arguments on MacNN.

Extremists in all religions are trouble makers so are extremists in politics. and tant pis pour les jeux de maux.
you see i disagree, they have been ups and downs in censoring.
Muslims were more open in Iran Irak Egypt Syria Lebanon between 40-60 then they are now.

I think the timing is very bad for this cartoon provocation.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by swrate

We are supposed to be civilized and show respect,whatever religion and even if none imo. when you touch something that deep, beliefs, and trash them, it causes serious damage and problems.

Respect is a two way street and I cannot think of one single good reason why I should repsect the Islamic world, not one single reason. I can think of countless reasons why I should not.

[vmarks]

Tariq Ramadan, a man refused entry to the United States due to his links to supporting terrorism. Ramadan has a family history of terror. His maternal grandmother was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. His father left Egypt for Sweden after a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

A DHS spokesman, Russ Knocke, later explained this (revocation of his work visa) had been done in accord with a law that denies entry to aliens who have used a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." The revocation, Mr. Knocke added, was based on "public safety or national security interests."

He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:

Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.


The Guardian hired a supporter of terrorism. Dilpazier Aslam, was working for the Guardian as recently as June of last year, when he was writing for the Hizb Ut Tahrir magazine. The email address given for Mr. Aslam is at the 1924.org domain, which belongs to that organisation.

From the magazine's mission statement:

"We maintain that the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ is not only inevitable but imperative."



CAIR, who is a Hamas front organization, and has had numerous people in CAIR leadership linked to terrorism.

*U.S. Senator Richard Durbin: "[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect"

*U.S. Senator Charles Schumer: "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism"

From Sept. 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security

Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Hadid served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001.

With moderates like these, who needs extremists?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by swrate

We are supposed to be civilized and show respect,whatever religion and even if none imo. when you touch something that deep, beliefs, and trash them, it causes serious damage and problems.
the Holy Quran does not deny evolution theories.
they are no contradictions between nature and God, many between science and science or science and religion some of the believers of a religion were totally opposed to Darwin, in a huge thread of arguments on MacNN.

Extremists in all religions are trouble makers so are extremists in politics. and tant pis pour les jeux de maux.
you see i disagree, they have been ups and downs in censoring.
Muslims were more open in Iran Irak Egypt Syria Lebanon between 40-60 then they are now.

I think the timing is very bad for this cartoon provocation.

We are all supposed to be civilized and show respect. Turn the other cheek. So it is written. Especially against those who do not understand and do not know. Turning the other cheek is a very apt analogy. When we are hit on the cheek it hurts, but we are not the worse for it. We are not permanently damaged and the discipline we show when we react by turning the other cheek is only respectful and respectable. Killing is against the Book and is not condoned. Those who break the law have to face the law.

***

It is good to know the Koran does not deny evolution, for the Bible does not do so either. We can then be in accord about that. Science does not conflict with religion. Not yours and not mine. There are many arguments about it here on MacNN, granted, but those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible are not necessarily Christian. They do often call themselves that, but this issue for instance is a dead giveaway. I understand them, I myself did not believe in evolution until I saw it with my own eyes, learned about it and tested it. It is there. However if one's pastor has decided differently and quotes the Bible to support his case it becomes a test of faith for the literalists. Such are many Evangelicals for instance. I'm sure there are Evenagelicals out there who accept evolution. After all it is a non-centralized religion.

***

It is interesting to know that Muslims used to be more open and dare I say liberal in the 40s to 60s and it is sad to hear they have lost that trait. And with that their peace.

“If there is to be peace in the world,
There must be peace in the nations.
If there is to be peace in the nations,
There must be peace in the cities.
If there is to be peace in the cities,
There must be peace between neighbors.
If there is to be peace between neighbors,
There must be peace in the home.
If there is to be peace in the home,
There must be peace in the heart.”

Lao Tzu

cheers

W-Y

[Jens Peter]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It is a popular right-wing-ish Danish newspaper and they were acting the part. No hypocracy going on and their readers were no doubt pleased and laughed at the Mohamed cartoons.

Yes, when these cartoons were printed, I was writing my masther thesis, and we got Jyllans-Posten delivered to the university. When they first appered, we saw them as funny - just like when cartoons about the Queen or our PM are printed... We talked about it, one saying "Now the muslims in Denmark are really integrated... We make fun of them as well as our 'own'."

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I agree the Danes do not deserve anything good or bad for which a newspaper publishes. A paper neither the people of Denmark have direct or indirect control over. The right-wing people in Denmark are playing this marvelously. They are gaining support and sympathy and intolerance against Muslims grows. They are pleased. Who is to thank.. well Muslims. The Muslims who got all outraged *beyond* what is expected. So are the Muslims who react like this just this stupid or can't they control their mouth and limbs? It must be one of the two, because their reactions make no sense for civilized people.

cheers

W-Y

And the last couple of days, where the danish media have proven that at least one of the pictures the muslim delegation brought to the middle east was fake - it wasen't a image of Muhammed but an image of a french guy participating in a 'say-like-a-pig' competition. And will those who participated in that delegation now talk to the media ? Of course not!

[Super Mario]

If you believe God is all powerful and all controlling he put the idea of the drawings into the cartoonist's head to test the Muslims for civil behaviour and intelligence to understand what the cartoons were about. Many Muslims failed this test.

[von Wrangell]

Interesting how most on here have ignored the self-censorship employed by J-P when it comes to what religion it will attack..............

Oh, and I wait for MacNStein and vmarks to back me up on the "Thou shall not murder/kill" debate....... I won't hold my breath.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I'll just wait for Taliesin's arguments to convince the rioters. Oh, and his lovely explanation for Sura 9 that talks about striking at the necks...

Do you really think I can convince radical islamists and orthodox islam at once and in a few days? It will take many years, if not decades and generations.

"Striking at the necks", do you mean the angels that God ordered to do so in order to help prophet Muhammad and his followers on the battlefield?

What's your point?

I'm not denying that prophet Muhammad and his followers fought on the battlefield, and I'm neither denying that God helped them with angels.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And they claim those words are the words of "God" ? Sounds more like the words of Satan to me.

Im glad i grew up with the 10 commandments as a guide. "You shall not kill".... cant be any simpler. Am i'm greatful to the God (if any), and his followers who made it that simple.

Cheers

These words aren't any different from the words in the Torah. Do you really think that the commandment "You shall not kill", negates the possibility for killing during a war. You are pretty ignorant regarding the history of Israel under its various prophets and messiahs, leading many wars.

"You shall not kill" is clearly meant, not killing innocent people.

But warfare was not the only exception from that general law. The Torah also had many different death-sentence-possibilities for people that murder, steal or practice adultery...

It gets more complex, don't you think?

Was the God of the old testament Satan, too?

Or did God play the Satan in the old testament, but chose in the new testament to be again God, because the new testament changes everything?

No, the real reason why God's commandment in the new testament is much more civilised than in the old testament, is no other than the different historic and political contexts.

Israel had to survive in a place with no law and order, where polytheistic clans lived according to their own clan-specific tribal laws, while Jesus preached his message in a state governed by roman law and order, being himself a jew and preaching to jews.

Prophet Muhammad preached his message in a political context that is much more like the one ancient Israel had to face than the one Jesus had to... and preaching it to polytheistic clans living according to their own clan-specific tribal laws...

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Interesting how most on here have ignored the self-censorship employed by J-P when it comes to what religion it will attack..............

Oh, and I wait for MacNStein and vmarks to back me up on the "Thou shall not murder/kill" debate....... I won't hold my breath.

You apparently operate using a different logic scheme than infidels do, so let me explain it for you. It doesn't matter one bit if that newspaper was a bunch of extremists who printed vile anti-islamic cartoons on purpose. The people who printed the cartoons are not the problem here, I don't care if they're serial killer racist nazis. it is the violent, primitive, fascist reaction by the backwards Islamic world that is the problem. After this cartoon event, I don't believe that the majority of Muslims believes in free speech and they would certainly quell mine if they got the opportunity, something that will never happen of course.

[Jens Peter]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Interesting how most on here have ignored the self-censorship employed by J-P when it comes to what religion it will attack..............

Have you read the newspaper ? I guess not. Then you would have found lots of cartoons with all kinds of people. Politicians, celebrities, the royal family and - of course - religion.
I'm sorry that In can't post any of those pictures here - I guess they are avaliable online, but you have to pay to get access to them..

[Y3a]

So, after all the words back n forth...

Whats their problem???

Are the Muslims so culturally primative that they can't comprehend a different point of view, and that their current actions helps to prove the point of their detractors?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Interesting how most on here have ignored the self-censorship employed by J-P when it comes to what religion it will attack..............

Oh, and I wait for MacNStein and vmarks to back me up on the "Thou shall not murder/kill" debate....... I won't hold my breath.

Even if they do(which i doubt), do you think their word takes presidence over the vatican when discussing the 10 commandments ? grow up.

Oh and, people and organizations have the choice to publish and say what hey want. if they make fun of one religion they can choose to not make fun of another. they dont impose their choices on other organization that disagree with them, and no one can/should inforce their opinion on the newspaper.

The muslims rioting have no better thing to do auther than burn/murder/destroy property over a cartoon. well guess what.... thats uncivilized to begin with, and wont be accepted or tolerated in the free world. Accept that as an outcome of democracy in the free world as aopposed to the dogma imposed by the islamic world on culture, media and the individual. if dont like it.... **** off.

[Monique]

Those who protested so much are crazy. There was a cartoon I think in another thread about a Jew that I found offensive but, I am not about to go and burn some consulates or embassies or making death threats about it. I guess when you live in a society that excuses all sort of violent acts and promote them it should not surprise us.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

These words aren't any different from the words in the Torah. Do you really think that the commandment "You shall not kill", negates the possibility for killing during a war. You are pretty ignorant regarding the history of Israel under its various prophets and messiahs, leading many wars.

"You shall not kill" is clearly meant, not killing innocent people.

But warfare was not the only exception from that general law. The Torah also had many different death-sentence-possibilities for people that murder, steal or practice adultery...

It gets more complex, don't you think?

Lucas 9:52-55

52 Envió delante de él unos mensajeros con el encargo de buscarle alojamiento, los cuales entraron en una aldea samaritana; pero allí no quisieron recibirle, porque no querían tener relación con nadie que se dirigiese a Jerusalén.

53-54Al enterarse de esto, Jacobo y Juan se irritaron y dijeron a Jesús:

Señor, si quieres, mandaremos que baje fuego del cielo, como hizo Elías, para que los consuma.

55 Pero Jesús se volvió hacia ellos y los reprendió.

***

Here Christ scolds his disciples for even suggesting killing those who do not believe. People will not make God kill anyone. Even 'infidels'.

***

As for war, here are a few thoughts:

The apostle Paul wrote, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18)

"To call war anything less than evil would be self-deception. The Christian conscience has throughout history recognized the tragic character of war. The issue that tears the Christian conscience is not whether war is good, but whether it is in all cases avoidable." - Arthur Holmes, a Christian Philospher.

In our actions and moral decisions in life we strive for a biblical perspective. We strive to apply black and white in a world of gray, and sometimes we are trapped in moral dilemmas whose roots lie in the past as well as the present, such that whatever we do involves us in evil of some sort.

So Christians try to strive not to go to war unless it is a just war. Even that pains us. We don't want to, which reflects even in the atheist moral in Europe. We like the atheists view war as the absolute last resort and then only if it is a just war. Whether a war is just or not is the dilemma and sorrow of Christians. We can't really know, but there are a few thoughts to guide us in the Bible and Christian philosophy.

1. The just war position is normative for all people, both Christian and non-Christian. It doesn't describe how people do act, but how they should act and it applies to all people.

2. The just war position does not try to justify war. Rather, it attempts to bring war within the limits of justice so that if everyone were guided by these principles, many wars would be eliminated.

3. The just war position assumes that individuals or private citizens do not have the right to use military force. Only governments have such a right. Thus, the key issue is not whether an individual can fight in war, but whether a government has the right to engage in armed conflict, and whether a citizen, Christian or not should participate as an agent of that government.

Furthermore there are rules of how to conduct a just war.

Just cause--All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.

Just intention (right intention)--The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war.

Last resort--The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.

Formal declaration--The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias.

Limited objectives--The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective.

Proportionate means--Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate. ("You don't burn down the barn to roast the pig.")

Noncombatant immunity--Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks.

***

This is written to attempt to explain the Christian POV on killing and war. Killing is absoloutly forbidden in Christianity by individuals for individual purposes. There are no ways around it. Self defense may be forgiveable but even so the question remains after killing in self defense, "was it avaoidable?". That is something that has to be answered on Judgement day and a Christian must really repent his actions even after killing in self defense. It is wrong to kill.

Wars are slightly different, they cannot be waged by individuals or individual organizations of any kind and when a Christian is called on for war it has to be just for him to participate in it.

In a world of grey we strive to make it black and white but it is difficult. We have to trust in God, our inherent kindness and conciousness. Have faith and avoid conflict.

I don't know how to explain it better, but it still boils down to that without exception killing is wrong. Sometimes we are pushed into doing the wrong thing when it is the lesser of two evils but we must repent, have faith and work towards a better world. That is the Christian perspective.

cheers

W-Y

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Do you really think I can convince radical islamists and orthodox islam at once and in a few days? It will take many years, if not decades and generations.

"Striking at the necks", do you mean the angels that God ordered to do so in order to help prophet Muhammad and his followers on the battlefield?

What's your point?

I'm not denying that prophet Muhammad and his followers fought on the battlefield, and I'm neither denying that God helped them with angels.

Taliesin

Sura 9 indicates you're meant to lie in wait and attack the unbelievers. Sura 8 actually is the one I meant, about striking at the necks of the unbelievers. (which is where the 'extremists' get the notion that it's holy to behead the rest of us.)

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

......snipped long list of BS..........

Any chance you could actually just read what they said and address that?

1. If CAIR had any known contacts to terrorism it would have been closed down by the US a long time ago. Believing otherwise is idiotic.

2. If T. Ramadan had any known links to terrorism he would have been held in the US and charged for it (or sent to GTMO). Believing otherwise is idiotic.

But then, your only goal around here is blaming Muslims for all the bad in the world and implying they are all guilty.

What's sad is that you don't seem to understand what you are repeating.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Sura 9 indicates you're meant to lie in wait and attack the unbelievers. Sura 8 actually is the one I meant, about striking at the necks of the unbelievers. (which is where the 'extremists' get the notion that it's holy to behead the rest of us.)

You still haven't argued once with him about your claims. Just throwing them out in the typical cowardly hit-and-run tactic you have shown in the past you are so keen of. Is this yet another example you're giving us?


But then you are showing some progress. You've started doing this yourself instead of sending emails to other members asking them to do it.

[vmarks]

VonWrangell:

I'm sorry, I didn't see your note about 'thou shall not kill' v 'thou shall not murder' until it had been quoted several times.

I was too busy posting about your support of the terrorist-supporter Tariq Ramadan, your support of the terrorist-front CAIR, and your quoting of the Guardian, who happily hired a terrorist-supporter last year.

Hawkeye, I'm sorry to inform you that the Vatican has gone their own direction on the meaning of this commandment, and that their direction is in opposition to the Hebrew we have available to us in the Torah.

This is a landmark moment, for it is the rare occasion when VonWrangell gets something right. (And how it must pain him to be associated with anything labeled 'right' )

But then, he knew he could count on me to provide the following explanation, because I have had to provide it in the past.

the Hebrew verb used in the commandment is best translated as murder. kill is used often in other places, and a different verb altogether is used. for reference, the verb in Exodus 20:13 (Biblia Hebraica stuttgartensia) is רצח , while the more common (though not definitive) 'to kill' is מות .

and take these English sentences, which demonstrate a clear conceptual distinction between 'kill' and 'murder'. they are often interchangeable, but these examples illustrate very well the limits of these two words.

Kim was killed in a car accident.
Kim was murdered in a car accident.

John was killed by a drunk driver.
John was murdered by a drunk driver.

Andy was killed in World War Two.
Andy was murdered in World War Two.

the first doesn't make sense with 'murdered', provided it is a single-car accident with Kim at fault.

the second makes sense, but 'murdered' carries more emotion than does 'killed'.

the third offers potentially two meanings. 3a suggests Andy died in a battle or otherwise in the line of duty. 3b suggets that Andy was killed in World War Two, but that his death was outside the bounds of normal warfare: execution as a POW, perhaps.

the variations tell us that on some level we (native English) speakers perceive a difference, and, by extension, the Exodus 20:13 commandment deserves similar distinction, whether one agrees with it or not.


That's the linguistics of it.

Religiously, we can set up a hypothetical situation where it is a mitzvah to kill a person who is attempting to commit murder.

I hope that sheds some light on the matter.

[moodymonster]

I think that instead of relying on others to interpret holy texts, more people should read them themselves and make up their own minds as to the meaning. But that would mean people thinking, and most don't like to do that.

However I am suprised by how widespread Danish is in the Muslim world.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

VonWrangell:

I'm sorry, I didn't see your note about 'thou shall not kill' v 'thou shall not murder' until it had been quoted several times.

......snip.......

Hawkeye, I'm sorry to inform you that the Vatican has gone their own direction on the meaning of this commandment, and that their direction is in opposition to the Hebrew we have available to us in the Torah.

This is a landmark moment, for it is the rare occasion when VonWrangell gets something right. (And how it must pain him to be associated with anything labeled 'right' )

But then, he knew he could count on me to provide the following explanation, because I have had to provide it in the past.

the Hebrew verb used in the commandment is best translated as murder. kill is used often in other places, and a different verb altogether is used. for reference, the verb in Exodus 20:13 (Biblia Hebraica stuttgartensia) is רצח , while the more common (though not definitive) 'to kill' is מות .

and take these English sentences, which demonstrate a clear conceptual distinction between 'kill' and 'murder'. they are often interchangeable, but these examples illustrate very well the limits of these two words.

Kim was killed in a car accident.
Kim was murdered in a car accident.

John was killed by a drunk driver.
John was murdered by a drunk driver.

Andy was killed in World War Two.
Andy was murdered in World War Two.

the first doesn't make sense with 'murdered', provided it is a single-car accident with Kim at fault.

the second makes sense, but 'murdered' carries more emotion than does 'killed'.

the third offers potentially two meanings. 3a suggests Andy died in a battle or otherwise in the line of duty. 3b suggets that Andy was killed in World War Two, but that his death was outside the bounds of normal warfare: execution as a POW, perhaps.

the variations tell us that on some level we (native English) speakers perceive a difference, and, by extension, the Exodus 20:13 commandment deserves similar distinction, whether one agrees with it or not.


That's the linguistics of it.

Religiously, we can set up a hypothetical situation where it is a mitzvah to kill a person who is attempting to commit murder.

I hope that sheds some light on the matter.

I think Hell just froze.

Thanks.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You still haven't argued once with him about your claims. Just throwing them out in the typical cowardly hit-and-run tactic you have shown in the past you are so keen of. Is this yet another example you're giving us?


But then you are showing some progress. You've started doing this yourself instead of sending emails to other members asking them to do it.

Conspiracy!

Next up, you'll be telling us all I'm a part of the EVIL ALIEN SERPENT PEOPLE!

The first rule of the Cabal™ is There is no Cabal

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Conspiracy!

Next up, you'll be telling us all I'm a part of the EVIL ALIEN SERPENT PEOPLE!

The first rule of the Cabal™ is There is no Cabal

You've never sent emails to other members of MacNN telling them what to ask me?