Originally posted by hopscotchThat's not necessarily true. Religion can be nicer if it doesn't start controlling people too much or it isn't used to control/manipulate people. Love your neibours xx
As long as we have religion we shall never have peace. As long as we have contempt for religion we shall never have peace. As long as we have peace we shall seek its end. Conflict is what makes us who we are, it defines us. We have to end this insane cycle or we are all doomed.
But cults and fanatics are bit scarely though. I want to know what's going on in their brain.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat's taking it to a whole new level! Sheets-muslin-Mosul-Muslim
lol... now this is funny...
🙂
Edit: Ok, for the slow ones... muslim/muslin, get it? oh, never mind... hehe
Not sure I got that. I was more on the basic level that certain people wear sheets and towels as semi-formal attire.
Originally posted by dottewellNo, the political point being some people use Islam to peddal their hatred, and to inspire terrorism and violence.
The political point being: we have the right to gratuitously offend whatever group we please, if it is profitable for us to do so.
That's not the liberal democratic culture I know and love.
Given the reaction of the protestors, would you dispute this point, or concede that the caricaturist (however bloody talentless) and the paper which specifically requested these cartoons were actually stating the blindingly obvious.
Originally posted by sjegI would not dispute that point.
No, the political point being some people use Islam to peddal their hatred, and to inspire terrorism and violence.
Given the reaction of the protestors, would you dispute this point, or concede that the caricaturist (however bloody talentless) and the paper which specifically requested these cartoons were actually stating the blindingly obvious.
People use many things to justify violence and hatred. That doesn't mean you should gratitously offend people who believe in those things.
Originally posted by dottewellI think it's important to offend gratuitously people who believe in violence and hatred...
I would not dispute that point.
People use many things to justify violence and hatred. That doesn't mean you should gratitously offend people who believe in those things.
Of course you are right on that point, dottewell- and offending people of any faith personally I consider in poor taste. But I defend the right of any rag to do so, once they think a journalistic statement is there to be made, and of anyone to criticise them for making it, or cancel their subscription (not exactly the path taken by all on this one).
Originally posted by sjegNo. Wrong.
No, the political point being some people use Islam to peddal their hatred, and to inspire terrorism and violence.
This is not a matter of hatred, terrorism (I hate that word and you should not have used it in this context), and violence. It is a matter of the desecration of something that is held sacred by a group of people.
This nonsensical rhetoric only further incites the Anti-Islam mob mentality that you are obviously prone to. The problem is not with Islam, it is the lack of understanding of the concept of sacriledge. Have you blunted yourself so much that you really cannot realise why these people are upset?
Originally posted by hopscotchWhat?! You are one of the most sacreligious people I know. You've said some pretty cutting, rude , and tasteless things about what people hold sacred. So would YOU consider it understandable if some rhp members who were pissed about what you said in these forums burned down a S African embassy? Would you issue an apology if they threatened Russ with violence and excuse them for making those threats against the rhp ownership? Would you put all of the blame for the entire chain of events on yourself for speaking freely?
No. Wrong.
This is not a matter of hatred, terrorism (I hate that word and you should not have used it in this context), and violence. It is a matter of the desecration of something that is held [b]sacred by a group of people.
This nonsensical rhetoric only further incites the Anti-Islam mob mentality that you are obviously prone to. The problem ...[text shortened]... ge. Have you blunted yourself so much that you really cannot realise why these people are upset?[/b]
For me the whole issue is that any group having their feelings hurt or with a rightous cause feels entitled to resort to ANY extreme in retaliation.- You wear furs , so as an animal rights activist I am entitled to throw red dye in your face. One of my people was beaten by the police so I am entitled to burn down a business and riot in the streets. You are an abortion doctor , so I am entitled to kill you.
As tasteless , insensitive , crass , or sacreligious as these cartoons may have been; can it justify physical violence ? This escalation to violence over a cartoon is inexcusable, and the sense of entitlement to violence is unjustifiable.
Damn, my reply was removed because I used the word "sh-t".
It says right here: Important : Posts on this board may be subject to moderation. Please refrain from spamming, flaming or using excessively offensive language on this board. If you do not wish to post this message, click here to return to the forums.
Since when is the word "sh-t", used perfectly in context with the discussion, considered excessively offensive? I'm disappointed.
Anyway, apologies Moldy, I can't be bothered to rewrite my post. I think you've stretched the point too thin, I never alluded that sacriledge was an excuse for violence, I admit that I'm an antagonist too, the crux was that the cartoons are a symptom of a greater repressed frustration with the guy on the other side of the fence who's righteous ideals differ from yours.
"This is not a matter of hatred, terrorism (I hate that word and you should not have used it in this context), and violence. It is a matter of the desecration of something that is held sacred by a group of people."
I agree...and I agree with those who say that real violence (as opposed to symbolic: burning effigies) is an impermissible response to such desecration.
Apparently the Cape Town Muslims' march went quite well, with a lot of anger being vented without anyone being hurt or property being destroyed. Way to go SA Muslims!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWait... you are surely not saying that newspapers might tend to publish what their readership wants to see, but not what it might find offensive?
The editor didn't care if Muslims were offended by the one set of cartoons because the rag's readership is presumably not Muslim; however, the Christ cartoons were pulled for fear of offending their delicate sensibilities. The double standard is really quite obvious.
😲
So _that's_ why my copy of the Telegraph never contains a page 3 girl, despite my numerous petitions to the editor...
Terribly unfair. I agree.
Originally posted by dottewellNo, the political point being the exploitation of a religion to peddal violence and hatred.
The political point being: we have the right to gratuitously offend whatever group we please, if it is profitable for us to do so.
That's not the liberal democratic culture I know and love.
Yes, exactly, and to live with the consequences.
I think that's called capitalism, anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by hopscotchRubbish.
No. Wrong.
This is not a matter of hatred, terrorism (I hate that word and you should not have used it in this context), and violence. It is a matter of the desecration of something that is held [b]sacred by a group of people.
This nonsensical rhetoric only further incites the Anti-Islam mob mentality that you are obviously prone to. The problem ...[text shortened]... ge. Have you blunted yourself so much that you really cannot realise why these people are upset?[/b]
I understand perfectly well why they are upset. There have been plenty of times Christians have been upset by grotesque misrepresentations of Christ, or of the Pontiff.
How many embassies did they burn. How many flags?
If these up-in-arms Moslems wish to live in Europe, then they can take a step to understand how our societies and cultures work. We have a long history of satire and caricature which is important to our freedom of expression. We have a right to caricature any prophet or any god we choose. European Moslems have the right to find it offensive. They do not have the right to threaten death to all and sundry, and get the old torch out. They declare Europe a cancer to which Islam is the answer. Now that's a mob, anti-Christian, anti-European, and our culture. My stance if for our values remaining unchanged.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow can you agree with the first point, Bosse? Hopscotch and yourself haven't a leg to stand on.
"This is not a matter of hatred, terrorism (I hate that word and you should not have used it in this context), and violence. It is a matter of the desecration of something that is held sacred by a group of people."
I agree...and I agree with those who say that real violence (as opposed to symbolic: burning effigies) is an impermissible response to ger being vented without anyone being hurt or property being destroyed. Way to go SA Muslims!
Terrorism, which can be defined: 'the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal...'
So this isn't applicable here? Purleeeese!