"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.
.[/b]
Why?
Freedom includes the right to offend. Religious sensibilities should be subject to the same protection from offence as any other belief system, ie, none.
Before we all forget, the advent of free speech and free expresion in the UK (and in the US) is intimately linked to freedom of religion. These freedoms were won in the UK by dissenting religions who wanted to practice their faith and to publish religious tracts. For religious groups to want to curb free speech is a denial of their past and of their legacy to wider society. If we deny the right to offend one religion we will eventually deny the right to preach certain faiths.
Just for you information I am frequently offended by the public statments of religious groups.
As to the current controversy I think the Danish paper commisioned the twelve cartoons as part of a campaign on freedom of expresion and published them in full knowlege they would cause offence. The local hard line imams added three more (far more) offensive cartoons and took the whole bundle to the wider muslim world. A spokesman admitted to adding the three images because he believed they illustrated the atmosphere of prejudice in Denmark. The newspaper behaved in a manner that is niaive at best; the hardliners behave in a manner that was intended to whip up as much trouble as possible. I the UK we have individuals calling for beheadings. In the Mid east we have murder and mayhem. I reckon the Danish imams should be called to account.
Originally posted by Omnislash Theistic belief is a moot point in my opinion. An organization of individuals has taken violent initiative. If they retaliated in retort [b]to violence, that would be something of merit. As they are the aggressor (in the sense of violence) their motive is moot. I don't care if they call themselves Muslim, Christian, or Noodle-ites of the FSM. Nothing harmed upon them but ego. Hardly acceptable behavior by any normative 21st century standards.[/b]
Originally posted by stocken "Many Muslim scholars have accepted the tradition that Aisha was nine years old when the marriage was consummated. This has in turn led critics to denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young, which in modern times would be classified as child sexual abuse. Some respond to this criticism by claiming that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine ...[text shortened]... s old as nineteen or twenty. You decide for yourself which scholars are the most trustworthy.
I'm also wondering what "consummation" means in this context. In India, there used to be a tradition of child marriage where children as young as a year or so were "married" to each other, but actual sexual relations did not occur till both had passed puberty.
Muslims in my country who brandish anti west slogans should be deported to the country of thier nearest non brittish relative as a matter of national security, that is my opinion.
As for freedom of speech i think that the muslims are right to defend thier religeon with the passion in which they have. Did any one see the cartoon of anne frank in bed with Hitler? I thought the cartoonist made a good point in as much as there are tabboos that we in the west also consider untouchable.
The Muslim world, although, do not "come to the table with clean hands". There anti Jew stance has been widely depicted.
Why do people on this forum attack Chriatianity on a daily basis but are not intelligent enough to have an opinion on this subject?
Are the God bashers just brain dead morons who listen to too much maralyn manson????
Originally posted by lucifershammer I'm also wondering what "consummation" means in this context.
It could be that the word is not referring to completion of marriage in every respect (eg the sexual aspect may not be part of the consummation). But I think that you would be able to find at least one muslim scholar who says so, if that were the case. I haven't searched heavily on the matter as I have tons of work to do at the moment, but it's a good and valid question so I will as soon as I get some free time again.
Originally posted by huckleberryhound Why do people on this forum attack Chriatianity [sic] on a daily basis but are not intelligent enough to have an opinion on this subject?
Are the God bashers just brain dead morons who listen to too much maralyn [sic] manson????
Anyone in particular you're thinking about? Because it seems to me that most people who criticize christianity in this forum is quite adept on the subject and have opinions on most things christian related. They just don't agree with you.
Originally posted by stocken It could be that the word is not referring to completion of marriage in every respect (eg the sexual aspect may not be part of the consummation). But I think that you would be able to find at least one muslim scholar who says so, if that were the case. I haven't searched heavily on the matter as I have tons of work to do at the moment, but it's a good and valid question so I will as soon as I get some free time again.
Just reading through Ayesha's 'hadith', she seems to suggest that she lived at home till she was six, then moved to Mohammed's when she was nine. I don't think she says anything about sexual relations.
Of course, if she'd achieved puberty by nine (and that's not as rare as it seems), all of this is moot.
Originally posted by stocken Anyone in particular you're thinking about? Because it seems to me that most people who criticize christianity in this forum is quite adept on the subject and have opinions on most things christian related. They just don't agree with you.
Oh, I see. That's why you'd call them morons!?
No i just think that they get thier theological opinion from TV, the stuff that makes them sound hip anyway. Religeous debate, such as the stuff on this forum seems to be nothing but jesus bashing. I dont consider myself a christian, but i dont attack religeon for the sake of it, or because it is COOL.
I attempted to begin a thread which does not use anti christianity (or maybe it does, ironic eh?) as its base, and the result is that no opinion seems to exist.
I do not usually slur other people to make my point, but here i think i am justified.
The irony that you were one of the first to reply is not lost on me. Nor is the fact that nobody has mentioned that i spelled Muhammed wrong, so as not to actually insult any Phophets.
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.
"Human co-existence demands a climate of mutual respect, to favour peace between men and nations.
"Furt ...[text shortened]... the reaction is far worse than the supposed "insensitive" cartoons. Maybe it's just me.[/b]
Well, of course they're going to say something like that. The Vatican is a political organization just like anyone else. I agree. The reaction is worse than the cartoons.
Originally posted by dottewell Shouting "death to the west" is illegal, if an incitement to violence, and should be treated accordingly (the Muslim Council of Britain agree on this point).
But if you are exercising free will to deliberately offend, then you are demeaning that right.
Nonsense. I have the right to offend anyone I please. Who was it that said, "Yes, you can have free speech, but by free speech, we mean that you can freely talk about best friends, fuzzy bunnies and unicorns"? The whole point to free speech--the whole reason we make such a point of it is that some people won't like what you have to say. Some people will try to make you be quiet or take back the things you said. I don't understand this concept of "free speech that everyone agrees with". Are you saying we can speak freely sort of, maybe....sometimes? That's not free speech, and you know it.
Originally posted by rbmorris Well, of course they're going to say something like that. The Vatican is a political organization just like anyone else. I agree. The reaction is worse than the cartoons.
The reaction may be worse than the cartoons, but that does not excuse the cartoons themselves, especially when the newspaper that commissioned the cartoons could have reasonably expected such a reaction. You don't throw a burning match into a barrel of oil and call it "freedom of action" or some such.
The Vatican is just pointing out (in its own presbyterial, verbose fashion) this common-sense observation.
Mohammed is a Transvestite
06 Feb '06 23:09
Back to Top