Everybody can come into our liberal paradise - just don't go to their countries!

Dave!

irishconvert wrote: »

I am talking about someone publishing a cartoon in a newspaper which serves no other purpose other than to offend a whole group of people. Why do it?

Hopefully to pass on the message to the buffoons who were rioting and jihading about it that civilised nations value free speech over sensitivity toward religious sensibilities.

Whatever about the sense in printing the cartoons originally, once the response to them took on the flavour it did it was entirely correct to reprint them, and every newspaper should have done the same.

It's not an appropriate way to protest against something that offends you, and continuing to do so in that manner will just strengthen our resolve against your bullsh*t -- that's the message that should have been sent.

Antbert

irishconvert wrote: »

I wanted to know what the point of an Irish newspaper publishing the cartoons and why did the poster agree with it.I know if a draw an offensive cartoon of my work colleague's mother, for example, he will be really pissed off and probably deck me. Why would I do it? Sure I have the right to draw the cartoon with freedom of speech, but why do it when I know all it will do is offend him?

When we get into the issue of the cartoons I'm afraid I disagree with you. In the same way as I don't agree with the Muslim on the bus allegedly attacking our Aussie pal (though I agree he was needlessly provoked) I also don't agree with the uproar that ensued when the cartoon was published. Religion has absolutely no right to infringe on freedom of press. You can be annoyed by it and find it offensive all you want, but to act upon your annoyance isn't a 'right'. Not that I'm saying you did act on it, of course. I'm referring more to the general uproar.

Things get printed in the Daily Mail that piss me off all the time, but they don't get an uprising because of it. Religion should have no special treatment.

I did say right at the start that I don't like religion...

Wibbs

The cartoons were making a point about both how islam is perceived and how it often appears to be. The morons burning effigies in the streets and calling for killings just bolstered that view of a section of the islamic world. There were liberal voices, but they do appear to be a minority of vocal islam.

Do I think Islam is dangerous? Yes in that most religions as well as being vectors for good, can be and have been dangerous and nasty in the past. Given a choice between living in christian france or muslim spain in the 11th century, I'd be down with the moorish lads and no mistake.

Now christianity and the horrors done in its name are legion and we have moved on from that. People often say the same of Islam. It'll change like christianity. IMHO where Islam is different is that reformation like happened with christianity, cant happen. Islam has way more built in self protection of the original message than other religions. It's also the most martial of religions. No other faith founder built armies of conquest like Mohammad, or had enemies executed on his orders. While armies of conquest were built in jesus/buddha/krishna/etcs name, the originals didnt.

While Islam has been a force for social stability and scientific and philosophical progress that aspect of the core faith is a worry.

Glenster

irishconvert wrote: »

but why do it when I know all it will do is offend him?

Maybe the reason it was put into the paper was to offend people, publicity sells newspapers, being offensive about something that unwashed proles mindlessly hate will endear those unwashed proles to the paper.

If we all stopped having heart attacks about everything that we didn't like there wouldn't be this self-perpetuating hype surrounding our differences, and idiots who preach hate of otherness would be ignored and viewed as the attention-seeking nuts that they are.

Glenster

Wibbs wrote: »

Given a choice between living in christian france or muslim spain in the 11th century, I'd be down with the moorish lads and no mistake.

Blah-blah-blah 1000 years ago blah-blah-blah history is written by the winners blah-blah-bah.

We live in the present.

What happened a millenium ago thousands of miles away is not important. Except to the extent that we let it be important. Which is too much.

eightyfish

K-9 wrote: »

the famous Youtube video.

I've never seen that before. They think Ireland is part of Great Britain. The rest of the information in that video can therefore be ignored.

wes

Wibbs wrote: »

No other faith founder built armies of conquest like Mohammad, or had enemies executed on his orders.

Well, that is simply factually incorrect. Plenty of other Religous figures raised armies and killed people. For example Moses (pbuh), had the people who worshipped the Golden Calf killed in the Bible, and there are many other such examples in the Bible alone. Then there is the conquest of Canaan that comes afterwards, but I think that was lead by Joshua

That is just one example off the top of my head. I am sure many more could be found, with a bit of effort. So, what you say is not unique to Islam at all.

Wibbs

Glenster wrote: »

Blah-blah-blah 1000 years ago blah-blah-blah history is written by the winners blah-blah-bah.

We live in the present.

What happened a millenium ago thousands of miles away is not important. Except to the extent that we let it be important. Which is too much.

Its called context.

wes wrote: »

Well, that is simply factually incorrect. Plenty of other Religous figures raised armies and killed people. For example Moses (pbuh), had the people who worshipped the Golden Calf killed in the Bible, and there are many other such examples in the Bible alone. Then there is the conquest of Canaan that comes afterwards, but I think that was lead by Joshua

That is just one example off the top of my head. I am sure many more could be found, with a bit of effort. So, what you say is not unique to Islam at all.

Oh the old testament is full of bloody murder and indeed a murderous egotistical vengeful god you wouldnt want to meet on a dark night. And Islam continues on that old testament trend rather than the more hippy dippy new testament(which has some dodgy passages too, but much much less). Turn the other cheek isnt exactly found too often in Islamic texts. Neither is "if someone steals your coat, give him your shirt too" stuff. More like rise up and kick arse. The example of the good samaritan would defo not sit well as he wouldnt be one of their own.

Even if Jesus or Buddha raised armies and killed people, its hardly a good advertisement for the god that supports them, is it?

The abrahamic god is a bit of a hard arse with murderous tendencies. Later Jewish thought and christianity took it down a notch(and they could as it wasnt pickled in the 7th century like islam). Though you'll note the right wing christian nutjobs and indeed the justification for the crusades harked back to the old rather than new testament. Not a lot of justification for holy war from JC.

Anyway so we have Moses(yep nasty piece of work at times) and a couple of others from the OT. Then we have Jesus. Never harmed anyone or struck anyone. Never raised an army or went into war. Born poor, stayed poor, died nailed to a tree for his beliefs, which were peace and love with some apocalyptic stuff thrown in. Among his last words reported were of forgiveness*. Which if you were a believer is pretty heavy forgiveness going on. Humanity kills the messiah/son of god, yet he himself forgives this?

Buddha. Born rich, left it all behind, preached forgiveness, tolerance and peace and love, through a process of restrained living and meditation and who died surrounded by his friends and followers while his last words were strive earnestly.

Mohammed, born poor, marries well, becomes a prophet, raids caravans of rivals, raises a bigger and bigger army of followers, has rivals and even poets, (women too) executed on his orders, enslaves many, ends up with 12(?) wives while his followers can only have 4, ends up rich and powerful when he dies. Bit of a diff right there. You just cant compare.

Then we have another issue with islam. In an "ideal" islamic state the church and state are one and the same. Its enshrined in the faith. Not so with the others. Separation of state is in there. Oh the christian churches tried to influence but "give all to Caesar that is Caesar's" and " my kingdom is not of this earth" give plenty of wriggle room for separation. Buddha had nada to say about the state. Didnt seem to care. Not his focus. Not so in Islam.

Then there's leaving Islam. Basically you cant. well you can but the penalty for publicly leaving is death. Liberal thinkers try to preach chilling out on that score, but its in black and white. Leave = you die. Another self protection built in. Ditto with evolving the faith/reformation. You cant. Its locked down. the only wriggle room would be interpretation, but difficult with much of it. Lack of central islamic authority. No one bunch can drive change. Again self protective mechanism. You could ignore the hadeeth(life of the prophet) and just concentrate on the Koran itself. That would be better. Far less anger going on.

TL;DR Islam is by far the most martial and aggressive of the current crop of world faiths and its founder was as much a military man as a prophet. If not more. Thats the diff.



*Islam gets around this one by claiming he wasnt crucified at all, but was made by god to look like jesus. A very Gnostic christian notion. Not surprising as the Gnostics were knocking around in the middle east not long before.

kuntboy

dlofnep wrote: »

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

See, now I got the last word. I win! Yay!
Go back to supporting palestine and the IRA.

Nodin

kuntboy wrote: »

Yes it is.

See, now I got the last word. I win! Yay!
Go back to supporting palestine and the IRA.

Just as a matter of interest, what will you go back to doing? Homework, perhaps?

dlofnep

kuntboy wrote: »

Yes it is.

Europe is not being colonized by Muslims.

kuntboy wrote: »

See, now I got the last word. I win! Yay!

Here I was thinking, well-founded and reasoned comments won debates. Silly me.

kuntboy wrote: »

Go back to supporting palestine and the IRA.

Reported.