When will the Muslim world relax?

ShooterSF

T-K-O wrote: »

I'm not religious at all but that comment is BS. For some people Religion is a great part and source of inspiration in their life.

It aint my way of life but I can respect those who are religious and dont feel the need to ram it down other peoples neck.

Indeed. I don't think all religions need to die for peace, just the ones that think people outside their religion should be held to it's rules. Certain sects of Christianity and Islam seem like those that do this most often. Even the followers of these religions who aren't fanatical have to separate themselves from the groups that do (here's looking at you catholic church) or else they support them through their combined membership and silence.

123 LC

Freiheit wrote: »

Killing Americans purely on grounds of a shared nationality?

well the americans have killed hundreds of afghan people in afghanistan for no good reason either...

T-K-O

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed. I don't think all religions need to die for peace, just the ones that think people outside their religion should be held to it's rules. Certain sects of Christianity and Islam seem like those that do this most often. Even the followers of these religions who aren't fanatical have to separate themselves from the groups that do (here's looking at you catholic church) or else they support them through their combined membership and silence.

There are a lot of problems in the world and particularity the church. However, man usually corrupts the church be it the Pope knowing about abuse cases or crazy Muslims and their terrorism.

I hate when people push their beliefs onto other people. That goes for atheists or church goers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their respective beliefs the problem arises when they try to 'convert'

avalon68

the whole thing sort of reminds me of a line in the book "Boy in the stripped pyjamas" - the one where the little boy who has been raised to hate jews, asks - whats a jew? Such hatred and fear has been instilled in people in many of those countries that they know little else of the outside world. Education is key. Its the only way forward. As for magazines publishing these cartoons - well its easy to applaude their defence of freedom of speech - but, if you lived in Paris - would you be riding the metro this week? I wouldnt.....I would fear some sort of reprisal. Publishing those cartoons to deliberately provoke reaction could very well lead to the death of innocent people going about their daily lives.

Canis Lupus

Oh dear...

Anti Muslim adverts to be run in NY subway system (Sky News)

The head of a group that has won its fight to run controversial adverts in New York subway stations referring to some Muslims as "savage" has told Sky News that she will fight "to the death" for the right to offend people.

Pamela Geller runs the American Freedom Defence Initiative (AFDI), which has taken out ads that read: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

The posters are due to appear in ten New York City subway stations next week.

They were initially rejected by the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) because of the use of demeaning language.

But in July, a Manhattan court judge ruled that this was a violation of the first amendment rights of the AFDI and they should be allowed to run.

Ms Geller told Sky News that she was unconcerned the ads might make the subway network a target for violence.

She said: "Were there similar ads on the London buses and trains on 7/7? You know there weren't.

"I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages.

"I won't take responsibility for other people being violent.

"I live in America and in America we have the first amendment."

Ms Geller, who is a prominent supporter of Israel, stressed that she was not referring to all Muslims as savages, only those who engaged in what she characterises as "Jihad".

She believes that America is under threat from some Muslims who wish to impose Sharia law on the country, and her group has launched similar campaigns before.

The release of the adverts coincides with widespread anger in parts of the Middle East over an anti-Muslim film made in the US and released on the internet.

Next week, heads of state from all over the world will be converging on the city amid heightened security for the UN General Assembly.

The Washington DC MTA has deferred the placement of the controversial ads "out of concern for public safety, given current world events".

But New York MTA Transportation spokesman Aaron Donovan said: "Our hands are tied."

There had been some suggestions that the city's transit body was trying to find a way to stop the adverts appearing.

However, another spokesperson for the MTA told Sky News that it appeared the ads are definitely going ahead, although he was unable to say on which day, and at which subway stations.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, told Sky News: "Our basic position is that the first amendment means that everyone is free to be a bigot or even an idiot like Pamela Geller.

"We wish she wasn't provoking and inciting hatred, but in America that's her right.

"We encourage Muslims to exercise the same right to publicly denounce such adverts.

"The real danger is the spread of hatred in our society, which can lead to attacks on innocent people."

Penn

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Oh dear...

Anti Muslim adverts to be run in NY subway system (Sky News)

I think the real test will be how the Muslim community responds. Like the article says, the best thing they could possibly do is run counter-ads. Protests or threats of violence will do nothing but make people agree with the original ads.

BASHIR

Makes ya wonder why we give the idiots on both sides all the limelight?

Canis Lupus

Penn wrote: »

I think the real test will be how the Muslim community responds. Like the article says, the best thing they could possibly do is run counter-ads. Protests or threats of violence will do nothing but make people agree with the original ads.

I imagine most won't do anything (in america at least) but I'd be willing to bet my last penny that there will be a minority that does something stupid and play right into the hands of these people and of course the media will be all over it.

Sin City

so you can callmuslims savages and.claim first amendment rights bout say something about isreal or the jews and.your anti semetic and can be prosecuted for hate crimes.

this woman claims freedom of speech but surely it can also.be seen as incitement to violence

fitz0

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.

There's horrible echoes of British colonialism here. Oh dear, indeed.

coffee_cake

Sir, – I wish to reply to Paul Williams’s comment (September 17th) that there are no “red lines” when it comes to satire or ridicule, no matter how badly it is done.

Would the Jewish people like others to make fun of their prophet Moses or their sacred book, the Torah? Of course not! Would the Christians like to see a cartoon effigy of Jesus on the cross or people making fun of the Holy Bible? Of course not!

Similarly, the Muslims do not like their prophet Muhammad being exposed to mockery or ridicule or disrespect shown toward their Holy Koran.

Yes, there is very much a red line you do not cross. David Cameron’s “off button” solution will not solve the problem. People have to learn to respect each other’s beliefs. It’s as simple as that. – Yours, etc,

JOE MURRAY,

Beggars Bush Court,

Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.

Irish times


:rolleyes:

robindch

BASHIR wrote: »

[...] why we give the idiots on both sides all the limelight?

Makes the best telly for viewers here and best propaganda for the mullahs.

BASHIR

robindch wrote: »

Makes the best telly for viewers here and best propaganda for the mullahs.

Ha ha sorry it was kinda a rhetorical question.

ShooterSF

T-K-O wrote: »

There are a lot of problems in the world and particularity the church. However, man usually corrupts the church be it the Pope knowing about abuse cases or crazy Muslims and their terrorism.

I hate when people push their beliefs onto other people. That goes for atheists or church goers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their respective beliefs the problem arises when they try to 'convert'

I don't think you need to convert to be a problem. Any religion that tries to interfere with state policy is a problem or any individual that looks for the state to do similar. Just look at the issue of gay marriage that's been ongoing lately where christians and the catholic church here are looking to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them. I'd like to coin the phrase "covert converts" if it hasn't been.

T-K-O

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think you need to convert to be a problem. Any religion that tries to interfere with state policy is a problem or any individual that looks for the state to do similar. Just look at the issue of gay marriage that's been ongoing lately where christians and the catholic church here are looking to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them. I'd like to coin the phrase "covert converts" if it hasn't been.

I see where you are coming from but the church interfering with state, why do they do that? Beccause they want to convert / push their beliefs onto others..

It's the same thing... You can be the biggest holy joe on the planet and Ill be your best friend but enjoy your own beliefs do not project your ideas onto others

Mistress 69

decimatio wrote: »

Then you really need to educate yourself on the meaning of freedom of speech.

They could start a war over it. It makes no difference. We either allow free speech or we do not. It is that simple.

As soon as we silence anyone we destroy free speech.



And if you believe this then you don't believe in freedom of speech.



If you don't see why that's not a good comparison then I don't know what to say to you.

People who threaten violence over other peoples freedom of expression need to be told that's not acceptable.

They could start a war over it. It makes no difference. We either allow free speech or we do not. It is that simple.

Reasonable as long as you and yours dont get killed in it


As soon as we silence anyone we destroy free speech.

I dont think anyone should be silenced.Deliberate provoking of fanatics is a different issue. A UK news correspondent based in Paris was on the Pat Kenny show today as I was driving and he described the cartoons as extremely vulgar and offensive. While this publication has a go at pretty well every establishment, it is fully aware of the likely violent backlash. I think they should have more sense.


If you don't see why that's not a good comparison then I don't know what to say to you.

Wait and See....


People who threaten violence over other peoples freedom of expression need to be told that's not acceptable.

Try telling those fanatics that its not acceptable.....Best of luck with that one!

biko

Wow, that film has really got some traction. Now EU is condemning the film too officially.
It's seems the day when Organization of Islamic Cooperation's request for a general ban on criticism of religion (well, Islam - hating Jews and Christians seems perfectly fine still) is getting closer...

robindch

biko wrote: »

Wow, that film has really got some traction. Now EU is condemning the film too officially.

I thought the fight in favour of free speech and against what's basically libel chill was won:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)

Seems not.

Turtwig

You know it's a depresssing News Day when you find yourself in agreement with Pamela Geller.

So this will be very interesting will the Western World actually afford Islam special protective status for fear of inciting violence or will it stand to its principles even if that could potentially lead to very serious conflicts?

MagicMarker

Sam Harris' take on it....

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork.

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.
At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail no more risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.
Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks. For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade.

Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri.

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

Mickeroo

robindch wrote: »

I thought the fight in favour of free speech and against what's basically libel chill was won:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)

Seems not.

This reaction is setting a terrible precedent and it's already beginning to have fall out, like this Fox News moron wanting South Park "investigated" for blasphemy: http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2012/09/18/13941805-fox-news-host-wants-south-park-investigated-for-blasphemy?lite

Canis Lupus

Almost choked on lunch when I read: "And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think you need to convert to be a problem. Any religion that tries to interfere with state policy is a problem or any individual that looks for the state to do similar. Just look at the issue of gay marriage that's been ongoing lately where christians and the catholic church here are looking to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them. I'd like to coin the phrase "covert converts" if it hasn't been.

That is a very simple view on the world. Here in Australia only last week a vote in the parliament to allow gay marriage was defeated. Australia is quite a secular country and contrary to some peoples opinions is very tolerant of others. The PM is an atheist for example and no one really cares. Yet, she is opposed to gay marriage.http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5572/Gillard-says-no-to-gay-marriage.htm

The idea that without religion in the world everything would be all Utopian and perfect is a facile argument. People are corrupt not religion. Religion can sometimes be an externality of that human corruption.

decimatio

jank wrote: »

The idea that without religion in the world everything would be all Utopian and perfect is a facile argument. People are corrupt not religion. Religion can sometimes be an externality of that human corruption.

Is it possible for you to reply to what people actually say?

Noone said without religion the world would be such and such. Religion is man-made and the consequences of it are man-made. If it wasn't religion it'd be some other nonsense ideology.

Canis Lupus

jank wrote: »

That is a very simple view on the world. Here in Australia only last week a vote in the parliament to allow gay marriage was defeated. Australia is quite a secular country and contrary to some peoples opinions is very tolerant of others. The PM is an atheist for example and no one really cares. Yet, she is opposed to gay marriage.http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5572/Gillard-says-no-to-gay-marriage.htm

The idea that without religion in the world everything would be all Utopian and perfect is a facile argument. People are corrupt not religion. Religion can sometimes be an externality of that human corruption.

You see a guy in the opposition has been severely reprimanded after saying that allowing gay marraige will essentially lead to beastiality

Turtwig

decimatio wrote: »

Is it possible for you to reply to what people actually say?

I'll eat my hat if he ever actually replies to what someone says without twisting it or moving the goal posts elsewhere.

jank

decimatio wrote: »

Is it possible for you to reply to what people actually say?

Noone said without religion the world would be such and such. Religion is man-made and the consequences of it are man-made. If it wasn't religion it'd be some other nonsense ideology.

It was implied as it is always here, hey just look at the stickeys in this forum.

I will quote again.

Just look at the issue of gay marriage that's been ongoing lately where christians and the catholic church here are looking to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them

Now if he said people in general I would not have an issue with that.

As I said, you dont have to be religious to oppose gay marriage case in point the PM of Australia. Its human nature to simplify complex issues into little boxes where they can reconcile their own beliefs.

decimatio

jank wrote: »

It was implied as it is always here, hey just look at the stickeys in this forum.

The stickeys in this forum state that ? Really ?

jank wrote:

... without religion in the world everything would be all Utopian and perfect is a facile argument

Now if he said people in general I would not have an issue with that.

That's completely irrelevant to what you accused him of saying.

You said

jank wrote:

The idea that without religion in the world everything would be all Utopian and perfect is a facile argument. People are corrupt not religion. Religion can sometimes be an externality of that human corruption.

Which has nothing to do with what he said.

As I said, you dont have to be religious to oppose gay marriage case in point the PM of Australia.

1 - Irrelevant to what you accused him of saying.

2 - He didn't say you have to be religious to oppose gay marraige. He said

Just look at the issue of gay marriage that's been ongoing lately where christians and the catholic church here are looking to impose their beliefs on people who don't share them

Nothing in that sentence means Christians or the CC are the only ones who oppose gay marraige or the only ones who are trying to impose their beliefs. And no it's not implied either.

Ireland is mostly xtian and Catholic and Ireland is an English-speaking country in western Europe. Xtians and Catholics are the biggest mouthpieces against gay marraige at the moment in the western world and the western media.

Talking about xtians and catholics opposing gay marraige does not mean muslims don't do it, nor other religious people, nor non-religious people.

If I were to talk about the 'violence caused by Muslims recently' it doesn't mean all Muslims cause violence, nor does it mean non-muslims don't cause violence, it doesn't even imply it.

To fail to acknowledge this is to feign ignorance of the English language itself.

Denalihighway

Like many, these lunatics make me physically nauseous.

The ignorance of it. Attacking and killing their own security forces (who for all they know could share their beliefs or be a friend of a friend/relative).

I think the only hope we actually have is a moral backlash as a result of all this, thus maybe eventually they will be the architects of their downfall when the rest of us finally say enough is enough and they will have abdicated any chance they had of sympathy etc.

Kind of like when Mary Harney got nailed with red paint and suddenly she becomes a figure to sympathise with rather than the gross incompetence she represented.

These times are worrying. I hate nobody, yet these people stir those kind of emotions in me.

biko

Richard Dawkins ‏tweeted today:

Pew poll Pakistan Muslims: 82% for stoning adulterers, 76% death penalty for apostasy. But most Muslims are "moderate"

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/