Terrorists cant stop Armies, Money and Oil.

[Jester]

Jester: Follow a line of reasoning with me, OK? A False prophet leads to a False Faith, thence to a False religion, which leads to Mohamed's religion being False by its very nature and its foundation in the eyes of God, which thus makes the ludicrous cultural taboos on drawing people and animals nothing more than mummery over which to get over wrought.
[right][snapback]101103[/snapback][/right]

I'm not following the part where your line of reasoning changed from what I said it was: priveledging one version of religion over another.

Mohammed, like all prophets in that tradition, claimed that he was just the latest interpreter of God's message. In that, I think he is as wrong as everyone who came before him, and after. But, from his perspective, it makes perfect sense. He is operating under false premises, but he is not contradicting himself.

His religion is not automatically false, unless you presume the complete and final truth of the religions that came before. He obviously did not presume that, and there is no reason we should, either.

-Jester

[Griselda]

Free Speech.  That is the core issue in the dispute in Denmark.  Of course, posting here won't change that.

Occhi
[right][snapback]101117[/snapback][/right]

I'm not the government, and I'm not passing laws restricting your speech. We restrict speech at the Lounge all the time.

If you were to say the same things about Christianity, I am sure you would meet very quick and vocal disagreement. The fact that there are fewer Muslims at the Lounge than Christians doesn't make it acceptable to denounce the one and not the other.

If someone were to come in here and post overtly racist views, you can bet that I would restrict their speech.

Say what you want about the actions of the people you disagree with, but it's inappropriate to directly attack an entire religion. Any religion.

[Bolty]

Say what you want about the actions of the people you disagree with, but it's inappropriate to directly attack an entire religion.  Any religion.[right][snapback]101122[/snapback][/right]

Griselda's right, Occhi. Islam isn't the problem; it's the maniacs who use it as an excuse to perpetuate violence and hate that is. Just as there are hatemongers and racists who hide behind Christianity in the USA.

There's no place for that here.

-Bolty

[Guest]

Griselda's right, Occhi.  Islam isn't the problem; it's the maniacs who use it as an excuse to perpetuate violence and hate that is.  Just as there are hatemongers and racists who hide behind Christianity in the USA.

There's no place for that here.

-Bolty
[right][snapback]101125[/snapback][/right]

Its a little more complicated.

Islam has a huge mass of uneducated adults(for various reasons) sadly this leaves them much more suceptable hate mongering zealots. The west has hate mongering zealots too, but our general populace ignores them to a much greater degree.

Islam may be the problem but indirectly in that it seems to promote this system, but it might not be too, and it could be that world economics are to blame.

I think it is fair to say that for what ever reason the people IN the Arabic muslim nations are behaving unreasonably by in general promoting at worst or at best turning a blind eye to some very nasty deeds coming from their homes.

[Occhidiangela]

Griselda's right, Occhi.  Islam isn't the problem; it's the maniacs who use it as an excuse to perpetuate violence and hate that is. -Bolty
[right][snapback]101125[/snapback][/right]

Bolty:
Islam isn't a problem, Muslims are. ;) (Reference is to an Old Peanuts strip: "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand." Linus. Works for any subgroup of "people.") In case there is any confusion, that was a joke. :P
Gris, Bolty

The both of you have misinterpreted a very brief and direct coment.

My free speech comment had nothing to do with Gris' chastising me for being caustic in my remarks regarding Muslims, it was strictly On Topic. I could certainly have made my point without being so coarse. Well played, Gris.

To repeat, the Free Speech issue is explicitly the core of what this topic is about, not about anyone's posting exercise on the Lounge. There was no intent, of any sort, to play the idiotic Free Speech whinge about a moderator's reproof to a poster.

I am surprised that you thought I'd try that kind of garbage with you. I didn't and I won't, not in this lifetime. You know my old Free Speech rant, and if my coarse exercise of it irritated Gris enough to comment, then her role demands her to levy that reproof for my exposing a coarse position.

It has ever been thus on the Lounge.

Bolty, you are an American, and this Free Speech thing might possibly concern you.

If you note the recent Reuters news release, the US government spokesman came out in support of the Muslim whingers and hype mongers. That action is a direct political attack on our faithful ally's exercise of sovereignty and protection of their rights to free speech. The Danish have people in Afghanistan helping Operation Enduring Freedom, loyal allies they, so Washington gives them a nice Starcraft FFA backstab in the greater war of symbols, media, and image. That is low.

It isn't just hypocrisy, it is betrayal, particularly when we protect free speech, under sub category Art, when people paint pictures of Jesus being urinated on, and the complaints of those offended are sneered at.

What I'd like to see the Danish do is send a terse reply to Washington: hey there, Buckaroos, read your own Constitution, if your President and his cabinet can read and comprehend words that large and complicated. They are probably too much the diplomats to do that, more is the pity.

Third time is a charm, this topic is about Free Speech, and people who wish to restrict it for allegedly religious reasons (hype masters in Muslim garb) or for political reasons directly opposed to the Constitution certain people swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (The clueless in Washington.) It's in the President's oath of office, and everyone in Congress, that itallicized bit.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Still think its the same as boyvotting a TV show?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/...n.ap/index.html
Burning buildings and death threats now.
[right][snapback]101110[/snapback][/right]

Yes. It is the same thing. Protests, boycotts, death threats, then real violence. They are all levels of social discord aimed at pressuring the opposition into capitulation. Did you read my links to the death threats and bomb threats for the NBC affiliate stations?

That is how abortion clinics get bombed as well. Many people with a passionate belief protest the clinic, others try to get people to boycott the services and they target the parent organizations and financing. A few are frustrated by the lack of progress and decide to escalate the matter to a higher level, make death threats, publish the photos of the clinic employees on the internet, then someone takes it to the level of bombing or shooting them.

It seems senseless to you and I that this is over a series of cartoons, but we do not subscribe to a religion that bans images of any creature lest it become a graven object of idol worship. I'd say that their seems to be more of a propensity for violence with Islamicists, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, have all had their sins and blood baths in the past. We believe in free speech, even when that speech is offensive and mean spirited. But, obviously some of the Islamicists do not share that belief. It's hard to jump from 12th century to 21st century in a few decades.

[Occhidiangela]

It's hard to jump from 12th century to 21st century in a few decades.
[right][snapback]101130[/snapback][/right]

Alvin Toffler called it Future Shock, wrote a book about it, and the rest, as they say, is history. He made his money, he and Heidi kept writing books and being called "futurists" and the reactions to future shock continue with mind numbing predictability.

Occhi

[Guest]

Bolty:
Islam isn't a problem, Muslims are.  ;)  (Reference is to an Old Peanuts strip: "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand."  Linus. Works for any subgroup of "people.")  In case there is any confusion, that was a joke.  :P
Gris, Bolty

The both of you have misinterpreted a very brief and direct coment.

My free speech comment had nothing to do with Gris' chastising me for being caustic in my remarks regarding Muslims, it was strictly On Topic.  I could certainly have made my point without being so coarse.  Well played, Gris. 

To repeat, the Free Speech issue is explicitly the core of what this topic is about, not about anyone's posting exercise on the Lounge.  There was no intent, of any sort, to play the idiotic Free Speech whinge about a moderator's reproof to a poster.

I am surprised that you thought I'd try that kind of garbage with you.  I didn't and I won't, not in this lifetime.  You know my old Free Speech rant, and if my coarse exercise of it irritated Gris enough to comment, then her role demands her to levy that reproof for my exposing a coarse position.

It has ever been thus on the Lounge.

Bolty, you are an American, and this Free Speech thing might possibly concern you.

If you note the recent Reuters news release, the US government spokesman came out in support of the Muslim whingers and hype mongers.  That action is a direct political attack on our faithful ally's exercise of sovereignty and protection of their rights to free speech.  The Danish have people in Afghanistan helping Operation Enduring Freedom, loyal allies they, so Washington gives them a nice Starcraft FFA backstab in the greater war of symbols, media, and image.  That is low.

It isn't just hypocrisy, it is betrayal, particularly when we protect free speech, under sub category Art, when people paint pictures of Jesus being urinated on, and the complaints of those offended are sneered at.

What I'd like to see the Danish do is send a terse reply to Washington: hey there, Buckaroos, read your own Constitution, if your President and his cabinet can read and comprehend words that large and complicated.  They are probably too much the diplomats to do that, more is the pity. 

Third time is a charm, this topic is about Free Speech, and people who wish to restrict it for allegedly religious reasons (hype masters in Muslim garb) or for political reasons directly opposed to the Constitution certain people swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  (The clueless in Washington.)  It's in the President's oath of office, and everyone in Congress, that itallicized bit. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]101129[/snapback][/right]

[Guest]

Well now the Pope is against free speach. Piss on him too. (Im not against religions - Im for free speach.)



"The Vatican also weighed in Saturday, saying freedom "cannot imply the right to offend" religious faiths, but emphasized "violent actions of protest are deplorable."

The Vatican said a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper. However, authorities "could and must, eventually, intervene according to the principals of the national legislation," the Vatican added."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/...toon/index.html

[Guest]

Yes.  It is the same thing.  Protests, boycotts, death threats, then real violence.  They are all levels of social discord aimed at pressuring the opposition into capitulation.  Did you read my links to the death threats and bomb threats for the NBC affiliate stations? 

That is how abortion clinics get bombed as well.  Many people with a passionate belief protest the clinic, others try to get people to boycott the services and they target the parent organizations and financing.  A few are frustrated by the lack of progress and decide to escalate the matter to a higher level, make death threats, publish the photos of the clinic employees on the internet, then someone takes it to the level of bombing or shooting them.

It seems senseless to you and I that this is over a series of cartoons, but we do not subscribe to a religion that bans images of any creature lest it become a graven object of idol worship.  I'd say that their seems to be more of a propensity for violence with Islamicists, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, have all had their sins and blood baths in the past.  We believe in free speech, even when that speech is offensive and mean spirited.  But, obviously some of the Islamicists do not share that belief.  It's hard to jump from 12th century to 21st century in a few decades.
[right][snapback]101130[/snapback][/right]

Ummm - boycotting is practically a moral imperative if you dont agree with something.

Boycotting is essentially - not supporting something that you dont like- you cant argue with that(at least not logically)


Burning down a building is attacking.

Perhaps the difference is lost on you but the fortunetly its not lost on every legislative body I know of.

Not supporting your opponent - good.
Attacking your opponent - bad.

[roguebanshee]

Not supporting your opponent - good.
Attacking your opponent - bad.
[right][snapback]101138[/snapback][/right]

Seems like the Chilean and Swedish embassies in Damascus got burned down together with the Danish, as they were located in the same building.

That is going to cause some very interesting fallout.

[Occhidiangela]

Seems like the Chilean and Swedish embassies in Damascus got burned down together with the Danish, as they were located in the same building.

That is going to cause some very interesting fallout.
[right][snapback]101144[/snapback][/right]

Fallout? Let's hope not. ;) Glowing green is not my cup of tea.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Well now the Pope is against free speach. Piss on him too. (Im not against religions - Im for free speach.)
"The Vatican also weighed in Saturday, saying freedom "cannot imply the right to offend" religious faiths, but emphasized "violent actions of protest are deplorable."

The Vatican said a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper. However, authorities "could and must, eventually, intervene according to the principals of the national legislation," the Vatican added."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/...toon/index.html
[right][snapback]101137[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger, I'd say even a modest survey of the history of The Church (ant The Catholic Church in particular) would show that censorship and supression of free speech is very much in the Church's interest, and also within the Papacy's preference as a policy. (Ugh, bad alliteration)

His utterance is of course consistent with the doctrine of Papal infallibility. "I must be right, I am the Pope," so his finger shaking at those who exercise free speech is, in his eyes, morally unassailable.

Seen in that light, I am not surprised at the Pope's reaction.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

(Included my previous post and no further comment.)
[right][snapback]101134[/snapback][/right]

Did you mean to comment on that quote of my post?

Confused.

Occhi

[Guest]

Ghostiger, I'd say even a modest survey of the history of The Church (ant The Catholic Church in particular) would show that censorship and supression of free speech is very much in the Church's interest, and also within the Papacy's preference as a policy. (Ugh, bad alliteration)

His utterance is of course consistent with the doctrine of Papal infallibility.  "I must be right, I am the Pope," so his finger shaking at those who exercise free speech is, in his eyes, morally unassailable. 

Seen in that light, I am not surprised at the Pope's reaction. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]101158[/snapback][/right]

Well it does appear to be a back door way to ask for the same kind of permission the church enjoyed centuries ago.
I think Martin Luther would recognize a law like this.

[kandrathe]

Ummm - boycotting is practically a moral imperative if you dont agree with something.

Boycotting is essentially - not supporting something that you dont like- you cant argue with that(at least not logically)
Burning down a building is attacking.

Perhaps the difference is lost on you but the fortunetly its not lost on every legislative body I know of.

Not supporting your opponent - good.
Attacking your opponent - bad.
[right][snapback]101138[/snapback][/right]

Again, I shall ignore your stupid backhanded barbs and reply to you like a reasonable person.

I'm glad you mentioned morality. When your Imam is telling you that you are justified in defending the faith by taking such actions, then perhaps their moral base is different than yours. Perhaps the legislature of Syria will do something about the Danish embassy, but I seriously doubt they will do a darn thing.

To a Westerner, boycotts and protests are acceptable civic disobediance, but burning down a building and killing people are not acceptable. I think in Syria, and some other countries run by Islamacists, that there is a high level of violence that is acceptable to the culture, and the State, especially if it is justified as defending Islam.

[Guest]

To a Westerner, boycotts and protests are acceptable civic disobediance, but burning down a building and killing people are not acceptable.  I think in Syria, and some other countries run by Islamacists, that there is a high level of violence that is acceptable to the culture, and the State, especially if it is justified as defending Islam.
[right][snapback]101170[/snapback][/right]

Ah - so we finnally have your real position - "cultural relativism".

Youre wecome to that position but if you truely accept it than you shouldnt be disagreeing with anyone including me - if you want to be logically consistant.

Anyway Im happy to end the discussion with you being a culturall relativist and me not being one. I no longer think your opinion is worth my time and I suppose you think the same of my position.



EDIT: I actually noticed at least one of my spelling errors for once.

[Guest]

No - I didnt mean to post there at all, I must have hit the wrong button.

[jahcs]

Nonviolent forms of protest - sometimes neccesary
Violent forms of protest - should be a last resort and probably almost never a tactic.

Most of the Islamic reactions to any percieved affront (at least that make it into most media channels) is encouragement and complicity with the latter. Publish a picture and there is enough outcry for the death of the individuals responsible that people feel justified in torching buildings and attacking police in locations far removed from the scene of the "crime."

"Living in the 12th Century" is no excuse for behaving in this manner. A child shouldn't be allowed to play with matches and torture pets simply because they are young. Grown men shouldn't be firebombing buildings because a newspaper some distance away used poor judgement and printed material insensitive to others.

[SwissMercenary]

Most of the Islamic reactions to any percieved affront (at least that make it into most media channels)

Which is an interesting question - just how many moderate muslims aren't outside, protesting with 'Death to our enemies' signs? I mean, it's kinda hard to do a story on people... Not... Protesting... And stuff.