@ Nexxeo, I personally don't agree with the pope, and understand that what he said is wrong, however that does not give non-christians the right to mock our faith or any other, as Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye and we would all be blind". It shows a weakness in a faith if you do not allow to be open to criticism, as the Bishop of Oxford, said, however that is crticism, what we are dealing with here is a needless mockery. The cartoon makes no real genuine point, and has a clear purpose to incite. I thought the times article was good as it shows the views of various people. What price must be paid for free speech - The Times
OK, but don't forget to pull back your strategic and business interests at the same time. Which is what is causing a lot of the crap that those troops are there to stabilise in the first place.
Double standards though, isn't it? The Pope can say quite hurtful things about homosexuals and get away with it unquestioned because hey, that's just his religious view. But someone casually mocks people's interpretation of religion (an important detail, hence the underscore) and whole hordes hit the streets with banners and rocks, making death threats. And these are supposed to be the spiritually enlightened ones. The ones to profess peaceful conflict resolution and turning the other cheek. The cartoons make a point about people's interpretation of their religion (again, note the underscore). The ones I saw (which weren't particularly funny or clever, by the way) seemed to comment on the paradoxical juxtaposition of an enlightened religion of peace being turned into a self-serving ideology that justifies violence and destruction. I guess the cartoonist got that right... What all those religious folk out there need to ask themselves is why they feel so threatened by a frigging cartoon. Or a tongue-in-cheek opera. Or a Monty Python comedy or South Park episode. I mean, isn't their faith above and beyond that? What's the harm? Do all those people really believe that because of a few jokes, people will suddenly lose all respect for their religion? Newsflash: "The Life of Brian" doesn't make me lose respect for Christianity (and again, this comedy spoofed people's interpretation of religion, not Jesus himself). South Park doesn't either. The Pope's comments on homosexuals does, however. I used to think of Sikhism as one of the most enlightened religions on the planet, until I saw the riot in Birmingham. The Danish cartoons do not make me think any less of Islam; the protesters' reactions make me wonder about some its followers however... I would most strongly urge all those with strong religious convictions to worry less about what comes out of other people's mouths, and more about what comes out of their own. Don't worry about other people diminishing their religious beliefs, because they are doing a great job all by themselves already.
Angered by cartoons suggesting muslims are violent, they set fire to buildings? What complete idiots. Whether publishing the cartoons was right or wrong, this just suggests that they aren't far off the mark. (Note: I do not believe that all, or even many muslims are violent. That's quite clearly rubbish)
That would be about the best description of the cartoons to date. It is unfortunate that a minority can *******ize the Muslim religion so much, that in the eyes of the West it is a religion of evil and destruction. This minority (which appears to be growing larger) are doing ordinary Muslims no favour at all, they are only creating a divide. Like any fundamentalist groups they don't represent the majority, but when that minority is ever increasing it brings into focus the whole community not just the minority group. If the terrorist threats, burning down embassies and rioting are in the name of a religion, why should anyone treat it as anything other than destructive? Personally I know that is not the case, as the vast majority of Muslims condemn these actions, and rightfully so.
Your idiocy is quite frankly astounding. If we are to implement your ridiculous argument, then what happens to the Iraqui children killed by Americans bombs, what happens to the Iraqui woman blown to pieces by american grenades - they won't come back tol ife, because America wants to pull out. You caused this mess with falsehoods and lies, up sort it out. YOu act as if islamic nations are war hungry and uncivilised, the essence of civilisation itself was born in those countries. Don't look at america as the peace keepers of the world, you just need to look back the american slaughtering in Vietnam, to see that the americans are as war hungry and savage as any other nation. The cartoon is ambigous, one can take it to say "It is in the islamic nature to destory" (which clearly the foolish amngst you are so naive as to believe, or one can say that it means "Terrorists are cloaking themselves with Mohammed, to justify what they are doing". The latter has some satnding, however even the depiction of Mohammed is sacred, and due to the west losing the respect for what other hold sacred, and this new cltural upsurge which thinks it is "clever" to mock religon. I mean the phrase "Opitae for the masses" is one which scorns others, that shows the pettiness and un un-civilised manner of modern day western society. This was not a casual mocking, it was one which makes current fragile climates even more unstable for no benefit. Did one gain any further enlightenement from it, no, heck, it wasn't even humorous.
I did, I saw how stupid and petty religious people can be throughout the world. Its been quite enlightening for me really.
How ironic. If you found that enlightening, you must be so pathetic as not to be able to make an assersion withut the feeble help of others.
Ahhh, religion: Killing in the name of _____ since at least _____ BCE. Every single one of them. Not to say I disbelieve in religion, but more that I agree with Nexxo's point that it's peoples' interpretation of their religion which is a bit beyond daft. If you believe in a higher power, particularly one that is supposed to have created you, why would you think he/she/it would want you to run around and blow up other creations? 'Tis hubris in the extreme. I caution, though, that we be careful about saying this is a "Western" vs. "Middle Eastern" battle. The Muslim faith is locked in very violent acts on Eastern religions and practices, as well. In fact, the Thai population, along with other Southeast Asian nations, are having their own problems...buddhists really are not into violence, and often practice what they preach...so the act of burning buddhist temples to 'cleanse the land' of false gods gets a little less press, simply because the buddhists don't retaliate in violent manners. It is a distortion of the true meaning of Islam, I don't think any intelligent and halfway researched point of view will disagree that these people are warping the very fabric of the religion (meaning it is not the religion that is to blame on its own) to suit their own violent ends. But I'm growing ever more fearful of the number of people that this fundamentalist movement is attracting. The fundamentalists clamor for respect of their religion...yet they will throw rocks at churches, burn temples, and kill 'infidels' who do not agree with them. This does not imply a respect for other religions. We are taught in primary education to "do unto others..." Respect is earned, not given out. EDIT: Alter_ego, please rephrase your above post. That is not even bordering on the inflammatory, it's well past it. This thread requires the courtesy of each member towards other bit-tech members. If you disagree with a viewpoint, please do not attack its poster, else this thread will have to be closed.
Please tone it down --a lot. You can respond to allforcarrie's argument without resorting to insulting him, and discuss this issue in general without calling people fools or pathetic. If you argue for mutual respect, lead by example. Neither was it as harmful as it was made out to be --not by a long shot. It definitely does not justify the death and destruction we've seen. I mean, they were just some piss-poor cartoons. It did not cause a spiritual crisis in true Muslims, nor, I'm sure, did it cause people to lose any respect for the Islamic faith. The protestors' behaviour, on the other hand, is proving to be much more bad publicity than any cartoon could manage, and I cannot help but drawing a parallel with the rather offensive tone that your last posts are taking. Since you mentioned irony, it is interesting that your first post (#10) states: ...after which you are the first to take this hostile tone. Of course people ought to respect each other's beliefs and viewpoints, even if they don't agree. But religion does not hold a special status. It is not above and beyond challenge or scrutiny, or even mockery. If religious institutions feel free to comment on people's beliefs, sexual orientations, life styles etc. they better grow a thick skin because it works both ways.
So you're classing Islam and Christianity as one entity because they're both religions? I doubt you'd find many Christians setting embassies on fire if that happened because its followers aren't as extreme as the average Muslim is. Even if you might consider the cartoons as targetted at religion, the fact is it's got nothing to do with the Pope whether another religion decides to take it out of hand...after all, this is not about your personal views over homosexuality, this is about deliberately inciting anger by reprinting images that people found extremely offensive, which is what I believed the French, German, Italian and Spanish papers set out to do. It was meant as nothing more than a boost for extreme liberalism where anything is fine so long as there's not a law against it (ie dropping all concept of convention and respect for what others might deem in-appropriate). I'd have to agree...the way that some Muslims have handled this has angered me as much as the provoking of the newspapers. I see no benefit in resorting to physical violance to express your anger for something like this- no matter how much you may hate it, it doesn't do you or the image of your religion any favours to act like this. Of course, the reprecussion of this is that the public will again generalise the Islamic religion and assume every Muslim they walk past would torch a Danish flag given the chance. The resulting deaths of this violence is just further evidence that they should consider taking a much more passive course of action in future. I'm not sure of to what extent the Muslim Ambassadors talked to the Danish newspapers and government about the problem, but I can only assume they didn't get far. Yeah you're right...although we'll obviously need to avoid generalising again Yes, because they do. I'm not saying people can't have a joke about religion at all or that religious people can't take a joke, but why does the world feel constantly obliged to maintain a bitterness about religion. If you expect religious people to be above and beyond that, does that give non-religious people the right to act below them without any sense of morality or respect because they're not religious and thus have nobody encouraging them to? It's not surprise that religions such as Christianity have turned into a p**s-take for kids who watch South Park or programs that show no constraints other than those set by broadcasting regulations. Fact is, if people want religions to start not accepting but respecting their own views then they need to start showing that their views aren't just Religion is the root of evil and the cause of all wars etc... Another generalisation in that Christianity != Catholicism. If you disagree with the Pope's views on homosexuality, then it doesn't mean you disagree with Christianity as a whole over the topic, just the Pope's perception of God's intentions. <A88>
Why is it always the Muslims and Christians who react so strongly? They're the 2 groups that stick out in my mind as fervent protesters to...anything. Here in the US, it's abortion. In Europe, it's cartoons. WTF? Oh, and has anyone else EVER found a english-translation-copy of the Koran? I like to know both sides of the argument, so I went to find a copy. Every single one I found was in Arabic.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...252033/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/202-8271282-8291842 - thats it in modern English
Alter_ego took the question "is it acceptable to mock Islam?" to the plain of religion in general. So I followed suit. However who is generalising here? If you think that "the average Christian" is not as extreme as "the average Muslim", I suggest you visit the US Bible Belt or better still, some of the African Catholic countries. You are totally missing my point. Which is: if religious institutions and their followers find it perfectly acceptable (in fact, integral to their practice) to make judgemental and often rather offensive remarks about people with alternate beliefs, lifestyles or sexual orientations, why then do they get all upset when the tables are turned? I cited the Pope as a recent convenient example but I could also have pointed out how in many Islamic countries private homosexual acts between two consenting adults are deemed punishable by death. I could point out the many cartoons in Arab newspapers that mock Christianity and Judaism on a regular basis. Somehow when a belief system is labeled "religion", it suddenly gets elevated above criticism or challenge. People get to say what they want and do what they want in the name of religion, no matter how offensive or hurtful to others who do not share those beliefs. Somehow the notion of "religion" does not only justify this, it bloody well sanctifies it. And that, in my view, is unacceptable. Perhaps people feel a bit bitter about religion because it has been used as the justification for numerous wars, for the oppression, torture and mass-murder of people, and for the ostracision and victimisation of innocents. Make no mistake, religion has a piss-poor historical track record. But what really gets people's goat is that it does all this while maintaining a hypocritical pious attitude of having the moral high ground. Preach peace and love, then kill and oppress people in the name of God. I think that what most non-religious people would like, is for religious institutions to practice what they damn well preach. Again, you missed the point. See above. But also consider that although you and I can separate the Pope's unenlightened statements from Christianity as a faith, for pretty much most Catholics there is only one approved version of Christianity™ and that is Catholicism as advocated by its prime representative on Earth: the Pope.
while is_fubar(middle_east) { $banreligion++; } if is_banned(organized_religion) { echo("Problem solved."); } Umm... yeah. Seriously, though. What major conflict in the known history of the world doesn't have roots in organized religion? Believe what you want, but stop trying to convert people. If people could only learn some tolerance... I swear that if I rioted every time someone did something that offended me, I'd have rioted at least once. Probably at least a thousand times too. But I know for a fact it's at least once. I suppose this tends to happen when your religion says that any non-followers are supposed to die. Meh, imo practice however you want, provide it doesn't inflict any physical or mental harm on anyone else... *points finger* THEY STARTED IT!!!!
Many religions (although not all) are, by their very nature, judgemental. They make clear statements about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and about who is in-group (faithful, believer, follower, chosen people, whatever) and who is out-group (infidel, heathen, misguided, rejecting the teachings of Deity X). Naturally the in-group is elevated to special status and has special entitlements, because God Said So. Let's look at this psychologically (as I'm wont to do ). Since humans developed brains, humans have invented religion. Whether it is on a tribal scale involving the worship of natural phenomena or animalistic idols, or a sophisticated poly- or monotheist world-wide religion with complex hierarchy, rituals and exclusive "knowledge" for the initiated. We can actually sort of pinpoint when, how and why it happens. In order to entertain religious thoughts, you have to possess fifth-order intentionality. First-order intentionality allows you to think about your own intentions ("I believe"); second-order intentionality allows you to think about other people's thoughts and feelings; their intentionality ("I think God wants me to believe"). We call this "Theory of Mind". Autistic people struggle with this type of thinking. But it goes further: third-order intentionality is what you think they think about others' intentionality ("I believe that God wants you to believe in him"); then there is fourth-order ("I want you to believe that God wants you to believe in him") and fifth-order ("I want you to know that we both believe that God wants us to believe in him"). We now have the basic foundation for religious bonding and ritual. Interestingly, we can observe different levels of intentionality in animals and people. Animals manage first-order only. The big apes, Chimps and dolphins manage second-order (a requirement for the complex social groups they function in). People, on a daily-life basis work at third-order level although we can manage fifth-order, and the brighter ones amongst us, at a stretch, even seventh-order (a requisite in psychotherapeutic work, actually). After that our working memory starts to lose track... When you look at the brain volume of proto-humans, you'll notice that exceeding a certain volume corresponds neatly with the emergence of artefacts indicating some concept of religion: burial rites, rituals, icons etc. This also corresponds neatly with the brain volumes exceeding those of the big apes. The bigger the brain (roughly) relative to the body, the more evidence of higher-order intentionality. So we have an idea of how and when. Now the why. Religion is an important social bonding ritual. It makes quite disparate people feel quite tightly connected and work constructively towards quite massive goals (not convinced? Look at a decent size cathedral and consider this was built in Medieval times without cranes and JCBs. Look at the pyramids and ancient temples). It defines in-group vs out-group (with lots of self-serving attribution bias, of course) and it is a wonderful boost in times of adversity, doubt, fear, hunger. It offers a concrete framework for coping with a big, scary and unpredictable world. Faith moves mountains, alright. So basically, religion is by its very nature often about in-group vs out-group distinction and self-serving attribution bias; about almost obsessive preoccupation with ritual to affirm social bonds, pursue common group goals and cope with uncertainty, and about rules the breaking of which is punished by ostracision (or worse). It is an extremely powerful process, and as such, typically, can be either extremely useful or extremely destructive (often both at the same time). The externalising religions (which put the source of spirituality outside people, e.g. somewhere up in heaven) are much worse in this regard, than the internalising religions (which put the source of spirituality in the individual: e.g. Buddhism, Taoism), which generally advoacte that people ought to mind their own business rather than mind everyone else's.
No. Given the media reposting them has caused such an outburst, for anyone on the forums to do the same would be incredibly unwise, not to mention insensitive. If you want to see them, they're easily findable on google image search.
