agreed angering people in underdeveloped nations who live in poverty by mocking their god and endangering military troop lives further for their "freedom of speech" is absurd its all fueled by bias, the conservative right wing christians don't like other religions and the atheists don't like any religion.
True, however I was thinking in terms of a western context, in relation to the comment made by the person I was responding to. No religion (or belief system) should be "off limits" to criticism, or even to satire or 'attack', in supposedly democratic, open & free societies, and except when people stupidly self-censor (the South Park episode for example) I don't really see any evidence that they are. In addition, in reality Christians are just as quick as anyone else to complain or to appeal to blasphemy laws, and to try to suppress freedom of expression when it suits them. So trying to assume some sort of it's not fair cos everyone picks on us position doesn't really seem very justified, IMO.
Not selling anything. Just pointing out the fact that this statement: Is incorrect, since the event was in direct response to threats that resulted in censorship. Unless you were referring to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, in which case I must have lost track of what you and others were going back and forth about.
I love it how you have to be "brainwashed by the right-wing media" to have a problem with artists being threatened and censored.
You declare that: 'In addition, in reality Christians are just as quick as anyone else to complain or to appeal to blasphemy laws, and to try to suppress freedom of expression when it suits them.' When has that occurred when combined with real threats of unspeakable violence? Has any Christian in the modern period, slit someone's throat, aka Theo van Gogh, in the name of their religion? This (Muslim) religion is till mired in the dark and mudy dogma of the Dark Ages.
Christians have been responsible for the slaughter of thousands of people (Sabra, Shatila, Srebrenica, etc) during very recent history; no religion (or belief system, arguably) has a monopoly on violence or a totally clean slate. Also, the Dark Ages were marked by widespread Christian oppression, violence and intolerance (of any sort of dissent), so using that as an analogy seems kinda ironic, in this context really, doesn't it.
I am discussing the modern period. Everyone knows that all relgions and ildeologies were responsible for atrocities in the past. And yes Sebrenica was a terrible event but an isloated event,and quite beyond my comprehension that such a targic even could occur in the modern era. But it was the West, and specifically American air power, that intervened and stopped further atrocities. Where were their Muslim brothers when this slaughter was taking place? Too busy counting the billions of oil revenue running through their hands I suspect.
As fun as it can be to be abnoxious I assume you realize that traditional muslims oppose this idea. They dislike people dipicting thier prophet. I on the other hand would love people to a great job in painting this prophet with every shade of skin out there. Muhammad was a great patriot and vicious fighter. It is foolish to disrespect him and Im begining to think its foolish for the sects of Abraham to reject this prophet.
So you say that 'Muhammad was a great patriot and vicious fighter. So was: - Horatio Nelson of Trafalgar fame (and other places); - Napoleon Bonaparte; - numerous Roman Generals eg Marcus Furius Camillus, Sulla, Agrippa , Octavian (Augustus); - Charlemagne - the Duke of Wellington of Waterloo fame (and other places). -Alexander the Great I never hear of Muhammad being compared to any of these famous military leaders. Maybe you went to a very different school. Now if you want to discuss Muslim military leaders like eg Saladin, etc, that would be a different story.
And: What specific sort of example are you looking for? Acts of violence in the name of Christianity? Something large scale? There is an article with evidence of some modern day Christian terrorism, although I do not know what you define by modern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Muslims can't withstand mockery. How do you think Muslims would react to this type of treatment of Muhammed? NWS: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/
Did you spend any time on reading the warning on this article?. Well here is the warning: 'the nuetrality of this article is disputed'. Strange isn't it, that you missed this very imporatnt rider, especially since it was at the very beginning of this article. I wonder if you might just be a little bit biased. A bit of bias on your behalf, perhaps?
If you read my posts properly you will have noticed that I was discussing the modern period. Any dill knows that atrocities have been committed by all sides over millenia. And I specifically referred to Sebrenica in one of my posts. Nevertheless, in the modern period, by far the most atrocities have been commited by fanatical Muslims still living in the misogynist Dark Ages. And why would any sane person stab a person to death because he drew a caricature of another person, no matter how revered?
So when does this "modern" period begin then, according to you? Sometime after, say, September 10th 2001...? Actually no you didn't, certainly not on this topic anyway - I mentioned Sebrenica, and also incidentally Sabra and Shatila, both of which you conveniently ignored. Those would be the Christian dominated misogynist Dark Ages which fanatical Muslims are still apparently living in then, presumably? Sane people do lots of apparently insane things, often (though not always) in the name of religious or religious/political beliefs or ideologies. In a totally "sane" world no-one would actually believe in such ideologies in the first place, arguably. And people should be entitled to draw caricatures of who or whatever they like, including of course of mythological or mythologised figures such as Muhammad, obviously.
What has Sabra and Shatila gor to do wth the State of Israel? You obviously love to draw a long bow as if anyone is that stupid to fall for that old trick. Those events were carried out by the so called Christian millitias. The fact that the refugees were surrounded by Israeli soldiers does not make them liable for someone elses actions. Stop distorting the facts with your fatuous, so very obvious anti-Israeli diatribe. Here are the facts from Wilkepedia: 'The Sabra and Shatila massacre took place in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war. Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese' (my emphasis).' etc. etc.
I am actually big believer in this precisely BECAUSE I respect Islam. Why is it this rule (which is really quite interpretative) is so pervasive and extremely enforced? Pictures and paintings of Mohammad were VERY common around the time of his being alive. Today they are still widely used and make amongst Shia populations. If you go to Iran you can find plenty. I might even draw one myself. Might even post it here.
<<<Mod Edit:Flamebait Removed>>> that seems a totally bizarre, total comprehension failure. I wasn't talking about & didn't even mention the State of Israel, or Israeli soldiers, or Israel, or any such thing, so how on earth was anything I said an "anti-Israeli diatribe"? The discussion was about atrocities carried out by Christians, which is why I mentioned Sabra and Shatila. To remind you:
<<<Mod Edit:Flamebait Removed>>> I am talking about recent history where the atrocities are being committed by maniacal Islamists in the name of Islam (anyone who declares otherwise must either have their own (hidden) agenda or is stark raving blind. And I speficially mentioned Sebrenica, on at least two occassions, because I can not comprehend how such hatred can be passed on from generation to generation. But in the modern era there is absolutely no doubt that most of the atrocites in the world are carried out in the name of Islam. Where are the so called 'moderate' Muslims condemning these atrocities committed in its name?
Not at all. Nearly 2 million kids die of diarrhea each year. That is an atrocity out weighing all others currently, and one which are all responsible for, and that certainly has nothing to do with Islam. LOL Practically everywhere. When 9/11 happened jsut about every single notable figure in the Islamic world condemned it. If you watched Fox news or some other bs you'd never hear about it. Google Muslims against terrorism and you'll find speeches, organizations, rallies and FATWAS AGAINST TERRORISTS. <<<Mod Edit:Flamebait Removed>>>there have been approximately 14000 Muslims that have served in the US army to fight in the war on terror. <<<Mod Edit:Flamebait Removed>>>
The same is true for the article on islamic terrorism. My pointing out the article is not an endorsement of every iota in it. Rather as a single piece of evidence that there may be some Christian terrorism even in modern times. Again I ask you to clarify this: What sort of specific example are you looking for? The way I read that is that you're implying that there has never been even a single act of violence carried out in modern times in the name of Christianity or beliefs attributed to it. I would contend that that is probably wrong due to the overwhelming number of Christians and various denominations that inhabit every part of the globe. However, without knowing specifically what you are claiming, I cannot attempt to address it or research the claim properly.
No, what I am saying is that, in the modern era, more acts of terrorism have been commited in the name of Islam than any other religion belief etc etc, by a country mile. That is not to say that other acts of terrorism have not been committed by other groups (or single acts) but Islam leaves then in the shade in terms of its global reach. It is a perpetual threat to Western Democracy and must be resisted at all cost. It is a grossly misongynist, oudated religion belonging to the Dark Ages when religion, because of the general citizens' lack of education, was paramount in peoples' lives. The West, by large,has long discarded this outdated belief, whilst the Islamists are still stuck with their , depressing, misongynist philosphy of the past.
I don't know where you obtain your information when you state ' 'When 9/11 happened jsut about every single notable figure in the Islamic world condemned it.' I can't remember any Muslim leader condemning the events of 9//I1 but if they did, they must have condemned it in a whisper. But I remember very vividly, very shortly after 9/11, listening to a broadcast by the BBC which interviewed a Muslim who had left his home in Northern England and just returned. He was aghast when he saw many Muslims dancing in the streets with joy at that event and their diehard belief that it was some dark Western conspiracy,which, of course, was in itself a contradiction !
Would you like some examples? Remember Google is the easiest way, and I suggested it before. I get my information from many places, all are on planet earth of course. <<<Mod Editersonal Attack Removed>>> Why must they? Just because you aren't informed doesn't define reality. 1. <<<Mod Edit:Flamebait Removed>>> You here of a groups of idiots praising the attack and then make the idiotic assumption all Muslims think the same. 2. What was the contradiction?
