Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
what if my religion involved slaughtering babies with laser guided weaponry and a force of several thousand armed men? I am after all, on a mission from God.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
what if my religion involved slaughtering babies with laser guided weaponry and a force of several thousand armed men? I am after all, on a mission from God.
If your purpose is to end hostility and protect your people and religious freedom, then that's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampy
Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
so it's ok for me to protest and riot about someone defaming my religion then? I am after all ultimately protecting my people from damnation in the eyes of my religion? If I kill the authors of the cartoons then all the better, they won't be able to enflame again and hostility will be ended
Protest, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampy
Riot? Depends on your definition. If rioting includes burning and destroying others property, then no. I would not consider that a peaceful act. I also think it does more harm than good in a religion that already has enough problems with outside perception. You can however retaliate with all the cartoons you want.
and yet, confusingly, invading a sovereign state is a peaceful act? interesting perspective you have there
To quote the president who initiated those two wars (Afghanistan & Iraq)Quote:
Originally Posted by XU1
This is a pretty contradictory statement. But he sure as hell sounds extreme, and hell bent on imposing his religion on Afghanistan.Quote:
"Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else. But when I make decisions I stand on principle. And the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That's manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged how I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me."
--Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, AZ, October 13, 2004
/Flip
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampy
Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
As a norwegian, it hurts me to see those people burning our flags because one newspaper (they sell about 5000 papers a week, and that's a fact) printed those drawings. I also think it's ridiculous that our government should apology because somebody is using their freedom to speech. I'm not saying it's a smart/necessary thing to print these drawings though...
I don't see why everyone is so upset about flag burning... I mean really... get over it. The protests have grown into full scale violence and rioting.
I agree wholeheartedly, to condemn whole nations (such as Norway and Denmark) on the actions of a few people is wrong. Similarily to condemn whole religions on the actions of some people is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
conversely freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite violence. The newspaper knew that it was re-printing inflammatory material and yet they still did it. To my mind that is irresponsible.
Freedom of speach should be used responsibly.
I agree. And it's wrong to condemn all muslims because of these actions. On the other hand, the norwegian newspaper who printed this, is a very religious one, so i don't think they care very much about making muslims mad (or sad).Quote:
Originally Posted by swampy
At the same time, it's bad if people stop using their freedom of speech because they feel threathened of what the outcome might be...
Yep, violence is never an appropriate response to excercising free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
I don't care what the message is or who the messenger is.
That's the bottom line.
Magnus. I agree that violence or flag burning isn't the answer. What the radicals are doing is entice more hatred towards the west, what the peaceful muslim is wanting is to provent these types of islamophobic enablers to ever appear in media.
To pick up where I left off before getting entagled in other topics, this type of media only serves two purposes:
1. Discriminatory, anti-immigrant forces in the West use them to further their agenda of hate.
2. Extremist, anti-West forces in the World use them to further their agenda of hate.
Either way, this hurts the average peace-loving Muslim's image in society.
Most everyone agrees that freedom of speach should not, and can not be changed as it is one of the basic principles of the West. But how about amending it to prevent anti-religion propaganda - whichever the targeted religion? Perhaps this would set a precedent that would entice tolerance rather than more hate in the world - whoever the culprit.
/Flip
This is the most difficult topic with the freedom of speech... i guess we just have to ignore this "extremists propaganda" until somebody comes up with a better idea :)Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsideguy
How about flying to Denmark and smoking hash in a parlor? It's a better anology. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by swampy
Amending it is changing it. It isn't going to happen. Your forgetting, only the muslims have a problem with jokes about religion. In countries where religious freedom is law, cartoons and jokes are taken for what they are. All this crappola in arab countries over this is just an excuse to riot against the west. Anything about the west.Quote:
Most everyone agrees that freedom of speach should not, and can not be changed as it is one of the basic principles of the West. But how about amending it to prevent anti-religion propaganda - whichever the targeted religion?
But go ahead and riot, you think your childish gushing of hatred isn't matched by new and just as volitile hatred of muslims in the west? Most people here are hardly as forgiving or as contrite as some priggish and apologist government leaders would have you believe.
Actually, Geezer, many a christians have condemned the blasphemous cartoons.
You're reinforcing my argument that these types of anti-islam propaganda only inflate an already volatile situation. You can't sit there and say that you are better than the people torching embassies and whatnot, while threatening that your people will retaliate. You are just as bad.Quote:
But go ahead and riot, you think your childish gushing of hatred isn't matched by new and just as volitile hatred of muslims in the west? Most people here are hardly as forgiving or as contrite as some priggish and apologist government leaders would have you believe.
Besides, your ever-increasing hatred for everything and everyone that is against your personal view makes you an extremist, and I fear people like you, just as I fear some extremist muslim blowing up our public transport here in Sweden. You're just as bad, only you're wrapping your views in the star-spangled banner - thus justifying your views.
Shame on you.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by nizamm
Jesus was a dirty peacenik too.
I believe the saying goes something like "Lord, save me from your followers."
Someone before mentioned faith being "worth dying for". I pick my battles. If I were forced, at gunpoint, to renounce my faith, I'd take the bullet. That's about it. Threatening someone else's life over it is so wrought with hypocricy it blows my mind.
I don't say I'm better than anyone. In fact, I understand these childish outbursts far more than the people doing them. But if you think that puts me on their level, go ahead, it's your misaprehension, not mine.Quote:
You can't sit there and say that you are better than the people torching embassies and whatnot, while threatening that your people will retaliate.
And by the way, retaliation for say, a nuke launched on the US or an ally by Iran is no threat, it's an assured response, and has been part of the american psyche for decades. Any attack using WMD of any kind will be responded to "in kind". The shrub won't even have to go to congress to get an OK for that. He already has it.
Don't for a minute think that "my views" are held by me alone. If hatred of a corrupt government and inniquities done by them makes me an extremist, then I admit it. If hatred of the very people who blindly hate me for something I've never done, then so be it, I'm proud to be an extremist.Quote:
Besides, your ever-increasing hatred for everything and everyone that is against your personal view makes you an extremist, and I fear people like you, just as I fear some extremist muslim blowing up our public transport here in Sweden.
<edit>
Actually, I don't hate muslims, I do hate their raggedy assed leaders who incite them to violence they'd just as soon not do, and I hate stupidity of any kind, yours included. So if that comes across as extremism, to friggin bad.
Extreme? with those quotes? you gotta be kidding, and since when was Christianity imposed on Afghanistan?Quote:
Originally Posted by flipsideguy
Look at what he said in context, he is talking about freedom, not religious theocray.
iTony
Swampy, can you provide the sources of those quotes?
There are a lot of things that he is supposed to say but never actualy said them...:)
iTony