Originally Posted by Muz Slippery slope argument doesn't work, lol. USA has been censoring a lot of things in their entertainment, including nudity and some swearing and I don't see them slipping into dictatorship. They've been doing it for decades.
These two things are unrelated. You are comparing censoring things to make them more appropriate for viewers in the earlier hours, when more children are watching tv. Cable channels are pretty much allowed to say and show whatever they want. At any given time I can flip to certain channels and see as much profanity, violence, and hardcore porn as I want. Comedy central is a cable channel, and southpark is typically bleeped out for effect. They had an episode where they tracked how many times they said "shit" unbleeped. There is a difference between regulating extreme images and language that might not be appropriate for children, and removing references and cartoon depictions of a man due to death threats. I can't run through the streets naked, but I can sure as hell hold up a sign that says I think I should have the right to.
Originally Posted by Muz The Western world sees it as a blow to free speech and giving in to wannabe terrorists. They argue that censoring a cartoon is a first step towards letting terrorists take over the world and the first step towards the death of free speech.
The Islamic world saw it as a bullying act and hate speech. They argue that allowing them to get away with insults is a first step towards giving in to the Western invaders and one day we'll be powerless to stop Americans and Israelis from genociding the Muslim world. "
The difference is that the first thing is actually happening in many places in the world, whereas the second is due to irrational fear mongering. The U.S. has no plans of "genociding" anyone. We don't care what you think or believe so long as those thoughts and beliefs don't turn into violent actions against us, which is exactly what has been happening.
You see, this is exactly the same sentiment as me - all people who are murderers or who threaten with murder are not Muslims, Christians, Catholics - even civilised people - and should be condemned!
i have talked to a muslim yesterday about this and he said its the same as pissing on a priest and saying its freedom of acting (WTF? i only know freedom of speech)
and i said you cant piss on ANY person so it doesnt matter if it has anything to do with religion or not. pissing on people is ALWAYS wrong
and he said that showing Muhammad is wrong and its a sin and EVERYBODY should know that because its COMMON SENSE just like not pissing on a priest was common sense
Originally Posted by MasterM i have talked to a muslim yesterday about this and he said its the same as pissing on a priest and saying its freedom of acting (WTF? i only know freedom of speech)
and i said you cant piss on ANY person so it doesnt matter if it has anything to do with religion or not. pissing on people is ALWAYS wrong
and he said that showing Muhammad is wrong and its a sin and EVERYBODY should know that because its COMMON SENSE just like not pissing on a priest was common sense
Of all people, Boris Johnson made some very insightful, and at the time, very controversial comments about extremist Islam. These were just after the 7/7 bombings in London:
"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia fear of Islam seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. [...]
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension [of Theo Van Gogh's killer] is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islams mediaeval ass?
....We non-Muslims cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them (the suicide bombers) out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations. It will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem."
islam is a problem and a belief system i massively disagree with but i've come to the conclusion that if i am to disagree with that, i must also massively disagree with judaism and evangelical Christianity etc. They are all sick horrible racist ideologies that are against rationality and most things i stand for. The important thing is not to associate beliefs to ethnicity. As long as i stick to absolute hatred of: islamic beliefs; jewish beliefs and christian beliefs, i am ok so long as i do not hate jews arabs/turks/persians etc based on ethnicity. In our society it is also hard to say 'i hate judaism' without massive controversy but if i am to disagree with islam as a religion then judiasm must also be included for sure.
Here is a thought.. if its wrong to depict 'muhammed' why are so many people called muhammed? Is not naming your son 'muhammed' depicting him in the same way as calling your teddy bear muhammed? or drawing a picture called 'muhammed' As far as i understand the whole point was that muhammed didnt want any images of himself created and taught that people should not worship him but should worship allah. i.e no false idols like catholicism has. depicting muhammed by western people should really be fine since no images of muhammed were ever truly created. any image we do make will almost certainly NOT be of muhammed (since he made sure no one ever made one while he was around) and we are not doing it for the purpose of worshipping him instead of allah which was the reason he taught not to do it. The only valid complaint under islamic belief is if we tried to make images of Muhammed and worship them as our god instead of allah. I personally don't plan on doing that.
In that southpark episode it reminded me.. Muhammed DID show up in a previous Southpark episode and was not censored.. he was right there! he had the power of flame or something as a member of the super best friends and it WAS totally fine no one complained.
The difference is that the first thing is actually happening in many places in the world, whereas the second is due to irrational fear mongering.
No, both of them are due to irrational fear mongering. Israel walls up a lot of Muslims and shoots them regularly, playing the "terrorist" card as an excuse to shoot civilians. The USA hands them weapons and technology to do it. It's far from nuking the entire Muslim world, which is why I called it ridiculous, but it's not completely illogal. It's just unsound logic. Now imagine if someone posts a swastika on a cartoon well before the Nazi concentration camps have been taken down. That's considered hate speech. If they did it 50 years after the war in the Middle East is over, there'd be far less flak over it.
BTW, no, I doubt terrorists will be taking over the world. They're poorly funded with few weapons or plans. If free speech dies, it's only because people have shown what's wrong with it.. after all, groups like Revolution Muslim play the "free speech" card to spread hateful propaganda all the time.
Originally Posted by Mr_Tom
Here is a thought.. if its wrong to depict 'muhammed' why are so many people called muhammed? Is not naming your son 'muhammed' depicting him in the same way as calling your teddy bear muhammed? or drawing a picture called 'muhammed' As far as i understand the whole point was that muhammed didnt want any images of himself created and taught that people should not worship him but should worship allah. i.e no false idols like catholicism has. depicting muhammed by western people should really be fine since no images of muhammed were ever truly created. any image we do make will almost certainly NOT be of muhammed (since he made sure no one ever made one while he was around) and we are not doing it for the purpose of worshipping him instead of allah which was the reason he taught not to do it. The only valid complaint under islamic belief is if we tried to make images of Muhammed and worship them as our god instead of allah. I personally don't plan on doing that.
Heh, this actually makes a great deal of sense, even to a guy who's taken some Islamic theology. A lot of the taboo around Muhammad pictures lies around their fear of idolizing him like the Christians idolized Jesus. But from a lot of the reactions (Holocaust pictures, Facebook bans, more terrorist propaganda), they're actually putting the Muhammad 'picture' as a higher priority than the religion itself.
Furthermore, Islam places a huge amount of emphasis on "motivations". If your motivation was to draw Muhammad for the sake of free speech, friendship, and not worshipping him in any way (like South Park did), then it's a good thing. If your motivation to draw Muhammad is for pure insult (Draw Muhammad Day, as with most of the protests), then it's a bad thing.
I'm against the whole "we can do whatever we want because it's just plain morally right" argument, but that one makes full sense.
I'd disagree with Islam not being able to mix with Western civilization. Islamic values tend to be extremist moderate. Extreme liberty doesn't work, hence the clash with "the right to use free speech as an insult" but not with "the right to criticize" itself. But it also clashes with extreme authoritarianism. They'd actually mix well with Republicans. If you look back in history, they've violently opposed communism because it gave too much power to authority, which was why Osama bin Laden was a close ally with the USA during the Cold War. Dictatorships are simply democracies with rigged elections, like what happens in Iraq. They'll be strongly opposed to full control of the government, like with the USSR and China.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by ChrisD
