Some people have no sense of humor. South Park incurs veiled death threats.

[markw]

I knew you kids would devolce this into a generalized anti-religion thread.

Now, let's get it back on track, shall we?

What religions goad their followers into killing cartoonists who refer to their diety in a drawing or amnimation?

What religions have followers who have actually killed these cartoonists?

Religion notwithstanding, Nad had it most correct when he called it a freedom of speech issue. Religions may control what their followers say and do, but to ty to control others actions takes it to another level entirely.

I remember some quite disgusting "works of art" depicting Jesus in a defamatory manner that puts what South Park did on the level of a kindergarten story. I don't recall any death threats coming from people purporting to speak for that religions.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Now, let's get it back on track, shall we?

What religions goad their followers into killing cartoonists who refer to their diety in a drawing or amnimation?

What religions have followers who have actually killed these cartoonists?

Religion notwithstanding, Nad had it most correct when he called it a freedom of speech issue. Religions may control what their followers say and do, but to ty to control others actions takes it to another level entirely.

I remember some quite disgusting "works of art" depicting Jesus in a defamatory manner that puts what South Park did on the level of a kindergarten story. I don't recall any death threats coming from people purporting to speak for that religions.

I find what many Islamic extremists are saying and doing to be very troubling. However, I will not condemn the religion outright. In the middle ages, it was the Moors in Spain who were the tolerant ones, who provided protection to Jews and "heretic" Christians alike, while the inquisitors were acting the way Islamic extremists are acting today. So, I would view the issue from an historical perspective rather than the myopic views of the last few decades.

 

[markw]

We're not living in the past.

I find what many Islamic extremists are saying and doing to be very troubling. However, I will not condemn the religion outright. In the middle ages, it was the Moors in Spain who were the tolerant ones, who provided protection to Jews and "heretic" Christians alike, while the inquisitors were acting the way Islamic extremists are acting today. So, I would view the issue from an historical perspective rather than the myopic views of the last few decades.

And before that, the newly created Muslim religion killed off all the Christians in Jerusalem and Egypt aroud 600 - 700 or so.

I'm talking the here and now.

"This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society?
The answer is a lot."

"There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled."

Any more comments?

 

[Chu Gai]

So, what does one do about it?

 

[markw]

So, what does one do about it?

Well, to start with, one doesn't make excuses justifying such behavior by looking into the past.

From what I've seen here, that's all some seem to have to offer.

What do you suggest?

 

[Chu Gai]

Nothing much you can do about it in other countries. Internally, I'd say secular law trumps personal interpretation with respect to matters such as personal rights (woman's right to own property, drive a car, etc.) and stuff like that. Probably a lot easier to talk about it rather than write about it. On a world wide basis, I kind of rank the matter of the world's ever increasing population size ahead of all this.

 

[markw]

Nothing much you can do about it in other countries. Internally, I'd say secular law trumps personal interpretation with respect to matters such as personal rights (woman's right to own property, drive a car, etc.) and stuff like that. Probably a lot easier to talk about it rather than write about it. On a world wide basis, I kind of rank the matter of the world's ever increasing population size ahead of all this.

Well, thanks to some governments, Sharia law is making inroads into what otherwise would be fairly secular countries.

Unless this trend is reversed, this world will not be the same in a very few generations. For those without children this may not mean anything, but I would like to leave a free world for my progeny.

 

[GO-NAD!]

And before that, the newly created Muslim religion killed off all the Christians in Jerusalem and Egypt aroud 600 - 700 or so.

I'm talking the here and now.

Any more comments?

Yes, you're right. I guess I should've elaborated. What I meant was that the actions of a bunch of extremists in the present day does not indicate that Muslims have continuously thought and acted that way down through history. I referred to the Moors in order to refute the allegation (not yours!) that Islam is inherently violent. If that were the case, the Moors would've persecuted Jews and heretics to the same degree as the inquisitors. That's why I think we need to view the situation from a larger perspective, than just the situation we are in today.

So, I won't condemn an entire group's beliefs because right now, a minority within that group are criminally intolerant. I respect any person's right to believe what they want, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs and rules on anyone else.

Yes, Islam has its problems. The extremists views are not being condemned strongly and loudly enough by the moderate leadership. Therefore, those nasty views are drowning out the voices of reason. The autocratic governments endured by the vast majority of Muslim countries won't allow modern moderate views to be aired, mainly for political reasons.

Christianity has "matured" over the last couple of hundred years, due to the rise of democracy. I have no reason to doubt the same would happen with Islam, given the same conditions.

It bothers me that broadcasters would self-censor in the face of such threats as those mentioned in the OP. It only encourages the extremists. Satire is a valuable part social commentary and I would not wish to silence it -even if my own beliefs are mocked.

Muslims must understand that if their beliefs are worthy enough to hang onto, then their religion will withstand any and all criticism without the need for violent reaction. If some Muslims continue to lash out at critics, it will only reinforce the view that Islam is indeed, inherently violent. Turn the other cheek, as Jesus once (allegedly ) said...

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well, to start with, one doesn't make excuses justifying such behavior by looking into the past.

From what I've seen here, that's all some seem to have to offer.

What do you suggest?

Whoa Nelly! You are not suggesting that I am making excuses for what some extremists are doing, are you!?

I can't believe that any of my comments could be so badly misconstrued, that one could think that I am trying to excuse the behaviour of extremists!

 

[markw]

Ah, thers's the rub

Muslims must understand that if their beliefs are worthy enough to hang onto, then their religion will withstand any and all criticism without the need for violent reaction. If some Muslims continue to lash out at critics, it will only reinforce the view that Islam is indeed, inherently violent. Turn the other cheek, as Jesus once (allegedly ) said...

Until mainstream Muslims as a whole stop ignoring the many, many violent maniacs their religion fosters and do something about putting an end to it, public perception that it is inherently violent will not change. Neither will mine.

Whether the ultimate goals are religious or political* matters not. The fact that they use that religion as the focus as their actions does make them culpable.

*In the Qur'an religion and politics are so intertwined that neither can exist without the other.

 

[markw]

Whoa Nelly! You are not suggesting that I am making excuses for what some extremists are doing, are you!?

I can't believe that any of my comments could be so badly misconstrued, that one could think that I am trying to excuse the behaviour of extremists!

Were you quoted in that post?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Were you quoted in that post?

"Well, to start with, one doesn't make excuses justifying such behavior by looking into the past.

From what I've seen here, that's all some seem to have to offer."

I thought I was the only one, so far, who suggested looking at the historical record for some perspective. That's why I made the assumption that it was I, who was being quoted. If I was mistaken, you have my apology. Otherwise, please don't respond to my question with a deflecting question...

 

[markw]

Good point.

"Well, to start with, one doesn't make excuses justifying such behavior by looking into the past.

From what I've seen here, that's all some seem to have to offer."

I thought I was the only one, so far, who suggested looking at the historical record for some perspective. That's why I made the assumption that it was I, who was being quoted. If I was mistaken, you have my apology. Otherwise, please don't respond to my question with a deflecting question...

Actually, I forgot who brought it up to begin with. Maybe it was you I was rrferring to but that depends on your intent. After all, all the anti-religion nutcases were having a ball kicking Christianity and all other religions in their face here (when they weren't even an issue) and you got mixed in with it all.

If it was to only point out that other religions had their wild days, maybe that's a pass. But, remember that the Inquisition was only in one country, Spain, and that was mainly for political purposes cloaked in the church. The church overall was not behind it. ...and the crusades were a direct response by the west to the moorish eastward march for conquest.

But, if it was mentioned as if to say that Islam is only going through growing pains and it'll outgrow it, then maybe it was intended for you. By the time Islam gets over it's growing pains, with our "tolerance" of their differing ways, I doubt there will be any other religions/governments in existance.

 

[randyb]

While tolerance is the topic of this thread, I thought I would introduce a purported fact that my wife read in this book

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307267148/?tag=yahhyd-20&hvadid=61360739511&ref=pd_sl_28yr4ie4dl_e

that more women have been killed just because they are women than people killed in all the wars in history. Comments?

 

[Chu Gai]

How did they arrive at the number?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Actually, I forgot who brought it up to begin with. Maybe it was you I was rrferring to but that depends on your intent. After all, all the anti-religion nutcases were having a ball kicking Christianity and all other religions in their face here (when they weren't even an issue) and you got mixed in with it all.

If it was to only point out that other religions had their wild days, maybe that's a pass. But, remember that the Inquisition was only in one country, Spain, and that was mainly for political purposes cloaked in the church. The church overall was not behind it. ...and the crusades were a direct response by the west to the moorish eastward march for conquest.

But, if it was mentioned as if to say that Islam is only going through growing pains and it'll outgrow it, then maybe it was intended for you. By the time Islam gets over it's growing pains, with our "tolerance" of their differing ways, I doubt there will be any other religions/governments in existance.

I'm under no illusion that Islam as a whole will "mature", for lack of a better word, within our lifetimes. In fact, it may never happen. Time will tell.

 

[GirgleMirt]

It seems to me that you cannot understand any viewpoints beyond your own. Yes, the analogy I used wasn't a perfect one, but it was merely to illustrate a point that I used it. If you couldn't see that, I can only presume wilful blindness.

It wasn't nearly simply imperfect, it was a bad one as I've stated. A gun will not influence anyone to kill anybody. But religion will. Do you see the distinction here? Are are you the one willfully blind?

A set of beliefs or philosophy cannot inflict any physical harm on anybody. It takes a person to do that.

But they can certainly motivate people to cause and inflict physical harm on others. Religion has been doing it throughout the ages. How many have carried out great crimes in the name of religion? Someone said: "With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.". It's not absolutely true, money can be a great motivator for example, but it does make a point.[/quote]

The closest that a religion can come to inflicting physical harm is if you whack somebody over the head with a bible. Even then, it is still just the physical book and not the religion itself. Sure it provides the basis for belief, but it still just a book and it boils down to how it's interpreted.

What a laugh! So for example, when a believer throws acid on the face of children because they are female and their religion forbids them to get educated, you're saying religion has nothing to do with it? Please...

You conveniently ignored my point about religions not having a monopoly in violence.

Actually, I started to answer your post but got seriously bored, hence, didn't address everything. Thought I made my point simply by addressing those bits... You didn't reply to the points I have made and questions I did ask btw...

You conveniently ignored my point about religions not having a monopoly in violence.

Most people haven't died of cancer either, doesn't make cancer any less of a bane. Nobody ever said religion had a monopoly of violence. Just that it's a catalyst and serious motivator. In this case, simple cartoon can spawn violence, riots, murders, etc...

You stated, "There's no way to 'use' it properly." Are you implying that nobody can hold religious beliefs and still act in an responsible manner? Do you really believe that?

No, certainly certain people can believe in imaginary beings and fairy tales and still act in a responsible manner. Most do.

Bottom line is, freedom of speech trumps all, as far as I'm concerned. If anyone wishes to mock Mohammed, Jesus, or any other religious figure, that is their business and I wouldn't have it any other way. They should not be punished or persecuted for it. I draw the line when any action taken "in the name of God" violates another person's basic human rights.

Well that's where you're wrong. Nothing trumps religion. You're simply saying so because you're an infidel. And as such, your opinion is pointless anyhow. You're worth much less than anyone who worships Allah. And if you dare insult the great Allah and the prophet, then you will reap what you have sown and suffer great consequence. You simply do not insult the greatest. Your freedom of speech is meaningless compared to the greatness of Allah. The law of god is greater than the law of man. Allah will rule all.

Seriously, Islam doesn't hide the fact that it wishes to dominate the world... "As for Islam, the Quran states unequivocally the superiority and triumph of Islam over all religions in three different verses: 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33. These verses are found in the historical context of warfare and violence, so how can they fail to inspire violent fanatics?"

You are right about civilized societies not "needing" religion. It's more important what a person does, than what he or she believes. One could argue that we don't "need" socialism. However, if there were no socialist beliefs allowed, our economy would still resemble the age of feudalism at worst, or robber-barons at best. It's all a matter of ballance.

You're comparing apples with oranges. A set of primitive supernatural beliefs against a political philosophy. Makes as much sense as comparing tarot card reading to mathematics.

If somebody chooses to hold certain beliefs that would be considered "religious", they shouldn't be regarded as soft in the head. That would be rather close-minded. I can appreciate why some people are athiests and I respect that. To make the claim that a religion is a set of "false beliefs", is truly "presumptuous and pompous". You can no more prove the non-existence of God any more than I can prove that God does exist.

Let's look at it this way, (from Dawkin's pov) there's been hundreds of gods and religions throughout the ages. Now only a couple remain. Yet, they're all different. Evidently, only one of these 'theories' can be right. Can't all be right... You assume, for example, christianity is right, that's what you believe, what you have faith in. That makes every other existing religion false, according to you. You certainly don't believe in Thor, the god of thunder, or Ra, god of the sun, or Crishna. So you're an atheist towards most religions. Well, atheists just go one god further. Do you think you not believing in Thor the god of thunder makes you presumptuous and pompous? Or do you believe that Thor is real? Or you think that there is significant possibility that Thor and the greek gods are real? False-beliefs?

I probably do not conform to the stereotype that an athiest would consider a Christian. I do not think that God is a man up in the clouds with a long grey beard and flowing white robes, I do not believe that there were an "Adam and Eve" in the literal sense or that they rode dinosaurs and I do not believe Jesus to be divine, i.e. the literal son of God.

Right, like most christians, or believers, your religion is so silly that no one with an ounce of reasoning would take its entirety seriously. You you reject what you think are the most silly parts, and make up your own fairy tale about what you think might be. You just pick and choose. Like the ten commandments, you shall not work on sabbath... You don't like that, so the hell with it... No sex without marriage, again, ah screw that, that's not good, makes no sense, i'll have sex whenever I want, screw silly laws, but I'm still a christian. Riiiight... Fact is, as I've stated, religion is a set of primitive beliefs. They were written by primitive man from another age... Of course they don't apply now. So what makes you think some parts are true, other false, and you get to choose yourself what's true and what's not? It's all crock from start to finish. How do I know? Reasoning. Christianity is but one religion out of so many. Absolutely nothing to make a reasonable man think that it's any less ridiculous than any other religion.

Well besides the fact that most religious adults were indoctrinated during childhood when they were most vulnerable... But that's another story.

I am a Christian because I believe Jesus' teachings to be valid life lessons. If you haven't read about Jesus, I can tell you that non-violence was at the core of his teachings. Wait a minute, I already did. But, you chose not to address that point at all. Martin Luther King Jr. took those lessons to heart. Do you think he was a danger to society?

Abraham Lincoln said: "When I do good, I feel good, when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion" You don't need a fairy tale to give you morals, and morals you'll get from religion are twisted at best. Take the pope and his condoms, abortion, homosexuality, marriage between people of different religion, etc etc etc... Look at muslims, or religious fanatics. They're the worst of all. They should be the most good and best people around no? No, they'll rip you a new one if you laugh about their silly god/prophet. And they're the ones who are the most fanatical about their religion. Doesn't that say a lot? About the religion?

You've nitpicked at a couple of points I made, without actually countering any of them. I am more than happy to discuss any topic that is of interest to me and will always listen to different viewpoints. But, if your posts are going to be essentially "copy and paste" jobs and the typed version of a broken record, my interest will fade rapidly. I try to maintain an open mind and I do not ridicule other peoples beliefs when I do not share them. I just ask that the favour be returned. If you wish to actually counter any of the points I have made, I'd be more than happy to read and acknowledge what you have to say. But, if it's more of the same, don't expect a response.

Having said that, I'm more than happy to "agree to disagree" and leave it at. Peace be with you!

Well there you go. As I said, I got bored. It's depressing talking about religion because nothing good ever comes of it. And worst, it's somewhat off topic, starts flame wars and all that kind of crap. And what I've learned is this: "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there wouldn't be religious people."

 

[jamie2112]

I like Turtles.........

 

[MatthewB.]

Jaime that video of that kid always cracks me the F up, thanks for bringing this thread back down to a laughable level.

video in question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

 

[GO-NAD!]

Girglemirt,

For somebody who is bored by the discussion, you've spent a fair amount of time on this thread. You didn't counter most of my points because it bored you? That's pretty lame.

You say that people who believe in God, i.e. religious, are close-minded. I would dispute that assertion. I, for one, certainly have doubts. Any right thinking person would, when it comes to anything that can't be proven through scientific method. I'm sure most "believers" have questions that cannot be answered.

However, you are thoroughly convinced of something that cannot be proven, i.e. the non-existence of God. Do you realize what that means? It means that atheism is your religion. Ironic, isn't it? From your avatar and the time you've spent on this thread, I can only guess that atheism is your raison d'etre. It took you a while to drag up Richard Dawkins. Now he should start his own religion! He preaches atheism - all that's missing is the church building. I'm not mocking him; he just conforms very closely to the definition of religious.

Rest assured, I am not trying to convince you that God exists. I would only request that you not be as close-mindedness as those you accuse.
How are you close-minded? Your arguments can be summed up as: There is no God. Atheism good. Religion bad. Repeat.

And, since you have failed to engage in a serious, non-mocking and open-minded discussion, I am giving notice that I will no longer respond to your posts in this thread. Have a great weekend!