Terror attack in Copenhagen

[Feenix]

I believe in freedom of speech.
I believe in limits and restrictions that do not hinder the freedom, but still keep obvious insults in check.
And I believe in self control.
What about the non-extremists who do not like that sort of the satire?

Ignore it. Just like people ignore preachers on the sidewalk. You don't have to read or see things that offend you. Exercise self control and don't bother yourself with things that will make you angry.

 

[Pink Ranger]

You indignantly say "well, I never!" and pick up a different newspaper.

i.e. The Episcopalian Response.

 

[redhawk23]

Protest, that is your right. Christians protested The Last Temptation of Christ. They protested Jesus Christ Superstar. They protest every artistic criticism of their religion, no matter how richly, richly deserved.

Any non-Muslim who equates such peaceful yet strong protest with being on the same "slippery slope" as terrorism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Likewise, any Muslim who believes the freedom to protest is also freedom from ridicule over some of the religion's more irrational beliefs is also wrong, wrong, wrong.

French Christians also threw molotov cocktails at a movie theater that was playing The Last Temptation of Christ. The theater had to be shut down for three years due to the damage.

Abrahamics need to chill the hell out.

 

[Pink Ranger]

French Christians also threw molotov cocktails at a movie theater that was playing The Last Temptation of Christ. The theater had to be shut down for three years due to the damage.

And those guys were terrorists, as are the ones who threatened theatres who showed that movie. But that doesn't mean every Christian who protested that movie vocally is on the same spectrum as those terrorists.

 

[redhawk23]

Just saying, not the best example to use when showing how things can be done differently.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Oh that is a slippery slope we have gone down one time too many.

And some people still repeat the same usual things.

Keeping "obvious insults" in check is a slippery slope. You don't have the right to demand someone have self control because you're offended by what they say.

You're right, I have no right to demand it, no one has a right to demand it.
Diplomacy is needed, smiles, friendly conversations and advice.
It shouldn't be forced, it needs to be smooth and civilized.

 

[Spitfire]

Protest, that is your right. Christians protested The Last Temptation of Christ. They protested Jesus Christ Superstar. They protest every artistic criticism of their religion, no matter how richly, richly deserved.

Any non-Muslim who equates such peaceful yet strong protest with being on the same "slippery slope" as terrorism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Likewise, any Muslim who believes the freedom to protest is also freedom from ridicule over some of the religion's more irrational beliefs is also wrong, wrong, wrong.

But isn't any group who publicly protests against freedom of speech hypocrites? In the recent London protests they use the right to freedom of speech to condemn freedom of speech!! Can't pick and mix to suit your agenda. Either freedom of speech exists or it gets slowly chipped away and undermined. Doesn't matter if its Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jedi's etc.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Abrahamics need to chill the hell out.

No way man. If evangelical Christians and conservative Muslims ever sat down and realized how much they have in common, the gay community and the porn industry don't stand a chance.

 

[redhawk23]

I believe in limits and restrictions that do not hinder the freedom, but still keep obvious insults in check.
And I believe in self control.

Limits and restrictions are the opposite of self control. Those are controls placed by others.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No way man. If evangelical Christians and conservative Muslims ever sat down and realized how much they have in common, the gay community and the porn industry don't stand a chance.

Without Evangelicals there would be no porn industry.

 

[Pink Ranger]

But isn't any group who publicly protests against freedom of speech hypocrites? In the recent London protests they use the right to freedom of speech to condemn freedom of speech!! Can't pick and mix to suit your agenda. Either freedom of speech exists or it gets slowly chipped away and undermined. Doesn't matter if its Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jedi's etc.

Freedom of speech means the right to protest against other people's speech, as long as it doesn't involve violence or threats of violence. I don't agree with it, but I don't see the hypocrisy. We're heading into Sarah Palin territory here, which doesn't do anyone here any good.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

French Christians also threw molotov cocktails at a movie theater that was playing The Last Temptation of Christ. The theater had to be shut down for three years due to the damage.

And is this still happening on a regular basis? Was anyone killed? Are large groups still circulating death warrants for the director of that film Martin Scorsese, like there have been for Salman Rushdie, the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoonists and Theo Van Gogh? This is what I was saying earlier about false equivalencies. People latch on to some isolated, comparatively minor incident from another side in order to claim a false equivalence so as to give the appearance of being really PC and fair. When in reality they're just avoiding an uncomfortable truth (one they're probably subconsciously aware of) that one side is far more inflamed and reactive about religious blasphemy than the other.

 

[redhawk23]

But isn't any group who publicly protests against freedom of speech hypocrites? In the recent London protests they use the right to freedom of speech to condemn freedom of speech!! Can't pick and mix to suit your agenda. Either freedom of speech exists or it gets slowly chipped away and undermined. Doesn't matter if its Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jedi's etc.

Depends on the intent of a protest. If a protest is calling for a film to be literally destroyed, as is what happened with The Last Temptation of Christ, then yes that is a stand against free speech.

If a protest however was simply expressing anger over a portrayal that would be another matter. That would be speech expressing anger at someone else's speech, like calling someone an ass**** when they insult you. That kind of thing is fine and how discourse should work.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Without Evangelicals there would be no porn industry.

They'd turn it from an industry into a charitable non-profit. You'd only get what you get by donation.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Oh that is a slippery slope we have gone down one time too many.

And some people still repeat the same usual things.

Keeping "obvious insults" in check is a slippery slope. You don't have the right to demand someone have self control because you're offended by what they say.

You're right, I have no right to demand it, no one has a right to demand it.
Diplomacy is needed, smiles, friendly conversations and advice.
It shouldn't be forced, it needs to be smooth and civilized.

The ironic thing is, truth be told, I do not like Islam as a religion that much. I recognize that it is the most harshly anti-gay of the already anti-gay Abrahamic religions. And while all organized religions mainly exist as a way of cementing the economic power of a select few men, and oppressing women, poorer men and others by occupying them with ceremony and irrational belief, Islam does that in such an obvious way it is comically tragic. And I believe Islam needs to evolve, including the idolatry belief.

This is not the ideal understanding of the religion.
A few things I see some people miss when they talk about religions:

1. Islam is about believing in God, and not about idolizing the man, and not about placing someone in political power, especially not for someone to stay there in long after he is deceased.
2. Different people came to their people trying to convince them to believe in God, they all share the same message to deliver. The title of prophet ended with Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him)

And a few verses that are not about control, or forcing the religion, that unfortunately extremists refuse to see:

*"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided." [16:125]

*"So by mercy from Allah , [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]." [16:125]

It is not about oppression against anyone.

*"O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer." [4:1]

*"And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease." [4:4]

Ignore it. Just like people ignore preachers on the sidewalk. You don't have to read or see things that offend you. Exercise self control and don't bother yourself with things that will make you angry.

You are right about this, I ignore these things based on this principle, that is why I refuse to watch the movies: "Noah, Passion of the Christ" among others, because the way they represent the Prophets of Allah is mostly demeaning to them.

This verse from the Qura'an supports your recommendation.
*"And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." [4:140]

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wait, what was wrong with Noah?

 

[Pink Ranger]

Wait, what was wrong with Noah?

His Australian accent is still too detectable.

Also, the big plot hole of why they didn't just use the giant eagles to fly into Mordor.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

His Australian accent is still too detectable.

I wonder how many animals he fought off his boat during those long flood years.

 

[redhawk23]

And is this still happening on a regular basis? Was anyone killed? Are large groups still circulating death warrants for the director of that film Martin Scorsese, like there have been for Salman Rushdie, the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoonists and Theo Van Gogh? This is what I was saying earlier about false equivalencies. People latch on to some isolated, comparatively minor incident from another side in order to claim a false equivalence so as to give the appearance of being really PC and fair. When in reality they're just avoiding an uncomfortable truth (one they're probably subconsciously aware of) that one side is far more inflamed and reactive about religious blasphemy than the other.

My bringing up of the Last Temptation of Christ attacks was not an attempt to draw equivalency. It was a response to a specific post that tried to use those protests as an example of peaceful protest.

The Last Temptation of Christ is just one example. Death threats were also declared upon the artist behind Piss Christ and galleries that dared show it.

Also while not related to a specific portrayal, Anders Breivik killed almost 80 people in Norway in opposition to what he described as "multiculturalism."

Obviously these kinds of reactions are much more common when it comes to Islam and depictions of Muhammed. Its important to understand though that the various threads of radical Abrahamic monotheism are actually quite similar be it Christian, Muslim or even Jewish. They are all driven by trying to maintain and return to some vision of society and their faith that more often than not never actually existed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Wait, what was wrong with Noah?

The messenger Noah (peace be upon him) wanted to save the non-believer of his sons, and wanted all the people to live.
I read one post from one member on another message board saying the movie described the prophet as a villain.
I leave details about this for another conversation.

 

[Spitfire]

Freedom of speech means the right to protest against other people's speech, as long as it doesn't involve violence or threats of violence. I don't agree with it, but I don't see the hypocrisy. We're heading into Sarah Palin territory here, which doesn't do anyone here any good.

Think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the hypocrisy of these particular protesters.

 

[redhawk23]

Freedom of speech means the right to protest against other people's speech, as long as it doesn't involve violence or threats of violence. I don't agree with it, but I don't see the hypocrisy. We're heading into Sarah Palin territory here, which doesn't do anyone here any good.

Even if they don't resort to violence, actively seeking to use your influence to limit someone else's ability to express their speech is different than simply protesting the content.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair, isn't that what most protest is?

Certainly seems like it to me. When they protested Piss Christ, the attempt was to have it removed from the exhibit. Is that not attempting to suppress someone else's expression?

 

[Pink Ranger]

Think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the hypocrisy of these particular protesters.

There are very few people in a given Western democracy who can be genuinely called pure champions of free speech. Some feminists want restrictions on pornography. Some family groups want restrictions on any sexualized content. Some gays want socially conservative radio and TV shows to be shut down. Try putting a billboard advertising a strip club next to a school and see how far freedom of speech gets you.

Some pure libertarians even think laws against threatening people are an unreasonable restriction on free speech. We are all hypocrites to some extent.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

My bringing up of the Last Temptation of Christ attacks was not an attempt to draw equivalency. It was a response to a specific post that tried to use those protests as an example of peaceful protest.

The Last Temptation of Christ is just one example. Death threats were also declared upon the artist behind Piss Christ and galleries that dared show it.

Also while not related to a specific portrayal, Anders Breivik killed almost 80 people in Norway in opposition to what he described as "multiculturalism."

Obviously these kinds of reactions are much more common when it comes to Islam and depictions of Muhammed. Its important to understand though that the various threads of radical Abrahamic monotheism are actually quite similar be it Christian, Muslim or even Jewish. They are all driven by trying to maintain and return to some vision of society and their faith that more often than not never actually existed.

There's Christian terrorists. Jewish terrorists. Hindu terrorists. Hell, even Buddhist terrorists in Myanmar (that surprised me!). But in 2015, it is either on a far more isolated scale than Islamic terrorism, or regionalized (eg: Jewish terrorists stay in Israel, Buddhist terrorists stay in Myanmar). Breivik was an awful excuse for a human being and as murderous as anyone who ever lived. But he was a lone nut, like McVeigh or Eric Rudolph. Christianity has some disgusting groups like the Westboro Church and some rightwing European fascist groups, but they're usually not committing acts of violence (to clarify I'm not talking about petty gang stuff, I mean real acts of terror). Those that do commit violence in the name of their religious beliefs, like abortion-clinic bombers and Breivik are usually lone wolves. And there's not a Breivik going on a rampage every six months, or an army of Breiviks marauding through Syria and Iraq right now. But as an atheist this killing in the name of your religion all baffles me, no matter what the belief. I can't imagine ever being angry enough to kill someone unless they directly threatened myself or the life of a loved one. It's just crazy.