Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

That certainly might work, but is it in the best interests of society? Freedom of speech exists to protect the expressions that you don't like, not that ones that you do like. If you start demanding that everyone restrict what they say so as not to offend anyone else, then you are severely limiting free speech. There's a reason why the ACLU has defended the KKK and the Aryan Nation. It's not the message that counts, it's the ability to say it.

---

You are correct, and I even agree completely.

Quote:

---

I firmly believe that freedom of speech is the only thing humans have developed that has any possibility of creating and maintaining freedom and human rights. Anything that infringes upon that runs a risk of creating far more serious consequences in the long run. Having to let people say things that you disagree with or even that insult you is far better than losing the most important elements of modern society.

---

Yes indeed, however your missing one point about Freedom of Speech in your comment. Freedom of Speech also requires the speaker to be responsible for their words, to accept that the consequences of thier words can cause harm to others.

Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword. It cuts both ways.

That may be, but compare the outrage over 2 cartoons to other parodies:

The Life Of Brian being the big one I can remember.
In the UK, such things as the Vicar of Dibley or even Father Ted both mock religion, and there are scores of others. All could be accused of exactly the same things that the cartoons are - and concerning the Life Of Brian a hell of a lot more (imagine something that even hints that Muhammed was not the real Prophet!)

We in Europe and the UK especially have a very healthy sense of humour and enjoy even self-ridicule. IMO it is high time that something amusing was said against Islam, else they are not being fairly mocked as opposed to Christianity.

Because words are going to harm others is not a reson not to say them. Nor s the fact that others were harmed a reason that the person who wrote them is instantly culpable.

on the BBC wevsite there is even one Egyptian saying that the cartoon is worse than the 1,000 people drowned. Now there's a religion that needs to change for anyone to say that in all sincerity and to be viewed as reasonable by his peers.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I apologize for agreeing with you, i hope you can forgive me.:laugh4:

---

That's OK, happens to the worst of us... ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Wow Adrian, people are going to start calling you racist and close minded.

---

Excuse me, I have friends of the Arab, Turkish and melatonine persuasion who are in total agreement with certain cartoons and who despise these riots because they (1) are incited and manipulated by some of the worst regimes in today's world and (2) because many of the demonstrators are their own cartoons. I also beg to differ with Meneldil and others who state that freedom of speech is a European or Western value and that 'other peoples' are somehow not up to it. You bet they are. The Lebanese political process is a fine recent example of Arabs making good use of it. Freedom is not tied to skin colour or religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Are you posing that Freedom of Speech means that the one can write and draw anything that one wants without accepting responsiblity for the words.

---

I am posing that freedom of speech is endangered if artists must fear for their lives merely because they draw a person, no matter in what way they draw them. That is what this row is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I also beg to differ with Meneldil and others who state that freedom of speech is a European or Western value and that 'other peoples' are somehow not up to it. You bet they are.

---

Indeed - the European history of the last century shows how quickly societies that seemed to be lost cases in terms of democracy and free speech can change.
It might take some more time in some countries in e.g. the Middle East, especially as religion is (ab)used by some groups to maintain an oligarchy vs democracy - but the idea that an islamic society and democracy/free speech have to be mutually exclusive seems to be a bit too simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Yes indeed, however your missing one point about Freedom of Speech in your comment. Freedom of Speech also requires the speaker to be responsible for their words, to accept that the consequences of thier words can cause harm to others.

---

Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all.

How many Islamic states are fuctioning democracies?

I would actually contend that Islam is not compatable with democracy. How can it be when it places Gods laws above 'man made' laws. As long as that is the case, democracy would be unworkable.

To try and equate Islam with Christianity or any other monotheism is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

IIRC when the Arabs overran Egypt they destroyed the Great Library at Alexandria as they asserted that the only knowledge worth having was Gods word. The rest being superfluous. So they burnt it all. Even to this day we have no way of knowing what the ancients left for us in their writings.

Quote:

---

The Moslems invaded Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Mecca where Caliph Omar ordered that all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city. So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the conquerors.

---

link

Says it all really.:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all.

---

They do indeed.

Quote:

---

Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Muslim cleric whose fiery rhetoric has become synonymous with Islamist extremism in Britain, was jailed for seven years today after being found guilty of inciting his followers to kill non-believers.

---

link

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible? :inquisitive:

I guess if go back that far back into history a lot of the European Christian societies to not fare to well either - I guess a couple of centuries can change a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

To try and equate Islam with Christianity or any other monotheism is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

---

Not correct - equating most current Christian societies with most current Islamic societies is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

Turkey apparently is an example that democracy is compatible with a muslim society. The fact that there currently aren't a lot of muslim democracies does not prove that they are not compatible (just as the lack of Christian democracies in medieval times is no prove of the imcompatibility of Christianity and democracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible? :inquisitive:

---

That is debunked as a myth in the same source :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

The verdict on Omar
The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Hebræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.

---

Quote:

---

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible?

---

I was trying to show that the mindset isn't something new or recent.

Quote:

---

Turkey apparently is an example that democracy is compatible with a muslim society.

---

[sarcasm on] Ahh yes of course that shining beacon of individual freedoms and free speech that needs the Army to hold down the Islamic militants and gaols journalists [sarcasm off]

Nope you've failed to convince me. :coffeenews:

Turkey is probably as good as it gets, and it heading in the "right" direction - albeit only as it wants to be in the EU.

Until extremely recently the Irish were killing and maiming each other, but no one ever said that they wern't fit for democracy, even when the body that was supposed to have democartic power was repeatedly suspended.

Yes, Turkey has some massive problems, but the majority of the people are muslim and are generally getting along in a society that is becoming more democratic. As an example I think it is an acceptable one.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Turkey is probably as good as it gets, and it heading in the "right" direction - albeit only as it wants to be in the EU.

---

You do realize that a catholic priest was shot in Turkey, right? Not saying I disagree with you, but Im just saying all religions are potentially dangerous.

Quote:

---

That is debunked as a myth in the same source

---

It also debunks the claim that Julius Ceaser burnt it down (by mistake :dizzy2: ) and the claim by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

So no one did it then. :laugh4:

I think that religions are basically memes (information genes), and only the best stand the test of time.
All attempt to infect others with their message. Most have buildings and people to assist with this.
Children are often infected at an early age.
Discussion of the meme is not allowed
And until relatively recently when another meme is encountered the carrier either has to be converted or destroyed.

As such the Catholic Priest is an invading organism in the Islamic Meme host. The immune system quickly chewed him up before he could do any damage.


Religions memes that do not perform in this manner often die out as the more aggressive memes will mercilessly attack until they have consumed all available subjects.

Hence all religions are without a doubt extremely dangerous.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I am posing that freedom of speech is endangered if artists must fear for their lives merely because they draw a person, no matter in what way they draw them. That is what this row is about.

---

However when it has been done in the manner in which it was done, you can not expect everyone to believe that it was an acceptable method in which to do it. To understand the reasons for the drawing of the cartoons and calling the pictures themselves unacceptable - is consistent with Freedom of Speech. To say to an American that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

---

Tells me that maybe you don't understand Freedom of Speech as well as you should for working as a journalist you should understand the concept of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press better then I.

I can find the pictures unacceptable and still understand the reasoning behind the drawing. I find the pictures unacceptable - however I also find violent demonstrations against the pictures unacceptable.

Burning the Danish Flag, advocating a boycot of European Goods, demanding a public retraction and apology from the paper are all acceptable forms of speech to protest the unacceptable nature of the cartoons that were drawn.

Violence and threats of violence are not acceptable forms of speech.

I can draw such pictures myself and put them on the walls of public bathrooms. While my point of my picture might be valid the method of displaying that point is unacceptable. Especially if I am making pictures out of context of the individual I am drawing about.

Freedom of Speech is always endangered by those who would like to repress the views of others. In fact one can safely state that the concept of Freedom of Speech is always endangered, both by those who wish to silence others, and by those who incite others to violence with their speech.

There are acceptable ways to get your message across, and then there are ways that others feel are unacceptable. Depicting Mohammound as a bomb throwing terrorist is unacceptable in my opinion and the paper displayed poor judgement in publishing those pictures. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from responsiblity. Freedom of Speech does not give you a pass on exercising sound judgement and decision making when you own a paper, publish a paper or write for a paper.

If the publishing of said pictures were done with the express intent to incite others - the line of Freedom of Speech has been crossed. Are you attempting to state that the pictures were done to incite others to violence because of thier tendency toward violence because of a drawing? And because of that the pictures are something that is acceptable to publish? Because the term "row" leads me to the conclusion that the pictures were indeed published to incite others by the paper, and that means that the paper was guilty of doing exactly what some are accusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all

---

Yes indeed the British understand the concept of Freedom of Speech. Your allowed to say what you will, expect when your words and actions incite violence. I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Freedom of Speech requires some responsiblity to be taken by those who print, write, and produce words and pictures for others to read. Artists can do what they wish and accept the personal responsibility for their art. Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence. This only applies to what the publisher knew would be the reaction in Denmark - not outside of Denmark.

Frankly I find the whole situation dangerous to the concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, from both directions. A group that would advocate violence to stop messages against their religion, and a group within the print industry that seemly does not think about what they are printing, does not accept responsiblity for what they print, and then hide behind the cloak of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

You do realize that a catholic priest was shot in Turkey, right? Not saying I disagree with you, but Im just saying all religions are potentially dangerous.

---

That murder may have nothing to do with the recent hostilities. The murderer has been arrested today and claimed that the priest was giving him 100 Euro each week for joining the sunday sermons, but refused to give 500 Euro when the boy brought four of his friends. Seems like an ordinary murder...

I believe in Freedom of Speech. In my opinion people have the right to write, or say whatever they wish. Moslems should be indeed more tolerant.

On the other hand, what some European journals did, was very irresponsible. Instead of letting the issue drop, they poured oil into the fire. I dont see any good served by publishing those caricatures again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

[sarcasm on] Ahh yes of course that shining beacon of individual freedoms and free speech that needs the Army to hold down the Islamic militants and gaols journalists [sarcasm off]

---

Not that different from some European nations during the last century (Germany, Spain, Greece come to mind).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I can draw such pictures myself and put them on the walls of public bathrooms. While my point of my picture might be valid the method of displaying that point is unacceptable.

---

Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.

The Muslim overreactions, the Muslims burning embassies, the Muslims burning flags, the Muslims etc…

I have a question regarding proportion. Do the actions of a few thousand fools (out of 1.3 Billion Muslims) make all Muslims jihadist extremists, more than the actions of a few Danish cartoonists and editors (out of 5.4 Million Danes) make all Danes enemies of Islam?

It is also important to look at the groups most likely involved in the recent violent protests:

In Syria – Most likely culprit: the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been mercilessly suppressed by the Syrian authorities. The older al-Assad waged a bloody campaign against the Brotherhood, resulting in Le massacre de Hama. They get to vent some steam, everybody is happy.

In Lebanon – Most likely culprit: The Hizbullah. Inspired, or ordered, by Syria, in a rampage in the Christian neighbourhood, where the Danish Mission was located. They get to vent some steam, Syria is happy.

In Iran – Most likely culprit: The Basij. This was no spontaneous protest. This was organized by the Basij. These guys are the stormtroopers of the Mullahs. They get to vent some steam, the Mayor of Iran is happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

The Muslim overreactions, the Muslims burning embassies, the Muslims burning flags, the Muslims etc…

I have a question regarding proportion. Do the actions of a few thousand fools (out of 1.3 Billion Muslims) make all Muslims jihadist extremists, more than the actions of a few Danish cartoonists and editors (out of 5.4 Million Danes) make all Danes enemies of Islam?

It is also important to look at the groups most likely involved in the recent violent protests:

In Syria – Most likely culprit: the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been mercilessly suppressed by the Syrian authorities. The older al-Assad waged a bloody campaign against the Brotherhood, resulting in Le massacre de Hama. They get to vent some steam, everybody is happy.

In Lebanon – Most likely culprit: The Hizbullah. Inspired, or ordered, by Syria, in a rampage in the Christian neighbourhood, where the Danish Mission was located. They get to vent some steam, Syria is happy.

In Iran – Most likely culprit: The Basij. This was no spontaneous protest. This was organized by the Basij. These guys are the stormtroopers of the Mullahs. They get to vent some steam, the Mayor of Iran is happy.

---

I have made this point before. In Egypt, back in November, Mubarak tried to steal the Brotherhood's thunder in election time by calling for anti-Danish boycots and such, but the rest of the Arab leaders were not ready. The Saudis joined the fray after the Hadj accidents in order to deflect criticism of their desastrous handling of the yearly event. Then Damascus joined. Then Fatah joined -- not Hamas mind you, but Fatah surrounded and threatened the EU mission in Gaza in order to make sure that the new Hamas government would get no European funds. In fact, have we seen any genuine protests yet? So far they were all organised and manipulated by religious and political leaders who have no legitimacy whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

On the other hand, what some European journals did, was very irresponsible. Instead of letting the issue drop, they poured oil into the fire. I dont see any good served by publishing those caricatures again.

---

No, I`m afraid it isn`t that easy; Denmark is still the most hated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.

---

Yes the misunderstanding is yours. There is acceptable forms of speech and there are unacceptable forms of speech. Both are within the scope of Freedom of Speech. One requires the individual to accept the consequences of his speech before he makes the speech. The other requires the individual to accept the consequences of his speech after he does it. To not accept responsiblity means that the individual is abusing Freedom of Speech. To restrict one's ability to free speech is to deny that individual the freedom to speak.

With Freedom comes responsiblity.

Did the paper publish the pictures to incite others? If they published the pictures to incite - then they abused Freedom of Speech.

If they published them to inform, then I can voice my opinion that the picture is unacceptable, and they can vioce their opinion that it is acceptable. Both concepts are within the scope of Freedom of Speech. I am allowed to find something unacceptable and to state that it is unacceptable. Just like some will find the speech acceptable.

It would seem to me that maybe some need to learn what Freedom of Speech really means. Your ability to express yourself does not mean I have to find your expression acceptable. Just that I can not prevent you from expressing your views and ideas - unless you are inciting violence (the intent not the consequence of the speech).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

In Syria – Most likely culprit: the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been mercilessly suppressed by the Syrian authorities. The older al-Assad waged a bloody campaign against the Brotherhood, resulting in Le massacre de Hama. They get to vent some steam, everybody is happy..

---

etc.

:bow:

http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/article.cfm?id=2751

Quote:

---

Syria behind torching of Danish buildings?
By Aaron Klein from World Net Daily
Posted February 06, 2006


The burning this past weekend of Danish government offices in Damascus and Beirut in protest of newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad were directed by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in part using undercover soldiers acting as rioters, Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt charged today during an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview...

---

Most of these reactionaries are being used as tools by their oppressive governments or radical leaders. Many of them have no other outlet for their anger. However this does not excuse the culture which condones these actions. I haven't heard yet about any American or Canadian Muslims rioting. They're probably just as amazed at the stupidity on both sides as I am.

OT: I attended a presentation by your PM, he seems like an OK guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I have made this point before. In Egypt, back in November, Mubarak tried to steal the Brotherhood's thunder in election time by calling for anti-Danish boycots and such, but the rest of the Arab leaders were not ready. The Saudis joined the fray after the Hadj accidents in order to deflect criticism of their desastrous handling of the yearly event. Then Damascus joined.

---

Indeed. What is the saying? Nail on the head? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

...Then Fatah joined -- not Hamas mind you, but Fatah surrounded and threatened the EU mission in Gaza in order to make sure that the new Hamas government would get no European funds...

---

The Hamas have joined in on the fun, a few rallies, some rhetoric spewing, the usual. Interestingly, when the Fatah (or was it the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades?) threatened Christian churches, the Hamas offered armed protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

...In fact, have we seen any genuine protests yet? So far they were all organised and manipulated by religious and political leaders who have no legitimacy whatsoever.

---

To some extent, I believe, the consumer boycott. Many Muslims, regardless of, well, “devotion”, were genuinely offended. Especially by the picture of our Prophet (pbuh) with a bomb.

And like I said in the closed thread: this incident is being exploited for all it is worth by almost every Middle Eastern government involved. :shame:

“I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?”
Which is if you draw something I dislike I will kill you…:oops:

By the same token, the Muslims who by their silence until recent years allowed the usurpation of the words of their religion by the Islamic Fascists, letting them to speak for them, should accept the consequences of their silence. If Islam is seen today as it is, it is because the most dreadful events of the end of last century and at the beginning of this century were done on the name of this religion.

And yes, why all this come 4 months after the publication of the drawings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?”
Which is if you draw something I dislike I will kill you…:oops:

---

Again the question you have to ask and have answered - is did the paper publish the pictures to incite violence? Some papers are indeed publishing the pictures for reasons that would seem to show that their intent is to inflame others.

Quote:

---

By the same token, the Muslims who by their silence until recent years allowed the usurpation of the words of their religion by the Islamic Fascists, letting them to speak for them, should accept the consequences of their silence. If Islam is seen today as it is, it is because the most dreadful events of the end of last century and at the beginning of this century were done on the name of this religion.

---

Accepting the consequences of not speaking out - is indeed something the Islamic community must face.

Quote:

---

And yes, why all this come 4 months after the publication of the drawings?

---

Another is demonstrating the concept of Free Speech by voicing their opinion about the drawings. Which is perfectly fine until one begins to advocate violence in that opinion.

Quoting myself from my spoiler comment.

"Freedom of Speech requires some responsiblity to be taken by those who print, write, and produce words and pictures for others to read. Artists can do what they wish and accept the personal responsibility for their art. Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence. This only applies to what the publisher knew would be the reaction in Denmark - not outside of Denmark.

Frankly I find the whole situation dangerous to the concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, from both directions. A group that would advocate violence to stop messages against their religion, and a group within the print industry that seemly does not think about what they are printing, does not accept responsiblity for what they print, and then hide behind the cloak of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press concepts."

If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.

Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction? Sure maybe they should have seen it coming. And once more the Muslim nations have no problem printing far more offensive cartoons of Jews and the US. There is no excuse for their actions. Non in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction? Sure maybe they should have seen it coming. And once more the Muslim nations have no problem printing far more offensive cartoons of Jews and the US. There is no excuse for their actions. Non in the least.

---

To be honest the initial publication seem to have been an attempt to inform, regardless of how unacceptable I find the pictures - the intent of the paper does not seem to be one of intended harm.

Now the continued re-publishing of the drawings are a different story.

And as for Muslim nations printing far worse - they are also demonstrating an unacceptable form of free speech - the difference is how the recieving end handles that unacceptable form. We have a tendency to ignore it.