Printable View
Hum, the sack of Jerusalem was a crusader act, as far as I know. Crusaders killing everyone including christians, up to the church of Saint Sepulcre (don't know how to spell it in english). When Salah-ad-din took the city back it was almost peaceful compared to this slaughter. Open your history books Gawain!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I never said Christians were saints either. And that was a holy war on both sides. And Saladin was not your average Muslim. You do notice however how carefully we avoid damaging Mosques.Quote:
Hum, the sack of Jerusalem was a crusader act, as far as I know.
well Corleone if it were just extremists butting heads with extremists no one would care. but when one extremist burns down some innocent mans business or blows himself up killing many then it becomes everyones problem. I don't say that they did not have the right to expression, i'm saying they were irrasponsable with that right and may have put many in danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
as to why muslims target religion... isn't it obvious? For centuries islamic nations have been theocracies and the main religion pervaded every aspect of the citizens lives. so why should insults be different? Also if a theocracy is threatened by a opposing religion it is also a political battle.
Probably because Jesus and Moses are both holy figures under Islam as well, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
However, they have burned the Pope, for example, in effigy. I'm not sure if you were trying to make the claim or not, but many Muslims, and certainly the more extremist ones don't typically show the same respect for other religions in their own country than what is afforded their religion in traditionally Christian countries.
I'm sure this will be taken as a bash by someone, but how in many Muslim countries is it outright illegal to convert to Christianity- and in how many "Christian" countries is the opposite illegal? You can talk about extremists on both sides, but in general, you're going to find "Christian" countries are far more tolerant of Muslims than the reverse. :shrug:
I don't know if that's what Gawain was trying to get it- but I would agree with that much at least.
Yep , but it was not always so . Christianity used to have lots of convert or die and die you unchristian christian stuff , some good old church burnings and all that, it has in the main settled down now .Quote:
I'm sure this will be taken as a bash by someone, but how in many Muslim countries is it outright illegal to convert to Christianity- and in how many "Christian" countries is the opposite illegal? You can talk about extremists on both sides, but in general, you're going to find "Christian" countries are far more tolerant of Muslims than the reverse.
Islam like Christianity is constantly changing , the current schism with the fundies is just like Luther , they will get over it .
And they're fairly criticized on these points until they do finally "get over it". Again, people point to extremists on both sides, but it's hard to ignore the fact that, right now, Muslim extremists are more prolific, more violent, and more accepted by their mainstream than their Christian counterparts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This doesn't make Islam a "bad" religion, per se- but there are definitely a lot of big problems that need sorting out.
A truly great person... croissants, movies and coffee another thing I like about the French is some of the most brilliant philosophers and scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Oh, truffles too...
Yep problems , but how often in a simple forum like this do you see the fundy nutcases views being attributed to the whole religeon and all of its flavours ?Quote:
This doesn't make Islam a "bad" religion, per se- but there are definitely a lot of big problems that need sorting out.
Not often. Who're the people you're thinking of in the backroom that 'attribute the fundy nutcase view to the whole religion and all it's flavors?' I can think of one or two maybe, but it's seldom, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Im not defending them or saying two wrongs make a right. But dont you see the irony here?Quote:
I don't know if that's what Gawain was trying to get it- but I would agree with that much at least.
And again I also support free speech. Even if I think what their saying or doing is deplorable.
Didn't think you were defending those yahoos -- I know your libertarian self believes in their right to be idiots all on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The "Amen I Say..." was simply a little Bible-based counter-wording to Don C's Koranic sign-off. I'm much too flawed an individual to play the "holier than thou" role seriously.
Gawain, your underlying theme -- that whatever inanities were practiced in the name of religion prior to 1200 by both muslims or christians, it is the muslims who seem to be the ones still continuing such efforts -- is a valid one, and a vital one for moderate followers of the prophet to address.
No disprespect was intended.
Thanks , that makes me feel a lot better. You are two of the posters I respect most on these boards and it looked to me as if you were ganging up on me and taking me wrong. My apologies.
Yep. Irony dripping all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
*Cleanup on aisle 9!*
I dunno, mate. After reading Louis's french rendition of Voltaire, then speaking it aloud (in my best Maurice Chevalier accent; butchering the vowels, I'm sure) Mrs. Kukri turned to me and said: "Are you speaking French to me, darling?", with upraised eyebrows...Quote:
Originally Posted by STFS
...not sure a west texas twang woulda had the same effect. :)
no offense. :bow:
So, if I read correctly, we agree that effigy burners = if not bad ('cause everyone's entitled to express their opinion), at least = ineffectual, inflammatory (sorry), and juvenile?
Well maybe not ineffectual, since supporters of the fake-burnt guy get insulted, which was intended by the burners.
Is a civilization that can laugh at the insult of an effigy burning superior to the civilization of the burners?
Or is burning effigies so widespread among all cultures that no real judgment can be made?
Is it speech? Apparently we think so. What does the act "say"? What should be the response of the supporters of the effigy? Counter-effigy burning? Actual burning of people and/or their 'stuff'?
Sorry for rambling. Just wanted to advance the conversation; but Ms Kukri seems to want more french-talk. :)
So adieu.
Hope you dont get tongue tied.
go get er buddy
i just see it as as much as it is freedom of speech, it is also freedom of religion because how can you defend your religion without ripping on anothers.
Yes thats why the Islam and Christianity threads get so testy. Its good to be neither so you can state your opinion openly without resorting to such things. You can then bash all religions equally.Quote:
I just see it as as much as it is freedom of speech, it is also freedom of religion because how can you defend your religion without ripping on anothers.
Well, all your views are false, but I respect them nonetheless.:inquisitive:
Well then I apologize. It seemed to me yesterday afternoon that you were making a case defending not just the right to say what they said but how they said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And what I said yesterday wasn't Koranic. It's not a strictly Muslim term. It's Arabic for "Peace be with you", a phrase Christians should know in as many languages as they can retain.
All I'm saying is regardless of whether some muslims desecrated a shrine or blew up a large Buddha, at the end of the day, these are just tokens. If you give in to revenge and start trying to one-up them in terms of outrages, they've taken something away from that's a lot more valuable than any statue.
Sheesh....at least our Nepalese knife-lord moderator was VAGUELY subtle about it. Your approach makes me think of trumpets and cavalry charges.....Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Un peu de la savoir faire est un bon idee. L'amour est une caresse pas un <schwerpunkt>.
:devilish:
How is burning a or drawing a picture equivalent to killing people or destroying property? How do you see that as revenge? It may be bad and poor taste. If I want revenge for those things Im going to do a lot more than draw a picture. I get your point though and agree.Quote:
If you give in to revenge and start trying to one-up them in terms of outrages, they've taken something away from that's a lot more valuable than any statue.If you give in to revenge and start trying to one-up them in terms of outrages, they've taken something away from that's a lot more valuable than any statue.
...whats wrong with trumpets and cavalry charges? how exactly do you do it if my way is so wrong!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
(jk of course)
so anyway i think we can mostly agree on the following points.
-any religion is libel to go overboard
-freedom of speech and expression are good as long as you can moderate yourself
-fanatics are jerks
anymore we should add/detract
Life goes on.
Sorry, I didn’t read all the interventions, and perhaps somebody mentioned already the fact but burning Mohamed in effigy shouldn’t be so much offence for a real Muslim: It is forbidden to represent Mohamed… So burning an impiety should be rewarded by a Muslim cleric any way…:inquisitive:
Here's what you need:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Serge Gainsbourg's eternal classic 'Je t'aime...moi non plus'. I can give you a translation if you feel...inspired. :sweatdrop:
Not safe for work!
ridiculous as the act is, hopefully it will help to heap ridicule on the idea of fiery anti-western protest.
if all effigy-burning parties are considered as backward cretins as a result of this then i will be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Quite disagree. People shouldn't be allowed to do thing just to piss other people off. Sometimes, public order > free speech.
More precisely, drawing any so-called Prophet shouldn't be prohibed. However, burning effigy of said prophet just for the sake of annoying a whole religious group is another problem.
"Freedom of expression" generally is not unsound, but abuse thereof is. If abused, the abusers are to be punished to compensate.