Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Whether you feel responsible for it or not doesn't lessen their plight one bit, far as I can tell.

People who feel like they're not welcome in a community will react accordingly.

---

And here we are. This is a vicious circle. They don't like me because I don't like them, and I don't like them because they don't like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And young men without future prospects are a major source of trouble everywhere; add that to the above, and what the Hell can you expect ?

---

I'd be expecting them to try to get a work and to study, instead of standing in the street insulting and making fun of everyone.
I'm really not fond of the liberal ideology, but I seriously think young people are having trouble because they're idiots, and don't even try to get a better life. I know a lot of people that appeared to be doomed to have a totally crappy life, but who worked hard, studied, and who are now doing alright, even though they're black or arab.

Oh, I'm all for the "better your lot by working hard" idea too. I just don't see how people who have to climb up a far steeper slope in face of assorted prejudices and crappy starting conditions can be expected to pull it off with success rates as good as the folks with decks less stacked against them display.

Try to work your way out of the slums when the ethnic majority hates you, and I'll quarantee your chances of success are way lower than they'd be if you were the local equivalent of "white trash" who at least aren't disadvantaged by their very physical existence. And if you fail, what do you have left ? Damn near nothing.

Big surprise you get a fair number of embittered drop-outs and failures hanging out in street corners with nothing better to do as a result.

My father said this when we watched the new's today; "Why are they angry at the danish people and their gov., the newpaper isnt owned by the state, but is a private-company."

Thats a damn good question, are the muslim nutcases trying to tell us to censur our newspapers?
Well they sure know how to gain enemies. :wall:

Actually when you think about it, given how most Muslim countries are governed the idea of a free news outlet not at least de facto controlled by the governement may indeed be somewhat alien to many of the inhabitants...

That said, I don't think it's unheard-of for Western governements to demand an official apology from their peers over what some private news enterpreneur has said. I seem to recall Israel being particularly sensitive in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Actually when you think about it, given how most Muslim countries are governed the idea of a free news outlet not at least de facto controlled by the governement may indeed be somewhat alien to many of the inhabitants...

---

Exactly, as far as they know they think that the government is in control of the media, much like their former resident governments. Its hard to to re-educate those of such different societies to the Western frame of mind. But at the same time, I think many out there doing the rioting are simply using the cartoons as an excuse, a lame one at that, in an attempt to further the Kingdom of EuArabia...

Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print ******, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves. You have the right to show a black man hanging from a tree or a buck-toothed Asian, too. But in any of those cases you don’t have the right to feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement that people got upset about it. Instead of saying “these are controversial but we uphold a standard of free speech, regardless of ones personal tastes,” they claimed that people getting outraged were simply being ridiculous. Le Monde made this their cover today- they might as well have printed “darn it, we LOVE mocking Arabs and **** you if you don’t!” as the headline.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

Not really expanding Eurabia, but more like using the West as an excuse. Instead of channelling the anger inwards, against their own regimes and the poor lives of the majority of the people as a result of those regimes. Instead of trying to focus on the real issues and bettering their own situation, said regimes are using the West as a scapegoat and lifting the lid of the valves against the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soly

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

---

For a full description see: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60868 my post is #6

Well, protesting against the West doesn't get you visits from the resident secret police. Protesting against your own governement, which most no doubt well know to be among the main sources of their misery, does.

Do the math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print ******, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves. You have the right to show a black man hanging from a tree or a buck-toothed Asian, too. But in any of those cases you don’t have the right to feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement that people got upset about it. Instead of saying “these are controversial but we uphold a standard of free speech, regardless of ones personal tastes,” they claimed that people getting outraged were simply being ridiculous. Le Monde made this their cover today- they might as well have printed “darn it, we LOVE mocking Arabs and **** you if you don’t!” as the headline.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

---

So what?

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, members in the Arab/Muslim community make statements every day (i.e. Israel should be wiped off of the map), or take actions (i.e. cutting of hostages' heads then posting the video on the Internet) that have one purpose: to attack non-muslims and provoke their ire.

So for them now to stand back and (to use your term) "feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement" that a non-muslim cartoonist might engage in a little acid humor at the expense of their religion is so incredibly ridiculous as to be almost sublime in its idiocy.

Yes, the cartoon was a nasty shot at Muslims as a whole.

But their reaction to it has been entirely out of proportion, no matter how one looks at it.

Whats wrong with pictures of Mohamed anyway?














http://www.peoples.ru/sport/boxer/ali/ali_09.jpg


Am I in trouble?

I doubt it. Lame jokes mainly just get sneered at around here, methinks. :rtwno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print ******, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves. You have the right to show a black man hanging from a tree or a buck-toothed Asian, too. But in any of those cases you don’t have the right to feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement that people got upset about it. Instead of saying “these are controversial but we uphold a standard of free speech, regardless of ones personal tastes,” they claimed that people getting outraged were simply being ridiculous. Le Monde made this their cover today- they might as well have printed “darn it, we LOVE mocking Arabs and **** you if you don’t!” as the headline.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

---

By the same token Soly the pictures you take of scantaly clad women and posing them and publishing them would be controversial enough for these people to call for your hand to be cut off or maybe your head? Sure you have the freedom to and the right to print these pictures but in the eyes of these Muslims they might consider it to have, "racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves."

nah. everybody likes teh pr0n. i haven't heard of any fatwahs being issued against Maxim or Playboy - have you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

By the same token Soly the pictures you take of scantaly clad women and posing them and publishing them would be controversial enough for these people to call for your hand to be cut off or maybe your head? Sure you have the freedom to and the right to print these pictures but in the eyes of these Muslims they might consider it to have, "racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

nah. everybody likes teh pr0n. i haven't heard of any fatwahs being issued against Maxim or Playboy - have you?

---

Zing: Playboy of Western world upsets Muslims

Quote:

---

JAKARTA: The 200-plus demonstrators from the student group Concerned Muslims who had gathered in light drizzle at one of Central Jakarta's main roundabouts had a simple message for passing motorists. "Reject Playboy! Reject Playboy!" they shouted. "Don't publish that filth here. Keep the Indonesian nation clean."

"We don't need that sort of porno here," said Muhammad Salim. "There's enough vice here already."

Yesterday about 500 protesters - all members of a conservative Muslim political party - demanded the parliament quickly pass tough laws now under debate to crack down on existing girlie magazines and pornographic DVDs, which are widely available throughout the country.

---

Zing! is right. There goes my livelihood.

If anything, Islam should be criticized for the way it refuses to let their women be as beautiful as they really are.

With Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press comes responsibility. Chosing to print something because you can - does not necessarily make it the "right" thing to do.

On that note however just because a paper prints something you find offensive as an individual or even as a group does not give premission to throw a stone through the paper's window.

As I said in another thread - Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword, it cuts both ways.

The only issue that I have with the Muslim outrage about the pictures being printed is that some are threatening and/or have done violence because they dislike the pictures.

Burning flags in protest, boycotting goods, asking for an official apology from the paper, and any other civil non-violent protest because someone stated or printed something you find disagreeable are all within the scope of voicing one's opinion under the concept of Freedom of Speech.

Violence and threats of violence on the other hand is something else. The Islamic Religion has some growing pains to confront. In this instance their actions and protests are actually making them look worse in the exchange.

Now I know this has been said by others, but it looks like after reading the last few pages, that it needs to be said again.

I wonder if some one was to speak to one of the Muslem leaders that are advocating violence because of the cartoon drawing and ask them, Why do you hate freedom? What there reaction to the question would be.

Quote:

---

What there reaction to the question would be.

---

Allah Akbar. There is no law but Gods law.

There again the majority of the Muslims learn the Koran by rote. Most of these can't read and write in their own language, never mind Arabic.

Education is the key, but how? If everything is Gods will what's the point in doing anything?

:book:

On the DOme of Rock, there is an inscription which insults and castigates Christians for believing that God has a Son. Thats as bad as the Danish Cartoons simply because its done in a place like Jerusalem that Muslims know full well is holy to Christians as well. Funny isn't it that the Crusaders were ignorant of Arabic to tear it down hahaha...who looks tolerant now :laugh4:

Navaros's startling mindless assumption Christians dont react like Muslims becaue they're not as dedicated is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do you have to react violently to show how devout you are?

Right, tomorrow, I'm going to burn an embassy just to show that Jesus is Love.....

Insane Apache is right, most Muslims are uneducated and are easily swayed by the preaching of hyped up imams and mullahs. Education is key.





"Poverty is a weakness that is always exploited" - Kataphraktoi :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

---

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.

One of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten actually made fun of the newspaper itself. It showed a Persian schoolboy by the name of Mohammed who had just written in Farsi on a blackboard that the Jyllands-Posten are a bunch of 'reactionaries'. Satire, you know.

The real issue is that the whole cartoon contest was Jylland-Posten's answer to a most disturbing fact. This most disturbing fact is that a writer of childrens' books could not find a good illustrator because good illustrators are afraid to be killed by Muslim fanatics. Because the good artists are afraid for their lives, the mediocre steal the show. The lack of quality of the twelve cartoons is a symptom of Muslim terrorism, not of right-wing provocation. This state of affairs in neither normal nor acceptable in a democracy.

Maybe some Americans don't understand the implication of the murder of Van Gogh. The '9/11' victims were anonymous, they were targeted because of who they were or where they were. Van Gogh was singled out as a victim because of what he stood for. This means our artists, the best and most ebullient users of the freedom of thought and espression, run the risk of being killed on their own doorstep in broad daylight by a Muslim fanatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

There again the majority of the Muslims learn the Koran by rote. Most of these can't read and write in their own language, never mind Arabic.

---

Actually, in real life, the majority of predominatly Muslim countries have literacy rates in the high 70% range with many being in the 80% range and some in the 90% range.

Indonesia, for example, has an 88% Muslim population and an 89% literacy rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

If everything is Gods will what's the point in doing anything? :book:

---

Except for killing of course. There is always room for another killing. I mean someone needs to be killed to keep the faith alive, right? Beheaded, burnt, blown up, stabbed, cut open with lots of blood pouring out to make sure you mean business in the name of the Prophet, no? :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

This means our artists, the best and most ebullient users of the freedom of thought and espression, run the risk of being killed on their own doorstep in broad daylight by a Muslim fanatic.

---

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

You know, I'm under the distinct impression many ethnic minorities, particularly those of darker skin tones, have for a long time been existing daily under a very real threat of violence against their persons solely for what they are in the West. It just occurred to me that the anxieties of artists appear somewhat minor in comparision.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

---

Imagine, if you will, that there are artists with convictions just as deep as yours. Problem addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Actually, in real life, the majority of predominatly Muslim countries have literacy rates in the high 70% range with many being in the 80% range and some in the 90% range.

Indonesia, for example, has an 88% Muslim population and an 89% literacy rate.

---

And they speak Arabic in Indonesia do they? Because that's how the Q'ran is taught, in Arabic. Or how about Bangladesh? or Pakistan?....perhaps Albania?

In the Arabic speaking countries what is the literacy rate there?

I live in a city with over 80 000 Muslims in it. None of them has Arabic as a native tongue. None of which understand the language of the Q'ran as it taught.

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

And they speak Arabic in Indonesia do they? Because that's how the Q'ran is taught, in Arabic. Or how about Bangladesh? or Pakistan?....perhaps Albania?

In the Arabic speaking countries what is the literacy rate there?

---

Iran, Syria, and Kuwait show literacy rates of 77%, 79%, and 84%.

Oh... by the by, Albania is 87%. :bow:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Egypt: 57.7
Morocco: 51.7
Syria: 76.9
Iraq: 40.4 (my guess is that literacy must be pretty bad among Kurds)

That's actually a whole lot worse then I expected...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Egypt: 57.7
Morocco: 51.7
Syria: 76.9
Iraq: 40.4 (my guess is that literacy must be pretty bad among Kurds)

That's actually a whole lot worse then I expected...

---

Literacy numbers don't even tell half the story of Arab backwardness. Arabs who can read have very little that is worthwhile to read, very little that informs them about the outside world, current affairs, sophisticated subjects, free newspapers. Almost no books are translated into Arab, almost no scientific literature. And almost no media are free; outside news and occasional translations or foreign sources are 'adapted' to Arab audiences by the authorities, etcetera. It is sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

It just occurred to me that the anxieties of artists appear somewhat minor in comparision. Just a thought.

---

Just don't let it strike any root.
1. Racism does not justify religious obscurantism.
2. There are artists who are of 'darker skin tone'.
3. There are mixed audiences for many an artist these days.
4. The freedom of artists is highly symbolic of all the freedoms we cherish.

Just pointing out that things are relative. Besides, #2 and #3 at least are very much beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Just pointing out that things are relative. Besides, #2 and #3 at least are very much beside the point.

---

They are not. Imagine you are an Arab artist in Europe and after years of racial slurs and threats over your 'darker skin tone', you are now receiving death threats from zealously religious fellow Arabs over your work as well. Sheesh, what an improvement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

---

Do you believe that playing nice to people that will murder someone over a cartoon would end hostilities? Interesting...

Wow Adrian, people are going to start calling you racist and close minded. You've made good valid points and I salute you, of course my agreement with you on many of your points probably won't win you much of a popularity contest here in the Backroom. Sorry, but I found your views on this issue with much agreement to my own feelings. I apologize for agreeing with you, i hope you can forgive me.:laugh4:

Well it would seem to me that Freedom of Speech issues are often not understood by both the people who react with violence on an issue of speech, and those who believe that Freedom of Speech means the individual does not have to accept the consequences of their speech.

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.

---

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.

There is a venue for such type of writings - normally found on the walls in bathrooms where little children write and draw racist comments about others.

One can understand why the drawings were done, and still call it unacceptable. A concept that it seems some in Europe have forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

---

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.

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.

I agree with what you say Adrian.

Muslims should realise that only a 4 year old puts their own values above all others and throws a tantrum when they don't get their own way. If they don't like it, they don't have to read it.

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material. that's my view, and although I don't like it I feel that it is a good aspect of my society that they are able to do that without fear of persecution.

Can I go and drink a bottle of Jacky D in Saudi Arabia? I'd probably get flogged. So much for tolerance there, eh?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material. ~:smoking:

---

Why in the world would that offend you? I get more offended when a Londener smiles at me and I have to look at their lack of dental care.:idea2:

Me it's looking at an American and having to stop looking for the scars from the way they've reconstructed their features.: can they really be that ugy on the inside? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material.

---

The other day I had a naughty thought:

walking up to women dressed in burqa's and telling that you find their clothing strangely arousing. I'd like to see their reaction :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The other day I had a naughty thought:

walking up to women dressed in burqa's and telling that you find their clothing strangely arousing. I'd like to see their reaction :laugh4:

---

Just tell her she's got sexy ankles, just watch out for her man six paces ahead of her!!!:laugh4:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction?

---

It seems unclear whether the original publication in Denmark had that intention or not. Depending on how you interpret the situation, the answer could be yes or no. However, the republication a week or so ago had nothing to do with provoking anyone, it was a statement about freedom of speech made shortly after the Danish newspaper apologized.

*edit*
I see I was beaten to the submit button on this one so I feel the need to expound. The initial publication seems to have been done to point out the reluctance of illustrators to deal with the issue. Depending on how you look at it, that could mean that it was their attempt to address a freedom of speech issue OR it could mean that they were trying to flout a Muslim taboo. The first would not be meant as provocation, the second would.

The republications were simply a protest over the fact that the Danish newspaper was essentially forced into apologizing. The various other papers published the cartoon as a form of protest over what they saw as an infringement on free speech. As such, that's not specifically aimed at insulting anyone, it was meant as support for what they saw as an infringed upon right.

At least, that's my take on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all.

---

Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.

Gertz:

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."


To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

---

How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.

the nationalism is growing at a tremendously rate here, both in me and all around. in the end I mainly fear for the muslim family across the street, when this gets into proportions again. damn I hate being forced upon muslim laws.

http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1139324704290_547.jpg :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.

---

Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.

Quote:

---

Gertz:

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."


To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.

---

Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.

Quote:

---

How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.

---

Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.


What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.



Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.





Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.


What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.

---

Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.

---

Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.

---

It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.

---

And yet you claim this.

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.

---

It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.

Or how about this comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

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.

---

If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.

Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speech.

The muslims are wrong for using violence. You are wrong for saying that an American or anyone for that matter can not find the method or the message unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.

---

Self censorship is part of responsiblity and accountablity for what you say.

Quote:

---

It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

---

If the paper meant the drawing to inspire rage they did not operate in a responsible fashion in regards to speech.

Just because one has the Freedom to speak however they so choice, does not make it the responsible thing to do.

Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no Freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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've thought about this. I have to say I got caught with my trousers down on this one. Fair play to the posters who saw it. :shame:

Let the debate continue. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.

---

You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable? Ok I give you that, but it's part of the Speech, or it's something like movement, action or association?

Quote:

---

If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.

---

But nobody disagrees with that generality. You're pointing exceptions, or even better, consecuences of the use of this freedom, but nobody disagrees on the general concept.

Quote:

---

Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speech

---

Violence is not always unacceptable, it's only unacceptable if it affects a third party. I can break my own TVs as a form of protest against globalization, and it will be violence (if you consider it like the use of force) and it will also be acceptable. But as I see it freedom of speech it's absolute, the method is forbidden because it obstaculizes the freedom of other people, not just because it's violent.