Agurus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Posted February 21, 2006 From what I have read it was against the Muslim religion to draw the face of the Prohet (it is foribidden to). It's like saying if !@#$%^&* was made about Christianity/Jew's prohets; the media/society would act upon it...they wouldn't chill in peace.
»Ducky Posted February 21, 2006 Report Posted February 21, 2006 But Jesus and Moses are portrayed in various sarcastic natures all the time. Aileron just hasn't burned down my house because of it yet.
quickspy Posted February 21, 2006 Report Posted February 21, 2006 Image google "jesus" The first image you get is a political cartoon which may be insulting to some.
MonteZuma Posted February 21, 2006 Report Posted February 21, 2006 Image google "jesus" The first image you get is a political cartoon which may be insulting to some.There are countless images that mock jesus. http://exchristian.net/art/albums/funny/normal_Watering_Jesus.jpghttp://pressurecooker.phil.cmu.edu/Jesus/jesuseaster.jpg Do they get published in newspapers?
quickspy Posted February 22, 2006 Report Posted February 22, 2006 Sorry, let me rephrase. If Christians blew themselves up and crashed planes into other countries, I believe there would be cartoons mocking Christianity to.
spedhead Posted March 1, 2006 Report Posted March 1, 2006 Coming from a guy with a flaming crucifix in his avatar ya thats messed up
Aileron Posted March 1, 2006 Report Posted March 1, 2006 Ducky, when you put it that way, burning down your house does sound pretty tempting. Some of the things you wrote would get a somewhat violent reaction from me. To be honest I'd probably punch you in the face if we ever met in person. PK2's point is that in the US, we've let secularism get carried away, and in many cases our Christianity is relegated to a side culture. I mean, "The Lion, the Which, and the Wardrobe" is considered by many to be a religious movie for having religious "undertones". If we still had our cultural iden!@#$%^&*y "religious undertones" would be in a lot of movies, and we would only consider a movie religious if the main plot was religious. Example: "passion of the Christ". Yes, there is a bit of Christianity on the TV, but its always on obscure channels. The major networks don't want to show it. As a matter of fact, they usually like to take potshots at Christians whenever they get away with it. The Simpsons and South Park are the two main offenders at the moment. In the end, the muslim world probably is at war with us because we are beginning to resemble the Ottoman Empire, which many of their cultures developed while fighting. The Ottoman's did the exact same thing...in the interest of secularism they destroyed their own religious and cultural iden!@#$%^&*y until in the end they just collapsed. They forgot who they were and what they accomplished and they just simply let their nation fall apart one piece at a time. The US is currently facing a similar problem. For example, New Orleans got damaged by a hurricane instead of rebuilding it we are wondering whether we should bother. For another example, 40 years ago we landed on the moon, even after the Apollo 1 disaster, but now we not only don't go to the moon but our fleet of space shuttles is grounded, and conspiracy theorists are wondering if it was possible in the first place. We've made the mistake of letting our melting pot culture evolve into a non-culture. The Ottomans had a non-culture too, and if you look at the history of the Middle East, most of the regions were in constant rebellion against the Ottomans, for long enough periods that it became an aspect of their cultural development. To that end, they probably grew to hate everything that was Ottoman, including having a non-culture. Still, these cartoons violate two details in free speech. Slander, Libel, and in general Lying is not considered free speech in most countries. Its also not considered free speech to deliberately cause pain and suffering, for example yelling "fire" in a crowded building in order to cause a panic. For arguement's sake, I will ask "Are the Muslim communities as a whole violent?" Case 1: the Muslim community is violent.If we assume they are as a whole violent, then we could predict that such cartoons would lead to violent reactions. In that case, the publications deliberately caused the riots, which caused pain and suffering. Thus, they aren't free speech. Case 2: the Muslim community is not violentThen portraying them as violent is libel, and the cartoons are not free speech. Either way free speech doesn't cover these cartoons. In reality the situation is somewhere between case 1 and case 2, but half libel + half inflametory provides a whole unjustification of the cartoons. A popular quote is "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword". If that's true, why do we relegate our militaries with highly professional battle-tested Generals and Admirals along with civilian oversight, but don't put any restrictions on the more powerfull press?
SeVeR Posted March 1, 2006 Report Posted March 1, 2006 We don't put people on the moon anymore because its extremely costly and doesn't give us any useful information. The extra weight and space needed is much better spent on detector equipment and fuel for unmanned probes and landers. If we're going to put a man anywhere its going to be Mars and will only be the Moon if we decide to set up a base there. I find your theory about the Ottoman Turks very generalised for the purposes of supporting your religious opinion. The single biggest reason for the decline of the Ottoman Empire was their religious culture. The rest of the world had sufficiently separated church from state over a hundred years before allowing for scientific advancement that left the Ottoman Turks still using swordsman on horses in the First World War. If you look at the Middle East you can see clearly how religion has stifled progress and the region would be just as poor as Africa if not for oil. If you look at the time from 0-1600 A.D. you'll see how little progress we made whilst religion had a hold over our culture and governments. So i very much believe the opposite is true.
»i88gerbils Posted March 1, 2006 Report Posted March 1, 2006 Religious Undertones? HA HA HA HA HA HA That my friend is a piece of Christian Literature with Christian morals, values, and a message (albeit unitarian universalist if you want to try and argue that). The Ottoman Empire is interesting. Remember you have turks ruling over much of the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire started to decline after European interests & money moved to direct trade with Asia. I'd place the decline of influence on economic reasons while the eventual should be place on international pressure by Britain (Lawrence of Arabia?) and cultural differences between middle east culture & Turkish culture. An example of this cultural tension is the current Kurdish dilemna. Both Turks & Kurds are muslim, but they don't really like each other do they?
»Ducky Posted March 2, 2006 Report Posted March 2, 2006 Ducky, when you put it that way, burning down your house does sound pretty tempting. Some of the things you wrote would get a somewhat violent reaction from me. To be honest I'd probably punch you in the face if we ever met in person.I have mad dodge skills. Interpretation of something is left to the reader and will not always be covered when you slap the term Libel and Lying with it. It wasn't lying. Muslims are a violent community. Opinion? Aye. And founded justly also. I saw the cartoon and interpretted it as a satirical play on what on the outside seems like a violent religion in general.Killing others in the name of a figurehead. ---------------The following is a characature about a situation during the clinton era.http://clinton-legacy.org/humor/gifts_cartoon_010219.jpg The administration were nothing but fat slob thieves?Isn't that libel if it were printed?Aren't millions of editorial cartoons like this printed everyday in newspapers. Either, you interpret it differently or you only speak up about random things that you claim break laws only when it affects you specifically.Both are personal faults.
MonteZuma Posted March 2, 2006 Report Posted March 2, 2006 To be honest I'd probably punch you in the face if we ever met in person.make sure you raise this in confession. PK2's point is that in the US, we've let secularism get carried away, and in many cases our Christianity is relegated to a side culture.Not compared with the rest of the western world. Everyone in Europe and Australasia thinks that the US is full of bible bashers. Yes, there is a bit of Christianity on the TV, but its always on obscure channels. The major networks don't want to show it. As a matter of fact, they usually like to take potshots at Christians whenever they get away with it.I suspect that most people, even christians, just don't want to watch christian tv programs. Why should they? Will television viewing bring you closer to God? The US is currently facing a similar problem. For example, New Orleans got damaged by a hurricane instead of rebuilding it we are wondering whether we should bother.It is a fair question to ask. Building a coastal city below sea level in a hurricane zone would not be my first choice if I had to build a large city from scratch. For another example, 40 years ago we landed on the moon, even after the Apollo 1 disaster, but now we not only don't go to the moon but our fleet of space shuttles is grounded, and conspiracy theorists are wondering if it was possible in the first place. We've made the mistake of letting our melting pot culture evolve into a non-culture.Everybody knows that going to the moon was a waste of resources. So was the space shuttle. That money should have been invested elsewhere. Abandoning those programs has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Do you really think that the US has less 'culture' now than it did in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Still, these cartoons violate two details in free speech. Slander, Libel, and in general Lying is not considered free speech in most countries. Its also not considered free speech to deliberately cause pain and suffering, for example yelling "fire" in a crowded building in order to cause a panic. For arguement's sake, I will ask "Are the Muslim communities as a whole violent?"I'd call it satire. But really, it probably isn't even satire. It was a drawing of mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Without reading teh accompanying text, that could mean anything.
AstroProdigy Posted March 3, 2006 Report Posted March 3, 2006 Going to the moon and the space shuttle were not a waste of time. Do you think we can simply live on this rock called Earth forever? Earth can provide us a lot of things but it is not limitless. Eventually we will need to look elsewhere and I, myself, would like to be prepared for that rather than letting other generations worry about it. Of course we should rebuild New Orleans. New Orleans would not have been flooded if they had adequate anti flood equipment. Would you say let's not rebuild on Ground Zero after 9/11 because it will just get attacked by terrorists again?
MonteZuma Posted March 3, 2006 Report Posted March 3, 2006 Going to the moon and the space shuttle were not a waste of time. Do you think we can simply live on this rock called Earth forever?Well. We can for about another billion years or so if we stop !@#$%^&*ting in iour nest. Earth can provide us a lot of things but it is not limitless. Eventually we will need to look elsewhere and I, myself, would like to be prepared for that rather than letting other generations worry about it.That depends on how you use the resources. A colony on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system or outer space will be much less sustainable than a colony on Earth. The fact that people view the Earth as a disposable resource is THE problem. The future for us and subsequent generations is here on Earth - not in space. Of course we should rebuild New Orleans. New Orleans would not have been flooded if they had adequate anti flood equipment.Yes. And people thought that it wasn't worth the expense to upgrade the flood defenses. They were wrong. People make bad judgments all the time. Moving hundreds of thousands of people back into NO may not be the best idea. A cost benefit needs to be undertaken. I think that I probably would rebuild New Orleans on account of the cultural and heritage value of the place. But it is definitely worth asking "Is it worth it?", especially for the most vulnerable parts. And/or the parts that were/are still sinking into the mud. Would you say let's not rebuild on Ground Zero after 9/11 because it will just get attacked by terrorists again?I think it would be a fair question for planners to ask whether or not the area should be reserved as a park or a memorial or turned into office space. I don't think anything should be ruled out. Same with New Orleans.
AstroProdigy Posted March 6, 2006 Report Posted March 6, 2006 We can't live on Earth for a billion years. It is very difficult to sustain the Earth for even a million years with just our massive population. I'm not saying the Earth is disposable, I just think we need to spur technology growth in these fields so that one day we can have self sustaining colonies elsewhere that way we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket. Did you ever think that saving the Earth might require having other options? It wasn't efficient to have colonies in the Americas at first either, but the world developed and now we have the United States. We also aren't getting rid of our nuclear weapons. We are only developing more destructive ones. Humanity could easily be wiped off the face of the Earth any day and then no more people ever again. Everything everyone has ever done will mean absolutely nothing and no future for the human race in this scenario. I don't know about you, but this is a very unsettling thought to me.
MonteZuma Posted March 6, 2006 Report Posted March 6, 2006 We can't live on Earth for a billion years. It is very difficult to sustain the Earth for even a million years with just our massive population.If that is true, and I'm not sure that it is, then we need to lower our population. But even a thousand years is a !@#$%^&*a long time. We can worry about space when we get our problems sorted out here. I'm not saying the Earth is disposable, I just think we need to spur technology growth in these fields so that one day we can have self sustaining colonies elsewhere that way we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket.There is only one basket. Where is the other basket? Did you ever think that saving the Earth might require having other options?No. We can worry about other options in a few thousand years, but even then I'm sure the future of the human race will still be here on Earth. It wasn't efficient to have colonies in the Americas at first either, but the world developed and now we have the United States.The United States isn't that special. We also aren't getting rid of our nuclear weapons. We are only developing more destructive ones.The solution to that problem is here on Earth. Humanity could easily be wiped off the face of the Earth any day and then no more people ever again. Everything everyone has ever done will mean absolutely nothing and no future for the human race in this scenario. I don't know about you, but this is a very unsettling thought to me.If it happens, where will the survivors go?
AstroProdigy Posted March 6, 2006 Report Posted March 6, 2006 Pushing it off to a thousand years from now might just end up causing our end. If we deveop our technology far enough then survivors would already exist on other planets and stations.
MonteZuma Posted March 6, 2006 Report Posted March 6, 2006 Pushing it off to a thousand years from now might just end up causing our end. If we deveop our technology far enough then survivors would already exist on other planets and stations.Planning for that starts on Earth. We can't even make a sustainable biodome on this planet. It is pointless fantasising about life in space until we figure that problem out. (and when we do figure out the biodome problem there will be so many spinoffs in terms of energy and water conservation and recycling that we may solve many Earthly problems). The space travel component can wait. Btw, sending men to Mars is a waste of resources too. I'm not totally against space 'exploration'. I support the idea behind the International Space Station - it is an extremely valuable research tool. We obviously need communications, spy, imaging and GPS satellites for example. Some of the experimental satellites are probably reasonable value for money too. But manned space travel, for the most part, is a waste of resources. There is nowhere to go. We can't live in a gl!@#$%^&* bubble floating in space or a gl!@#$%^&* dome on Mars. If we can't figure out our social and environmental problems here on Earth then we stand no chance in space.
AstroProdigy Posted March 7, 2006 Report Posted March 7, 2006 Sending an astronaut to Mars would be pretty much suicide for the astronaut at this point. Regardless, it isn't like we are spending tons of resources on this. Cut the military budget slightly and that would be equal to the funding of NASA.
MonteZuma Posted March 7, 2006 Report Posted March 7, 2006 Sending an astronaut to Mars would be pretty much suicide for the astronaut at this point. Regardless, it isn't like we are spending tons of resources on this. Cut the military budget slightly and that would be equal to the funding of NASA.It is tons of resources. US$16Billion is a lot of money. Its about the same amount that the US gives in foreign aid. To get men to the moon, the budget [edit: for 1966] was over US$30Billion in adjusted terms. That kind of money could gto a long way in research to improve energy and resource efficiency on Earth. The US military budget is astronomical. Don't get me started on that
AstroProdigy Posted March 7, 2006 Report Posted March 7, 2006 $30 billion over a period of time, not every year. Besides, the funding to NASA will be the same as it always was, just NASA will be forced to cut and delay other programs. As for the military budget, that literally can be the end to world hunger.
MonteZuma Posted March 7, 2006 Report Posted March 7, 2006 $30 billion over a period of time, not every year.NASA's budget for 1966 (ie just for that year) was over $30Billion in today's money. Now it is half that. Still a lot of money.
ThunderJam Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 The people at issue are only the Radical muslims, not the majority. Violence: The problem is that in their religion it is stated that EVERYONE must believe in THEIR religion. Any religion would like that, and many pursue it through evangelistic actions. The Bible for example, says that "One day, every knee shall bow [to Christ]". The problem is, they interpret this for the right to kill anyone of opposing beliefs. What would they think if Christians bombed their country? The Cartoon: To put another perspective on this... The Bible says "You shall not say the Lord's name in vain," it's one of the ten commandments. If Christians across the world took up arms against anyone who said "Jesus Christ" it would be unacceptable. That, I feel, is just the case here. If someone who does not participate in their beliefs violates one of THEIR RELIGIOUS laws/rules, they does not give them any right to retaliate with violence. However, I do not mean to support the people who made and published the comic. The image probably should not have been published, out of respect to other religions and beliefs.
SeVeR Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 You may talk about extremists but the amount of extremists in a society is just an indication of how extreme the society on average is. There isn't a huge gap between non-violent Muslims and those who fly planes into buildings with nothing in between. There is plenty in-between and i'm willing to bet the average Muslim isn't far from the ones we see in the streets burning buildings. How many people have been killed in riots? How many of them were just people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Try going to one of these "riots" and probably just being the only white man in the crowd will earn you the death penalty from hundreds of rioters. These people live in the 12th century, we should ignore them and not interfere in their development. Above all though we should be free to post any image about any issue within our current society. Islam earned the reputation as being a hostile religion which produces 90% of worlds terrorists. They are at war with everyone around them... including themselves. When we invite them too our countries they run people over in their SUV's in vengeance for the war (recent story in the USA) and they blow up trains and busses in London (July attacks by BRITISH Muslims). Having said all this, if i see a Muslim in the street or i go drinking with a Muslim (they don't drink, i do) i show nothing but friendship and interest in them. But lets be clear about the how extreme our average Muslim is.
Recommended Posts