Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[Godobeyer]

To deny the holocaust which means denying the death of 12 million people both Jew and Gentile is hatred of the vilest form in my opinion.

Do you realize that 12 million were killed men, women, and children, and both Jew and Gentile.

I find it offensive to deny that the genocide occurred at all.

When it becomes anti semitic for me is when the denial of the Shoah occurs as denying it happened to the Jewish people.

But we must always remember it was not only Jews who died in the holocaust.

I believe had Hitler won the war he would have continued his quest by committing genocide on other groups that did not meet his criteria for those worthy of life.

i know there was genocide , i am not deny it , i am just make comparation .
then i am right , that you considerate deny , as provocation "anti-semitic" ?

 

[jazzymom]

Originally Posted by Godobeyer

then why jews set rule to deny of holocaust , " anti-semitic" ?

Jews do not set a rule to deny the holocaust as anti-semitic, but it is and I explained why I agree in my previous post.


We let Ahmadinajad into my country to stand before the UN to spew his hatred which is vile but he was allowed to. He stood there and spewed untruths. Under the rules you would like to have the UN put forth folks like Ahmadinajad would be arrested.

It is free speech.

 

[Levite]

Nope. I don't believe in restricting freedom of speech. People ought to have the right to say what they want to say, even when what they have to say is misinformed, or wrong, or hateful. Because if not, who decides what is and is not acceptable? Sooner or later, the regulators end up becoming the oppressors.

Freedom is freedom. Hate speech shouldn't be regulated unless it is made in the direct process of assaulting specific individuals or imminently threatening the lives of specific individuals. But speech made in general is speech. People have the right to be offensive. And hate speech in general can be countered by education and reason in general.

 

[apophenia]

Nope. I don't believe in restricting freedom of speech. People ought to have the right to say what they want to say, even when what they have to say is misinformed, or wrong, or hateful. Because if not, who decides what is and is not acceptable? Sooner or later, the regulators end up becoming the oppressors.

Freedom is freedom. Hate speech shouldn't be regulated unless it is made in the direct process of assaulting specific individuals or imminently threatening the lives of specific individuals. But speech made in general is speech. People have the right to be offensive. And hate speech in general can be countered by education and reason in general.

I totally agree with all you've said, and I would add that it is good for healthy development of the personality to be able to tolerate foreign or even offensive ideas. I think it is like exercising the body.If you avoid effort, stress and resistance your muscles become weak. Muscles are made stronger by forcing them to do work. Similarly, if one avoids disagreement, mental challenges and uncomfortable ideas, the mind becomes weak.

Look at the immune system - if we are never exposed to germs and viruses our immune system is weaker.

Tolerance is considered a virtue by both the religious and the non-religious, and tolerance is a kind of mental strength, which cannot be developed if a person is always surrounded by those who agree and conform to the same ideas.

Even faith and religious commitment will be weaker if there is no resistance or challenge. How strong is a person's religious faith if they feel threatened by disagreement or even ridicule ? Not strong at all in my opinion - to be distressed in that way is more an indicator of doubt and insecurity in my opinion.

I would add that doubt and insecurity should be embraced, because they often precede insight and necessary change.

Science would never develop if challenging ideas were not faced. The attempts of the Roman Catholic church to suppress astronomy is a perfect example of this. Catholic clergy found Galileo's ideas offensive to their religion. Who would now say that they were right in attempting to suppress the scientific observation of the stars and planets, and the challenge to their 'faith' that the earth was the center of the universe ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Originally Posted by Godobeyer

then why jews set rule to deny of holocaust , " anti-semitic" ?

Jews do not set a rule to deny the holocaust as anti-semitic, but it is and I explained why I agree in my previous post.


We let Ahmadinajad into my country to stand before the UN to spew his hatred which is vile but he was allowed to. He stood there and spewed untruths. Under the rules you would like to have the UN put forth folks like Ahmadinajad would be arrested.

It is free speech.
Reply With Quote

which mean that anyone don't agree with any part of your history is anti-semitic , or just the holocaust ?

and maybe next time you made a law , anyone disgree with any jewish in something in politic or history , he will accuasation by "anti-semitic" too !!!

 

[Godobeyer]

Levite

Nope. I don't believe in restricting freedom of speech. People ought to have the right to say what they want to say, even when what they have to say is misinformed, or wrong, or hateful. Because if not, who decides what is and is not acceptable? Sooner or later, the regulators end up becoming the oppressors.

Freedom is freedom. Hate speech shouldn't be regulated unless it is made in the direct process of assaulting specific individuals or imminently threatening the lives of specific individuals. But speech made in general is speech. People have the right to be offensive. And hate speech in general can be countered by education and reason in general.

i am talking about restricting the provocation against the religions .(not restricting freedom of speech)

this is a western web site , why it's not allowed to provoke other religions "by lies" ?

for me , i am thankful for the admins and staffs of this site, because they
made laws to protect the religions from the provocations .

 

[Looncall]

Levite

i am talking about restricting the provocation against the religions .(not restricting freedom of speech)

this is a western web site , why it's not allowed to provoke other religions "by lies" ?

for me , i am thankful for the admins and staffs of this site, because they
made laws to protect the religions from the provocations .

You still have not said who gets to decide what is a lie or what is provocative or why religious people should be exempt from provocation.

I think all this fake offendedness is a tactic to impose muslim taboos on everyone else.

 

[Flankerl]

which mean that anyone don't agree with any part of your history is anti-semitic , or just the holocaust ?

and maybe next time you made a law , anyone disgree with any jewish in something in politic or history , he will accuasation by "anti-semitic" too !!!

Again show us where jews set laws regarding the holocaust. Except in Israel of course.



Also whats so different in the jewish-version of jewish history? Care to elaborate?

this is a western web site , why it's not allowed to provoke other religions "by lies" ?

Because the people who run the site get to decide whats allowed on their site.

End of story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Levite

i am talking about restricting the provocation against the religions .(not restricting freedom of speech)

this is a western web site , why it's not allowed to provoke other religions "by lies" ?

for me , i am thankful for the admins and staffs of this site, because they
made laws to protect the religions from the provocations .

First off, this site is privately owned; it's not a public place. The owners here are free to make their own rules about what can and can't happen here. While we have rules that limit the nastier things people can say, we don't try to force other forums to follow our rules.

Second, quite a bit of the speech we allow here can be considered quite provocative. For instance, we allow Muslims to say that they believe that Jesus isn't God, and that they don't think he died on the cross. These are very offensive ideas to many Christians.

If you think we should limit the speech of others based on your offense, how should we limit YOUR speech based on the offense of others? Speaking for myself, I've found many of the attitudes you've expressed about women to be VERY offensive. While I prefer to engage with them and debate them rather than silence them, if you think offensive ideas should be silenced, are you going to voluntarily silence yourself?

 

[jazzymom]

which mean that anyone don't agree with any part of your history is anti-semitic , or just the holocaust ?

and maybe next time you made a law , anyone disgree with any jewish in something in politic or history , he will accuasation by "anti-semitic" too !!!

To deny the holocaust is to deny history. To deny the holocaust as it pertains to all those killed both Jew and Gentile is not Antisemitic. What it does is to deny history and show ignorance.

To deny the genocide of the Jews during ww2 and ignore the other groups who also were caught up in the genocide is anti semitic and to speak of wiping a country off the map which is also speaking of genocide is anti Semitic.

What you don't seem to understand as much as I dislike his speech, I absolutely value the rights to free speech that I have in my country. That means that I have to ignore those who insult me.

What I find bothersome about your posts is that you seem to really not understand the idea of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means that you can say what you think, it may be insulting to me or others. But you have that right. I have the same rights to put forth my ideas and they may insult you.

 

[Straw Dog]

I am against the law, although I don't technically fit into any category in the poll. There are already too many laws as it is. The more laws there are, the more criminals they create. It's probably better if people just take a "stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" approach to any behavior considered offensive. The less it bothers you, the more stable and balanced your mind may be. Be undisturbable.

 

[apophenia]

First off, this site is privately owned; it's not a public place. The owners here are free to make their own rules about what can and can't happen here. While we have rules that limit the nastier things people can say, we don't try to force other forums to follow our rules.

Second, quite a bit of the speech we allow here can be considered quite provocative. For instance, we allow Muslims to say that they believe that Jesus isn't God, and that they don't think he died on the cross. These are very offensive ideas to many Christians.

If you think we should limit the speech of others based on your offense, how should we limit YOUR speech based on the offense of others? Speaking for myself, I've found many of the attitudes you've expressed about women to be VERY offensive. While I prefer to engage with them and debate them rather than silence them, if you think offensive ideas should be silenced, are you going to voluntarily silence yourself?

I think you've covered the crucial points here.

Well said.

I think all this fake offendedness is a tactic to impose muslim taboos on everyone else.

I agree. I think it is a tactic which many muslims have decided will work for them. I suspect that many of them probably have a laugh in private about how they can use the westerner's 'political correctness' as a tool for increasing the influence of Islam

Which reminds me, can anyone tell me the arabic word which means to lie or deceive in a way which serves Islam ? I can't remember it, but I know there is a word (or words) which mean exactly that.

Godobeyer, you would know the word I mean.

Can you please tell the members of this forum the word which means a lie which benefits Islam ? I'm certain you know the word I mean.

If you tell me you can't remember it, I won't believe you.

 

[Breathe]

Which reminds me, can anyone tell me the arabic word which means to lie or deceive in a way which serves Islam ? I can't remember it, but I know there is a word (or words) which mean exactly that.

Godobeyer, you would know the word I mean.

Can you please tell the members of this forum the word which means a lie which benefits Islam ? I'm certain you know the word I mean.

If you tell me you can't remember it, I won't believe you.

If you're speaking of taqiyya, then, contrary to anti-Islam claims, it is not actually "a lie that benefits Islam"; taqiyya is simply "hiding one's faith out of fear of retribution". Think of the Kakure Kiri****an of Edo Japan or the Marranos of Europe. Same thing.

That's not to say some Muslims don't lie for Islam as some do, but it's most certainly not actually a religious obligation; it's a mistake to think this, or to even think it's commonly practised.

In fact, Islam is pretty strong on its view that lying is a sin.

In fact, I went and did a quick bit of searching for proof that punishment for lying is found in the Qur'an (since I'm a non-Muslim) and found the following: 9:42, 29:13, 45:07-08, 45:27, 51:10-13, 52:11-13, 58:18-19. This is without looking up ahadith too; they would probably have a lot on it, but I'll leave that for a Muslim member.

The people who usually perform "lies for Islam" are committing a pretty serious sin according to Islamic philosophy.

Hope this helps clear up this misconception a little bit.

 

[Straw Dog]

I agree. I think it is a tactic which many muslims have decided will work for them. I suspect that many of them probably have a laugh in private about how they can use the westerner's 'political correctness' as a tool for increasing the influence of Islam

Which reminds me, can anyone tell me the arabic word which means to lie or deceive in a way which serves Islam ? I can't remember it, but I know there is a word (or words) which mean exactly that.

Godobeyer, you would know the word I mean.

You're right. Also, it is considered okay to lie if it facilitates the spread of Islam, or at least in some circles of thought. I'd like to think that such a policy has changed, but has it? I try to judge individuals by the content of their character, but if a cultural imperative demands deception that they follow, then I question whether there even is an individual to judge or just another automaton. I believe Muslims have the ability to think for themselves and adapt Islam to the changing moral zeitgeist.

 

[Straw Dog]

To expand, most Muslims probably don't endorse a policy of deception to spread Islam, but it definitely does occur and some Muslim friends even seem to believe it is justified. I don't know. I'm tired of generalizing about people. When someone says that they're Christian or Muslim, I think "Oh, that's mostly irrelevant. Who are you specifically?" I'm tired of all these superficial distinctions we have to pay lip service to. I'm not impressed by your cultural or religious doctrines. Just show me 'you' complete and unabridged.

 

[apophenia]

If you're speaking of taqiyya, then, contrary to anti-Islam claims, it is not actually "a lie that benefits Islam"; taqiyya is simply "hiding one's faith out of fear of retribution". Think of the Kakure Kiri****an of Edo Japan or the Marranos of Europe. Same thing.

That's not to say some Muslims don't lie for Islam as some do, but it's most certainly not actually a religious obligation; it's a mistake to think this, or to even think it's commonly practised.

In fact, Islam is pretty strong on its view that lying is a sin.

In fact, I went and did a quick bit of searching for proof that punishment for lying is found in the Qur'an (since I'm a non-Muslim) and found the following: 9:42, 29:13, 45:07-08, 45:27, 51:10-13, 52:11-13, 58:18-19. This is without looking up ahadith too; they would probably have a lot on it, but I'll leave that for a Muslim member.

The people who usually perform "lies for Islam" are committing a pretty serious sin according to Islamic philosophy.

Hope this helps clear up this misconception a little bit.

I'll take that on board. Perhaps I have been duped. Though from memory of other discussions I have observed, the word I am trying to remember is not 'taqiyya'' - but my memory is not perfect, so I'll see if I can find the word I mean.

On the other hand, there is a considerable difference between what is considered by scholars of any religion to be the correct scriptural interpretation, and what is generally, or commonly, practiced or considered to be a correct (or at least socially acceptable) interpretation. In other words, the difference between a religion in the sense of its official 'technical specification', and the mores of a culture associated with that religion.

You're right. Also, it is considered okay to lie if it facilitates the spread of Islam, or at least in some circles of thought. I'd like to think that such a policy has changed, but has it? I try to judge individuals by the content of their character, but if a cultural imperative demands deception that they follow, then I question whether there even is an individual to judge or just another automaton. I believe Muslims have the ability to think for themselves and adapt Islam to the changing moral zeitgeist.

So have we both been duped ? Hard to verify. If our impression is correct, it follows that it is not likely to be admitted. On the other hand, we may have heard carefully constructed propaganda. ( Or, more likely, a mixture of both).

I'm going with my observations of human nature, and assuming that the interpretation we have both heard is quite likely, because humans everywhere have a tendency to lie for self-interest, and especially in service of peer-group pressure. I find the argument that 'the Koran says not to lie' does not convince me that muslims do not lie, any more than christians never break any of the Ten Commandments. Monkeys are monkeys, whatever any book says about saints or saviors or prophets.

Meanwhile, I am still interested to hear Godobeyers response to the notion that claiming Jesus was just a man is an offensive lie to christians.

Should muslims cease from insulting christians by saying that ?

If insulting a prophet is so serious an offence, surely insulting 'the son of god' is even more serious.

But I don't see a huge number of christians demanding that muslims stop lying about the son of god.

Surely if the principle is to be applied both ways, both religions would have to shut up ? LOL. That would be a good outcome.

 

[sojourner]

Y'know...
It was a whole lot easier back in the day when the whole tribe believed in the Corn God, and that he could be appeased by throwing a virgin in a volcano. And, The Hated People Who Live Over the Mountain could be largely ignored, unless they came to steal some of your horses or women. You didn't care what they believed in. 'Cause you hated them.

Then, Someone got the bright idea to make travel easier, and Someone Else thought it'd be a good idea for diverse people to live together in close confines.

Now everybody cares what everybody else believes in -- and everybody's "right." So, rather than move away from each other, we've simply decided to **** each other off. But that doesn't make sense, because most religions are peace-based.

I think that, these days, we're wise to not be provocative, because the clubs and stones of the Hated People Who Live Over The Mountain have gotten a whole lot bigger and more destructive. Many have wings on them and nuclear devices attached. And they're able to throw them over the mountain from a distance.

But I don't think legislation is gonna do any good.

 

[Me Myself]

Meanwhile, I am still interested to hear Godobeyers response to the notion that claiming Jesus was just a man is an offensive lie to christians.

Should muslims cease from insulting christians by saying that ?

If insulting a prophet is so serious an offence, surely insulting 'the son of god' is even more serious.

But I don't see a huge number of christians demanding that muslims stop lying about the son of god.

Surely if the principle is to be applied both ways, both religions would have to shut up ? LOL. That would be a good outcome.

I am very interested on this too now

 

[Breathe]

I'll take that on board. Perhaps I have been duped. Though from memory of other discussions I have observed, the word I am trying to remember is not 'taqiyya'' - but my memory is not perfect, so I'll see if I can find the word I mean.

It's not impossible to have been taught about Islam from untrustworthy sources that post themselves as factual. Unfortunately it's quite easy to find biased sources on Islam (either vehemently pro or anti). If you have chance, perhaps looking out for one of Karen Armstrong's books would be useful; "Islam: A Short History" and "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time". These are two of her books that focus more specifically on Islam. I've read other books of hers, so I could recommend her as an enjoyable author to read.

If you remember the word in question, please do share.

On the other hand, there is a considerable difference between what is considered by scholars of any religion to be the correct scriptural interpretation, and what is generally, or commonly, practiced or considered to be a correct (or at least socially acceptable) interpretation. In other words, the difference between a religion in the sense of its official 'technical specification', and the mores of a culture associated with that religion.

Indeed there is, unfortunately. There can often be a huge difference in what is commonly accepted as part of the culture or the culture of the religion, and what the religion actually teaches.

 

[apophenia]

To expand, most Muslims probably don't endorse a policy of deception to spread Islam, but it definitely does occur and some Muslim friends even seem to believe it is justified. I don't know. I'm tired of generalizing about people. When someone says that they're Christian or Muslim, I think "Oh, that's mostly irrelevant. Who are you specifically?" I'm tired of all these superficial distinctions we have to pay lip service to. I'm not impressed by your cultural or religious doctrines. Just show me 'you' complete and unabridged.

"The Exaltation of the Blown Mind" ( the religion of which I am the 'Unexcelled Chief') has a mantra to help with that -

blah blah blah, maha blah, para maha blah, svaha !