from where you get this pre-judge ?
accuatly ,I don't know why most of the muslims don't have the courage to vote in the poll !!!?
i don't know yet Ssainhu opinion .but for my opinion all muslims agree to ban the provocation of any religion .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
accuatly ,I don't know why most of the muslims don't have the courage to vote in the poll !!!?
i don't know yet Ssainhu opinion .but for my opinion all muslims agree to ban the provocation of any religion .
jazzymom
Just Jewish
So you think all Muslims would vote the same just because they are Muslim? I believe that there are many moderate Muslims who do not vote one way just because they are Muslim.
My opinion is that Muslims shouldn't let these criticisms get them upset; faith should be strong enough to withstand the silliness of this dumb movie. As a culture, we have much bigger problems to deal with; these people are wasting their energy getting all fired up over something that was so unknown to begin with. Their reaction brought more attention to the movie, cartoon, whatever it is/was.
I'm not in favor of overriding free speech; for every cartoon or movie you don't like, you are free to speak up about it.
If all Muslims did agree to this, it would be legal to build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia.
Or a Buddhist temple.
I find it interesting that we both come from similar cultures yet our priorities are so starkly different. Let's not fool ourselves here. Many Arab countries have major issues with education, healthcare, and freedom of speech — Algeria is one; Morocco, Syria, and Libya are others — but you choose to focus on this issue and even think it's necessary that those countries go to the UN to support enacting a law to limit criticism of religions. One would expect that those countries would have other priorities than trying to protect their sensitivities through global laws.
I wonder if such a law would include religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., under the "no provocation" article or if it will just include the Abrahamic religions and exclude all others. There is no such thing as "partial freedom"; you either have freedom of speech or you don't, and you can't always have things your way if you really do have freedom of speech.
Last edited:
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I don't like the UN and don't believe they are capable of enforcing any law in a just and fair manner. The entire organization should be disbanded and a new one formed that only allows countries with representative governments. I'm sick of hearing totalitarian governments harp about America's crimes against humanity. If the pot continues to insist that only the kettle is black then we should stop associating with the pots.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Maybe this is a good time to resurrect this old thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/40797-united-nations.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/40797-united-nations.html
Shermana
Heretic
Would a Nazarene Jew lose the right to challenge the mainstream Christian beliefs because it could be interpreted as "mocking" and "belittling Jesus's blood on the cross"? Could JWs be silenced because saying Jesus isn't God would be "insulting" Trinitarians?
Or could it be an effective tool to silence those who distort and malign the original Jewish nature of Pre-orthodox Christianity?
Hmmmm....
Or could it be an effective tool to silence those who distort and malign the original Jewish nature of Pre-orthodox Christianity?
Hmmmm....
apophenia
Well-Known Member
No response Godobeyer ? I spent some time on that post (the quote above is not the whole post - #374), and consider it to be a significant input to this thread. Since I have expressed my idea in Islamic terms, I thought perhaps at least one muslim here would give it thoughtful consideration. Every culture has its strong and weak points, its virtues and vices. Is it not possible that I have just clearly stated an issue which many muslim communities need to face up to ?
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
godobeyer said:
From my past experiences or interactions with you on other topics. From this thread, itself. Your view is narrow or limited. I don't know it is because where you live or due to your upbringing.
Here, you have a singular notion of agnosticism, when there are many different types of agnosticism. You are misunderstanding the difference between knowing (agnosticism) and believing (theism and atheism). That depending on where they stand in belief or disbelief (or lack of belief) with regards to the existence of deity/deities, THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY KNOW or CLAIM TO KNOW that the god(s) exist (agnostic theists) or don't exist (hence agnostic atheists). So depending on which category you fall under, some agnostics can be religious (there are agnostic Christians, agnostic Jews and agnostic Hindus here at RF) and some are not.
Pure agnostics (who are neither agnostic theists nor agnostic atheists) are actually non-religious. I am what you would call weak agnostic or empirical agnostic. Deities could exist BUT show me evidences that a deity or two exist, and then I will believe, otherwise they don't exist.
But no matter which type of agnostic a person is, the agnostic stance is actually a philosophical stance, not a religious one, hence that why most people view it to be non-religious ones.
But that's really minor issue, perhaps because you're just not fully grasping agnosticism.
I am far more concern with this law bill that you want the UN to enact, mandate or implement.
Even worse, is your view with women, and their role in the family, ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION of Islam (different and old topic). To me, it is misogynist and sexist attitude. I am wondering if this attitude stemmed from actual Islamic teaching or from your Algerian culture. According to this topic I was referring to, you seemed to believe that your interpretation to the Islam seemed to be the ONLY RIGHT ONE. Not only non-Muslims disagree with you, but some of the Muslims also disagreed with you.
Those are just few examples of my interaction with you. And if I prejudge you, I'm sorry.
godobeyer said:
Actually you don't know what all Muslims would vote. So far, you and only one other Muslim would vote yes for the law. I don't think that many Muslims here would vote yes.
Shermana
Heretic
So I want to know, would JWs and their apologetics be banned for provoking Trinitarians (i.e. "saying Jesus is not God is insulting Christianity"), or would Trinitarian apologetic sites be banned for insulting (and not providing all the appropriate details on) the JW position? Would CARM and these "Counter-cult" sites all go belly up?
AdityaMookerjee
Member
The U N says, that a basic tenet of the freedom of expression, is the right to insult, also perhaps. Then why are debates held, when Obama and Ahmedinejad see the other as an enemy? The party who replies, to the speech, need not.
Debater Slayer
my definition for freedom of speech is not allow to mock or lie or insult .
how about yours ?
sometimes i feel that i am the only free muslim here , i know that some western people saw me as "not moderate muslim" , that's big mistake
what you want to learn ourselfs and take the habit to be insulted in our religion ? that's the freedom of speech for your opinion ?
my definition for freedom of speech is not allow to mock or lie or insult .
how about yours ?
sometimes i feel that i am the only free muslim here , i know that some western people saw me as "not moderate muslim" , that's big mistake
It's not an either-or question. There are ways to protest perceived insults toward yourself without resorting to violence or censorship. Censoring everything that anyone finds to be insulting would result in severely restricting the speech of others as well as yourself.
"Not allow" is the key phrase here. No, I don't believe in silencing those of opposing or perceived disagreeable views. If everyone was denied their freedom of speech on that basis, no one would be able to express themselves at all.
What you might find to be mockery is probably not the same as what I'd find to be mockery. What might constitute a "lie" in your view probably differs than that in mine — and a third person might have a third opinion that disagrees with either of us. There is no objective criteria to measure how insulting, mocking, or "lying" a statement(s) is. That's why I'm definitely not in favor of universalizing one specific criteria of what determines any of those things and censoring people based on that.
"Moderate" is subjective. I've seen people who think that holding views that endorse wife-beating is "moderate," and I've seen people who call themselves "moderate" while thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to think of women as intellectually inferior to men. I don't think it usually means much when someone labels themselves a "moderate [insert religious title here]."
And for the record, I'm not "Western." I'm not even a non-Western who comes from a different culture than you do; I'm Arabian. I think the "Western" card is useless here and might even point to a deficit in what you're arguing for that requires appealing to culture and tradition instead of making logically valid points.
Remember the "wife-beating" thread?
That insulted the vast majority of women here.
Should the UN prohibit those views?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Imagine that you live in a culture where 97% of the people are Muslim and the other 3% are too afraid to open their mouths in public.
For someone in that culture, religious truth may feel the same as physical truth. The moon shines down on them every night, the Koran is the Word of God, and Muhammad is the final prophet of God.
Anyone who shouts out that the moon is square or that Muhammad is a fake prophet -- that person is being offensive toward truth. That person is lying. And maybe that person should be put in jail. Obviously that person is just a troublemaker. He couldn't possibly be sincere.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Have you noticed, Godobeyer, that the ONLY people who do not accept freedom of speech are fundamentalist muslims, oppressive governments and dictators ?
Vladimir Putin objects to freedom of speech ( Russia is rapidly heading back to the days of oppression enforced by secret police). The Chinese Communist Party objects to freedom of speech. Who else objects to freedom of speech ? I can only think of oppressive dictators ( and I do include Putin - he just barely maintains a facade of being an elected President).
Do you see the company you keep ?
And notice this - Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese communist party, do not support Islam.
The corrupt US Bush regime, primarily under the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, were moving America in that direction too - fortunately, the American people wised up and got rid of them in time. They wanted to control free speech if it did not support their idea of 'patriotism'. Do you think they were heading America in the right direction ?
How does it feel to know that the only other people who support the idea of controlling human speech are political dictators who are prepared to use violence and imprisonment to retain power ?
And I do not see even one other religion with an agenda to control free speech.
You don't want free speech - you want speech which is controlled by your idea of Islam, and you want the entire world controlled in that way.
So are you the same as Putin, or Stalin, or the Chinese communists, or Robert Mugabe ?
Vladimir Putin objects to freedom of speech ( Russia is rapidly heading back to the days of oppression enforced by secret police). The Chinese Communist Party objects to freedom of speech. Who else objects to freedom of speech ? I can only think of oppressive dictators ( and I do include Putin - he just barely maintains a facade of being an elected President).
Do you see the company you keep ?
And notice this - Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese communist party, do not support Islam.
The corrupt US Bush regime, primarily under the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, were moving America in that direction too - fortunately, the American people wised up and got rid of them in time. They wanted to control free speech if it did not support their idea of 'patriotism'. Do you think they were heading America in the right direction ?
How does it feel to know that the only other people who support the idea of controlling human speech are political dictators who are prepared to use violence and imprisonment to retain power ?
And I do not see even one other religion with an agenda to control free speech.
You don't want free speech - you want speech which is controlled by your idea of Islam, and you want the entire world controlled in that way.
So are you the same as Putin, or Stalin, or the Chinese communists, or Robert Mugabe ?