Cartones,burn Quran day,film, what next ?

[Godobeyer]

They're Muslims or Non-Muslims if I'm referring to a difference in belief between Muslims and "everybody else" (believing in Prophet Muhammad, Ramadan, etc.). Otherwise, if they're Christian, then I call them "Christian", or "Jewish", or "Buddhist", "Hindu", "Pantheist", "Pagan", "Agnostic", "Atheist", etc., etc.

I have no desire to call them "kaffir".

Most importantly, I call them "human beings", because in my eyes, we are all equal.

i agree with you in most.

me too I have no desire to call some one directly without any reason "you are disbeliever/infidel or anta kaffir " .

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm sorry but I'm just having too much trouble understanding you. I admire you for trying to discuss these things in English, and I'm happy to see Middle Eastern Muslims coming to English bulletin boards, but I think you may need a little more work with English. I used to be an ESL teacher. Maybe I can suggest some ways for you to get more practice.

sorry for my bad english .

I disagree. It's just a personal opinions whether someone is lying or mocking vs. debating in good faith.

Do you allow people to use drugs like opium if opium-use is a part of a religious practice?

Yes, and I think the US is stupid to do so. I think that if people want to have multiple spouses, then the government should keep its nose out of it.

But it's the law. All I can do is argue against it and maybe try to change it.

It's not controlled by law. It's controlled by politics, though. If CNN runs a story which angers the White House, then the White House might not allow CNN to speak to high officials anymore.

I agree with you about the Holocaust-denial laws in Europe. If they tried to pass such a law in the US, I would be on the front lines, in the streets, protesting. So would most every other American.

thanks for clarify your opinion

I'm sorry. I just can't follow your question.

no problem .

 

[Storm]

they were christians , that's does not justification , even they were muslims , the wrong is wrong .

I don't understand your objection. You said that ignorance regarding religion didn't exist - I demonstrated that it does. The fact that I was wrong was the entire point.

some news tells , that actess set a case in tribunal against the filmmaker , she claim that she fooled .
and she set another case in tribunal against youtube for posting parts of film .

Yeah, I don't really buy that. The genius behind Qur'an Burning Day wants you to make a movie about Islam, and you think it's NOT going to be a detestable, offensive piece of propaganda? I don't believe her.

i would like to see the feeling of the christians or jews if the muslim decide to make a film about Jesus or Moses (pbut) to represent the islamic view about them (pbut) .

OK, let's clear one thing up right now: that video was in no way the Christian view of Muhammad, or the American view. I was a deliberate incitement by one *** hole who happens to live here.

do you want my understanding ,(without refering to dic )
-critic :is discuss something with respect and evidences

-mockery : is kind of offend criticing , with no respect , and maybe with no evidence or exagerate in it's evidences .

For the most part, I agree, but then there's satire and that distinction falls apart.

ok , but that's definitly will provoke the whole americans , and maybe he/she would face big problems (insulting ) in the street or in job ...etc

honesly as i see most of west leave the christianity ,that's why they don't care about offending religions .

Speech has social repercussions, of course. But we weren't discussing interpersonal dynamics, we were debating the law.

Christianity is not the only religion in the West. Personally, I think it's more that we value freedom of conscience (speech is only an extension) more than anything else.

can you reexplain this ?

Yeah, sorry. I meant it wouldn't be unheard of for public officials to exploit an irrelevant law to suppress a protest they didn't want. However, when caught, they'd be in trouble for violating Constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

for my information, KKK is group racist against the jews and black...?
i am realy don't know , why the US permit to them .
why ? there is not a law prohibit the racism in US ? is calls for racism is considerate a freedom of speech ?!!!

Yes, the KKK is a white supremacist group, and no we do not have laws prohibiting racism or any other opinion. The legal reason for this is that when you prohibit any opinion, you've killed free speech. Either everyone can speak their mind or nobody can.

btw
we have recently world world books festival in Algeries , the goverment ban about 300 title (book) , because they supporting the terrorism or racism .

Algeria bans 300 book titles deemed in praise of terrorism - Books - Ahram Online

Yeah, I honestly think our way is better, both morally and tactically.

Take the example of the KKK - they're totally impotent now. They've been spouting their venom for so long it's become a joke. Every rally gets (larger) counter protests
with no point beyond making them look like the idiots they are. All we had to do was stand back and let them be disgusting, and they neutered themselves.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't understand your objection. You said that ignorance regarding religion didn't exist - I demonstrated that it does. The fact that I was wrong was the entire point.

in the end ,sorry i cant accept any justify for the film , and it's the same to voilence protest.

Yeah, I don't really buy that. The genius behind Qur'an Burning Day wants you to make a movie about Islam, and you think it's NOT going to be a detestable, offensive piece of propaganda? I don't believe her.

OK, let's clear one thing up right now: that video was in no way the Christian view of Muhammad, or the American view. I was a deliberate incitement by one *** hole who happens to live here.

they were christians from egypt and lived in US

this is a vidoe (in arabic unforenly ) she appoligeze to the muslims .
[youtube]hRGqXoqYnsc[/youtube]
‫
and claim that the name actor changed from George to Muhammad !!!! .

the christains leaders and even some jewish leader deny this movie , that's good
we don't blame all the christians (that not fair ) we blame only whom made that movie .

For the most part, I agree, but then there's satire and that distinction falls apart.

that's mean my definition were almost correct ?

Speech has social repercussions, of course. But we weren't discussing interpersonal dynamics, we were debating the law.

Christianity is not the only religion in the West. Personally, I think it's more that we value freedom of conscience (speech is only an extension) more than anything else.

i believe the west is leaving the christianity and become atheist , that's why it's becomes an open space to insult and mock all the religions .



Yeah, sorry. I meant it wouldn't be unheard of for public officials to exploit an irrelevant law to suppress a protest they didn't want. However, when caught, they'd be in trouble for violating Constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

Yes, the KKK is a white supremacist group, and no we do not have laws prohibiting racism or any other opinion. The legal reason for this is that when you prohibit any opinion, you've killed free speech. Either everyone can speak their mind or nobody can.


Yeah, I honestly think our way is better, both morally and tactically.

Take the example of the KKK - they're totally impotent now. They've been spouting their venom for so long it's become a joke. Every rally gets (larger) counter protests
with no point beyond making them look like the idiots they are. All we had to do was stand back and let them be disgusting, and they neutered themselves.

accuatly you suprise me , when you told me that racism is considerate a freedom of speech .
for me it's freedom of spread the hate !!!

for my opinion , if the freedom of speech allow me to insult you , next time we not wound if we found some one said i had a freedom to act , to kill someone

i believe the provoction by speech is just the forward step to reaction physically !!!!
and it's happened in the daily life .

 

[Storm]

in the end ,sorry i cant accept any justify for the film , and it's the same to voilence protest.

I wasn't talking about the film. Actually, I don't remember why you said nobody was ignorant on serious issues, but if I'd thought it was the vid, I wouldn't have objected.

The video was, imo, deliberate incitement to violence which may justify a civil suit.

they were christians from egypt and lived in US

So? Do you really think that vitriolic bile is typical of Christians or Americans? I can point to plenty of individual Muslims chanting "Death to America." Does that make it fair for me to hold YOU accountable?

this is a vidoe (in arabic unforenly ) she appoligeze to the muslims .

and claim that the name actor changed from George to Muhammad !!!! .

Eh, I still don't buy it. Doesn't really matter, though. Let's drop it.

the christains leaders and even some jewish leader deny this movie , that's good
we don't blame all the christians (that not fair ) we blame only whom made that movie .

Oh, ok. That's all I was saying.

that's mean my definition were almost correct ?

Pretty close to my understanding, though.

i believe the west is leaving the christianity and become atheist , that's why it's becomes an open space to insult and mock all the religions .

You're entitled, but as someone who lives here, I disagree.

accuatly you suprise me , when you told me that racism is considerate a freedom of speech .
for me it's freedom of spread the hate !!!

for my opinion , if the freedom of speech allow me to insult you , next time we not wound if we found some one said i had a freedom to act , to kill someone

i believe the provoction by speech is just the forward step to reaction physically !!!!
and it's happened in the daily life .

Yes, I know. It's not allowed because it's approved or popular - it's allowed precisely because it's not.

We have radically different cultural paradigms at work, here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

sorry for my bad english .

No need to apologize. I am glad to see you coming here to engage in dialogue with English speakers. It's great language practice, and both sides can learn about the other culture.

 

[Godobeyer]

I wasn't talking about the film. Actually, I don't remember why you said nobody was ignorant on serious issues, but if I'd thought it was the vid, I wouldn't have objected.

The video was, imo, deliberate incitement to violence which may justify a civil suit.

i said there is not justification for this serieus issues , even if they ignore it .

So? Do you really think that vitriolic bile is typical of Christians or Americans? I can point to plenty of individual Muslims chanting "Death to America." Does that make it fair for me to hold YOU accountable?

chanting in voilence protest is also individual done unforuntly by some barbarians muslims , both are not acceptable ,even it's just speech .

Eh, I still don't buy it. Doesn't really matter, though. Let's drop it.

hey it's bought already , it's not for you

Oh, ok. That's all I was saying.


Pretty close to my understanding, though.

good

You're entitled, but as someone who lives here, I disagree.

you mean most american are christians not atheist ?

then whom make the laws in US the christains or atheists ?

Yes, I know. It's not allowed because it's approved or popular - it's allowed precisely because it's not.

We have radically different cultural paradigms at work, here.

sorry , i did not understand your reply

 

[Godobeyer]

No need to apologize. I am glad to see you coming here to engage in dialogue with English speakers. It's great language practice, and both sides can learn about the other culture.

accuatly i am french teacher , i love english so much , i take the habit to listen to american movie without refering to the subtitle , i understand almost 90% of the dailogues

 

[Storm]

you mean most american are christians not atheist ?

So says the census. I also have to point out that there are many, many other worldviews.

then whom make the laws in US the christains or atheists ?

According to our Constitution, that consideration is completely, illegally irrelevant. That's what secularism means.

sorry , i did not understand your reply

It means - and this is in no way a criticism or insult - that you do not understand the underlying principles of the American right to freedom of speech. You don't (yet!) because it's a radically different mindset than the one you were raised to take for granted.

May I illustrate by way of a story?

 

[Storm]

Oh, and don't be ashamed of your English. I don't even know the Arabic alphabet, so you're WAY ahead of me!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

accuatly i am french teacher...

Because you're Algerian? Do Algerians still need French?

Anyway, you're saying that (Algerian) Arabic is your native language and you teach French? I ask because I have an interest in the specific ways in which other languages interfere with English.

... i love english so much , i take the habit to listen to american movie without refering to the subtitle , i understand almost 90% of the dailogues

That's a great way to do it. But as a language teacher, you know that oral language and written language are substantially different things. Do you read much modern American English?

 

[otokage007]

I think the hatred levels of americans towards muslims, still didn't reach those of muslims towards americans.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the hatred levels of americans towards muslims, still didn't reach those of muslims towards americans.

Can't really blame them; American media, military, and too many people make a habit of bullying them on a regular basis, in addition to the countless deaths of Muslim civilians at the hands of our armies while in Iraq, while the last successful attack on American soil was 11 years ago.

 

[darkendless]

Can't really blame them; American media, military, and too many people make a habit of bullying them on a regular basis, in addition to the countless deaths of Muslim civilians at the hands of our armies while in Iraq, while the last successful attack on American soil was 11 years ago.

To be frank I think even if America left the middle east having made things significantly better, the muslims (as a general people) world would still look for excuses to hate America and consequently every other white western country on the planet.

 

[Riverwolf]

To be frank I think even if America left the middle east having made things significantly better, the muslims (as a general people) world would still look for excuses to hate America and consequently every other white western country on the planet.

Well, attempting to destroy a thousand years of a culture in favor of someone forcing their own ideas on them will do that.

 

[Godobeyer]

Because you're Algerian? Do Algerians still need French?

Anyway, you're saying that (Algerian) Arabic is your native language and you teach French? I ask because I have an interest in the specific ways in which other languages interfere with English.

in Algeria we spoke in general arabic , our arabic mixed with french words , but in some region especialy in the some states in the north they spoke in majority french .

in all the schools we teach english and french , and arabic of course , and sometimes spench

That's a great way to do it. But as a language teacher, you know that oral language and written language are substantially different things. Do you read much modern American English?

that's right , i did not read , i watch american movies , american language is different accent and sentences than english .

 

[Godobeyer]

So says the census. I also have to point out that there are many, many other worldviews.


According to our Constitution, that consideration is completely, illegally irrelevant. That's what secularism means.


It means - and this is in no way a criticism or insult - that you do not understand the underlying principles of the American right to freedom of speech. You don't (yet!) because it's a radically different mindset than the one you were raised to take for granted.

that's why i asked you , i have no idea how the limite of the freedom of speech in US .

May I illustrate by way of a story?

of course tell me the story

 

[Storm]

that's why i asked you , i have no idea how the limite of the freedom of speech in US .

It's really only illegal if you're going to get someone hurt. Inciting to riot, death threats, etc.. Slander is a little murkier, but to get damages for that, you have to show that the guilty party was deliberately lying.

As for political opinion, there is zero regulation. I could, in fact, proclaim my (hypothetical for the sake of example) support and adoration for Osama bin Laden from the rooftops without legal reprisal. I can burn a flag or a Bible, call the President an incompetent immoral buffoon, or express any other unpopular sentiment I like.

of course tell me the story

My dad works at a historical archive devoted to the Viet Nam conflict, and as such, has a great deal of experience with Vietnamese nationals. There was one lady, name of Nguyen, who wanted to get a driver's license after living here for a few years, so the professor she lived with took her down to get tested.

She passed the written with a perfect score, then went out to take the practical test. The trooper flunked her, and the professor asked why. It seems that when they came to a one way street necessitating a left turn, he told her to turn right, and she did.

The professor gave him a lecture about authoritarianism in Viet Nam, and asked him to test her again, fairly. To their credit, they did. When they came to the one way, instead of telling her to turn right, he asked if she could, and she said "no, there's a great big sign saying one way." She knew perfectly well that the order to turn right was illegal and dangerous, but her cultural paradigm dictated that when the authority figure gives you an order to break the law, you break the law without question.

Free speech is a similar case of alien mindsets. You're horrified at the idea that racism is legal here. I'm equally horrified by the idea of the government legislating the validity of my opinions!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

in Algeria we spoke in general arabic , our arabic mixed with french words , but in some region especialy in the some states in the north they spoke in majority french .

Ah, I didn't know there were places where French is the majority language. Is that the case in Algiers?

that's right , i did not read , i watch american movies , american language is different accent and sentences than english.

You said you could understand about 90% of the dialogue in an American movie. Well guess what? That's about all I can understand, too, and I've lived in America all my life. But I watch them on TV, with TV speakers, so maybe I would understand more if I were in a theater. The actors seem to take great pride in mumbling and stuttering, and some directors love to use local idioms.

As for British English, I can only understand maybe 75% of most movies. If there are Irish people, my percentage goes down even further.

But I might understand 99.9% of American movies and 95% of British movies if there were subtitles. That's because written language is easier to follow than the spoken word, I think.

 

[Storm]

I'd say I rely on English subtitles about 80% of the time. Even in a quiet film with clear dialogue, there will be at least 7 incidents where I just can't make it out by ear.