I have issues with Islam

[FunctionalAtheist]

There are some things that should be held sacred. 1.6 billion Muslims loving their prophet who did not lie or claim to be God or performed magic tricks to deceive them is worthy of our respect.
You should applaud the Muslims who do not want their prophet to be disrespected. They do not want their prophet to be represented like Jesus by a wooden cross or a cartoonish character or a victim of the Jews or an incoherent delusional Jewish carpenter who had messianic aspirations or one who even questioned God in his final hour.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Insulting the prophet is an attack on 1.6 billion Muslims who love their prophet. There is no justification for this type of religious intolerance, malicious indifference and insensitivity.
It was prophesied Jesus would be despised and mocked. But no such thing was said about the prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Muslims have the right to defend their prophet and for not wanting the prophet to be compared to Jesus or mocked like Jesus. The bible supports their position as does Islam.

Isaiah 53:3. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's silly beliefs, and I my right to express my opinion should be respected.

You call my belief, or my expression of my belief, intolerant. WHAT A JOKE! When you justify killing someone for having/expressing an opinion, and call that person intolerant. How ridiculous! It is the muslim attitude that opinion must not be tolerated that is intolerant. This type of belief is worthy of mockery and ridicule. It is wrong and should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

 

[Chev Chelios]

I think wat CH was doing was in poor taste. I think it was hateful.

."

Please do explain this statement. I would sincerely like you to articulate what you found hateful. In coming to this decision and passing such judgement I do hope you are well versed in this publication's ethos, why they posted these pictures and are well acquainted with the pictures they have posted of Jesus et al.

Hateful my eye. You have missed the entire point if you think as such. This was not personal - it was far far bigger than that.

I do fear that one day you will have wished you'd taken a different stance on this issue - when you could have made a difference.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't disagree with the majority of this; except in this way; I will say right now that CH may (I'm have not looked at all the cartoons) have been deliberately insulting, upsetting, and goading muslims.

How does this mean I support the so called consequences? No. Do millions of muslims that are upset at what CH has been doing support the actions? No. Do they no longer have a right to say they condemn the cartoons because some will think they support the murders? No.

I think wat CH was doing was in poor taste. I think it was hateful.

I believe that the murders have done more to legitimize the cartoons than anything else could possibly have done. I think the murders take something that was 'offensive' and squarely places it in the realm of 'get over it.'

Before the murders I could look at CH and say to myself "Why don't these guys shutup?"
Now I look at the hate of CH, and I say to myself "It's not so bad. I can live with that."

Good Post........
Can't knock it.....
I think that you have got the situation about right.... sadly.
I'm hoping that France may one day rethink its ideas about what reasonable free expression is all about, but I won't be holding my breath.
The French are very different from us, imo....

 

[oldbadger]

1. No. You are lying. The pictures of Muhammad which Charlie Hebdo published would NOT be illegal here because we do not live under the Sharia and so do not recognise Islamic blasphemy laws - just like Charlie Hebdo didn't. So please don't lie. Lying makes an absolute mockery of this most serious of debates.

2. No. I did not call ALL Moslems savages. I clearly referred to those that killed these brave journalists in order to curtail free speech. Not once did I specifically refer to Moslems and not once did I say all Moslems. STOP LYING.

3. Wow! Charlie Hebdo have drawn absolutely astonishing pictures of Jesus - arguably far more offensive than those of Muhammad. What on Earth are you talking about? In-fact - you clearly do not know what you are talking about. As I said before - you are out of your depth on this.

4. What was hateful about that paragraph - I mean, you said it was but you didn't say what it was - just as you call me prejudice but, when asked, could't say why I was.

5. It should be obvious where I live as I have pointed it out to you enough. As for a religion - I follow none.

You referred to Muslims as Savages...... :-
This had absolutely nothing to do with premeditated offence, the story was already out there and they did what journalists do - report on it - if they didn't they would be cedeing territory to these savages

All rubbish.....
Any harassment of or discrimination against:- any nationality, race, creed, religion, skin-colour, disability, gender, sexual orientation is illegal, unlawful and in most cases a criminal-offence in the United Kingdom.

Off you go and find the legislation........ lots of it.
Not your best day for posting, was it?

 

[oldbadger]

.............................

The justification for this free speech is to bring to light the adherence to an incomprehensible ideology. If muslims could converse rationally, then rational discourse might suffice. But since mocking is the only thing that causes a muslim to question, it must be used.

Hello again......
The above was part of your post to another member.....
You already know that I feel disgusted with the terrorist conspiracies to mass murder that happened this week and many times before, around the World.

We have got very strict laws in the UK about Harassment and discrimination, BUT....... but anybody can speak out or write to question, debate against, highlight, expose mostly anything, any-person or any establishment.

But deliberate and continued harassment of any group is unacceptable. So.......... let me ask you, is there anything that could be shown or written in the media that you would find harassing, and therefore illegal? Obviously you might live in a country where anything goes, but let's say you live in the UK..... ok?

 

[Harikrish]

That is why free will is dangerous for Christians to exercise. They are better of following their Christian doctrines even though the Jews who crafted the idea finally rejected it in the face of their would be messiah Jesus whom they tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy. Christianity is a sort of a hand me down religion. Safe because some of it has been tested by the Jews. Not so safe anymore because Christians like you are going full throttle regardless of its illogical conclusions.
God becomes man, man tries to save Jews, Jews kill Him/God. God then promised to return.. Jews still waiting for messiah to return. 2 billion waiting for God to return. God and Jesus are the same, they are one.. But the Jews are it convinced. They know what they killed was not a God. He was a carpenter. How 2000 years has blurred the difference.

 

[Harikrish]

I respectfully disagree. I think it's silly beliefs, and I my right to express my opinion should be respected.

You call my belief, or my expression of my belief, intolerant. WHAT A JOKE! When you justify killing someone for having/expressing an opinion, and call that person intolerant. How ridiculous! It is the muslim attitude that opinion must not be tolerated that is intolerant. This type of belief is worthy of mockery and ridicule. It is wrong and should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

You ask that your right to express your opinion should be respected. And yet you deny the right of 1.6 billion Muslims to be respected. Don't you realize insulting their prophet is showing disrespect to what 1.6 billion Muslims hold sacred. It is not like you are making fun of their beard, you are going beyond what should be ethically,socially and morally acceptable.
There is a place for liberal thinking. But just like shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a crime and has consequences. Hate speech is also a crime when it discriminates. Attacking ones religion is discrimination and therefore basically hate speech in disguise and must be stopped.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You ask that your right to express your opinion should be respected. And yet you deny the right of 1.6 billion Muslims to be respected. Don't you realize insulting their prophet is showing disrespect to what 1.6 billion Muslims hold sacred. It is not like you are making fun of their beard, you are going beyond what should be ethically,socially and morally acceptable.
There is a place for liberal thinking. But just like shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a crime and has consequences. Hate speech is also a crime when it discriminates. Attacking ones religion is discrimination and therefore basically hate speech in disguise and must be stopped.

Very pale in in the face of murder! Don't you think? What should be acceptable?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

But just like shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a crime and has consequences. Hate speech is also a crime when it discriminates. Attacking ones religion is discrimination and therefore basically hate speech in disguise and must be stopped.

Criticizing anything is NOT discrimination. Would you like to discuss this point?

 

[Chev Chelios]

You referred to Muslims as Savages...... :-
This had absolutely nothing to do with premeditated offence, the story was already out there and they did what journalists do - report on it - if they didn't they would be cedeing territory to these savages

All rubbish.....
Any harassment of or discrimination against:- any nationality, race, creed, religion, skin-colour, disability, gender, sexual orientation is illegal, unlawful and in most cases a criminal-offence in the United Kingdom.

Off you go and find the legislation........ lots of it.
Not your best day for posting, was it?

I do not need to go off looking for legislation which pertains to discrimination and harrassment - because what Charlie Hebdo did cannot in anyway be equated with that! Quite how criticism and satire can be dressed up as discrimination is laughable and in not being able to distinguish between these constructs further underlines that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

See, discrimination refers to prejudicial treatment but this cannot be aimed at Charlie Hebdo (for example) because they satirise EVERY religion. They do not discriminate by focussing on one faith and in-fact, Christianity has come in for as much if not more ridicule by them - you are ignoring these facts to fit your argument but in doing so you look ever so foolish. I stand by what I said - Charlie Hebdos cartoons would be perfectly legal here because lampooning a faith falls well within legal boundaries otherwise how would you explain all the contemptous things the Christians put up with, such as this Christmas's private eye front page that takes the mick out of the nativity?

This fact is deeply inconvenient for your argument in trying to show that Islam is being unfairly targetted and indeed, I have repeatedly asked you to prove how the media are bullying Islam, when in terms of ridicule or fair criticism Islam actually gets off lightly, but all you did in response was say I am hateful. You seem adept at the smear and intolerance to a persons view but not so well versed in reason, debate and supporting your argument.

Further more - I ask you yet AGAIN - please show me where I called Moslems savages - I called the murderous zealots who slaughtered these unfortunate cartoonists as savages and I stand by that. Labelling these actions as savagery is accurate and is nothing like calling them savages based on their faith so stop lying and conflating things in order to make false allegations and start injecting some ethics in to your approach as it is you who is coming off as nasty and more than a bit smug. You have nothing to be smug about I assure you.

 

[Chev Chelios]

Criticizing anything is NOT discrimination. Would you like to discuss this point?

I absolutely agree - fair satirisation and commentary of a religion is NOT discrimination, it is astonishing that people are even trying to peddle such an idea.

In any case - I asked you a question a few posts back regarding why you said that what Charlie Hebdo did was hateful - I completely disagre, and so I would like an answer to this fair question please.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not need to go off looking for legislation which pertains to discrimination and harrassment - because what Charlie Hebdo did cannot in anyway be equated with that!

..... This is ignorance... ^^^ Thank God that you're not an English Judge.

See, discrimination refers to prejudicial treatment but this cannot be aimed at Charlie Hebdo (for example) because they satirise EVERY religion.

More ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about.
Go and read up on our English discrimination and Harassment laws. Educate yourself.

Further more - I ask you yet AGAIN - please show me where I called Moslems savages - I called the murderous zealots who slaughtered these unfortunate cartoonists as savages and I stand by that.

QED....... However, could I invite you to write clearly, for all to see, that 6 Million Muslims in France are completely innocent of any terrorist acts carried out in Paris this week...... will you do that, please?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I absolutely agree - fair satirisation and commentary of a religion is NOT discrimination, it is astonishing that people are even trying to peddle such an idea.

In any case - I asked you a question a few posts back regarding why you said that what Charlie Hebdo did was hateful - I completely disagre, and so I would like an answer to this fair question please.

hate·ful
ˈhātfəl/
adjective
[*]arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.
"hateful letters of abuse that had come unsigned"
[*]informal
very unpleasant.
"I don't have to stay in this hateful place"
synonyms: detestable, horrible, horrid, unpleasant, awful, nasty, disagreeable, despicable, objectionable, insufferable, revolting, loathsome, abhorrent, abominable, execrable, odious, disgusting, distasteful, obnoxious, offensive, vile, heinous, ghastly, beastly;
informalgodawful
"his hateful letters were presented as evidence"

CH cartoons arouse hatred, that makes them hateful. Evidence in point, the murders.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

[*]Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".

The usual way to treat people is to practice free speech. This includes satire, even in poor taste, even when hateful. Look at american politicians and tell me anything CH said or did went beyond what millions of americans say against their own president.

The usual way to treat people that mock you; mock them back, try to engage them in rational conversation, ignore them, get angry and prove them right with your actions.

Murder is NOT one of the usual reactions to satire.

 

[Harikrish]

The magazine incited Muslims to respond by insulting their prophet. Muslims have drawn a line in the sand to let the world know it is not acceptable to them to allow their prophet to be ridiculed.
There is a long record of their protests. Not too long ago a video depicting the prophet inappropriately resulted in mass protests across several Islamic countries and American embassies were attacked.
Not only was the magazine wrong to incite and spread hate speech by mocking the prophet. They now want the world to defend their foolishness.
You can legislate all the rights you want. But when you step on the faith and beliefs of people so unnecessarily in the name of freedom. That freedom is not justified and it just makes a mockery of the legal system.
The truth is, there would not have been such a violent reaction if the magazine chose to mock someone less loved and respected. Jesus stumbling on the cross, his crown of thorns and Roman soldiers slapping and whipping him have provided entertainment and Hollywood box office hits. In a morbid way to see a would be God tortured and ridiculed and put to death for being a false prophet satisfies the deep disappointment the people of his time experienced.
But we live in a different time. And have learnt not to temper people's faith and beliefs. The French are not known for taking strong positions. Their fight for their rights and country against Germany was not very successful. The Beginning of World War II, 1939 ... It took only six weeks for France to capitulate to the German forces. Je Suis Charlie might be all they have against 1.6 billion Muslims they have just pissed off.

 

[Chev Chelios]

..... This is ignorance... ^^^ Thank God that you're not an English Judge.


More ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about.
Go and read up on our English discrimination and Harassment laws. Educate yourself.


QED....... However, could I invite you to write clearly, for all to see, that 6 Million Muslims in France are completely innocent of any terrorist acts carried out in Paris this week...... will you do that, please?

You are a **** poor debater, rather boring in-fact - you have dodged every point I have made. Regardless, to keep this short and sweet - if ridicule of a religion is ceritifiably illegal under British law as you clearly claim - then how the hell did Private eye get away with ridiculing Christianity just 2 weeks ago on its front cover - just for an example? Hell, how did Life of Brian ever get made? Square that with your claims pal. Oh - maybe it is because critique of belief systems is allowed perhaps? And so is examination of Islam - Islam must be subjected to the same forensic examination all faiths, ideas and values absolutely must be - otherwise we open the door to tyranny. In any case, too much time has been wasted on your demented and utterly purile point of view. Congratulations on giving a full endorsement to the ushering in of a new, pre-enlightened, dark age. Well done you.

And for everyone else - this man claims that satirical commentary on a religion is equal to discrimination and harassment - anyone else agree with this loon?

 

[Chev Chelios]

hate·ful
ˈhātfəl/
adjective
[*]arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.
"hateful letters of abuse that had come unsigned"
[*]informal
very unpleasant.
"I don't have to stay in this hateful place"
synonyms: detestable, horrible, horrid, unpleasant, awful, nasty, disagreeable, despicable, objectionable, insufferable, revolting, loathsome, abhorrent, abominable, execrable, odious, disgusting, distasteful, obnoxious, offensive, vile, heinous, ghastly, beastly;
informalgodawful
"his hateful letters were presented as evidence"

CH cartoons arouse hatred, that makes them hateful. Evidence in point, the murders.

What babble. So, let's get this straight - if a benign action evokes a hateful response then said primary act has to be responsible for the secondary outcome of hatred which came as a reaction? What on Earth did you just say again because I do not believe my eyes or ears. Sorry, but you simply cannot excuse (or make excuses for) the murderous acts of the terrorists because they saw cartoons they didn't like and so spontaneously decided that they felt hatred towards the cartoonists, which in your world means that by default - what Charlie Ebdo cartoonists did was hateful - all because they illicited a hateful response. Are you serious - is that your argument?

Erm - So does a girl with a short skirt deserve to be raped because she evoked sexual excitement in a randy male then??? I do hope you said no! But that is your argument, one that completely ignores accountability, self restraint of emotions and responsibiliity for ones actions! We can decide how we react you know. We can not like something - fair enough, but I stop at accepting the condemnation of an act as hateful because people decided that they didn't like it. What lunacy.

Charlie Ebdo didn't do anything hateful - they were making a point, that a belief system does not get to tell us what our society can or cannot be by arbitrating what we can and can't see or can and can't say. By legitimising such acts by way of labelling them 'hateful' you are completely missing the unhateful, unbiased, non-specific homogenous point that they were making - you therefore are essentially saying that we should be dragged back in time to days before the enlightenment where somethings cannot be discussed - well thanks but no thanks.

If you'd like to have another shot at actually explaining why you think what Charlie Ebdo did was hateful, rather than copy and paste definitions of the word hateful - I am truly all ears.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What babble. So, let's get this straight - if a benign action evokes a hateful response then said primary act has to be responsible for the secondary outcome of hatred which came as a reaction? What on Earth did you just say again because I do not believe my eyes or ears. Sorry, but you simply cannot excuse (or make excuses for) the murderous acts of the terrorists because they saw cartoons they didn't like and so spontaneously decided that they felt hatred towards the cartoonists, which in your world means that by default - what Charlie Ebdo cartoonists did was hateful - all because they illicited a hateful response. Are you serious - is that your argument?

Erm - So does a girl with a short skirt deserve to be raped because she evoked sexual excitement in a randy male then??? I do hope you said no! But that is your argument, one that completely ignores accountability, self restraint of emotions and responsibiliity for ones actions! We can decide how we react you know. We can not like something - fair enough, but I stop at accepting the condemnation of an act as hateful because people decided that they didn't like it. What lunacy.

Charlie Ebdo didn't do anything hateful - they were making a point, that a belief system does not get to tell us what our society can or cannot be by arbitrating what we can and can't see or can and can't say. By legitimising such acts by way of labelling them 'hateful' you are completely missing the unhateful, unbiased, non-specific homogenous point that they were making - you therefore are essentially saying that we should be dragged back in time to days before the enlightenment where somethings cannot be discussed - well thanks but no thanks.

If you'd like to have another shot at actually explaining why you think what Charlie Ebdo did was hateful, rather than copy and paste definitions of the word hateful - I am truly all ears.

I provided you a definition of hateful that includes "arousing hatred"

You say benign. I ask you to reevalute. The cartoons were satire, which you can look up for yourself. Ridicule IS NOT benign. It is intended to offend. How is something intended to offend benign? I'm asking you a fair question. And I answered yours.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The magazine incited Muslims to respond by insulting their prophet. Muslims have drawn a line in the sand to let the world know it is not acceptable to them to allow their prophet to be ridiculed.

1) this is exactly why they are worthy of ridicule. 2) I note that you have no problem identifying ALL muslims with this line in the sand; how ignorant of you. Many muslims are ashamed to have these coward murderers associated with their faith.

There is a long record of their protests. Not too long ago a video depicting the prophet inappropriately resulted in mass protests across several Islamic countries

A very appropriate response. I support it.

and American embassies were attacked.

Idiots that should be educated.

Not only was the magazine wrong to incite and spread hate speech by mocking the prophet. They now want the world to defend their foolishness.

I support them 100%. It's very sad that there are those that support murder in the name of god. Hypocrite!

You can legislate all the rights you want. But when you step on the faith and beliefs of people so unnecessarily in the name of freedom. That freedom is not justified and it just makes a mockery of the legal system.
The truth is, there would not have been such a violent reaction if the magazine chose to mock someone less loved and respected. Jesus stumbling on the cross, his crown of thorns and Roman soldiers slapping and whipping him have provided entertainment and Hollywood box office hits. In a morbid way to see a would be God tortured and ridiculed and put to death for being a false prophet satisfies the deep disappointment the people of his time experienced.

Mohumad the the false prophet being ridiculed satisfied the despair so many feel knowing how many brainwashed slaves worship the false prophet.

But we live in a different time. And have learnt not to temper people's faith and beliefs. The French are not known for taking strong positions. Their fight for their rights and country against Germany was not very successful. The Beginning of World War II, 1939 ... It took only six weeks for France to capitulate to the German forces. Je Suis Charlie might be all they have against 1.6 billion Muslims they have just pissed off.

 

[Looncall]

The magazine incited Muslims to respond by insulting their prophet. Muslims have drawn a line in the sand to let the world know it is not acceptable to them to allow their prophet to be ridiculed.
There is a long record of their protests. Not too long ago a video depicting the prophet inappropriately resulted in mass protests across several Islamic countries and American embassies were attacked.
Not only was the magazine wrong to incite and spread hate speech by mocking the prophet. They now want the world to defend their foolishness.
You can legislate all the rights you want. But when you step on the faith and beliefs of people so unnecessarily in the name of freedom. That freedom is not justified and it just makes a mockery of the legal system.
The truth is, there would not have been such a violent reaction if the magazine chose to mock someone less loved and respected. Jesus stumbling on the cross, his crown of thorns and Roman soldiers slapping and whipping him have provided entertainment and Hollywood box office hits. In a morbid way to see a would be God tortured and ridiculed and put to death for being a false prophet satisfies the deep disappointment the people of his time experienced.
But we live in a different time. And have learnt not to temper people's faith and beliefs. The French are not known for taking strong positions. Their fight for their rights and country against Germany was not very successful. The Beginning of World War II, 1939 ... It took only six weeks for France to capitulate to the German forces. Je Suis Charlie might be all they have against 1.6 billion Muslims they have just pissed off.

Muslims need to grow up and realise that their superstitious taboos do not apply to others. Non-muslims are under no obligation to respect anything muslim. Mockery is a rather gentle way of pointing that out.