Facebook ban

[The Witch]

LAHORE, P***stan — P***stan lifted a ban on Facebook on Monday after officials from the social networking site apologized for a page deemed offensive to M***ims and removed its contents, a top information technology official said.

The move came almost two weeks after P***stan imposed the ban amid anger over a page that encouraged users to post images of I**am's P**phet M***mmad. Many M***ims regard depictions of the prophet, even favorable ones, as blasphemous.

"In response to our protest, Facebook has tendered their apology and informed us that all the sacrilegious material has been removed from the URL," said Najibullah Malik, secretary of P***stan's information technology ministry, referring to the technical term for a Web page.

Facebook assured the P***stani government that "nothing of this sort will happen in the future," Malik said.

Officials from the website could not immediately be reached for comment. They said earlier the contents of the "Everybody Draw M***mmed Day!" page did not violate Facebook's terms.

The page encouraged users to post images of the prophet to protest threats made by a radical Muslim group against the creators of the American TV series "South Park" for depicting M***mmad in a bear suit during an episode earlier this year.

P***stan blocked Facebook on May 19 following a ruling by one of the country's highest courts. The Lahore High Court reversed its ruling Monday because of Facebook's response, Malik said.

As of midday, access to Facebook inside ****stan was still restricted. But Malik said the government has issued instructions for Internet service providers to restore access to the website.

Users outside the country confirmed the page that sparked the recent uproar was no longer accessible.

The government will continue to block some Web pages that contain "sacrilegious material," but Malik declined to specify which ones.

The Facebook controversy sparked a handful of protests across P***stan, many by student members of radical I***mic groups. Some of the protesters carried signs advocating holy war against the website for allowing the page.

B***ladesh also decided to block Facebook on Sunday but said it would restore access to the site if the offensive material was removed.

It is not the first time that images of the prophet have sparked anger. P***stan and other ****** countries saw large and sometimes violent protests in 2006 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of ********, and again in 2008 when they were reprinted. Later the same year, a suspected ******* suicide bomber attacked the Danish Embassy in I***mabad, killing six people.

Anger over the Facebook controversy also prompted the ****** government to block access to YouTube briefly, saying there was growing sacrilegious content on the video sharing website. The government restored access to YouTube last week but said it would continue to block videos offensive to *********** that are posted on the site.

-Source-

 

[der Astronom]

Ja, I don't think we should have to bend over backwards just because people are violent and willing to kill other people over their religion. We're just giving in to what they want. What's next, they'll beat us up if women in the West won't cover themselves? It was fine the way it was before; don't like it, don't look at it. But I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other places to host your stuff, where you can freely criticize and express yourself.

 

[CassinoChips]

FB right now is taking away people's rights of freedom of speech. I hope that the creator of that page sues the hell out FB.

That's not how freedom of speech works.

The only thing freedom of speech protects citizens from is the government prosecuting someone's speech (outside of certain circumstances). A private company has the right to "censor" whatever it feels is necessary for the betterment of its product/work environment/what have you.

Facebook is a company owned by Mark Zuckerberg. People use Facebook at his discretion and with his permission. He is completely in his rights to take down pages on his product that are deemed to be detrimental to revenue.

 

[der Astronom]

If all else fails, you can use Newgrounds. I think you can go there and create a "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day Collab". If YAAFM can host their toons on Muslims (in which they did a depiction of Mohammed) on Newgrounds, I can't see why you couldn't make such a collab.

EDIT: In fact, something like it has already happened:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1162670

And on a website like Newgrounds, you see all sorts of things flying out of it. I'd say websites like it are very difficult to silence because they'll say and do just about anything and everything.

 

[Harlequin]

Many Muslims regard depictions of the prophet, even favorable ones, as blasphemous...

..."Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"...

...The page encouraged users to post images of the prophet to protest threats made by a radical Muslim group

Sounds to me this group isn't making a protest so much as deliberately trying to offend muslims.

If you want to protest against the violence and threats, fair enough. This group just sounds like it's out to cause a stir for the sake of it.

I believe muslims have the right to be offended at the blatantly gratuitous depiction of their prophet but have no right to attack those who do so. The two are a world apart, sadly and rather clumsily the creators of the group and Facebook hadn't realised the difference at the time.

...Some of the protesters carried signs advocating holy war against the website for allowing the page.

There's the problem. The group may have believed they were protesting over the violent threats being issued but the nature of the protest suggested they were encouraging mass ridicule of a religion.
This is a growing trend and one that is sickeningly gratuitous in it's nature.

 

[der Astronom]

A religion that encourages violence, murder, and inequality, and teaches people to throw tantrums if their god is being depicted by heathens deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[CassinoChips]

A religion that encourages violence, murder,

and inequality,

and teaches people to throw tantrums if their god is being depicted by heathens deserves to be ridiculed.

Point being, Islam in and of itself does not promote these things. Idiots within the religion do. Just like Christianity.

 

[Valvalis]

FB right now is taking away people's rights of freedom of speech. I hope that the creator of that page sues the hell out FB.

I wonder if FB will take down the multiple pages dedicated to saying Jesus is a "hooker loving pimp" and I personally want FB to come and apologize to me for allowing an insulting page towards Christianity.

The apologized to them they better apologize to other offended groups.

This sounds a bit contradictory to me, tbh People should have the right to insult each other freely, and yet Facebook should be apologizing to everyone for presenting pages featuring said insults? Isn't the point in all this that religious intolerance is detrimental to society and should stop, regardless of who's slinging mud at whom?

And, to be fair, universal freedom of speech would mean that people who are offended by something have the right to speak out against it as well. If a bunch of Muslim extremists got together and posted a page featuring cartoons of people dancing around the burning Twin Towers, numerous Americans would be throwing a shit fit and requesting that the page be taken down or blocked immediately. You can't blame people for taking offense at things; it's part of being human, and if everyone liked the same things this world would be very boring.

I wonder if FB will take down the multiple pages dedicated to saying Jesus is a "hooker loving pimp" and I personally want FB to come and apologize to me for allowing an insulting page towards Christianity.

I have to wonder whether these pages were created by angry Muslims vehemently trying to piss Christians off, or merely a group of unaffiliated people who enjoy mocking religions in general for the fun of it. Insulting either way, yes; but the latter, which I suspect is the more likely case, is considerably different than deliberately attacking strict Islamic precepts to cause an outcry, which like Harlequin said sounds like a very suspect reason for the creation of the page mentioned in the article.

 

[der Astronom]

Point being, Islam in and of itself does not promote these things. Idiots within the religion do. Just like Christianity.

Well, that's besides the point. Any religion that promotes things that modern society finds absurd and in violation of human rights deserves to be ridiculed. And anyone who chooses to support such ridiculous ideas deserves to be ridiculed as well. In other words, no one/nothing is sacred enough that they cannot be criticized or ridiculed to make a point.

Isn't the point in all this that religious intolerance is detrimental to society and should stop, regardless of who's slinging mud at whom?

Pointing out flaws in religion that are detrimental to modern society is hardly considered religious intolerance. Even if it were, you can't deny that religious intolerance is in conflict with the detriments that certain religious ideas bring to society--and I say we break that conflict by not allowing religions to interfere with the lives of those who have nothing to do with said religion.

And, to be fair, universal freedom of speech would mean that people who are offended by something have the right to speak out against it as well. If a bunch of Muslim extremists got together and posted a page featuring cartoons of people dancing around the burning Twin Towers, numerous Americans would be throwing a shit fit and requesting that the page be taken down or blocked immediately. You can't blame people for taking offense at things; it's part of being human, and if everyone liked the same things this world would be very boring.

And they have; but some of us who support the depictions of Mohammed as part of free speech aren't in the interest of suppressing Muslims from expressing either their being offended by what we do with their god or their contempt by depicting the Holocaust. But taking offense to something and condemning it are two entirely separate matters; things that offend others do not necessarily need to be condemned; if you condemned each and everything that offended everybody, expression would soon become very limited.

I have to wonder whether these pages were created by angry Muslims vehemently trying to piss Christians off, or merely a group of unaffiliated people who enjoy mocking religions in general for the fun of it. Insulting either way, yes; but the latter, which I suspect is the more likely case, is considerably different than deliberately attacking strict Islamic precepts to cause an outcry, which like Harlequin said sounds like a very suspect reason for the creation of the page mentioned in the article.

I doubt it; people draw Mohammed because they object to the violent way in which Muslims deal with the things they don't like, and they advocate religious freedom from religions whose rules don't apply to them (ie, we aren't Muslims, so the whole idea of not being able to depict Mohammed shouldn't apply to us). Maybe there are people whose only intention of drawing Mohammed is to insult Muslims, but not all people who draw Mohammed intend to insult Muslims; I am of the opinion that most people who draw Mohammed are annoyed that rules from a religion that don't apply to them are being imposed on them.

 

[Harlequin]

A religion that encourages violence, murder, and inequality, and teaches people to throw tantrums if their god is being depicted by heathens deserves to be ridiculed.

By who?

Islam doesn't advocate inequality, you just perceive it that way. Muslims are expected to live a certain way based on a certain moral code from the Qu'ran. That means if you're male you're allowed to have several brides and they can be as young as 9 years old (because the prophet Mohammed had a 9 year old wife). As a women you're supposedly compulsed to cover up and so on.

For a male and a female the reward is the same. That is their equality. Both will supposedly reach heaven based on their righteousness in the eyes of the adjudicator.

Religion is a belief. It can't be forced upon someone. The lifestyle maybe, but the belief has to be genuinely accepted by the individual and if the individual accepts that religion and moral code they accept that way of life. If a woman has chosen to be submissive, that's her choice.

Point being, Islam in and of itself does not promote these things. Idiots within the religion do. Just like Christianity.

Although I agree with what you're saying the holy scriptures of the two religions are both open to interpretation, such is the nature of religion. Although I disagree with the zealots who claim 'God hates homosexuals' we can't prove them to be wrong, we can only believe them to be.

Suppose we all die and it turns out there is a God and he does hate homosexuals. They wouldn't be idiots. They'd be rather perceptive.

...people draw Mohammed because they object to the violent way in which Muslims deal with the things they don't like...

..I am of the opinion that most people who draw Mohammed are annoyed that rules from a religion that don't apply to them are being imposed on them.

People draw Mohammed because they don't know the difference between a protest and a cultural/tribalist slur.

If I meet a tribe and they have a holy spring I'm not going to bathe in it because I don't believe the same or because they've threatened me.

People have no respect these days.

 

[der Astronom]

By who?

Islam doesn't advocate inequality, you just perceive it that way. Muslims are expected to live a certain way based on a certain moral code from the Qu'ran. That means if you're male you're allowed to have several brides and they can be as young as 9 years old (because the prophet Mohammed had a 9 year old wife). As a women you're supposedly compulsed to cover up and so on.

No actually, it does. If you take a look at their religion laws, they don't give women very many rights. Women are expected to wear burkas; they can't simply choose what they want to wear like we do. And they preach religious intolerance by condemning and killing those who leave their religion.
And as I said, it doesn't matter if the religion advocates it, or if people support it; if a religion has such ideals, it deserves to be criticized and disrespected. If people support it, they deserve to be ridiculed.

For a male and a female the reward is the same. That is their equality. Both will supposedly reach heaven based on their righteousness in the eyes of the adjudicator.

But they have no equality while they live on Earth. Their dress codes are different, and they have no freedom over it, women have fewer rights over marriage and property, they are allowed to be beaten for perhaps no reason at all, they can be denied education, they can't drive a car, they get punished for being raped, they can be killed, stoned or beaten to death for just about any reason at all, and they aren't allowed out of the house without someone else accompanying them. And this isn't just about their lifestyle, these rules came from the teachings in the Qu'ran.

Religion is a belief. It can't be forced upon someone. The lifestyle maybe, but the belief has to be genuinely accepted by the individual and if the individual accepts that religion and moral code they accept that way of life. If a woman has chosen to be submissive, that's her choice.

Yes actually, it can. It shouldn't, but it can. If you leave Islam, the penalty is death. How is that not forcing beliefs on someone? Everyone who lives in a country governed by Islamic laws is forced into these ridiculous ideas. Everyone who is born into a country that supports these ideas isn't given the chance to decide for themselves if this is what they want to buy into--they are told this is what is, and what will be, and everything else is wrong.
There's a good reason why separation of church and state exists here in America--so that we don't let ridiculous, absurd ideas which have no basis in modern society run our lives and our government.
If a woman chooses not to be submissive and wants to commit apostacy from Islam, she'll be sentenced to death if she lives in the Middle East. If she wants to survive, she has no choice but to stay being a Muslim.

Suppose we all die and it turns out there is a God and he does hate homosexuals. They wouldn't be idiots. They'd be rather perceptive.

No, they'd be right for all the wrong reasons.

People draw Mohammed because they don't know the difference between a protest and a cultural/tribalist slur.

Islam is a religion, not a race. I don't care if you're from the Middle East, the Phillipines or even America. If you're going to go so far as to commit violent acts because someone not sharing your religion depicted your god, you deserve it. If you're going to condemn free speech because someone is depicting your god, you deserve it too. Free speech is a solution to reacting with violence; instead of burning flags, blowing up buses and terrorizing people for the things they say that you don't like, you can express your contempt for something through free speech.

If I meet a tribe and they have a holy spring I'm not going to bathe in it because I don't believe the same or because they've threatened me.

Actually, if they had a holy spring, and they don't want me bathing in it, I wouldn't because they own that plot of land. It's got nothing to do with their religion. If it was a public plot of land where anyone can freely go in it or bathe in it, then I have no qualms about doing it. If it was a plot of land that someone else owned, and that person wanted to use it as a public bath, they would be within their rights; the religious have no rights over it.
How about another complicated problem: what if another religion claimed the same spring was their holy spring?
You see, if you give religion a platform for automatic respect, you end up with problems like the fight over the holy land in Jerusalem and the Crusades; you just can't resolve it if you provide religion with automatic respect; both religions are claiming rights to the same plot of land, and because their request is mutually exclusive, you can't respect one of them without disrespecting the other. It just doesn't work.

People have no respect these days.

Respect must be EARNED. Islam does not incur my respect. Neither do any of its supporters.

 

[Harlequin]

No actually, it does. If you take a look at their religion laws, they don't give women very many rights. Women are expected to wear burkas; they can't simply choose what they want to wear like we do.

You've missed the point I was making. I believe that there is inequality in the moral code of Islam, but that's based solely on my perception that women shouldn't have to abide by their laws (nor males for that matter).

Their equality is based on the absolute paradise they believe to follow this life and that anyone can reach it as long as they live a virtuous life. The equality may not be how you get there but when you get there. I don't believe in that, but philosophically speaking there is an equality there.

Women don't have to be a muslim even if they're born in those countries' theocracies. I'd rather die than be forced to follow a moral code I didn't believe in. However harsh it may seem those women have the same option.

If a woman accepts Islam, she accepts that she is beneath the control of her husband and the strict guidelines of her moral code.

I've spoken to numerous female muslims who have no qualms with that. They'd probably be offended if you told them there was no equality there, because they believe there is.

...if a religion has such ideals, it deserves to be criticized and disrespected. If people support it, they deserve to be ridiculed.

You're speaking in definates which has no place in a conversation based on beliefs. To say something is 'deserving of ridicule' is solely your opinion and I'd agree with you. But you've worded it as if you could back it up with universal evidence and sadly no such evidence exists.

But they have no equality while they live on Earth. Their dress codes are different, and you have no freedom over it, women have fewer rights over marriage and property, and they aren't allowed out of the house without someone else accompanying them.

Again a choice they subscribe to. If I had to live that way I'd rather risk death breaking away from it. As tragic a concept as it my be, they have the same option.

Yes actually, it can. It shouldn't, but it can. If you leave Islam, the penalty is death. How is that not forcing beliefs on someone?

That is still forcing the moral code and lifestyle 'of a muslim' onto someone rather than the belief that it is correct. I was very accurate in my wording.

A muslim is someone who gives into Allah and accepts the prophet Mohammed is his messenger.

You can't force a belief onto someone. The lifestyle yes but the belief can't.

Everyone who lives in a country governed by Islamic laws is forced into these ridiculous ideas. Everyone who is born into a country that supports these ideas isn't given the chance to decide for themselves if this is what they want to buy into--they are told this is what is, and what will be, and everything else is wrong.

Sadly that's more or less how theocracies have worked over the past few millenia. I agree it's an abhorrent infringement on one's free will but what do you suppose we do about it? Depict Mohammed?

A much more PC way of protest would be to invade outright.

...ridiculous, absurd ideas which have no basis in modern society run our lives and our government...

Ridiculous and obsurd in your own estimation.

...If you're going to go so far as to commit violent acts because someone not sharing your religion depicted your god, you deserve it. If you're going to condemn free speech because someone is depicting your god, you deserve it too...

But the nature of the protest isn't against the idea that no one should be threatened, it's that Mohammed should be depicted. Which is ridiculous.

How about another complicated problem: what if another religion claimed the same spring was their holy spring?
You see, if you give religion a platform for automatic respect, you end up with problems like the fight over the holy land in Jerusalem and the Crusades;

The crusades were an embarrasment to human history. The Bible never advocated a retaking of the 'Holy Land'. It's just land.

Men advocated it and said that the Lord sactioned it. Overzealous medieval kings with little or nothing to boost their egos.

Jerusalem belongs to no one. The sand beneath your feet is just sand beneath your feet. If a Bible is burning, it's just paper and ink which is destroyed. The ideals remain, the only way it becomes more than that is when the attitude changes.

Respect must be EARNED.

You believe respect should be earned. I believe respect is granted to everyone until they overstep a mark I set.

Islam does do this. So I don't respect the religion. Doesn't mean I expect everything to gain my respect.

 

[der Astronom]

You've missed the point I was making. I believe that there is inequality in the moral code of Islam, but that's based solely on my perception that women shouldn't have to abide by their laws (nor males for that matter).

Their equality is based on the absolute paradise they believe to follow this life and that anyone can reach it as long as they live a virtuous life. The equality may not be how you get there but when you get there. I don't believe in that, but philosophically speaking there is an equality there.

It doesn't quite matter what they believe; I'm allowed to ridicule something on the basis of my opinions on matters like this because there's no absolute verdict on whether or not their lifestyle or beliefs, or whatever you want to call them are equal or not; I don't quite care if people disagree with me about what I'm ridiculing, as they are or may be allowed to disagree with me. In fact, I mentioned in a similar thread that this is just my mere opinion of it.
Personally, I disagree with their idea of equality because I don't believe in an afterlife, and because I place more value on the life I live here and now than whatever else comes after it--so I do find their inequality absurd, and the whole idea of equality afterwards ridiculous. Being consoled by a later equality does not excuse the inequality that exists now.

Women don't have to be a muslim even if they're born in those countries' theocracies. I'd rather die than be forced to follow a moral code I didn't believe in. However harsh it may seem those women have the same option.

If a woman accepts Islam, she accepts that she is beneath the control of her husband and the strict guidelines of her moral code.

I've spoken to numerous female muslims who have no qualms with that. They'd probably be offended if you told them there was no equality there, because they believe there is.

But that's precisely the problem; most of these female muslims probably don't know what it's like to have freedom. They've never ever been told that they've been allowed to show their face or wear things other than a burka, or be told they can speak to whomever they wish. I don't think they quite understand what freedom really is--they can't choose because they don't know what the other option of freedom is. They've been conditioned to be completely ignorant of what their other options are. If you would rather die and commit apostacy than remain a Muslim it is because you know exactly what freedom is like; you've lived your entire life with it, and if anyone tried to take it away from you, you wouldn't have liked it.
I feel sorry for them because they haven't experienced freedom before, and aren't really in a position to tell whether or not they're going to like it. In fact, they're probably not even allowed to try it.

You're speaking in definates which has no place in a conversation based on beliefs. To say something is 'deserving of ridicule' is solely your opinion and I'd agree with you. But you've worded it as if you could back it up with universal evidence and sadly no such evidence exists.

There are religions that advocate death as a punishment for apostacy. That's considered religious intolerance, and it deserves ridicule. There are religions that have laws to limit people's freedoms and equality (in life, not afterlife), and it deserves ridicule. If you think these things are not brought on by religion, (despite the fact that scriptures and other texts contain such passages) but rather by people who choose to believe these things and say their religion advocates these things, then they are deserving of ridicule. I've already said that this is just my mere opinion, but many people in Western civilizations would agree that hindering people's rights to freedom, or advocating the torturing or killing of others for things that we either don't consider to be a crime or not serious enough for death is objectionable, and anyone or anything that condones it deserves to be criticized or ridiculed. My point is, it doesn't matter if you think religion caused it, or crazy people who managed to get into power supported it; if some ideals that are highly criticized by modern society are clearly stated in some holy text, it's deserving of ridicule, and should be criticized. If anyone supports those ideas, they're deserving of ridicule. If anyone supports those ideas and says he/she does so on the basis of his/her religion, both he/she and his/her religion deserve ridicule, and should be criticized. And truly, there are more than enough muslims who fly planes into buildings, blow up buses, burn flags, and do other horrible things, or would do these horrible things that say they do so in the name of their religion.

Again a choice they subscribe to. If I had to live that way I'd rather risk death breaking away from it. As tragic a concept as it my be, they have the same option.

I say they didn't have a "choice" because they weren't allowed to be informed about what their other choices are. But we can because we have the freedom to try these things.

That is still forcing the moral code and lifestyle 'of a muslim' onto someone rather than the belief that it is correct. I was very accurate in my wording.

A muslim is someone who gives into Allah and accepts the prophet Mohammed is his messenger.

You can't force a belief onto someone. The lifestyle yes but the belief can't.

Actually, you can. I've alluded to it, but it's called childhood indoctrination. It exists even in societies where Christianity is predominant. The whole process involves introducing a religion to children, who are unable to make informed decisions about what they want to believe, and not being honest and telling them that they're not old enough to determine what religion they want to be a part of; when they grow older, they'll have enough knowledge of what other religions are like to decide which one they want to associate themselves with. But to instill in children what is right or wrong according to a religion, and not letting them choose by scolding them if they even suggest not wanting a part of their religion or keeping them ignorant about other religions, is to force them to believe in something they don't want to believe in, or don't know if they'd like to believe it for the rest of their lives. The result is that most of these children end up believing in something that they might not be happy with, and can't realize it because they've been conditioned that way, and some of them can be highly intelligent, and not realize some of the problems with their religion.

Sadly that's more or less how theocracies have worked over the past few millenia. I agree it's an abhorrent infringement on one's free will but what do you suppose we do about it? Depict Mohammed?

A much more PC way of protest would be to invade outright.

Actually, I think not invading a country that burns your flags is a better idea. Because then you'd be stooping to their level just to prove a point, and that makes us no better than them. Instead, we can criticize them with free speech without harming anyone.
I actually don't care if muslims are restricting freedoms and priviledges in their own country--what I object to is if they expect other people who have nothing to do with their country or their religion to abide by their rules. That's the whole point of depicting Mohammed. If you work on the Sabbath day, and eat pork, and you're neither a Christian or a Jew, nobody's going to make a big deal out of it. It's nobody's business what you choose to do on the weekends, and what you choose to eat. It doesn't prevent Christians from not working on arbitrary days or Jews from not eating pork; similarly, it's nobody's business what I choose to draw, and if you don't like it, don't look at it. It's that simple. I'm not stopping you from not drawing Mohammed, and I'm certainly not forcing you to look at drawings of him either. I don't think people would be depicting Mohammed necessarily because they want muslims to share our ideals; on the contrary; we just want them to know that we're not a part of their religion, and don't share their ideals or agree with all of their rules, and that we should be allowed to disagree with them.

Ridiculous and obsurd in your own estimation.

According to most people in the West, slavery, which was upheld in religious texts is considered ridiculous. It pretty much doesn't exist anymore. As is the prohibition of eating pork and not working on arbitrary days. Only some people still believe in that. Wearing a burka because men can't control their lusts when they see a woman's face is also considered absurd by most people in the West. As are a lot of petty punishments, tortures, cruelty and murder described in many holy texts. Worst of all, killing someone just for leaving a religion is not only ridiculous and absurd, but objectionable and abhorrent to many people in the West.
If I were the only person who believed religious ideals that are ridiculous and absurd should be kept separate from the way a country or society runs, then we should see the likes of the kinds of society in the Dark Ages that existed, where separation of church and state did not exist, and where religion dominates society. Instead, we have an America, while not exactly perfect, has separation of church and state, where religious ideas do not determine how we run society.

But the nature of the protest isn't against the idea that no one should be threatened, it's that Mohammed should be depicted. Which is ridiculous.

Well, he should. He should, and people who depict him shouldn't be threatened. We are not saying that Mohammed should be depicted by its believers; we are saying that Mohammed should be depicted by anyone and everyone who wants to, that don't consider themselves muslims.
And if you're going to say that it's just my opinion that I think certain religious ideas are ridiculous, please don't forget that it's your opinion that it's ridiculous to be depicting Mohammed.

The crusades were an embarrasment to human history. The Bible never advocated a retaking of the 'Holy Land'. It's just land.

Men advocated it and said that the Lord sactioned it. Overzealous medieval kings with little or nothing to boost their egos.

Jerusalem belongs to no one. The sand beneath your feet is just sand beneath your feet. If a Bible is burning, it's just paper and ink which is destroyed. The ideals remain, the only way it becomes more than that is when the attitude changes.

Then in that same vein, perhaps that holy spring was never holy; it was just advocated by men to be holy.

But that's not really the point. If you really believe someone when they say their religion tells them they have to believe certain things or live a certain way, and you are trying to respect them for it, don't forget that other people have other religions that tell them to believe different things and live a different way. If they came into conflict where the result is mutually exclusive, you can't keep respect for one person of a religion without disrespecting the other.

You believe respect should be earned. I believe respect is granted to everyone until they overstep a mark I set.

Islam does do this. So I don't respect the religion. Doesn't mean I expect everything to gain my respect.

That actually sounds like the same difference to me; so if you don't respect Islam, why do you bother complaining about people who do the same?

 

[Harlequin]

It doesn't quite matter what they believe; I'm allowed to ridicule something on the basis of my opinions on matters like this because there's no absolute verdict on whether or not their lifestyle or beliefs, or whatever you want to call them are equal or not;

Which is exactly what I've been saying this entire time. The only reason I challenged what you said there was because you hadn't included the 'absolute verdict' part. You used the word 'deserved' which I realised was an opinion but implied you thought it wasn't a belief so much as a fact.

As for ridicule. Yes, you're allowed to ridicule whatever you want. I never contested that.

I just said drawing Mohammed for protest wasn't a protest against the violence, it was a protest against their belief that it's offensive to depict him, which harms no one.

But that's precisely the problem; most of these female muslims probably don't know what it's like to have freedom.

Just to clarify these are females I've gone to school with in London and others from the community. They're fully aware of the freedoms avaliable in a western society. But I know there are those that aren't.

They've never ever been told that they've been allowed to show their face or wear things other than a burka, or be told they can speak to whomever they wish. I don't think they quite understand what freedom really is--they can't choose because they don't know what the other option of freedom is. They've been conditioned to be completely ignorant of what their other options are. If you would rather die and commit apostacy than remain a Muslim it is because you know exactly what freedom is like; you've lived your entire life with it, and if anyone tried to take it away from you, you wouldn't have liked it.
I feel sorry for them because they haven't experienced freedom before, and aren't really in a position to tell whether or not they're going to like it. In fact, they're probably not even allowed to try it.

You're right there are certain cases where the individual doesn't have a choice nor the idea.

There are religions that advocate death as a punishment for apostacy. That's considered religious intolerance, and it deserves ridicule...

It's considered religious intolerance by many religions and maybe to most of today's societies, but that too isn't a universal rule.

My point is, it doesn't matter if you think religion caused it, or crazy people who managed to get into power supported it; if some ideals that are highly criticized by modern society are clearly stated in some holy text, it's deserving of ridicule, and should be criticized. If anyone supports those ideas, they're deserving of ridicule. If anyone supports those ideas and says he/she does so on the basis of his/her religion, both he/she and his/her religion deserve ridicule, and should be criticized.

Criticism is to bring a subject to critical analysis. Therefore I believe everything is 'deserving' of criticism.

There are certain extreme texts in certain religions, but most are rectified throughout the passage of the holy sciptures.

For example, many principles in the Old Testament (which is the Torah) are the foundations for Christianity. The difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, which means that many old principles where abolished in the New Testament. Principles such as slavery and multiple wives.

Islam doesn't have such a transition. What is written in there is very literal in it's depiction. Things such as violence towards non muslims and the oppression (which is what we as outsiders perceive it) of women is still enforced en masse.

Actually, you can. I've alluded to it, but it's called childhood indoctrination. It exists even in societies where Christianity is predominant. The whole process involves introducing a religion to children, who are unable to make informed decisions about what they want to believe, and not being honest and telling them that they're not old enough to determine what religion they want to be a part of; when they grow older, they'll have enough knowledge of what other religions are like to decide which one they want to associate themselves with. But to instill in children what is right or wrong according to a religion, and not letting them choose by scolding them if they even suggest not wanting a part of their religion or keeping them ignorant about other religions, is to force them to believe in something they don't want to believe in, or don't know if they'd like to believe it for the rest of their lives. The result is that most of these children end up believing in something that they might not be happy with, and can't realize it because they've been conditioned that way, and some of them can be highly intelligent, and not realize some of the problems with their religion.

You're right it does happen and it happens to the vast majority of those in religious families.

But what you're alluding to is a human practice. It's not a part of the religion. Christianity teaches free will. It's one of the most important and fundamental principles in Christianity.

Actually, I think not invading a country that burns your flags is a better idea. Because then you'd be stooping to their level just to prove a point, and that makes us no better than them. Instead, we can criticize them with free speech without harming anyone.

It's not the burning of flags I suggested invading for. That can be easily ignored.

It's the threatening of that countries populace.

Instead, we can criticize them with free speech without harming anyone.

Until they sneak attack us? No thanks.

If someone in power threatens my people and he's serious about it. You tell the country to hand him over for trial. If they don't, they're harbouring a criminal and you can invade legally.

I actually don't care if muslims are restricting freedoms and priviledges in their own country--what I object to is if they expect other people who have nothing to do with their country or their religion to abide by their rules.

That's fair enough, but then they've only moved to block access in their own country. They haven't forbidden anyone outside their country to access Facebook.

it's nobody's business what I choose to draw, and if you don't like it, don't look at it. It's that simple. I'm not stopping you from not drawing Mohammed, and I'm certainly not forcing you to look at drawings of him either.

You're right. But similarly, were I to use a racial slur in a Facebook group you wouldn't have to look at the group page. Nobody would be forcing you. But it's offensive material nonetheless and one that offends a certain group of people on the site.

Wearing a burka because men can't control their lusts when they see a woman's face is also considered absurd by most people in the West. As are a lot of petty punishments, tortures, cruelty and murder described in many holy texts. Worst of all, killing someone just for leaving a religion is not only ridiculous and absurd, but objectionable and abhorrent to many people in the West.

Islam is considered by many to be a fascist ideology. I'd agree. It doesn't make them universally wrong though, seeing as neither of the two of us have all encompassing proof.

We've never died to know that there is no afterlife. :dave:

If I were the only person who believed religious ideals that are ridiculous and absurd should be kept separate from the way a country or society runs, then we should see the likes of the kinds of society in the Dark Ages that existed

That doesn't mean the two can't mix. In this society people are hired into positions of power on merit. In those days people inherited power. Many more ignoramuses were calling the shots.

In Christianity it's not illegal to be homosexual nor indulge in homosexuality, it's not illegal to cheat on your wife, it's not illegal to take drugs.

In terms of free will you read the scriptures, you come away with your own interpretations and you live your life the way you believe to be righteous.

It's not about what's right and wrong. I as a Christian believe adultery to be wrong for example, but as a freedom I could never deny a man or woman the right to cheat should they wish to.

I believe Christianity and law can mix, but it would have to be a benevolent dictatorship (as improbable as that is), because all other governments are riddled with idiosyncracies.

Well, he should. He should,

He should? Why on Earth should he be depicted. It's nothing short of gratuitous and bigoted.

and people who depict him shouldn't be threatened.

Fully agree.

And if you're going to say that it's just my opinion that I think certain religious ideas are ridiculous, please don't forget that it's your opinion that it's ridiculous to be depicting Mohammed.

I didn't say it was ridiculous to depict him. I said it's ridiculous to depict him for the sake of ruffling a few feathers.

Then in that same vein, perhaps that holy spring was never holy; it was just advocated by men to be holy.

Perhaps. It's always a possibility.

don't forget that other people have other religions that tell them to believe different things and live a different way. If they came into conflict where the result is mutually exclusive, you can't keep respect for one person of a religion without disrespecting the other.

It depends on what your ideal of respect is. It varies greatly from culture to culture.

I believe that if they want the so-called 'holy land' they can have it. I have no need for it. If I did, then I'd respect the fact that they wanted the same thing but the winner decides. They might not respect me for it and that would be when the two ideals of respect differ.

I might believe that by letting them hold the holy land under what I believe to be a false pretense is disrespectful to them.

That actually sounds like the same difference to me; so if you don't respect Islam, why do you bother complaining about people who do the same?

It's not the same difference. Respect doesn't have to be earned for some people to give it out.

As for Islam, I don't agree with their morality, I find it abhorrent. I do respect the fact that they have a moral code however, something non religious folk make up as they trudge through life (let's be honest).

I'm not complaining about the lack of respect for the religion. Just the bigoted protest that's taking place.

 

[der Astronom]

Just to clarify these are females I've gone to school with in London and others from the community. They're fully aware of the freedoms avaliable in a western society. But I know there are those that aren't.

Okay, and I'm also going to add that whatever people choose doesn't really matter. Whether they want the freedom granted to people in the West or if they prefer to wear Burkas all the time doesn't matter--so long as they are making an informed choice, then it's fine.

It's considered religious intolerance by many religions and maybe to most of today's societies, but that too isn't a universal rule.

It's not, but it pisses off lots of other people when things that are deemed to be wrong by society, but are advocated by religious ideas are condoned. Which is why they are criticized. To raise awareness to those who aren't aware of it, and to prevent the government from making the wrong choices.

There are certain extreme texts in certain religions, but most are rectified throughout the passage of the holy sciptures.

Well, I don't quite think all of them necessarily are. Some ideas in religious texts were only rectified because of movements like the Enlightenment, which encouraged secularism and humanism--these things happen in spite of religion. In truth, religious texts are so vague because you can take them to be a metaphor, that means whatever you want it to be that it has no meaning whatsoever. The earlier practitioners of Christianity focused more heavily on the Old Testament, and later, after several revolutions and such movements, they edited out and added stuff to the New Testament. I just find it hard to believe that they suddenly upped and decided they were wrong about all the stuff they believed in in the Old Testament--it could not have happened without the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. And both of those things happened in spite of religion, or rather, should I say because people were sick and tired of being ruled by religion. And when religious ideals no longer become popular, they have to update themselves to keep up with society and still have control over people. Otherwise, they will lose out to secularism and humanism and die out.

For example, many principles in the Old Testament (which is the Torah) are the foundations for Christianity. The difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, which means that many old principles where abolished in the New Testament. Principles such as slavery and multiple wives.

Ja, and why did that happen? If religion had a vice over society as it did in the Dark Ages, what would convince any religious person who had power over just about everyone in his country to change his ideals and condemn slavery or torture people for being heretics? I doubt it could have happened without the Enlightenment, which happened in spite of religion.

Islam doesn't have such a transition. What is written in there is very literal in it's depiction. Things such as violence towards non muslims and the oppression (which is what we as outsiders perceive it) of women is still enforced en masse.

It's a pity because the Islamic world never used to be that way. If you studied them around the Middle Ages, you'd see that they had fairly nice advances in science, philosophy, art and just civilization in general. And I think women contributed equally in their society then as well. The Islamic world now is not even a shadow of its former self; it's just reverted to what happened to Europe in the Dark Ages.

But what you're alluding to is a human practice. It's not a part of the religion. Christianity teaches free will. It's one of the most important and fundamental principles in Christianity.

Well, it is, depending on which sect of Christianity you're talking about. There are some sects which baptize their children because they interpret scripture to mean that they need to. It is then assumed that children have, or need to have faith in Christianity, and they are brought up as if they are Christian, and are never allowed to choose.
If free will is emphasized more freely in more recent times than in previous centuries where it was restricted, I would think it is because secularism and humanism encouraged it. Again, the religious probably had no reason to advocate free will previously; now they do because anything else they advocated from the Old Testament makes them look embarrassing. Anything to improve their image, even if it means agreeing with humanism might prevent them from dying out.
And most Jews probably don't get that choice either; they are circumcised very early in life (if they are male), and their religion defines all their children as being Jewish, and they never get a choice.
Anyhow, I'm not sure if the distinction between having a religious lifestyle or religious beliefs being forced onto someone is really all that significant; either way, if you change your religion, both your lifestyle and your beliefs will change. And if you are being held at gunpoint about what religion you believe in, and are being forced to change your religion, and you are only changing your lifestyle to appear to be a part of a different religion against your own will, then it's still wrong. You're still being forced to do something you don't really want to do.

It's not the burning of flags I suggested invading for. That can be easily ignored.

That was rhetorical; I was referring to countries that can't learn to agree to disagree, and leave those alone who don't share the same ideals.

It's the threatening of that countries populace.

Ja, aren't they just doing the same things to us? Where does that lead us?

Until they sneak attack us? No thanks.

If someone in power threatens my people and he's serious about it. You tell the country to hand him over for trial. If they don't, they're harbouring a criminal and you can invade legally.

Well, that's different because they are in a different country with different rules--and if they can't abide by them, they'll either have to leave or take the full penalty for it. Back home, I couldn't care less what they do there--just leave well alone the people that don't agree with you. They probably haven't done anything to your country.

That's fair enough, but then they've only moved to block access in their own country. They haven't forbidden anyone outside their country to access Facebook.

And those outside of their country should be aware that they are not being pampered by their country's use of censorship to block out the things they don't want to see. It's the same risk you take when you go on vacation somewhere--if you go to a different country, they have different rules and regulations, and you're going to have to follow them. If you can't stand them, then don't go there.

You're right. But similarly, were I to use a racial slur in a Facebook group you wouldn't have to look at the group page. Nobody would be forcing you. But it's offensive material nonetheless and one that offends a certain group of people on the site.

Really, I think people are giving too much value to other people being offended. Because you can be offended for some of the stupidest things, and you can be offended on the excuse that it's offensive to your religion, even if it's ridiculously stupid (come on now, not being able to draw Mohammed, when you can get away with making depictions of Jesus, Buddha, or Ganesh?). Christians are always being "offended" one way or another. They get offended by Harry Potter. They get offended by games like Doom (which, ironically, features a hero killing demons). They get offended by gay parades. And so on. But they don't go around killing people that create these books and games, or gay people. They get offended, but most of them grow up and "turn the other cheek". And secularists who get offended may debate about it, but they're not going to kill the people that made them offended. So I think muslims need to get over being offended, join in with everyone else, and stop getting violent over people who don't share the same views as they do.

Islam is considered by many to be a fascist ideology. I'd agree. It doesn't make them universally wrong though, seeing as neither of the two of us have all encompassing proof.

I'm not saying they are universally wrong, but most people disagree with their ideology. Enough people who would be sick and tired of muslims being the only people allowed to not have their god being depicted, while everyone else's religious figures like Jesus and Buddha are freely being depicted, and nobody is violently killed for it. And I think they're also sick and tired of having to hear that some country or town near them had their buses blown up or something similar by some guy claiming he was doing it for Islam.

That doesn't mean the two can't mix. In this society people are hired into positions of power on merit. In those days people inherited power. Many more ignoramuses were calling the shots.

Well, you can have Christianity or some other religion mutually agreeing with what society has mostly decided, although I'd think it's usually the case that secularism and humanism have won over during the Enlightenment, and Christianity has just had to conform with them to stay in power. But if it comes to a conflict between what religion wants and what the state wants, the state wins over. That's what separation of church and state is for.

In Christianity it's not illegal to be homosexual nor indulge in homosexuality, it's not illegal to cheat on your wife, it's not illegal to take drugs.

It wasn't that way before. And I think some sects in Christianity still condemn homosexuals.

In terms of free will you read the scriptures, you come away with your own interpretations and you live your life the way you believe to be righteous.

I think that's actually what most people are doing. They couldn't have done that in the Dark Ages though.

It's not about what's right and wrong. I as a Christian believe adultery to be wrong for example, but as a freedom I could never deny a man or woman the right to cheat should they wish to.

I believe Christianity and law can mix, but it would have to be a benevolent dictatorship (as improbable as that is), because all other governments are riddled with idiosyncracies.

Well, I guess I'd have to disagree about a benevolent dictatorship. The only time Christianity and law mingle is when they mutually agree on something. If there is a conflict, the state should be at a better position to decide. Religious ideals are too easily taken for granted, and some of them can be very dangerous. Thankfully, humanism has weeded out most of them.

He should? Why on Earth should he be depicted. It's nothing short of gratuitous and bigoted.

Because muslims need to learn that they're not above everyone else who has their gods or other idols of worship being depicted. Sure, it might seem ridiculous and insulting, but you know, if they would just grow up and stop harping about how it offends their religion, and stop being violent about it, I might just start having some respect for them. It's actually a good chance to show that they can be respected, and that they can improve.

I didn't say it was ridiculous to depict him. I said it's ridiculous to depict him for the sake of ruffling a few feathers.

And I'll just have to disagree with you there because I don't think that's why people draw Mohammed. Drawing Mohammed to ruffle a few feathers would imply that you know what would happen if you drew Mohammed in public, and since it's impossible to draw Mohammed without knowing how a muslim would feel about it, it's probably nearly impossible to depict him without intentionally ruffling a few feathers. I think if you really wanted to depict Mohammed and insult someone "intentionally", you'd have to force muslims to see your drawing of Mohammed. And I don't think the folks who started it on Facebook meant for muslims to be seeing it, if they didn't like it.

It depends on what your ideal of respect is. It varies greatly from culture to culture.

I believe that if they want the so-called 'holy land' they can have it. I have no need for it. If I did, then I'd respect the fact that they wanted the same thing but the winner decides. They might not respect me for it and that would be when the two ideals of respect differ.

I might believe that by letting them hold the holy land under what I believe to be a false pretense is disrespectful to them.

Well there you have it; you can't respect all religions equally. You would have to decide for yourself if a religion is worth respecting, based on what it says and demands of its followers. Otherwise you'll just be stuck not knowing what religion deserves respect and what doesn't. And of course, everyone has different reasons for choosing to respect certain religions while not giving any to others. I'm of the opinion that if people who lived in the West found out what ideals Islam upholds, they would find it not worth respecting. It's not universal, but there would be enough people who dislike it enough that they'd feel it's worth ridicule.

It's not the same difference. Respect doesn't have to be earned for some people to give it out.

As for Islam, I don't agree with their morality, I find it abhorrent. I do respect the fact that they have a moral code however, something non religious folk make up as they trudge through life (let's be honest).

I don't see a problem with that. It is much more honest to admit that no such moral code exists, and that we are constantly revising and changing our morals as we experience more of life. It's like science; it isn't always correct, but when it finds out exactly what's wrong, it revises itself and changes. The problem with having a moral code is that it's hard to change--what if moral codes don't change with society and current events and falls behind? They'll become obsolete. They have to change to avoid being left behind. I actually just dislike the way in which they treat it. They treat it as if their moral code was always right from the beginning, while leaving a huge paper trail of evidence that suggests it wasn't always that way. I just dislike the dishonesty that occurs when they change something and don't bother to explain what their moral code used to be like. A lot of preachers are guilty of this; they'll say what's so great about Christianity, and neglect the passages in the bible that make their religion look less than pleasant or moral.

I'm not complaining about the lack of respect for the religion. Just the bigoted protest that's taking place.

Bigoted, intolerant, call it whatever you want. I'll be happy when there is no god too sacred to be depicted that people get violent over it.

 

[Harlequin]

Before this post is read I'd like to state that my contribution is solely based on my beliefs.

It's not, but it pisses off lots of other people when things that are deemed to be wrong by society,

Your society.

On the flip side the same sentence could be said by an individual in the middle east.

...but are advocated by religious ideas are condoned. Which is why they are criticized.

They're criticised because anything we think about, no matter how trivial it may seem, is brought to critical analysis, whether negative or positive. It not because of an ideal or two.

To criticise doesn't necessarily mean to negatively criticise.

A food critic for example doesn't exist to put food down. By saying in previous posts that religions that condone such behaviour should be 'criticised' implies you believe they should be negatively criticised.

To raise awareness to those who aren't aware of it, and to prevent the government from making the wrong choices.

It's not to prevent the government from making the 'wrong' choices it's to encourage them and their populace to make the choices they feel most comfortable with in their beliefs. The two are miles apart.

The concept of wrong you're using is strictly one of morality. No one has proof on what's right and wrong, nor do any of us know if the concept even exists.

Therefore, a government can't be 'prevented' from making the wrong choices simply because that government doesn't know what's right and wrong, nor if the two exist.

To expect anything more of a government, made up of human beings it must be said, is utterly dillusional.

Well, I don't quite think all of them necessarily are. Some ideas in religious texts were only rectified because of movements like the Enlightenment

Only rectified because of the Enlightenment? Please, allow me to help you do your research before your inaccuracies begin to offend people.

Judaism was the foundation for Christianity. That is why the Torah is included in the Bible as the Old Testament.

Judaism prophesised the coming of a messiah. When Jesus was born, Judaism rejected him as the Messiah. Christians are those who believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he had come to save their souls. These are the passages which many base their interpretation on:

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

Please find me a passage in the Bible where Jesus Christ, the man Christians believe to be the messenger of God on Earth, condoned any of the negativity you're so frivolously pinning on Christianity.
Then tell me the Enlightenment started this 'rectifying' trend.

In truth, religious texts are so vague because you can take them to be a metaphor, that means whatever you want it to be that it has no meaning whatsoever.

In truth you say? Sounds like some universal evidence you've uncovered.

Anything can be as vague and open to interpretation as you like it to be, whether it's a concept discussed in religion or outside of religion. Such are the laws of Philosophy. /or so many believe

There is such ambiguity because nobody knows anything. I don't know if my right hand exists, if I exist, if there is an afterlife.

There is only uncertainty and with that comes belief. Which is a concept you're clearly still struggling with, exhibited quite clumsily in your exact wording of how to treat people you believe to be wrong and your reliance on facts that could well not exist in the slightest, such are the laws of Philosophy. /repetition

The earlier practitioners of Christianity focused more heavily on the Old Testament, and later, after several revolutions and such movements, they edited out and added stuff to the New Testament.

The Old Testament / Torah exists in the Bible as a reference to the prophesy of a Messiah.

Christianity is based on Christ. The clue is in the name.

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30) (before you shoot back with "isn't it based on God?")

To be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ of Nazareth died on the cross to save your soul and by extension he is the son of God. By doing so you willingly submit yourself to the adjudicator based on the righteousness of your life on Earth.

There is also a school of thought amongst many Christians (and one that differentiates Christianity from all other major religions) that once you've submitted to Jesus Christ you've presented yourself from the devil and are branded unto the adjudication of the Lord. It's based on the belief that are all sinners and we all stray from the path of righteousness.

If you are a practising homosexual, it doesn't mean you are not a Christian.
If you are a slave driver, it doesn't mean you are a Christian.
If you are a mass murderer it doesn't mean you are not a Christian.
If you are a muslim, it doesn't mean you are not a Christian.
etc...

The earlier practitioners of Christianity

Early practitioners of Christianity? State what you believe Christianity to be before you drag it's name through the dirt.

I just find it hard to believe that they suddenly upped and decided they were wrong about all the stuff they believed in in the Old Testament--it could not have happened without the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

Suddenly? Could not have happened without the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution? See above.

And both of those things happened in spite of religion, or rather, should I say because people were sick and tired of being ruled by religion.

Mankind was never ruled on this Earth by religion.

Mankind was ruled by Mankind.

And when religious ideals no longer become popular, they have to update themselves to keep up with society and still have control over people.

They don't have to update anything. Nor has anything necessarily been updated.

There are many religions (including smaller ones) who keep the same principles despite not enjoying such widespread popularity.

Otherwise, they will lose out to secularism and humanism and die out.

And when will this prophesy be fulfilled?

If religion had a vice over society as it did in the Dark Ages, what would convince any religious person who had power over just about everyone in his country to change his ideals and condemn slavery or torture people for being heretics? I doubt it could have happened without the Enlightenment, which happened in spite of religion.

Religion has no dominant power over anybody on this Earth. You're speaking of corruption from Kings and other members of mankind in positions of power.

If you're refering to Priests, these men were never appointed by God nor Jesus Christ.

What you're refering to is strictly human practice.

what would convince any religious person who had power over just about everyone in his country to change his ideals and condemn slavery or torture people for being heretics?

How have you not seen the idiosyncracy in that question?

Surely there's a large probability one of the main reasons for changing would be righteousness based on the religion and moral code this particular person follows?

It's a pity because the Islamic world never used to be that way...

The Islamic world now is not even a shadow of its former self; it's just reverted to what happened to Europe in the Dark Ages.

When you say Islamic you're not refering to a civilization, you're refering to a religion and a brotherhood of followers.

That means an American muslim is part of the Islamic world.

Islam has always been Islam. Nothing has changed in their ideals.

Well, it is, depending on which sect of Christianity you're talking about.

I beg your pardon? These 'sects' you're refering to are man made.

Where in the Bible does Jesus describe one group of Christians as Catholic and another as Protestant? We are all brothers under one Lord.

You might argue that these sects exist anyway but I should remind you that if they aren't sactioned by the religion why do you criticise the religion (Christianity) rather than those who you believe to have misinterpreted the scriptures? (Mankind)

There are some sects which baptize their children because they interpret scripture to mean that they need to.

And I believe they will be judged accordingly.

It is then assumed that children have, or need to have faith in Christianity, and they are brought up as if they are Christian, and are never allowed to choose.

The attitude isn't always as you describe it.

They are always allowed to choose. Just because your mother or father say you can't doesn't mean you won't make your own decisions.

If free will is emphasized more freely in more recent times than in previous centuries where it was restricted, I would think it is because secularism and humanism encouraged it.

And you'd be entitled to that opinion.

Again, the religious probably had no reason to advocate free will previously;

Of course they did. Read the scriptures of religions you're bashing before making such bizarre statements.

now they do because anything else they advocated from the Old Testament makes them look embarrassing.

Now Christianity does because back then they did. It's nothing to do with the Torah.

Anything to improve their image, even if it means agreeing with humanism might prevent them from dying out.

How incredibly offensive. Image?

You're speaking of humans when you think of 'agreeing'.

If not, please explain to me how a religion can 'agree'.

And if you are being held at gunpoint about what religion you believe in, and are being forced to change your religion,

Religion relies on belief. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to believe an apple is an orange you won't believe it.

The same dynamic applies with religion.

and you are only changing your lifestyle to appear to be a part of a different religion against your own will, then it's still wrong. You're still being forced to do something you don't really want to do.

By your own estimation maybe. By mine too.

But from what I've read in certain (translated) phrases from the Qu'ran the Islamic ideology would suggest a muslim is perfectly within his right to do so.

Ja, aren't they just doing the same things to us? Where does that lead us?

I had only suggested we threaten them with our perceived justice if they threatened us with theirs.

Back home, I couldn't care less what they do there--just leave well alone the people that don't agree with you.

Agreed. But what about when the people who don't agree with you won't leave you alone?

The western world has been the target of numerous threats over the course of several years from people harboured in these countries. Sneak attacks have happened and terrorist plots have been foiled.

We know they're serious. Treat them accordingly.

They probably haven't done anything to your country.

They have. Numerous times.

Because you can be offended for some of the stupidest things, and you can be offended on the excuse that it's offensive to your religion, even if it's ridiculously stupid (come on now, not being able to draw Mohammed, when you can get away with making depictions of Jesus, Buddha, or Ganesh?).

Ridiculously stupid? Muslims are prohibited from depicting Mohammed and viewing material containing his depiction.

Something that would seem trivial to you may be immensely offensive in another culture. What's even more bigoted is if you know this to be the case yet press on for the sake of causing offense.

Christians are always being "offended" one way or another.

Everyone everywhere is always being offended one way or another

They get offended by Harry Potter.

They? I don't.

They get offended by games like Doom (which, ironically, features a hero killing demons).

I don't.

They get offended by gay parades. And so on.

I don't.

But they don't go around killing people that create these books and games, or gay people.

I don't. But some do. Please stop using a stereotype you've decided to manufacture based on your experience with Christians.

They get offended, but most of them grow up and "turn the other cheek".

Yes. Many debate about it however. Much like I am now, in both instances.

And secularists who get offended may debate about it, but they're not going to kill the people that made them offended.

Some do.

So I think muslims need to get over being offended, join in with everyone else, and stop getting violent over people who don't share the same views as they do.

Or they can say to themselves:

"Do we believe in the teachings of Allah as depicted in the Qu'ran or do we believe in some liberal western societies views?"

Then make the decision based on their free will.

I'm not saying they are universally wrong, but most people disagree with their ideology. Enough people who would be sick and tired of muslims being the only people allowed to not have their god being depicted,

It's not their God, it's their prophet

although I'd think it's usually the case that secularism and humanism have won over during the Enlightenment, and Christianity has just had to conform with them to stay in power.

Humans can conform. How on Earth does a religion conform?

How on Earth have they conformed?

But if it comes to a conflict between what religion wants and what the state wants, the state wins over. That's what separation of church and state is for.

That's not a fact in the strictest sense and that's not what the separation is for.

It wasn't that way before. And I think some sects in Christianity still condemn homosexuals.

It wasn't that way before? When did Jesus say the law should condemn people for indulging in homosexuality/adultery?

There's a huge difference between illegal and immoral.

I think that's actually what most people are doing. They couldn't have done that in the Dark Ages though.

If they couldn't have done that in the Dark Ages it probably due to the low literacy in the population.

Bibles were readily avaliable, people could have read it and lived their life based on their interpretation.

If someone attempts to impose another lifestyle on you, do what you believe is the righteous thing to do based on your interpretation to protect your morality.

Religious ideals are too easily taken for granted, and some of them can be very dangerous. Thankfully, humanism has weeded out most of them.

What is dangerous about Christianity?

Because muslims need to learn that they're not above everyone else who has their gods or other idols of worship being depicted.

What makes them muslims is that they believe their God and religion are above others.

To suggest they need to 'learn' would be to suggest that they are definately wrong, which you don't know.

it's probably nearly impossible to depict him without intentionally ruffling a few feathers.

If I draw Mohammed whilst in the privacy of my own home and keep it there, it won't ruffle as many feathers. If I draw Mohammed and make a Facebook page about it, I'll almost certainly be out to ruffle feathers, in as bigoted a way as I conceivably could.

And I don't think the folks who started it on Facebook meant for muslims to be seeing it, if they didn't like it.

What's the use of a protest if the subject doesn't see it?

It's not universal, but there would be enough people who dislike it enough that they'd feel it's worth ridicule.

I agree.

what if moral codes don't change with society and current events and falls behind? They'll become obsolete. They have to change to avoid being left behind.

Morality will never be obsolete. Laws might be maleable but morality is a more encompassing concept.

Laws of the land change, but as a Christian I'm taught to respect my fellow man, to help my fellow man, to allow my fellow man to make his own choices.

The last one is a crucial one and without it I would be imposing beliefs on society, something I feel you've wrongly interpreted when contemplating Christianity.

They treat it as if their moral code was always right from the beginning, while leaving a huge paper trail of evidence that suggests it wasn't always that way. I just dislike the dishonesty that occurs when they change something and don't bother to explain what their moral code used to be like.

Old Testament | Jesus Christ | New Testament

Read it before you knock it.

A lot of preachers are guilty of this; they'll say what's so great about Christianity, and neglect the passages in the bible that make their religion look less than pleasant or moral.

Show me those passages and I'll be happy to give you my opinion.

Bigoted, intolerant, call it whatever you want. I'll be happy when there is no god too sacred to be depicted that people get violent over it.

If it's witty, all the better.

Just when it's deliberately offensive or a targeted, baseless attack that has me offended.

...Like Jesus being depicted in a baby suit.

 

[der Astronom]

Your society.
On the flip side the same sentence could be said by an individual in the middle east.

Well, not really because they don't have freedom of speech, and aren't at liberty to criticize anything they want.

They're criticised because anything we think about, no matter how trivial it may seem, is brought to critical analysis, whether negative or positive. It not because of an ideal or two.

To criticise doesn't necessarily mean to negatively criticise.

A food critic for example doesn't exist to put food down. By saying in previous posts that religions that condone such behaviour should be 'criticised' implies you believe they should be negatively criticised.

Well sure, why not? You can't leave out the negative criticisms, or else we'll never know what's wrong with religion, and why some people don't like certain religions. I never said anything about whether or not criticism is strictly positive or negative; I never said anything about positively criticizing religion, which doesn't imply that I think you shouldn't positively criticize something. You should have just asked. It wasn't really the point of my argument anyways.

It's not to prevent the government from making the 'wrong' choices it's to encourage them and their populace to make the choices they feel most comfortable with in their beliefs. The two are miles apart.

It's "wrong" according to what people believe. It's a relative "wrong", not an absolute one. But that's basically the point; that people should be allowed to point out what they find wrong with religion, in order that the government is run according to how people want it, and not arbitrarily like it was in the Dark Ages.

The concept of wrong you're using is strictly one of morality. No one has proof on what's right and wrong, nor do any of us know if the concept even exists.

I am referring to a relative "wrong" which most people in a given society agree on.

Therefore, a government can't be 'prevented' from making the wrong choices simply because that government doesn't know what's right and wrong, nor if the two exist.

But you can prevent a government from making choices in which the majority of people wouldn't be satisfied with.

Only rectified because of the Enlightenment? Please, allow me to help you do your research before your inaccuracies begin to offend people.

Judaism was the foundation for Christianity. That is why the Torah is included in the Bible as the Old Testament.

In what sense? Is there anything you need from the Old Testament other than the nonsense about the Earth being created in six days (which isn't true), it being flat and having pillars (which obviously isn't true), the bit about the (global) flood (also not true), the Earth being 6000 years old (not true again), and there being a god that created the world (highly questionable)? What about the ten commandments? How do people know they are still valued in Christianity, and not simply condemned because it's a part of the Old Testament? Who told you what you can take from the Old Testament and what you can't take and still call it a part of Christianity? My problem with it is that it's arbitrary; you don't have a criteria for determining what is part of Christianity and what isn't, just as you don't have any criteria for determining if any of the above is nonsense other than science and just plain spotting of contradictions.
This is a common problem called cherry picking. You pick out the verses that appeal to you most and that you think make the most sense to you, and ignore the ones that don't. It's a similar problem to the metaphor issue. By doing this, you are basically just creating your own version of a religion, which might be similar to the Christianity that people believed in centuries ago, but it's different somehow. Which is why I think the Enlightenment had something to do with this.

Judaism prophesised the coming of a messiah. When Jesus was born, Judaism rejected him as the Messiah. Christians are those who believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he had come to save their souls. These are the passages which many base their interpretation on:

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

Please find me a passage in the Bible where Jesus Christ, the man Christians believe to be the messenger of God on Earth, condoned any of the negativity you're so frivolously pinning on Christianity.
Then tell me the Enlightenment started this 'rectifying' trend.

Well, I could probably provide you several of them, but that wouldn't prove anything because you can twist the passages metaphorically to mean anything you want (and go as far as ignoring them, as quite a few people do). Instead, what we need to see is that Christians who existed before the Enlightenment and did not have humanism or secularism to compare their religion up against had no way to discern the metaphor from what actually was literally there--so what most likely happened was that when they interpreted the verses about Jesus, they interpreted them to mean he wasn't peaceful, or tolerant about people not loving him or following him, and saw nothing wrong with it.

In truth you say? Sounds like some universal evidence you've uncovered.

Well, it is a fact that the bible is highly metaphorical.

Anything can be as vague and open to interpretation as you like it to be, whether it's a concept discussed in religion or outside of religion. Such are the laws of Philosophy. /or so many believe

There is such ambiguity because nobody knows anything. I don't know if my right hand exists, if I exist, if there is an afterlife.

There is only uncertainty and with that comes belief. Which is a concept you're clearly still struggling with, exhibited quite clumsily in your exact wording of how to treat people you believe to be wrong and your reliance on facts that could well not exist in the slightest, such are the laws of Philosophy. /repetition

Well, I'm sorry you're struggling to understand my use of "absolute" words in relative terms. But then perhaps you should apply the same concept to people who existed centuries before you did, and claim they had an informed choice.

Early practitioners of Christianity? State what you believe Christianity to be before you drag it's name through the dirt.

Anyone who believes in the god described in the bible, and that Jesus is their savior. And because there are many versions of it, and many variations on practices, including baptism, church attendance, perspective of what the god is (one being or the holy trinity; I don't care what you think it is, there are people that interpret their god differently and still consider themselves Christian; argue it with them if you care, not me), verdict of homosexuals, concept of purgatory, religious intolerance, communion, and probably a whole lot more, it's nearly impossible to define who is actually Christian and who isn't other than the singular belief in a god who created the world, along with a heaven and hell, and that bit about Jesus. That's the only thing for certain that all Christians share in common. Whether or not they believed slavery was condoned, or that witches, homosexuals or heathens should have been condemned is irrelevant.
However, I can say that some of these things come from the bible, and the variation in beliefs and values among Christians that results from it because the bible has a notorious tendency to say one thing while saying another. In one verse, you'll find it says god can do anything. Then in another, it says he can't move people driving iron chariots (oh, but he can create the Earth, which is full of it...whatever.) And in one verse, it says people are capable of doing good. Then in another, it says they aren't. In fact, in order for any of these contradictions to make sense, you have to ignore parts of it.
I don't mind if people admit that they're ignoring the horrible parts in the bible because they either don't make sense or because they don't think it's right. But I think they should eventually ask themselves how they came to that conclusion. There must have been some external criteria to determine all that. Otherwise, it's just arbitrary cherry picking.

Suddenly? Could not have happened without the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution? See above.

Ja, quite unlikely, I say. If one person realizes that what the bible says is nonsense and can be twisted to mean something else (or the numerous contradictions in it), it's not going to mean much. It would be like Galileo trying to convince the church that the Earth orbits the sun rather than not moving at all. You can't really convince anyone of your convictions unless you can get enough people doing it. And there were more than enough philosophers and free thinkers during the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution required to help people see that.

Mankind was never ruled on this Earth by religion.

Mankind was ruled by Mankind.

And I say it was because humans didn't have the philosophy to make other choices.

They don't have to update anything. Nor has anything necessarily been updated.

There are many religions (including smaller ones) who keep the same principles despite not enjoying such widespread popularity.

There were verses in the bible condoning slavery. Now they have to be downplayed to make it seem like they don't because society doesn't condone slavery. There are contradictions in the bible, which if you start at the wrong end of the bible and work your way to the end, it doesn't make sense. So certain verses have to be opted out in order to make any sense out of it. And the church has to apologize for not believing scientists over things they know nothing about (namely, certain properties of the Earth and other scientific inconsistencies). In fact, religion probably isn't in any position to be talking about anything within the realms of science, including where everything came from; if you start to think science will never find out how something happened, you run the risk of being wrong, and scientists actually do find out how it happened. Nobody who believed in religion might ever have guessed that evolution was a possibility, but now we know it is. A rather strong one. So Christianity becomes inaccurate about god creating two of every creature at the beginning.

And when will this prophesy be fulfilled?

It's not a prophesy, it's a high probability. And judging by the increasing number of people dropping out of religion, I expect they'd have to do something, or else it will disappear eventually. Okay, it probably won't, but it would become significantly reduced, and lose whatever power it still has now. The ideals in humanism and secularism are becoming increasingly popular because they encourage fairness and equality towards others, that doesn't need to be sugarcoated by some fairy-tale story, which we know to be largely untrue or inaccurate. And any reasonable Christian probably doesn't realize it, but they are more humanist than they realize they are. The only thing that probably separates them is that one of them still believes in a god.

Religion has no dominant power over anybody on this Earth. You're speaking of corruption from Kings and other members of mankind in positions of power.

They were corrupted by religion. They didn't have any other philosophy or criteria by which to compare the ideas in the bible with.

How have you not seen the idiosyncracy in that question?

Surely there's a large probability one of the main reasons for changing would be righteousness based on the religion and moral code this particular person follows?

No, because it is not a requirement for any man to feel he needs to be just and right to others, either because he was not raised that way, or because he truly does not know better. He probably doesn't have any incentive to throw away his power over people for a moral code based on "righteousness"; he might simply believe that what he already believes of the bible is righteous (even if we disagree with it), and any bliss he experiences from his vices may encourage it. Nobody is there to tell him he is wrong. Heck, Hitler believed he was doing the right thing, even if we don't agree with him.

When you say Islamic you're not refering to a civilization, you're refering to a religion and a brotherhood of followers.

That means an American muslim is part of the Islamic world.

Islam has always been Islam. Nothing has changed in their ideals.

Well, if you know what civilization I'm talking about, then great. Let's move on. If you don't, and would rather be caught up in the semantics of it, it's the one that existed in the Middle East centuries ago. Besides, the majority of them were muslims anyways.

I beg your pardon? These 'sects' you're refering to are man made.

Christianity is man made anyways. All religions are man-made. Feel free to disagree, but I can't take the claim seriously that the bible is the inspired word of god.

Where in the Bible does Jesus describe one group of Christians as Catholic and another as Protestant? We are all brothers under one Lord.

You might argue that these sects exist anyway but I should remind you that if they aren't sactioned by the religion why do you criticise the religion (Christianity) rather than those who you believe to have misinterpreted the scriptures? (Mankind)

Because technically, there is no such thing as a universal, centralized Christianity in which everybody agrees on the same details. As I said, the only thing you agree on is that a god that created the world exists. However, when I say I am criticizing Christianity, I am criticizing what is stated in the bible, along with all the contradictions that are a part of it. So perhaps you think I may be wrong if I am asserting a criticism of it, but that's probably also because there's a verse in the bible that contradicts it, but if there exists people who can take a verse one way, and it leads to disaster, I can point that out. You couldn't be wrong about any sect of Christianity if you tried; different sects are allowed to interpret any part of the bible however they want. That's the problem with writing metaphorically.

They are always allowed to choose. Just because your mother or father say you can't doesn't mean you won't make your own decisions.

Yes, but you don't have very many choices because your mind isn't developed enough as a child. Children are very impressionable; they'll almost always believe what their parents tell them. Very few children actually succeed in realizing alternative choices, and even fewer of them are succesful in choosing alternative choices and being able to stay with them.

And you'd be entitled to that opinion.

It's hard to believe in a concept of free will when god enforces rules on his believers. Primitive minds have a difficult time grasping such a concept.

Of course they did. Read the scriptures of religions you're bashing before making such bizarre statements.

Such as? The bible contains a ridiculous amount of rules on stoning, regulations on when to work, what to believe, and various other actions that are deserving of punishment. Anyone who read the bible and had no concept of philosophy might be scared into thinking there isn't any free will. Particularly with verses like this, this, and this. I am not speaking of people today, who can freely think and believe what they want, and have access to philosophy and criteria of moral standards due to the Enlightenment. We are talking of people who had none of these things.

Now Christianity does because back then they did. It's nothing to do with the Torah.

You can't advocate a contradiction, unless you are doing so with external criteria. And really, what you're actually doing is supporting the ideal that you took from the external criteria and trying to make it seem like that's what the bible says, unless you admit that you got the idea to choose one verse over the other one that contradicts it from elsewhere. The contradictions are embarassing anyways. What are they still doing in the bible?

How incredibly offensive. Image?

You're speaking of humans when you think of 'agreeing'.

If not, please explain to me how a religion can 'agree'.

Well, it is a fact that there are some less than pleasant passages in the bible, which, regardless of how you interpret it, are horrible no matter what. Well, if you're the least bit humanist anyways. Like the whole ordeal of the Apocalypse in Revelations (whoever tacked on that nonsense anyways? The New Testament would have been a lot nicer without it, despite still being inconsistent). If you wanted to be brutally honest and leave in all the unpleasant stuff and not sugarcoat it, nobody would probably want to believe in that kind of religion, if they had an informed choice.

By your own estimation maybe. By mine too.

But from what I've read in certain (translated) phrases from the Qu'ran the Islamic ideology would suggest a muslim is perfectly within his right to do so.

I am criticizing the whole idea of being killed just for wanting to leave a religion. So it doesn't matter if you have to change your lifestyle just to stay alive; the point is that you shouldn't have to be killed for wanting to change your religion. Islam is providing people with a ridiculous bribe for staying in religion.

I had only suggested we threaten them with our perceived justice if they threatened us with theirs.

But our justice is different from theirs. We don't get violent at people ust for disagreeing with us or threatening us.

Agreed. But what about when the people who don't agree with you won't leave you alone?

Feel free to criticize them, of course. Everyone who is willing should probably know why I'm being harassed. And if they don't stop doing it, it will make them look embarassing. That's what I like about free speech. Much less dramatic than violence.

The western world has been the target of numerous threats over the course of several years from people harboured in these countries. Sneak attacks have happened and terrorist plots have been foiled.

We know they're serious. Treat them accordingly.

Oh, they're jealous of our freedoms.

Well, I'd rather die than bend over backwards for them.

They have. Numerous times.

No, I meant that we haven't done anything to them in order for them to attack us. Sure, some people in another country might have made some cartoons, but that can be easily ignored. It probably won't affect your country's GDP or the practicing of your religion in your country.

Ridiculously stupid? Muslims are prohibited from depicting Mohammed and viewing material containing his depiction.

Muslims may be, but we who are not muslims are not. It is (in my opinion; duh) ridiculously stupid to be offended or react violently when a non-believer draws any religious figure in Islam, where if he/she were to draw a religious figure from any other religion, most members of those other religions wouldn't get offended, or wouldn't likely get violent over it.

Something that would seem trivial to you may be immensely offensive in another culture. What's even more bigoted is if you know this to be the case yet press on for the sake of causing offense.

They? I don't.



I don't.



I don't.



I don't. But some do. Please stop using a stereotype you've decided to manufacture based on your experience with Christians.

I am not stereotyping them; the fact is, there are Christians who get offended by these things. I didn't say all Christians find these things offensive. The usual reason they (not all) find it offensive is because they (not all) find these things offensive to their beliefs, and because it is Satanic or sinful.

Some do.

Do what? Get offended and debate about it or kill people for it? If it's the latter, it's nearly impossible to find anyone who would kill in the name of atheism.

Or they can say to themselves:

"Do we believe in the teachings of Allah as depicted in the Qu'ran or do we believe in some liberal western societies views?"

Then make the decision based on their free will.

Ja, and we are criticizing their religion because we don't like what it's doing to us. I'm not saying they're not allowed to choose, but at the same time, we want them to know that their religion is causing us problems.

It's not their God, it's their prophet

Great, you get the point. Moving on.

Humans can conform. How on Earth does a religion conform?

How on Earth have they conformed?

Have you seen how many different versions of the bible there are? They've had to revise that thing so many times there's no central, singular version of it.

That's not a fact in the strictest sense and that's not what the separation is for.

Then what do you think it's for? It's there because arbitrary religious rules which have no basis except for some book that is arbitrarily held in high regard, despite being resistant to change and development is not fit to run a country.

It wasn't that way before? When did Jesus say the law should condemn people for indulging in homosexuality/adultery?

There's a huge difference between illegal and immoral.

Perhaps, but Christians (not all; see, this is why it's easier to say "all Christians" instead of writing "not all" after each and every time I mention the word) can argue that homosexuality should be illegal on the reasoning that it is immoral. Just as murdering someone is immoral according to many religions and philosophies, including humanism. We do not condemn homosexuals at the request of one religion's morals alone, or indeed, any; they are arbitrary, and a different criteria must be used in order to determine whether or not homosexuals should be condemned.

If they couldn't have done that in the Dark Ages it probably due to the low literacy in the population.

I'd add that it's also because they had no access to external criteria like other philosophies with which to compare what they get from the bible. If they could have read it.

If someone attempts to impose another lifestyle on you, do what you believe is the righteous thing to do based on your interpretation to protect your morality.

People who have never heard of humanism or secularism, or indeed, any other kinds of philosophy have no idea of any other choices that can exist. Their lifestyle is a result of something along the lines of childhood indoctrination.

What is dangerous about Christianity?

I didn't actually say Christianity in particular; I said religion is dangerous. However, I can find examples of where Christianity has harmed people. For example, it has caused controversy over evolution, and what is being taught in science class because of a few passages in the bible that explain how the world was created. Now perhaps you don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days, give or take, but some Christians do, and it's all there in the bible. Religion has been given too much credit for things it doesn't explain or show well. Galileo was prosecuted for showing that the earth revolves around the sun. The church objected this on the basis of a few verses that indicate that the earth doesn't move (and therefore, doesn't rotate around the sun). And with no science, it's easy to believe the sun moved and the Earth didn't. If religion claims precedence over science on the basis of an authoritarian book that resists change, then scientific progress, and indeed economic growth, of which science and technology are necessary, along with better living standards will be hindered. If religion is given any kind of platform to stand on (not literally of course), then women wouldn't have equality, and homosexuals couldn't have their marriages, parades, or just being themselves. There are verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality and give women fewer rights than men.
In truth, I find religion to be more dangerous mentally than it is physically. Because quite a few religions condemn people for apostasy, even if it doesn't say in their holy texts that they should be killed explicitly. The fact that apostasy is even condemned does not promote thinking about whether or not what you are reading makes any sense; the fact that you are told in quite a few religions to have faith blindly, and to trust in things you can't even confirm is dangerous; or to have fear in things you can't confirm either; there are even some religions that discourage skepticism; I think skepticism is healthy, and necessary to determine truth from falsehoods. The whole idea of buying into what a book says just because it's held up to high esteem by some people is absurd.

What makes them muslims is that they believe their God and religion are above others.

And that's why they need to be ridiculed.

That's also what makes them so dangerous; they have no respect for people, just for not being a part of their religion. Perhaps people of other religions hold their religion with high regard; but they're not above giving other people respect if they've earned it. The problem is, we have to live in this world together, even if we don't like it, and even if we don't believe in the same things. And in order to make it less unpleasant while we're here, we're going to have to get along. And you don't get along by bending over backwards everytime there's a conflict. You don't get along better by being violent over every stupid incident that occurs. You don't get along by blaming everything on religion. You get along by ignoring the things that you dislike, and expressing yourself through something like free speech if you feel someone is interfering with your life.

To suggest they need to 'learn' would be to suggest that they are definately wrong, which you don't know.

No it doesn't. To learn something is to become aware of something you were previously unaware of. In some cases, it may mean you were wrong before, but it might just be that muslims are ignorant of the idea of people having a different religion, or the whole idea of respect for other people, regardless of what religion says. It might even be entertaining the idea of their religion not being above everyone else.

If I draw Mohammed whilst in the privacy of my own home and keep it there, it won't ruffle as many feathers. If I draw Mohammed and make a Facebook page about it, I'll almost certainly be out to ruffle feathers, in as bigoted a way as I conceivably could.

Well, then that defeats the whole point of expressing the criticism to begin with, doesn't it? I mean, what good is a tree that falls if no one is there to hear it?

What's the use of a protest if the subject doesn't see it?

It's not for the muslims to see necessarily; it's for other people to be aware that we don't have to respect a religious ideal, or conform to religious ideas that we aren't a part of. And even if muslims can't or don't see the drawings, they know it exists, just as children can know porn exists without actually seeing it by looking at the disclaimer at the beginning; since Facebook was censored, they'd find out why pretty easily. It was on the news too. If free speech was restricted, they wouldn't even be hearing of the notion of heathens depicting Mohammed.

Morality will never be obsolete. Laws might be maleable but morality is a more encompassing concept.

Slavery wasn't considered immoral centuries ago. Now it is. Gender inequality wasn't considered immoral centuries ago. Now it is. Same with racism, and the killing or torturing of homosexuals, witches and heathens. Now it is. There is a correlation between law and morality. Particularly now that free speech is protected. If people are finding the law does not fit morality, they will find it necessary to complain and protest about it. And if enough people do it, the government would be in their best interests to change the laws.

Laws of the land change, but as a Christian I'm taught to respect my fellow man, to help my fellow man, to allow my fellow man to make his own choices.

Those aren't aspects that are uniquely Christian though; had you been born centuries earlier, you'd have been taught something different. And you'd still have called yourself a Christian. If you believed that wasn't truly Christian, then was it necessary for someone to teach you to respect others, or did you somehow know to respect others?

The last one is a crucial one and without it I would be imposing beliefs on society, something I feel you've wrongly interpreted when contemplating Christianity.

Yes, and that's because lots of people do impose religion on others, or otherwise interfere with their lives. And there are verses which tell people to do less than nice things to heathens.
But actually, what I find more disturbing is how you've alluded to what you would do without religion. Seriously. You don't just decide you're going to be as immoral as all hell if religion stopped existing. Morality can exist independently of religion; I don't have religion, but I don't impose my beliefs on other people because of humanistic principles. You don't get along with people by imposing personal beliefs on other people.

Old Testament

Lots of violent, horrific atrocities fit to be in a mythology text. Not very much here worthy of the present day morality that exists.

| Jesus Christ | New Testament

Read it before you knock it.

You occasionally get some good stuff here and there. But it's riddled with other not so pleasant stuff and some contradictions. In fact, Thomas Paine explains that problem best by explaining that it's written by several different people, independently of each other, and in ignorance of what the previous scribe wrote. So you end up with inconsistencies between books, and some people have opted not to include some of Paul's writings because he gives women fewer rights. Then you have various different versions of the bible, some of which have come about because the original editor changed it to whatever he wanted it to be. The result is certain verses are added or missing, and some words are completely different.

Show me those passages and I'll be happy to give you my opinion.

There are way, way, too many to list. Either you haven't read it, or you've somehow interpreted it not to be so horrible. I have a hard time believing you couldn't have found any verses about god condemning those who don't believe into an eternal hell, or condemning people who won't follow Jesus, or even the whole idea of an Apocalypse.

If it's witty, all the better.

Just when it's deliberately offensive or a targeted, baseless attack that has me offended.

...Like Jesus being depicted in a baby suit.

But you're not going to go on a violent rampage and kill the guy who drew Jesus in a baby suit.

 

[Saints&Storms]

I think a bitch (Pakistan) needs to be slapped

The hell is this shit? Seriously what are they Children? Grow up Pakistan, accept that the world thinks you're nuts, and get a life, Religion is hardly worthy of going Batshit and shutting a site down because you can't take the heat of a kitchen you shouldn't have stepped in...

Point being, Islam in and of itself does not promote these things. Idiots within the religion do. Just like Christianity.

Not 'just like Christianity', just like ANY psychotic religious tard is. Point blank most religious are willing to kill, cheat, lie and steal to get their religion there when they want it to, how they want it to. You can't really sum it down to one religion more like any and all.

I have to note that the bible say "Love the Sinner, HATE the SIN", these idiots hating gays, africans and such are dumbasses not Christians.

And the Qur'an says to kill for their religion and kill those who don't dare believe.
Oh and the last pic of "Hell NOT being a Game" I remember those being actors...

This is how islamic muslims act.

 

[Harlequin]

Well, not really because they don't have freedom of speech, and aren't at liberty to criticize anything they want.

Their theocratic government may forbid them from speaking against their regime but people are born with mouths with which to speak and limbs with which to use,* there is always another option to oppression.

*I know there are those who aren't born with limbs, I'm speaking figuratively.

Well sure, why not? You can't leave out the negative criticisms,

I hadn't suggested we should.

...or else we'll never know what's wrong with religion,

We'll never know what's wrong with religion because we'll never truly know anything.

You should have just asked. It wasn't really the point of my argument anyways.

Fair enough.

It's "wrong" according to what people believe.

It's wrong according to what you and perhaps your entire neighbourhood believes. I have tons of muslims just up the street from me promoting the introduction of Sharia law in Britain. They're part of this society, therefore I can't claim 'my' society believes something on a whole. They're in this 'western' society of ours, believing different things.

But that's basically the point; that people should be allowed to point out what they find wrong with religion, in order that the government is run according to how people want it, and not arbitrarily like it was in the Dark Ages.

I agree that people should be at liberty to criticise whatever they want, but by putting power in the hands of the average person you're crippling the potential of that institution.

The issue with everybody getting the vote is that not everybody thinks or conceptualises enough to warrant a vote.

Two ex-cons will have a stronger say in an election than Steven Hawking.

EDIT: Chopped the post bummer

 

[der Astronom]

Their theocratic government may forbid them from speaking against their regime but people are born with mouths with which to speak and limbs with which to use,* there is always another option to oppression.

*I know there are those who aren't born with limbs, I'm speaking figuratively.

What, you mean like the Enlightenment?

We'll never know what's wrong with religion because we'll never truly know anything.

That's just semantics. The whole point of bringing that up was because it's normal not to like it when someone makes criticisms about what you believe or what you express. But just because you don't like something isn't a reason for people to remain silent on criticizing you. If they do, you will never improve. You'll never see what other people are thinking of you, or what you believe, if it interferes with them. And something that gives people such great egos about themselves like religion needs to be criticized. People need to see what religion is doing to them.
(I am not referring to everybody who believes in a religion though; some people are willing to admit that religion can satisfy selfish needs for some people, but they just don't go that route; the other people who do though, need a good wake up call.)

It's wrong according to what you and perhaps your entire neighbourhood believes. I have tons of muslims just up the street from me promoting the introduction of Sharia law in Britain. They're part of this society, therefore I can't claim 'my' society believes something on a whole. They're in this 'western' society of ours, believing different things.

Oh god, not Sharia Law. That stuff is dangerous, and should have no place in the government. And I say that, not only because they are religion-based laws, but because they have done dangerous things like letting kids get away with stabbing someone. And Sharia Law wasn't always in Britain; I find it objectionable that muslims can go to another country, throw a fit, and suddenly, the laws we have that grant us our freedoms and privileges are being rivaled by religious laws, the likes of which were abolished by the end of the Dark Ages--and if we let this go on for too long, we'll lose our freedoms and privileges. I'd rather that day never come to light.
It's that simple. If you move to another country, you should be aware of the laws that exist there. They're different, sure, but they're not for you to decide or change; don't like it, then don't go there. Simple as that. If you're happy with the way your laws are back home, then you don't really have a reason to leave your home country. Don't try making it difficult for other people who don't agree with the laws you abide by.

Don't think I'm the only one in my neighborhood that thinks Sharia Law in Britain is a bad idea; Pat Condell doesn't like it, and neither do several other outspoken people from Britain. And with that, there are probably several other people in Britain, who haven't said anything about it too loudly, but probably also agree that Sharia Law is a bad idea.

I agree that people should be at liberty to criticise whatever they want, but by putting power in the hands of the average person you're crippling the potential of that institution.

The issue with everybody getting the vote is that not everybody thinks or conceptualises enough to warrant a vote.

Two ex-cons will have a stronger say in an election than Steven Hawking.

EDIT: Chopped the post bummer

Conversely, replace Stephen Hawkings with Hitler, and you'll see the whole point of that. There are more than enough people not like Hitler that their votes would mean more than Hitler's himself. Sure, giving everyone an equal vote is not the best solution, but it's certainly better than whatever we had in history.
And you can't judge someone's political opinions on status, or even their own words. Politicians have proven themselves bloody liars, and people in the upper class don't represent people of other classes. There's just no good criteria for determining who should have more weighted votes and who doesn't. So instead, we have to compromise by appealing to the majority.