Political Crossfire Forums

[jeechoscopy]

Thanks politicalcrossfire.com that make me to speak freely whether someone infuriate, support or ignore my idea. Here in Pakistan our govt. too make us free on speaking, thanks my govt.


However I’m in favor of respect and dignity I can’t support blasphemy.

What about getting mute?

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: However I’m in favor of respect and dignity I can’t support blasphemy.

If they're not Muslims, they cannot commit blasphemy in the name of Islam.....Only true followers who re-nig on their faith can be guilty. If someone is a Christian, they cannot commit "Islamic blasphemy" as the 2 religions have different rules.

Also, it's not the government's place to pass legislation that requires people to "get along." Freedom of association.

[Random Evil Guy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

what a bunch of morons. don't they know this might lead to the end of financial aid from western countries?

[Saracen]

Random Evil Guy wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

what a bunch of morons. don't they know this might lead to the end of financial aid from western countries?

Wow. Idiots, indeed. This is too much to handle.

Ben Huh wrote: If they're not Muslims, they cannot commit blasphemy in the name of Islam.....Only true followers who re-nig on their faith can be guilty. If someone is a Christian, they cannot commit "Islamic blasphemy" as the 2 religions have different rules.

Good point, but it is in the end "blasphemy" in our eyes.

[Saracen]

It seems to me that this anger that sprouted out of the Muslim world seems unjustified. Yes, overreaction is not a good reaction. However, I do not blame the Muslims to reacting to this blasphemy as a whole, whether it be boycotting (just reaction) or violence (unjust reaction).

This is just to show you all that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a very important man and held in HIGHEST regard by Muslims. This is to show you that we do not conform to those who insult the Prophet (PBUH) based on the actions of the lowly terrorists. In fact, these fundamelists are far from being close to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in their words or actions.

The reaction was to show the world how much the Prophet (PBUH) means to us Muslims, as we believe he was God's greatest creation. This is not showing arrogance, but pride in our religion and our Prophet (PBUH). I agree, the overreaction was stupid, but those who portrayed him in bad light are not innocent either.

[jeechoscopy]

Random Evil Guy wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

what a bunch of morons. don't they know this might lead to the end of financial aid from western countries?


…Only at the cost of speaking free?

No, worries WE HAVE PAID THE 10s TIME GREATER INTEREST on the mighty aid.


Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

I’m sure; these Syrian guys did what some American did after 9/11 with the mosques. And some British and some Australians in there countries.
Hatred against the west (the west that has been harassing them for a long) is obvious behind the scene.

a Destruction assets in any means is condemned as the blasphemy.

[jeechoscopy]

Free Speaking must be supported as a civilized right, not as a jungle’s law.
At this point I feel satisfaction. I’m sure, there’s a big majority of civilized people in Norway and the rest of the west.

[Trajan]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. And freedom of speech does have limits, whether you think so or not.

For instance. Walk up to Bush, and call him an idiot. He'll probably smile and just ignore you. Walk up to him and threaten his life and you'll have every Secret Service agent in earshot on top of you. So much for freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

So much for unlimited freedom of speech.

And freedom of asembly is pretty much the same thing. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

[Mangas_Coloradas]

jeechoscopy wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

what a bunch of morons. don't they know this might lead to the end of financial aid from western countries?


…Only at the cost of speaking free?

No, worries WE HAVE PAID THE 10s TIME GREATER INTEREST on the mighty aid.


Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

I’m sure; these Syrian guys did what some American did after 9/11 with the mosques. And some British and some Australians in there countries.
Hatred against the west (the west that has been harassing them for a long) is obvious behind the scene.

a Destruction assets in any means is condemned as the blasphemy.

Please tell me that you are not comparing the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to
the Danish cartoons ? Does hatred against the west excuse burning down
the Danish and Norwegian embassy ?

[Saracen]

Mangas wrote: Please tell me that you are not comparing the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to
the Danish cartoons ? Does hatred against the west excuse burning down
the Danish and Norwegian embassy ?

No, he isn't. He's making assumptions.

[jeechoscopy]

Mangas_Coloradas wrote:
Please tell me that you are not comparing the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to
the Danish cartoons ? Does hatred against the west excuse burning down
the Danish and Norwegian embassy ?


Which word of mine did make you think so?

[jeechoscopy]

Trajan wrote: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. And freedom of speech does have limits, whether you think so or not.

For instance. Walk up to Bush, and call him an idiot. He'll probably smile and just ignore you. Walk up to him and threaten his life and you'll have every Secret Service agent in earshot on top of you. So much for freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

So much for unlimited freedom of speech.

And freedom of asembly is pretty much the same thing. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment


:-D

and thanks for the useful link.

[Saracen]

Trajan wrote: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. And freedom of speech does have limits, whether you think so or not.

For instance. Walk up to Bush, and call him an idiot. He'll probably smile and just ignore you. Walk up to him and threaten his life and you'll have every Secret Service agent in earshot on top of you. So much for freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

So much for unlimited freedom of speech.

And freedom of asembly is pretty much the same thing. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

Your input is always appreciated, Trajan. :tu: :-D

[John]

Moath wrote: REG wrote: i agree, seeing as this was published by a right wing fundy christian magazine here in norway. which in no way is representative of the average norwegian or norwegian government. however, it has gone beyond that. freedom of speech is the very foundation of western democracies. some of them now demand an apology from the danish and norwegian government. luckily, they won't get one.

Time will tell. Apologies have been issued before, but I think the Muslim community should just keep it as a boycott. The bomb threats were unnecessary. I know that freedom of speech is a foundation of democracy, but it has its limits. I think it's because Muslims are not used to these insults. Jesus is portrayed in American pop culture quite a lot, but the Christians don't see anything to it. However, these cartoons still lack taste. I just hope this doesn't lead to more anti-Islamism.


Sure we see something to it. But I for one don't need to defend God by force. He's God...He defends ME.

If God has a problem with it...He'll deal with it in His own time. If He doesn't have a problem with it...then who am I to have one?

[XxMorningStarxX]

How severe is the cartoon exactly??? All i read on the news is that the muslim community is offended by the cartoon.. but how is one to judge if the cartoon is not seen. Can somebody please describe to me how the stupid cartoon goes or give me a link.

[Zeeman]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: How severe is the cartoon exactly??? All i read on the news is that the muslim community is offended by the cartoon.. but how is one to judge if the cartoon is not seen. Can somebody please describe to me how the stupid cartoon goes or give me a link.

Did you seriously not see them...They are everywhere including this forum.They are offensive for two things:
1-Islam doesnt allow depiction of the Prophets or God

2-One of them shows an ugly bearded man with a bomb on his head incinuating that the figure head of the Islamic faith was a terrorist..

[Glorfindel]

you know I have been trying not to get into this discussion becuase I know that freedom is not limitless and there are certain lines one must never cross. I don't think freedom of speech should be banned in the west, yet I think someone should be punished for that insult to more than 1 billion muslims

now in the US you could be sued for slander ...yet shouldnt it be covered under the freedom of speech to say what you want?

a man's freedoms should not hurt or damage other people's rights, don't you agree?

freedom is not limitless... there are as I said lines that shouldnt be crossed

now let's try to remember a few of accidents where the freedom of speech , which is so sacred in the west has led some people to jail or at least to court

a year and a half ago, in the united arab Emirates, a cultural conference was held and one of the discussions was about the holocaust and the lies that were incorporated in the Holocaust. now one of the results that come out at the end of that conference was that the Holocaust did happen but was exaggerated and used as a reason for Israel to get the sympathies of Europeans and Americans

under pressure from the US, the government of UAE closed that cultural organization and disbanded its members

what happened to Freedom of Speech?

okay, another example, does the famous French author Roger Garaudy when his book about the myths that founded Israel was released, he was dragged to court and found guilty becuase he denied the Holocaust.

What the Hell happened to Freedom of speech and Belief?

he didn't insult judaism, he didnt print cartoons that supposed to be funny about Jewish prophets or rabbis, he just said he didn't believe in it..that was suffecient to get him sued and found guilty of that horrendous awful crime

so in France, you can be an aetheist, you can insult christianity and Islam, you can reprint cartoons of the the Prophet of 1 billion people exclaiming that he is a terrorist and all who believed him are, but if you for one minute in doubt of the holocaust, then you are criminal and will be convicted if you said that.

looool.. I hope you all find this as funny and Ironic as I do


Freedom of speech is an illusion..freedom of speech is a privilege if you are gonna insult the religions and beliefs of all people but when it comes to the religion and beliefe to a certain "chosen" people, then that privilege is no more.

freedom of speech is so sacred to you guys, huh, as long as you don't trample over those who gave it to you?

"the book of daniel" , a show on Nbc or ABC or CBS, I dont really remember, was axed becuase the netword received complains and letters from chirstian organization in the Us that found the show to be offensive

I expect at least something of that measure to those working on the newpaper in Denmark

a simple " Oh we are sorry we didn't mean to offend you but our laws do not prohibit humiliating you and insulting your prophet" will not do

you can be as stubborn as you may, and we can find other markets to trade with, from people who don't insult our beliefs

and If it were up to me, I would stop selling oil to all of Europe, excluding those who didnt help in spreading those offensive cartoons...and the danish government will pay through the nose and think twice before using that pretentious excuse of freedom of speech and what not when that cartoonist gets his hand of a pen

[Orions]

I think that we need to strike a balance between several things here, and that is not easy by any means:

- freedom of opinion
- good taste
- distance
- consequences

Freedom od opinion (and its limits) and the limits of good taste have been discussed here, I don't see any need to repeat anything about it. But as I read this thread I noticed that the last two (distance and consequences) are avoided, while imo they are the most important.

Distance is important, because frankly, cartoons in some magazine are not the most influential things in the world... If Bush or Putin said they thought Islam was funny and weird, well that would be quite different. But a cartoon printed in a magazine in one country or two?

As for the consequences. They printed the cartoons. It was their choice and their right (there are the limits of good taste, but I am not considering them for the sake of this reasoning). Then the Muslims boycotted their products - it was also a choice and a right - the freedom of choice. Now, the ones who should be rightly annoyed are the Danish and Norwegian companies operating in the Muslim countries because they lost years of efforts. And these companies should see to it that the newspapers suffer the consequences.

I read this in a book by pratchett, I am sure it is much much older. Anyway, here goes:

"There are two freedoms. The freedom of choice. And the freedom to take the consequences of that choice."

[The_Right_Honourable]

Sadly its gone FAR beyond some idiot offending Muslims.

After 9/11 and the London bombings(i was actually in Denmark when it happened) crowds didnt storm mosques and burn Arab flags. All that happened was the printing of cartoons.

Can Muslims honestly not see why we find this insulting? You murder us for no good reason and show no remorse as a faith (obviously indivduals have im talking mass protests) and expect us to curb our freedoms over such a silly thing?

The actions of these people insult me. They offend the beliefs i hold most dearly.

[Saracen]

Concerning the issue from the beginning...
I just read the papers this morning, and found out something. It seems that this issue was brought into court by several Muslim ambassadors the first time the cartoons came out. The court refused to even accept this issue, and instead the papers re-printed these cartoons. After that, letters of repeal were sent to the Danish ambassadors, and when that didn't work, the majority of Muslims boycotted the products and/or took to the streets in peaceful protest. The minority who are ranting and raving about got the most media attention. Seeing that the Danish government refused the case, you can't blame the Muslims. Look at what happened to the "Book of Daniel". It went into court, and it got cancelled in the end. In this case, nothing is happening.
No wonder the Muslims are angry: double-standards of the West.

Considering the pictures of the protests...
Some of these pictures were faked. Notice that the signs were written in the same font, and it's most likely a photoshop program. I'm pretty sure of it. I looked at the other pictures and realized the exact same thing.

I am 100% sure that it might be true among a few protesters, but the rest of the pictures seem faked, and I'm pretty sure about it.

Call me crazy, but something is fishy in this issue, and neither side is being more truthful or outstanding than the other.

Good post, Orions. :tu: