Freedom of Speech/Religious Extremism

silvia said:
The respect line in this case is really difficult to draw, we are talking about one of the most important principle of our society and we are talking about one of their most important religious principle. Who has the truth? NObody. Where does freedom of speach ends and mocking starts? Nobody can say it.

As always it's a subjective thing and it depends on from wich side you are looking to it (does it make any sense?)
Click to expand...


wouldnt it be easier if everyone can verbally and visually take the piss out of everyone? or not take the piss at all? rather than making one rule for one, and one for another?
 
silvia said:
In the eyes of extremists, their religion is the ONLY one, don't forget the american extremists patriotic-belivers (I'm not sure what branch of christianism do they support, maybe are differents, but the clear example is Bush)
Click to expand...

the only higher being i believe in if any is Buddah.
 
Beckiboo said:
Can I just point out that it's Muslim extremists who are protesting and burning down buildings. The majority of Muslims are peaceful people and violence is not what their relogion is all about. I think the Muslim Council of GB said that if an apology was issued they would forgive.

It's just about having respect for other people's religions isnt it? You wouldnt joke about the Holocaust with a Jew because you know it would cause offence, you shouldnt create jokes about Muhammed because quite obviously it will cause offence in the Muslim religion.
Click to expand...


There's huge chasm of difference between joking about an actual genocide and mocking a mythical religious idol.

I don't think anyone should be apologising. Folk can believe what they like and treat Peter Pan as the supreme creator for all I care, but to my mind it's preposterous. Hence, to expect me to treat the subject with reverence is unreasonable.
 
I'm all for freedom of speech, and all against violent protests and burning down embassies and such, but...

Has everyone completely forgotten the idea of "do unto others"? I suppose it's originally a Biblical judeochristian concept (I think it was Kant who rephrased secularly as "do not operate under any maxim by which you would not want others to operate.")

Of course people have the right to draw satyrical cartoons of whatever they want. You should have the right to say what you want... but there are some things you just don't do out of consideration for others. That concept appears to have ignored by people on all sides of this controversy.
 
Morbyd said:
Of course people have the right to draw satyrical cartoons of whatever they want. You should have the right to say what you want... but there are some things you just don't do out of consideration for others. That concept appears to have ignored by people on all sides of this controversy.
Click to expand...

I agree. Freedom of speech is great as long as you don't forget your manners with it.

This same issue was raised in Holland, when that film director Theo van Gogh was murdered. He had said things to offend the islamists.
 
Morbyd said:
Of course people have the right to draw satyrical cartoons of whatever they want. You should have the right to say what you want... but there are some things you just don't do out of consideration for others. That concept appears to have ignored by people on all sides of this controversy.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Consideration for your fellow man is a cornerstone of humanist decency. So if these cartoons were intended merely to cause offence they should not haved been published. If there is no other motivation then a stern letter to the papers in question would be a reasonable reaction. End of.
 
chewie_oo7 said:
whats the big deal?
Click to expand...

Well some say that a lot of the commotion around the cartoons was provocated for political reasons... I think the cartoons were already published in October, but now was the time to use them to create a riot.
 
It does seem odd that newspapers all around Europe decided to reprint the cartoons now, several months after publication. It's almost as if they wanted to saw "here, we've got free speech, so stop your whining and take the insult quietly."

Of course, the reaction in places like Syria and Lebanon was over-the-top (a little more direct than a letter to the editor, perhaps Bucks :lol:) I think you've got politicians, as well as extremists, in these countries using the uproar to strengthen their positions.

I think it's a sad episode all around.
 
This depresses me. I always hope when religion arises a prominent topic that someone will clarify why I should respect beliefs that cannot be true. Look at the pie chart below and explain to how each faith related to each other. Most of them are mutually exclusive - you can't believe without disbelieving the other. "Yeah, but we're right and the others are wrong". Is the that the argument?

worldrel.gif
 
Morbyd said:
I think it's a sad episode all around.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But if people weren't indoctrinated from childhood it couldn't happen.

You don't think penned rapier wit would have the same effect as burning embassies Morbyd?:lol:
 
Buckley said:
Indeed. But if people weren't indoctrinated from childhood it couldn't happen.

You don't think penned rapier wit would have the same effect as burning embassies Morbyd?:lol:
Click to expand...


WTF is chinese folk religion on yr pie chart!
 
Buckley said:
This depresses me. I always hope when religion arises a prominent topic that someone will clarify why I should respect beliefs that cannot be true. Look at the pie chart below and explain to how each faith related to each other. Most of them are mutually exclusive - you can't believe without disbelieving the other. "Yeah, but we're right and the others are wrong". Is the that the argument?
Click to expand...


I can't belive you are saying this Buckley. Do you only show respect for things that can be proven or things that you can touch? :eek:
 
we've had this discussion before and one of the problems between christian/jewish/islamic faiths (the 3 abrahamic religions) is that they are fundamentally in contradiction of each other. That is that christianity supersedes Judaism and likewise Islam supersedes Christianity, despite the fact all these faiths believe in the same one God, have similar holy sites, similar sacred texts, etc.

Therefore its not as easy for a devout christian/muslim to concede and say "ok thats your religion and faith, fine" as it would be to do so to a buddhist or hindu. The reason being that if these 3 religions said "ok we've all got different faiths, thats fine lets get on with it" then they would be undermining their religion and their own beliefs.

agree with buckers about religion but like morbyd, consideration is important too.
 
silvia said:
I can't belive you are saying this Buckley. Do you only show respect for things that can be proven or things that you can touch? :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm saying that millions of people have blind faith in religions that have been rammed into them from when they were too young to know better. I'm saying that Christianity was spread by teaching as fact things that are now accepted (even by Christians) as fiction. I'm saying that there are fossils in existence that prove evolutionary theory. I'm saying I don't know the answer but that means that I know more than these people who say they do.
 
Bucks, in general I agree that religion is mostly bogus. Opiate for the masses and all.

But some people find something they need in it and/or refuse to look beyond it when they get old enough to question their youthful indoctrination. Whatever gets you through the day, you could call it. We've got to have some respect for it, not because we have to believe in it, but because it's something dear to our fellow man.

goddam I sound like a hippy :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top