quote:

---

DAKAR, Senegal -- The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

---

Are people going to be sured for speaking their minds? This is ridicules. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't care what religion put forward this motion. No religion gets a free pass to be bigots, discriminate against women and gays and to push parts of a hateful agenda on the population.

quote:

---

Dehumanization:
In almost all NATO nations, the Taliban have been completely dehumanized — a historically-tested signal that perpetrators of the crime of genocide carry unmitigated intentions to eradicate the dehumanized group. Politicians, the armed forces, the media, and even the general public associate in the West the Taliban with irrational fanatics, intolerant fundamentalists, brutal assassins, beheaders of women, bearded extremists, and terrorists. This luminescent negativity paves the way for aggression, military operations, and genocide. Promoting the predatory doctrine of collective self-defense, killing the Taliban is celebrated as a legal virtue. To leave the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, says NATO, is to leave a haven for terrorism.

---

Just replace 'Taliban' with 'Muslims' in the above text and you have it.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
It is about time. This dehumanization of Muslims, riding a trojan horse called freedom of expression is clearly a component of the phoney 'war on terrorism', the US Armageddonites and their Nato allies' euphemism for their anti-Muslims imperialistic crusade.

So you agree that Muslim nations should be able to sue people in other countries for printing cartoons mocking/making satirical statements on their religions? Do you support this right for the Pope, Israeli rabbis and Buddhist monks as well?

Just replace 'Taliban' with 'Muslims' in the above text and you have it.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

Dehumanization

In almost all NATO nations, the Taliban have been completely dehumanized — a historically-tested signal that perpetrators of the crime of genocide carry unmitigated intentions to eradicate the dehumanized group. Politicians, the armed forces, the media, and even the general public associate in the West the Taliban with irrational fanatics, intolerant fundamentalists, brutal assassins, beheaders of women, bearded extremists, and terrorists. This luminescent negativity paves the way for aggression, military operations, and genocide. Promoting the predatory doctrine of collective self-defense, killing the Taliban is celebrated as a legal virtue. To leave the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, says NATO, is to leave a haven for terrorism.

A similar dehumanization took place in the 16th and 17th centuries when NATO precursors occupied the Americas to purloin land and resources. The killings of native inhabitants were extensive and heartless. Thomas Jefferson, the noble author of the Declaration of Independence, labeled Indians as "merciless savages." President Andrew Jackson pontificated: "What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms." Promoting the predatory doctrine of discovery, the United States Supreme Court later ratified the pilgrims' crimes, holding that "discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title (to land). ([T]he Indians were fierce savages...To leave them in possession of their country was to leave the country a wilderness."

The predators have not changed their stripes a bit. They come, they demonize, they obliterate. They do all this in the name of superior civilization.

source

quote:

---

President Abdoulaye Wade said:
I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
All religions are open for discussion, interpretation and mockery. No one religion gets a "get out of rational discourse free" card.

I do not believe religions have the right to be uncriticized.

---

quote:

---

Islam is a divisive, destructive, dehumanizing ideology. unionist

---

Maybe to your surprise, I strongly believe that this is your opinion and I do defend your right to express it. Seriously.

I have posed the question to Ghislaine and I would like to pose it to everyone:

I have posed the question to Ghislaine and I would like to pose it to everyone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
What are your parameters to distinguish free expression from propaganda that dehumanize people?

---

You have a category problem there. It's not obviously true that dehumanizing propaganda, however that is defined, should be exempt from rights of free expression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

What are your parameters to distinguish free expression from propaganda that dehumanize people ?

---

Simple. When people start believing in Supreme Beings that are more Supreme than everyone else's Supreme Beings, they dehumanize themselves and everyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
In case it goes unnoticed:

I have posed the question to Ghislaine and I would like to pose it to everyone:

What are your parameters to distinguish free expression from propaganda that dehumanize people ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Should this be illegal? Should these guys be sued?

---

The answer to this is not censorship, or limiting freedom of speech but better ideas and more freedom of speech.

quote:

---

Simple. When people start believing in Supreme Beings that are more Supreme than everyone else's Supreme Beings, they dehumanize themselves and everyone else.

Scientists are working feverishly to develop a device tentatively known as the Crapsucker to cleanse people's minds of this filth. I'll let you know when it's ready for testing on humans. unionist

---

Sorry, I was hoping for a reply produced by the intellect, not the sphincter.

quote:

---

Since I believe in free speech, even for speech I find completely repulsive and repugnant (like neo-nazi speech for example) my opinion is really irrelevant to the issue. I believe each person has (should have) the right to make this distinction for themselves, read what they like and form their own opinions. -Ghislaine

---

Joseph Goebbels wouldn't hope for better supporter and hand clapping nodding audience member. The world would be much better with citizens of this frame of mind. N'est-ce pas, Ghislaine?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Sorry, I was hoping for a reply produced by the intellect, not the sphincter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Sorry, I was hoping for a reply produced by the intellect, not the sphincter.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, I was always told I should go with my strengths. oldgoat

---

That was funny. I wish you were moderating in person. You would very aptly and promptly decrease a group's tension. as you just did as far as I am concerned.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

Joseph Goebbels wouldn't hope for better supporter and hand clapping nodding audience member. The world would be much better with citizens of this frame of mind. N'est-ce pas, Ghislaine?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Are you accusing me of supporting Goebbels' ideas simply because I believe in free speech?

---

No, he was just upset and angry when he wrote that. Sometimes when he gets that way, he calls me a supporter of Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No, he was just upset and angry when he wrote that. Sometimes when he gets that way, he calls me a supporter of Israel.

He'll get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Joseph Goebbels wouldn't hope for better supporter and hand clapping nodding audience member. The world would be much better with citizens of this frame of mind. N'est-ce pas, Ghislaine?

---

This is completely unacceptable, and your account will be suspended if you post anything like this again about another babbler.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Since I believe there is a difference between bona fide free speech and completely repulsive and repgnant propaganda that dehumanize people (like neo-nazi speech for example) my opinion whether you are supporting Goebbels' ideas is really irrelevant to the issue. I believe each person has (should have) the right to formulate their opinions for themselves, read what they like -including of course in this thread- and form their own opinions.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

So in your ideal world, who gets to set the line of difference between "bona fide free speech" (we will ignore that that is an oxymoron) and de-humanizing propoganda?
Will this person set the same line as you? What religion will they be - or will they be atheist? Will they be elected or apointed?

quote:

---

Propaganda dehumanizing targeted groups of people, serves the purpose of numbing our natural inhibitions about killing our fellow humans. It's been happening since the beginning of organized war. Some individuals of course don't need this numbing, but that's another matter. It serves to help mobilize a population of citizens who may otherwise not be sociopathic.

The answer to this is not censorship, or limiting freedom of speech but better ideas and more freedom of speech.

Paradoxically, the kind of censorship of freedom of expression protecting particular creeds creates just the sort of atmosphere where groups can be demonised and dehumanised. –oldgoat

---

Thank you, olgoat ! Now there is a discussion !!
I would like to point out that the element of imbalance of power –political, financial etc..- is absent from your discourse. That is, you assume that all have the means to spread their ideas equally. A notion reminiscent of the ‘free market’ theory and the fair, balanced and unbiased invisible hand.
You assume, for instance, that should the main stream, right wing media tomorrow start demonizing the poor –through editorials, articles, pictures and other ways- treating them as lazy, leech and a burden on hard working Canadians should only be met with a few letters to the editors and a few press releases from OCAP. Thus, OCAP and the mighty right wing media should lay it out in the “market” of ideas.

I gave an example of imbalance in financial means terms, but of course you know that there is also political power imbalance or combination of both political and financial, such as Canadian Aboriginals, minorities etc..

quote:

---

So in your ideal world, who gets to set the line of difference between "bona fide free speech" (we will ignore that that is an oxymoron) and de-humanizing propoganda?
Will this person set the same line as you? What religion will they be - or will they be atheist? Will they be elected or apointed?

I am just curious, as this line of thought seems to be gaining more currency in Canada these days. -Ghislaine

---

For someone who holds that free speech also includes not allowing the -allegedly- aggrieved party a recourse, as in suinng, you already rendered your question moot.

Perhaps we should just let one extremist view sing their unbridled free speech hymn and the opposing extremist view sing their jihadist mayhem chant.

The world will not be a better place, for sure. Perhaps there is a reason it is gaining more currency in Canada these days: To protect Canadians from their fellow Canadians' ridicule, put down, demonizing and dehumanization masquerading as freedom of expression. Verbal bullying is freedom of expression, isn't it ? A man verbally abusing his female) partner may also exercise his "freedom of expression". No, Ghislaine, we rightly call it a-b-u-s-e.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

For someone who holds that free speech also includes not allowing the -allegedly- aggrieved party a recourse, as in suinng, you already rendered your question moot.

Perhaps we should just let one extremist view sing their unbridled free speech hymn and the opposing extremist view sing their jihadist mayhem chant.

The world will not be a better place, for sure. Perhaps there is a reason it is gaining more currency in Canada these days: To protect Canadians from their fellow Canadians' ridicule, put down, demonizing and dehumanization masquerading as freedom of expression. Verbal bullying is freedom of expression, isn't it ? A man verbally abusing his female) partner may also exercise his "freedom of expression". No, Ghislaine, we rightly call it a-b-u-s-e.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

---

I agree that you should have the right to sue for libel and defamation. A religion does not have this right (and shouldn't) as it is geared toward individuals.

Free speech means that you may get verbally bullied (you did some of this to sanzideh), offended etc. You do not have a right not to be offended. You still didn't answer the question as to who would set the line?

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
For someone who holds that free speech also includes not allowing the -allegedly- aggrieved party a recourse, as in suinng, you already rendered your question moot.

---

What? I didn't hear Ghislaine say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to sue.

I personally think they should be encouraged to sue. The time and money they waste will save countless men, women and children from having to listen to religious propaganda. I can actually recommend some incredibly expensive lawyers.

Where shall I send the list?

quote:

---

Perhaps we should just let one extremist view sing their unbridled free speech hymn and the opposing extremist view sing their jihadist mayhem chant.

---

"Extremist"?? Oh, so you represent the interests of the "moderates".

I personally am proud to be a secular fundamentalist. I wage verbal jihad against all practitioners of superstition, hatred, division, disunity, anti-scientific toxic waste propaganda. Especially the "moderate" ones. Why? Because they are more treacherous.

quote:

---

Perhaps there is a reason it is gaining more currency in Canada these days: To protect Canadians from their fellow Canadians' ridicule, put down, demonizing and dehumanization masquerading as freedom of expression.

---

Finally, finally unionist got past his obsession with few words that caused him a seizure and prompted his anti-religion (yes all religions) delirium.. finally after his seizure he awoke to the topic and got on track.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Finally unionist gave his view that they have the right to sue.

---

How strange. In my very first post in this thread, I shit all over Islam and affirmed your right to sue me. Let me save your "up arrow" key and quote myself:

quote:

---

Islam is a divisive, destructive, dehumanizing ideology.

So sue me.

---

I've been waiting for the bailiff to arrive all afternoon with your Statement of Claim.

quote:

---

The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

---

Muslims are under attack, and certainly they have a right to defend themselves.

I'm not referring to the religion, I'm referring to the people.

If someone writes something particularly scurrilous (to use the legalese) against members of a religion then they can use their considerable resources to counter the misperceptions, like anyone else is supposed to be allowed to, or even go after the credibility of the source. It should be particular to what's said, however, not some dangerously vague definition of broad belief systems framed by certain self proclaimed believers themselves. Maybe someone should ask the Senegalese president what he thinks "the limits" on speech should be instead, who should be trusted to define and enforce them, and how, and why exactly "free" speech "needs" such limits.

Now, why isn't someone posting something about the one-sided limits on free speech already being imposed here in Asperland?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

How strange. In my very first post in this thread, I shit all over Islam and affirmed your right to sue me. Let me save your "up arrow" key and quote myself:

Islam is a divisive, destructive, dehumanizing ideology.
So sue me.

I've been waiting for the bailiff to arrive all afternoon with your Statement of Claim.

Whassa matta - chickening out?

---

unionist, Your display of anger, expression of hate, your overall tantrum and regress to childhood manners and language are symptomatic of a trauma most probably caused to you by a pseudo-religious source, as their manifestations appear to be routinely triggered by mentions of of religion.

Though I really empathize with you and express solidarity with and support to anyone unjustly aggrieved, hurt, traumatized and adversely affected, I must say that left unhealed, this state will keep interfering with your attempts to conduct a mature discussions and debase -between your cognitive construction of ideas and their verbalization and transcription into a communicable message- any insighful thought into angry child manneurism and even further regress to an anal phase highlighted by mention of fecal matter and function.

Some religious fundamentalists speak in tongues when in trance. At the other extreme of the spectrum, our fundamentalist atheist speaks childish. Neither state is known to be healthier than the other. Both need 'tuning' and adjustment to reality.

Islam is puke!

There, what more do you want?

Keeping my lawyer on retainer is killing my finances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

I would like to point out that the element of imbalance of power –political, financial etc..- is absent from your discourse. That is, you assume that all have the means to spread their ideas equally. A notion reminiscent of the ‘free market’ theory and the fair, balanced and unbiased invisible hand.

---

If a law is passed to protect "religious sensitivity", then the Islamic countries' officially controlled media would be the biggest violators of such law. Whenever any muslim friend of mine complains about lack of "respect for religion", I remind him of his own beliefs about Bahais, Raelians, and other religions that muslims in general consider "fake". Hell they don't even respect other sects within Islam.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Are you gonna friggin sue me, or what?

Islam is puke!

There, what more do you want?

Keeping my lawyer on retainer is killing my finances.

Shit, or get off the Allah-worshipping pot, already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

I am not sure where that imbalance of power is. Few evangelican organizations are as powerful or spend nearly as much as what Saudi Arabia, Iran and other muslim countries are spending in spreading the "message" around the world. Not only they are able to spread Islam in the Western countries, but in their own countries they fight hard against the spread of other religions. Sometimes even officially.

---

I thought a good part of the US military budget was directed at this aim? Internally, even Barak Obama is protesting his innocence of the charge of being a Muslim.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In former times the west penetrated foreign 'primitive' cultures with priests, ideological warfare to soften them up. Psy-ops or whatever.

Now, there may indeed be a humanitarian case - on a case by case level - for the introduction of certain western cultural values but on the strength of the sensitivity I'm seeing here I'm not confident the effect on the social fabric of these targetted 'backward' cultures would be so different than pox-tainted blankets and whisky.

quote:

---

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

---

Turkish PM attacks proposed ban

quote:

---

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticised a proposal to ban his ruling AK Party as being against the "national will".
He was speaking after Turkey's chief prosecutor asked the country's Constitutional Court to ban the party, accusing it of anti-secular activities.

Turkey's secularist constitution does not allow any religious influence on the operation of the state.

The AK Party, which has Islamist roots, won last year's general elections.

In announcing his indictment, prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya said he believed there was enough evidence to show the party had contravened Turkey's secular constitution.

He also revealed the party had been under investigation for six months.

---

quote:

---

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:

Now, there may indeed be a humanitarian case - on a case by case level - for the introduction of certain western cultural values but on the strength of the sensitivity I'm seeing here I'm not confident the effect on the social fabric of these targetted 'backward' cultures would be so different than pox-tainted blankets and whisky.

---

The point was that de-facto superior cultural values, and the expression of them, are often used for completely other purposes than those that are stated.

We brought "civilization" to the native population of North America, but good, under the flag of just such superior cultural values.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Thank you for your native informant's report. However, it is off topic since I was talking about religious minorities in given societies. Copts in Egypt, Muslims in Canada, Christians in Syria, Jews in Morocco etc..

If you think that Canadian citizens should rely on Saudi Arabia's money to protect them, you are a bigoted character and you have no moral stand or credibility to criticize the bigoted saudi religious fundamentalists who spread their bigoted religious brand elsewhere be it the West or the Centre.

unionist,

You are evidently not well today. Le malheur is that you are also taking it out on a new visitor. Listen, you either welcome, not welcome or keep silent. But "..welcome, I think" is not the most appropriate expression.

I thought that was the joke, in itself.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Sanizadeh,

Thank you for your native informant's report. However, it is off topic since I was talking about religious minorities in given societies. Copts in Egypt, Muslims in Canada, Christians in Syria, Jews in Morocco etc..

If you think that Canadian citizens should rely on Saudi Arabia's money to protect them, you are a bigoted character and you have no moral stand or credibility to criticize the bigoted saudi religious fundamentalists who spread their bigoted religious brand elsewhere be it the West or the Centre.

unionist,

You are evidently not well today. Le malheur is that you are also taking it out on a new visitor. Listen, you either welcome, not welcome or keep silent. But "..welcome, I think" is not the most appropriate expression.

At least show some civility and good will. When a particular visitor starts talking religion, then you can go into your trance. You should not anticipate animosity. It is unhealthy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
Sanizadeh,
Thank you for your native informant's report. However, it is off topic since I was talking about religious minorities in given societies. Copts in Egypt, Muslims in Canada, Christians in Syria, Jews in Morocco etc..

If you think that Canadian citizens should rely on Saudi Arabia's money to protect them, you are a bigoted character and you have no moral stand or credibility.

---

I don't understand what is your fascination with the term "native informant", but not being raised in the Canadian culture, maybe I don't quite understand the term. is this supposed to be an insult? Coming from a person with such a thin skin as yours?

You indeed have a talent in changing the subject of discussion wherever you are cornered, however FYI this thread is about a general ban on religious blasphemy, not protection of minorities. The OIC wants punishment for those who, in their view, insult Islam, no matter whether they are part of the majority group in a muslim society or a non-muslim society. This is not about protecting minorities. It is about silencing any criticism of their version of the religion.

And I perfectly know that it will not stop at something as crude or in-your-face like the danish cartoons. In several Islamic countries, people are accused of "insulting Islamic belief" for slightest criticism of religious authorities.

I don't need support from Saudi Arabia to protect my right as minority, because in fact I don't see my religious rights being violated here in Canada. I have a lot more concern about people like you violating my freedom of speech and thought, than about Canadians violating my religious freedoms.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

Interesting that his own belief, that Jesus did not die on the cross and that Mohammad is a prophet of God, is blasphemous to Christians. So does the president of Senegal think he should be charged for insulting a religion? sanizadeh

---

Please sanizadeh, say something that makes sense!

For example Irshad Manji might be classified as a "native informant." Someone purportedly from the identified culture whose testimony as an "informant" from within the culture is used to authorize the negative charachterization of that culture, as posed by the enemies of that culture.

I would classify Tarek Fatah, as a "native informant".

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

I may be wrong but to me the idea that somehow the muslim societies are "not ready for democracy and human rights" smells of racism. Those values are universal, not "western cultural values".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't know. I am just answering your question.

---

Thanks for clarification. One learns a new thing everyday

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

I may be wrong but to me the idea that somehow the muslim societies are "not ready for democracy and human rights" smells of racism. Those values are universal, not "western cultural values". sanizadeh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Bullshit those are not universal values they are imperial facade's used to enslave working people in any culture they impose them on. Now if you have an example of a democracy that is not a facade ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

Thanks for clarification. One learns a new thing everyday

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

---

It is a tricky question, I don't like Irshad Manji or Fatah, as their grandstanding and constant attacks upon almost anything Islamic would indicate that they don't really like much about Islam at all, so one would have to question how valuable their testimony is as a source for unbiased views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

You not only completely missed Merowe's point, you let loose your imagination on what he might have said or implied. Easier on the keyboard and harder on the brain and you will do better.

---

Thanks for your advice. My brain is in good state. can you kindly now answer the question I posed to you? I re-post it here for your convenience:

"If religious sensitivities should be respected and protected and religious blasphemy should be punished, then some main pillars of Islam that Mohammad is a prophet of God and that Jesus did not die on the cross are quite insulting to Christians. Should the church be able to sue Muslim organizations for such insults?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

Islam was a democracy before your country became one.

Unfortunately it did not last long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

This is silly.

---

Yes, it is. I am deliberately making childish comments about Islam to prove that I can do so without fear of being accused (or, shall I say, correctly accused) of bigotry.

There is massive, massive confusion in this country, in this world, on this board and in progressive circles about the difference between saying that "Islam is a shitty ideology" and spreading hatred against Muslims.

Until that confusion is cleared up, I will continue to condemn imperialist aggression against so-called "Muslim" peoples; anti-Muslim hate and xenophobia, etc. - while, at the same time, explaining clearly and loudly that the sooner Islam, Judaism and Christianity disappear from the face of the earth, the better.

Adam is particularly adept at hurling accusations of racism, fascism, neo-Nazism against those who dare to say that Allah is an asshole and Muhammad is long dead and thank Allah for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Until that confusion is cleared up, I will continue to condemn imperialist aggression against so-called "Muslim" peoples; anti-Muslim hate and xenophobia, etc. - while, at the same time, explaining clearly and loudly that the sooner Islam, Judaism and Christianity disappear from the face of the earth, the better.

---

Well, I personally think religion is irrelevant, and constant "origin of the species" thumping, amounts to pretty much the same thing, and worse adds undue significance to the paradigm, inflames tensions, and otherwise detracts from a discourse within which there are many, many areas of agreement.

Why attempt to evoke reason by engaging what is obviously unreasoned? Its a matter of "faith," best leave it alone.

More importantly in this case, many so called "rationalists", such as Chritsopher Hitchens, find themselves in a tacit, and sometimes overt alliance with Christian fundamentalists, both puroporting the superiority of western culture, one as the fountainhead of reason, the other as the bastion of Christian righteousness.

What this amounts to is a general agreement that the state powers of the Western countries may be used to effect the imposition of western society upon other societies, regardless of the differences of opinion on religious matters between Christians and rationalists. The net effect is the same, because there is consensus that Islam is bad.

Look, Hitchens has entered into the the thread. There he is. How topical. Is it such a big suprise that this bigot would appear here?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I'd like to know about that democracy. Canada has never had a real democracy.

---

quote:

---

"If religious sensitivities should be respected and protected and religious blasphemy should be punished, then some main pillars of Islam that Mohammad is a prophet of God and that Jesus did not die on the cross are quite insulting to Christians. Should the church be able to sue Muslim organizations for such insults?

Another example: Islam teaches that Mohammad was the last prophet, and that anyone after him claiming to be a prophet from God is a fraud. That's quite insulting to Bahai's. Somehow I don't think OIC would give Bahais the right to sue Muslim countries for this insult." -sanizadeh

---

sanizadeh,

What you wrote above and attributed to me is not what I said. If you see my first message on this thread, I am talking about dehumanizing and demonizing propaganda.

Does a Christian's belief dehumanize a Muslim. Doesn a Muslim's belief dehumanize a Christan?

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

sanizadeh,

What you wrote above and attributed to me is not what I said. If you see my first message on this thread, I am talking about dehumanizing and demonizing propaganda.

Does a Christian's belief dehumanize a Muslim. Doesn a Muslim's belief dehumanize a Christan?

Cm'on, sanizadeh!

---

If you really believe this then the onus is back on you to prove that A) your belief in dialectical materialism or Darwinism are morally (morally, not scientifically) superior and B) immune to political manipulation or preconceived chauvinism. And couldja also stop talking like our silly exclusionary mono-theistic religions (there, I've offended everyone again) represent ALL religions as well? Something which also includes many schools of Buddhism, Hinduism, and a thousand and one aboriginal "faiths" (for lack of better word) which generally eschew all forms of proslytization, set-in-stone dogmas and abstract formalism.

That said, I would defend your right to say this to the end, as secularism is indeed superior in it's unique allowance for other beliefs or non-beliefs to co-exist equally (more or less) within its societies. Those who go on about the need to attack "Islam" are generally fundies themselves. (I don't know why I keep feeling the need to repeat this)

Next:

Sanizadeh: "If religious sensitivities should be respected and protected and religious blasphemy should be punished, then some main pillars of Islam that Mohammad is a prophet of God and that Jesus did not die on the cross are quite insulting to Christians. Should the church be able to sue Muslim organizations for such insults?

Saying Christ didn't die on the cross is no insult to "Christians"; it's just an alternative belief that goes back to disputes even within the early Christian "Church", which also happens to fit more easily with traditional Near Eastern ideas of prophet-hood. (which BTW are probably truer to the monotheistic norms set out in the OT) That's a status that Christianity still allows to no other religion's founders.

Another example: Islam teaches that Mohammad was the last prophet, and that anyone after him claiming to be a prophet from God is a fraud. That's quite insulting to Bahai's. Somehow I don't think OIC would give Bahais the right to sue Muslim countries for this insult."

All organized religious hierachies do this, which, on the more positive side, can help spare themselves from being twisted by every false "Messiah" who comes along. All "People of The Book" are formally given some protection and self determination within Islamic societies, which recent fundamentalist leaders simply overlook in their own radical distortion of the the Quran. In Christianity again no such recognition is given to others, beyond the Old Testament admonitions to smite the "un-Godly" like dear old YHWH used to. (mainstream Judaism outgrowing some it too, I believe, via later Rabbinical commentaries and hard experience)

So I'm also disagreeing with your views here, but would defend your right to express it too. (IMO "believers" in liberal humanism have a right to our beliefs too in "our own" nations, and have a wee bit more emprical evidence to support them than other now-orthodoxies. I think it's mostly when "we" try to "export" them, that it too become part of the problem)

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

So I assume you do support the right to publish Danish cartoons too, right? and reject the OIC's call for outlawing religious blasphemy? Then we ave no disagreement.

But there are, and those limits are determined by factors which are largely interprative, and so its pretty easy to see how these cartoons might be percieved as falling into the category of racist anti-Jewish cartoons were they recycled from the Nazi era. Furthermore, the whole spectacle started in a clearly provocative manner, not simply as some cartoonists deciding independently to express some feelings about Islam, because it interested them. It was a definite decision to target Islam specifically, as an object of ridicule, even, organized by what is a fairly powerful Danish institution.

And lets be clear on this, even if the object was to attack the oft-held belief that any rendering of the image of Mohammed is heretical, the cartoon contest was intended specifically to ridicule the commonly held Muslim belief that rendering of the image of Mohammed is heretical. That was precisely what was being ridiculed.

I personally would clear the decks of any laws specifically targetting hate propoganda, since this is simplest and best, but it is possible to see why some people would see the occurence of a double standard in play, given that this kind of legislation is on the books and also applied.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I personally would clear the decks of any laws specifically targetting hate propoganda, since this is simplest and best, but it is possible to see why some people would see the occurence of a double standard in play, given that this kind of legislation is on the books and also applied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
Erik:

So I assume you do support the right to publish Danish cartoons too, right? and reject the OIC's call for outlawing religious blasphemy? Then we ave no disagreement.

---

Um, ok, that particular example I'm still rather ambivilent about. On the one hand, the resulting riots didn't impress nor did they appear entirely spontaneous or, shall we say, considerate of their host countries majority beliefs. And the guy who shot the racist cartoonist which began all the silliness deserved nomore protection from our laws than any other killer.

On the other hand, supporting the right to publish what's already widely known to be offensive to ALL denominations of a religion (as Cueball has explained very well sometime before) which has among the Most stringent monotheistic restrictions on purveying images/pictures of their main Prophet (or within any religious context) was grossly irresponsible. And IMV not exactly a well meaning defence of our rights of expression either.

Especially not in the context of our utterly false and mostly aggressive "war on terror"; the still-common reduction of a few fanatics representing the whole religion in reaction; and the fact that mainstream media already puts lots of limits on their content for the sake of Their main audience. So maybe theres still grounds for more debate here; I really couldn't say here for sure.

quote:

---

BTW Bahai's are not considered "people of book" and are not given any right in Sharia-based Islamic code of law.

---

Why not, didn't Baha'ulla and his immediate successors produce written texts?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

Agreed, but could this double standard also include the fact that the Islamic countries, who violate so shamelessly the rights, dignity and reputation of some of their religious minorities (e.g. Bahai's), yet organize head-of-state conventions to protest publication of those cartoons?

You can't have it both ways. At least one should admit that the OIC statement (in the first post) was the most blatant show of hypocrisy.

---

Well yes, but the context of this is evident, I believe. This is more of a political propoganda stand, in reaction to that context, not something that is deliberately targetting Bahai's. We don't know where this could lead, true, but that stands as a seperate issue.

And lets be clear on this about the cartoons, even if the object was to attack the oft-held belief that any rendering of the image of Mohammed is heretical, the cartoon contest was intended specifically to ridicule the commonly held Muslim belief that rendering of the image of Mohammed is heretical. That belief was precisely what was being ridiculed.

Furthermore, this suggested law is probably partly designed in reaction to another commonly practiced of the US. And that is the institution of laws and practice of prosecuting foreign offenders of domestic law, and siezing assets etc., as a means of prosecuting foreign policy, by making it impossible for those companies to do business domestically.

One considers the fact that the US uses such laws to enforce their embargo on Cuba, for example.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Why not, didn't Baha'ulla and his immediate successors produce written texts?

---

People of the book specifically refers to those religions that Muslims accept as divine/being from God. That includes Judaism and Christianity. Some sects include Zoroastrianism too. No other religion (Hindu, Buddist etc) is given protection under Islamic law.

Bahaism is considered an invention and its followers are considered heretics in Islamic code of law.

Cueball, I totally agree with your point. In fact, I doubt we had much disagreement on this issue in the first place.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

People of the book specifically refers to those religions that Muslims accept as divine/being from God. That includes Judaism and Christianity. Some sects include Zoroastrianism too. No other religion (Hindu, Buddist etc) is given protection under Islamic law.
Bahaism is considered an invention and its followers are considered heretics in Islamic code of law -sanizadeh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

People of the book specifically refers to those religions that Muslims accept as divine/being from God. That includes Judaism and Christianity. Some sects include Zoroastrianism too. No other religion (Hindu, Buddist etc) is given protection under Islamic law.

Bahaism is considered an invention and its followers are considered heretics in Islamic code of law.

Cueball, I totally agree with your point. In fact, I doubt we had much disagreement on this issue in the first place.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

---

Well fine! Be that way, if you are not going to disagree with me then I am not going to argue with you anymore. See if I care.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:

You are teaching us that Islam proclaims that only Islam is the right faith and all other religions are eithet totally false or debased. This information is not news. Now could you inform us as to whether Islam is the only religion that proclaims that it is the only true one ?

---

Bahaism is considered an invention and its followers are considered heretics in Islamic code of law."

Well according to some now, perhaps, I wouldn't know. But before Western nations took up attacking Islamic countries as a matter of course, after overthrowing their more "progressive" modernist leadership for the sake of corrupt oil Shahs and (recently invented) Wahhibist Emirs, I believe there was an Islamic trend towards accepting the rights of all religions with traditional sacred books, including the Veddas and Buddhist texts. Mostly Shiite Pakistan, for example, was changing its laws to reflect that, before Zia Al'Huq assassinated his way to power and brilliant American humanists started supporting the Mujahadeen for other short sighted reasons.

So it's complicated. But forgetting social context and trends (which don't necessarily excuse every action IMO) doesn't make it any less so. (you do know for example that Baha'ullah and his followers also fought several nasty wars, not all of which were entirely defensive. Just thought I should mention that context too, even though I personally like most Bahai innovations)

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Agreed, but could this double standard also include the fact that the Islamic countries, who violate so shamelessly the rights, dignity and reputation of some of their religious minorities (e.g. Bahai's), yet organize head-of-state conventions to protest publication of those cartoons?
You can't have it both ways. At least one should admit that the OIC statement (in the first post) was the most blatant show of hypocrisy. -sanizadeh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Unionist, these discussions might go a bit further a bit faster if you would please stop reducing ALL of Islam, Christianity or Judaism to their most fundamentalist wings. Then talking like our opinions are going to speed their disappearance.

---

You are a bit confused about my views. I don't condemn "fundamentalism". I condemn religion. I myself am a fundamentalist. I do not distinguish different "wings". If, of course, one "wing" murders people, bans abortion, abuses women, etc., then it gets more abuse from me and in fact may have to be physically crushed, suppressed, etc., if it puts its anti-human beliefs into action. But my critique of religion applies to all - that it is divisive and diversionary.

I have made the occasional halting exceptions for things babblers have brought up - like Unitarian Universalism. But since they don't appear to believe in a supernatural deity nor consider themselves superior to everyone else, they may not qualify as a religion in my lexicon at all.

quote:

---

And couldja also stop talking like our silly exclusionary mono-theistic religions (there, I've offended everyone again) represent ALL religions as well?

---

I don't. I specifically spend most of my time condemning and ridiculing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, because they have done far more harm to humanity than the rest. But my critiques in general terms apply to all.

quote:

---

That said, I would defend your right to say this to the end, as secularism is indeed superior in it's unique allowance for other beliefs or non-beliefs to co-exist equally (more or less) within its societies.

---

Thank you. That's what this thread is about, and that's why I'm spending a bit more time than usual using toilet humour against God. I'm poking adam and others of his ilk, to see if they'll sue me. No takers yet.

quote:

---

Those who go on about the need to attack "Islam" are generally fundies themselves. (I don't know why I keep feeling the need to repeat this)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
You can't have it both ways. At least one should admit that the OIC statement (in the first post) was the most blatant show of hypocrisy.

---

I am reminded of the Mike Constable Ratzinger cartoon, on the front page of rabble, when he was first pronounced Pope. Some Catholics across Canada were bent right out of shape over it.

The Rabble cartoon was the individual effort of one editorial cartoonist making a comment in his regular editorial spot on one specific issue regarding politics in the church, attacking one Catholic notable, not a highly publicized and co-ordinated effort of a well established national newspaper putting out a general call for submission for a contest ridiculing the commonly held article of faith among most Muslims that depicting images of Mohammed is heresey, it was an attack upon the religion as a whole, Constable's cartoon attacked one Church politician.

Attacking the Popes past political record is not the same thing at all, especially when it is clearly just another comment from an editorial cartoonist picking up on the news of the day.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I'm poking adam and others of his ilk, to see if they'll sue me. No takers yet. unionist

---

The day I decide to sue anyone in this world for anything done or said, I would first make sure that he/she is in full possession of his/her mental capacities. Not the case with you, unionist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Not at all the same.

---

On the other hand, an editorial cartoonist making a single cartoon, as part of his regular spot, relevant specifically to the news of the day, is entirely different.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The Jylland Posten made attacking a Muslim article of faith a central pillar of their editorical policy for months on end. It was not as if they issued a call out for submission attacking religious dogma in total. No, they made a very specific and special point of attacking a specific dogma peculiar to Muslim people, as a central theme of their editorial policy.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I have made the occasional halting exceptions for things babblers have brought up - like Unitarian Universalism. But since they don't appear to believe in a supernatural deity nor consider themselves superior to everyone else, they may not qualify as a religion in my lexicon at all.

Well then I can only say I appreciate your even-handed candor and your willingness to make some wee allowances, but I also have to say I find it rather bizarre for someone who says they have no time for irrational beliefs. If "religion" is by its very nature dogmatic and prone to irrational violence, then why are there such different histories among at least some of them?

Couldn't it be the kind of beliefs they hold, the relative ability to accept (and therefore tolerate) some uncertainty (as Hinduism say traditionally has) or other religious figures (as Hinduism and others again) or perhaps even just the attitudes they try to foster, like the Unitarians for another? And if your own beliefs are based only on the fact that "religion" doesn't have any scientifically observable basis (and why would it? Its not usually about making better widgets) then why have so many scientific beliefs come to similarly destructive results historically?

It's up to you if you want to answer that, as I personally don't care what gets people through the night, but if that is your position I think you should at least ask yourself that. Otherwise this "scientism" could just as easily lead to more un-necessary misunderstandings and conflict IMO, which is pretty much all that matters to agnostics like me.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Had there been one cartoon, made by a single regular contributing cartoonist expressing the problem of not depicting Mohammed, as part of the daily course of his editorializing, then this would likely not have gone beyond a few outraged letters to the editor. But it was not like that at all.

Singling out Islamic belief for ridicule was a major theme in Jylland Posten's editorial policy, for months on end.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
However if you are that keen on litigation, perhaps you should sue the pseudo-religious person(s) who caused you the trauma you still relive at the mere mention of religion:

---

Let me get this straight.

You love all religion, or just Islam?

Because Islam is very derivative, you know. It just picked up some of the sillier aspects of the Old and New Testaments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Remember it might be ok for black people to call each other "niggas" but it is definitely not ok for white people to do it.

---

This thread is about defaming Islam (and religion more generally), and you are mixing it up with calling PEOPLE names.

Your suggestion would seem to be that it's ok for a Muslim to say "Islam is shit", but not a Jew or an atheist.

You should really learn the difference between disrespect for people, and disrespect for an ideology.

Pretty simple really.

What the Jylland Posten did is pretty much the same as a white comedian getting up on stage and making jokes about black people all night long.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No I am not mixing anything up with calling people names. It has nothing to do with names specifically. This is a general theme of anti-racism. Self-desparaging humour, is completely different than desparging humour made by people from outside of an ethnic group. Doing such is especially bad when only one specific ethnic group is targetted.

---

You are confused, my friend.

Calling Islam, Judaism and Christianity stupid, disgusting, dangerous and divisive has nothing to do with:

RACE

or

ETHNIC GROUPS.

Does it?

So you see, you are still mixing up attacks on people (which is not to be tolerated) and attacks on religion (which are to be encouraged).

In fact, it is no accident that some of the most inhuman monsters of history have worn some disgusting religious symbol or another on their breast.

Because God tells everyone they're right and everyone else is wrong. Sometimes you ignore and fear them, sometimes you convert them, sometimes you kill them.

I think I will leave it up to the people involved to self-identify if they consider their religious faith constitutes and ethnicity or not. The idea that religion does not define ones ethnicity is not necessarily universal. For one thing, the idea that Islam is a nation, irrespective of racial heritage is explicit. For another all of this crap is socially constructed and I am not going to spend a lot of time parsing semantic definition in a situation where the very ontologies themselves may have different interpretations of the semantics.

Your decision to impose your "secularized" definition of what constitutes a race or an ethnicity, is just more of the kind of presumptious prevaracation used when someone starts deconstructing the term "semite". All you are trying to do is set semantic definition that suit your arguement, over the heads of the very people who have to live with them.

This is about the Jylland Posten specifically singling out one specific ethnic/religous/racial group dor ridicule. It is bigotry, regardless of what you call it.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Does it?

---

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Quit being a backward dolt.

---

Ok, thanks, I needed that. Make sure always to remind me, because it's so easy to slip back.

quote:

---

I think I will leave it up to the people involved to self-identify if they consider their religious faith constitutes and ethnicity or not.

---

Oh, I get it. Being Muslim is part of being an Arab. Being Catholic is part of being French Canadian. Being Hindu is part of being Indian (unless you're Sikh or Muslim or Buddhist or... or Jewish? or Christian?). Being Christian is part of being Italian. Being Jewish is part of being (ummm... forget it, I don't even know) something or other.

Before you mixed up crapping on religion with attacks on people. Now you're saying religion is part of people's "ethnicity"???

And you say it's up to people to self-identify as to what they are?

Ok. I self-identify as a Catholic. Roman Catholicism is a steaming pile of shit. That is respectfully said from the "inside".

Happy?

quote:

---

This is about the Jylland Posten specifically singling out one specific ethnic/religous/racial group dor ridicule. It is bigotry, regardless of what you call it.

---

I haven't read his comments. If he singles out Muslims for attack, he is a bigot and likely a good ally of the Bush-Blair-Brown coalition in the War on Terror. He should be condemned and denounced as a racist and an apologist for aggression and war.

I know, I'm backward - but did you follow the distinction there?

But I'll be frank. Now you are making this semantic debate pivotal here. Your focus on this semantic definition as a means of warding of possible accussation of what I did no accuse you of, is suspicious. I don't like semantic arguements. And they always make me leery of what is not being said. They smell of obfuscation.

Good night.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If the Toronto Sun advertised that it was having a contest to get submissions for a cartoon contest, singling out Catholicism, to make fun of a basic article of faith such as the idea of the "Virgin Birth," and making this contest a central them in its editorial policy, the reaction would be stunning and almost certainly legal, and probably identified as the dissemination of hate propoganda, because it singled out Catholcism as the subject of particular ridicule because of an article of faith specific to Catholicism.

On the other hand, an editorial cartoonist making a single cartoon, as part of his regular spot, relevant specifically to the news of the day, is entirely different.

---

quote:

---

If he singles out Muslims for attack, he is a bigot and likely a good ally of the Bush-Blair-Brown coalition in the War on Terror. He should be condemned and denounced as a racist and an apologist for aggression and war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Obviously to you the distiction turns on whether the ridicule is transitory and incidental, or sustained and deliberate.

To me, that's a distinction without a difference.

---

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

A bigotted newspaper campaign, is a bigotted newspaper campaign. At no time did they seek to attack cherished views of established Christian churches, or attack religious belief in general, they concentrated specifically in ridiculing the belief among Muslims that people should not draw pictures of Mohammed.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I have not been commenting on your views expressed here, except to say that one comment above was silly. ... I said nothing at all about your POV other than that you should consider that your "definitional" system may not be universal.

---

Do you recall calling me a "backward dolt"?

Unless you retract that, I will sue you.

You see, comments like that really are actionable in Canadian law - as opposed to comments like these:

Yahweh told Abraham to slaughter his firstborn son Isaac to prove his faith. Yahweh, being akin to a Mafia Godfather (or God-father?), was just testing Abraham's loyalty - seeing whether he was prepared to march into battle and ruthlessly kill, rape, and plunder on command. Abraham, being essentially an idiot, or perhaps just a coward, took Yahweh seriously, sharpened his knife, and was about to slit Isaac's throat, when Yahweh pointed out that Abraham was just being a gullible asshole.

The history of the Jewish religion since that time has been based on this simple inability to appreciate a fine joke.

Another of Yahweh's fine jokes was to tell the Jews that he had "chosen" them - then submit them to persecution and ostracism and genocide for thousands of years to come. No sense of humour.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Do you imagine that religious newspapers such as the Catholic Register and a score of other organs do not represent a sustained, planned, and deliberate campaign to proclaim the validity and absolute truth of the Virgin Birth?

Jeffery Dhamer killed mostly gay men. Are we suspicious that he was homophobic? I would say there was a good case to be made for the idea that he was, most certainly, though more convoluted explanations have surfaced.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
We are not talking about the victims here.

---

When we are talking about the Muslims who rioted after the Danish cartoons were published, when we are talking about the idea of people suing others for blasphemy, we are most definitely talking about the "victims".

Getting back to your Virgin Birth scenario, why would it be reasonable for the Catholic "victims" to yell "hate propaganda" in one case, but not in the other? It can't be explained by the motives of the publisher, which in most cases would be a matter of speculation in any event. Blasphemy is blasphemy. Insult is insult. Ridicule is ridicule.

Instead of spinning out ever more remote scenarios, why don't you just stick to trying to justify the one you put forward, that I have shown to be nonsense?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Oh, but we are!

When we are talking about the Muslims who rioted after the Danish cartoons were published, when we are talking about the idea of people suing others for blasphemy, we are most definitely talking about the "victims".

---

Isn't that nice. The Jylland Posten efforts to racialize Muslim people worked! We are now talking about the victims as if they are the cause of the hub-bub. Outraged protests and calls for revenge are by no means out of the ordinary for "victims family." No suggestion that rioters might have been expressing a sentiment of long standing grievance, triggered by the latest insult. None of that here. The issue is Muslim censorship. Just outrageous and irrational thirst for revenge but here is the Dhamer story now:

"Jefrey Dhamer: Families outrageous and irrational thirst for revenge."

Excelent work one and all. My compliments to all of you.

As for your thought experiment, take a close look at the nouns. If I target Catholics, the noun is "Catholic" then I am anti-Catholic. If I attack religion, the noun is "religion" So yes, a sustained campaign attacking Catholic beliefs exclusively would be evidence of an anti-Catholic sentiment, just as a serial killing campaign against gay men would be anti-gay.

As I said it's in the nouns.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
When the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were being circulated, among other attacks on Jews, couldn't this have been justified as a mere attack on a religion and not one against the people identified with it?

---

Now both you and Cueball are "mixing up crapping on religion with attacks on people," to borrow unionist's expression. Cueball thinks ridiculing the virgin birth is an attack on Catholic people - except, of course, if it's only done sporadically and incidentally by fewer than two persons conspiring together.

Again, it is the sustained and deliberate attack against one group exclusively, without exception. Not the idea itself. Trying to decontextualize the idea, from the events themselves, is absurd.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...take a close look at the nouns....So yes, a sustained campaign attacking Catholic beliefs exclusively would be evidence of an anti-Catholic sentiment...

As I said it's in the nouns.

---

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

What about talking about food and clothes? Is it time for another Hijab thread yet? How many active threads on those quirky Muslims and their off-beat ideas, and irrational and inexplicable reactions do we have going here now? How many can we sustain over a week? A month? A year?

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...deliberate and sustained media campaigns EXCLUSIVELY targetting ONE ethnic minority and their strange beliefs.

---

That wasn't about targetting an ethnic minority.

You are very sloppy with your terms, when it suits your purpose. You slide effortlessly from "religion" to "religious people" to "ethnic minorities".

If your real complaint is that only one religion's foolish dogma is being attacked, then perhaps you would be happier if the Toronto Sun were to broaden its hypothetical campaign of ridicule to include not only the foolish dogmas of the Catholic church, but also those of other religions. Perhaps they could make fun of the virgin birth, the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, Hindu polytheism, and the Anglican church's homophobia, all in the same issue of the paper, and cap it all off by reprinting the Danish cartoons.

What the Jylland Posten was doing was nothing of the kind. It was deliberately attacking the religious beliefs, largely associated with one ethnic minority in a sustained manner, not as an attack upon the concept of what you consider to be superstitious beliefs in general, but of one set of those beliefs but with "insults, mockery and ridicule."

Those are Rosen's own words.

Thanks for obliging with more silliness about the semantic usages and definition of "ethnic minority," as I asked. Never miss an opportunity to be officious on point. However religion comes under the category of ethnicity as an identifiable and distinct trait and a possible defining attribute of that minority. Any confusion you are having about the definition of ethnicity is the intangible quality of this idea as a social construct.

quote:

---

ethnic: Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

---

What truly distinguishes Pakistanis from Hindus? Is it skin colour? Music? Food? But perhaps you are right. The Jylland Posten did not attack ONE ethnic minority, but SEVERAL ethnic minorities, mostly also distinguishable as "darkies" of one kind of another. That was incidental of course, it was really about "ideas".

Furthermore, our hypthetical campaign against Catholics would have had a completely different meaning in 1920 when Catholics were generally a marginalized group in Protestant Canada (the Micks and the Frogs you know), but lets gloss over the real political and social context of the Jylland-Posten cartoon controversy, and add it the hypothetical "battle of ideas", instead, where we can safely prattle on about the superior nature of our secularity, a secularity distinguishable by our heartfelt defence of the racists at the Jylland-Posten, who really only have time to attack the quaint, and sometimes dangerous, customs and beliefs of immigrants from Central Asia and the Middle East.

What is secular about attacking one specific minority religion in a sustained and deliberate manner? Anything? Anything at all?

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What truly distinguishes Pakistanis from Hindus?

---

Well, for one thing, "Pakistani" is a religion, while "Hindu" is a religion. The proper term for what you were getting at is either "Muslim" vs. "Hindu", or "Pakistani" vs. "Indian". You mix up the two and the trumpets of war start to blare.

I doubt anyone would buy this magazine, as it would get quite tedious. Again, this is my right. Every Imam and backwards theocratic nation on Earth could try and sue me and I don't believe they should have any standing. Each one should be considered frivolous.

Now, if I said "Let's attack a bunch of Muslims because of this stupid belief of theirs" - that could be construed as incitement to violence and we would be in criminal code violation territory.

Mohammed's gay lover drawing him while he participates in a gay orgy!

quote:

---

Well, for one thing, "Pakistani" is a religion, while "Hindu" is a religion.

---

I think you meant to say "Pakistani" is a nationality ya big oaf. Gonna sue me?