Rehanism
King Anu
Thanks for correcting my mistake..However that still doesn't reduce insanity and sickness of the original placard or other similar placards..
It obviously meant something to someone and therefore the effort to edit the picture and spread it to show an irony. I however posted the original as part of an advice which I later edited. So yes now that point does not matter (note, this is for BTV as well as he raised same issue).
Burning a book or pissing on it or flushing it in toilet doesn't really jeopardize human lives, no matter how crazy these behaviors might look. And secondly, I don't remember Christians and Jews demanding decapitation of those who insult their religions..Compared to few anti-Islamic works there are hundreds of literary and satirical criticism of Christianity, several parody religions like FSM, movies and animated works mocking Christiany and its icons like this one :
But we don't see Christians rampaging or demanding execution of the movie makers, nor do the critics of Christianity in the West feel the need to flee their homeland in fear of being hounded up and murdered by an angry mob!! Its true that there are cranks and crackpots in every society but even cranks can stay in limits if they choose to.
You are mixing two issues i.e. action and reaction. My point was that any civilized person talking about civility and civilizations should judge the civility of an action independent of any pre-set mindset about civility of others, personal likes and dislikes and independent of civility of the reaction. That was my civil point. lol. So all your talk comparing religions is basically irrelevant. Still some specifics. lol.
- So "jeopardizing human lives" is now going to be the criteria to decide which act is worthy or not worthy of generalization? I simply said that by your logic I too can present select evidence and generalize.
- If you have time then go to any western news website and then read comments from people belonging to the civilized world. They will range from nuking Muslims countries to attacking Mecca, bombing, killing etc. The point is there are loons like that who say such things. You gave certain loons importance because they suited your views. I said it is irrlevant and not needed.
- I already said people have different threshold about different things that are important to them. So comparing to other religions does not matter.
- I do not know how Christians, Jews, Hindus or others will react. What I know is that those are religions/beliefs/faiths followed by billions of people and "civilized" behavior if anything tells me to not to burn their books, piss on things sacred to them or flush stuff into toilet. The fact that they are not going to protest or react does not matter to me. I will advocate restricting such abuse of freedom for them also.
Its irrelevant to current debate.
This what I had written:
"We have chosen to ignore the fact that while getting offended might be quite natural, riots and pogroms unleashed by religious communities are not a natural or involuntary reaction to criticism or mockery of religions. Its a conscious choice on behalf of the community to resort to violence and hooliganism rather than addressing their grievances through debates and discussions; like civilized humans are expected to do.
Which part of it seems inappropriate to you? I agree that getting offended is not a crime, but what you do after that is certainly your own responsibility..For instance, if someone abuses my parents, its natural that I'll be hurt - however if in retaliation I kill that person or burn his house, then definitely I need to be shifted to a mental asylum. The violent behavior of religious communities is not excusable because they are hurt. None of us are defending the said director. He may have been an idiot, a miscreant. He may have hoodwinked the cast and crew into making this atrocious film; in which case he can be prosecuted on charges of forgery and defamation. However that doesn't cover up for the hooliganism of the religious loonies. Religious people would react in the same way even if a sober and well-versed author publishes a book criticizing their religion and prophet. What I am defending here is Democracy and humanity which loonies have no regard for if they come in the way of them and their precious religion's honor.
You wrote something before that. "And an even more shameful truth is that we, in our jest to prove our tolerance and large-hardheartedness, have placed a taboo on criticism of religion; we have made offending sentiments practically a capital offense."
My point was that 1) this and others are not criticism of religion or a sentiments 2) There is no tolerance and large heartiness shown by anyone here 3) This ain't about any debate. It is a simple case of misuse of freedom of speech and then selective implementation of laws where some speech does get restricted while others do not.
The discussion, I reckon, was whether anti-religious stuff - or things that offend religious sentiments - should be banned as they instigate violent repercussions from the members of religious communities..This in-turn passes the blame of barbarity and violence perpetrated by religious communities on the shoulders of the secularists/critics of religion. There was no debate on double standard of Western Media, holocaust denial or any other matter; but still I would like the TM to clarify it, in case I had misunderstood his post.
First, this Nakolo/Nakola/Nakoli whatever his name is a cheat not a secularist/critic of religion. Secondly if you think Islam is violent or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) action seem not right to you then you will ask, debate, inquire, discuss and not make humiliating movies, flush, burn. Please do not insult our intelligence. This topic was about banning such stuff.
My understanding of Freedom of Speech and Expression requires that every individual be free to express themselves as long as:
1. S/he does not cause any physical or material harm to another person or property.
2. Doesn't call for violent action upon another individual or group of individual (that's Hate Speech for me).
3. Doesn't infringe upon others freedom and fundamental rights.
4. Doesn't abet anyone to suicide, through their word or action
Under this definition I should be able to
- challenge and deny holocaust
- call black person names
- abuse people and pass personal remarks
However we know that there are code and conducts at various forums against these things. They hurt someones sentiments right? lol.
Tell me one thing then, why is it so that politicians find religious sentiments most veritable source of instigating violence. I have never heard of a politician trying to motivate atheists into violence just because someone drew a disparaging cartoon of Charles Darwin or Christopher Hitchens! Yesterday a girl made another topic on the same issue and now its been banned, but something that I found very intriguing in her post is this line "...so that we can answer Allah(SWT) when he asks us what action we took when his beloved(SAW) was insulted". She wasn't demanding for any violent action, to be sure. However this idea that you have got to answer God about not doing anything when "his beloved (prophet) was insulted" and that you may face God's wrath and possible damnation in hell can be exceptionally damaging to the believer's mind and possibly, enough to lead people of faith into seeking violent retribution. That is the reason why you don't see people killing to avenge the dishonor of their parents or favorite political or social icon, but wherever faith is involved their rage and madness knows no boundary. No amount of political motivation can possibly lead you to violence unless you actually believe that blasphemy is a crime worthy of death penalty or similar violent retribution. Political instigation might be a catalyst for communal violence, but a catalyst is useless unless reactants and appropriate conditions are available.
You obviously do not have complete understanding of the issue and world history. Reality is that people have, do and will always kill in name of honor, country, love, personal issues, politics, religion etc. I do not think great wars were result of religious conflict. No need to pick on some and that too where it is not needed and irrelevant.
This is plain and simple red herring and I need not have responded to it, but still I think its important to clear things out. First of all I do not worship West, but I do admire Western Culture immensely for its adherence to tolerance and democracy and regard for individualism and freedom - something that is totally absent in mob-cultures like those of Islam and India.
Fine. I think your copy and paste job was red herring. As I said even if Islam was to be violent and all Muslims extremists the point that this video was wrong and should have been removed still holds.
Whatever your learned friend has said is a matter of past for the Western civilization but for the Islamic societies its their present and, perhaps, future too. Of 49 Muslim majority states, not a single can be rated as a true democracy and most have greater tendency towards hegemony and feudalism. Almost all of them practice blasphemy laws which condemns blasphemers to death. Only one is a secular state (note: according to a recent survey nearly 70% of Turkey responded that they would prefer Sharia to secular laws, if they were to make a choice) and only three have abolished polygamy or mandatory veiling. The condition of minorities in Islamic states is deplorable. Living like 2nd class citizens, they have few legal rights, no right to practice their religion freely and a life of fear, abuses and humiliation. Almost all Muslim majority states have informally backed out from Universal Declaration of Human Rights and instead signed the Cairo Declaration which promises "human rights" in adherence to Sharia; a laughable oxymoron.
And the story doesn't end here. The Muslims are not content with the regressive state of their own nations; they want even the Western countries to abandon their democratic and secular principles and submit to Sharia. 31% of British Muslims believe that Sharia law should be imposed in Britain and over 60% believe that blasphemy against Islam must be criminalized. Similar is the situation with rest of Europe and America. Whence do they get this audacity to demand that laws of their host countries be changed as per their beliefs even when they are merely 1-3% minority? Whence do they get the audacity to spurn human rights and try to impose a 7th century tribal law in secular societies that host them? This audacity, this supremacism, stems from the belief of superiority and immutability of their religious doctrines and laws over any 'man-made' law. What chance does infidel concepts of democracy, equality and human rights stand before Allah's eternal laws
I do not object to the points you raised. Each can be debated. I have acknowledge that we have issues which need to be sorted out. There is no defending what is wrong. Specifically, I do know that Sharia Law in a non-Muslim country will only apply to Muslims so I do not know what are they demanding it in UK. It could mean personal law for them. It is not clear.
I have been to far east Muslim countries and UAE etc and I do not think minorities are in bad conditions in many Muslim countries. Jus go and visit those places. Some others do have issues. That is again a generalization on your part.
Its true that every society, be it east or west, has its share of issues, but that doesn't put Islamic or Indian society in perspective with Western societies..
I still believe the basic structure of our society is as civil if not more as west. The success of western societies and our recent failures makes us think that we are lesser. I think such mindset basically reflects insecurity and lack of confidence. While I acknowledge issues and problems I try to keep things in context and not over react and that is what my basic objection was with your post.
Aaya: I hope you get well soon.
Edited as it was too long and was just deviating too much. lol.
Edited by King-Anu - 13 years ago
Cricket
