|
Post by salqadri on Mar 3, 2006 0:00:38 GMT -5
That was very saddening and disheartening Sidhe; I tried hard to explain our sentiments, but you just completely disregarded it all. I found your statements about Prophet Muhammad unacceptable. You chose to continue building the image of a bomb on him. Dialog is fine; criticism is fine; but stereotyping is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 3, 2006 0:47:31 GMT -5
I think he means well Salquadri. Sidhe come from "england"? or US. The point of his post was he wished to make a parody of all religious to show how absurd they all are. At least that is what I got from reading it. Satyre and streeotyping of religions has become common in many countries because the number of practicing persons has declined. 100 years ago you did't do "god" jokes in Canada either. Now it is common. Is it good? Is it bad? A little of both i guess. Good that man can think and not be overly afraiid of the church. In Canada, the priest told us what to do and because of this many abuse of powers occured as (power corrupts). So good to free those chains,,,, Bad however since like all pendulums it swang the other way were some of the good old fashion values associated with the practicing religion has also vanished. Confusing times I therefore search to focus more on all that we have in common instead of paying much attention to what we have that is different. There seems to be a new movement of humanitarism globally, grising above the different faiths into the very heart of the species that is mankind. This is the stuff I wish to concentrate on. Whether I know all the words to "the Lord's prayer on not matters little". That I understand the concepts and ideals behind the words matters alot. I am of those that beleive praying is for the prayer not for God. That praying places us, much like meditation, into a frame of mind, a quiet place where we can come to reasonable conclusions and answers to our questions. Prayer is soothing for many and it is this medicinal quality that matters, at least to me personally. Peace and don't wrorry about Sidhe he likes ya and in no way wished to insult you right Sidhe?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 3, 2006 8:57:34 GMT -5
That was very saddening and disheartening Sidhe; I tried hard to explain our sentiments, but you just completely disregarded it all. I found your statements about Prophet Muhammad unacceptable. You chose to continue building the image of a bomb on him. Dialog is fine; criticism is fine; but stereotyping is wrong. The idea behind it was precisely as Avogadro said. You'll note that all and every religion is protrayed offensively and stereotypically in equal measure. The whole irony is if that you offend every religion on the planet equally then it is not offensive This is not meant as a mockery of any one religion but as Avo said a mockery of the perceptions of religion and the indignation and wrong thinking and stupidity that lie behind the stereotypes, if anything you should see it as a send up of the Religously self righteous, and an affirmation of the moderate majority. Not in any way as a mockery of religion itself, only of those who would retaliate by using holocaust photos or claiming moral superiority because of freedom of speech. Essentially this is taking my first argument about freedom of speech, a sort of point to be made about decrying of those who would represent offensive material and those who would retaliate in kind, and pointing out what happens if you take it to it's absurdly self righteous conclusion. No offence was meant to any religion per se. And I sincerely hope none will be taken. I also think it's quite humerous as well, but that is probably a secularist western view point and an agnostics view It depends whether you think offending people in the name of free speech is the reason that exists, or wether you think the law exists to expose the truth; as I said before the right exists if it exists to guarantee the truth gets to the people, not to guarantee those with no moral code spout off whenever they see fit; with every right comes an obligation to observe that rights original foundation. Being an arse and just offending people is not something freedom of speech was designed to accomodate, and yes I know how ironic that sounds, but there is always reason behind my provoctaion, provocation for the sake of it is wrong, as is the counter provocation, neither side has any moral high ground here. Try and look at the above satire in view of my previous post and you'll see what I'm getting at quite clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 3, 2006 9:27:45 GMT -5
But to offend all religions woudl nto be equal. Over here in north Amrica make fun of catholics and you may get a laugh.(I am one). But in other places surrounding the Glode, the religion is still very much central to the way of life. The muslim who travels aroudn the world, walks into airport chapels to pray several times a day will certain not find it funny.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 3, 2006 9:35:05 GMT -5
I think I mentioned just how ignorant people are about muslim belief earlier. From a christian point of view this is not offensive to anyone is what I meant. To a Muslim I suspect it would be but then that in itself is the point. Of the original threads point about freedom of speech. I get what your saying Avo, but my intent was not to be offensive in any way, it was meant as a send up of the natural conclusion of selfrighteous freedom of speech claims and retaliation in kind. If you find any of it offensive or anyone does, then it hasn't made the point for which it was intended, if that is the case then I apologise.
Also this is words not a picture?Had I drawn a picture(which I would of never of done) I would have been much more offensive. Therefore I'm conceptualising the image not being blasphemous against a religion. I fail to see how you can ban people from using their imagination to represent Islam? If I write about a crime to make a point I am not necessarily guilty of that crime myself surely? That's deliberatley misinterpreting the point surely?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 3, 2006 12:12:20 GMT -5
You will find of course that the minority with the loudest voice tend to get picked on as representative of that religion thus if one group says abortion is evil homosexuals should be put in prison or whatever nonsense American fundementalists are spouting these days, then an outside observer gets the impression that the whole religion feels this way when in reality it's .00000000001% of the people in that religion. And the same is true of Islam, people will say ah but don't Arabs all preach death to the west and democracy and all burn flags and advocate hate and intolerance to western values and disrespect of other faiths. No!!! think about what your saying here they follow all the same tennants as christians do and differ on some minor ecumenical issues and have a religous legal system but at the end of the day their core beliefs are the same. That there is no god but god. And that the word of the respective prophets/messiahs etc are as important to one religion as to another. take all the tennants of Good will Love of your fellow man and of tolerance and acceptance of other faiths and of belief in befreinding an enemy rather than killing him etc etc etc. Which religion am I describing here? Getting it yet
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 3, 2006 13:40:28 GMT -5
No, if anybody does; let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 3, 2006 16:01:11 GMT -5
All 3 of the Abrahamic faiths they are basic tennants of all three, which just goes to show just how little the average person understands about other religions, truly depressing.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 3, 2006 16:17:04 GMT -5
read the post. I was simply affirming the point that the religion is the same that you made. Then Whiplash asked what relgion it is. I was trying to agree with your point but it went over your heads. I'm sorry I'll signpost it better next time.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 3, 2006 18:14:40 GMT -5
Ya smart enough to possess some humility Dragon We all could use a dose of that.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 4, 2006 7:30:25 GMT -5
I couldn't I'm extremely humble
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Mar 7, 2006 1:34:08 GMT -5
Now here is something that is quite amazing. Not totally on target for the thread but a few people have wandered and didn't have it brought to their attention.
HEADLINE:
Man in US attack sought to avenge Muslims-official
The story:
An Iranian man who plowed a car into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world, a university official said on Saturday.
"Our ongoing investigation indicates that the suspect's motive was to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world," Derek Poarch, the university's director of public safety, said according to the transcript of a news conference.
What is this Iranian on? 98% of all deaths of Muslims are perpetrated by Muslims. So he's mad that Muslims are killing Muslims so he tries to kill Americans.
And some question why we are suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by Assédix on Mar 7, 2006 4:14:17 GMT -5
98% of all deaths of Muslims are perpetrated by Muslims. And the other 2%, due to torture in Guantanamo Bay and other US concentration camps presumably? Any conception of how many Iraqis were killed by 2 US military campaigns and the 10 years of air raids and embargo in between?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 7, 2006 9:05:06 GMT -5
And what evidence do you have that Muslims are being tortured to death in US concentration camps? Some Moslim cleric tell you that?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 7, 2006 10:09:14 GMT -5
98% of all deaths of Muslims are perpetrated by Muslims. And the other 2%, due to torture in Guantanamo Bay and other US concentration camps presumably? Any conception of how many Iraqis were killed by 2 US military campaigns and the 10 years of air raids and embargo in between? Any conception of how many Iraqis were killed by Sadaam's regime during the 10 years between the two campaigns?
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Mar 7, 2006 11:19:55 GMT -5
Apparently some have a short memory. I thought Kuwaiti's are Muslim also? I guess I watched the wrong news broadcasts of the 1st Gulf War. Seems as though to some when I viewed the shots of the mass surrenders in the desert they were probably agnostics. Unlike the Germans in WW2 that killed thousands rather than take them prisoner the Americans fed them and then ended up releasing them so they could kill other non-Muslims in Iraq between 1992 and 2003. That the UN, and other Muslim countries asked the US to carry the brunt of the conflict was all a figment of my imagination also. It's either that or it's revisionist history or I shouldn't believe my own eyes.
It goes to show just how much America is hated around the world and can't be hidden even in the Civ community.
Assedix, your total disdain of America yields your opinions useless and irrelevant. For in your eyes America is, and always will be evil. I'm quite positive that had you lived during WW2 you certainly would have been a Vichy Frenchman or even a goon of the Nazi's. The only certainty is that someday given the stupidity of mankind is that history will repeat itself, and you may have to make a real choice.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 7, 2006 13:23:29 GMT -5
The hatred of the US does not exist in a vacuum. I personally dont like your government but I dont hate the US Citizen or the country. Your diplomatic incompetence and flagrant disregard of the UN has pissed alot of nations off. If you want to stop being hated, start behaving like diplomats not bully boys and then maybe even the muslim countries will stop hating you?
I see little chance of this happening, I see an attitude in some that somehow the US is big and strong enough to do whatever it likes and whenever it likes. Unfortunately this is common amongst powerful nations, 150 years ago this attitude was acceptable, now it encourages distrust, ill feeling and in radicals extreme hate. If the UN oposes the US it ignores it if another country ignores it to it's detriment it crys like a girl. Can't have it both ways.
I don't think the US is torturing prisoners to death, torturing them maybe, we have seen evidence of this albeit mental torture. I've yet to see evidence of physical abuse but would not be surprised if some prisoners are abused.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 7, 2006 15:32:38 GMT -5
India Scotland Ireland (and all the others during the past 1000 years)
The brits are a SHINING example to us all regarding the treatment of indigent peoples spanning the globe while claiming "empire" and "protectorate."
The world LIVES for british "approval" but thankfully, doesn't follow the fine examples of "colonization" they've given the world.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 7, 2006 16:20:43 GMT -5
The world LIVES for british "approval" but thankfully, doesn't follow the fine examples of "colonization" they've given the world. yes and you're of course hiding behind a shield of righteousness not moral right, as is the usual for the least politicaly adept nation of the post 40's 20th century. But then as I said that was acceptable back then, it isn't any more, you can't use morality from the past to justify morality today, morality is an ever changing idea that reflects the time. I could by your logic say that it's ok to declare a holy war on the Arabs and invade in the name of God to stem the Arab influx into the west, I.e terror? Make it right now does it? Even if somewhat right then, their moral good never justified their eventual actions never wildly justified the morality of the crusaders, the crusades were comitted in moral good conscience and moral right but poorly executed(and therefore a valuable lesson, or not in the US's case, not quite the same anyway the morals where subdued somewhat by the economics and politics, at least in the Crusades the morals were initialy pure) However If we did that now you would say of course that is morally right? Therefore we need to invade the whole middle east and crush terror under the jackboot of the US democracy machine? Pah you can't use the past to justify the present, as you well know those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. We are far from without sin but we'll still lob a few stones at those we see repeating our mistakes. There has always been a somewhat disturbing notion that being right is dependent on reputation not on being right? Popyc.ock!
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 7, 2006 18:38:02 GMT -5
a comparison of the past 60 years and the past 1000 years is hardly a comparative analysis.
the list of the British Empire's flagrations around the world are too many to list.
and the US is involved in.................. Iraq.
who is their number one ally there?
and before Iraq both countries were involved in...... Iraq.
and before that the US had Panama and the brits had the Falklands.
which takes us all the way back to the late "post 40's" and the british departure from (FINALLY) the middle east and the british creation of a previously non-existent country called Trans-Jordan (which the brits had petrolium plans there as part of their Iraqi oil interests)
Trans-Jordan. about the same time as (finally) a self-governing India (the largest democracy in the world)
And then of course there was the FIRST "involvement" in Iraq (post WWI) where the brits installed a puppet government in a country that didn't previouisly exist because because of - oil
Of course, it wasn't Iraq that started the the british interest there, it was the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (established before WWI) in 1909. The Iranians got tired of this in 1951 because the british were taking 85% of the iranian oil profits.
Ancient history, as well as recent history, is a clear measure of a country's interest.
|
|