The West should be free to Critcize Islam?


Sassylassie
#1
I came across this article on a Military Site:

The West Should Be Free To Criticize Islam

By DANIEL PIPES
September 19, 2006

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


A D V E R T I S E M E N T

[Continued from page 2 of 3]

The Vatican responded by establishing an extraordinary and unprecedented security cordon around the pope. Further away, the incitement spurred some violence, with more likely on the way. Seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as one in Basra, Iraq (prompting this ironic headline at the "RedState" blog: "Pope implies Islam a violent religion ... Muslims bomb churches"). The murder of an Italian nun in Somalia and two Assyrians in Iraq also appear connected.

Second reflection: This new round of Muslim outrage, violence, and murder now has a routine quality. Earlier versions occurred in 1989 (in response to Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses"), 1997 (when the U.S. Supreme Court did not take down a representation of Muhammad), 2002 (when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist), 2005 (the fraudulent Koran-flushing episode), and this February (the Danish cartoon incident).

Vatican leaders tried to defuse the pope's quotation, as well as his condemnation of jihad. The Catholic News Service reported that the papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said Benedict did not intend to give "an interpretation of Islam as violent. ... Inside Islam there are many different positions and there are many positions that are not violent." Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state, said in a statement that the pope "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful."

Then, in what may be an unprecedented step by a pope, Benedict himself proffered the sort of semi-apology often favored by those feeling the heat. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," the official Vatican translation into English reads, "which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."

In the Italian original, however, Benedict says only "sono rammaricato," which translates as "I am disappointed" or "I regret."

Third reflection: The Muslim uproar has a goal to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order.

Bingo I agree with this article one hundred percent, the last paragraph is bang on.
 
fuzzylogix
#2
criticism: the making of judgements; the act of approving or disapproving; an analysis of merits and faults.

disparage: speak slightingly of, belittle, discredit, lower the reputation of.

Freedom of speech means you may criticize things, including religion based on your interpretation of facts and events, etc. It is acceptable to undergo a critical analysis of religion. It is acceptable to not believe the tenets of Islam and to differ in your beliefs. It is acceptable to think that Islam is not a good religion.

BUT Freedom of speech does not give any of us the right to be disparaging of things like religion. This is a big difference, Sassy, that you and many people in the world don't get. Making a mockery of Muhammed, or deriding Islam is not freedom of speech, it is an unwarranted assault on other people's beliefs.

Freedom of speech must be used with moral and ethical values.

For example, I may have a fat friend. Now, I may be critical, in that I might discuss with her that she is overweight, and that I dont think it is healthy for her, and I would point out problems that I perceive in her being overweight. I might use this as a means of helping her by providing solutions along with my criticism.

Now, alternately, I could just be disparaging and call her a FAT FU##ING PIG. Now, I suppose, technically I might have the freedom of speech to speak my mind, but I am abusing this freedom because I am crossing the line of moral, kind ethical talk. I think we would all agree that I should not be disparaging to her. I would sound like a sh*t , and I would certainly lose a friend. And I would certainly be expected to recognize what the outcome would be by talking this way.

The west has not got into trouble by discussing their belief that women should not be forced into purdah, or that Muhammed did not mean for Muslims to kill Christians. They have got into trouble by disparaging Muhammed, and as for what the Pope said, Well I think he should not have been surprised at all at the outcome of his remarks. They were blatantly disparaging and insulting. And for a man of GOD to speak this way, I am disgusted.

Muslims are no more violent and their religion is no more violent than any other religion. And their religion may even be more accepting of other religions than many Christian groups.

Just because you CAN say something, doesnt mean that it is RIGHT to say something. And in this age where we are rapidly increasing the animosity between religions, we all need to think peace and control our mouths, and think " What do I gain by saying this? What do I lose?"

Spend less time fussing over whether you are losing your freedom of speech and more time over using that freedom wisely.

The last paragraph should read: The Muslim uproar seeks to prohibit disparaging unwarranted attacks on Islam.
 
EastSideScotian
#3
Ah yes but do Muslims agree with the law of Freedom of speech? Maybe our Socitys rules colide in the first place. Which is why we have such hard times coming to agreements and terms with our shared issues int he world.
 
fuzzylogix
#4
You wont force freedom of speech onto other people by taunting and disparaging them. When the west is rude, it merely reinforces the ugly image that the Muslim community has of us.

My mother always said, " If you cant say something nice, then dont say it" This doesnt mean however, that you cant discuss differences. But in politics and diplomacy, you CANNOT be nasty, or spiteful, or insulting no matter how much you despise your opponent, or you lose automatically at the diplomatic table.

Or more simply. Two wrongs dont make a right. You well know that if you think someone has insulted you, insulting them back is not justified and does not help the situation.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#5
Who cares. We don't have freedom of speach here in Canada. :shrug:
 
Zzarchov
#6
Actually it is a direct insult to imply the Koran is not irrevocabley true.

Merely by existing the Pope is a direct insult to islam.

My (new) religion states Muslims must be second class citizens forbidden to build or repair places of worship and pay a heavy tax for their beliefs, and they should be firebombed and beheaded if they disbelieve this.

If you tell me this is incorrect you are disparaging my new religion of Snarfblatism.

I think we can agree If I tried to sell that, everyone would call me a bigot and insult my religion anyways.

So why not Islam?

I mean people Disparage Catholocism (as they should) for its practices, they have already forced it to give up many of them .. no one does that for islam.
 
Sassylassie
#7
LOL Said1 we won't for much longer. I will never stop speaking out about the horrible things that are done to Women and Children in the name of Islam. It's barbaric, they may practice their Sharia Law in their Home Land but not in Canada. I will not allow my voice to be silenced in the name of Islam, it's not my religion, thus I will not practice it's laws.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#8
Quote:

BUT Freedom of speech does not give any of us the right to be disparaging of things like religion. This is a big difference, Sassy, that you and many people in the world don't get. Making a mockery of Muhammed, or deriding Islam is not freedom of speech, it is an unwarranted assault on other people's beliefs.

So, you think the "artist" that made the Piss Christ should charged and jailed?

You think the author of the cartoon showing an armed, tattooed Christ in front of a Walmart should be stoned to death?

Or is it only Islam that should be free of insulting comment?

What if I said that Mohammed is the False Prophet spoken of in the Bible, essentially the Anti-Christ? Is that free speech, or is it an insult to Islam?

Please clarify.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#9
Quote:

Muslims are no more violent and their religion is no more violent than any other religion. And their religion may even be more accepting of other religions than many Christian groups.

Oh, I guess you missed the cartoon flap.......

This is just silly. Those of you that are apologists for the absolute worst aspects of Islamist fanaticism should really give your head a shake.

As far as I know, the "artist" responsible for the Piss Christ is NOT under death sentence.

Get real.

Seriously, you are fantasizing, or something.

How many people have been sentenced to death in fatwas for speaking their mind or writing a book, or making a movie?

How many have died in riots over anti-Islam cartoons, or Papal speeches?

And how many of these were killed by Christians?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#10  Top Rated Post
Daniel Pipes is a noted racist Islamophobe. You may be well advised to take his ravings with the proverbial grain of salt.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher

Daniel Pipes is a noted racist Islamophobe. You may be well advised to take his ravings with the proverbial grain of salt.

Daniel Pipes is a noted racist Islamophope like I am a noted transexual impersonator of Julia Roberts.

Spare me.
 
Daz_Hockey
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by gopher

Daniel Pipes is a noted racist Islamophobe. You may be well advised to take his ravings with the proverbial grain of salt.

Daniel Pipes is a noted racist Islamophope like I am a noted transexual impersonator of Julia Roberts.

Spare me.

Hello Julia!!!!.....How's Eric doing?, I hear he was in a Marah Carrey video!!! get him!!!......and whatever happened to that nice Lyle Lovett chap eh?...such a nice fellow!!!
 
Sassylassie
#13
Sometimes the truth hurts, Islam a religion of peace? ITN stay tuned I have come across some great articles on what is reallllllllllllly happening to our right to speak. Shush don't wanna offend their "False God".
 
Chukcha
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotian

Ah yes but do Muslims agree with the law of Freedom of speech? Maybe our Socitys rules colide in the first place. Which is why we have such hard times coming to agreements and terms with our shared issues int he world.

Tough luck, if they don't agree, they should stop critising the West too. It sounds a bit unfair to me.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#15
Muslims, it's painfully obvious, are becoming a very high maintenance collective. That's unfortunate. Because the western world is struggling to break free of the straitjacket of PC. We're tired of deferring. Increasingly, we refuse to defer. So the world's largest group of religious crybabies better get used to a good slap on the head and a spanking!
 
Researcher87
#16
Quote:

criticism: the making of judgements; the act of approving or disapproving; an analysis of merits and faults.

disparage: speak slightingly of, belittle, discredit, lower the reputation of.

Freedom of speech means you may criticize things, including religion based on your interpretation of facts and events, etc. It is acceptable to undergo a critical analysis of religion. It is acceptable to not believe the tenets of Islam and to differ in your beliefs. It is acceptable to think that Islam is not a good religion.

BUT Freedom of speech does not give any of us the right to be disparaging of things like religion. This is a big difference, Sassy, that you and many people in the world don't get. Making a mockery of Muhammed, or deriding Islam is not freedom of speech, it is an unwarranted assault on other people's beliefs.

Freedom of speech must be used with moral and ethical values.

For example, I may have a fat friend. Now, I may be critical, in that I might discuss with her that she is overweight, and that I dont think it is healthy for her, and I would point out problems that I perceive in her being overweight. I might use this as a means of helping her by providing solutions along with my criticism.

Now, alternately, I could just be disparaging and call her a FAT FU##ING PIG. Now, I suppose, technically I might have the freedom of speech to speak my mind, but I am abusing this freedom because I am crossing the line of moral, kind ethical talk. I think we would all agree that I should not be disparaging to her. I would sound like a sh*t , and I would certainly lose a friend. And I would certainly be expected to recognize what the outcome would be by talking this way.

The west has not got into trouble by discussing their belief that women should not be forced into purdah, or that Muhammed did not mean for Muslims to kill Christians. They have got into trouble by disparaging Muhammed, and as for what the Pope said, Well I think he should not have been surprised at all at the outcome of his remarks. They were blatantly disparaging and insulting. And for a man of GOD to speak this way, I am disgusted.

Muslims are no more violent and their religion is no more violent than any other religion. And their religion may even be more accepting of other religions than many Christian groups.

Just because you CAN say something, doesnt mean that it is RIGHT to say something. And in this age where we are rapidly increasing the animosity between religions, we all need to think peace and control our mouths, and think " What do I gain by saying this? What do I lose?"

Spend less time fussing over whether you are losing your freedom of speech and more time over using that freedom wisely.

The last paragraph should read: The Muslim uproar seeks to prohibit disparaging unwarranted attacks on Islam.

This is the best statement I have heard. You can criticize but if you blatantly attack someone for their values, that is not friendly and they are not going to be friendly to you. What do you expect, expect you to call them animals and call their religion evil and their prophet nothing more than a suicide bomber and expect them to say;

Okay we love you you westerners for showing us our wrongs. Hell no. That's the stupidest thought I ever heard.
 
Researcher87
#17
Quote:

criticism: the making of judgements; the act of approving or disapproving; an analysis of merits and faults.

disparage: speak slightingly of, belittle, discredit, lower the reputation of.

Freedom of speech means you may criticize things, including religion based on your interpretation of facts and events, etc. It is acceptable to undergo a critical analysis of religion. It is acceptable to not believe the tenets of Islam and to differ in your beliefs. It is acceptable to think that Islam is not a good religion.

BUT Freedom of speech does not give any of us the right to be disparaging of things like religion. This is a big difference, Sassy, that you and many people in the world don't get. Making a mockery of Muhammed, or deriding Islam is not freedom of speech, it is an unwarranted assault on other people's beliefs.

Freedom of speech must be used with moral and ethical values.

For example, I may have a fat friend. Now, I may be critical, in that I might discuss with her that she is overweight, and that I dont think it is healthy for her, and I would point out problems that I perceive in her being overweight. I might use this as a means of helping her by providing solutions along with my criticism.

Now, alternately, I could just be disparaging and call her a FAT FU##ING PIG. Now, I suppose, technically I might have the freedom of speech to speak my mind, but I am abusing this freedom because I am crossing the line of moral, kind ethical talk. I think we would all agree that I should not be disparaging to her. I would sound like a sh*t , and I would certainly lose a friend. And I would certainly be expected to recognize what the outcome would be by talking this way.

The west has not got into trouble by discussing their belief that women should not be forced into purdah, or that Muhammed did not mean for Muslims to kill Christians. They have got into trouble by disparaging Muhammed, and as for what the Pope said, Well I think he should not have been surprised at all at the outcome of his remarks. They were blatantly disparaging and insulting. And for a man of GOD to speak this way, I am disgusted.

Muslims are no more violent and their religion is no more violent than any other religion. And their religion may even be more accepting of other religions than many Christian groups.

Just because you CAN say something, doesnt mean that it is RIGHT to say something. And in this age where we are rapidly increasing the animosity between religions, we all need to think peace and control our mouths, and think " What do I gain by saying this? What do I lose?"

Spend less time fussing over whether you are losing your freedom of speech and more time over using that freedom wisely.

The last paragraph should read: The Muslim uproar seeks to prohibit disparaging unwarranted attacks on Islam.

This is the best statement I have heard. You can criticize but if you blatantly attack someone for their values, that is not friendly and they are not going to be friendly to you. What do you expect, expect you to call them animals and call their religion evil and their prophet nothing more than a suicide bomber and expect them to say;

Okay we love you you westerners for showing us our wrongs. Hell no. That's the stupidest thought I ever heard.
 
fuzzylogix
#18
Thanks Researcher87, my point exactly, well summed up

At least someone else here can think beyond just throwing the next blow.
 
I think not
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Sassylassie

Sometimes the truth hurts, Islam a religion of peace? ITN stay tuned I have come across some great articles on what is reallllllllllllly happening to our right to speak. Shush don't wanna offend their "False God".

Knock'em dead Sassy.

"The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism."
 
I think not
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

This is the best statement I have heard. You can criticize but if you blatantly attack someone for their values, that is not friendly and they are not going to be friendly to you. What do you expect, expect you to call them animals and call their religion evil and their prophet nothing more than a suicide bomber and expect them to say;

Okay we love you you westerners for showing us our wrongs. Hell no. That's the stupidest thought I ever heard.

How about sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me?
 
fuzzylogix
#21
That is something we tell children to prevent fighting.

Mature adults realize that indeed names CAN and do hurt us.
 
I think not
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogix

That is something we tell children to prevent fighting.

Mature adults realize that indeed names CAN and do hurt us.

You mean emotionally? So what? A good drama movie can do that.
 
wallyj
#23
I guess if we publish cartoons or make disparaging remarks about Mohammed,we should accept the death penalty. Publish a cartoon=burn a church,Read a statement from the 13th century=shoot a nun in the back. Islam is nothing if not fair.
 
Chukcha
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogix

That is something we tell children to prevent fighting.

Mature adults realize that indeed names CAN and do hurt us.

Do I feel "spiky metal wire" around me?
If you haven't seen the movie "Equilibrium", maybe you should see it once.
 
Proud American
#25
So again the REAL question is, is Islam such a BETTER religion or society that is can criticize but cannot BE criticized..sounds to me like THEY are the ones trying to rule the world...could just be me though....
 
Proud American
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

Quote:

criticism: the making of judgements; the act of approving or disapproving; an analysis of merits and faults.

disparage: speak slightingly of, belittle, discredit, lower the reputation of.

Freedom of speech means you may criticize things, including religion based on your interpretation of facts and events, etc. It is acceptable to undergo a critical analysis of religion. It is acceptable to not believe the tenets of Islam and to differ in your beliefs. It is acceptable to think that Islam is not a good religion.

BUT Freedom of speech does not give any of us the right to be disparaging of things like religion. This is a big difference, Sassy, that you and many people in the world don't get. Making a mockery of Muhammed, or deriding Islam is not freedom of speech, it is an unwarranted assault on other people's beliefs.

Freedom of speech must be used with moral and ethical values.

For example, I may have a fat friend. Now, I may be critical, in that I might discuss with her that she is overweight, and that I dont think it is healthy for her, and I would point out problems that I perceive in her being overweight. I might use this as a means of helping her by providing solutions along with my criticism.

Now, alternately, I could just be disparaging and call her a FAT FU##ING PIG. Now, I suppose, technically I might have the freedom of speech to speak my mind, but I am abusing this freedom because I am crossing the line of moral, kind ethical talk. I think we would all agree that I should not be disparaging to her. I would sound like a sh*t , and I would certainly lose a friend. And I would certainly be expected to recognize what the outcome would be by talking this way.

The west has not got into trouble by discussing their belief that women should not be forced into purdah, or that Muhammed did not mean for Muslims to kill Christians. They have got into trouble by disparaging Muhammed, and as for what the Pope said, Well I think he should not have been surprised at all at the outcome of his remarks. They were blatantly disparaging and insulting. And for a man of GOD to speak this way, I am disgusted.

Muslims are no more violent and their religion is no more violent than any other religion. And their religion may even be more accepting of other religions than many Christian groups.

Just because you CAN say something, doesnt mean that it is RIGHT to say something. And in this age where we are rapidly increasing the animosity between religions, we all need to think peace and control our mouths, and think " What do I gain by saying this? What do I lose?"

Spend less time fussing over whether you are losing your freedom of speech and more time over using that freedom wisely.

The last paragraph should read: The Muslim uproar seeks to prohibit disparaging unwarranted attacks on Islam.

This is the best statement I have heard. You can criticize but if you blatantly attack someone for their values, that is not friendly and they are not going to be friendly to you. What do you expect, expect you to call them animals and call their religion evil and their prophet nothing more than a suicide bomber and expect them to say;

Okay we love you you westerners for showing us our wrongs. Hell no. That's the stupidest thought I ever heard.

Ok, I really pray that is not how you THINK it went, because if so..I suggest you pick up your nearest QURAN and READ IT!!! It specifically says that if an "infidel" or "non-muslim" does not convert, they are to be KILLED!! WHOA! And to think we called them animals! ...blowing up children and all....shame on us!!!!

Now of course I know what the average minded person is going to say....Christians had the crusades in which they killed millions..TRUE!..ONLY DIFFERENCE IS: the BIBLE DIDNT TELL THEM TO DO THAT!!! They acted on their OWN accord and were WRONG!!!! THe Quran CLEARLY teaches these people NON-TOLERANCE and to murder and they are doing it!! The God I believe exists, doesn't condone that....sorry...
 
Blackleaf
#27
WE SHOULD ALL PUT PEACE BEFORE FAITH

The Mirror

18 September 2006

"Don't blame me - I'm only C of E!" (Church of England)

Tony Parsons on Pope Bendict XVI and his upsetting the Muslims


WHEN I was a lad and the Vietnam War was the cause of widespread anti-Americanism, you'd often see Canadians sporting red maple leafs on their rucksacks to avoid being mistaken for Yanks.

More recently, Sikhs and Hindus who do not wish to be the victims of Osama-under-the-bed paranoia have been seen wearing T-shirts that proclaim: "Don't Panic, I'm Not Islamic," and, "Don't Freak, I'm A Sikh."

Now that the Pope (leader of the Catholics, not us Protestants) is the burning effigy of the week in the Muslim world, I am tempted to get a car sticker that says: "Don't Blame Me, I'm C of E."

I think the Pope's remarks about the prophet Mohammed were ill-advised, clumsy and offensive (mind you, I also think that Christian churches being attacked in retaliation is offensive, but let that pass for a moment).

In his blundering way, the Pope was attempting to make the reasonable point that there can be no place for violence in religion. He quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who said Mohammed brought "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

Crucially, and stupidly, the Pope did not distance himself from the quote. So the thoughts of a figure so obscure that, if he had not died 600 years ago he could be a guest on Love Island came out as more or less the Pope's own.

Cue burning effigies, assaults on Christian churches in Palestine and Iraq, screaming mobs shaking their fists and much chanting of "Death to America, death to Israel", even though there are very few Catholics in Israel.

The Pope apologised, and made another sincere apology yesterday and he will no doubt apologise again. It will never be enough.

His Holiness was right - those who love their god should not also love violence. But he was barmy to start dissing Mohammed, especially when he is about to do a tour of Turkey, especially at a moment in history when we need to be building bridges between religions, not firebombing them.

Benedict XVI made his point so incredibly badly that the Muslim world has erupted yet again into hysterical violence, ironically this time because it objects to being called, er, violent.

The sad upshot of this controversy will be more anti-Muslim sentiment in the world. I have lost count of the number of people who have said to me that Muslims are "too touchy".

Sometimes I wonder how many people in this country actually know any Muslims. The Muslims of my acquaintance are no touchier than anyone else. The Muslims I know are decent, humorous, lovely people. But right now they are getting a truly rotten press, and in all honesty it is not hard to see why.

The Islamic world seems remarkably quick to get out in the streets and burn things and scream death threats and promise destruction.

Are they touchier than the rest of us? Yes, when it comes to respect for their faith. Yesterday the Pope called for a "frank and sincere dialogue" between religions. That is surely impossible when Muslims are so quick off the mark to take offence.

Here is the great divide between our communities. In our formally Christian but now largely secular society, you can mock the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost until the sacred cows come home.

With Islam, you do not have the same freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoonists and now the Pope have all acted as though Islam can be treated with the same casual disregard as every other religion. They have all discovered that not to be the case.

Some Muslims encourage prejudice against them. It is hardly the most pleasant sight in the world when you see some screaming, bearded loon in Pakistan or Palestine or Iraq or Iran or Egypt foaming at the mouth while he burns a book, a flag, a cartoon or an effigy. Calm down, calm down. But the Islamic world comes across as fanatical, intolerant and bug-eyed simply because they place their faith above everything.

We either start accepting and respecting that or the rift between us will grow ever wider and ever deeper. The Pope should have kept his mouth shut or expressed himself more clearly.

Equally, the leaders of the Muslim community should wise up to the fact that the West is getting tired of Muslim mobs howling death threats.

For every time it happens, it reinforces the stereotype of the mouth-foaming, fist-shaking, west-loathing Islamic fanatic.

In his ham-fisted way, the Pope tried to make a self-evidently true point - religion should not be used to justify violence.

Frankly I am sick of religious nutters killing people to gain brownie points in paradise. We have had 2,000 years of it now.

But as it almost says on my car - hey, don't kill me, I'm only C of E!

mirror.co.uk
 
missile
Conservative
#28
You all have made some very good points,but what about the story going around that the BBC misquoted the Pope's words and broadcast them extremely fast to the Middle East? Personally, Ithink the Old Dude hit it right on the mark.
 
Chukcha
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

With Islam, you do not have the same freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoonists and now the Pope have all acted as though Islam can be treated with the same casual disregard as every other religion. They have all discovered that not to be the case.

 
tamarin
Conservative
#30
Well, we're tired of all the overly sensitive duckermutters. If you're an adult, you act like one. Muslim countries are led by bearded dinosaurs who get some weird kick out of all the pots they can stir. Their populations protest at the drop of a hat and every cleric that needs a haircut can declare a fatwa. It is a cartoon culture. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. And if they drop any bombs along the way make them eat them.