Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I don't necessarily agree with legal censorship of Muhammad portraits or the Buddha snorting coke, but culturally both are equally in bad taste. And who is 'they' anyway? Muslims? If so, then it certainly is a double standard... assuming of course that the Muslims who are outraged about the Muhammad portrait are the same ones who chose to allow the Buddha portrait you referenced.
Again, who's 'they'? Muslims would be quite angry at learning of a Muslim making fun of the Jesus, as they consider him to be on an equal footing with Muhammad. But again, though I don't agree with the legal sensorship of this kind of thing, it's still just in plain bad taste.
I dont know the answer. Ever since 9/11, it would seem extremists on both ides are exploiting stupidity on each side to their advantage, and there are always fools on both sides willing to oblige.
Perhaps, for some of them. For others, they're just reacting to offensive humour.
Not at all. If that were true, they'd simply make the statement that they reserve the right to offend, and not go out of their way to offend. When they actually go out of their way to offend, then it's about an excuse to offend, kind of like anarchists mingling in a peaceful and legitimate protest and start looting.
According to your logic, it would be like a woman going out and getting pregnant and then getting an abortion specifically for the purpose of 'exercising her right to abort', compared to a woman who simply states that she has that right but does not go out to exercise it to prove her point. I'm sure you see the parallel here. To speak out for a right is not the same thing as exercising it. I have the legal freedom to drink and smoke, but it's not a freedom that is wise to exercise.
Islam forbids idolatry, and there is a fear that a portrayal of Muhammad could lead to people worshiping that image. A similar concept to certain Christian groups not liking to get their picture taken.
Atheists are in touch with reality....they don't believe in God, Santa, Allah, the Easter Bunny or any other such fiction.
Muhammad was forced into battle owing to assaults from all sides, if you read his biography. Of course his religion was already starting to become corrupted even before he'd passed away, but the battles he was involved in at least were quite legitimate.
What? And the "moral high ground" is surrendering my right to practise free speech without fear? Screw THAT!
Moderate Muslims should be able to tolerate a little offensiveness, I mean Christians put up with it constantly..........and neither group has any right not to be offended.
The provocation is exceptionally necessary....it must be demonstrated very clearly that the west will not be cowed into cutting the throat of its' traditional freedoms because of the threats (or the actions) of a bunch of loonies. If that requires that we offend a moderate or two, well, regretfully....sobeit.
It has to do with what are known as the 12ers which gain power just a few years back. Sunnis and Sufis have never had a problem with pictures until the 12ers came along.
Wait a minute. Are you reading what you type? I'm a tetotaller by choice. Does that mean that I have surrendered my freedom to drink? I'm a non-smoker by choice. Does that mean that I have surrendered my freedom to smoke? I'm vegan by choice. So have I forsaken my freedom to eat meat? According to your logic, I must do things I don't want to do, and maybe even stupid things so as to prove my freedom to do them? That's ridiculous. As long as the law says I have a right to offend, then I have that right. I don't have to become offensive and debase myself so as to prove that right. I'm not following your logic here. You seem to be saying that the only freedom I have is the freedom that I exercise, and that somehow by choosing not to exercise this or that freedom, I'm forfeiting it. According to that logic, I should be constantly insulting each and every religion on a daily basis in public so as to maintain it.
Yeah but so is COPD, lung cancer, mouth cancer, siriosis, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay, ulcers, colon cancer, et etc etc.....
If our troops wanted to have a Draw Mohammed Day, fine....if somewhat suicidal....I'm not trying to force anyone to draw Mohammed.......and there lies the difference. Islam IS trying to force me NOT to draw Mohammed.
****'em.[/QUOTE]
That is a problem I have had all my life. Every time someone tells me I can't do something I will go out and do it just for spite.
****'em.[/QUOTE]
That is a problem I have had all my life. Every time someone tells me I can't do something I will go out and do it just for spite.
South Park, or by extension, Comedy Central.
Sure, but we have lots of bad taste in our society. We don't kill people over it. That's the point.
There you go, see how insidious that is? They've (yes, the Islamic extemists) already got you to reduce killing someone over what they said as "just a reaction". Sorry, but going into a murederous frenzy over an offensive cartoon is NOT acceptable behaviour in our society.
lol what do you mean not at all? That's their stated motivation, it's published all over. Just because you can think of an alternative tact to make the same point doesn't mean that EDMD is not about what the "organizers" say it is about.
Sorry I don't see the parallel at all. A better analogy would be to imagine that Veganism was contrary to Islamic law, and you were getting death threats for not eating meat.
Colpy typed:
So I should become a nicotine addict the moment a person threatens to kill me if I smoke?
No thanks. Then again, that's a bad example since I wouldn't mind nicotine being banned anyway. So let's take another example:
Let's say a person threatened to kill people who eat meat. I wouldn't allow their actions to control my life by forcing me to do what I would rather not do so as to make a point. Instead, I'd still exercise my freedom from meat but stand up for the rights of those who do wish to eat meat by supporting more funding for the national police so as to protect us from such terrorists, and punish those terrorists we capture severely. I would not allow them to control my life by forcing me to do what I don't want to do.
Going back to cigarettes, though I wouldn't be against banning them, I'd still support harsh penalties for terrorists threatening against this.
When you start to do what you normally wouldn't do just to prove that you can do it, at that moment you've allowed the terrorists to control your life, thus giving them a victory of sorts.
Wrong. I'd still encourage people to stop smoking, etc. but would at the same time stand firm against terrorism, providing the national police with the funding necessary to protect us.
Again, if I must ruin my health to prove a point, I've allowed the enemy to control my life. Is that what you want?
Let's say for a moment that heroin were legal, and a terrorist group decided to start bombing public spaces in Canada so as to pressure the government to criminalize heroin. My stance would still be that the government ought to criminalize heroin while making it clear that the reason for this has nothing to do with the terrorists, and I'd still support the harshest punishment for the terrorists.
By the sounds of it, you'd start smoking heroin yourself and would even encourage others to join you. Or did I miss something here?
Obviously, the threats against the western media have made them forgo printing items that otherwise would not have gotten a second thought.......
The ONLY people that have rights are those that exercise them.[/quote]
You misunderstood me here. I was referring to the feeling or the sense of being offended, not terrorist activity. That's why I'd made a distinction between the two groups. As for those engaging in terrorist activity, sure they must be pursued. What gave you the idea that I support terrorism?
So I should become a nicotine addict the moment a person threatens to kill me if I smoke?
No thanks. Then again, that's a bad example since I wouldn't mind nicotine being banned anyway. So let's take another example:
Let's say a person threatened to kill people who eat meat. I wouldn't allow their actions to control my life by forcing me to do what I would rather not do so as to make a point. Instead, I'd still exercise my freedom from meat but stand up for the rights of those who do wish to eat meat by supporting more funding for the national police so as to protect us from such terrorists, and punish those terrorists we capture severely. I would not allow them to control my life by forcing me to do what I don't want to do.
Going back to cigarettes, though I wouldn't be against banning them, I'd still support harsh penalties for terrorists threatening against this.
When you start to do what you normally wouldn't do just to prove that you can do it, at that moment you've allowed the terrorists to control your life, thus giving them a victory of sorts.
Wrong. I'd still encourage people to stop smoking, etc. but would at the same time stand firm against terrorism, providing the national police with the funding necessary to protect us.
Again, if I must ruin my health to prove a point, I've allowed the enemy to control my life. Is that what you want?
Let's say for a moment that heroin were legal, and a terrorist group decided to start bombing public spaces in Canada so as to pressure the government to criminalize heroin. My stance would still be that the government ought to criminalize heroin while making it clear that the reason for this has nothing to do with the terrorists, and I'd still support the harshest punishment for the terrorists.
By the sounds of it, you'd start smoking heroin yourself and would even encourage others to join you. Or did I miss something here?
Obviously, the threats against the western media have made them forgo printing items that otherwise would not have gotten a second thought.......
The ONLY people that have rights are those that exercise them.[/quote]
You misunderstood me here. I was referring to the feeling or the sense of being offended, not terrorist activity. That's why I'd made a distinction between the two groups. As for those engaging in terrorist activity, sure they must be pursued. What gave you the idea that I support terrorism?
In that case, I'd continue to eat vegan and still encourage others to do so out of compassion for animals. However, I still would not encourage a person to go vegan just to make a point; if he does that, he's allowed the terrorists to control his life. What I would expect from meat eaters though would be that they not capitulate to have the government criminalize veganism so as to appease the terrorists. Again, that would be different from someone who wanted to criminalize veganism because he incorrectly believed it was a public health issue while still standing up to the terrorists.
Now you have come with your pistol, and yet speaking about military conquests as not justified.
Now I shall ask you: do you recognize the prophets: Josue, Samuel, David and Solomon or not?
Didn't they fight in the way of God ?
If Mohammed is truthful in his prophet-hood, then why did he use war and fighting in his mission?
Moreover, I ask you: who sent them: was it Jesus that sent them, or was it God That sent them and commanded them to fight the idolaters?
And you say: "God didn't break into history as a conquering hero, but rather a suffering servant" : where you mean Jesus is God,
and we do not agree Jesus was God, neither was God as Jesus, but Jesus was the righteous servant of God.
I tell you Mohammed was a true prophet (and the prophet cannot be other than that), and you deny him;
so what is your evidence to the prophecy of Jesus and the prophecy of other prophets? Yes, certainly, I believe they were God's prophets, but what is your evidence to their prophecy in case you deny Mohammed;
and you will be judged, in this context, for two guilts:
First: You yourself denied God's apostle: Mohammed, to whom the Quran was revealed.
Second: You barred other people from admitting Mohammed is the apostle of God; that is by asserting to them that he was not prophet;
because this is a tremendous thing that you hinder people from the Quran and from believing in the apostle of God: His righteous servant Mohammed - salam be to him,
who defended God alone and broke up the idols of his people (like what his grandfather Abraham had done before.)
This is in the Quran 47: 1-3
الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَصَدُّوا عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَضَلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ .وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَآمَنُوا بِمَا نُزِّلَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَهُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَفَّرَ عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَأَصْلَحَ بَالَهُمْ . ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا اتَّبَعُوا الْبَاطِلَ وَأَنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّبَعُوا الْحَقَّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَذَلِكَ يَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ أَمْثَالَهُمْThe explanation:
(Those who disbelieve and bar [people] from God's way [: His religion]; → God [will] make their works void.
(Those who disbelieve and bar [people] from God's way [: His religion]; → God [will] make their works void.
But those who believe [in God alone] and work righteous [deeds] and believe in [the Quran] revealed to Mohammed – and it is the very truth [coming] from their Lord – → He concealed their evil acts [from the sight of souls], and improved their condition [into peace and easiness.]
That [is the rewarding of the two parties] because the disbelievers follow the falsehood [so they deserve the punishment],
while the believers follow the truth [coming] from their Lord [so they deserve Paradise];
thus does God expound to people their parables.)
http://www.quran-ayat.com/conflicts/english2.htm#A_Call_from_God_to_the_People_of_the_Scripture_
Last edited:
All these barbarous acts by the Albanian extremists have occured in the presence of UN and the International Peace Forces (KFOR), not in the time of war but of PEACE.
Destruction
The Systematic Destruction of Orthodox Christian Churches
and Cemeteries in Kosovo-Metohija and Macedonia
The Systematic Destruction of Orthodox Christian Churches and Cemeteries in Kosovo-Metohija and Macedonia By Carl K. Savich
Arsonists in Malaysia struck a fourth church on Saturday as the government tried to soothe tensions arising from a row over the use of the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God.
Malaysia: “My Allah is better than yours” sets 2 more churches on fire ? Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
59 Assyrian churches have been bombed in Iraq since June 26, 2004, 40 in Baghdad, 13 in Mosul, 5 in Kirkuk and 1 in Ramadi. The following is a list of the bombings.
The Destruction of Assyrian churches, culture and heritage - Israel Forum
Copts say they are down to 2,524 churches now, down from more than 3,000 churches in the early 1950s. The bigger problem is not only that of systematic destruction of churches but the inability to replace the losses and build more to keep up with the normal growth of the Christian population.
Coptic Christians Voicing Frustration With White House As Persecution Widens in Egypt - May 22, 2010 - The New York Sun
Christian communities in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel, and especially Iraq, have faced rising persecution and intolerance from Muslim extremists and have often been caught in the middle of sectarian conflicts.
Aid to the Church in Need: The Suffering Church Worldwide - The Middle East
Thanks for the research. So, what do you propose we do about it? Blow up mosques here n Canada in retaliation even though many Muslims in Canada had nothing to do with it?
That's all well and fine, but you're overlooking one important point. You'd be dead.
No, I wouldn't propose that. You'll have to think of an alternate strategy.
Edit: Is there a way to keep the forum software from merging replies?