Islamophobia and McCarthyism

[SugarFreeJazz]

I wasn't really trying to make a case with that post. I was simply making an observation.

And yet after your observations, the only conclusion you came to was "Islam is evil"? Even with the observation that many Christians kill each other in the name of god? How come your observation wasn't "every religion is evil"? Certainly, unless your intention was to be biased, that would have been a more logical conclusion to come to.

If by "nothing" you mean "Obama supports and enables the islamic jihad" then yes, it proves nothing at all.

By nothing, I meant nothing. The articles you linked me to do not prove, in any way, that Obama "supports and enables the Islamic jihad". They might suggest it, but they do not prove it.

If you could explain to me how removing "politically incorrect", intolerant, offensive stereotypes from FBI training material is comparable to "supporting and enabling the Islamic jihad", that would be lovely. Would you also suggest that anyone who agrees with the removal of this material supports an Islamic jihad?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-forgoes-easter-greeting-but-celebrates-muslim-holidays

This is simply wrong.

If the islamists didn't have a level of self-control comparable to that of the average chimp, people wouldn't have to worry about repercussions. Part of this whole problem is that not only muslim extremists, but a whole lot of middle easterners can't grasp the concept of free speech at all, because they've never been able to experience it. There is no free speech in islam, nor is there free speech in islamic countries. The very idea of free speech is terrifying to the religion. As are things like gender equality and gay rights.

Coincidentally, you just proved my point.

As long as we share this planet with other people, we will always have to worry about and think about the repercussions of what we do and say. Being offensive and provocative towards another people or religion will only lead to a continuation of offensive and provocative feelings and actions. Even if one side is disproportionately in the wrong (in this case, the people who stormed the embassy), that does not mean we are in the right.

I would love to continue this quasi-philosophical topic I brought up, but that is for another time. As for the actual debate, I would like to stop posting here because my doctor said it was having a detrimental affect on my calcium levels and it is interfering with my beauty sleep.

In all seriousness though, I'll continue this maybe 1-2 more posts/replies, simply for the sake of tying it up, but I'm not going to continue past that. I do not agree with you about Obama or his views, and I never will, and I have a feeling that this is mutual.

The repercussions can be anything from loss of a job, to loss of future jobs, to people having a low opinion of you. However the moment something moves from legal to illegal, as we are seeing in the Middle East, the guilt of such a move completely falls on those that commit the crime.

I guess I kinda responded to this in my response to Raymond.

It really is quite disgusting to see some of the same people who would get riled up over Catholic priests molesting children go on to ignore Muhammad's pedophilia, even though he was the founder of the religion.

Muhammad was also alive 1400 years ago, whereas a Catholic priest molestation scandal seems to happen as often as a new Kids Bop album is released.

(note: I am not suggesting that the molestation of children by Catholic priests is related in any way to every time a new Kids Bop album is released)

 

[BigLutz]

As long as we share this planet with other people, we will always have to worry about and think about the repercussions of what we do and say. Being offensive and provocative towards another people or religion will only lead to a continuation of offensive and provocative feelings and actions. Even if one side is disproportionately in the wrong (in this case, the people who stormed the embassy), that does not mean we are in the right.

Provocative feelings? Yes, they can go burn U.S. flags, they can go and protest, they can even write their own cartoons, Freedom of Speech is not one sided, they have the right to use it as well. Yet when they step outside of that and engage in illegal actions, the fault utterly lies with them, as they are taking actions that effects no one, and into actions that affects the freedom of another person.

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

Provocative feelings? Yes, they can go burn U.S. flags, they can go and protest, they can even write their own cartoons, Freedom of Speech is not one sided, they have the right to use it as well. Yet when they step outside of that and engage in illegal actions, the fault utterly lies with them, as they are taking actions that effects no one, and into actions that affects the freedom of another person.

I never once said anything contrary to that. I even agree with you, that the fault lies entirely on those guilty of committing the crime. But how does this make us, or really, the provocateurs, right?

I'm not trying to take the "highroad" here, or use any of that other self-righteous bullshit. Tell me before I continue this debate though. Do you believe that the people who provoked the action are in the right? (aka, the producers and anyone else who went into the production of the film "The Innocence of Muslims").

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Muhammad was also alive 1400 years ago, whereas a Catholic priest molestation scandal seems to happen as often as a new Kids Bop album is released.

(note: I am not suggesting that the molestation of children by Catholic priests is related in any way to every time a new Kids Bop album is released)

You mean you didn't realize those albums were actually the cause of Muhammad's wrong actions?

Tell me before I continue this debate though. Do you believe that the people who provoked the action are in the right? (aka, the producers and anyone else who went into the production of the film "The Innocence of Muslims").

That's really, really beside the point. By some twisted logic regarding "consequences" of free speech, gays would be justified in bombing Westboro Baptist, and they'd be justified in bombing some of the posters who express over-the-top hatred of Westboro on this Forum.

 

[BigLutz]

I never once said anything contrary to that. I even agree with you, that the fault lies entirely on those guilty of committing the crime. But how does this make us, or really, the provocateurs, right?

You're statement said: The real problem here is that many people still seem to believe that freedom of speech means there won't be repercussions for what they say.

Which I may be wrong, but it seems to infer you are saying that they are responsible for the repercussions both violent and non violent. And as such those actually committing those crimes are not.

I'm not trying to take the "highroad" here, or use any of that other self-righteous bullshit. Tell me before I continue this debate though. Do you believe that the people who provoked the action are in the right? (aka, the producers and anyone else who went into the production of the film "The Innocence of Muslims").

I believe it is their right to do it? Yes. Do I think it is good that they did it? Actually I do, 2 out of 3 Abrahamic religions suffer extreme ridicule in art, but Islam largely comes out unscathed. Largely because people fear what the Muslims are going to do. The only way that is going to change, is if people do take a stand and continue to push Islam until the point the Muslim World becomes inoculated to ridicule.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

If you could explain to me how removing "politically incorrect", intolerant, offensive stereotypes from FBI training material is comparable to "supporting and enabling the Islamic jihad", that would be lovely. Would you also suggest that anyone who agrees with the removal of this material supports an Islamic jihad?

It's not "intolerant" or "offensive" if it's the truth.

Being offensive and provocative towards another people or religion will only lead to a continuation of offensive and provocative feelings and actions. Even if one side is disproportionately in the wrong (in this case, the people who stormed the embassy), that does not mean we are in the right.

So, if a muslim were to call me a soulless, godless, infidel pig-dog, and I set his house on fire in retaliation he'd also be in the wrong for provoking me in the first place? Seriously, that's insane.

You also forget how much the muslim extremists love to mock civilized people like americans and israelis, in their own countries and elsewhere. In the middle east, they even have television shows that portray jews, americans, and infidels in general as bloodthirsty killers who are out to get the nice and righteous muslims who never do anything to anybody.

That would be a good point if freedom of speech was in the universal islamic declaration of human rights (along with the U.N declaration of human rights which has been ratified by many muslim countries. )

http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

"Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice."

*Laughs*.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

The willingness of people to criticise freedom of speech is very worrying.

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

You mean you didn't realize those albums were actually the cause of Muhammad's wrong actions?

I guess I missed that part. I don't listen to Kids Bop.

That's really, really beside the point. By some twisted logic regarding "consequences" of free speech, gays would be justified in bombing Westboro Baptist, and they'd be justified in bombing some of the posters who express over-the-top hatred of Westboro on this Forum.

What?

*see bottom of post*

You're statement said: The real problem here is that many people still seem to believe that freedom of speech means there won't be repercussions for what they say.

Which I may be wrong, but it seems to infer you are saying that they are responsible for the repercussions both violent and non violent. And as such those actually committing those crimes are not.

That is not what I meant. How did you even infer that from what I was saying? Are people all of a sudden not responsible for what they say and do?

I believe it is their right to do it? Yes. Do I think it is good that they did it? Actually I do, 2 out of 3 Abrahamic religions suffer extreme ridicule in art, but Islam largely comes out unscathed. Largely because people fear what the Muslims are going to do. The only way that is going to change, is if people do take a stand and continue to push Islam until the point the Muslim World becomes inoculated to ridicule.

Why don't we just kill them all in self-righteous crusades? Or we could just set up death camps around the Middle East and just toss them in there? That outta set those bastards straight.

It's not "intolerant" or "offensive" if it's the truth.

Black people murder, Jews steal, Christians molest children.

Not offensive though. It's actually true.

So, if a muslim were to call me a soulless, godless, infidel pig-dog, and I set his house on fire in retaliation he'd also be in the wrong for provoking me in the first place? Seriously, that's insane.

Having the right to the freedom of speech is not the same as being right about what is said. He would still be in the wrong for provoking you, and you would be in the wrong for burning down his house. Each of you should be punished respectively.

Assuming this took place in the U.S., or any other country with a recognized right to freedom of speech, than as long as he didn't threaten your life, he shouldn't be punished.

You also forget how much the muslim extremists love to mock civilized people like americans and israelis, in their own countries and elsewhere. In the middle east, they even have television shows that portray jews, americans, and infidels in general as bloodthirsty killers who are out to get the nice and righteous muslims who never do anything to anybody.

Ah, but it's alright for us to have movies, cartoons, and television shows that mock them and portray them as sub-human, god-fearing, oil-hoarding, terrorists.

"Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice."

*Laughs*.

You are awful.


It almost seems as if you guys don't really know what repercussion means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repercussion

re·per·cus·sion   [ree-per-kuhsh-uhn, rep-er-]
noun
1. an effect or result, often indirect or remote, of some event or action: The repercussions of the quarrel were widespread.
2. the state of being driven back by a resisting body.
3. a rebounding or recoil of something after impact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consequence?s=t

con·se·quence   [kon-si-kwens, -kwuhns]
noun
1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.

The repercussions or consequences of an action are not always justified or fair. They just are. The law isn't a magical deity that can smite anything acting out of accordance with it. If you slander a zealot's lifestyle and tell him that everything he believes is evil, do not expect him to invite you to his house to talk about it peacefully.

There's even medicine for delusional thinking such as that.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

There's even medicine for delusional thinking such as that.

Calling others delusional, while you make excuses for murderers and religious fanatics.

Assuming this took place in the U.S., or any other country with a recognized right to freedom of speech, than as long as he didn't threaten your life, he shouldn't be punished.

Then by this logic, the creator of the controversial movie didn't do anything wrong at all because he lives in the US of A. He didn't threaten to kill anyone or firebomb an embassy.

Oh, wait. Of course he did something wrong. He offended the nice islamic extremists and forced them to riot like a pack of wild animals. Those guys would never have done anything like that of their own accord, because they're such a peaceful bunch.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

Ah, but it's alright for us to have movies, cartoons, and television shows that mock them and portray them as sub-human, god-fearing, oil-hoarding, terrorists.

Yes. Of course it is.

 

[SugarFreeJazz]

Calling others delusional, while you make excuses for murderers and religious fanatics.

Since I've done neither of those, I can only assume you're referring to someone else.

Then by this logic, the creator of the controversial movie didn't do anything wrong at all because he lives in the US of A. He didn't threaten to kill anyone or firebomb an embassy.

Oh, wait. Of course he did something wrong. He offended the nice islamic extremists and forced them to riot like a pack of wild animals. Those guys would never have done anything like that of their own accord, because they're such a peaceful bunch.

Shouldn't be punished =/= did nothing wrong.

Having the right to freedom of speech does not mean that all free speech is right. I believe that the man who produced the film should not be punished, because it was his right to do what he did. I do not think he was right about what he said.

Yes. Of course it is.

And I never once said anything to the contrary.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to us.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

I do not think he was right about what he said.

Actually, his film was fairly truthful about muhammed. Although he might not have been gay (Of course, he could have been.) or might not have believed he could talk to donkeys, muhammed really was murderous, child raping, desert dwelling madman.

 

[BigLutz]

Why don't we just kill them all in self-righteous crusades? Or we could just set up death camps around the Middle East and just toss them in there? That outta set those bastards straight.

Would it not be easier to drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century and out of the 8th century? I mean lets get it straight, they are a bully, they believe that through force they can intimidate others into respecting them. In many ways creating cartoons and movies like this is a way of saying "We are not intimidated by you anymore"

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

And I never once said anything to the contrary.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to us.

What point are you trying to make then?

 

[Sadib]

(note: I am not suggesting that the molestation of children by Catholic priests is related in any way to every time a new Kids Bop album is released)

You mean you didn't realize those albums were actually the cause of Muhammad's wrong actions?

I now realize why the album is called Kids Bop.

Then by this logic, the creator of the controversial movie didn't do anything wrong at all because he lives in the US of A. He didn't threaten to kill anyone or firebomb an embassy.

They didn't really break any laws. People are just overreacting.

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

They didn't really break any laws. People are just overreacting.

Exactly...

Although, if Obama had his way, criticising religion actually would be against the law.

 

[Sadib]

Exactly...

Although, if Obama had his way, criticising religion actually would be against the law.

Are you basing this on any factual evidence?

 

[Raymond - king of ducks]

Are you basing this on any factual evidence?

Obama co-sponsored a UN resolution that banned criticism of religion. The actual resolution was something the islamists have been trying to push on people for quite some time.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Black people murder, Jews steal, Christians molest children.

Not offensive though. It's actually true.

First, you could say those things about any group and insert the word "some" before each. "Some black molest children," "Some Christians steal," "Some gays hate Westboro Baptist," etc. Additionally, it is perfectly possible for some stereotypes to have a basis in fact. To use an example that is hard to see as offensive, very many black people are succeeding at professional and college basketball. This should not be offensive to anyone because it involves skill and success. But similarly undeniable facts, such as, "The percentage of Muslims who are radical is much greater than the percentage of radicals in most other religions (and has most likely been so throughout its existence)," are for some reason taken as offensive and unjust. The truth can hurt.

The repercussions or consequences of an action are not always justified or fair. They just are. The law isn't a magical deity that can smite anything acting out of accordance with it. If you slander a zealot's lifestyle and tell him that everything he believes is evil, do not expect him to invite you to his house to talk about it peacefully.

There's even medicine for delusional thinking such as that.

First, even if your comment about medicine for delusional thinking was not intended for us, it was still stated carelessly. Raymond's point made sense as a reply to that comment, although it could easily be that that came out more offensive than you intended it to be.

More importantly, I'm not concerned with whether the law is all-powerful. The point is that nobody is (or at least the overwhelming majority of people aren't) expressing your kind of statement when a Christian blows up an abortion clinic.

 

[SBaby]

And yet after your observations, the only conclusion you came to was "Islam is evil"? Even with the observation that many Christians kill each other in the name of god? How come your observation wasn't "every religion is evil"? Certainly, unless your intention was to be biased, that would have been a more logical conclusion to come to.

I said that any religion that condones killing others in the name of their god has to be evil. Or has killing in the name of one's god somehow become a good thing?

And when did this suddenly become a topic about Christianity? As it is, Christians didn't go around killing people when Mel Brooks made fun of The Last Supper in History of the World, and they didn't go around killing people when Sam Kinison talked about why Jesus was never married (I personally found both of those to be ingenious and hilarious).