Are Muslims overly sensitive about the Prophet Mohammad?

[Alaa]

You have the right, in america, to say that Moses was a slut, or that Jesus liked jerking off every day, or that mohammed was a pedophile. Why? because you can, because we have freedom of speech. Whether or not any of the above is true is completely irrelevant.

The onion, as usual, nailed it:

NOT SAFE FOR WORK

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto

NOT SAFE FOR WORK

edit: The idea that you can ban someone from saying something you disagree with is a very dangerous slope. As a poster above me noted, what would you have done to prevent someone from having this freedom?

He is saying something completely false, not something I disagree with. There is nothing to back it up. It is downright insulting.

 

[bfdd]

He is saying something completely false, not something I disagree with. There is nothing to back it up. It is downright insulting.

I believe what you're saying about defending false speech as free speech to be false and insulting. What then? Should you not be allowed to express views that I may find false, offensive and insulting?

 

[OCGuy]

He is saying something completely false, not something I disagree with. There is nothing to back it up. It is downright insulting.

Mohammed didn't diddle little kids?

 

[Alaa]

The hell are you talking about? I believe your entire belief system and religion is a fallacy, yet I will not infringe on your ability to spout such non-sense and I will even defend it. I will not defend people FORCING their beliefs on others though which is exactly what is attempting to be done with all the protests/riots.

Speaking fallacy or falsehood is OK, there is nothing wrong with it except with the presentation the individual makes for themselves. We can hold the opinion that they are wrong or right or idiots whatever, it doesn't truly matter. What we shouldn't do is try to use force or violence to change their ways.

First of all, I condemn violence. There is nothing related to forcing in what we want. All what we call for is mutual respect for religious figures. You idea that religion is a fallacy maybe backed up by opinion and reasoning. However, when you say that someone is a complete fraud you must back it up. This is not related to opinion or beliefs here.

 

[bfdd]

First of all, I condemn violence. There is nothing related to forcing in what we want. All what we call for is mutual respect for religious figures. You idea that religion is a fallacy maybe backed up by opinion and reasoning. However, when you say that someone is a complete fraud you must back it up. This is not related to opinion or beliefs here.

Then Mohammad should defend himself, if not someone is just making up stories and it hurts no one. Also how do you propose we have everyone respect religious figures? What if someone doesn't want to? Do we make it "against the law"? If so, that's using force to get what you want and that's wrong.

 

[Alaa]

Then Mohammad should defend himself, if not someone is just making up stories and it hurts no one. Also how do you propose we have everyone respect religious figures? What if someone doesn't want to? Do we make it "against the law"? If so, that's using force to get what you want and that's wrong.

You are also forcing people to not commit crimes.

 

[cybrsage]

For what JOS to have said to be accurate, he would of had to been standing around, unseen, and listening to all these Muslims in the UK.
First getting around all those Muslims would be a problem alone.

He is special forces - he will use his top secret camoflauge gear to hide in plain sight...

 

[cybrsage]

I read Hebrew and speak Klingon....I'm also an astronaut that eats cottage cheese for dinner......anyone can pretend on the internet, yay!!!!

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

 

[Orignal Earl]

Mohammed didn't diddle little kids?

Ah yes, a highly educated American mind exploring the world of 600 AD.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't think we can agree or disagree here since there is no way to verify it.

Agreed...about the disagree part.

 

[bfdd]

You are also forcing people to not commit crimes.

Well depending on the crime that's ok, was the person forcing or exploiting another into something against their wishes? Yes? Then we're merely executing their right to self defense for them. Most other laws though are bullshit and I agree we're forcing many people to not do things that aren't really crimes, merely offend certain persons morals.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The hell are you talking about? I believe your entire belief system and religion is a fallacy, yet I will not infringe on your ability to spout such non-sense and I will even defend it. I will not defend people FORCING their beliefs on others though which is exactly what is attempting to be done with all the protests/riots.

How in the world are they forcing their beliefs on you by protesting?

 

[bfdd]

Ah yes, a highly educated American mind exploring the world of 600 AD.

What does the time have to do with anything? Were they not children? yes? Then he diddled them, does that make it wrong? Depends on your morals and how you view history. If you believe something to be wrong, why does the time in which it occurred matter? It doesn't in that regard. If you believe morals and the world to be ever changing, then you might not believe it to be so wrong in the context/time in which it occurred.

So

Ah yes, an older gentleman who thinks he has the world figured out making more witty quotes exploring the world of the internet.

 

[bfdd]

How in the world are they forcing their beliefs on you by protesting?

Uh... what do you mean? Have you not heard the chants or requests for us to punish the perpetrators? How about taking down the video? How about the requests for an official apology from our top most representative, President Obama, for the falsehoods that were spouted off about their religion? You don't view that as trying to force their world view on us? Sorry, I believe in free speech and that means sometimes people are going to say shit I disagree with or say shit I find absolutely atrocious and retarded.

 

[Screech]

He is saying something completely false, not something I disagree with. There is nothing to back it up. It is downright insulting.

This might actually be a very good discussion for all involved! Read on....

So what then should be done? Should saying anything that you believe to be false be a crime punishable by a fine? by Imprisonment? By Beheading?

You.....do see what is wrong with this line of reasoning, right? Hard to have a dictatorship when people are freely allowed to express themselves. Without that right, its a lot easier....

Now it is true that freedom of speech is not absolute; we have laws against slander/libel at state and (I think) federal levels (although anyone more learned on this than me feel free to chime in). That said, those laws allow for 'fair comment' which is a pretty broad term. In particular, there usually needs to be proof of 'vicious intent' or something along those lines to argue a slander case when a public figure is in question (at least I think that's how it is in California). The other aspect is that a person who believes him/herself to be slandered can bring a case against the suspect in court but must be alive to make the case. If Mohammed feels wronged, he is permitted by law to resurrect himself (or through god's will, etc) and bring the case to court himself. However, this has not yet happened; until it does there is no legal proof that he has been slandered.

There is another thing here I wanted to touch on which is your claim of feeling insulted. Why do you feel insulted? Let me explain my question. If you search through the net (see the picture in my last post you were quoting, for example, or many others in the darker corners of the internet...) you can see all kinds of terrible, vile stuff, but I don't personally feel insulted by any of it. It may be vile and nasty etc in a general sense but I myself don't feel wronged in life because someone drew a silly picture (or made a movie....). So, why do you? If you hear Jack say that Mohammed was x,y,z, and you know this is false, why does it insult you? Shouldn't you instead think that Jack is a moron and move on with your life instead of thinking OMG YOU ARE INSULTING ME!!!!!!! which is what seems to be going on in these protests?

Essentially, the argument I am making here is that while the video itself might be offensive in a general term, you gotta make the choice for yourself to find it insulting on a personal level. I guess this is a good way to keep yourself from questioning your beliefs (great defense mechanism for a religion) but is a poor choice from a logical standpoint (I disagree, so I will ban you from saying it -- and yes, this is your position, no matter how hard you try to talk around it).

Edit: The correct response to bad speech, of course, is good speech -- not a ban, and not violence.

 

[Alaa]

Well depending on the crime that's ok, was the person forcing or exploiting another into something against their wishes? Yes? Then we're merely executing their right to self defense for them. Most other laws though are bullshit and I agree we're forcing many people to not do things that aren't really crimes, merely offend certain persons morals.

Anyway, I don't think that forcing people to stop insulting religious figures is worse than insulting itself.

 

[bfdd]

Anyway, I don't think that forcing people to stop insulting religious figures is worse than insulting itself.

I do, now what? In fact I believe making a special case for religious figures makes it even more wrong because I believe us to all be equals and saying they are somehow absolved from insults, but I am not makes me rather upset. Now I'm offended you would even suggest such a thing. How ever will we solve this conundrum?

 

[OCGuy]

Anyway, I don't think that forcing people to stop insulting religious figures is worse than insulting itself.

Luckily this country isn't based off of what fundies like yourself think.

Amazing that with our Xtian/Quaker background, we were smart enough to put protections against thought like yours in our constitution.


Don't feel good about the number of people you see here defending suppression of thought and speech. It is not a real sample of the way this country thinks.

On here you tend to get a bunch of basement liberals who couldn't quite get into Berkeley, so they overcompensate by being extra PC, extra anti-Bill of Rights, etc.

They aren't smart enough to debate on the "elite" liberal websites like Democratic Underground, so they come here. Sites like that actually supress and ban opposition, so that is why they want anyone who doesn't agree with them gone.


The Seperation of Church and State, which usually Democrats and non-religous Republicans like myself usually champion, would be completely trampled on if the State made a law banning the insult of the Church.

 

[Orignal Earl]

What does the time have to do with anything? Were they not children? yes? Then he diddled them, does that make it wrong? Depends on your morals and how you view history. If you believe something to be wrong, why does the time in which it occurred matter? It doesn't in that regard. If you believe morals and the world to be ever changing, then you might not believe it to be so wrong in the context/time in which it occurred.

So

Ah yes, an older gentleman who thinks he has the world figured out making more witty quotes exploring the world of the internet.

This old man hasn't got anything figured out and has never pretended too.

In them days a woman/girl had to be ready to start delivering babies as soon it was possible.
In most cases the girl was traded/married off before that time came.

Even by the time the American colonies started you had these New Americans marrying girls at 9

Luckily this country isn't based off of what fundies like yourself think.

 

[bfdd]

This old man hasn't got anything figured out and has never pretended too.

In them days a woman/girl had to be ready to start delivering babies as soon it was possible.
In most cases the girl was traded/married off before that time came.

Even by the time the American colonies started you had these New Americans marrying girls at 9

I'm not one who has an issue with it, I was simply pointing out that there is nothing wrong with people having an issue with it. Everything is 3 sided(at the least), so to only look at things two ways is almost always a fallacy.

btw Earl how have you been? Things looking a bit better?

 

[Alaa]

I disagree, so I will ban you from saying it.

Disagree on what exactly? On things made up by someone's mind? Accusations not backed by anything but a rotten mind? There is no agreeing or disagreeing with insulting!

Your laws are not made for religious figures. And honestly I don't really care about anyone insulting me.

 

[bfdd]

Disagree on what exactly? On things made up by someone's mind? Accusations not backed by anything but a rotten mind? There is no agreeing or disagreeing with insulting!

Your laws are not made for religious figures. And honestly I don't really care about anyone insulting me.

Yes on things made up by someone's mind. We disagree. Your opinion and values are of no different value than mine. The big difference seems to be you hold them up over your head, while I carry mine in my back pocket. Religious figures are no different than non religious figures.

 

[Alaa]

Luckily this country isn't based off of what fundies like yourself think.

I don't care.

I do, now what? In fact I believe making a special case for religious figures makes it even more wrong because I believe us to all be equals and saying they are somehow absolved from insults, but I am not makes me rather upset. Now I'm offended you would even suggest such a thing. How ever will we solve this conundrum?

I don't know but how about not insulting at all?

 

[OCGuy]

I don't care.

I don't know but how about not insulting at all?

How often do you hear people insult Jews in your country?

 

[monovillage]

This old man hasn't got anything figured out and has never pretended too.

In them days a woman/girl had to be ready to start delivering babies as soon it was possible.
In most cases the girl was traded/married off before that time came.

Even by the time the American colonies started you had these New Americans marrying girls at 9

Any chance you can cite something for this? Any chance at all?