It's a peaceful religion

[archenemy]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/01/danish.cartoon.break.in/index.html

 

The cartoon was done years ago. Time to get over it.

[letsroll]

they are still fighting over things that happened 2000 years ago. They don't know how to let things go.

[Mal_Con]

Hell they/we are still fighting over what Abraham was said to have done 3000 years ago

[prole]

Yeah, somebody should, like, do something about all that...

[Bug]

Do you REALLY want to open this can?

[tvashtarkatena]

So full of hate.

[prole]

Does this thread mean it's safe to start talking about invading Yemen?

 

 

"Yemen". Say it...

[G-spotter]

Rhymes with semen

[JosephH]

We should send Karl, he's good at starting wars...

[klenke]

Here's what seems so ironic to me about Islam considering images of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemous:

 

They don't allow images of the likeness of Muhammad and yet so many of their people go by the name "Muhammad" (and with that exact spelling). So if I am a person with the name Muhammad, doesn't that mean that my face could be the image of Muhammad?

 

It just seems funny to me that images of his likeness are not allowed but naming a son after his likeness is okay. It would seem like the latter would be an even more egregious transgression.

 

I tried to convey this irony to a Muslim co-worker and he didn't get me at all.

[Stonehead]

So, we’re indicting the whole body of ideas that comprise the religion and its entire legion of followers due to some high profile reactions to a political cartoon? Satire is a great way to send a political message but at what point does it mutate from being relatively benign to becoming socially malignant? I would ask if there are hands that seek to manipulate the scenes in the world play.

 

Are the initiatory acts intentional? Not that the unequal response is justified but if the reaction can be predicted with some certainty, then isn’t the initiator also guilty of a provocative act? Is it criminal? For instance, is it criminal to participate in a conspiracy to incite a riot?

 

Sure, in a Machiavellian sense, religion is a vehicle that propagates ideas which can be manipulated or corrupted to serve a purpose which appears antithetical to the general good that’s inculcated by the social body characteristic of a religion. So, the question becomes can we discern the purpose behind the hands that manipulate the scenes or are these simple intentional acts of small purpose that more or less are random?

 

Is it too sinister and conspiratorial to propose that the intelligence organizations are the movers behind the scenes, that we are pawns whose perceptions are influenced for larger purposes? Is it just coincidence that the Nigerian would be bomber serves as the impetus to escalate the war in Yemen and to initiate further restrictive measures here? A useful idiot?

 

The National Security Archive at George Mason University

[Bug]

Here's what seems so ironic to me about Islam considering images of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemous:

 

They don't allow images of the likeness of Muhammad and yet so many of their people go by the name "Muhammad" (and with that exact spelling). So if I am a person with the name Muhammad, doesn't that mean that my face could be the image of Muhammad?

 

It just seems funny to me that images of his likeness are not allowed but naming a son after his likeness is okay. It would seem like the latter would be an even more egregious transgression.

 

I tried to convey this irony to a Muslim co-worker and he didn't get me at all.

Sounds like a troll but....Islam forbids the making of images of any living thing.

Not even a cat.

The Persians incorporated Islam into their religion(s) and so you will see images of people, horses etc in Persian art. But the rest of Islam will not attempt to "immitate Allah's creative powers".

That was why enlightened Taliban officials had the 800 year old stone carvings of Buddah destroyed.

 

[ivan]

hey, in ireland the cartoonist could be fined 35k$!

[Bug]

Finally!

Now we can start getting you heathens under control.

Or at least force you underground where you belong.

[archenemy]

So, we’re indicting the whole body of ideas that comprise the religion and its entire legion of followers due to some high profile reactions to a political cartoon? Satire is a great way to send a political message but at what point does it mutate from being relatively benign to becoming socially malignant? I would ask if there are hands that seek to manipulate the scenes in the world play.

 

Are the initiatory acts intentional? Not that the unequal response is justified but if the reaction can be predicted with some certainty, then isn’t the initiator also guilty of a provocative act? Is it criminal? For instance, is it criminal to participate in a conspiracy to incite a riot?

 

Sure, in a Machiavellian sense, religion is a vehicle that propagates ideas which can be manipulated or corrupted to serve a purpose which appears antithetical to the general good that’s inculcated by the social body characteristic of a religion. So, the question becomes can we discern the purpose behind the hands that manipulate the scenes or are these simple intentional acts of small purpose that more or less are random?

 

Is it too sinister and conspiratorial to propose that the intelligence organizations are the movers behind the scenes, that we are pawns whose perceptions are influenced for larger purposes? Is it just coincidence that the Nigerian would be bomber serves as the impetus to escalate the war in Yemen and to initiate further restrictive measures here? A useful idiot?

 

The National Security Archive at George Mason University

Shooting a person over a cartoon drawing is stupid. Issuing a Fatwa for a drawing, a book, a comment, is stupid. Not being able to draw an image that you want to draw is stupid.

[Bug]

So, we’re indicting the whole body of ideas that comprise the religion and its entire legion of followers due to some high profile reactions to a political cartoon? Satire is a great way to send a political message but at what point does it mutate from being relatively benign to becoming socially malignant? I would ask if there are hands that seek to manipulate the scenes in the world play.

 

Are the initiatory acts intentional? Not that the unequal response is justified but if the reaction can be predicted with some certainty, then isn’t the initiator also guilty of a provocative act? Is it criminal? For instance, is it criminal to participate in a conspiracy to incite a riot?

 

Sure, in a Machiavellian sense, religion is a vehicle that propagates ideas which can be manipulated or corrupted to serve a purpose which appears antithetical to the general good that’s inculcated by the social body characteristic of a religion. So, the question becomes can we discern the purpose behind the hands that manipulate the scenes or are these simple intentional acts of small purpose that more or less are random?

 

Is it too sinister and conspiratorial to propose that the intelligence organizations are the movers behind the scenes, that we are pawns whose perceptions are influenced for larger purposes? Is it just coincidence that the Nigerian would be bomber serves as the impetus to escalate the war in Yemen and to initiate further restrictive measures here? A useful idiot?

 

The National Security Archive at George Mason University

Shooting a person over a cartoon drawing is stupid. Issuing a Fatwa for a drawing, a book, a comment, is stupid. Not being able to draw an image that you want to draw is stupid.

Not bending from any position in a global society is stupid.

[archenemy]

Agreed. Especially if you espouse the "tolerance" line. Obviously, there are limits to tolerance, as well there should be. But blowing people up because they don't believe what you believe is simply unexceptable.

 

And I am not in a position to indict a whole body of ideas because I don't know them all. But I know enough to know I don't like them (and this comes after taking Arabic and studying some of the culture, history, religion--so please don't go off on the "you are just ignorant" line). I'm no expert, but I recognize ideas/beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the world when I see them.

[prole]

The problem isn't the set of ideas (which can only be "eradicated" by authoritarian means, if at all), it's the bounty of fertile soil in which these ideas take root and grow. The US and Israel has been spewing enough fertilizer to fuel a global insurgency for another 30 years.

[tvashtarkatena]

I think only certain extremist, relatively recently invented Islamic sects forbid drawing puppies with big, sad eyes n shit, no? I mean, there are images of people and animals plastered all over the Muslim world. If not, could one of you religious scholars show me the offending passage in the Koran or whatever other official, God authored rule book applies?

 

One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl.

Edited January 3, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Stonehead]

Unless you're speaking of Christianity, no?

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, you suck, but I wouldn't conflate yourself with all of the christian world...outside your own mind, of course.

 

Although I do think any belief in God, regardless of branding, is patently human, natural, and ridiculous.

[Stonehead]

hey, in ireland the cartoonist could be fined 35k$!

 

Yeah, it's entering the realm of thought crime. But here, the idea is whether the action (the cartoon or the response to it) is justified by a higher cause.

[Stonehead]

Well, you suck, but I wouldn't conflate yourself with all of the christian world...outside your own mind, of course.

 

Although I do think any belief in God, regardless of branding, is patently human, natural, and ridiculous.

 

Uh huh. But you're so much better than KaskadskyjKozak, right?

[tvashtarkatena]

Boring.

 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to tell my why the Taliban represents the religious doctrine for the whole of the Muslim world. Regarding the Buddhist statues, um, didn't they stand untouched for many centuries in a primarily Muslim country until these assholes came along? Yeah...they did. Shit, there goes that dime store thesis.

 

Conflating punks like the Taliban with all of Islam is a line that's been pushed hard like a corny, impacted turd by the Bush regime, right on down to federal DHS 'anti-terror' training for local yocals (and yes, I discovered this directly from talking to a Chelan Cty sheriff, not from DailyKos) to sell the WOT. The idea is so pervasive that even many of the heartfelt, concerned liberals on this site have bought it. There's only one problem: it's complete and utter bullshit.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Stonehead]

Agreed. Especially if you espouse the "tolerance" line. Obviously, there are limits to tolerance, as well there should be. But blowing people up because they don't believe what you believe is simply unexceptable.

 

And I am not in a position to indict a whole body of ideas because I don't know them all. But I know enough to know I don't like them (and this comes after taking Arabic and studying some of the culture, history, religion--so please don't go off on the "you are just ignorant" line). I'm no expert, but I recognize ideas/beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the world when I see them.

 

Should we just advance the European approach first exemplified by the proposed French prohibition on burkas (restrictions on religious expression). Perhaps the secular (or should we say, atheistic) European approach will establish a better model for peaceful coexistence in our global world?