Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not “blaspheme” Mohammad–or any supposed god?
LL
Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not "blaspheme" Mohammad--or any supposed god? LLIts not really blaspheme if you don't follow that religion. Its only blaspheme to the believer. Its would be crazy to expect everyone to follow the religious beliefs of every other group out there. What if there was a religious sect that forbid outsiders to look at them or vampire believers that said anyone who went outdoors during daytime was being blaspheming their religion. Who is gong to decide what types of religious restrictions the rest of us have to follow and which ones intrude on our freedoms too much for us to respect. The problem isn't that people are being disrespectful of muslims. The problem is that Muslims believe they have a special right to resort to violence if anyone insults their religion. I am not advocating disrespect for the beliefs of others but many other groups have been the victim of equal or greater prejudice (like those of us who are atheists) and don't turn to violence as the solution to the problem. Blowing people up is not the best way to earn respect for your beliefs. No one has the right to say "our particular beliefs are off limits to criticism".
Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not "blaspheme" Mohammad--or any supposed god? LLIts not really blaspheme if you don't follow that religion. Its only blaspheme to the believer. Its would be crazy to expect everyone to follow the religious beliefs of every other group out there. What if there was a religious sect that forbid outsiders to look at them or vampire believers that said anyone who went outdoors during daytime was being blaspheming their religion. Who is gong to decide what types of religious restrictions the rest of us have to follow and which ones intrude on our freedoms too much for us to respect. The problem isn't that people are being disrespectful of muslims. The problem is that Muslims believe they have a special right to resort to violence if anyone insults their religion. I am not advocating disrespect for the beliefs of others but many other groups have been the victim of equal or greater prejudice (like those of us who are atheists) and don't turn to violence as the solution to the problem. Blowing people up is not the best way to earn respect for your beliefs. No one has the right to say "our particular beliefs are off limits to criticism". Couldn't agree more. That's why I put blaspheme in quotes. Lois
Two would-be violent jihadis, described as nice quiet guys by people who knew them previously, took on a Garland, Texas traffic cop, and a 58 year old, reportedly, unarmed school district security guard. These “jihadis” apparently believed that their Prophet was off limits to criticism and were apparently intending to kill people in support of their belief. The “jihadis” had AK 47’s and body armor. The traffic cop had a handgun. The security guard received a wound to his ankle. The “jihadis” are dead. I assume the traffic cop will now get whatever counselling is needed when a cop has to kill someone. He can, apparently, afford to lose time on firing range practice.
Islamic belief that supports killing to defend the honor of Muhamed, does not deserve respect. In fact, I believe that it deserves all the disrespect that such a belief gets. It’s too bad that two, otherwise, reportedly “nice” guys chose to try to kill and die for such a sick belief.
MohammadAre you referring to the pedophile who wrote some trashy novel while in a drug addled stupor? And now millions of weak-minded sheep follow his every word as if it was something other than pure bullsh*t? I thought so.
Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not "blaspheme" Mohammad--or any supposed god?No. But being blasphemous just for the fun to provoke is pretty useless, and does not help anybody. Radical Islam is a problem to be solved. If somebody has scientific support that provoking is a good strategy to get rid of Moslem terrorism, then let me know. Until now, however, I think there is more support for the fact that provoking makes the problem worse.
This was written by a member of another discussion group.
In my opinion, no right minded, sensible democracy would tolerate what we now endure here [In Britain]. If I or anyone else attempts to bring the situation to light, we are either ignored and or abused as alarmist and or racist. The government refuses to recognise that there is a problem, nor is it willing to do anything that might offend Islam and or the Saudi money men. If Nigel Farage (UKIP) gets into government in two days time I shall be lobbying him to torment. In my own small way I have been warning about the folly of ignoring the Muslim threat to this country. I shall continue to do so.
I urge all our American friends to beware of the insidious march of Islam.
The problem isn't that people are being disrespectful of muslims. The problem is that Muslims believe they have a special right to resort to violence if anyone insults their religion. I am not advocating disrespect for the beliefs of others but many other groups have been the victim of equal or greater prejudice (like those of us who are atheists) and don't turn to violence as the solution to the problem. Blowing people up is not the best way to earn respect for your beliefs. No one has the right to say "our particular beliefs are off limits to criticism".The idea of tribes living side by side is very new. It seems commonplace, but the more I study history, the more amazed I am that we are pulling it off. A cousin of mine just recently said "pluralism is the problem". And she doesn't have any AK47's. It's a way of thinking that is deeply ingrained. I disrespect it regularly. I consider it a non-violent protest. And if you know anything about non-violent protest, it's usually done knowing it will provoke a violent reaction. That's kinda the point, to show that you are reasonable and willing to discuss your side of the issue and they are not.
Just note, Lois, that I mentioned the problem of radical Islam. I agree that we must do something, but I do not think that provoking for the fun of it will help to solve the problem.
Just note, Lois, that I mentioned the problem of radical Islam. I agree that we must do something, but I do not think that provoking for the fun of it will help to solve the problem.Richard Dawkins has a great personal story of being enamored with Teilhard De Chardin for a few months until he read some scathing sarcasm of his work and realized he was not thinking rationally. If you saw the movie "Selma" there is some talk early on in it about protests in Albany Georgia. They talk about the mistakes they made there, but it's hard to pick up on what happened from the movie. And why put it in the movie if no one has heard of it? Because the reason you didn't hear about it is the Sheriff there treated MLK and the protesters very well. He didn't stop them, he didn't beat them. They were arrested, probably more to protect them than anything. They were fed, the Sheriff met with them, then they were released. So he went to Birmingham and had fire hoses turned on them, then to Montgomery and got the response he expected. The one that made history.
Just note, Lois, that I mentioned the problem of radical Islam. I agree that we must do something, but I do not think that provoking for the fun of it will help to solve the problem.The provocateurs in the Garland case is an organization that spreads some unfounded beliefs of their own. However, despite their using the medium of cartoons (which tend to have funny elements) they would not say that what they are doing is just "for fun". They claim that they are standing up for the 1st Amendment which they believe is in danger of erosion by the influence of a powerful religion that has members who will use others' "offensiveness" as a justification for killing those viewed as offenders against their religious beliefs.
Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not "blaspheme" Mohammad--or any supposed god? LLIts not really blaspheme if you don't follow that religion. Its only blaspheme to the believer. Its would be crazy to expect everyone to follow the religious beliefs of every other group out there. What if there was a religious sect that forbid outsiders to look at them or vampire believers that said anyone who went outdoors during daytime was being blaspheming their religion. Who is gong to decide what types of religious restrictions the rest of us have to follow and which ones intrude on our freedoms too much for us to respect. The problem isn't that people are being disrespectful of muslims. The problem is that Muslims believe they have a special right to resort to violence if anyone insults their religion. I am not advocating disrespect for the beliefs of others but many other groups have been the victim of equal or greater prejudice (like those of us who are atheists) and don't turn to violence as the solution to the problem. Blowing people up is not the best way to earn respect for your beliefs. No one has the right to say "our particular beliefs are off limits to criticism". If you are killed for someone else's idea of blasphemy, it's not going to matter if you don't follow that religion. . Lois
Should non Islamic Americans feel obligated to not "blaspheme" Mohammad--or any supposed god?No. But being blasphemous just for the fun to provoke is pretty useless, and does not help anybody. Radical Islam is a problem to be solved. If somebody has scientific support that provoking is a good strategy to get rid of Moslem terrorism, then let me know. Until now, however, I think there is more support for the fact that provoking makes the problem worse. Criticizing is necessary and it's permitted by the first amendment. How about political criticism and satire, do you call that provocation? Should it be stopped? When a religion is as violent and inhumane as Islam is, it deserves to be provoked at every opportunity. Lois
How about political criticiam and satire, do you call that provocation? Ahould it be stooped?No. People must see what is happening, so criticism is necessary, and satire maybe functional at times. But provoking just for getting more Moslems radicalised is stupid. Provoking them, making them angry, and then yell 'See, see, what a terrible religion this is!' is the mechanism of a selfullfilling prophecy. The root cause of radicalised Islam is colonialism and its continuing aftermath, like the Palestinian problem, the Iraq- and Afghanistan wars and much more. It has not much to do with the contents of Islam. You should know that, if you look at the history of Christianity (the 'religion of peace').
When a religion is as violent and inhumane as Islam is, it deserves to be provoked at every opportunity.If you think it is the best way to overcome irrational and outdated beliefs... I hope you have scientific support for such a claim. For the rest, it always is easier to be morally outraged, then to work to solutions. Atheists are not free from irrational behaviour.
I have a scientific theory that talking about scientific theories is not going to stop people from shooting apostates and blaphemers.When a religion is as violent and inhumane as Islam is, it deserves to be provoked at every opportunity.If you think it is the best way to overcome irrational and outdated beliefs... I hope you have scientific support for such a claim. For the rest, it always is easier to be morally outraged, then to work to solutions. Atheists are not free from irrational behaviour.
I have a scientific theory that talking about scientific theories is not going to stop people from shooting apostates and blaphemers.And provoking does stop them?
I have a scientific theory that talking about scientific theories is not going to stop people from shooting apostates and blaphemers.And provoking does stop them? It's okay if you don't read my posts, but to respond to something else I say as if you didn't read everything I said, that just screws up a thread. Charlie Hebdo has opened a discussion around the world that needed to be had. No one expected or wanted such a violent response, and thankfully the vast majority of Muslims are against such actions too. It has forced everyone to think about what freedom means. It should have been enough to just discuss the cartoons. We should have had that discussion when Salman Rushdie was having to hide to save his life. Instead we waited, hoping things would better. They didn't.
I have a scientific theory that talking about scientific theories is not going to stop people from shooting apostates and blaphemers. But maybe talking about violence, abrogation of rights and religions that support those things will. LOisWhen a religion is as violent and inhumane as Islam is, it deserves to be provoked at every opportunity.If you think it is the best way to overcome irrational and outdated beliefs... I hope you have scientific support for such a claim. For the rest, it always is easier to be morally outraged, then to work to solutions. Atheists are not free from irrational behaviour.
But maybe talking about violence, abrogation of rights and religions that support those things will. LOisIt hasn't done much so far. We let Billy Graham into the White House, and now we have the Tea Party. We saw the creation of the Taliban and walked away, and we had 9/11. Now we keep hearing about moderate Muslims and progressive Christians but where's the progress? I just had someone tell me to look into NT Wright. He is the most often cited theologian among progressives that I know of. I easily found an article where he defends the defense of marriage. I found another interview (about his most recent book) where he covers the gamut of old fashioned dependence on faith and strawman arguments against atheists]. The last question is an open one, letting him choose what is most important. He says, faith in Jesus, and we can't know Jesus, so we have to keep studying to figure out who Jesus is and Jesus is important, because he has been in our culture for 2,000 years. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Progress! What amazes about guys like this is they are very good at recognizing the problems of earlier generations. He talks about Calvin being wrong and starting wars. He talks about his teachers who glossed over that. He even says "we haven't improved on that" since then. He says the problems happen when someone decides they have the right interpretation and decide that means they can kill anyone who disagrees. Then he just goes on telling us how HE now has the right interpretation. Martin Luther didn't start out with the intention of starting 100 years of war. It was the people who followed him. NT Wright should know he is potentially the next Martin Luther.
I have a scientific theory that talking about scientific theories is not going to stop people from shooting apostates and blaphemers. No, it won't, but it doesn't mean that scientific theories should not be talked about. It doesn't mean that violent and sexist religions should not be roundly criticized at every opportunity, either. LoisWhen a religion is as violent and inhumane as Islam is, it deserves to be provoked at every opportunity.If you think it is the best way to overcome irrational and outdated beliefs... I hope you have scientific support for such a claim. For the rest, it always is easier to be morally outraged, then to work to solutions. Atheists are not free from irrational behaviour.