Islam and depictions of Muhammad

[januttall]

It mentions the crusades, excuses them for being the Christians getting back stolen lands - which isnt always true - and then moves on quickly, mentioning that Christians dont do that sort of thing anymore. I interpreted that as being a sop to those who say "what about the crusades though" and an implication that the muslims are a bit backward or uncivilised as they are still persecuting other religions. (course Christians never do that..dont mention the war)

Still annoyed about the hate thing though

 

im sorry witch i should have checked the site first (I Have learned from this).

 

 

ANY VIEWS OR OPINIONS ON EXTERNAL SITES I LINK TO ARE NOT MY OWN VIEWS OR OPINIONS!!

Edited September 24, 2012 by januttall

[Guest Guest]

It mentions the crusades, excuses them for being the Christians getting back stolen lands - which isnt always true - and then moves on quickly, mentioning that Christians dont do that sort of thing anymore. I interpreted that as being a sop to those who say "what about the crusades though" and an implication that the muslims are a bit backward or uncivilised as they are still persecuting other religions. (course Christians never do that..dont mention the war)

Still annoyed about the hate thing though

 

I didn't say you hated anyone, it was a sarcastic attempt to highlight that judging people in the present by what their ancestors did in the past is ridiculous, and the extreme of this can lead to hate (which there are still many people who do take that sort of attitude).

 

then moves on quickly, mentioning that Christians dont do that sort of thing anymore. I interpreted that as being a sop to those who say "what about the crusades though"

 

Like I say, to me that's a perfect "excuse". I certainly wouldn't expect to be walking down the street and have a Muslim take retribution against me what Richard the Third did. WW2 happened a short time ago, so if someone can have a dislike of a religion/race/etc based on something which happened 500 years ago surely the correct opinion to have against a German is "hate"?

 

That's where the whole "hate" bit comes into play. Obviously my sarcasm and the subtext don't translate well on the internet.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Guest

[LosOjos]

im sorry witch i should have checked the site first (I Have learned from this).

 

 

ANY VIEWS OR OPINIONS ON EXTERNAL SITES I LINK TO ARE NOT MY OWN VIEWS OR OPINIONS!!

 

*wrist slap*

[MONTY_PYTHON] now don't do it again! [/MONTY_PYTHON]

[LosOjos]

Like I say, to me that's a perfect "excuse". I certainly wouldn't expect to be walking down the street and have a Muslim take retribution against me what Richard the Third did.

 

Likewise, I wouldn't expect (or accept) a Christian to walk down the street and take retribution on a Muslim because of something a [relatively] small group extremists did to the WTC

[januttall]

*wrist slap*

[MONTY_PYTHON] now don't do it again! [/MONTY_PYTHON]

 

OK LosOjos im just sorry i didn't check it in the first place, and upset every one

[Guest Guest]

Likewise, I wouldn't expect (or accept) a Christian to walk down the street and take retribution on a Muslim because of something a [relatively] small group extremists did to the WTT

 

Agreed... and that happened in most peoples lifetime.

[LosOjos]

Agreed... and that happened in most peoples lifetime.

 

At least we can agree on something! lol

[januttall]

what people need to have is compassion and forgiveness, and show caring. not just Christians especially those from the "other Site" which i should have checked but Muslims, well everyone relay. a deep love for each other. not hate.

[X-13]

what people need to have is compassion and forgiveness, and show caring. not just Christians especially those from the "other Site" which i should have checked but Muslims, well everyone relay. a deep love for each other. not hate.

 

[Love and tolerate image goes here]

 

 

I would post a picture, but "love and tolerate" is blocked as search terms here. [Or the results page gets filtered...]

[witch]

I didn't say you hated anyone, it was a sarcastic attempt to highlight that judging people in the present by what their ancestors did in the past is ridiculous, and the extreme of this can lead to hate (which there are still many people who do take that sort of attitude).

Like I say, to me that's a perfect "excuse". I certainly wouldn't expect to be walking down the street and have a Muslim take retribution against me what Richard the Third did. WW2 happened a short time ago, so if someone can have a dislike of a religion/race/etc based on something which happened 500 years ago surely the correct opinion to have against a German is "hate"?

 

That's where the whole "hate" bit comes into play. Obviously my sarcasm and the subtext don't translate well on the internet.

But I wasnt judging people by what their ancestors did - I was trying to point out that the video was very unbalanced as these things often are.

The sad thing is though, that many people across the world DO blame others for things that were done hundreds of years ago. Expecting modern governments to apologise for something their predecessors from many many years before did is an example of this (eg slavery)

[pcstru]

I did write a long reply to this, but then lost it, so I'll try again. Human rights are qualified usually, freedom of expression and freedom of association are both balanced by a need to prevent people doing things like shouting 'bomb' in a cinema, and people don't have a right to associate with terrorists...

 

So, as prior protests on this matter, by people with the same beliefs as this set of protesters have lead to violence and deaths, then new protests come under increased scrutiny, and increased restrictions. That's the way of the law, and the way of having both rights and responsibilities.

While various laws may be said to 'balance' or be described as 'responsibilities', the way the law works is (thank goodness!) to deal with the acts of individuals. You will not get far trying to press charges because "a similar group was naughty".

And I agree with that poster. The protests are based entirely on flawed thinking. They are committing idolatry by their own religious texts, they are protesting in weird places (Birmingham? what relevance has that got to a film made by one American loon?), their religious texts don't apply to non-believers, so why should non-believers pay any attention to it?

Flawed thinking of course! Logic and reason do not apply (see post 3 in the thread!) but if people are to be free to believe whatever they wish, then asking for logic and reason is just YOUR value judgement.

So, the reasons do come down to them seeming to want to cause trouble. Are we not entitled to our own opinion, or do the freedom of speech rights not apply to us?

 

So you can't see another reason (so there can't possibly be one), you dismiss their stated reasons (they are upset by what they see as an insult), and you ignore the possibility I've put forward (they just want to protest). I'd say that while you are entitled to your opinion, it's a pretty narrow minded one.

Edited September 24, 2012 by pcstru

[pcstru]

@pcstru - I'm done, I cannot make sense of you any more. On the one hand you criticize me for stating my opinions then not backing them up with evidence (they are my opinions, I have provided examples and reasons, apparently not enough for you), then you go ahead and have a go because I disagree with your opinions ("I make points as strongly as I feel is warranted. I don't precede every sentence with "In my opinion", "I think" etc, because apart from anything I write quite obviously being my opinion, it; a) quickly gets dull as a writing style and b) I prefer to treat readers as intelligent enough to already have figured that out." - exactly my point!). I suspect from your responses to me and others, you just want an argument and I can't be bothered with that.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15271[/ATTACH]

 

I'm sorry that you are so vexed by my posts. You made claims that Dawkins was an extremist, disrespectful and rude. That might be your opinion but as a universal truth it is not substantiated up by the evidence you provided (as far as I can remember, that evidence comprised of ONE video clip). My opinion on my writing style is ... err ... well, I'm not sure it is of any consequence! I write as I write. Perhaps if you 'attack' my points rather than my style you will begin to make more sense ... of me (of course).

 

Any discussion where people disagree can be called an argument. I don't agree with many of the views expressed by people in here. In many cases it's not because I think they are logically wrong, it's more because in the subject matter of belief, logic does not necessarily apply. I think I've made reasonable points on that and been reasonably clear on the why. Characterising me as being "just out for an argument" is just swinging rhetorical handbags. I try to submit considered posts which I (perhaps delusionally) hope will provoke some thought. I also genuinely hope people will respond and challenge my view. I find that useful in developing my view of the world and sometimes even learning new things (I generally do 'learn' more from people I disagree with). So if that constitutes just being in it for the "argument" then count me in and bring it on! I understand you though, will not be responding - or at least you have said so a number of times so if repetition is any indication of your intent, then I'm sure it must be true. (hey, maybe I can do rhetorical handbags too!).

Edited September 24, 2012 by pcstru
to maketh it read better, innit