Defending Freedom of Opinion, Speech and Press!

[Martz]

Muslim DOES NOT EQUAL (!=) terrorist.

Violence does not solve anything.

Numerous posts in the last couple of days have hinted at B52's, bombing Muslims or Muslim countries or leaving the Muslims to "bomb themselves".

This is such a dangerous mindset - it is malformed and what has put us in this situation in the first place. In the opposite walks of life, people are believing that Christians are trying to take over the world: (stereotypical) white Europeans/Americans are wealthy elitests who use their money, power and technology to take advantage of the people in poor and desperate situations, and bomb/kill the people who do not co-operate.

We will strongly argue that this isn't true. The opposition, whoever it is this decade, will argue back. Nobody will listen, and nothing will change.

It is a small minority of all faiths and religions who are the fundamentalists - the dangerous types who will use a group name to carry out a personal act of violence.

This hatred that people have is misfocused, misinformed and truely distrurbing. I don't just see it on these P&S forums - I speak to people on a daily basis that believe that everyone of a certain faith should be deported or even worse - killed on sight.

I can't understand why anyone would support blowing someone of the face of the earth - even for the most vile or evil of actions. Creating a martyr of an evil person personifies the viewpoints of supporters and sympathisers. In this polarised world we duped into being (famously) "For or Against", rather than using rational logical thought to realise why we are in this situation.

There will always be people who push their rights to the absolute limits, be it freedom of speech in their own countries - or pushing the rules of a forum, the limitations/bugs in a game, etc.

There is a very fine line between racial hatred and freedom of speech - and if the cartoons had been moderated by peers or society (ala slashdot) then they would have been marked -1 Troll.

I'm not saying the solution to the worlds violence is via internet moderation, or that the worlds conflicts can be resolved by not getting involved and being a hippy.

What I am saying is that because of the deep rooted, traditional sense of religion which is encouraged to be passed down from generation to generation - the only way we can hope to start to resolve these problems is over a very long time through education and logical thinking. And if billions of people continue to be blinkered by their religion we will learn nothing, we will not be curious or interested as to why things happen.

100's of years ago, everyone was of one faith/religion or another, being an atheist or a non-believer wasn't even contemplated. In todays times, we seem to have a lot of people who are atheists, and who believe in scientific theory over traditional scriptures - and I think we are on track (in general) to being more peacefull.

Remove the education and independant thinking from the equation and we are going back down the slipperly slope.

 

[-CrackKing-]

gg, a proper post. Muslim does most certainly not mean Terrorist

Have to agree with bart as well tho. Actually I don't have much useful to say about this so I'll shup

 

[sneez]

i'll also shut up

 

[doh]

You have to realise how this pethetic little thing has been blown up to gigantic sizes. One news paper in denmark, called Jyllands-posten, not Gyllands-posten btw Ulv makes these provocative drawings. I'm not sure why actually, didnt look further into it. Then some muslims in denmark gets very upset about it, and travels back to their home country with the paper to stir up things. The next thing we know, there are muslims burning the danish flag in the streets down there, and them boycutting every product made in denmark. Talk about generalization of people there. The news paper later appologized, but they require an official appoligy from the govermant, yes even the queen of denmark. I mean, the goverment or queen have nothing to do with the freedom of speech. To be honest this thing has upset me quite a bit. It makes me think of the muslims as barbarians doing nothing but running around with ak47's shooting into the air in a wild crowd. Ofcourse, i know that is wrong, and that it is only a minority, but there are obviously other beliefs of freedom of speech down there then we have.

 

[Cutter]

Muslim DOES NOT EQUAL (!=) terrorist.

Violence does not solve anything.

[...snipped to save space...]

Remove the education and independant thinking from the equation and we are going back down the slipperly slope.

B- argument from Martz ala Slashdot.

Your first point is quite correct Martz, no problem with that. Unfortunately, the problem in today's world is that a disproportionate number of those we call terrorists are adherents of the Muslim faith, and, worse, are not condemned for their acts by the "silent majority" of "good" Muslims for their extreme actions. This makes that "silent majority" complicit in the atrocities.

Of course, the problem for the "silent majority" is that the "extremists" are in fact only interpreting Islam literally - with all its references to conquering the world, converting the unbelievers to Islam by force in required, or killing them and all the rest. In today's world, the prophet Mohammed would be called a paedophile for his underage wife and so it goes, on and on.

The problem with much of today's "Islam" is that it is a "Desert Islam", with roots back in the middle ages and deserts of the middle east when there were two main problems: not enough water, and not enough women. Look at most of the Islamic countries - they are largely ruled by unelected "dictators", whether theocrats, monarchs or military figures. These countries, their rulers and mindset are fundamentally opposed to notions of "education", "independant thinking" and "freedom of speech", as this would undermine their own religio-politcal powerbase, and, heaven forfend, might result in the "oppressed masses" in their countries demanding things like proper sanitation facilities and food instead of yet more AK47's and support for terrorist groups.

These countries cannot understand why western democracies cannot just clamp down on these "blasphemers" who dare to print such wicked pictures in the way that "good thinking Muslim countries" can, would and do. And in this, they illustrate their utter opposition to ideas people of the west have fought, bled and died for over centuries. The problem for us in the west is our leaders bowing to threats of violence from extremist groups and restricting our traditional freedoms in the name of political expediency. We see it already in the religious hatred bill, the ID card bill and so on.

This country moved away from a backwards culture where a religious elite could torture and kill people in the most horrific ways for daring to have original thoughts or for daring to question the "truth" of scripture in the middle ages. Unfortunately, many Muslim countries seem to be stuck back in that unenlightened time, and until this changes, we will just see more and more of what we are seeing at the moment - more and more "westerners" adopting extreme views as they see their freedoms sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by their governments in efforts to placate a militant minority with whom there can be no compromise. And frankly, a "religion" or "worldview" that responds to criticism of even the slightest nature with death threats, bombing, killing, torture and censorship deserves nothing but our utter contempt.

You could argue that in today's world, Islam is so reactionary because it is scared of the same happening to it as happened to Christianity with disestablishmentarianism - a massive loss of power and influence over people's lives when the people were no longer prepared to put up with shit in this life for a promise of paradise in the next, founded on nothing but blind faith. Of course, Christianity had to go through the bloodbaths of the "burning times" and the "inquisition" before sanity reasserted itself. I suspect things with Islam will get worse before they get better.

Have you read a book called "The Trouble with Islam" by Irshad Manji Martz? If not, I'd recommend it. How does a lesbian maintain her faith in Islam? See also http://www.muslim-refusenik.com

 

[Snuggs]

i have to agreee with martz point, that the terrorists are a minority

a few of my m8´s are moslems, but and they´re no terrorists
...they growed here...they live here -----> in the 21st century

and not like thur mentioned it...in the midage


thur´s post speaks out of my mind....how i feel about this "case"

 

[Mughi]

oh. my. goodness.

I totally agree with Thur.

I will absolutely concede Martz that a Joe Punter Muslim in the streets of London, Glasgow, whereever is most likely not a terrorist, and over generalisation is a large problem. Its like saying Scots all walk round wearing kilts, every English person is a football thug and all Dutch wear clogs and little funny hats and live in windmills.

Sweeping generalisations are a bad thing.

Now, here is the "but"

Decrees by the Saved Sect and the Al-Ghurabaa organizations, both founded by followers of notorious Islamist leader Sheikh Omar Bakri (who was banned from Britain after the July London bombings) have called on British Muslims to "support the jihad against Israel," and to "kill those who insult the prophet Muhammad," in reference to the cartoons of Islam's prophet that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten

These are UK based groups who are planning a "jihad conference" for "all Muslims to support the intensifying Jihad against the enemies of Allah."

When you have a country that is not just a "country" but "an Islamic country" then its not just the people but also the state that is talking or being described. (Again, I understand the whole generalisation thing - I do not want our government to talk on my behalf, but the majority of the (voting) population do)

The OIC is going to the UN to demand a resolution banning contempt for religious belief.
It wont happen, but think about that for a moment. Actually, if they had thought about that they wouldnt have asked - one recurring theme I am seeing from people defending the flag burning and death threats over these cartoons (Can I just reinforce that CARTOONS) is that if it was a cartoon denying the holocaust then the west would be outraged. Thats as may be - but the holocaust was a mass slaughter that we have proof for. A religious belief is - by its very nature - something that there is no proof for. If you didnt have to accept something that came without evidence it wouldnt involve any faith and where is a religion without faith. And western outrage would be limited to angry letters to the editor. It would not result in flag burning, hostage taking, death threats and demanding resolutions from the UN.

Thurs point about the moderates and liberals supporting the extremes is valid. It doesnt just apply to Islam either - any nut job group like those that kill doctors that work in abortion clinics or those that demand the ten commandments in courtrooms or those that demand creation is taught instead of evolution in science classes - they all have more of a voice than they should because they are part of a larger organisation that numbers in the millions.

My thoughts are a little fractured and less coherant than I would like - i need coffee! but to finish off

In the words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs of the Church of the Subgenius

"Fuck 'em if they cant take a joke"

 

[Snuggs]

"Fuck 'em if they cant take a joke"

 

[pykenike]

i have to agreee with martz point, that the terrorists are a minority

a few of my m8´s are moslems, but and they´re no terrorists
...they growed here...they live here -----> in the 21st century

and not like thur mentioned it...in the midage


thur´s post speaks out of my mind....how i feel about this "case"

i certainly don't want to put your friends in a bad light but remember that the head of the 9/11 hijackers was grown up in Hamburg/germany.....

somthimes living in the western world triggers more hate then in the arabic world i guess

 

[Ðeadßoy]

Its like saying Scots all walk round wearing kilts, every English person is a football thug and all Dutch wear clogs and little funny hats and live in windmills.

ffs Mughi now u gone and spoilt my preceptions on life

next ur gonna tell us that father x-mas isnt real either

 

[Snuggs]

i certainly don't want to put your friends in a bad light but remember that the head of the 9/11 hijackers was grown up in Hamburg/germany.....

somthimes living in the western world triggers more hate then in the arabic world i guess

he was not grown in hamburg...he was at uni there

 

[Martz]

Thur & Mughi - I'm sorry but I don't think you actually said anything different to me (apart from 1 thing I cannot agree with)? I think you've missed my points or their meanings. I see that you have disagreements or buts, but I don't see any reasons in what you have said. It's just talking about a country rather than a religion. My original point was about religion, not countries.

I still stand by and say - violence doesn't solve anything, regardless of if that form is a cruise missile or a suicide bomber on the underground. And that the general opinion of people I speak too is that all Muslims must die or be deported.

... the problem in today's world is that a disproportionate number of those we call terrorists are adherents of the Muslim faith, and, worse, are not condemned for their acts by the "silent majority" of "good" Muslims for their extreme actions. This makes that "silent majority" complicit in the atrocities.

The problem in todays world is that a disproportionate number of those we call westerens are adherents to the Christian faith, and, worse, are not condemed for their acts by the "silent majority" of "good" Christians for their extreme actions. This makes that silent majority complicit in the deaths of thousand and thousands of innocent civilians.

And the flipside is, that because you were silent when we invaded Iraq, you are complicit in the deaths of 100s/1000's of innocent civilians/women/children around the world. Rightly or wrongly, using your logic you are personally responsible for those deaths - and if someone were to avenge them, they should kill you. (flip my comments round again and it's basically what you are saying).

I'm trynig to prove that one particular comment you made is completly off the mark. Everything else you've said actually is very much what I said in my post above, if you re-read it.

And no I haven't read about muslim lesbians, but I'm sure thats another perspective I could learn about.

 

[JACKEL]

Ooh wicked muslim lesbians!

Martz have u read my first few bits?

 

[Martz]

Martz have u read my first few bits?

i wouldnt say that religion was behind this, the main goal of religion is to bring peace and harmony to people.
I'ts the people like the taliban etc. who abuse religion, and give it a bad name.
If u bother to read the goals of the isla you would find out that the islam is a peacefull religion, but in the wrong hands it can be a very powerfull weapon.

Same with hitler, he told his soldiers it was gods will aswell, and we all know what happend next.

I used to say that religion had it's place in society, my past forum posts advocated religion as a good thing in some ways. However, I've changed my opinion over time and I now think that any religion is always a bad thing in the long term.

If you got through any scriptures relating to Christianity or Islam, there are many ways to intepret it. The extremists of any religion are dangerous, because they are not prepared to change their perspective on things - since the scriptures and books do not change themselves.

Religion is a way to provide the answers to some of the most unfathomable questions ever posed over a thousand years ago. How did we explain what was above the blue sky? How can be tell what is below us? Science will continue to address these questions, refining the answer for eternity.

Religion stops independant thought, it stops people being inquisitive and questioing life and things around them. For me religion is all about the polarisation of thoughts, offering answers which might have been acceptable 100's/1000's of years ago - when there were no other logical explanations.

Science would be a religion if it wasn't for it completelty lacking in hierarchy or structure. I believe what the scientists tell me - just like a Christian or Muslim believes his religion offers the best explanation for the world around us. The fact that it hasn't been updated in many years doesn't seem to matter to them.

For people living in poverty and oppresive conditions, Islam is all about the righteous path to the next life - and it's very easy to get people to tolerate how life is for them (poverty, low education and oppression) with the knowledge that as soon as they have passed into the next life everything will be fine. The act of martyrdom is seen as a nobble way to progress to the next life.

My biggest inspiration recently is the evolutionist-atheist Richard Dawkins, who poses some exceptionally good reasons as to why religion causes more harm that good.

Back to the topic though - religion isn't the problem here. The problem with religion is the blind acceptance of what is and what isn't, and the unwillingness to change. Not because one is forced to change their beliefs, but because one believes that change is best for themselves and everyone around them.

And to reiterate again - violence solves nothing, even in the verbal form of threats and hatred.

 

[Mughi]

Fair enough Martz.

I know plenty muslims that (for want of a better phrase) think "westernised". I would never suggest that "they should go back home" plenty have been here for generations and have as much right to be here as anyone. What I would suggest though, is if someone dislikes the way that people in the country they reside in live their lives they have the option of moving to somewhere that is more in line with what they think. And that applies to ANYONE here of any descent. If you dislike the UK so much, you can use your right to move somewhere else in the EU, or apply to immigrate to Canada, NZ or the middle east depending on what suits you better.

Taking a step back here, my overriding concern with this, and similar issues such as creationism and so on, is (as always) I never want to have to abide by the rules set down by a religion. I never want those religious laws enacted into law for the country.

Where the laws of a country co-incide with those of a religion, such as no killing thats fair enough (however, if someone requires a religion to tell them its immoral to kill someone there is something way wrong with their perception of morality). However, where it does nothing other than enforce a religion on a people, then I take offense.

Take as an example kosher meat. It is jewish tradition to eat meat that has been slaughtered in a specific manner. A manner I personally think is particularly cruel. I really dont want to eat kosher meat and shouldnt be forced to as I am not jewish.

Christian tradition states that homosexuals should not marry. As has been discussed to death in this forum, thats fair enough if you are a christian, but it should not be enforced on non-christians.

And this instance - The haddith states it is forbidden for Islamics to recreate images of their prophet or their deity in case it starts the slippery slope to idol worship. Fair enough, muslims should then not draw their prophet or make statues and so on. But when they insist that everybody follows their rules thats where the problem lies.


Martz, did you get the chance to watch Dawkins "The Root of Evil?" it was very good. Going over a lot of old ground, but it was nice to see it actually broadcast. Also, Johnathon Millers "A Brief History of Disbelief" was pretty good too ... he had so much left over material from interviews he carried out that the BBC also released "The Athiest Tapes" which was the rest of the interviews with people like Dawkins and Arthur Millar (Author of The Crucible and so on). Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker is a good read. I have a few more, but havent made the time to sit and read them yet.



(edit : repeat after me ... "I before E except after C" )

 

[Martz]

I agree with your post Mughi, people must adapt to local laws. If their traditions conflict with local laws, they must make the choice between moving to a country where they do not conflict - or sacrafice said tradition.

Kosher I assume is similar to Halal, the way the animal is sacraficed. I don't have any problems with it personally, but I used to think that a Halal sign at an Indian restaurant was a sign of quality, before (Rich I think) put me straight on it. Jo is a vegetarian, I am not - yet we are able to exist in the same house (just!) without having wars with each other about who is more morally right or wrong. I would say that it is traditional for me to eat meat, I always have done therefore I always will. Jo on the otherhand believes that because she has the opportunity to not eat meat and survive in life in a less barbaric way (and from her point of view, morally correct).

Yes I did watch The Root of All Evil, and I found it to be one of the most inspiring programs I have watched in my life. Dawkins closing words in the last program made be think strongly about religion and how people are abused by it. The stifeling of thoughts in the name of religion really scares me and ultimately changed my mind about religion in general.

From a very early age, I have been interested in how things work. I would cause my Mum a lot of anger when I would disassemble my birthday/xmas presents to see how they worked. It wasn't that they did work that amazed me, it was how they worked that intriged me.

And I try and think about how life would be if we didn't challenge the status-quo, if we didn't push the boundaries and keep exploring our world which still posses some incredibly complex questions.

The media and expression of oneself is the same I think. If we only push up to the limits, we'll never know quite how far we can go. Pushing just that little bit further is an experiement into the unknown, and can have extraordinary results. (arguments, political backlash, wars etc).

 

[Mughi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_Food

Only certain foods are allowed, meat like rabbit is forbidden (as it chews the cud but doesnt have cloven hooves .... actually rabbits dont chew the cud, but its religion, its apparently allowed to change the facts)

Seafood that doesnt have fins and scales (like prawns, crab and lobster) is not kosher. Actually, these foods are "an abomination" - it uses the same word to describe prawns that it does to describe two guys going to bed. Its just as evil to eat a prawn mayo sandwich as it is to be gay. Old testament huh.

The animal must be slaughtered by a jewish man who attends synagogue, and is often a rabbi. It is then slaughtered with a large knife across its throat. It then must be drained of blood.

Now, its designed to kill the animal quickly by severing nerves and veins and arterys to reduce the pain and so on ... but these rules were set a few thousand years ago and it may well have been the most humane way to kill an animal then, but current methods involve stunning the animal first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halaal

Halaal is very similar (exept, of course, it must be a muslim that carries out the slaughter). More of the objections are covered under the Halaal entry. Killing fish is mentioned under halaal too - its has to suffocate on the land and not be killed by smashing its head or anything else that might speed it up.


Now, dont get me wrong ... I dont think there is any nice way to kill an animal! And I doubt very much that each and every nonkosher/halaal slaughterhouse treats the animals well, but if we have the option to stun them before we kill them to eat them I think we should!

Also, Sikhs are forbidden from eating halaal as they beleive it to be a cruel and slow death for the animal!

 

[Supermic!]

Martz, I agree with you about religion being bad, doing more harm than good. But I don't understand the pacifist way of thinking. Violence is just another way of getting what we want. It's not as sophisticated as solving something verbally, but it gets the job done when words don't work any more. It's normal, it's in our nature, it's ugly yes but necessary sometimes. I doubt Hitler would have stopped attacking countrys if all just said please stop doing that.

They say that an eye for an eye leads to everybody being blind. But I'd rather be blind than be singing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt", putting my arm in the air to hail the führer.
Another example: If you have kids and some idiot tried to rape them, would you just try and talk him out of it while he pulls down his pants? No, you would take him down the fastest way you can.

It's a nice thought with no violence but I doubt we "ever" will get so enlightened that we won't use force any more.

 

[Martz]

Yes it is our nature, but war, violence and murder have been going on for thousands of years - surely that is proof that it doesn't work? Otherwise we'd all of been living in peace and harmony.

Your Hitler reference isn't debatable. He used violence, but he didn't get his own way in the end. If he hadn't of wanted to kill millions of people, then there wouldn'f of been WW2. When faced with being exterminated yourself, you fight back. Which is probably how the people of Iraq, Afghan etc will feel now that we have been exterminating people remotely with missiles.

Looking at any event in history with hindsight is an easy thing to do. To look at the current problems and suggest a new solution that isn't as basic as "just kill them, problem solved". It breeds hate for the future, because someone will avenge those actions.

In your example with the idiot, you're using violence as revenge - it didn't stop the idiot from attempting to do what they do - and it won't stop someone else from attempting the same thing. It doesn't always work as a way to stop people doing what they are going to do. Future attempts by peodophiles will use more violence to counteract the violence they expect in return. It's a vicious circle, and makes things worse for everyone ultimately.

Extend your extreme example, and the police wouldn't come to arrest the idiot - they'd just send a load of cruise missiles into your street to make sure that he was killed. The fact that a large proportion of innocent people will die in the process is the one which would cause outrage and make people seek revenge.

The point isn't about individual crime and how you'd react to it emotionally - I don't think anyone would disagree with you. I'm making the point that goverments using violence to get their way - what sort of message does that give the citizens? If you are right, using violence is justified.

 

[Supermic!]

Yes it is our nature, but war, violence and murder have been going on for thousands of years - surely that is proof that it doesn't work? Otherwise we'd all of been living in peace and harmony.

Could look at it in another way and say that it is working since the human race still is exists after thousands of years with violence. It's not a perfect world, and maybe a world with no violence isn't perfect.

In your example with the idiot, you're using violence as revenge - it didn't stop the idiot from attempting to do what they do...

I meant if you're actually there in the room while he attempts to do it. It's not revenge, it's about stopping him. If he's a really sick person he won't listen and then there only one rational way left to stop him, and that's physically.
I only took that as an example because you earlier said "violence solves nothing, even in the verbal form of threats and hatred" That's the Gandhi-way, and I don't believe that works. It's a beautiful thought and probably something to strive for but I can't see it working always. Sometimes violence is justified.

I'm making the point that goverments using violence to get their way - what sort of message does that give the citizens? If you are right, using violence is justified.

I don't like it more than you do when goverments or people use violence when it's not necessary. Only when there's absolutely no other way in solving the situation, then I think it's justified.