Slashdot Mirror

I was thinking the same thing, but the problem here is twofold. (1) Their religion has a very deep-seeded intolerance for making fun of their god. Or even trying to draw his face for that matter.

Muslims are not to draw pictures of Mohammed because he (quite reasonably) feared that some people would get confused and pray to Mohammed instead of Allah, and would forget that Mohammed was just the messenger, whereas Allah is the "real thing". So drawing a caricature of Mohammed would be obviously insulting, like drawing a caricature of the Queen of England would be insulting to some, but the real bad thing would be a muslim making a picture of Mohammed, hanging it on his wall and starting to pray to it. That's what the "no pictures" thing is really about.

Obviously that needs a bit of brain to understand, and the truly thoughtless religious types are often lacking that.

Atheism is a religion the same way that Divine Command theory is a religion (as in neither are religions). Atheism is a philosophical positions. It also isn't a faith in either the caricatured conception of faith most people have (belief without evidence or justifying argument) or in the theological sense (trust in previously reliable god).

Lets assume that what you mean by faith is "belief without evidence or justifying argument". I'm going to assume you mean this because if you mean that atheists have faith because they trust in a previously reliable god then really there is no hope for you. Most rational theists don't have faith by this definition never mind most atheists. Ask someone why they believe or don't believe. If they give an argument or present evidence then by this definition they don't have faith. Their argument may be unsound or their evidence questionable but you cant criticize them because they have 'faith'.

The fact that you can bust out an argument like the one you present is very telling. It indicates that either you are misrepresenting your position or you think it is unjustified. Trained theologians don't argue this way because they actually know what 'faith' is.

As for complaints about having religion imposed, you act like atheists are the only ones who want secular principles enforced. Most Christians I know are adamant secularists because they recognize that secularism is the only way to provide for the freedom of religion that protects their religion just as it protects every other religious and non-religious belief.

The '"insurmountable hostility" between science and religion is a caricature

Not really. Science is based on testable theories and evidence. Faith is belief despite there being evidence, or in many cases in spite of contrary evidence. Science has dispelled everything from evangelical christianity (proving Genesis to be false) to Mormanism (proving Joseph's Smith's revelations are phony through Egyptology and DNA evidence). There's ample evidence to indicate that religion evaporates in the light of science.

I have seen far, far too many Christians tie themselves in knots making God's "love" compatible with large-scale genocide (have you read the Old Testament?) and misogyny to accept their claims about deified love at face value. But good on you for recognizing the human decency of scientists, who are often confused with their nerdy, self-obsessed caricatures in movies.

Are they really trying to prove that "the 'insurmountable hostility' between science and religion is a caricature" by arguing that some scientists are religious?
Because, although there's no denying this fact, I fail to see how the reasoning makes sense. Plus, wouldn't that imply that there is no "insurmountable hostility" between being a firefighter and pyromania, because some firefighters are pyromaniac? Or, for a similar reason, between being a christian and a pedophile? Being a doctor (and thereby under the Hippocratic oath) and stabbing people in the chest?

This is really a caricature. Have you read any Thomas Aquinas?

Swearing is immoral and God forbid our children seeing any naked bodies (male or female) on the telly.

On the other hand, violence (Rambo-like caricature violence is still violence) and titilation is probably OK.

I recently read that family groups were all up in arms because the little girl in the movie Kick-Ass said the word "cunts" or something like that. They did not seem to mind the fact that she murders tens of people in the film, though.

"Tea Party supporters are

I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.

My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.

As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.

If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.

In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.

If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.

It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS and THAT]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?

Bush light? Are you talking about Black-Hillary?

Bush II was a compromise candidate just like you seem to think Obama was. How else do you think we got that gigantic Medicare Prescription Drug.. Thing.. that no one really wanted? Very few people voted for Bush. The "right" was mostly just voting for "not-gore" and "not-kerry."

If the Democrats had fielded serious candidates instead of ridiculous caricatures, things would've turned out differently. As it was, there were enough people voting "not-bush" (I'm not convinced many people voted "for" kerry or gore any more than the right voted "for" bush.) that it was still pretty close, which really says something about how crappy the candidates are and how trapped people are by the two-party political machine.

Come to think of it, if the Republicans had fielded a serious candidate instead of Maverick-Hillary, maybe things would've turned out differently then as well. Why vote for the guy who will "compromise" and do everything the Democrats want when you can just vote for an actual Democrat instead?

in place of Ninja , you show mall-ninja, a caricature, a clown --- you are teh suck

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment:

Good intentions, but vastly misleading.

The caricatures in a danish newspaper were meant for a danish and almost entirely (99% or so) non-muslim audience. They were a far call from shouting in someones face. And they still called for murder.

If you're black, and have a problem with someone on the other end of town talking to his brother in his lawn and using the word "nigger", then yeah, feel offended if you want to. If you go out and kill that person, or ask others to kill him, you're a lunatic, plain and simple.

Finally, let's not forget what this is all about. "Nigger" is something about you (if you're black), so there is a reasonable link between the word and your feelings. A drawing of some long-dead person does not have a reasonable link to murderous hatred, unless you first accept that religion is a permissible way to create entirely irrational causal links. Or in simpler terms: Unless you define insanity as normal first.

Religion is not an acceptable excuse for murderous nonsense. I don't know why we ever thought it would be. It's crazy to kill people because their imaginary friend is different from your imaginary friend. So no matter what you argue about how deep things run in some culture, it is still crazy to kill someone because he made a drawing of your imaginary friend.

You seem to be confusing the freedom of speech with "Freedom to do whatever the fuck I like". They aren't the same thing.

Why does it matter that there's a difference? Oh I see, by Freedom Of Speech you mean you want laws in place that protect you when you say or do such things... right. And those laws are going to stop a radical extremist strapping on a bomb and blowing you up?

What you are telling me is I am free to say "Jesus is a bum pounding mother fucker", but I can't I am free to say "Mohamed if a cock sucking kiddie fiddler". What is the difference? Answer: there isn't one. I have the right to say that; but a muslim is not free to kill me for it.

Yes, you can say or write what you like but as I say, yet again, as a responsible adult you face the consequences of those actions.

I'm sorry but you and many others are using this anti-Mohammed "protest" (if you can call typing in the word "Mohammed" followed by a few swear words a "protest", or indeed drawing a silly picture of him) as a channel for your own racism because now you have a reason and justification to be racist.

But it does affect you. Their behaviour is telling you how you feel and think, and you are defending that. How can you not see that as infringing on your personal freedoms, and as such "affecting you"?

"Yes, because the first thing I want to do the moment I wake up in the morning is draw a caricature of a religious idol but I'm not allowed to do it because I might get killed."

My friend, live in the real world. We're in a multi-cultural society these days, we have no option but to live side-by-side with people who look and think differently - that means we make some compromises like not using "the N word" any more when referring to black people and, yes, not deliberately inciting religious hatred just because we don't hold the same religious beliefs that they do.

Just like most Catholic priests aren't pedophiles, most Muslims aren't radical extremists. So stop with the racism.

Thought experiment. Inverse logic. Seeing the other guy's side. Putting ourselves in their shoes. Putting ourselves in our own shoes.

What would be a - natural - correlate from an Islamic perspective? Something natural, unoffensive, that would have western Catholicophile or Protestantophile social groups in an uproar ? I think idol-bashing is too strong. It's aggressive. Drawing a picture, in western society, isn't that aggressive. Caricatures can be. But they're usually an exageration of characteristics that impress the "artist". What would the Islamic equivalent be? I wonder.

Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children, so I guess the great karma circle is now complete. Or else it's a death spiral of censorship. Either way, the outrage brigade gets what they want and the rest of us will just have to accept a more restricted web whether we live in Karachi or California.

But.... think of the children!

Personally, they can block anything they want, if it wakes people up to the wrongs of censorship. Imagine if Facebook allowed me to post cartoon child porn (a.k.a. caricatures) and didn't remove it. How long do you think before Facebook would start getting banned in places in the US?

Not long at all. We're not so different from them.

Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.

Maybe you should try that here in the South.... especially in redneck areas and the boonies. If you want to really be in danger, try being Jewish or Black.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm

So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

Yes. It absolutely is that important that we have the right to do this. Because if some group of fundamentalist douchebags is allowed to tell us what we can and cannot draw then it's only a matter of time before the avalanche starts. No, you can't have my first amendment rights, not yours to take.

So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

Yes. That is part of freedom of speech it isn't the freedom to say "lets all be happy in our current situation, the USA is the best and Obama/Bush are gods!" that isn't freedom, every country gives you the "freedom" to say good things. Freedom of speech means that I can say fuck Obama, Bush, the USA, the UN, Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, The war on terror, communism, capitalism, socialism, etc. that is freedom of speech.

Why is it that Muslims get a free pass? You know what? I could draw a cartoon of Jesus screwing Moses and I doubt I'd get any thing more than a few laughs, a few angry e-mails and such. If I push it forth I /might/ get a death threat. I'm sure as hell not going to get a car laden with explosives parked outside my house though. I'm not going to get killed, I'm going to get perhaps a boycott of any further art I draw, etc.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet is a very interesting article. Why is it that every, single, other religion has embraced tolerance other than Islam? If Islam is so tolerant then why aren't the Islamic leaders doing more to embrace it?

And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?

I wouldn't laugh at it, I would respect their right to free speech and do nothing. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, they have their right to post what they want, I post what I want, if I don't like it -gasp- I don't have to look at it.

Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

So we should "tolerate" the fact that Islam can get a free pass of criticism but every other religion we can do whatever?

Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.

Yeah, most are. However, their leaders are advocating religious violence. I don't see the current Pope saying we should have a mass genocide of non-catholics but yet Islamic leaders are basically saying the same thing.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?

I don't see Christians making death threats and attempting to carry them out on cartoonists who make fun of Jesus or any other biblical figure.

In short, out of all the religions in the world at the present age, it is only Islam that advocates violence for such stupid, insignificant things as cartoons.

Tolerance is a two way street. If they can't tolerate might rights, why should I tolerate their theological eccentricities? Especially when they're willing to be violent against a non-violent offender.

I view it completely differently, I'm afraid - you being able to tolerate them and them not being able to tolerate you makes you the better person, and probably more right.

I shouldn't have to "earn" the right to draw a caricature of Mohammed. It is my inalienable human right to do so in the first place.

Of course it is, just like you have the "right" to go out in your can now and run someone over in you want to - but as a human, you face the consequences of those actions. And if you can't face the consequences, then don't do it in the first place - that's what you learn when you become a responsible adult.

Plenty, but I have yet to see any of them get violent over a cartoon Jesus. Plus, most of the people I've actually met, who own guns, are dead serious in regards to their use of such a hunting tool. So, your implication that people who own guns and are Christian are prone to violence shows just how bigoted you are.

By all accounts, many of them get violent for much lesser things, as we've seen with the high school massacres that have taken place.

And, no, I'm no bigot, I just don't agree with the "right" to own a gun in a civilised society, especially one that declares itself as being majority Christian.

quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems

No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.

I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,

How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)

If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.

Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.

Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.

Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.

I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion

So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.

inciting hatred is pathetic!

No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.

Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan,

Do you think you would be afraid for your life if you drew these things in a Danish newspaper?

One word... tolerance.

Tolerance is a two way street. If they can't tolerate might rights, why should I tolerate their theological eccentricities? Especially when they're willing to be violent against a non-violent offender.

So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

I shouldn't have to "earn" the right to draw a caricature of Mohammed. It is my inalienable human right to do so in the first place.

Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

Grow a pair of balls. Tyranny shouldn't be tolerated regardless of your age. I'm sure most Muslims are normal people. I don't have a grudge against them. I do however reserve the right to be a bigot against one who restricts my freedom of speech.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?

Plenty, but I have yet to see any of them get violent over a cartoon Jesus. Plus, most of the people I've actually met, who own guns, are dead serious in regards to their use of such a hunting tool. So, your implication that people who own guns and are Christian are prone to violence shows just how bigoted you are.