2nd biggest religion in the world...yes...Most people in the world are not religeous and do not appreciate religeous people preaching their laws and rules at them, can you not appreciate this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
Woka
Printable View
2nd biggest religion in the world...yes...Most people in the world are not religeous and do not appreciate religeous people preaching their laws and rules at them, can you not appreciate this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
Woka
Yes, and hard working decent honest Danes, who had nothing to do with the cartoons, have now lost their jobs! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
This is just as disgraceful as someone saying ALL Muslims are terrorists.
Boycotte the newspaper yes...but innocents...people need to get a grip on reality and stop being self obsessed [insert expletive] and just get on with their lives.
Shuja Ali, why do you think you are so special that you feel that you cannot be offended? Are you honestly 100% telling me you have never upset or offended ANYONE in your life? I VERY VERY much doubt it.
Would you change your way of living, what you can say or do, because something you do offends me?! Would you crap.
Woka
@Codehammer
I cant get over how many problems this has caused. If you say that christians dont protest because it isnt a real religion. I think you should turn around and run at the nearest wall.
Why? no, they dont protest no they dont kick up major fuss. simply because they have the ability to have a laugh, humour etc.
You said that If You Make the Prophet A Terrorsit Globally, Who Will Accept Their Faith?
I didnt evan know it was a prophet? so i dont think that counts as an argument
I agree 90% of muslims are innocent but that leaves 10% who arnt. and they are causing a bad name for the rest.
I dont wnat to get into the relms of which religijon is best. But lets all step back and have a look what happened.
A cartoon was published in a newspaper which maybe 1000 people would see (cartoon in non-muslim country) so maybe 50 muslims would see. But because of people need to start problems the whole muslim world has seen it.
Maybe the cartoon touched a nerve?
I give up reading your posts
turn around and begin to run, if i said that about a muslim they would be protestingQuote:
Seems Like the Christians Either Dont Care, or Maybe Feel Helpless, or Don't Really Have Faith To Motivate Some Sorta Action?
Firstly no they dont its a choice. Secondly so what?Quote:
I Mentioned Above How Passionate The Muslims Are, Can You Wake Up Everyday at 4AM to Pray for +- 3 Minutes, Then Sleep Again, & Wake to Go Work? Yet Every Muslim Has to Do That Everyday.
and i've met lots of muslims who dont following praying times, obviously this sint researchedQuote:
In Contrast I've Met Only One Christian So Far, In This Christian Dominated Country I am In Thats Unmarried and is Still a Virgin. (this point is obviously not researched)
Lets get back onto the point here.
Also from a moderating point of view I think you violate this.
Quote:
It is not a place to preach your religious views, ridicule the beliefs of others or pass judgements on the beliefs of others.
I'm still scanning here...
If it offends you move to a muslim country, i'm pretty anoyed now. Lets look at it this way...Quote:
I am still stressing the point that you cannot offend me or my religion by printing whatever you
If a women goes to a muslim country usually they are made to wear a head scarf thing. Ok? so people respect the beliefs and ways of that area.
So if a muslim is in a non-muslim country surley they should learn to live in the mode of that country? and the mode of the countrys in the west is freee speach humor etc.
DONT LIKE IT, DONT LOOK
I think if people really wnated to hurt you they could do much worse than a cartoon. A FREAKING CARTOON!Quote:
And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.
arghhhhh
If people want to be upset......well, a cartoon is as likely to satisfy them as anything.
Ooooops. MasterBlaster, I accidentally clicked edit instead of quote :(Quote:
And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.
This toasted your post as I then deleted the bits a didn't want and then clicked save. DOH!
Woka, bad moderator *slap*
The worst thing was this was NOT the reason for reprinting the cartoon.Quote:
And moreover it was done knowingly and was motivated to hurt people.
The cartoon was reprinted as a statement of "who do you think you are telling us what we can and cannot do".
If people want their own rules, and values, this is fine...but please please do not force them upon others, espescially me, as I do not like it.
Woka
Here's an interesting thought...
Some Middle Eastern countries require women to keep their faces and bodies covered up at all times. I think this is actually quite degrading to women and very backwards, and thus I find it offensive.
What do you think would happen if I went over there and said "that offends me, i think you should treat women as equal and let them dress how they want"...Hmmmmm I know EXACTLY what would happen, but then again I wouldn't do that as I have respect their culture, even though I personally find it offensive and damn right outrageous.
Having respect for something, or someone, does not mean you have to agree with them, or even like them.
Why can't people respect the laws that Europe has even though they are different to others.
Woka
Translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
I wouldn't proclaim my offense for fear of being beaten with shoes and fed to a goat.
On a lighter note, let's have some comic relief.. with SouthPark..
"Osama bin Laden has Farty Pants" (airdate: 7 November 2001). Airing weeks after the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, [Episode of South Park] became one of the first fictional series to address the matter.
Watch it here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Park/video/37682
@Wokawidget
Well the newspapers knew the reaction of the community to the initial cartoons then why did they reprint it. They knew it is going to offend the muslim community and they did it again. I don't know if having the Freedom of speech means that you can offend others. Try abusing your neighbour and you will come to know what I mean.
Now what do you see here, people taking advantage of the whole thing. Why can't we understand there are more people out there who are ready to grab opportunities to create more trouble rather than solving anything?
And if Muslims have their religious practices they don't throw it on others. If you don't cover your face then it is your choice. But in some of the European countries they have put a Ban on wearing head scarves, wearing pagdis (the one that Sikh community wears) and more things. That shows people are interfering in other religions which is not good.
Telling me that it was done just to show that we have Freedom of Speech here does not mean I will let people abuse someone who is the most respected people in this world (atleast for Muslims). And you saying that why should Dannes suffer for something which a small newspaper did, To counter that I would say why are Muslims being targetted when just a few people did something wrong sometime back.
This can go on and on, but then this will not help us. We need to have some respect for others and then only there will be peace. Why do something that will offend others, just don't do it.
And regarding the population, my response was to the post that said only 1/6th of the worlds population is muslim.
And on a lighter side
@nemaroller : I never thought you can use MS logos like that.
The fundamental problem as I see it is that everyone seems to be convinced that their religion (or lack of) is the right way and everyone else is wrong. To wit:
The Muslims think that their religion is right, There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. This makes cartoons such as those discussed here firmly against their religion and fundamentally offensive.
The Christians think that the way Muslims treat their women (and by that I mean in more extreme countries such as Iran) is a denial of fundamental human rights. And, by the way, they also think that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong.
These two views are mutually imcompatible. The Christians can't see what all the fuss is about, because they've been poking fun at Jesus for years. The Muslims can't see what all the fuss is about with the whole Hijab thing. It's been that way for years.
What people need to get into their heads is that not everybody agrees with them. There are billions of people in this world, of many different creeds and cultures. The sooner everyone recognises that none of those creeds are any less valid that their own to the people who hold them, the better. People are entitled to beleive in whatever god or belief system they choose, whether it be God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddah, King Haile Selaisse I, Hare Krishna or the Great Undefinable Buggery****. What people are NOT entitled to do is treat everyone elses opinions as invalid (hence also their becoming offended because of religious matters).
Apologising in advance for any offense caused to those who find my use of the word "Jesus" to be blasphemous or offensive, Jesus people!!! Get a grip!!
Some very interesting points here, but I have to side with woka on this one.
In the middle ages the threat was from Christian extremists (the Crusades).
In the early twentieth century the threat was from the IRA
Now the threat is from Muslim/Islamic extremists.
Face it people, the greatest threat of the time will obviously be the most violent.
I think Palestine is an excellent example. Now that Hamas is in power (democratically elected I might add) they have realised that they need the commerce from the western nations and have admitted that they need to calm things down and discuss the situation with those said nations. A good sign :thumb:
agree
I would like to see one question answered:
Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?
Well I agree, but once thing a member of staff here mentioned was. If you express your view you must deal with the consiquences.
So if I give you a gun (Opinion) and you shoot someone (express it) expect to go to jail.
Free speach is there but use it wisely.
Pino
That's it. I'm burning down your embassy :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I found this on Scott Adams blog which I quite liked
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
In another article about a plot to blow up the US Bank he quotes a story from the BBC, It seems more and more people even in non British countries are using the BBC as the source of their news. Perhaps its just me who takes them for granted but I would have thought most other countries could supply news just as good.Quote:
Cartoonist or Puppet Master?
Perhaps you’ve heard about the Danish editorial cartoon that sparked riots all over the world. According to the news, the comic featured some disrespectful images of The Prophet, so believers burned Danish embassies and whatnot.
Let me go on record as saying I don’t approve of the burning of embassies. But I must confess I’m intrigued by the notion of causing it to happen. Apparently the indirect method of causing embassies to be burned down is both totally legal and also a highly prized right. As you know, there aren’t many ways you can burn down an occupied building and get away with it. But it is completely legal to use your freedom of speech to indirectly incite other people into doing almost any dumb ass thing you can think of. That’s a big reason I became a cartoonist.
I always thought it was unfair that diplomats had diplomatic immunity. They can run over you with their car several times a day while saying the equivalent of “neener neener” in their own language. And it’s all perfectly legal. As a cartoonist, I have the power to fight back. The next time I see an ambassador double parking, I will mumble to myself “Say goodbye to your embassy.”
You mean like the VBForums Moderators have?Quote:
I would like to see one question answered:
Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, [the right] to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?
Incorrect...you have no freedoms on here :DQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
To use this site you must abide by OUR rules, which are clearly stated in the AUP, which you agreed to when you signed up up :)
Lets take maliscious code as an example. I/we will toast any dodgy code posted on VBF. This is clearly stated in our AUP. Now lets say vbDevSiteB.com allows uses to post this said dodgy code, and the mods don't do a damn thing about it. Fair enough.
But what we cannot do as mods here, regardless if writing dodgy code is right or wrong (WRONG by the way), go over to vbDevSiteB.com and start imposing our rules upon their site, users and mods ;)
Woooow...good analogy :D
Woof
I agree, but like I said...they were NOT printed to cause offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
Again agreed...but people are wanting to kill INNOCENT people, who probably disagree with the pictures and are on your side, and to start violence. Over a cartoon...a cartoon. Ok, so people are annoyed at it, I can understand this. But murdering innocent people, burning down embassies, hurting innocent peoples families and careers by boycotting all Danish companies. A little extreme even you must have to admit. Oh, and now there are banners like "Insulting our prophet is decalring war on Islam"...Oh come on, grow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
No, they are not banned from counties...some countries have banned them from state schools. Which I strongly agree with...schools should be religeous free. The reason for this is because it's extremely hard to teach people when every person has a different need/requirement. Peoples education starts suffering. One of the rules of a state school is school uniform, all pupils must wear this, it's in the rules. See my previous post above about rules on this forum and others. People should abey these rules, and no-one should be except.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
And as for having religeon thrown upon others...I see it every day, mainly Christianity because I live in the UK. Being forced to pray and go to church when I was young, and being told off when I didn't. Hmmmmm.
That seriously sounds like you're going to participate in the violence...please tell me that isn't so, as you've posted you disagree with any violence and have stated soem very good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
2 wrongs DO NOT make a right! What people have done is caused innocent people to lose their jobs and security of bringing their families up. As I keep posting in many many posts, it's only a minority of people causing the agro. How would you feel if EVERYONE just said "sod it, you're muslim, you're the enemy" and then stabbed you, or cause you to lose your job :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
Again, as I've stated b4, what offends you does not offend others. What you do, does not offend some people, but offends others. Would you stop being religeous because it offends people who don't believe in religeon??? I very much doubt it. This is where tollerance comes into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
You should have seen what he did with my badger avatar :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
Not nice *sulk*
:D
Woooooof
When you signed up to VBF you agreed to abide by the rules set by the AUP. If you do not you will be banned.
When someone comes to live in the UK they have agreed to abide by the rules set by that government. If you do not you will convicted of a crime.
You want that question answered??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Frankly, I'd just be happy if it were a question :lol: :lol: :wave:
To quote a cartoon: I don't know what you just said, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it!
I don't agree with this. At first they might not have been printed to cause offence but later on it was just for offending people. As I said earlier they knew what the reaction was when they were printed first so why print them again. And if the answer is freedom of press then I would say that people also have right to protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
As I said any kind of voilence is supposed to be condemned so is the act of offending others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
I don't think I will agree with you on this. How would a girl wearing hijab affect what is being taught in a school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
I belong to a country which got its independence because of non-voilence, so me going voilent is out of question here. But yes me protesting against such acts is what I am doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
Exactly, this is what I have been trying to post. You cannot decide how 1.2 Billion are by just looking at few hundred people. Right? This is what has been happening. Depciting a person, who is most respectable among Muslims, as a terrorist does not do any good either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
And where exactly does the responsibility come iin to picture then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
Thank god I don't have an Avatar yet. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
But doesn't this voilate the policy of usage of MS Logos.
Shuja, are you suggesting that the newspaper should be held liable for the violent protests? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
I'll still dig your signature though :) [nothing exploded :)]
Whats the Bull for Youz, the Fact that All Muslims are Not like the On on CNN or My reasoning of these muslims peoples actions?
Here at work three people, 1 Jew and 2 =Christians converted to Islam - Post 9-11 (true Islam that is)
I get to Experience First Hand Their Behaviours and Can id the Different Types of Muslims.
I am suggesting that people who do such acts should be held responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
this would have to come back to God or this Q will never be answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
I think this earth & life is all about justice(some call it Karma)
(an eye for an eye, you know the saying)
So if some Injustice occurs then it must be offset to make things equal. We know this isnt always the case on earth some die and have no penalties for their Bad Deeds.
Going Back to the Definition (for ever injustice there must be justice) then that would say the Judgement for the Dead Unjust has to Occur Somewhere.
Judgement Day.
If that Exists then God Exists.
So we established God Exists.
God Has given the Code of Conduct, etc. So if one breaks the Rules whatever God says must be carried out should be done in the way God said it must be Done.
So for this Q:
The perpeprator and The Law Established where Both Follow God.Quote:
I would like to see one question answered:
Who or what gives any person, any person at all on this planet, to restrict my freedom to express my personal opinion?
Then it Makes Sense.
ooooooo Wally's gonna be all over this....
Hmmmm...yes, I agree...but only to a certain extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuja Ali
The problem with this is that at this present time there is nothing to be accountable for. They have not broken any laws. The only thing that's happened is that the papers have pissed a few people off, and I use the word few lightly there.
This is where the whole east/west divide comes in.
The outcome in England over all of this will probably be a change in the law, and then if something like this happens again then it will be classed as "racial incitment" or something like that, and then yes, people will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.
If this happens, then the protests have been a success. Would you be happy if this was the outcome?
However, the damage has already been done. Violent protests around the world, people dead, calls for 9/11 and 7/7 for Europe, war against Islam etc These acts have seriously damaged the reputation of Muslims in Europe.
I know that this cartoon has annoyed loads of people, but since I am not religeous I cannot imagine what people are feeling to see this cartoon. The only thing I have to relate to this is Christians and their god/jeasus...to which we see them being satirised everyday, and their isn't a problem with it. Most people here probably are still thinking..."but it's just a cartoon...???"
These peaceful protests have bought this to peoples attentions, which is a good thing. However, the violent protests have overshadowed the peaceful ones. Maybe Muslims in general should be gathering in numbers, protesting outside embassies and condeming the violence too instead of protesting saying "The posting of pictures depicting the prophet is offensive...we protest peacefully...here, have a cookie", maybe they should be protesting purely about the violence and saying "Stop radical fundamentalist teachings of Islam...we are peacefull...here have a cookie".
All this violence by extremists is hurting general good honest Muslims, not me, not my housemate or girlfriend, but people like yourself. You are the one who is indirectly affected by this onslaught of violence...and this is sad as why should you be tarnished by some clowns actions.
People are prejudice...this is human nature. Look at the Welsh, no one likes them ;) *now that was said in jest, but I doubt a Welse person would get offended*
So if more of this violence carries on, and more and more people turn to violence, then more and more people will start to have an issue with Muslims.
This I am afraid is something that seriously needs to be changed. I can just see turf wars going on outside my house in the street.
Also, going back to an earlier topic, the wearing of the head scarf in schools.
Wearing the head scarf does not directly affect anything. However, praying times and other religeous things do, not just Muslims. So instead of saying "right, this, this and this is banned, but this is not and this is not", where people can the turn around and say "Awww...but you left off this...come on, you let the religious person 1 have this and this, why can't we have this?", people decided to say "Right...NOTHING religeous at all, we'll treat people exactly the same.", which I think is a good thing.
And yes, it is only in schools, and not banned in the entire country ;)
If anyone can find any proof of an entire country in Europe banning any religeous clothing I would be very interested in reading it, but as far as I am aware it hasn't happened.
The question is, where does this stop?
woka
Err, no I'm not. In fact, I'm no longer wasting my time with this sort of drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Codehammer
Have a nice day :wave:
Oi! :eek: I resent that! Besides, you're just jealous because you WANT to be Welsh :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget
Perhaps the underlying issue has also been overlooked. As I understand it the initial cartoon in the Denmark newspaper was a childrens competition to illustrate how they see Islam. The question we should be asking is:
Do all our children really see Islam as a collective of bombers? If so, this is worrying and needs to be addressed with great care.
:lol: :lol:Quote:
I don't know what you just said, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it!
The original quote (Satre) is my favourite quote of all time but I always felt it applied more to the right to dissent than the right to offend (mind you, Satre certainly practised the right to offend his mother in law). I find it quite surprising that we seem to have lost sight of the difference between the two. To me, the right of dissent is absolutely vital to a democtratic system, a fact we should remind our government of (just as long as we don't stand near the houses of parliament when we do it because that would be illegal :sick: ). However, if we reduce the right of free speech down to my right to call people names I believe we've cheapened an immensely vauable tool. I may have the legal right to do that but I don't believe I have the moral right.
To all those who seem to think that all Muslims are extremists who cannot protest peacefully please read this
And to anyone who says, hey, if you don't like our rules why do you want to live here I would again point out that many British muslims (I suspect the majority, though I'm not sure) were born here. They're British. They have as much right to be here as you or I and, I believe, they have the right to be respected while they do.
I think we need to work on the parents of those children first. Seems to me that most adults have the same view of Islam as a collective of bombers. And that's why its being passed on to our children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Look at it from this perspective:
You're out on a Saturday night on the town. You get a bit drunk and some guy spills his pint on your brand new £70 shirt. You are angry and call him every name you can think of. He then promptly punches you in the face.
Rightly so you have done know wrong, but he will be arrested for assault.
General insulting is a part of free speech, however anything that turns physical is a crime. If the protests had remained peaceful they would have been tolerated and listened to promptly. Instead violence insued with multiple arrests and as such it is not tolerated and yet again the situation escalates because of a few idiots who have nothing better to do. :(
Good analogy but this only serves to demonstrate that the law is an ass. It is, of course, right that he get's arrested for assault, but I feel you should be arrested for 'verbal assault' (or whatever you choose to call it). The penalty should be less but it should still be there. It should also serve to mitigate some (not all) of his penalty for the assault. Of course, he's guilty of wilfull and malicious beer spillage which ought to be a hanging ofence :mad: :bigyello:
Basically, I don't think that deliberately offending someone with no motivation beyond causing that offence should be OK in a modern society. Trouble is, because what causes offence is a purely subjective matter, you can't actually legislate against it. What we can all do, however, is try not to offend others as best we can and condemn the actions of the media (or any other body) when they deliberately and cynically set out to offend, which is what I believe happened in this case (with the exception of the first Danish printing, I think that was accidental).
It's worth noting that the precident to avoid offending people and apologising when you do, is out there. Public figures do it all the time. I'm particularly thinking of Kenneth Clarkes recent drunken outburst at a jewish journalist (he compared him to a concentration camp guard) and Prince Harry's wearing of nazi uniform to a fancy dress party. In the former case it was an outburst in the heat of the moment and in the latter it was meant as a joke but was in poor taste. In both cases, as soon as the parties had realised how much offence they'd caused they issued full public apologies. The media generally doesn't seem to seem to adhere to the same moral standards it imposes on others, however.
Wow this is great. This guy is planning to distribute T-Shirts for what. To show that they have freedom of speech (I seriously doubt that). Take a look at what an Italian Minister has to say here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4714548.stm
Justice is based on evidence. Proving that person 1 hit person 2 is easy because person 1 will have bruised knuckles and person 2 will have a bruise in the shape of person 1's fist. Try proving person 2 insulted person 1...impossible, and even then it can be argued they were in jest.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Okay, now this is going a bit beyond rational thought.
According to the BBC News website Danish pastries imported into Iran are no longer to be called Danish pastries but will instead be called "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed" :ehh:
Hahahahaha :D
Link?
Shuja Ali, can you not see where the Italian minister is coming from?
Lets say we take this to an extreme:
Lets say a group of people, lets call them the Badgerites for this purpose.
Now, a few million of the Badgerites do not like hair gel, or any hair products at all. They say it offends them, for whatever reason.
Now, regardless of how much they protested countries in the world would not back down and force people to stop wearing hair gel.
Now to the other extreme:
The Wooftarians, again a few million of 'em, really get offended when people get murdered. They protest to make murder illegal. "Hmmmm maybe they have a point there" someone in government says, then before you know it, murder is now illegal. Woohooooo.
Those 2 things above are taken to extremes to establish that there is a line here. Some are just stupid protests, ie the hair gel, which will never get made illegal. Then there's murder, which will definately be made illegal.
Now the problem we have here is:
The Growlies, they don't like a picture drawn of someone they worship. This offends them. There a few million of them again. They protest away to make it illegal to draw a cartoon of the one they worship.
Now, as you can see, this is another situation. But where does it come on the scale above...keep it legal, make it illegal. The problem we have here is that a lot of people believe it still should be legal, and see no problem with it...just in the same way I doubt you have a problem with hair gel.
To me it seems a little daft to be honest...it's a cartoon...just like it's only hair gel.
The worrying thing is that if people keep drawing these cartoons, then we will see more 9/11's and more 7/7's across the world where innocent people, and I stress the word innocent here, get murdered over someone elses beliefs.
So...basically the whole world is being bullied into something...essentially.
Now...obviously this won't be the end of this even if it's made illegal.
What if...say in ten years down the line there are more and more hard line muslims. Lets say they suddenly start getting offended by something else...do we back down instantly...or let the murders start?
The worrying thing is, is that this is the way things are happening :(
Woka
:thumb: Great PostQuote:
Originally Posted by Wokawidget