None.

Ironic indeed! :roll:

Quite the subtle cartoons there Avon.

I don't recall his much Muslim outrage when the rather Islamic Taliban decided to deface the ancient symbol of another religion....the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan...by shelling and explosives. Do as we say...not as we do. :roll:

http://media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/1...1950.widec.jpg

Re: Of cartoons, censorship, and hysteria
 

Just a lot of hot heads

Re: Of cartoons, censorship, and hysteria
 

Yeh.

Pushovers. :shifty: (Read here for info about this UK group)

My concern is the source of the "rage" over these cartoons. Are they actually personnaly affronted or is their reaction a requirement of their faith?

The former I can understand, but the latter one is the one that scares me. I kind of get the same feeling when I'm in a room with a known sociopath!

Originally, pictures of "holy people", holy things and gods were forbidden in various religions, to prevent the risk of people falling victim to false idols. Just think of the golden Cow in the bible, or Zen's "anti-tradition" of non-written tradition, Huineng's enligthened burning of books, and the Jews saying the name of God cannot be pronounced. But this current story reveals Islam's demand that sooner or later all mankind and all world have to live to it's rules, for Islam is the truth, and Muslims have the obligation to help Islam "improving" the world. we all here agree that it is totally nuts how Muslims worldwide behave about this. It is ridiculous and tells us that they expect us and demand us to live by their principlesl rules, ignore our own laws and traditiond and that we shall not have any right to refuse Islam. From their perspective it cannot be understood that we do not want to be like them. I say: how could one want to be like them? :lol: Seen that way, I think the uproar has benefits for the West, and I hope it fuses even some more hysteria amongst Muslims - because maybe some people in the West can no longer evade to realize what an egocentric monster they were nursing in their attempts to tame Islam. You cannot tame Islam. It will always try to overcome you. It is part of it's DNA, it's most essential elements of identity. due to it's non-authentic origin it has no basis it can refwer to as the basis of it's foundation, that way, it has no "strong stand" - and because of it's own lacking authenticity it necessarily must feel threatend by ANYTHING; no matter how minor it is, that is not itself, and is different to itself. That'S why Islam has no other option than to subjugate non-islamic things, people, places, so that they cannot doubt Islam anymore and therebay remind it ow it's own many contradictions, weaknesses, and distortions. May I remind you that it started with Muhammad studying Christian and Jewish teachings by himself, and when having done so he thought that now he was on equal terms and same status than their theologists. when he met the Jewsih theologist at medina, they ate him up alive in theological disputes. This led a.) top the masscre of the third Jewish tribe at Medina, when he ordered all males to be slaughtered and all females beeing sent into slavery or harems: an act of revenge by a deeply offended personality, and b.) it led to Muhammads attemnpt to artificially create a thelogy that he constructed by himself and wanted it to be accepted as of not only equal, but superior quality than those theologies that taught him so obviously how little he had to offer to com pare himself to them. From a theologivcal view, I regard muhammad as a narcist imposter. That this creation of a new deity also helped him to secure privileges for himself and moving beyond critizism, I have explained often enough in the past.

In a way it is a most fundamental inferiority complex that islam tries to hide from it's own perception by overcompensating. Islam would no longer ber Islam if it stops to take over non-Islamic world and people. It's part of it's identity, and part of it's most vital mechanism of repression (Verdrängungsmechanismus).

In a thousand years from now on, they will still react in the same hysterical and primitve way they do today if then a new cartoon would be published on a news monitor. It's the conservation of a mediavl attitude of mind, and a medieval state of knowledge.

You cannot tame Islam.

It took me more than fifteen years, and learning much background information and many travellings to finally learn this. It's the most vital and essential thing we in the West need to understand about Islam: you cannot tame Islam.

The remark on the "sociopath" holds some truth. A society that regularly produces suicide bombers, that propagates martyrism, where parents are proud if there sons commit massmurder and get killed during that, a society that opresses women, that sticxks to a lawsuit that still propagates penalties that are of medieval barbarism- ask yourself: can these social structures be considered to be healthy? Islam's sociology is deeply ill and sick to the bones, in a psychopathological understanding. Labelling it as sociopathic holds some truth. In the end it is basing on the very queer and unbalanced relationship between the sexes. If women are considered to be of less value than a dog, then one can say that Islam only knows one sex for mankind.

I'd like to see if anyone here is brave enough to defend the general behavior of Islam....

Anyone? :hmm:

Unable to find the Mooses and Jesus cartoons made by Muslims showing them as terrorist and paedophile.
Though I am not Catholic but honestly saying, I didn't like the way the portrayal of late pope in the cartoons. He was a good man overall (at least I think so).

"Everyone believes in something, I believe I'll have another beer" :up:

Does anyone know how to translate that into Arabic, and into arabic characters?

Yours, Mike

Note- I don't drink anymore, despite my massive contributions to the German economy...

Found it!!!!

http://www.untrue-news.com/images/ir...bullwinkle.jpg

Use our democracy against our democracy?

Ok. Fine.

We'll use your religion against your religion.

@Skybird

Firstly, don't make (hasty) assumptions about me taking part in 'the Humanistic Championship Rally' and having a biased view towards Islam. I'm always attempting to view something, especially within social sciences, from as many viewpoints as possibility. The anti-Islam viewpoint was, as far as I could see it, over-represented, therefore I was attacking your arguements, thus hopingly making you and other readers of this thread view the case from a different point of view, and not be blended by the rhetoric of someone you agree with. (As, I might add, the German people in the 30's were.) I do not actually expect you to change your point of view, but maybe I'll get someone to think, you have obviously done that a lot already and found your conclusions. That doesn't mean they're correct, however.


I am not defending the flag-burning, the threats and the claims that the governments should intervene. I am defending those muslims that are indifferent to the cartoons (yes, they exist,) and those that are displeased, but not violent.

As for your claim about a the medieval nature of caring about blasphemy, there is only 27 years ago Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned in Ireland, Italy, Norway and several areas within Great Britain. Middle Ages are apparently closer than we think.

(Of course, that was less violent protests, but still.)

I personally have met what I would call tolerant muslims, and people whose testimony I'm inclined to believe, have friends that they would call tolerant muslims. Assuming that there exists tolerant muslims, how do you defend your statement that there is no tolerant Islam?

"Not in a thousand year it will change." is a bit of an overstatement, and a rhetoric exaggeration. A thousand years ago, Norway was christened by sword. Much like the Arab world in the 8th to 12th centuries. Three hundred years ago, women were burned in the name of Christ because they knew how to cure diseases and held other bits of useful knowledge. 150 years ago, a large population within America was fighting for their right to treat other humans as property. Sixty-five years ago, Germans were burning Jews, Poles, Gypsies and Homo-sexuals.

A thousand years is a long time.

Islam has not developed and chnaged much in the last thousand years, Type23. It has systemitcally neutralized all attempts to establish tradition sof philosohy, science, theology, law, that were sometijme more, sometimes less different from the interpretation of the orthodoxy. None of these traditions survived to a degree that today they play a significant role in Islam, that could change and influence Islam orthodoxy. Many of the prominent names tgrying to establish these traditions especially in the timeframe of 10th-14th century were killed. the others were silenced by other means prison, making them surrender, etc.) Islam today is very much the same than it was in the 10th century. VERY much the same.

You ask for tolerant Muslims and intolerant Islam, how this comes together. I was asked this repeatedly in recent weeks, and answered it at least two times, maybe more often, also was discussing it via emails with three members of the board. So this time I make it short only: both things you ask come together the same way in which they come together in chriszian relgion as well. In my country, a majority of people declare themselves top be christians. But a majority of these do not act like christians. Sometimes they follow traditions and rites, like going on church at christmas, while not spending any thought on spritual questions for the whole rest of the year, and maybe even not durcing christmas church trip. You can follow a religious teaching for reasons of traditiononly, or you have nothing else to do, or you never questioned the dogma, whatever. This does not mean that you are in correspondence with that relion's inner teachings. The church and Jesus' message I cannot bring together for example. That's why I make a strict differenc ebetween the church - and christian mystic and Jesus teachings. Both are worlds apart. so if someone does accoridng to the dogma of the church, he is not necessarily christian for that reason alone. He is "churchian".

Same with Islam. There may be people who describe themselves as muslims, but sticking to their very own and personal image of what it is about. But their personal representation, and "fanatsy", of what it's about, must not be in correspondence. That way, they believe in WHAT THEY THINK ISLAM is. If these people are convinced of the value of for example western humanistic values, they will try to argue that Islam is about these values. But the scriptures of Islam only partially would reflect that, and for eah quote you find you would also be able to find more quotes that are in contradiction to the first. Becasue Islam is not about such values, and it is about ruling and overcoming other cultural traditions, not about tolerating them eternally and coexist with them. People in the west, wantin g to appear to be peace-loving and humanistic and politically corretc., do not believe this easy. Mostly, because they never took care to build a substantial knowledge about Islam (theology, history, Muhammad, scripture and how they emerged and change in the first three centuries), and are feeded simply wrong information that distort historical facts or content of scriptures.

FULL STOP, BRAKES SLAM IN, MOVEMENT ZERO - Hm, this is getting too long, so I will try something different and leave this one open-ended. you guys think you are asking simple question on one level, but these issues have a complexity of different levels and perspectivesbeeing connected to it that short, brief answers are simply impossible (that's why 20 seconds-news-spots are so miuch bull**** and manipulative for the most). I sent a long letter to someone who was questioning my opinion, too, for comparable reasons like you do. We are very diffrent, or better: strictly opposed in our opinions, but still can manage to respect each other. Nevertheless, major parts of that letter are not any personal at all, but are like one of my usual essays or texts. I will post longer excerpts from that and clean them of any personal references, because 90% of that multi-page letter was an essay in fact, I hope (and think), my mail-partner at that time will not feel treated unfair that way, no personal adresses I will include. Watch out for an according separate thread by me tomorrow. Maybe it will help you to understand my answer to your question better, then.

Edit: DONE, thread is up.