Some great points made here

[Kapitan_Phillips]

No doubt most of you will have seen this:





Some damn good points, in my opinion.

[STEED]

Now you have done it a red hot scorching slam bang of a thread, batten down the hatches people this is going to get rough.



PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.


PPS: More latter

Glenn Beck. Good on him!!! If only more folks would get mad as hell.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by STEED

PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.

You Brits have gone seriously potty.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You Brits have gone seriously potty.

Last years news that.

[TteFAboB]

On a similar line: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4227

I'd add to the list above the decadence of Christianity. When everybody believes to be living in a post-Christian world where religion is a thing of the past, Islam is absorbed by osmoses and sucked in by vacuum as a return to the old principles. Plus, as a Muslim you are useful to the ruling and power-hungry classes, tolerated by the population zombified by PC which combined grants you a bunch of priviledges.

The gravest mistake of the projections of a possible Muslim majority in Europe, like that of SUBMAN for example, is to consider that Islam only expands by breeding. This is a most elementary error. If that was the case Islam would've never surpassed Judaism and it would've never left the Middle East. That's not the case and the amount of Muslims that exist today was achieved by conversion. Islam would grow in Europe not only out of demographic expansion but out of the conversion of the Europeans who sought the fundaments that were abandoned by the Christian Churches. Ask Konovalov.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

No doubt most of you will have seen this:





Some damn good points, in my opinion.

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip:

What a jerk he is.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip:

What a jerk he is.

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here.

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:

[Letum]

He does make some good points.
All religions should be open to criticism and the laws of state should always be higher then the laws of religion.

However, it is important to make a distinction between offending people and causing hatred.


Offending People:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of the baby Jesus being raped then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of Mohamed dressed as a woman then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

Offending people can make you a tactless git, but it needs to be allowed so that peoples views can be challenged. What ever you say will offend someone in some way anyway!
You can't ban people from being offended either. People should be allowed to be offended as long as they are peacefully offended.

If you just offend a group people then no one will hate the people you are offending because of it.

Causing hatred:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a picture of Jesus killing some Iraqi children alongside some American forces, then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Christians. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If I drew a picture of Mohamed as a terrorist (as in a Danish magazine), then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Muslims. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If you use slander to cause hatred against a group of people then that hatred can lead to acts of violence against them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

He does make some good points.
All religions should be open to criticism and the laws of state should always be higher then the laws of religion.

However, it is important to make a distinction between offending people and causing hatred.


Offending People:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of the baby Jesus being raped then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of Mohamed dressed as a woman then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

Offending people can make you a tactless git, but it needs to be allowed so that peoples views can be challenged. What ever you say will offend someone in some way anyway!
You can't ban people from being offended either. People should be allowed to be offended as long as they are peacefully offended.

If you just offend a group people then no one will hate the people you are offending because of it.

Causing hatred:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a picture of Jesus killing some Iraqi children alongside some American forces, then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Christians. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If I drew a picture of Mohamed as a terrorist (as in a Danish magazine), then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Muslims. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If you use slander to cause hatred against a group of people then that hatred can lead to acts of violence against them.

If that criticism is deserved - so be it.

As usual, it escapes my understanding how one can make a comparison between Muhammad on the one hand, and others like Jesus on the other - the first having caused violance, call for murder, supression, robbery and war for the better part of his lifetime, the other having argued that one shall not practice violance, and demonstrating by his own's life's example that he meant that seriously.

Painting Muhammad with a head like a bomb is not so much a cartoon for me, but a parable, or a graphical metaphor with a lot of truth in it. And seeing how vicious Muhammedans around the globe reacted, while other Muhammedans did not criticise that kind of behavior, and did not question their own community about where the additional cartoons - the really critical ones - emerged from that never had been printed in Denmark (but were added by those who carried them enthusiastically to the Middle East in order to spark some furious hysteria), gave a lot of justification to paint a Muhammedan idol with a destructive device as his head. That is no offending, that is simply the truth.

Should we stop criticising Hitler and the Nazis, because some Neonazis today may feel offended by that, my find it disguisting, and may react angry and with violance and intimidation to that? Should we stop criticising Tamerlan, or Stalin, or whomever slaughterer in history you may think of, because we also do not want to see the Dalai Lama being critised? This is no one-for-one issue, and moral judgements shall not bee conducted on a quantitative basis, but on a qualitative basis only: if you be a nice guys ten times a week, you do not have one criminal deed for free.

Tolerance needs limits, values need hierarchies, not every ethical system is as much of worth as every other ethical system just because it exists. Not everything can be tolerated without giving up oneself's moral values. Islam has understood that from mthe very beginning and thus, never gives ground. The West has forgotten that most essential ingredient of cultural survival - in an infantile attempt to well-mean things for the better. And that's dumb, and that's all it is.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The West has forgotten that most essential ingredient of cultural survival - in an infantile attempt to well-mean things for the better. And that's dumb, and that's all it is.

hum...I agree...

It is amazing to me how my countrys politicians and law makers can ignore blatant and clear statements from radical muslims and radical "interpretations" of the koran and think that the "it will all be ok" attitude will suffice...

I see exactly where Glenn Beck comes from as I also see exactly where the comment from Konovalov comes from...I think I would have to re-examine my faith if my faith was instructing me to wipe jews or any race off the planet...hate to say it Konovalov but your muslim faith seems crazy and I don't see how anyone can mis-intrepret it when all it's leaders cry for blood and few, if any of it's followers ever denounce the actions of these animals...

If a dog is rabid ya gotta deal with it or your gonna get bit and then it's your own fault...just as America is paying the price now..for our lack of vision.

Im not going to dance around the facts.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As usual, it escapes my understanding how one can make a comparison between Muhammad on the one hand, and others like Jesus on the other - the first having caused violance, call for murder, supression, robbery and war for the better part of his lifetime, the other having argued that one shall not practice violance, and demonstrating by his own's life's example that he meant that seriously.

How deep is your love?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here.

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:

Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Letum

Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.

Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.

I don't have the time or motivation to read either, however, through reading brief abridgements and selected extracts, from various sources, I find that I both agree and disagree with different parts of both, however, I seam to disagree with more of the Qur'an.

I would rather have a totally secular government, however, as it is the democratic majority that chooses and not me, government should be open to all faiths, even those that I, personally, have criticisms of.
To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice.