Some great points made here

[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?

[Skybird]

We are the cause of our own future fate. That's true for Bin Laden. And for the Baptist church as well.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We are the cause of our own future fate. That's true for Bin Laden. And for the Baptist church as well.

More often it's not true. There are many injustices in the world.

[Skybird]

It seems like that, doesn'T it. However, we do not know if maybe what we label as "random chance" events are connected in a more complicatedf fashion to earlier events (maybe even in other lives we spend) as if we are able to see and understand that connection. Have you seen that great new movie, "Babel" (at last that is the German title)?

But that argument is dangerous ground, for it could lead to barbarism like saying "the child in Africa suffers starvation, so it probably has done something in another life that made it deserving that." This is one of the reasons why almost all Buddhist teachers and masters I ever met stressed people not to spend their time with attempts to find out what they have been in earlier lifes (most end up finding that they have been Ceasar, Cleopatra, or a king of this and that place anyway...). We have enough problems with the one life we currently live - why increasing our burdens by learning about problems in our other lifes as well...?

On a more pragmatic level, we are very often creators of our fate, yes. Walk in a wet T-Shirt in a cold winter night, and you get pneumonia. Dance half-naked through night-time streets, and you eventually get raped. Learn good at school and have better chances in the future, do bad at school, and have lesser chances. Same with regard to your children's education. But here it already starts again: you are working-class, you are poor, can'T afford to send them to best schools available. Random chance? Or logical consequence of events hidden in behind the veil of times? Is the fate of your children linked to something that you hzave done two hundred years ago - and is it all just to let you see what becomes of your children, are they only a theatre play that is the conseqeunce of something that "you" have done back then? This is an ever-imploding spiral, isn't it.

The red line between being creative and being fatalistic is a very thin one. I prefer to encourage people to accept as much responsebility for their lifes as possible, and leave out the mechanisms of "fate", "divine intentions" and "God's will" as much as possible. But I know that that attitude of mine holds it's own risks. It could lead to megalomania, hyper-activity, and destructive action. Maybe you know this old prayer:

Gott gewähre mir den Mut / God grant me the courage
die Dinge zu ändern, / to change those things
die ich ändern kann / that I can change,
Gelassenheit, die hinzunehmen, / calmness, to accept those
die ich nicht ändern kann, / that I cannot change,
und Weisheit, / and wisdom
zwischen beidem zu unterscheiden. / to differ between both.

An all-time favourite of mine.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

How deep is your love?

Good Question... ...an eye for an eye is the old way.

Matthew 5

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?


Let it rain. The Lord did battle for the jews in Egypt a few years back I remember..I think He is able to do it again...He is not blind or deaf to the goings on of Earth nor will He suffer the righteous and fatherless to always be trodden under foot.