Support NeoGAF

[FightyF]

Doesn't change the fact that a number will not exhibit the self-restraint and civility to discuss this as you do.

That's true, but do note they they are a minority, and that a majority of this minority don't share the educational backgrounds that you and I share.

I'm not saying we should ignore this minority, but too often are we seeing more attention paid to them, than to the ones who wish to discuss this in civility.

Is it worth it, for the sake of "entertainment" for a few who may be entertained, to insult over a billion people?

Oh boy! Ah ha ha! That Mohammed head on a stick was sure ENTERTAINING. Buddha's head on the stick? PURE GENIUS! Ah ha ha! Ho! I sure did enjoy that Jesus Head on a stick, that was sure gratifying and entertaining, at the expense of Christian beliefs, which I've show complete disrespect for by engaging in this!


Look at it from a benefits/detriments perspective.

Benefit of such a play, the entertainment of a few people. Detriment, the insulting of over a billion people. Common sense dictates that it shouldn't be shown. It's just a play...there are so many other things in life that are more important, with millions of people living in poverty, children dying of starvation, and wars claiming the lives of innocents. Stopping one play is nothing in the large scheme of things. Insulting a fifth of the World's population is.

There's plenty of plays out there, much of which are not insulting...why not go watch those?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Why do you think I think it's a good thing that this play exists?

 

[East Clintwood]

This all is waiting for a giant backlash from western societies. We will only take so much until it bursts into a flame of hate.
I can understand the opera spokeswoman who is just afraid of the Muslims. I mean she would basically stand alone against the hordes because nobody really supports her since they are all afraid themselves. She can't risk it for her staff to be attacked or murdered because of an opera.

As long as the west doesn't stand united in this case things like this will continue and get worse. The west right now lacks courage, but I promise you in the end it's the Muslims who will suffer.

This makes me incredibly mad. How dare they to make us afraid and threaten us in our own countries?! In our own cultures? Imagine going to Turkey and making claims like this, change this, change that or we will burn your buildings and kill your leaders! The uproar would be incredible. But no, there they suppress other cultures and people wearing the cross have to hide it and live in fear.

But here it's okay. Well, it's not, the resistance in political leaders and the population is rising and if push comes to shove we will evict any Muslims from this society. They are the ****ing minority, they are ****ing guests in our ****ing countries and they have to ****ing subordinate to our cultur and tradition and not the other ****ing way around!

 

[Particle Physicist]

Why do you think I think it's a good thing that this play exists?

have you seen the play?

why do you think that its not?

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

Is it worth it, for the sake of "entertainment" for a few who may be entertained, to insult over a billion people?

Art is meant to be provocative. Have you seen the play? Nope. Then you do not understand exactly what the purpose of that scene is. I'm sure it's quite powerful and lends to the atmosphere, it isn't just there for shock value

 

[East Clintwood]

Would it be acceptable for someone to walk into a Hindu temple with a head of a cow? Y'know, in the name of "Satire" or "Art".

Oh right, now being in a german opera is like being on Islamic ground. Great!

And by the way: It's ****ing Mozart! When was the last time the Islamic world had anything of his culturual calibre? Oh, never?

 

[FightyF]

This all is waiting for a giant backlash from western societies. We will only take so much until it bursts into a flame of hate.
I can understand the opera spokeswoman who is just afraid of the Muslims. I mean she would basically stand alone against the hordes because nobody really supports her since they are all afraid themselves. She can't risk it for her staff to be attacked or murdered because of an opera.

As long as the west doesn't stand united in this case things like this will continue and get worse. The west right now lacks courage, but I promise you in the end it's the Muslims who will suffer.

Haven't they suffered enough?

This makes me incredibly mad. How dare they to make us afraid and threaten us in our own countries?! In our own cultures? Imagine going to Turkey and making claims like this, change this, change that or we will burn your buildings and kill your leaders! The uproar would be incredible. But no, there they suppress other cultures and people wearing the cross have to hide it and live in fear.

:lol

But here it's okay. Well, it's not, the resistance in political leaders and the population is rising and if push comes to shove we will evict any Muslims from this society. They are the ****ing minority, they are ****ing guests in our ****ing countries and they have to ****ing subordinate to our cultur and tradition and not the other ****ing way around!

:lol :lol

Oh right, now being in a german opera is like being on Islamic ground. Great!

Read my posts, I compared the degree in which people would find it insulting.

And by the way: It's ****ing Mozart! When was the last time the Islamic world had anything of his culturual calibre? Oh, never?

When was the last time you ever ventured into the Islamic World? Oh, never?

:lol

 

[East Clintwood]

Haven't they suffered enough?

Obviously not or else they wouldn't mess with us. They are like begging for a beating and we are like "Nah, can't beat up this kid again. Yet."

 

[cvxfreak]

I read the thread title as

Oprah reignites Islam row after cancelling production.

Man, that was confusing.

So did I. :lol

 

[FightyF]

Obviously not or else they wouldn't mess with us. They are like begging for a beating and we are like "Nah, can't beat up this kid again. Yet."

You're a joke.

:lol

 

[DCharlie]

Is it worth it, for the sake of "entertainment" for a few who may be entertained, to insult over a billion people?

Oh boy! Ah ha ha! That Mohammed head on a stick was sure ENTERTAINING. Buddha's head on the stick? PURE GENIUS! Ah ha ha! Ho! I sure did enjoy that Jesus Head on a stick, that was sure gratifying and entertaining, at the expense of Christian beliefs, which I've show complete disrespect for by engaging in this!

i'm sure that there was some analogy at work here in the play - i don't think it's supposed to be entertaining in the 'watching American Gladiators' way you seem to be portraying this.

 

[FightyF]

i'm sure that there was some analogy at work here in the play - i don't think it's supposed to be entertaining in the 'watching American Gladiators' way you seem to be portraying this.

Actually I should have ended that with a "[/David Cross]". It was a definate hyperbole but I should have put something in there. That's my biggest problem when it comes to posting, I joke around a lot and I'm serious in other cases and people can't tell which is which sometimes.

 

[East Clintwood]

When was the last time you ever ventured into the Islamic World? Oh, never?

Please, name one cultural art achievement which comes even close to Mozart? Oh, they are not even allowed to sing? Damn!

 

[mrklaw]

You know, Christians weren't that much fun a few hundred years ago.

The problem isn't followers of Islam threatening us, its *us* feeling threatened by a group that doesn't follow our rules, and we can't just leave them alone.

Plus all the f--k up in the middle east, which will only be solved if God and the Prophet Mohammed turned up on CNN and said they'd had a chat and worked out who should go where.

 

[Instigator]

I think Fight for Freedom and Slurpy are approaching this issue the wrong way. If you're asking for special treatment and considerations because one group is more sensitive about something, you're going to go nowhere with this. You're in the West, you have a different set of rules. And you know it. Quit crying about it and adapt your game.

If I were you, and if I were looking for an excuse to argue for your case, I would look for intent, bias and motivations instead. For example, if a national statistics gathering organization publishes a report that people of color are among the poorest and least educated group in one specific country, it doesn't mean the same thing as to when a white supremacist group uses the exact same data.

Now I don't know much about this opera case, but if you can find some history suggesting this is more than just artistic expression, you could definitely go somewhere. I know Fight For Freedom is familiar with the Danish cartoon controversy and you could definitely raise questions about the paper which originally posted the drawings.

 

[East Clintwood]

You know, Christians weren't that much fun a few hundred years ago.

Why is this always brought up? It has no relevence today. It only asserts that Islam is several hundred years behind the western world and for that alone shouldn't have any rights.

The problem isn't followers of Islam threatening us, its *us* feeling threatened by a group that doesn't follow our rules, and we can't just leave them alone.

Of course they are threatening us and as a result we feel threatened. They say "Don't do this or else!" Not on things happening in their countries but things happening in our homes! And they burn buildings, they burn flags, they kill people. Everybody is afraid.

I don't think this will and in a peaceful way, because they are not able to compromise. You can see this in the Isreal conflicts. The jews are (were) able and willing to compromise, the other site isn't. And it's not going to stop there, in the end it will be force against force.

 

[FightyF]

Please, name one cultural art achievement which comes even close to Mozart? Oh, they are not even allowed to sing? Damn!

Can't sing? Oh snap!

j/k Muslims can sing. Not surprised that you didn't know...seems that you don't know a lot of things.

Most of the achievements in art came in the form of calligraphy and arabesque (highly geometrical and mathematical) art. They became popular because it transended all cultures.

But things are more divided when it comes to music. Remember, Islam is a faith that does not restrict itself to a culture as it is made up of thousands of cultures and people of various backgrounds, and things like music, foods, and clothing varies.

I've only breifly studied Islamic music, and when I say studied I mean talk to people who know alot more about it. Most of it is hymns, and there is a wide variety of it. There's Fateh Ali Khan which can be considered a modern summation of East Indian hymns that go back many years, and then there's the rhymes of the North Africans that were made centuries ago that dealt with complex issues such as Islamic jurispudence down to simpler issues such as how to pray. The brotha I was talking to argued that rapping was more than just a recent phenomenon and this was proof of it.

I think Fight for Freedom and Slurpy are approaching this issue the wrong way. If you're asking for special treatment and considerations because one group is more sensitive about something, you're going to go nowhere with this. You're in the West, you have a different set of rules. And you know it. Quit crying about it and adapt your game.

If I were you, and if I were looking for an excuse to argue for your case, I would look for intent, bias and motivations instead. For example, if a national statistics gathering organization publishes a report that people of color are among the poorest and least educated group in one specific country, it doesn't mean the same thing as to when a white supremacist group uses the exact same data.

Now I don't know much about this opera case, but if you can find some history suggesting this is more than just artistic expression, you could definitely go somewhere. I know Fight For Freedom is familiar with the Danish cartoon controversy and you could definitely raise questions about the paper which originally posted the drawings.

I have a problem with artistic expression that offends, period. And believe me, I understand artful critique and satire, heck I listen to Bad Religion (religiously )!

I'll agree that this case is different, it almost equally "attacks" (that is so not the right word, but I can't think of a better one at 4am ) other faiths just as much as it does Islam. I say almost because 2 Muslim prophets, Jesus and Mohammed, are depicted there with their heads cut off. The issue here is that people don't understand why it is such a touchy issue when dealing with Muslims, as opposed to Buddhists or Christians. But also keep in mind that the article states that it did already receive widespread criticization for doing that.

But to me it's a very simple issue...why make something offensive to others, for the sake of entertainment? I mean, it's not like a smiling Jesus, Buddha or Muhammed walked into the play and danced merrily on the stage. They were apparently killed, had their heads cut off, and popped onto a stick, and they expect a diverse population of 1 billion people to be cool with that? So you piss of a billion people and act all shocked when out of that many a few wackos decide to get violent because they're being ignored.

Another issue, and one that really got me to respond, was that most of the people supporting this on this forum in particular were the usual anti-Muslim type to begin with...

 

[mrklaw]

Of course they are threatening us and as a result we feel threatened. They say "Don't do this or else!" Not on things happening in their countries but things happening in our homes! And they burn buildings, they burn flags, they kill people. Everybody is afraid.

I don't think this will and in a peaceful way, because they are not able to compromise. You can see this in the Isreal conflicts. The jews are (were) able and willing to compromise, the other site isn't. And it's not going to stop there, in the end it will be force against force.

No, we are responding out of feeling threatened. The threat doesn't have to explicitily exist. Whose fault is it if we're suddenly afraid of Muslims?

There is similar uproar about insulting other religions - catholics in particular are very protective of their icons. Its just we can sit down and argue the case in front of them. Why do we not feel strong enough to do the same here?

I doubt a German opera is likely to create as much uproar in the Islamic world as the foreign policy of countries like Israel, the US and the UK.

 

[Instigator]

I have a problem with artistic expression that offends, period. And believe me, I understand artful critique and satire, heck I listen to Bad Religion (religiously )!

Having your cake and eating it too?

The issue here is that people don't understand why it is such a touchy issue when dealing with Muslims, as opposed to Buddhists or Christians. But also keep in mind that the article states that it did already receive widespread criticization for doing that.

Do they really not understand?

Do Muslims really have a monopoly onall that is sacred that puts them above others? What about many feminist groups and hardcore, degrading pornography? What about the prevelance homosexuality and Christian groups going crazy about it?

I'll agree with you that this opera might not be the best idea in terms of peaceful relations between different parts of the world and I'm willing to let Muslims outside the West be angry about it and let many of them be manipulated into violent acts, just like they were during the Danish cartoon controversy.

But I draw the line with Muslims living inside the West. Not only should they be aware of the right to be offended but also the right to be offensive. There's a minimum of shared values in any society and if this fundamental one is not understood by newcomers, it really begs the question as to if they should be there in the first place.

But to me it's a very simple issue...why make something offensive to others, for the sake of entertainment?

But the better question is why not?

So much can offend, intentionally or unintentionally. If you don't live in a police state, I don't know who can rightfully make that call to ban all that is offensive.

Another issue, and one that really got me to respond, was that most of the people supporting this on this forum in particular were the usual anti-Muslim type to begin with...

Why waste your time with idiots?

 

[Great Rumbler]

I doubt a German opera is likely to create as much uproar in the Islamic world as the foreign policy of countries like Israel, the US and the UK.

Those Muhammad comics certainly did.

 

[Fatghost]

This is pissing me off. Why are so many people in free countries so cowardly when it comes to defending their free speech?

It makes me sick.

 

[dalyr95]

It is a shame that a few can give such a bad name to a religion. But the world has changed since 9/11

Irish catholics (IRA) blew up buildings in England and there are lots of others, they've done some nasty shit yes. But they haven't flow planes into buildings and declared war on the Eastern world.
I believe in free speech and if someone wants to whole a play with whoevers head on a stick, thats fine by me. If I'm offended, I won't see it. I might go outside with a sign, I would engage in reasoned debate.

But I would not threatren anyone. What gets me, is that all this shit is happening in the muslim world, yet very few muslims condemn it. Take 9/11 for example, people having parties in the street.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537469.stm]However[/url], some Palestinians and other Arabs have been celebrating the attack on the United States - seen by them as Israel's main sponsor.

When extremism activity happens, why does no-one in the muslim world condemn it or engage in democratic process to get policy changed??

Form a lobbying group or something FFS

 

[APF]

If someone threatens you with violence for being able to express your freedom of speech, is it not fair to say they hate you for your freedoms?

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I think any Muslim will approach this the wrong way, because we treasure religion, and most people here don't. But we live in an areligious society, so this is the consequence. If we don't like it, then we leave. That's how it goes, FFF. I live here because it is my choice to do so. If people do things I don't like in an areligious society, I have to live with it if I want to live here. This is impeachable logic.

Here's the thing. People think that a lack of respect and consideration is part of freedom of speech. It is, in this society. Every Muslim living here has to deal with it. If Muslims react violently, it's our fault that we didn't tolerate their crap. That's how it goes.

This is more representative of an ideological rift between Muslims and Western society. I will side with the Muslims, that religion is of more importance, because you know, I am one. But I will side for purely ideological reasons, but I will also obey the law of the land.

That's why I stand here, in anger that these people would contemplate doing such a thing. But oh well, freedom of speech, there is no accountability here. Muslims need to understand that we're subjected to THEIR law. If their law says "you are allowed to disrespect people's religion and mode of living", then Muslims have to deal with it. If we don't like it, we leave.

And this is why I don't deal with jackasses in my daily life. I tend to deal with considerate, respectable people whom I can conduct a conversation with. Not people who put the severed heads of a persom whom I admire on a stage.

It IS crossing the line, provided that there is an accepted rule of mutual respect. There is no such "law" here. So we gotta deal with it.

 

[Aske]

Well said Instigator.

The problem is not the offenders. If we were to grant every person the right be protected from offence, our lives wouldn't be worth living. Protect the Muslims, and you must protect the Christians. Protect the Christians, and you must protect every religion. Protect the religious, and you must protect the atheists. Then there are those vegetarians who are moved to tears when they see others consuming meat...

If I get together with a large enough group of people, I could rid the streets of all those irritating people who stand around with signs shouting about how sinful I am, and how I can be saved by the gods they worship. Sweet. Unless I can't get enough support - then I'll just have to come up with some other way to deal with my feelings that doesn't involve forcing everyone else to accommodate them.

Would you really like to live in a world in which no one was allowed to offend anyone fortunate enough to be part of a sufficiently vocal minority?

Some would say that intent is key - stand up comedians poking fun are okay; expressing genuine disgust or disdain for a sacred belief system is not. Even assuming for a second that it would be possible to accurately judge intent; the offence - the thing we're supposed to be basing our protection laws around here, is felt regardless. So you have to tell people what they are allowed to be offended by and what they have to let go...and all of a sudden you're looking at a similar situation to the one you had before, minus the freedoms of those people who are no longer allowed to express themselves. Sometimes it's pretty important for people to be able to say they dislike something with a force that their opponents could interpret as hateful.

Better to accept the fact that life will frequently offend all of us, often significantly, but at least we don't have to feel that any group's offence is deemed worthy of greater concern than our own.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

About the term 'open dialogue', this is not what I call open, friendly dialogue. But if you want to be a literalist, yes, saying whatever the **** you want is open dialogue. "Open dialogue" has an association with respectful and friendly.

Freedom of speech is an absolute right in this society, provided that you don't infringe on the rights of other people (that is, you don't steal or kill other people in the process). I disagree with this (because I see some things as 'hitting below the belt'), but it's not like I have a choice, do I? All I can do is ignore it.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

About the term 'open dialogue', this is not what I call open, friendly dialogue. But if you want to be a literalist, yes, saying whatever the **** you want is open dialogue. "Open dialogue" has an association with respectful and friendly.

Freedom of speech is an absolute right in this society, provided that you don't infringe on the rights of other people (that is, you don't steal or kill other people in the process). I disagree with this (because I see some things as 'hitting below the belt'), but it's not like I have a choice, do I? All I can do is ignore it.

Note that I'm not legislating "Any comment designated as 'hitting below the belt', that person should be jailed" for Europe. I'm talking about the way to properly conduct yourself with other people. The act is tasteless, but it is protected. But I don't think the act should have occurred in the first place. That's all. It's tasteless and disrespectful.

I think we need to seperate a moral defense of this act from a legal defense of this act. If you defend this act morally, then you probably hate Islam and everything that it's about.

If you defend it legally, you are being consistent with the laws of freedom of speech held in the West.

The problem I have with some people is that they try to defend an act morally, but justify it legally. And that's just being a jackass.

 

[Lucky Forward]

From left: Buddha, Muhammad, Poseidon and Jesus hold their hands during a beheading at the dress rehearsal of Idomeneo (Claudia Esch-Kenkel/EPA)

I'm confused. Jesus and Mohammad I can identify, but if that's Buddha on the left, why does he have horns? Or is that Buddha between Mohammad and Jesus? Then the guy on the left is Poseidon? Then why is there another one just like him standing slightly out of frame?

 

[Willco]

Keep on rockin' the free world!

 

[ConsumerSquare]

According to wikipedia (yeah, I know), the "offensive" scene wasn't in Mozart's original. Not that it matters as far as this thread goes, but there's probably a more interesting conversation to be had than the tolerance of idolatry in the western world.

 

[bionic77]

Why do we have one of these threads every 3 days?

And why do they always end up being 10 pages?

 

[Ikael]

First of all: we don't know how much offensive this opera was going to be. We just know an isolated fact putted completely out of context: "several holy figures appears decapitated". This is like saying "in GTA you can kill prostitutes" and then start bashing the game for "promoting violence against prostitutes". We don't know how it was treated on the opera. With respect? with crudeness? with humor? with philosophy and reflexiveness?

Second: the most effective censoreship is the self censoreship and this is something that drives me nuts. This is our land. These are our rules. Our culture. With our own taboos, written and unwritten rules. Why the **** we should import other's culture taboos and paranoias? Ah, yes, because otherwise these persons belonging to certain other cultures would not only get offended or angry, but will also react violently. We are just rewarding their violence, and sending the message than their opinion count more to us thanks to their violence, which is sadly the true reason why we don't hestiate a second in offending catholics or atheits while we shuddenly remember how there are limits to freedom of expression ONLY when treating with the Islam.

Muslims need to understand that we're subjected to THEIR law.

This, sirs, is the main problem with the Islamic word: the absence of separation between religion, state and law and how their religion encourages it. This is exactly what have made them stuck in the dark ages.

And about the question of when was the last time the Muslim world produced a cultural archievement worth of mentioning, the moment the Al Andalus muslims decided that it would be better to be invaded by the Almohades rather than the Christians and that the interpretation of the Quran should stop ASAP, it was the exact moment when they trew their (back then, glorious) civilization to the toilet (and see? they didn't need Israel or the MTV to archieve that).

 

[Tauntaun]

I think any Muslim will approach this the wrong way, because we treasure religion, and most people here don't.

This is more representative of an ideological rift between Muslims and Western society. I will side with the Muslims, that religion is of more importance, because you know, I am one.

That's right, because no one in this country actually cares about their religion. No Christian in this country (US) has ever held a big tent revival, or has ever had an outreach to their community, ever has gone to Kentucky to build/fix homes for poor people, ever given to Feed the Children, ever prayed outside of church, ever given testimony as to the goodness of Jesus Christ, ever loved thy neighbor as thyself...etc...etc. Give me a break, it's not that we don't take our RELATIONSHIP with God seriously (and obviously some don't, but they usually stop going to church), we just don't believe in rioting when someone offends our senses. Yes, yes I know you probably haven't rioted, but when is the last time the "majority" of the muslim world has come out and publicly delcared that these "extremists" are not what islam is about?

I remember 9/11 and having muslims IN AMERICA dance in the street because of what happened! I remember reading articles online and seeing photos of THOUSANDS of BRITISH MUSLIMS holding signs saying "KILL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET!". I remember SWARMS OF MUSLIMS getting upset and rioting and burning western stores over some CARTOONS (guess who stirred up the people? imams, the leaders of the RoP?) Now I don't wish you any harm, in fact I choose to love my enemies because that's what I believe God desires of me. I'm not holier than thou either, believe me I can be a shit sometimes, but I want God to make me better, I have just come to realize that everyone is evil, no one is perfect, we all make mistakes. This is where i come from, if someone wants to insult my God, let them, God can handle anything. Doesn't the Qu'ran say that god is all powerful? That he can do anything? If allah is so far above humans why does he get so bothered by HUMAN insults? My God can take those insults, and you know what he did in return? Jesus, forgiveness. That's all I'm sayin man. Peace...

 

[APF]

But oh well, freedom of speech, there is no accountability here.

That's the thing; the accountability is personal, not legislative or punitive--the counter argument should be the cliche (but no less true), "fight speech with more speech." If Slurpy calls someone a c*nt because he disagrees with their position, he shouldn't be fearful of violent retaliation, nor should he be fearful of expressing his own feelings because of the same, or because he'd be violating some sort of governmental regulation that prevents him from showing what a hate-filled asshole he is.

 

[East Clintwood]

Second: the most effective censoreship is the self censoreship and this is something that drives me nuts. This is our land. These are our rules. Our culture. With our own taboos, written and unwritten rules. Why the **** we should import other's culture taboos and paranoias? Ah, yes, because otherwise these persons belonging to certain other cultures would not only get offended or angry, but will also react violently. We are just rewarding their violence, and sending the message than their opinion count more to us thanks to their violence, which is sadly the true reason why we don't hestiate a second in offending catholics or atheits while we shuddenly remember how there are limits to freedom of expression ONLY when treating with the Islam.

And about the question of when was the last time the Muslim world produced a cultural archievement worth of mentioning, the moment the Al Andalus muslims decided that it would be better to be invaded by the Almohades rather than the Christians and that the interpretation of the Quran should stop ASAP, it was the exact moment when they trew their (back then, glorious) civilization to the toilet (and see? they didn't need Israel or the MTV to archieve that).

Well said.

You know, I was just thinking. Maybe this kind of self-censorship isn't such a bad idea after all. Maybe we should ban everything Islam related in our society. Don't speak about it, don't write about it, don't include it in our art and thus don't promote it any further. Muslims will have no reason to be in uproar since they seem to kind of accept that Islam isn't the main religion in western society. And those who live here should be forced to keep their religion to themselves. No public promoting, because, you know, could cause a stir up.

 

[Instigator]

That's the thing; the accountability is personal, not legislative or punitive--the counter argument should be the cliche (but no less true), "fight speech with more speech." If Slurpy calls someone a c*nt because he disagrees with their position, he shouldn't be fearful of violent retaliation, nor should he be fearful of expressing his own feelings because of the same, or because he'd be violating some sort of governmental regulation that prevents him from showing what a hate-filled asshole he is.

:lol

Pretty much what APF said, but without the cheap shot.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I'm still trying to figure out why an apparently overwhelming majority of Muslims feel that they have the right to silence those who don't believe in their religion, and want to make fun of it.

I guess there's precedent in Islamic history, though. Muhammad himself executed more than one person for mocking him.

 

[ronito]

I say that there needs to be GAF Islam Defense Force (IDF lol). Complete with tags and everything, they can be just like their Nintendo/MS/Sony compatriots on the other side.

 

[Tauntaun]

I say that there needs to be GAF Islam Defense Force (IDF lol). Complete with tags and kitty avatars, they can be just like their Nintendo/MS/Sony compatriots on the other side.

Fixed.

 

[bionic77]

I say that there needs to be GAF Islam Defense Force (IDF lol). Complete with tags and everything, they can be just like their Nintendo/MS/Sony compatriots on the other side.

Considering there is a 10 page thread bashing their religion every week they might feel a little insecure.

Again, what the **** is the point of this thread?

The same people post the same shit in these threads every week. Why don't the mods just make one large thread to bash all religions.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm confused. Jesus and Mohammad I can identify, but if that's Buddha on the left, why does he have horns? Or is that Buddha between Mohammad and Jesus? Then the guy on the left is Poseidon? Then why is there another one just like him standing slightly out of frame?

buddha is either to the left of that thing.. or obscured from view by the guy in the foreground.

notice there is another one of those devil things on the left side of the picture.. you can see its leg.

 

[Slurpy]

Oh right, now being in a german opera is like being on Islamic ground. Great!

And by the way: It's ****ing Mozart! When was the last time the Islamic world had anything of his culturual calibre? Oh, never?

Never eh? Hey look, its a flaming bigot!

I can tell you're a bigot, because every single one Ive seen refers to 'the muslims', not 'muslims'. I know it may not mean much to some, but this is a pattern that is wholy consistent in my experience. You wouldn't say 'the christians' would you? No, you would say 'christians'. Adding the prefix of 'the' solidifies what you think of them, as a homogenous group, in an isolated location, making them easier to categorize and vilify. Who the **** are 'the muslims'? Your ignorance about islam, islamic culture, contribution, and history, and the fact that you wish to advertise this fact, is further proof you're a racist and a filthy bigot.

 

[Slurpy]

If someone threatens you with violence for being able to express your freedom of speech, is it not fair to say they hate you for your freedoms?

If someone comes and calls my sister a whore to my face (completely their right, freedom of speech and all) and I have a reaction to that, whether verbal or physical- this reaction would, in fact, NOT be a result of my 'hate for their freedom'. Quite a concept, eh?

Anymore laughably ridiculous analogies, AFP? You seem to be good at those.

 

[whytemyke]

Would it be acceptable for someone to walk into a Hindu temple with a head of a cow? Y'know, in the name of "Satire" or "Art".

Oh, I'm sorry. Is the opera house a muslim place of worship? ****ing idiot.

So if someone insulted Jews and called the Holocaust a good thing, or perhaps, "a comma in Jewish History", you would support this person? Even though we know that the Holocaust is a touchy topic for Jews, and one we shouldn't joke about?

I'd say that it's their right to voice their opinion, and the last thing we should do is ****ing riot to the point where people are afraid of DYING over voicing this altogether stupid opinion/fallacy.

This is the issue with the Western's take on Islam. Westerners don't know enough about Islam to understand what is considered holy, what is considered sacred, and what is considered taboo.

Westerners understand enough to know that just because it's holy or taboo to some people, it's not holy or taboo to everyone and therefore isn't protected from freedom of speech, thought, or any other type of benign actions which comment on the institution or the people involved in said institution.

Secondly, there is a double standard regarding the insults. For example, in the case of the Jyllands Posten cartoons, where they villafied Prophet Muhammed, people claimed that Jesus gets made fun of all the time and no Christians complain. Where, in the entire World, have we seen a newspaper that depicted Jesus as a child molester and insinuate that he was behind the molestation scandal of the Catholic Church? Was there anything like that? No, nowhere near the same level.

Ever watch South Park? Read the New Yorker? Actually, have you ever paid any attention to any particular instance of pop culture?

This country was not founded on bigotry and racism. I know you're trying to claim that we all have the right to be bigotted and hateful (not that you personally support it, but do so out of recognition that this is your "right"), but don't use the constitution as evidence of that.

This country was founded on the principal of freedom of speech, because to inhibit the right of a person to speak invariably inhibits their right to learn, which inhibits their right to free thought. Without free speech you cannot have free thought, and without free thought you have tyranny-- be it of the mind or of the people.

The problem with people like you, Fight for Freeform, is that you only want people to have the freedom to speak when it's about things you like. Im sure you had no problem with the press printing up the torture results or military problems going on in Iraq. You have no problem hearing people talk about why evangelical christianity is a bane in America currently. But the moment someone casts that introspective insight onto something which you deem taboo, all of a sudden you think that persons rights stop.

Well, they don't. You want freedom of speech? You have to allow someone to speak at the very loudest their lungs allow for the very thing which you completely disagree with. That's freedom of speech, and you clearly have no will or tolerance for freedom of speech-- unless of course it's speech which you already have approved.

And my question then, to you, is who the **** are you to say what should be free and what shouldn't be? Who the hell are these extremists to say what's free and what's not? And even furthermore, what does it say about our country when we're willing to let the extremist, minute minority dictate the rights of others through violence and not reason?

I don't see these muslims who have a problem with freedom of speech curbing their appetite for literature about the heathen jews or how vile the west is. They don't want protection of speech-- they want protection of their speech. It's the same type of shortsighted, weak and ignorant thinking which you bring to damn near every debate here, along with slurpy, and it makes my blood boil that people like you go around thinking you're somehow more enlightened than the rest of us because you have no problem advocating the abolition of basic rights which every person in this country, and most of western civillization, have come to take for granted.

You're no better than the people you constantly rally against-- you just carry your beliefs under a different flag.

 

[Tauntaun]

is further proof you're a racist and a filthy bigot.

So islam is a race now?

 

[ronito]

Well I'll be the use of the word "the" makes you "a racist and a filthy bigot"
I'd better go tell the christians, the press the whites, the americans and the hispanics.

Oh noes! I'm a racist x 5!

 

[Tauntaun]

I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it.

- Voltaire, In Freedom

Welcome to the West.

 

[Slurpy]

So islam is a race now?

Yeah I knew someone would stick on that. To many people they view muslims as fitting a certain stereotype, having the same philosophies, and having the same cultural norms and looks. And if they see someone who fits this physical appearance, they will be prejudiced in the back of their minds against them. So yes, it can very well be defined as racism in many instances. If that doesn't work for you, bigot should do.

 

[whytemyke]

Yeah I knew someone would stick on that. To many people they view muslims as fitting a certain stereotype, having the same philosophies, and having the same cultural norms and looks. And if they see someone who fits this physical appearance, they will be prejudiced in the back of their minds against them. So yes, it can very well be defined as racism in many instances. If that doesn't work for you, bigot should do.

wow. you're making gross generalizations about someone, based on very little knowledge of them, and lumping them all into some disdainful category you've made by yourself.

you're no better than they are. you just think you have the moral highground, you sycophant.

 

[Tauntaun]

Yeah I knew someone would stick on that. To many people they view muslims as fitting a certain stereotype, having the same philosophies, and having the same cultural norms and looks. And if they see someone who fits this physical appearance, they will be prejudiced in the back of their minds against them. So yes, it can very well be defined as racism in many instances. If that doesn't work for you, bigot should do.

Remember when that white American kid was captured in Afgahnistan fighting with the taliban and how Africa has almost all black people in it (and there's lots of muslims there) and how Turkey, Indonesia and the Phillipines all have heavy muslim populations? I think that argument is pretty much mute considering all the news/information we have via the TV/internet these days and how much of it has been on islam.