An example of mentioning religion or nationality in a post:
Re: Flag burning. I am American and I do think burning the flag should be protected by freedom of speech. It is rather like going into a bar in Mississippi and screaming the “N word” though; you will get everyone’s attention, but they are not going to listen to what you have to say.
Maybe he would like to debate with the criminals who attacked and killed Ambassador. Just like when Iraq War is debated it’s not really a debate until a Marine who served at least 3 years shows up.
While it is amusing, it does present a problem - how do you debate Iraq War with a Marine and be critical of the war while at the same time supporting the troops. Quite a conundrum…
Er…some of us have been entering into the debate, however, considering this is an overwhelmingly American board it’s not surprising that not too many of us are participating.
Beyond that, you’ll notice we’re a really broad group who are going to have a number of different idea.
Someone who’s a third-generation Londoner who doesn’t speak a language other than English is going to have a dramatically different perspective than someone who grew up in the Moroccan slums who will also have a different perspective than someone who grew up in Mumbai, in an overwhelmingly Hindu country, who’s met few Christians and probably no Arabs in his life and who has spent most of his life more focused on the differences between Hindu Indians and Muslim Indians than between Muslims and “westerners”/Christians/Israelis.
People will notice that AK and I don’t have all that much in common other than both coming from Muslim families and have dramatically different points of view on a number of issues.
Thats because I am a contrarian by nature.
So am I.
hateful speech can only be defined as something that is objected to by someone else. Here is Canada’s law:
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.” Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an “identifiable group.” The Code defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
Maybe I’m interpreting this incorrectly but in areas of religion where fact doesn’t exist there is conflict within the law. It then becomes a judgement call in court as to whether someone has a right to expressing a thought. This kind of law scares me.
People who riot and kill over something that was said 6000 miles are the walking definition of barbaric savages. The same can be said of sports fans who win some kind of championship.
You’ve lost any sane sense of reality in your analogy. The Chic-Fil-A owner and his patrons did not riot or kill or treat anyone with disrespect. You can’t say that of those who protested against the company but none of them rioted over it either. At worst there were a few cross words said and some graffiti.
The Christian “wackos” as you put it made a video representing Islam as they saw it. They didn’t protest in the streets, they didn’t force any Muslims to listen to their glurge in front of a Mosque. They spent money on a really bad movie expressing their opinion on a subject that exists only as opinion. There is no way that Mohammad can be accurately portrayed that is not offensive to Muslims. He was a murderous warlord who used people to do his bidding under the guise of religion which has less than zero scientific basis for discussion.
Contrast this with the reaction on the other side of the world. Literally at the other side of the world. People have gone ape-shit at the existence of the film. The mere existence. It was best summed up by a protester in Egypt who vowed he would give his life to stop this film.
The difference is that people of other religions may object to ideas that challenge or insult their beliefs but ultimately accept that everyone doesn’t share those ideas and are not required to.
There’s your perspective. It’s righteous indignation versus rioting and death. While there is some pause for hope that others within Islam object to the violence that doesn’t whitewash the absolutely obscene and savage reactions we’re seeing over this movie.
If you don’t accept this behavior than standing up and condemning it universally is the correct message and not pretending that the makers of the movie were the wackos in some kind of politically correct rant of contrition. If you don’t stand up for the freedom’s we have then they will go away.
Yesterday a Pakistani minister offered a bounty of $100,000 for the death of the Innocence of Muslims filmmaker. Supposedly an American citizen. (Anti-Islam film: Pakistan minister offers bounty) And today the Pakistani Minister of State Defence set fire to an effigy of Barack Obama (Minister sets President Obama’s effigy on fire) Wiki says you have sent $20.7 billion aid their way since 2002. LOL. Oh, and the Pakistani Foreign Minister wants you to rethink this whole freedom of speech concept:
US needs to rethink its concept of free speech, says Pakistan Supposedly for the same reason Pakistan led by its Prime Minister is redoubling its efforts to end free speech:
Pakistan to move UN, OIC for anti-blasphemy laws
So far we’ve got the Minister of Railroads; the Minister of Defence; the Foreign Minister; and the Prime Minister. If the official public representatives of another nation were burning effigies of my president and offering up bounties for the death of citizens of my nation I’d consider that a declaration of war, not an opportunity for more billions in aid. YMMV.
Why is “Moslem” used in some posts? Isn’t that like using “Hindoo” these days?
Me, too.
The point of my analogy was that in the same way you can’t assume the pro Chick-Fil-A demonstrations reflect the beliefs of Christians, more than 20% of the world are Muslims, yet people on this board (for whatever reason) believe that the beliefs of the protesters are a reflection of the beliefs of Muslims. If you expect a protestor is going to come by and contribute to the debate on this board, the law of numbers is seriously against you, because you are going from 1.2 Billion adherents of Islam, to a much, much smaller number. The anti-film protests are certainly more violent than the Chik-Fil-A protests, but you can’t extrapolate anything from that, nor was I equating the level of violence between the two sets of protests - merely that you can’t make assumptions that the anti-film protesters speak for Moslems, in the same way the pro Chik-Fil-A protestors don’t speak for Christians.
Things get easily distorted. My mother, grandmother, aunts, uncles, etc. all live in Cairo Egypt, within a 15 minute walk of Tahrir square. People constantly question me about whether my relatives were safe during the anti-government protests, because the media focuses on the sensationalist pictures and chaos because that’s what sells.
It goes both ways, I live in a northern Chicago suburb. My relatives call me whenever they see news of some Chicago homicide, or crime spree (or “Occupy” demonstration) to make sure I’m OK, because they lose perspective of geography or relative risk. I’m surprised by the assumptions they come to based on news reports taken out of context until I realize the same things happen in the US. I went to Cairo in January to visit my family, and will go again over this Christmas, and I can’t believe how some people are astonished that I regularly go and visit. Really? In a city of 9 Million (larger than New York City) you are coming to the conclusion that the city is dangerous, because you saw a few square blocks in the news? Images trump statistics all the time.
Moslem was the English transliteration that was used when I was growing up, so I still use it. The word in Arabic is pronounced closer to Mooslim. English speakers pronounce Muslim as if it rhymes with the fabric Muslin, which is not how it is pronounced in Arabic. Neither transliteration reflects the word in Arabic, but you are correct, most people now use Muslim with a U vs. an O.
I will say this… and let me be clear that I’m not defending the violence of the protests… (and realize the vast majority of the people killed have been other Moslems)… but this is my viewpoint…
God and religion is weaved into daily life for many Muslims in a way that is hard for others to understand. You don’t say, “I am going to the store tomorrow”, you say “I am going to the store tomorrow, Insha’Allah (God willing)”. Or if someone says, “I found my car keys”, the response many give is “Alhamdulillah” which is “Praise Be to God”. God and God’s will, becomes more of an intrinsic part of who you are. Couple that with a general inferiority complex brought about by outside rule and influence (in Egypt’s case, the French, English, and US have all exerted heavy influence over the past 100 years) and a mindset that conspiracies are alive and well, and people seek for spiritual guidance from within. And there is a self-identification between religion and self and community which (I believe) is stronger than what you would find in the United States.
Christianity in the US and Europe, is relatively speaking, more of an individual thing, and there is also a top-down religious hierarchy of clergy (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.).
Islam in contrast is (relatively speaking) both individualistic (the conversation is between you and God), but in many ways it’s more community-based - religious practice through daily life.
When I hear religious hatred expressed towards Islam, I don’t take any action, and I respect free expression, but I think of my mother, grandmother, uncles, etc. - and I feel for them that such a basic part of their life is being denigrated by others.
I don’t believe protests should ever get violent, but I understand the sentiment behind why someone would protest, or feel that religious hatred should be banned. I believe it would be hard to draw the line between free expression and hate speech, but I also see the pointlessness of hateful speech. It doesn’t accomplish anything except to incite reprisals, and it does nothing to incite true debate. It doesn’t matter what religion you are talking about, religious hatred is mainly about pushing buttons to get a response, it’s almost never about true “debate”.
Which, in the context of religion, it’s mainly pointless to “debate” things because debates are about facts and opinions, and religions are mainly about sacred texts and believing things on faith. Most people raised Muslim will die Muslim, and the same is true of Christians, Jews, etc.
I gather that in Muslim countries, there is no absolute freedom of speech. So what? The lack of freedom of speech works against these countries in many ways-it allows political corruption to flourish, and prevents people from gaining a clear view of the world.
What puzzles me: if one chooses to be willfully ignorant, then you should accept the consequences, and not blame it on outside countries.
I disagree that you can’t make assumptions about the events listed. The outcome of the Chik-fil-A protests were predicable as well as the outcome of the protests against the movie. And while the world may consist of 20% Muslims, 90% of them live in Islamic countries.
I don’t see the distortion at all. The violence behind the protests in Islamic countries are as predictable as the violence in Chicago. They both have demographically identifiable groups and driving forces. One is based on religion and the other is based on gangs and drug sales.
You’ve pointed out in summary form the intrinsic problems that surround the Muslim religion. It has no distinct hierarchy capable of effecting real change. There are certainly rock stars within the religion who have larger than average flocks but there are no codified leaders.
And as you pointed out, the religion is interwoven in the fabric of the societies it is most practiced in. Therein lies the intensity of belief and the lack of knowledge about how the rest of the world lives.