Prophet Muhammad Controversy

[monza gorilla 1]

Well said, that man.

Interestingly, I find atheists to be the most tolerant people I have come across. Probably because they have no axe to grind, carry no baggage, and do not have their colours nailed to any particular mast.

[michelfx 0]

Well said, that man.

Interestingly, I find atheists to be the most tolerant people I have come across. Probably because they have no axe to grind, carry no baggage, and do not have their colours nailed to any particular mast.

The main problem with religeous beliefs is religious beliefs. They give you no choice in many cases and tell you that it's the only way. Everything else is immoral. LIVE AND LET LIVE

[Max Mosley 2]

[Clears throat]

[monza gorilla 1]

Dawkins being perhaps one you haven't come across yet? Pity - what a guy! On the whole I agree. Personally I suspect the reason is that tolerance is rational and atheists prize rationality above doctrine. Some of the kindest people I know are religious quasi-fanatics though.

I deliberately left him out. The exception that proves the rule? Other than the erudite but misguided Dawkins I stand by my statement.

[narain fan 0]

I'll take my chances, but thanks for the warning Murray..... but perhaps you'll put in a good word for us with your sky god??? You seem to be on more of a first name basis than I am, and I don't know how to reach him in any event.......

Murray, my point was not that Jem has anything particluar in common with the extremists (i.e. advocating violence of any kind, etc.), but rather that his response was more extremist and reactionary than it was thoughtful and tolerant. In that regard, I merely suggested it tended to demonstrate more in common with their viewpoint (i.e. thoughtless reactionism), not less (insightful reflection).

I assume that is a taunt..... and not intended as a genuine query? If not, and it was intended to stir sincere debate, I don't think the personal beliefs of the "inciter" could ever be proven, and as a result, should be irrelevant. But, whether such a law would (in general) be a good idea or not is another issue entirely....

Bravo!!!! Yet another of the enlightened among us!!!!!!

So you say..... but isn't that the nature of all art, its value vests entirely in the eye of the beholder???

So what? All caricatures are provocative in nature. Must speech first pass some sort of litmus test before you are prepared to defend the right of the speaker to express it? If so, what are your criteria, and who are you (or any of us for that matter) to pass judgement on which ideas and expression might be allowed for the good of mankind?

Here Here!!!!! Although I dont necessarily agree with how you came to your conclusion, I nevertheless wholeheartedly agree with you on that point Cav!!!!!!!!!

While I agree with your analysis that the West bears responsibility for the current climate that exists in the Middle East, I do not agree that this means that free speech should be curtailed because of an intolerance or preconditioned view that may exist within certain factions of the Muslim world. Although it is blasphemous for a Christian to take the Lord's name in vain (which is essentially the Christian equivalent of what is offending the protestors in this case), no one is suggesting that as an atheist I must censor myself to accomodate or amerliorate them. As a tolerant person, I respect the religious beliefs of Muslims, and encourage them to advocate on behalf of their religion, but I am not an adherent to their dogma, and so am not bound by their beliefs.

the same "french" editor who reprinted those cartoons was interviewed a few days back by an Indian News channel,and when he was specifically asked the question,"will you reprint such similar cartoons that the Iranians have promised to publish (cartoons of the christ) ,the answer was ,"I will not print anything "racist" or "offensive",and the cartoon we reprinted( a few months after the original cartoon appeared) was neither.....

so that man clearly is a fool ,and does not deserve to be defended by a a "rationalist"(like you )

Those who are offended by this cartoon must begin to understand that in this modern world, not everyone is going to respect thier religious beliefs, nor observe such prohibitions against depicting the prophet.

It is as simple as that. Gone are the days that resort to the sword will hold the day, and like it or not, the world is likely to become more tolerant of such things, not less.

[pumpdoc 2]

All religions are is a cult, sheep led by masters, people believing what someone tells them to believe or else, yada, yada, yada.....................................................

Oh yeah according to religion the world is only a few thousand years old, fossils be damned The great dino die-off 65 million years ago..........couldn't have happened, God haddn't created the universe yet...... come to church and pray, oh yeah make sure you give till it hurts..................

[funkejay 0]

Well said, that man.

ahhhh shucks..... thanks Monza!!!

Interestingly, I find atheists to be the most tolerant people I have come across. Probably because they have no axe to grind, carry no baggage, and do not have their colours nailed to any particular mast.

Personally I suspect the reason is that tolerance is rational and atheists prize rationality above doctrine. Some of the kindest people I know are religious quasi-fanatics though.

I think that you are both correct..... though I agree with Murray, I have met many true beleivers who are good, kind and decent people, though I cannot help but feel they must work harder to rationalize their beliefs with an open minded and tolerant world view.

"...If we are like you in the rest, we will

resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,

what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian

wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by

Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you

teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I

will better the instruction."

very wise words, to be sure......

Clearly you haven't reached out to Him with an open mind. I know many prejudiced atheists like yourself. Human arrogance is a common failing. One reaps what one sows though... Rest assured I have already informed the Almighty of your blasphemy.

While I appreciate the invitation Murray, I must humbly decline. Though I assure you, my mind remains open, as are my ears, eyes, and the balance of my senses, to any and all such possibilities. But, to be persuaded, takes more than mere whispers and imaginings....

the same "french" editor who reprinted those cartoons was interviewed a few days back by an Indian News channel,and when he was specifically asked the question,"will you reprint such similar cartoons that the Iranians have promised to publish (cartoons of the christ) ,the answer was ,"I will not print anything "racist" or "offensive",and the cartoon we reprinted( a few months after the original cartoon appeared) was neither.....

so that man clearly is a fool ,and does not deserve to be defended by a "rationalist" (like you )

Well, Narain, I must take you at your word, and if the French editor who reprinted the cartoons did indeed make that comment, he is no less a bigoted fool than anyone he might criticize. I am a tolerant man, but I have no patience for hypocricy.

[narain fan 0]

ahhhh shucks..... thanks Monza!!!

I think that you are both correct..... though I agree with Murray, I have met many true beleivers who are good, kind and decent people, though I cannot help but feel they must work harder to rationalize their beliefs with an open minded and tolerant world view.

very wise words, to be sure......

While I appreciate the invitation Murray, I must humbly decline. Though I assure you, my mind remains open, as are my ears, eyes, and the balance of my senses, to any and all such possibilities. But, to be persuaded, takes more than mere whispers and imaginings....

Well, Narain, I must take you at your word,

the interview was aired on Saturday at 20:00

local time ,as part of the weekly program "The big fight "

[narain fan 0]

Its clear to me now that Islam is all about killing. Muslims don't give a damn about the families of those innocent people who die

EDIT:// The views expressed herein are not necessarily those held by TotalF1.com blablabla Don't generalise too much though, mate. I'm sure we have members of the muslim faith here at the forums as well.

who wrote the "edit" message

[cavallino 2]

the interview was aired on Saturday at 20:00

local time ,as part of the weekly program "The big fight "

missed it, any reruns / webcast/ print reports?

[cavallino 2]

ahhhh shucks..... thanks Monza!!!

I think that you are both correct..... though I agree with Murray, I have met many true beleivers who are good, kind and decent people, though I cannot help but feel they must work harder to rationalize their beliefs with an open minded and tolerant world view.

very wise words, to be sure......

While I appreciate the invitation Murray, I must humbly decline. Though I assure you, my mind remains open, as are my ears, eyes, and the balance of my senses, to any and all such possibilities. But, to be persuaded, takes more than mere whispers and imaginings....

Well, Narain, I must take you at your word, and if the French editor who reprinted the cartoons did indeed make that comment, he is no less a bigoted fool than anyone he might criticize. I am a tolerant man, but I have no patience for hypocricy.

On the same note there have been reports that the same newspaper rejected cartoons on christianity. Not conclusive evidence of bigotry, but it leaves me with grave doubts about their 'innocence' in publishing those cartoons.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=25736 (reported in many other sources also, including reuters I think)

Interestingly, I find atheists to be the most tolerant people I have come across. Probably because they have no axe to grind, carry no baggage, and do not have their colours nailed to any particular mast.

Indeed it is wonderful to be free of prejudice when you see people struggling to overcome theirs to fit into the new world.

So you say..... but isn't that the nature of all art, its value vests entirely in the eye of the beholder???

So what? All caricatures are provocative in nature. Must speech first pass some sort of litmus test before you are prepared to defend the right of the speaker to express it? If so, what are your criteria, and who are you (or any of us for that matter) to pass judgement on which ideas and expression might be allowed for the good of mankind?

I prefer to make a separation between art for art's sake, and news journalism. ( I accept that many people who have protested especially the extremists would not draw that distinction. ) The reaction in India has been interesting since we have complete political freedom of press, and religious leaders, far right groups, religosity itself etc. are routinely criticized, the symbols of religion itself are out of bounds as far as such extreme satire is concerned. While I would love to have the ideal world scenario of freedom to say anything, I have decided to live with this, as have most if not all secular voices in India.

The negative reaction is not one of the reactions those cartoons have evoked, it is the only reaction they've evoked. Quoting the editor of India's leading newsmagazine ( a publication I consider to be comparable to Time magazine for those wanting to draw a parellal).

The present frenzy of protest over 12 trite Danish cartoons may be a huge over-reaction, but in today

[narain fan 0]

. Quoting the editor of India's leading newsmagazine ( a publication I consider to be comparable to Time magazine for those wanting to draw a parellal).

another interesting read

"Shekar Gupta"

[cavallino 2]

No Vinod Mehta, editor of Outlook, India's second best news magazine.

Shekhar Gupta is editor of Indian Express, India's second best newspaper

[narain fan 0]

No Vinod Mehta, editor of Outlook, India's second best news magazine.

are you refering to that guy wearing spectacles ,by any chance

[cavallino 2]

they both wear spectacles.

Vinod Mehta

Shekhar Gupta

[narain fan 0]

they both wear spectacles.

i did not mean "optical spectacles.but his "bias" .

S. G

AND even "Arun Purie"

are miles ahead of that Prick

[funkejay 0]

On the same note there have been reports that the same newspaper rejected cartoons on christianity. Not conclusive evidence of bigotry, but it leaves me with grave doubts about their 'innocence' in publishing those cartoons.

It's not about bigotry, innocence, or justifying the publication on some moral basis. I support the right of neo-nazis to publish their filth, despite my personal beliefs and feelings on the issue. So too would I support the right of any newspaper to publish any caricature they wish, whatever the motivation. Let the free market of ideas operate as it shall and winnow out those that have no "merit".

I prefer to make a separation between art for art's sake, and news journalism. ( I accept that many people who have protested especially the extremists would not draw that distinction. )

If you truly support freedom of speech and expression, there is no distinction to be made. By the attempt to draw such "separations", you ultimately only support the expression of speech which meets with your approval, and not that which meets with your disdain. In the final analysis, you end up advocating an arbitrary and hollow "freedom".

The reaction in India has been interesting since we have complete political freedom of press, and religious leaders, far right groups, religosity itself etc. are routinely criticized, the symbols of religion itself are out of bounds as far as such extreme satire is concerned. While I would love to have the ideal world scenario of freedom to say anything, I have decided to live with this, as have most if not all secular voices in India.

If you had "complete freedom of the press", then nothing would be "out of bounds" as you say. It is self evident that the existence of taboo topics in your homeland suggests that there is neither complete freedom of expression nor freedom of press. Having said that, there is no question that here in Canada, there are similar limits on the freedom of expression (i.e. so far only one publication in Canada has indicated they will publish the cartoon) - the difference being that I recognize those limitations, and strive to remove that yoke.

[narain fan 0]

If you truly support freedom of speech and expression, there is no distinction to be made. By the attempt to draw such "separations", you ultimately only support the expression of speech which meets with your approval, and not that which meets with your disdain. In the final analysis, you end up advocating an arbitrary and hollow "freedom".

.

it is not a question of support of freedom of speech on a personal basis,but to distinguish between what is permitted by the rule of law and what is not

[monza gorilla 1]

One assumes that these limits on freedom of expression, that you refer to, are self imposed?

So it is a case of choosing not to express the idea, rather than having this course of (in)action imposed by an outside influence. Then again I suppose you would argue that it is the outside influence which informs the choice in the first place.

[narain fan 0]

One assumes that these limits on freedom of expression, that you refer to, are self imposed?

So it is a case of choosing not to express the idea, rather than having this course of (in)action imposed by an outside influence. Then again I suppose you would argue that it is the outside influence which informs the choice in the first place.

no civilised society can allow an irate ,extremist mob to set an embassy building ablaze,whatever provocation may cause such an orchestrated act of violence .

[cavallino 2]

If you truly support freedom of speech and expression, there is no distinction to be made. By the attempt to draw such "separations", you ultimately only support the expression of speech which meets with your approval, and not that which meets with your disdain. In the final analysis, you end up advocating an arbitrary and hollow "freedom".

I'm not talking principles here, just practicality. Just as an example here's what I found about freedom of press in Canada.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?p...05&country=6710

Surely the following things violate your principle.

Defamatory libel and blasphemous libel are criminal offenses according to the federal criminal code.

As part of Canada's antiterror bill, the government adopted the Security of Information Act, which forbids unauthorized possession or communication of sensitive government documents.

In June, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a regulatory body, denied a broadcasting application renewal of a Quebec radio station, claiming it was broadcasting racist and sexist hate speech.

In July, the CRTC approved the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite network a license to broadcast in Canada, but only on the condition that the network be censored for anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content.

Media in Canada are generally free and express diverse views, though they sometimes exercise self-censorship in areas such as violence on television.

I don't know of a society mature enough to handle complete freedom of press, and I am not sure if people as a whole are mature enough to either.

Edit: sorry missed your comments about Canada earlier. Well then I guess the difference is you strive to remove those limits, whereas the society here needs to change before such limits could be removed.

As for India, societies take time to change unfortunately, especially one carrying a huge baggage of religion. Publishing of something of that kind would lead to a situation similar to what happened in Lebanon etc. The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India. So if those cartoons insulted Muslims, the violence would be curtailed. However if they insulted Hindus, people will die. Thousands or even more .

So in the interest of peace I support limits which do not inhibit a legitimate purpose.

no civilised society can allow an irate ,extremist mob to set an embassy building ablaze,whatever provocation may cause such an orchestrated act of violence .

No civilised society would allow something like Gujarat to happen (In 2002 over 2000 Muslims weer massacerd in communal riots in India). No civilised society would allow Abu Ghraib to happen (more images released today). Its not all black and white..

[narain fan 0]

I'm not talking principles here, just practicality. Just as an example here's what I found about freedom of press in Canada.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?p...05&country=6710

Surely the following things violate your principle.

I don't know of a society mature enough to handle complete freedom of press, and I am not sure if people as a whole are mature enough to either.

Edit: sorry missed your comments about Canada earlier. Well then I guess the difference is you strive to remove those limits, whereas the society here needs to change before such limits could be removed.

As for India, societies take time to change unfortunately, especially one carrying a huge baggage of religion. Publishing of something of that kind would lead to a situation similar to what happened in Lebanon etc. The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India. So if those cartoons insulted Muslims, the violence would be curtailed. However if they insulted Hindus, people will die. Thousands or even more .

So in the interest of peace I support limits which do not inhibit a legitimate purpose.

No civilised society would allow something like Gujarat to happen (In 2002 over 2000 Muslims weer massacerd in communal riots in India). No civilised society would allow Abu Ghraib to happen (more images released today). Its not all black and white..

in no civilised society would a train burn in broad daylight

[narain fan 0]

Edit: sorry missed your comments about Canada earlier. Well then I guess the difference is you strive to remove those limits, whereas the society here needs to change before such limits could be removed.

As for India, societies take time to change unfortunately, especially one carrying a huge baggage of religion. Publishing of something of that kind would lead to a situation similar to what happened in Lebanon etc. The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India. So if those cartoons insulted Muslims, the violence would be curtailed. However if they insulted Hindus, people will die. Thousands or even more .

So

M.F Hussain has made it his solemn duty to "paint" offensive portrayals of a certain "people".he still has veer sanghvi defending him in national T.V. what "political clout are u talking about.people as a whole in india enjoy "civil liberties" that "muslims in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ,"(it is not a derogatory remark invented by me ,but this is how Pakistan "calls " itself ),especially in the Sindh,NWFPand baluchistan,even the "northern areas"

The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India

I think you are unaware of the "vote bank" and Fatwa politics prevalent in this country,though i much prefer "a certain" section of society does not enjoy any special "Clout",and all are treated equally,and condemn such "clout" and muscle display by a few.

[cavallino 2]

M.F Hussain has made it his solemn duty to "paint" offensive portrayals of a certain "people".he still has veer sanghvi defending him in national T.V. what "political clout are u talking about.people as a whole in india enjoy "civil liberties" that "muslims in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ,"(it is not a derogatory remark invented by me ,but this is how Pakistan "calls " itself ),especially in the Sindh,NWFPand baluchistan,even the "northern areas"

As I recall M. F. Hussain was made to apologise for painting Indian goddesses in the nude and many of his paintings were destroyed by Shiv Sainiks. See what I mean about political clout? Remember the SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India ) was banned. Seen anything like that happen to right wing Hindu groups. Saw how that b#####d got away brazenly breaking laws and putting human remains in medicines.

The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India

I think you are unaware of the "vote bank" and Fatwa politics prevalent in this country,though i much prefer "a certain" section of society does not enjoy any special "Clout",and all are treated equally,and condemn such "clout" and muscle display by a few.

Ok they do not have political clout of the same magnitude. They don't rule a state which they can use as a laboratory for fundamentalist Islam.

in no civilised society would a train burn in broad daylight

Obviously What's your point? Are you promoting the action and reaction theory? That the riots were 'inevitable'? Fancy a Gandhian saying that, followers of the one person who could have stopped them.

[narain fan 0]

As I recall M. F. Hussain was made to apologise for painting Indian goddesses in the nude and many of his paintings were destroyed by Shiv Sainiks.

this is not the first and only time ,i am refering to his repeated "paintings" that have been auctioned in the past some ,he claims went as donations to Ngo's , he pocketed the rest

See what I mean about political clout? Remember the SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India ) was banned.

thats what you get for having links with the ISI(inter service intelligence) organisational wing of the Pak army

Seen anything like that happen to right wing Hindu groups. Saw how that b#####d got away brazenly breaking laws and putting human remains in medicines.

Brinda Karat is the last person to believe and use as a source on such matters.the "central govt" lab tested the medicines and found no human remains.infact it is some "alopathic " drugs that contain Gelatin(obtained from human bones) ,without even "mentioning" it in the cover.

Ok they do not have political clout of the same magnitude. They don't rule a state which they can use as a laboratory for fundamentalist Islam.

you are the one promoting the action and reaction theory here .

Obviously What's your point? Are you promoting the action and reaction theory? That the riots were 'inevitable'?Fancy a Gandhian saying that, followers of the one person who could have stopped them.

you dont know about the proactive role played by me to control rioting after "bomb blasts" shook my city ,some time back .this is not a boast ,just want to tell you ,dont twist and use sentences and "phrases" like Gandhian" according" to your needs and fancies.

it was only yesterday,you called me "stupid ideal world junkies "