OT: So Much for Freedom

What do you expect from the French?
Are you refering to our own government?

Well, it appears the only religion you can openly mock, attack, oppress and ridicule is Christianity. All others are still considered politically incorrect.
Are you kidding, Americans have long lost the freedom to discuss issues and opinions because people's "feelings" might get hurt. Our forefathers have rolled over three times in their graves over this newest method of self-censorship.
I am sad for my children.

Pretty much.
Randy

Especially that in the Quran it says to kill anyone that's not a muslim if he refuses to convert... says it several times there too!
-- TAI FU

How do You feel about that?

exactly....I gues that means the Christians "more tolerant" than the others are?
shockie B)

AOL was invented so the rest of the internet would have a minority to constantly criticize.

I thought it also said to respect Jews and Christians. Why else did Caliph Umar insist that the three faiths of Abraham coexist?
I thought it also said that you shouldn't force your religion on others, that someone who converts under duress is not truly faithful.
I have no problem with the Muslims being upset. Just because someone asserts the "right" to say or do something that insults another group doesn't protect them from the wrath of the people they insult. It only becomes politically correct to ridicule a group if that group allows it.
Respecting another's beliefs doesn't mean you agree with them.

Yeah but do other religious groups do this when they're *offended*?
Just nuts...
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Perhaps as nuts as the civil rights riots in the 60's? If the caricatures were of famous black people, as example, and minorities demonstrated would that be seen as a blow against freedom?
Does this stifle justified criticism? Perhaps. I can see both sides. The cartoons in question make a strong point about terrorism in the name of religion. The reaction could hardly be a surprise to anyone who has read about Islam. Maybe that was the intent. To whip one side into a frenzy and call attention to the cartoons.

ATFE doesnt round people up in large numbers, they just do it quitely so no one notices...
-- TAI FU

Most muslims dont want any trouble or anything, but there are a lot of extreme people out there that actually believes that if they blew themselves up they will go to heaven.
-- TAI FU

Yep.
Not that I ever heard or have seen.
Randy

Well apparently the verses in the Koran that talked about being peaceful and non compulsion of religion was back when Muslims were being oppressed in Mecca. Then after Muhammad won his wars and stuff like that they started acting like they should convert people or die. Also note the Islamic law has special taxes for those that are not Muslim, and if you don't become Muslim under those law then you either pay the tax or die. Also the religion itself is very legalistic, it's do this or die or go to hell or whatever. They are obsessed with extreme punishment like cutting hands off for stealing. If the Islamic law gets enforced in the USA you can kiss the 8th amendment goodbye. It is disturbing that I saw on the newspaper of some Muslims holding a drawing of some Danish man (probably president/prime minister of Denmark) with some Muslims cutting his neck and sticking a sword in his mouth. Be very afraid of groups that advocates violence like that. It's funny people can call Jesus a fraud, deny the Bible, and no one really cares. The instant you say something about Muhammad or the Koran you get massive bomb threats and anger.
-- TAI FU

Well put Tai.
Randy

The Qu'Ran does speak about respecting "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians). But it also talks about killing infidels (all non-muslims) or forcefully converting them (see Tai Fu's comments later in this thread). Muslims are selective readers: peaceful Muslims choose the first verses and violent Muslim radicals choose the second. The current news stories (and 9/11, Cole, suicide bombers, anti-Jewish violence) about Muslm fanatics burning flags and embassies and calling for killing blasphemers (and they get to define blasphemy) clearly shows which group is most prominent.
I have no problem with Muslims being upset either, but violence destroys freedom. To imply as you do that violence is a legitimate expression of the wrath of these people is just plain wrong. These Muslims are not just upset; they are trying to force everyone else to agree with their religious understandings, and that I will not do. Muhammad was a human being and ridiculing a human being is not, by definition, blasphemy. To make his turban into the shape of a lit bomb as the cartoonist did was right because it showed how violence is being used and promoted by some Muslims. And the irony of these protestors is that they chose to protest using exactly the same violent methods the cartoon they are objecting to demonstrates. So was the cartoon true? Absolutely.
You also say "It only becomes politically correct to ridicule a group if that group allows it." That is false. Political correctness does not result from the reaction of a ridiculed group. Remember the "artist" whose "art" product was a crucifx of Jesus upside down in a jar of urine? That was blasphemy because Christians do consider Jesus to be divine. Sure Christians protested, but they didn't burn down art galleries and issue religious edicts calling for the killing of the "artist." On your view Christians seem to deserve to be be marginalized because they did not use violence to attempt to prevent it.
Then you write "Respecting another's beliefs doesn't mean you agree with them." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding because from the point of view of radical Muslims to respect Islam is to agree with it. That's the end purpose of these violent protests; to violently force us all to agree that saying anything negative (whether it's true or not) about Islam, Muhammad, or the Qu'ran is blasphemy punishible by death. Never underestimate the ends they are willing to go to in order to re-make the world with Islam in total control. It's not Bush, the Patriot Act, domestic surveilance, etc. that should be our first concern. Those are issues worth discussing later, but our first concern ought to be that we prevent the Islamic radicals from re-making the world as they want it. And because they use violence to promote their view, the only way to resist them is to use violence in return. That's called self-defense, and I believe our freedoms, limited or not, are worth defending. Larry Lobdell Jr.

Sorry, my other posting was also a response to Alex but that wasn't clear.
Alex Mericas wrote: This is too general. There were civil rights riots in the 60's but the most effective forces for change were the non-violent protests (not riots) led by Martin Luther King and others. And yes, there were plenty of unflattering caricatures of those leaders back then - much worse than Muhammad with a bomb for a turban. And most civil rights leaders, black and white alike, were the recipients of numerous death threats. Please take into consideration the differing goals. The civil rights protests had the goal of having blacks treated as human beings with the same rights, dreams, etc. as everyone else. The current violent Islamic protests have the goal of making everyone subject, one way or another, to Islam. The first was admirable, the second reprehensible.
I have no problem with demonstrations or protests, as long as they remain peaceful. But when the protests are violent and led by armed thugs, even if the protests are supposedly religious in nature, the major casuality will always be freedom.
BTW, the protests in question are not really about religion; they are about power and control. Anyone who doesn't think so should read carefully the words of the protest leaders. For them an Islamic caliphate should dominate the whole world. I am very afraid because most Westerners don't seem to understand that. Larry Lobdell Jr.

This is true but only to a point. It says something to the effect of, "slaughter the infidels wherever they may lurk...unless they pay their poor tax." Fundamentalists selectively interpret the phrase so that the "poor tax" part is excluded.
Mohammad preached that Jews and Christians were "people of the book" and should be treated with as much respect as Muslims.

Jesus never made anyone pay poor tax, he never advocated killing anyone. In his short ministry he has not taken a single life, but helped countless lives. He said "all you laber laden come unto me and I will give thee rest". Muhammad spent his whole life teaching, killing, concquering, and still can't compare to Jesus's short ministry. Muhammad thinks anyone that breaks the islamic law should be punished severly, like stoning and cutting hands off and all kinds of cruel practice. Jesus forgave the thief, the prostitude, and when he was on the cross he said to the thief that he shall be in heaven because he believed in him. Jesus rose from the dead, Muhammad is still dead. Jesus was executed as a criminal, yet he never did anything wrong, but Muhammad died a rich man, but I am sure he's done a lot of wrong!
-- TAI FU