Security guard injured in Texas Muhammed cartoon conference

They were drawing cartoons. ffs!

Whatever way you spin it, attacking them with violence is uncalled for regardless of possible outcome.

If this behaviour was to be expected, then why tolerate the Religion at all?

I would say people who murder over cartoons are a bigger threat to national security than anything else.

Hate Religion and I don't care much for it's followers sensibilities. Try joining the real world where sky fairies don't actually put food on your table.
 
dowie said:
but some of those beliefs upset people in the first place - like gay people, unmarried couples etc..

those beliefs are often offensive to them, telling them they're sinners and will burn in hell or that they should be punished

do they not have a right to reply?

If we're all for not offending people the surely you should, for the sake of consistency, get various religious leaders to alter their religions so as they're not offensive to begin with before you can really say that others shouldn't be offensive towards them.
Click to expand...

There's a couple of things here being mixed up and I don't know if you're doing it on purpose.

Go to my flag example. I think it's safe to say that most people would be offended if a man took a US flag and set it on fire in front of others on 4 July. Freedom of speech or not, that man would get abused at the very least. Now, I would say that while he is expressing his right to freedom of speech, it's clearly not appropriate because of the effect it would have on others unnecessarily and there's better ways of making a point (if there is one).
 
Raz said:
There's a couple of things here being mixed up and I don't know if you're doing it on purpose.

Go to my flag example. I think it's safe to say that most people would be offended if a man took a US flag and set it on fire in front of others on 4 July. Freedom of speech or not, that man would get abused at the very least. Now, I would say that while he is expressing his right to freedom of speech, it's clearly not appropriate because of the effect it would have on others unnecessarily and there's better ways of making a point (if there is one).
Click to expand...

that doesn't answer the question - these religions are inherently offensive to various groups - do they not have a right to reply? Should the religions be censored too? Plenty of Gay people would find what some Priests or Clerics would say about them very offensive for example.

You don't think these beliefs should be ridiculed yet these religions are making judgements about other people's lives - they're criticising gay people, unmarried couples calling them sinners, saying they'll burn in hell - that is pretty offensive too.

How can you talk about beliefs not being mocked and people not then getting offended when the beliefs themselves offend people as it is. Who has the right to offend and be offended? Is it OK to offend gays by labelling them as sinners but not ok to offend muslims by drawing their prophet?
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
Yes really, it's about being able to going against the grain and offend. After all the opposite view may offend someone. Ridicule and humour is one of the ways we deal with stupid ideologies.
Click to expand...

And is that the principle freedom of speech is based on? Forget truth, forget challenging corruption or letting those without a voice speak? There's a difference in offending someone through promoting truth and justice (high earners for example may find it 'offensive' that they should pay more taxes) and going out of your way to offend someone.

Drawing cartoons that mock the Prophet is pointless and a somewhat arrogant thing to do. Doesn't help anyone in the short or long term.

More victim blaming. You're arguing that we shouldn't challenge Islam in case they might kill someone.
Click to expand...

Well, it's interesting how people are affected more when it's personal -

Salman Rushdie - takes a swipe at the Prophet, Grand Shia Leader gives fatwa to have him killed.

Dawkins, Hitchens et al - deny God's existence and call religion evil - not much of a response (aside from a minor Saudi cleric's fatwa on Dawkins)
 
Last edited:
Raz said:
Drawing cartoons that mock the Prophet is pointless and a somewhat arrogant thing to do.
Click to expand...

telling people how they should live their lives, who they can sleep with, what they should eat is even more arrogant yet religious leaders do it all the time
 
Raz said:
Drawing cartoons that mock the Prophet is pointless and a somewhat arrogant thing to do. Doesn't help anyone in the short or long term.
Click to expand...

No, it highlights the absurdity of religion, that people will make death threats over a cartoon. It's also to show that we won't tolerate bully tactics by religious fanatics.

Raz said:
Well, it's interesting how people are affected more when it's personal -

Salman Rushdie - takes a swipe at the Prophet, Grand Shia Leader gives fatwa to have him killed.

Dawkins, Hitchens et al - deny God's existence and call religion evil - not much of a response (aside from a minor Saudi cleric's fatwa on Dawkins)
Click to expand...

Hitchens has spoken publicly about death threats and was offered protection when he gave speeches.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
I'm glad to say we live in a far more civilized country here where an event like this would have almost certainly been banned as it would have fallen foul of the sensible inciting racial/religious hatred laws that we have!

This whole horrible situation could have been avoided were it not for the idiots on both sides, all stuff like this does is cheapen human life :(
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious or stockholm syndrome or what?
 
So why do people do stuff utterly offensive to others "For the sake of it."

I understand that none of us Non muslims give a crap about drawing the guy. None of us probably even have beliefs so strong that we would be offended by anything, football supporters maybe get pretty upset about nonsense game results and some enjoy organised violence. I struggle to find anything in my life to get offended over to such an extent.

Is it decades capitalism that has eroded our ability to give a crap ?

The stupid dog analogy doesn't justify the actions of a clearly an insane minority but is anyone life going to be worse off if you don't draw a "funny" cartoon of some incredibly dead guy?

Im sure if you arranged a Stars and stripe flag burning in some hick parts of the US you could quite easily get yourself shot or hospitalised pretty easily ?

I'm all for the non islamification of the USA but how can a circle jerk of middle aged white cowboys drawings do anything constructive.

I guess im just a pussy and find conflict for the sake of it in the name of "whatever ideology" rather stupid.

Ugh so many typos - very tired :P
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
No, it highlights the absurdity of religion, that people will make death threats over a cartoon..
Click to expand...

Its not a cartoon, like a flag isnt just a bit of cloth.

if it was JUST a cartoon i don't think it would cause such afuss

Its very hard to get a similar analogy for normal british people.

God knows? crapping on a union jack at a soldiers funeral, slashing on a war memorial ? Im sure some people get riled by such things?
 
dowie said:
that doesn't answer the question - these religions are inherently offensive to various groups - do they not have a right to reply? Should the religions be censored too? Plenty of Gay people would find what some Priests or Clerics would say about them very offensive for example.

You don't think these beliefs should be ridiculed yet these religions are making judgements about other people's lives - they're criticising gay people, unmarried couples calling them sinners, saying they'll burn in hell - that is pretty offensive too.

How can you talk about beliefs not being mocked and people not then getting offended when the beliefs themselves offend people as it is. Who has the right to offend and be offended? Is it OK to offend gays by labelling them as sinners but not ok to offend muslims by drawing their prophet?
Click to expand...

And telling naturists that they need to cover up is offensive to them so lets change laws and let people do whatever they want so as not to offend them.

A slightly facetious reply from me there.
 
Raz said:
And telling naturists that they need to cover up is offensive to them so lets change laws and let people do whatever they want so as not to offend them.

A slightly facetious reply from me there.
Click to expand...

nah but it gets to the point.... lots of people find lots of different things 'offensive' trying to say that people shouldn't mock beliefs doesn't really work when those beliefs themselves are offensive to others

freedom of speech is protected, unfortunately for naturists freedom to go around naked isn't... though maybe in the future it perhaps should be - albeit with some hygiene rules in place re: bus/train seats
 
Tefal said:
but we don't ****ing shoot them.
Click to expand...

I don't, you dont, im sure thems some God fearing ultra patriotic EDL BNP ***** that if they had easy access to a gun would do it?

I don't think christianity tends itself to revenge killing mind you... but im sure with the right case of mentalness someone would have a go.
 
Efour said:
I don't, you dont, im sure thems some God fearing ultra patriotic EDL BNP ***** that if they had easy access to a gun would do it?

I don't think christianity tends itself to revenge killing mind you... but im sure with the right case of mentalness someone would have a go.
Click to expand...

And they'd be equally as unevolved as the Muslim idiots too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom