| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: | What this is *really* about is right here: "Pretty much all of them will leave you alone if you leave them alone and don't publish cartoon that make fun of their beliefs."
This isn't about respect. It's about fear. |
Since you are choosing to misinterpret the intention behind my statement, let me just say that I have never been afraid of offending the Judeo-Christian religions (and that includes Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity). Just look at my game Lightslayer, where the player must fight - and kill - the Judeo-Christian "god" in order to win the game. However, I'm not going to cry foul if some religious groups take offense with the game. (I'm actually rather disappointed that this hasn't happened yet.) It's my fight, I picked it, and I'm going to see it through to the end.
If you pick a fight with someone, don't be surprised if that someone fights back. That's not fear; that's not even respect; that's just basic common sense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ninkazu
Demon Hunter
Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 945
Location: Location:
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
I'm almost at the part of One Piece where Luffy beats the fuck out of God.
It's gonna KICK ASS. Pirates... killing God... what could be more satisfying?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
It would be unfair to those reading and judging the argument if I did not note that I am Muslim, and have been for many years. You now know where I stand, but also where I have experience to guide me. Sorry for not noting it before my first post.
| Rimpoche wrote: | | I had not wanted to wade back into this, because I realized that some people will excuse all things anti-Western. But since you had the gall to call me ignorant on this, I figured I should respond. |
Still others will excuse all things Western. Pick your poison.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
1) There is no prohibition in the Qu'ran on the depiction of Mohammad. Rather, subsequent teachings of certain groups of Muslims have prohibitted it, or not. Even a cursory look at Muslim religious art shows hundreds of pictures of Mohammad, particularly in Persia and in Mughal (Mogul) India.
|
Perhaps I was mistaken then. The newspaper article you read this in is ignorant. Not teachings, rulings (fatwa(s)). These Persian depictions are very old Shi'a (they are upset too) in origin, whereas the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
2) The classic prohibition is on depicting animate beings, i.e., all animal life, including all human beings, for fear that such depictions could lead to idolatry. Therefore, it is no less "offensive" to the creed to depict Mickey Mouse, regardless of whether it is more offensive to the ummah. (You seem to realize this, though not the implications of it, when you write, "Who are you to believe that you are capable of reproducing this divinity?" Would you therefore ban all representative art?) |
There are some who do draw that conclusion- all representative art should be banned. You will not find any on almost all Mosques for this reason. Do all Muslims believe this way? Not for day-to-day life, but some times and places are sacred.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
3) To the extent you want to narrow the taboo so that it only applies to Muslim patriarchs and prophets, it still would encompass, e.g., Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, all of whom are constantly depicted. Kanye West's recent Rolling Stone cover, for example, clearly violates the taboo. Certainly the depiction of God himself on, e.g., the Sistine Chapel, would violate the taboo. Ought that to be sandblasted? |
That's a very leading question. They are constantly depicted, but that does not mean Muslims condone it.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
4) However, the prohibition was one placed upon the faithful, i.e., so that the faithful would not become idolaters. Those non-Muslims who were not to be exterminated (i.e., "people of the book") were exempted from Muslim holy laws as long as they paid the jizya. |
Jizya was only ever used in "Muslim" countries, and only for the able-bodied men of military age who were in said country for protection. Monks, hermits, and women were/are exempt. Please cite direct references (Sura 9, ayat 29).
| Rimpoche wrote: |
5) Your distinction between "prophets" and "leaders" is a false one, as all of the prophets were, historically, "leaders." The accretion of glory over time has made them more prominent, of course. But under your theory, is the Dalai Lama a "leader" or a "prophet"? What about Bahalluh? The Pope? |
Careful with your logic- all prophets are leaders, but not all leaders are prophets.
I think you mean Baha'allah.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
Anyway, I can't tell exactly what your "argument" is -- other than that Muslims are exempt from criticism. Is it that Western cultures cannot offend Muslims by violating Islamic law? If so, what's doing the work there, the law or the offense? Because we violate Islamic law all the time -- eating bacon, not executing gays, not taxing Christians and Jews, not fasting on Ramadan, etc. If those were causes for rioting, would the West then have to accede? What if there were worldwide Muslim protests about Brokeback Mountain being shown in Europe. Ought it to be banned? Why not? It depicts animate beings, it depicts the violation of another Muslim holy law (the prohibition on sodomy), it is full of blasphemous expressions ("God damn it!"), etc.
If what you're saying is that Muslims have what is commonly refered to as a "heckler's veto" over the Western media, why limit it to Muslims? How do you handle, for example, "Piss Christ," which was clearly vastly more offensive than "Bombturban Mohammad" by any measure? (Can you imagine the riots if this had been Piss Mohammad?) Should that be, if not banned, then never released as a matter of good taste?
Moreover, as you say, "[t]here are well over 1 billion Muslims living throughout the world. A very few of them are protesting . . . ." You add "violently," but you could just as well add "at all." What of the Muslims who believed the cartoons *should* be published, such as the Jordanian newspaper editors who ran the cartoons and have now been imprisoned? What if only 100M Muslims are offended, but 900M aren't? Do the 100M dictate how the West should treat Muslims? Why 100M, and not 10M? And I can certainly muster you 100M conservative Christians who would demand much more reverence for Christ in Europe than He currently receives. Why don't they get to dictate how Europe treats Christianity?
|
Can you cite where any of this stuff was released in Muslim countries without censure?
Ok, but this is extrapolation without example of where these things have happened. They are not dictating or legislating. They are reserving the right to protest. They are reserving the right to boycott.
Actually, the Cardinal archbishop of Lyon and the Grand Rabbi in Paris have come out in support of the Muslims. Right above the last paragraph [link]
Pretty sure most were offended, most are from the silent moderate majority, but this has offended even the moderates. (I know I was)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
You write, "Seems that perhaps the Europeans don't understand that we are free to do many things, as long as we do not encroach on the freedom of others."
What freedom has been encroached by the cartoons? The freedom from offense? Since when is that a freedom? Certainly the right to *practice* Islam is in now way threatened by the cartoons, any more than Kanye West or Piss Christ or South Park prevents American Christians from practicing their faith.
What this is *really* about is right here: "Pretty much all of them will leave you alone if you leave them alone and don't publish cartoon that make fun of their beliefs."
This isn't about respect. It's about fear. |
I'll leave the freedom part alone. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, you're right about that last part. It's about how much the "West" is ready to fear what it does not understand.
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rimpoche
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
[]
Last edited by Rimpoche on Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:30 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Geeze, take off your tinfoil hat for a second! God, I can't stand it when I see Americans becoming unpatriotic. Yeah, let's blame the government...
Way to let the terrorists win.
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoDraco
Demon Hunter
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 584
Location: Riverside, South Cali
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:35 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | Geeze, take off your tinfoil hat for a second! God, I can't stand it when I see Americans becoming unpatriotic. Yeah, let's blame the government...
Way to let the terrorists win. |
With the current idiotic regime in place, it is somewhat difficult to not blame the government...
And who let Galbalan back in?
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake
Last edited by LeoDraco on Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:15 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ninkazu
Demon Hunter
Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 945
Location: Location:
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| LeoDraco wrote: | | NyanNyanKoneko wrote: | Geeze, take off your tinfoil hat for a second! God, I can't stand it when I see Americans becoming unpatriotic. Yeah, let's blame the government...
Way to let the terrorists win. |
With the current idiotic regime in place, it is somewhat difficult to not blame the government... |
The Treasury Secretary under Reagan just admitted that he thought the omission report was suspicious. There are ex-CIA officials, retired generals and many other credible sources that have given their expert opinion that the government was lying about 9/11. Read the report. Then read a chemistry textbook. Which is fact?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: Actually.... |
[quote] |
|
Actually, I was thinking about the pentagon hit. As a pilot, I know it's really hard to keep a certain altitude. Like normal flight, I'll waver by at least 200 feet or more from where I "should be." Maybe the Boeings could descend into the buildings, but I don't see how they could maintain a 0 degree glide path into the building from the ground.
First of all, airplanes lose and gain lift all the time. In fact, many times over the runway, I've dropped (thankfully, the landing gear was OK with that). Now, I fly much smaller aircraft, but I fly in 777s a lot and notice quite a bit (if not more) spontanious loss of lift. A couple flights ago, we skipped on the runway a few times, which everyone mumbled that we had a bad pilot, but it was actually just a sudden drop of pressure over the runway. And more recently, a 777 I was on lost all lift all together and dropped for about 2 and 1/2 seconds in midflight. Despite the size of Boeings, they still have to comform to the laws of thermodynamics. You can't fly inches over the ground at 400+ knots. EDIT: At least not with that kind of low wing configuration. EDIT 2: Now that I think about it, as certified pilots, they might have comformed to class E, G, and B airspace restrictions and gone around 150-200 knots.... but who knows.
Second of all, in order to hit the pentagon the way it was supposed to, it would have been piloted VFR (visual flight rules). Boeings almost always work on IFR (instrument flight rules) and make VOR/DME landings and approaches (otherwise known as ILS). In order to hit dead center like that, the pilots would have had to have been dead lucky, or had help. If the pentagon had an ILS (instrument landing system) installed on a secure channel to guide the aircraft in, it might have been possible to have such a precision strike, but with VFR only, they would have at the very least skidded on the ground and hit the building all wrong.
Looking at how the other Boeings hit the towers, you can tell they were flying VFR by the fact that they were, for the most part, indirect hits that occured while making bank / pitch adjustments. From the videos I saw, the Pentagon hit was a bit too well flown for someone who has never flown a large commuter before without instrument guidance.
_________________
INFP
Last edited by NyanNyanKoneko on Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ninkazu
Demon Hunter
Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 945
Location: Location:
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
That and the lack of the plane, lack of ground damage, the lamp posts that were supposedly damaged by the plane being in the wrong direction, the smell of cordite in the building, witnesses saying they heard a bomb...
Lots of stuff there.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:14 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
I can't find the video that proves this, but if you slam and aircraft fast enough into reinforced concrete, it will dissinigrate. And that would sound, smell, and feel like a bomb. I don't know how the circular holes were made though, maybe by wall debris.
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:14 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: | | Quote: | | Perhaps I was mistaken then. The newspaper article you read this in is ignorant. Not teachings, rulings (fatwa(s)). These Persian depictions are very old Shi'a (they are upset too) in origin, whereas the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni. |
You are mistaken if you think the Qu'ran fobirds depicting the prophet. |
Have you ever read it? Anyway, this is not just based on the Quran, but also several Hadith.
| Rimpoche wrote: | | As for the status of fatwas, they are "teachings" more than "rulings" in that they have no authority save the deference people grant them. Since Islam is non-hierarchical, you cannot have "ruling" that controls anyone's practice, except where you have neo-Caliphate theocracies, as in Iran. That's why you have conflicting fatwas. |
Then define teaching and ruling. They are, as far as I am aware, the theological equivalent of a considered legal opinion.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | That's a very leading question. They are constantly depicted, but that does not mean Muslims condone it. |
The fact that you refuse to answer makes it obvious where you fall on the issue. If it came to pass that most Muslims were offended by the Sistine Chapel's ceiling, should it be sandblasted or not? And if not, what's the distinction between that and the cartoon? The fact that the Sistine Chapel is fancier? More beloved? What crude utilitarian logic. |
Actually, the fact that I refuse to answer means that I didn't answer. Were the cartoons stricken from the public record of humanity? Will they ever be or will the majority of Muslims ever call for it? No. Nor would most ever call for the Sistine Chapel to be defaced.
(I don't know what you meant, utilitarian is the wrong word)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Jizya was only ever used in "Muslim" countries, and only for the able-bodied men of military age who were in said country for protection. Monks, hermits, and women were/are exempt. Please cite direct references (Sura 9, ayat 29). |
Cite what for direct references? My point was that Islamic law doesn't apply to non-Muslims, even under Islamic law itself. Therefore this isn't just a practical, "We're not under sharia yet, so we can get away with it." The cartoonists, not being Muslims, broke neither a Qu'ranic instruction nor a fatwa, since neither is binding on them. So what sacrilege was there? |
You're right, it doesn't apply to non-Muslims. And? What they did, despite what anyone else did, was disrespectful. It is sacrilegous to the people whom practice the religion that is being caricatured, even if the caricatuers(sp?) are not of that religion.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Can you cite where any of this stuff was released in Muslim countries without censure? |
First off, these "outraged" protests took months to stage -- the cartoons were published in September of last year. So this is not a spontaneous eruption. Second, the materials distributed by the rabble-rousers included forged cartoons (two fake ones) that were particularly offensive, neither of which actually depicted Mohammad (one depicted a man with a pig nose, the other a dog fornicating with a Muslim at prayer). Hence, the purported religious justification would not even apply. Third, I've heard of no protests in the Emirates, but I honestly haven't been keeping a scorecard.
|
Why does everyone forget the Norwegian paper that republished them in January? That's what started the protests. You're right, the "rabble-rousers" did make a tour, and if fell largely on deaf ears. The Arab ministers who did take action and asked to talk with Rasmussen were refused. The last straw was Magazinet.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'll leave the freedom part alone. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. |
How in the world does the publication of twelve cartoons in a regional newspaper in a distant country affect the ability to "pursue happiness" in Syria? The fact that something makes you unhappy does not mean it's taken away your ability to be happy.
|
Um.... I'm pretty sure being unhappy means I'm not being happy.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
For example, every Muslim country routinely publishes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, vile anti-Semitic cartoons, anti-American tracts, etc. But no one in Dubuque (or even Tel Aviv) is saying that this prevents them from being happy. Eastern and Western societies have learned to live with criticism. Why can't the ummah?
|
Do these include prophets? There is no real "Ummah", because there is not widely recognized Caliphate.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
And how two-faced and repulsive is it to talk about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a justification for protests with signs like, "Be prepared for the REAL Holocaust" or "Europe, your 9/11 is coming!"
How shameless to talk about liberty when, for example, Jihad Momani and Hisham Khalidi -- Muslim men -- are now in jail for having dared to suggest that Muslims ought not to burn embassies and throw hand grenades over a cartoon?
Now I should back up and say this: the cartoons are fairly puerile and no doubt somewhat offensive, though less offensive by an enormous measure than the daily indignities Christians in America are forced to endure in the mass media or that Jews suffer in the pages of Muslim newspapers or that Buddhists suffered when two of their magnificent statues were smashed to dust by the Taliban. As a matter of practice, I think offending people is wrong and offending people on their faith is worse.
|
You know, I do not believe those signs are any more right than you do, and most of the people in Arabic countries carrying anything with English on it don't even know what it means. Someone just said "emsik hi" (Hold this).
Shameless? Did I put those men in jail? Have you read my other posts on this forum? I myself have quoted Voltaire when admins have removed posts they didn't like. I have argued not to remove flame threads, but only to lock them. People have a right to their opinion. But people have a right to oppose it too.
Then the Christians need to get out and protest too. The Muslims can't protest for everybody- we're busy enough. It's not Jews, it's the Zionists. What the Taliban did was atrocious, and it was more than two. Even the local Afghans attempted to stop the Taliban, but they were told to shut up or be shut up.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
But the cartoons were themselves a protest, a protest over how Muslims in Europe, particularly in the Benelux states, had effectively silenced critics through threats of violence or through the perpetration of violence. The corpse of Theo van Gogh, killed for his film-making, is testament to that. (When was the last time a film-maker was killed for criticisizing Buddhists, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Christians?) And I believe that sometimes it is necessary to do something abrasive to show that you have the right to abrade.
|
What happened to Theo was not a consensus of Muslims. It was one nutcase. Silencing critics is wrong, but it was not Muslims at large, and it certainly was not the Prophet(saws) who attempted to do so. Can you link me to the last mainstream movie you saw that was critical of Christians, or showed them as the terrorists or the bad guys?
| Rimpoche wrote: |
Muslims daily write the most vile slanders against Jews, especially, in the same state-run newspapers that now are claiming that Europe must curb its freedom of press to avoid offending Muslims. The threat is no longer implicit: appease our sensibilities or we will engage in terrorism against you. But, don't expect us to curb our own: Iran is running Holocaust cartoons to go along with its Holocaust-denying symposium.
|
Two things here: your justification for doing evil is "other people are doing evil, so I should too", and why are you lumping everyone together with the Iranians- you who are so worldly?
| Rimpoche wrote: |
If all the protesters had said was, "We will boycott Danish goods unless you change your ways," not only would I have joined them in denouncing the cartoons, I would've joined them in boycotting the products. Boycotts are the way civilized people react to offense.
|
I have refused to boycott Danish goods. That is collective punishment, and I will not take part in it.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
Petrol bombs and hand grenades and vows to "behead anyone who insults the prophet" are the way savages respond. I certainly don't think Islam is savagery or that most Muslims are savages, but when a self-proclaimed "moderate" like yourself can bring himself only to criticize cartoonists and not those threatening genocide, I can't help but wonder if I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt. |
Interesting, but you don't know whether I have criticized them or not based solely on that fact that I am debating with you. Savages also blindly attack anyone who looks like the person that inflicted some wound on them or their ego.
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rimpoche
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
[]
Last edited by Rimpoche on Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: | | Yes, I have read the Qu'ran. It has the virtue of brevity compared to either the Bible or the major Talmuds. Have you read the Talmuds? The Bible? The Vedas? |
Well, best two out of three, plus the Baghavad Gita, and the Tao of Lao Tzu. You really need to know the Sunnah too, it goes along with the Quran as one of the five pillars.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
I have not read the Hadith, but I'd love to see your source this assertion. The Qu'ran recounts the destruction of the idols of the Israelites during the Exodus, but there's certainly no especial limit on depicting Mohammad. |
Ah yes. Sorry, [link] Note they specifically relate to a prophet (Ibrahim).
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Nor would most ever call for the Sistine Chapel to be defaced. |
Why not? It is a huge depiction of God, one that is actually idolatry inducing (look at the way that depiction is "worshiped" by visitors). Or have you never seen it?
Apparently you don't know what utilitarianism is. Sorry. It bases moral judgments on a weighing of costs and benefits (depending on what the type of utilitarianism is, those costs and benefits have various measures). A consistent ideology would say, "The depictions of God are an offense and must be destroyed" or "People have a right to depict god and we will honor that without chopping off heads." But drawing distinctions between depictions based on how beautiful they are seems totally antithetical to a consistent ideology, unless your ideology is utilitarian.
|
Well, according to your definition, all one can really do under utilitarianism is attribute a value to preserving the depiction, and a value to removing it, and then try to strike a balance between the two extremes.
That Webster guy says about the same. [link]
The argument is not over the Sistine Chapel. You put forth a comparison argument: saying that the depictions are wrong in Islam (specifically these cartoons) is like saying the Sistine Chapel depiction of God should be sandblasted.
Your argument is inherently flawed on at least two points: saying a cartoon in a paper should not be reprinted is not the same as saying a priceless one-of-a-kind artifact should be destroyed. Also, you specifically use the depiction of God, whereas the cartoons had Muhammad (saws).
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | It is sacrilegous to the people whom practice the religion that is being caricatured, even if the caricatuers(sp?) are not of that religion. |
Sacreligious under what theory? It is not sacrilege for a non-Muslim to eat pork. Why is it sacrilege for them to draw Mohammad?
|
No, eating pork only hurts the eater- it is a private matter of the eater. Cartoons in a newspaper are not personal, but public in nature.
To be fair, I don't think that the Sunday edition editor really understood the gravity of his decision before he made it.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The fact that something makes you unhappy does not mean it's taken away your ability to be happy. |
Um.... I'm pretty sure being unhappy means I'm not being happy. |
Let me try to clarify for you, since you seem to be missing the distinction. Eating hardboiled eggs makes me unhappy. But eating hardboiled eggs does not deprive me of my ability to be happy. Certainly, the fact that a restaurant is [/i]selling hardboiled eggs doesn't take away my ability to be happy.
Cartoons of Mohammad printed halfway across the world don't take away the ability of someone in Syria to be happy. (The Assad regime does, but that's neither here nor there.) So don't pretend that this is a conflict between "the right to pursue happiness" and "the freedom of expression." This is a conflict between "the right to never be offended" and the freedom of expression.
|
If you are unhappy eating hardboiled eggs, then you are not happy while eating them. If one is unhappy these cartoons were printed, then they will probably remain so as long as papers reprint them.
Who really believes that their outward actions cannot genuinely affect others?
You know, it's really hard to contain you to the issue at hand. What does Bashar al-Assad really have to do with this discussion?
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Do these include prophets? |
Why does that matter? Jews and Christians don't freak out over depictions of their prophets the way Muslims do. They do get upset over, e.g., someone claiming that they should all be exterminated. (Who'd've thunk it?)
|
Why does it matter? That's the whole deal, man. Why are you using what Christians and Jews are doing as an argument? So they have forgotten what it is to standup for what they believe- why is that my problem? In reading the Quran you may have noticed that it is an obligation of the Muslims to at least try to help the peoples of the book to remember their roots.
Yes, I often hear people saying "We ought to just nuke all those ragheads." I get upset over that too. (And I only wear a toque)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
| Quote: | | Can you link me to the last mainstream movie you saw that was critical of Christians, or showed them as the terrorists or the bad guys? |
The villains in Zorro II are Christian terrorists. Kingdom of God featured cruel Christian crusaders facing off against the noble Islamic Saladdin. The television show Book of Daniel featured a crisis-of-faith Christian who gets instructed by Jesus that Christians are wrong about a host of issues (gays, abortion, etc.). Will & Grace is featuring Britney Spears as a stupid, backwards Christian celebrity chef who cooks up "crucifixin's." Christians constantly complain that Hollywood depicts them as stupid and backward.
|
I haven't seen Zorro II (hate sequels), and I'm waiting for KoG to come out on video. Can't really speak to them yet.
Hate to burst your bubble, but stupid and backward, while bad, are not violent and unrelenting.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
But out of curiosity, how was "Submission" mainstream?
If we're looking at [i]Muslim films, of course, how about "Valley of the Wolves," the highest budget Turkish film ever made, which features Gary Busey as a Jewish doctor who harvests organs from prisoners at Abu Ghraib to send to Tel Aviv and New York? Or how about the Egyptian state TV doing a theatrical Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
|
True, Submission wasn't the mainstream here.
I can't speak to this, because I've never heard of them. Sounds horrible though. But again, did they include anything about prophets? You know, not everyone in Arab countries is Muslim, so please don't call them Muslim films, they are Turkish or Arabic or Persian or Indonesian, Pakistani (etc.) films. Each of these can not understand eachother's native languages, so that may be why I didn't hear of the Turkish one. I don't watch Egyptian state TV- too political, not enough comedy. Luckily it's not the only Egyptian channel.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
Anyway, it's obvious that you've wholly imbibed the kool-aid of victomology and that further debate isn't doing much good.
|
Where do you read that in what I have written? I'm not a victim, nor do I ever want to be. I do like me some koolaid, though. (and pants)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
I appreciate, as a last note, your inability to refer to the murder of Theo van Gogh. Rather you talk about "what happened" to him and the "silencing" of him. That's cute. Almost as good as "Zionists." |
Look, if you have any questions about what I thought of that, ask Bjorn. We talked about it the day it happened (or perhaps slightly thereafter). Whatever his opinion may be of how I reacted to that crime, I will willing be judged by it.
Well, if further debate will not do much good, then so be it. I find your argument style generally commendable, and I think most RPGDXers can appreciate that you stayed on topic and didn't make a flame war out of it. Hopefully next time we'll be on the same side of the argument. ;)
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NyanNyanKoneko
Wandering Minstrel
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
_________________
INFP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rimpoche
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
[]
Last edited by Rimpoche on Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
