[chipbennett]

aahmed753 said:

You have only one point, to throw your negative idea about Islam in every way you can. Don't believe me? read all of your earlier comments. I don't mind criticism, but if you are going to criticize something this big without any reference or knowledge, make sure you have the nuts and bolts to handle the truth and the reality.

Again, if you truly believe that an 11 year old girl is mentally, physically, and emotionally prepared for marriage, then you have very much proven my point.

Regardless, no further discussion along these lines is needed.

[rsultan]

First off let me thank chipbennett for his insightful analysis. It's fresh to read another perspective void of slander and profanity. That having been said I've agreed with more or less with your points, but had reservations about the comment below...

>On the other side of the coin, however, those universal societal
standards must be applied to the second part of the develpment of
mutual respect: choosing not to be offended by that which one would
otherwise find offensive...Likewise, Muslims must choose not to be offended by the work of a Dutch
cartoonist, or of a snippet of Quaran quotes in a song in a video game.

I don't believe it is for anyone group to dictate a standard of what should and should not be tolerated by another group. If Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek and not be offended even when comes to core beliefs then all the power to it. The problem in your statemen begins you believe that all other beliefs/viewpoints should conform to the same teachings. In Islam God and belief in His Messengers (including Jesus) are considered pillars of faith. One cannot be Muslim and not believe in Jesus, mind you not as the son of God. The Dutch Newspaper used freedom of speech to pursue their agenda of printing offensive cartoons regarding the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims have the right to use the same freedom of speech to be offended. However, this freedom of expression ends when violence is inflicted upon others as a response. In the Dutch example a tiny fraction of Muslims decided to pursue violence, however the overwhelming Muslim response was to boycott Danish product. This is yet another avenue of invoking freedom of speech, peacefully and civilly.

[aahmed753]

You also want me to believe that a 30 years old women also has state of NOT being "ready" for marrige. you probably don't mind if I also believe that a 11 years old girl CAN have few boyfriends and CAN go through all emotional, physical relationship with him as well. And you would want me to believe that if she misses her period, well, abortion is in order.

There is difference between something is prohibited and something is allowed. If a religion prohibit something, then it is also claiming that in no cases in humanity such prohibited action would "require". But if something is allowed, then in certain situation, cases, it can be applied. Women in your country at age 11 plays with boys, and women in other poor countries, they work they bones off to provide for their family. Take things in proper context and wake up.

[coastie65]

rsultan said:

First off let me thank chipbennett for his insightful analysis. It's fresh to read another perspective void of slander and profanity. That having been said I've agreed with more or less with your points, but had reservations about the comment below...



> On the other side of the coin, however, those universal societal
standards must be applied to the second part of the develpment of
mutual respect: choosing not to be offended by that which one would
otherwise find offensive...Likewise, Muslims must choose not to be offended by the work of a Dutch
cartoonist, or of a snippet of Quaran quotes in a song in a video game.

I don't believe it is for anyone group to dictate a standard of what should and should not be tolerated by another group. If Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek and not be offended even when comes to core beliefs then all the power to it. The problem in your statemen begins you believe that all other beliefs/viewpoints should conform to the same teachings. In Islam God and belief in His Messengers (including Jesus) are considered pillars of faith. One cannot be Muslim and not believe in Jesus, mind you not as the son of God. The Dutch Newspaper used freedom of speech to pursue their agenda of printing offensive cartoons regarding the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims have the right to use the same freedom of speech to be offended. However, this freedom of expression ends when violence is inflicted upon others as a response. In the Dutch example a tiny fraction of Muslims decided to pursue violence, however the overwhelming Muslim response was to boycott Danish product. This is yet another avenue of invoking freedom of speech, peacefully and civilly.

This is a very good post and very insightful. Chip has also made some good points as well. I as well as others have been following this to make sure it stays inbounds. You and Chip have made some very good points. What I haven't seen is anybody pointing out the parallels between Islam, Christianity, and Jewish religions and there are some such as Abraham. When I read the article, I was surprised when I read the passage from the Quran ( 3:185). What was surprising was the similarity between that and the prophesies from the Book of Revelations in the Bible. All three Religions come from a common beginning and eventually followed different teachings. You will find extremists in all three religions as well, they are the few but seem to make the most noise. I personally do not judge a group by the actions of a few. You cited a perfectly good example with the Dutch incident. The Muslim community had every right to be upset and to voice their displeasure. You have the same thing here in the KKK and the " New Black Panthers", not to mention other white supremist groups. They are a minority and not representative of the general population, but they have a right to protest whatever, as long as it stays within the law. Most people don't agree with their ideas, but realize that they have the right to express them. I saw one post with some ranting on dress codes. Ok, fine. Not everybody subscribes to the female wearing a Birka or a similar form of dress, where the woman is covered from head to foot. There are some sects in the Christian world that come close to that ridgidity as well as the Ultra Orthodox Jews. These are strict fundamentalists and not representative of the Religional in General. The bottom line is, if you look for the similarities and not the differences, I think you will find more of the former than the latter, and that a Religion should not be judged by the actions of the Strict Fundamentalists, as they are a minority, and not representative of the majority. I think Sony's actions were to avoid any chance of having something that could be construed as offensive to a particular group. As for the Cartoons that were printed, from what I've read, I'm of the opinion that it was ill conceived, ill advised, and and in extemely poor taste. One more thing. Be it Christian, Muslim, or Jew, we are all Monotheistic, believing in one God as the Creator, but eventually followed different teachings, but the roots are same. coastie65

[chipbennett]

rsultan said:

First off let me thank chipbennett for his insightful analysis. It's fresh to read another perspective void of slander and profanity. That having been said I've agreed with more or less with your points, but had reservations about the comment below...


{quote}On the other side of the coin, however, those universal societal
standards must be applied to the second part of the develpment of
mutual respect: choosing not to be offended by that which one would
otherwise find offensive...Likewise, Muslims must choose not to be offended by the work of a Dutch
cartoonist, or of a snippet of Quaran quotes in a song in a video game.{quote}


I don't believe it is for anyone group to dictate a standard of what should and should not be tolerated by another group.

I would agree with you, except for one point: we're not talking about isolated groups. Well, theoretically we could be, but in that case the discussion would be rather irrelevant.

No, on the contrary, I think this conversation is only relevant in the context of heterogeneous groups: groups comprised of various religious, political, and social beliefs.

Even in that context, one group should not have the ability to dictate a standard of what should and should not be tolerated. The delicate balancing act of such a civilized society lies not in finding the least-common denominator (which would mean anything goes) nor in finding the highest-common denominator (which would be stifling that no interaction could possibly take place between the various beliefs represented in the group), but rather in finding that point at which each group can tolerate some degree of inferred offense from the others while at the same time constraining themselves to a tolerable degree in those areas in which others would likewise infer offense.

Such a society requires some give and some take - some compromise and mutual understanding. These are the fertile soil in which mutual respect can flourish.

Quote

If Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek and not be offended even when comes to core beliefs then all the power to it. The problem in your statemen begins you believe that all other beliefs/viewpoints should conform to the same teachings.

By all means, no. Hopefully I did not give that impression. The United States was founded by Christians, but one if its most important, founding principles was the freedom of all to practice their religious beliefs.

That said, much of Western law is based in Christianity: do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness. Much of Western Culture is likewise based in Christianity (though much of that culture has changed in the past 50 years): do unto others, turn the other cheek, etc.

Like it or not, such as these have become the foundation for the mores of Western society. The choices for other cultures are either to find a way to assimilate into the culture, or else give a compelling reason why the extant culture should change.

(The same would be true for Americans who emigrate to other countries/cultures. I have done quite a bit of mission work outside the U.S., and have considered it my responsibility to ingratiate myself into the culture of the country in which I was serving.)

Quote

In Islam God and belief in His Messengers (including Jesus) are considered pillars of faith. One cannot be Muslim and not believe in Jesus, mind you not as the son of God.

That would be an interesting conversation, although it would be off-topic for this discussion thread.

Quote

The Dutch Newspaper used freedom of speech to pursue their agenda of printing offensive cartoons regarding the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims have the right to use the same freedom of speech to be offended. However, this freedom of expression ends when violence is inflicted upon others as a response. In the Dutch example a tiny fraction of Muslims decided to pursue violence, however the overwhelming Muslim response was to boycott Danish product. This is yet another avenue of invoking freedom of speech, peacefully and civilly.

While we can debate the merits and propriety of running those cartoons (another conversation that would be off-topic for this thread), suffice it to say that I agree: the best and most appropriate course of action was for those who were offended by them to boycott the newspaper. That is also the same course of action I suggested as a Christian response to those things in our culture that we find offensive.

[snorg]

Items about this sorta topic should not be published in any media.
The more you stir in crap the more it stinks.

[coastie65]

Yeah. The PCW bot pulled it up and posted it.

[snorg]

Stupid Bot!! Be more funny!!

[ksaar]

Yes, as mphenterprises said, please keep all responses in line with the article and the Discussion title. Please be respectful of other members and their opinions, even if you disagree with them. We encourage subjective opinions and discussions of individual experiences and perceptions. A difference of opinion can be expressed without insults. Please review the [d-1000]. By posting on our site, you indicate that you accept our Community Standards and Terms of Service. Thank you!

[greybigtop]

First of all the Sony syndrome IS a sad case of censorship!

The worst kind!

Fear-of-repraissals - SELFCENSORSHIP!

And for good reasons, since threats, killing, blowing up, etc, are the order of the day and business as usual, whenever Islam is involved.

Anyone who ignore the inherent violent nature of Islam is in denial!

Just look around you!

A couple of harmless drawings in a newspaper and half the world is set on fire, especially in underdeveloped countriesd , that have an astronomical number of very serious problems, which they ougt to concentrate on solving instead of the silly flagburning, embassy blow-ups an assasination attempts.

There´s simply no denying, that Islam is a totalitarian and violent religion going from the obligatory killing of deserters of the faith to stoning women to death, chopping of hands, etc.

It´s the whole Islamic universe with it´s socalled "martyrs", "gods", etc. that constitutes a ultra rigid law religion that keeps the individual in an ironfist of suppression and ignorance from cradle to crave.

And since Islam has NOT had a reformation - the Quaran are claimed to be dictated directly by the socalled "god" to Muhammed the socalled "prophet" and cannot be changed, adapted or modernized, Islam has not and cannot undergo the same modernization as other superstitions have.

What has changed is that in past times Islamic laws and rules applied to Muslims only.

But now via the salami methods, hundreds of billions of Saudi $$$ and lots of terror and threats, that all changing.

Muslims are now aggressively trying to impose their superstition and ancient tribal laws and systems on the developed world, that has everything except spine!

Look at Durban II, look at how more and more of the superstitious tribal laws are implemented as equal to secular democratic laws in more and more areas in more and more countries.

A law banning any kind of depiction or fun associated with religon/gods/prophets was only kept of the books in the UK by the narrrowest of margins and still passed with only minor changes.

Imaging going to jail or be executed for broadcasting or watching Monty Pytons, Dave Allen or any of the other fantastic satirical schetches of yesteryears, then you know what you are in fore IF we cowardly cave in to demands of muslims.

The suppression and antidemocratic nature of Islam must be fought at every level untill science hopefully very soon invent a vaccine against superstition.

ALL religons are of course - with a nice word - cultural constructions - that is to say manmade fairytales concocted for the purpose of tribal- and crowd control.

[ImaPhake]

I think it's inappropriate to comment on the relative merits of one religion versus another. Nothing productive will come of it.


My only concern is that Sony seems to have a double standard when it comes to responding to complaints of alleged offensive content. It was about a year ago when the Church of England complained to Sony about a scene in "Resistance: Fall of Man" which takes place in Manchester Cathedral.

Sony's response? A luke-warm apology and nothing more.

The exact reason for their sudden turnabout as it applies to "LittleBigPlanet" appears (to me, at least) to be the source of contention here.

Is Sony fearful that extremists might resort to violence if they did nothing? What was the actual source of the complaint and why are they apparently regarded by Sony to be more deserving of a censoring action in response when the Church of England was given the cold shoulder for essentially requesting the same thing?

Would an organized group of atheists get anywhere with Sony if they objected to some form of video game which depicted atheism in a manner not to their liking?

[greybigtop]

"I think it's inappropriate to comment on the relative merits of one religion versus another. Nothing productive will come of it."



That typical 2008 cowardly value relativism for you!

So what if something is socalled "inappropriate"???

ALL religions are of course manmade nonsense and should be fought tooth and nail whenever they rear their ugly heads.

Having statet that fact, it´s also important to differentiate between harmless fairytales and detailed recipies for terror, violence and human degradation like Islam.

And to the case in pont, the ONLY reason Sony cowardly caved in to the silly demand from the Muslim communities is of course the timeproven link between

violence and terror and Muslim claims of being offended, which is rather unique to Islam/Muslims.

Had any other group claimed to be offended, SONY would happily have ignored them.

[rsultan]

Wow greybigtop... way to defend free speech by vowing to to take it away by 'fighting tooth and nail' from another group. Great point buddy, makes perfect sense... We can always count on you to keep up the Islamaphobic propaganda.

[coastie65]

Greybigtop, Although you are entitled to your opinions, please keep in line with the article. You have been constantly flirting with becoming inflammatory with your remarks and it will not be tolerated. coastie65

[ImaPhake]

"That typical 2008 cowardly value relativism for you!"
You can call it that if you like, but my comments were framed in the context of the article.

I prefer to comment on the facts of the article rather than spewing whatever personal prejudices I might hold. Just like this reply to you -- I don't care about your personal beliefs because they aren't salient to the discussion.

Speculation is one thing, but out-and-out deriding of something that doesn't emanate from the article itself just says, "Fail."

Just as a hammer is appropriate to a nail, perhaps the phrase you're seeking as an excuse for your remarks is "bigoted."

Yes, I find that one more appropriate. Your value relativism may vary.

[greybigtop]

3 x 0 = 0

Fighting tooth and nail Mr. Muslim means not caving in to censorship or threaths of Islamic terror!

I of course, as do ANY sensible thinking person, advocate totally UNLIMITED free speech, regardless of what some dark age superstition might dictate it´s indoctrinated followers to feel.

Feel, - NOT think, because if people could think, they would NOT believe in silly childis fairytales about trolls, gods, etc.



PS:



Don´t throw words around you obviously don´t know the meaning of!

Socalled "prejudice" and socalled "bigotry" has NOTHING to do with a healthy factsbased disgust for primitive tribal superstitions.

One might of course feel, that disliking circumcision of women, stoning, killing and maiming is being socalled "prejudiced" and socalled "bigotted"!

If one feels that, one is simply devoid of intellectual integrity and a fool!

[alexb]

amen to that comment! i am a Christian as well. i see the Bible, Christ and God all disrespected. it upsets me. i have a respect for religions such as Islam, but dont you wish that when the Bible and especially God and Christ are disrespected like those lines in the Koran were, we would all cry out like this to get it changed? this goes back to other issues like homosexuality (ca. hot topic) in which those who cry loudest wins which is unfortunately not us Christians. we as Christians are not policing it as we should. we are not making sure that the benchmarks of our religion are respected. our government was found on Christian principles like the authority of God in America. the first written plan of government in america-the Mayflower Compact- states as a purpose-"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith", but now liberal organizations are fighting to remove even a small, rusted veteran memorial cross from some random hill in the Mojave Desert because it is "unconstitutional" and Christian in nature (everything Christian seems to be offensive now a days) or remove the "one nation under God" from the pledge of allegiance and the dollar because it is "offensive" to other religions and "unconstitutional" but the go oops if another religion is disrespected and promptly make amends. we have become extremely sensitive of the protection of freedom of religion for all religions except Christianity. what happened to Freedom of religion? the idea of separation of church and state is not even in our constitution. it was a single letter that suggested it not to protect the state from religion (this is our current translation) but religion from the state (the real intention). like one of the reviewers said earlier, we are fussing over 2 lines mention in a song from the Koran but we dont give a hoot about a painting of Christ being peed on or submerged in urine (Andres Serrano's Piss Christ) as mentioned by Superdynimite. now thats a problem. if we are to be this concerned about disrespect for one religious text (aka Koran), is it not only fair that we should be for another (aka Bible)?

[alexb]

yeah.. go aahmed. good comment to the monkey brained atheist. maybe his head didnt do quite as Darwin thought it would- evolve into something intelligent

couldn't help myself in being this mean....oh well...

[greybigtop]

Ha, ha, it´s hilarious, that children and childish adults who rants about socalled "gods", trolls, ghost, prophets, Muhammed, - may piss be upon him, have the audacity to call people infinetely intellectually superior to their own primitive tribal mumbo-jumbo for monkey-brained.
I really do feel terrible offended.............
Message was edited by: AuroraDizon. No Perosnal or offending attacks please refer to the Community Standards.

[mphenterprises]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous now. To all members, as stated several times, please keep your posts related to the topic at hand. Any further deviation from the main topic will not be tolerated. In addition, any member that continues to insult, berate, or otherwise ignore the {document:id=1000} face possible banning from the Community.