Muslims want anti-blasphemy clause in (UN) rights body

[ECH1969]

UNITED NATIONS: The president of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday took over fractious negotiations to establish a new UN human rights body, with Islamic nations wanting language against blasphemy because of the dispute over cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

Jan Eliasson of Sweden, this year's assembly president, is conducting "intensive" bilateral talks with key UN members in an effort to resolve severe splits on the new rights body aimed at replacing the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, his spokeswoman said.

The aim is to get adoption this month, so the new rights body can begin to function this summer. Some US Congressmen want to make a new rights body a condition for paying UN dues.

The OIC, led by Turkey at the United Nations, told Secretary-General Kofi Annan that language against blasphemy should be written into the tenets for a human rights council, envoys reported.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3567029a12,00.html

[Nebraska_Liberal]

1. Blasphemy huh...

Well I think it is blasphemous to limit free speech!

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Agreed. And same for Christian sacred cows.

[SKKY]

197. So, I guess Salman Rushdie's new book, "Buddah, you fat faggot!"...

...will have to undergo yet ANOTHER rewrite??? Blasphemy by who's definition? This is a slippery, slippery slope.

[madmark]

57. ditto

[lastliberalintexas]

75. Damn straight

Hell I'm offended by religious wackos all the time since I live in Southern Baptist Land. Doesn't mean I try to limit their speech. I just wish the religious zealots would show me the same respect.

[dubya_dubya_III]

160. Don;t they have that funny looking 'name of allah' Flag?

What's with flashing that scribbley religious icon and 'buying and selling' that?

That Which Is Love Itself Almighty! What a bunch of hypocrites.

:-)

[Warren DeMontague]

3. "Look, All I said was, this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!"

[smirkymonkey]

68. LOL!

Points out the absurdity of it all quite well, doesn't it?

[dysfunctional press]

132. you said it again!

blasphemer..knock it off, or it won't go well for you...

[Emillereid]

4. This is complete BS. Freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivities!

Freedom of speech isn't free unless one is free to say things that upsets somebody.

I wish humanity would just lose the yoke of religiousity -- we have real down to earth problems to deal with.

[Nebraska_Liberal]

5. Amen...

or awomen, or whatever...

[Occulus]

131. RAmen.

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

I have heard the voices of the angel hairs.

[Colorado Blue]

155. LOL! His Noodly Appendage?

[ekelly]

14. And it's only blasphemy

if you actually BELIEVE in this muhammad prophet guy.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. Well no kidding. What kind of a point is that? n/t

[ekelly]

39. Um...it's MY point

and I am still free to make it if I wish.

I don't think I said anything worthy of such an attack.

Uh....what are we talking about here? Hello?

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. Sorry. Let me be more clear.

It's a completely moot point. It's like saying the grass is green.

OF COURSE it's only blasphemy to a Muslim...believer in that "muhammad prophet guy", as you say.

[ekelly]

48. sorry

making snide comments and acting superior to others is not my specialty.

I guess I misunderstood you.

[Harper_is_Bush]

49. Well

I guess freedom of expression cost you tonight.

[ekelly]

50. nope

I expressed myself at no cost whatsoever.

And you accomplished the same.

I'd say we both won :)

[VirginiaDem]

77. It's not moot at all.

It's at the crux of the issue, actually. Muslims in Pakistan do not have the right to dictate to non-Muslim Danes what they can and cannot say based upon Islamic law.

The Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 helped set up the modern nation-state system. They ended the Thirty Years War, which was pound-for-pound one of history's most violent wars. The nation-state system was, in part, designed to get the Protestants and Catholics to agree to disagree rather than kill each other over what was and wasn't blasphemous. The Catholics, in essence, were very offended by the Protestants' beliefs (and vice versa).

That's one of the fatal logical flaws of this whole blasphemy thing--it only "works" in closed, homogenous societies. When it's applied to more international, heterogenous scenarios it leads to violence.

[iverglas]

79. the difference here is

That's one of the fatal logical flaws of this whole blasphemy thing--it only "works" in closed, homogenous societies. When it's applied to more international, heterogenous scenarios it leads to violence.

You actually made a point and presented argument for it. (The original "point" really was pretty dull, surely you admit. "It's only blasphemy if ..."; kind of a dictionary definition, eh?)

The nation-state system was, in part, designed to get the Protestants and Catholics to agree to disagree rather than kill each other over what was and wasn't blasphemous.

And it wasn't perfect, and it's been improved on.

The "two-nation state" first came on the scene when Canada achieved Dominion status in 1867. Two cultures, two peoples -- two languages, two religions, two legal systems -- under the roof of a single state, with equal rights to speak each language, practise each religion and operate under each legal system. (And also certain, though not equal, rights for the other nation, the "First Nations".) Rather than separate but equal as under the nation-state system, together and equal.

Various multiplications and permutations are possible, and are being experimented with in various places. Political pluralism and multiculturalism have arrived.

I see all this as progress, and a good thing. I don't know whether you do, but I would hope so. Many people, not just Islamists, don't.

I think they're "wrong". I think their approach is counter-productive, as you say, at the very least.

But of course, then we're back to the same old attempt to define the present issue out of existence:

Muslims in Pakistan do not have the right to dictate to non-Muslim Danes what they can and cannot say based upon Islamic law.

If that were ALL that were going on, I'd probably be agreeing with you. But it simply isn't.

The countries of Europe and many other countries in the world are simply no longer "nation-states". They are multi-nation states. They are not homogeneous, and the single set of values that were the basis of their original creation is no longer the exclusive set of values adhered to by their populations. And that fact may well call for internal rules that are different from the rules that work for homogeneous nation-states (or, at least, nation-states in which the majority was able to impose adherence to its rules, if not assimilation, on minorities).

Discussion is needed about what values are public, and are properly applied by the state to individuals' behaviour, and what values are private and a matter of personal choice when it comes to applying them to one's own behaviour. That is where "we" and "they" seem to disagree.

But what I find interesting is that while "we" tell "them" that rules relating to religious practices are private, "we" are the ones insisting on the freedom to critique those rules in public.

If we believe that religious practices and the rules that govern them are private, why can't *we* just shut the fuck up about them?

Yes, if we perceive someone attempting to impose their private rules on our behaviour, we have every right to object, and should object.

But by ridiculing their rules or publishing degrading images of the people who adhere to them? Why can't we just address whatever it is we object to them trying to do -- whether it's impose blasphemy laws on us or outlaw abortion -- without dragging their religion into our arguments? And if we insist on doing that, are we really not just exposing ourselves as hypocrites?

Someone's religion does not become fair game for ridicule, and s/he does not become fair game for hatred, simply because someone else claims to be following that religion when s/he does something ridiculous or contemptible.

[fedsron2us]

87. Yugoslavia was a multi nation state

From what I can recall a lot of the 'dicussion' that took place there in the last 20 years has been down the barrel of a gun. The concept of nations within nations is not a new concept for Europe. It has existed for hundreds of years. Most of the larger nation states are built from smaller and more ancient principalities and most contain religious and ethnic minority groups. To suggest that Europeans are a single people with a one set of beliefs is simply a racist stereotype every bit as offensive as that applied to Arabs, Asians or any other people.

[iverglas]

115. gee, if only ...

To suggest that Europeans are a single people with a one set of beliefs is simply a racist stereotype ...

... if only I had suggested any such thing, you might have had a point, instead of just an rude insult based on a misrepresentation, and a pretty stupid one at that. Who in his her right mind, with an iota of information about the world, would "suggest that Europeans are a single people"? Why would you think I said such a thing, or choose to portray me as having said it?

In case what I clearly said is somehow still eluding you, I was referring to the nation-states of Europe, not Europe.

What prompts people to say rude things to other people who have said nothing offensive, and make shit up instead of address what those other people have said, I have never been able to fathom.

The concept of nations within nations is not a new concept for Europe.

That's quite true. But as the poster whom I was addressing had said:

The nation-state system was, in part, designed to get the Protestants and Catholics to agree to disagree rather than kill each other over what was and wasn't blasphemous.

-- and modern European history, until the last few decades, has largely been one of relatively homogeneous nation-states with some internal minorities and strong unitary national identities. Belgium is a notable exception, and its recent political arrangements are along the lines of what Canada has been doing for some time.

If you raised the case of Yugoslavia to make some point, I don't know what it was. As I understand it, the political entity of Yugoslavia (like many ex-colonial states) was largely a result of outside pressure and arrangements imposed by stronger parties on weaker parties, and for some of the national minorities it was hardly a matter of the genuinely modern "together but equal" arrangement I was referring to.

Basically, if you had any point at all, I have missed it. You seem to have grabbed hold of something I didn't even say, shaken it up and ridden it off on a tangent. If you do have something to say about any point I was making or opinion I was expressing, I'm sure you'll let me know.

[VirginiaDem]

103. Yeah but...

"But what I find interesting is that while "we" tell "them" that rules relating to religious practices are private, "we" are the ones insisting on the freedom to critique thse rules in public."


I don't see anything wrong with this, honestly. I think our society is based on (pretty much) unlimited public criticism whether it's of private or public behavior. I think that Muslims who are offended have every right to hit the streets but no right to encourage or engage in violence.

There have been a number of high profile non-violent protests recently; one just yesterday (I think) in Morocco caught my eye. While I do not agree with their sentiments I certainly respect their right to protest.

You make a good point about the modern nation-state being multi-national. The specific issue of Muslim immigrants in Western (or whatever you wanna call them) nations has resulted in different responses from different nations. Canada, UK, Germany, France, and Denmark (to name just five) all have some similarities both in their situations and how they've dealt with them but also very important differences. Nobody knows how to do it; it's tricky. I'm not sure that there's any non-problematic solution.

It seems that we agree on quite a bit but we're on opposite sides of the angry fence. Interesting.

[iverglas]

117. it seems to me that one has to make one's bed

and lie in it. If we wish to assert that religion is a private matter, then I think we ought to be consistent. If we don't want people's religion being inserted into public policy, then really, why can't we just shut the fuck up about their religion?

If it is not for them to make their religion a public issue, what purpose does it serve for us to do so? Why is publicly critiquing people's religion any different from publicly critiquing people's sexual preference, for instance? What need can there possibly be to ridicule or argue in public about people's private beliefs or behaviour? What purpose is served by doing it? How can anyone even respond to such ridicule or argument? No one can explain or defend his/her religious beliefs any more than anyone can explain his/her sexual orientation.

I might mention that I'm a very long-time and very confirmed atheist, and I never engage in "debate" of anyone's religious beliefs. I find some of them interesting, and I find some of the things believers do worth discussing, both praising and denouncing. But I never, ever attack their theological basis for what they do, or even point out its consistency or inconsistency with their religious beliefs. It is pointless, counter-productive and rude to do so.

I think our society is based on (pretty much) unlimited public criticism whether it's of private or public behavior.

Well yes indeed -- the US is very much based on that, and I hadn't even been considering this aspect, although it's an aspect of US society that constantly irks me. It started with the Puritans, and it continues apace with Jerry Springer. Everyone has to have an opinion about everything that everyone else does, and spew it in public, to the applause of all within earshot.

But that really isn't true of much of the rest of the world. Europeans in particular place more importance on individuals' right to privacy and right to reputation than USAmericans do, and expect less comment from other members of their societies about what they do in their private lives. Perhaps this really is something that USAmericans don't get about this issue.

I don't see anything wrong with this, honestly.

I *do* see something wrong with this. I see it, particularly when it is done to minority groups who are already vulnerable (Muslims in Europe, gay men and lesbians in the US ...), as part of a process of demonization that can never end well.

Nobody knows how to do it; it's tricky. I'm not sure that there's any non-problematic solution.

It absolutely is, and there will likely never be; there generally aren't perfect solutions to anything involving even two people, let alone multiple groups and millions of people. ;)

Obviously, even the bugs in Canada's nearly century and a half long effort to do it haven't been fixed; we still have the Quebec national liberation movement, we are having to revisit the entire position of the First Nations within confederation, and rather massive and very diverse immigration (about twice as high a proportion of the Canadian as the US population was born abroad) is another whole ingredient in the Canadian "mosaic" (the national metaphor, as distinct from the US "melting pot").

Essentially, the Canadian approach to integration is very different from European approaches. We embrace "multiculturalism", and encourage the ethnic etc. sub-groups in society as mediators between the state and the individual; France, for instance, expressly rejects this (based largely on its historic rejection of the RC Church as such a mediator, interestingly). I tend to see our approach as just a sneaky way of achieving the same thing -- assimilation -- by demonstrating what a tolerant and receptive society we are, thus encouraging assimilation into it. It's working relatively well. Of course, as has been pointed by someone else out here, Muslim immigrants to North America, for instance, tend to be socially and economically different from Muslims in Europe -- but Europe has kind of made its bed in that respect, out of its past exploitive colonization and immigration practices.

It seems that we agree on quite a bit but we're on opposite sides of the angry fence. Interesting.

I don't know how opposite; it strikes me as more of a continuum. It's the "classical liberals" whom I see drawing an uncrossable line, when the line is no more uncrossable than any other point on a continuum. Speech is limited, even by them, when there is a sufficiently important reason to do so.

I haven't even really been talking about limiting speech, though; I'm really suggesting that common decency is a virtue, and that people clamouring for freedom of speech very often have quite different and uglier motives for what they say than a genuine desire to contribute in good faith to a public debate about a serious issue. I see demagoguery in lots of places.

If someone wants to denounce terror bombing, it just strikes me that it is possible to do so without ridiculing and vilifying a whole lot of people who believe in whatever it is that terror bombers claim to be acting on the basis of, when the people being ridiculed and vilified have done nothing wrong and are in no way responsible for the actions of the people who have.


(edited ... every once in a while I type "their" instead of "there", and it's so embarrassing ...)

[unschooler]

104. Ridiculing a religion is not the same as ridiculing a person.

Someone's religion does not become fair game for ridicule, and s/he does not become fair game for hatred, simply because someone else claims to be following that religion when s/he does something ridiculous or contemptible.

People deserve a presumption of respect. Beliefs are alwaysfair game for criticism.

[Harper_is_Bush]

113. I don't know how you can make that claim...

If I riducule your deepest held beliefs in an offhand and uneccessary way, how am I not ridiculing you?

[unschooler]

133. The fact that someone out there holds a belief dear does not put that

belief outside the purview of criticism.

I'm not sure how to tell when the "offhand and unnecessary" factor comes into play. When would criticism of a religion qualify as "necessary" in your view? Yet I think it's essential that we do hold religious belief up to critical scrutiny. If the belief is well-grounded it will certainly withstand such scrutiny.

Saying "Christians are unintelligent" or "Atheists are arrogant" or "Muslims are backward" are examples of overgeneralization, which is always illogical and useless. Saying "Some forms of Christianity are anti-scientific" or "Atheism removes our basis for morality" or "Some forms of Islam encourage violence" are critical statements that deserve evaluation, although they may or may not be true. I think such criticisms can legitimately be made in satirical forms as well as in declarative sentences (if the experiences of Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh are indicators, I doubt the imams of Saudi Arabia would be open to critcism in this form either). It is the above idea about Islam (that some forms encourage violence) that is the message of communicated by the drawing of Muhammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Despite his ignorance of certain aspects of Arab culture (Muslims do not wear turbans) the cartoonist is within his rights to make this point, which was not, of course, about Muhammed himself but about modern Islam in its more extreme forms.

[iverglas]

140. "When would criticism of a religion ...

... qualify as 'necessary' in your view?"

Very easy answer: NEVER. No more than "criticism" of anyone's sexual orientation or choice of foods or manner of dress, or anything else that is NONE OF ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, is ever "necessary".

Yet I think it's essential that we do hold religious belief up to critical scrutiny. If the belief is well-grounded it will certainly withstand such scrutiny.

What utter nonsense. Whan has any religious belief ever been "well-grounded"?

All you are saying is: if YOUR religious belief stands up to MY criteria for what is reasonable or proper to believe in, then I'll let you practise your religion in peace -- and if it doesn't, I'll try to make you look like a fool or a villain in public because of what you believe.

Who died and made it your job to make people look foolish or evil in public because of their religious beliefs? Do you really think that any belief or non-belief of your own can stand up to such scrutiny -- or you just feel comfortable in the knowledge that you are immune, in your own society, to the devastating effects that having this done to you could produce for someone else or in another society?

Saying "Some forms of Christianity are anti-scientific" or "Atheism removes our basis for morality" or "Some forms of Islam encourage violence" are critical statements that deserve evaluation, although they may or may not be true.

Why? Because you say so?

A religion is not "anti-scientific". A religion does not "encourage violence". People believe things that are apparently inconsistent with science; people teach the doing of violent things.

There is absolutely NO REASON why science and peaceful co-existence cannot be advocated and defended WITHOUT attacking anyone's religious beliefs.

This is the essence of freedom of religion: we are all free to believe and not to believe anything we bloody well want, and to do anything in the practice of those beliefs that does not violate the rules made by our societies for our ACTIONS.

No one is "free" to believe in and practise his/her religion if that religion is under constant attack by more powerful groups in his/her society. Anyone in that position is "free" only in the sense that there are no formal constraints on his/her freedom to choose and practise beliefs. Anyone who has ever been persecuted because of his/her religious beliefs/practises enjoyed freedom of religion, in that empty sense. Free to do what they liked and free to suffer the consequences.

It is the above idea about Islam (that some forms encourage violence) that is the message of communicated by the drawing of Muhammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

Sez you. It could be claimed that this is the message intended to be conveyed -- very disingenuously, in my humble opinion -- but to claim that this is the message received by much of the reading audience is, well, just disingenuous. And since I go by the principle that we are all deemed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions, I still see no reason to stop my own analysis when I hear someone claim to have been entirely pure of heart when s/he created or published the images in question.

And I'm still not seeing anyone hollering "free speech!" addressing that issue.

Despite his ignorance of certain aspects of Arab culture (Muslims do not wear turbans) the cartoonist is within his rights to make this point, which was not, of course, about Muhammed himself but about modern Islam in its more extreme forms.

Again the disingenuous interpretation of the actions, and again an assertion about the subject and intent of the actions that simply does not stand up to analysis by anyone not determinedly covering his/her ears and going wah wah.

And again the crying of "free speech!" and complete unwillingness to address when we are entitled to expect people to use discretion in exercising that right, let alone when we are entitled to enforce that expectation.

[unschooler]

170. Please try to separate people and ideas in your thinking.

I am not suggesting everyone go around criticizing other people based on their religion or trying to convert/deconvert them. I am suggesting it is appropriate and valuable to independently evaluate and potentially criticize a religious (or political or other) belief system itself.

For example, I am not a believer in "Young Earth Creationism," although my 80-yo aunt is (if you are unfamiliar with this strain of Christian thought, see http://www.answersingenesis.org). Now, I would never, ever describe my aunt in a derogatory fashion, nor would I confront her with my criticisms of her long-held beliefs. However, I believe it is important to critically evaluate this belief system for purposes of educating my own children and influencing public policy to support legitimate science education, rather than this (ok, I'll say it) nonsense in the public school system. I have no desire to burst my Aunt's bubble, but, even if it upsets her, I think it is important to subject this worldview to critical and public scrutiny. Not all ideas are created equal. It is only through open dialogue that good ideas can have a chance to win the war of ideas.

[iverglas]

173. switching horses?

Please try to keep your line straight, would you?

However, I believe it is important to critically evaluate this belief system for purposes of educating my own children and influencing public policy to support legitimate science education, rather than this (ok, I'll say it) nonsense in the public school system. I have no desire to burst my Aunt's bubble, but, even if it upsets her, I think it is important to subject this worldview to critical and public scrutiny.

I don't think anyone here has been discussing PRIVATE evaluation of belief systems, and I don't think you were referring to any such thing in what you said. I therefore had no cause to respond to something said about something not in issue. I was very obviously referring to PUBLIC "criticism" of someone's religion.

The only scrutiny that the worldview you refer to needs to be subjected to is the one that identifies it as religious, and thus outside the realm of public education.

If you don't live in a society in which the conveying of religious messages is agreed to be outside the realm of public education, then you have a problem. But it is still not THE RELIGION that requires criticism; it is the loss of adherence to the rule that religion has no part to play in public education.

It is one hundred per cent possible to argue against the inclusion of such crapola in public education on the basis that it is religious doctrine without EVER criticising the doctrine, or the belief in it, or the believers in it.

Not all ideas are created equal. It is only through open dialogue that good ideas can have a chance to win the war of ideas.

And people's ideas of the religious kind are still NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

If you find you have an opportunity to attempt this persuasion with some audience that has indicated its desire to engage in the discussion, then more power to you, and best of luck. But if you wish to force this discussion on people who do not wish to engage in it with you, you are simply no better than people who hang around in front of abortion clinics screeching invective at patients.

And if you wish to make this discussion a condition of living in your society -- if you wish to compel other members of your society, and specifically members of vulnerable minorities within that society, to listen to criticism of their religious beliefs in the public agora -- then you need to be prepared for the breakdown of liberal democracy.

It's all very cute for you to give me uncalled for and inexplicable lectures about separating people and ideas, but you'll find that in the real world many people consider characterizations of their religious beliefs as moronic or evil to be attacks on their intelligence and character. And many people don't take kindly to that, whether simply because it's unpleasant in itself or because they fear the consequences if such representations of them become widely accepted.

It is only through open dialogue that good ideas can have a chance to win the war of ideas.

And yet surprisingly, bad ideas do sometimes prevail, to the very great cost of the people who are victimized by those who adhere to them.

In any event, there simply is no "war of ideas". Ideas don't do anything; people do. Ideas are not inherently good or bad; people make those characterizations and distinctions. You are certainly entitled to advocate for your pet ideas, but I fail to see the need for, or purpose of, argument that unavoidably portrays people who hold different ideas as stupid or evil. It really is entirely possible to say "my god is good", or "there is no god", without saying "your god is a monster".

And it's just more damned likely to succeed, is the thing no one wants to talk about. Inventing a better mousetrap isn't going to do you much good if you insult the people you're trying to sell it to, and insulting them might just get you a smack upside the head and a case of the black plague when the mice don't get trapped.

[unschooler]

175. Ideas are not inherently good or bad? And we should discuss them only

in private?


Here are some ideas I've heard in my lifetime:


Negroes are not as intelligent as white people.
George Bush is President because God made him President.
The earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
Global warming is merely a propaganda effort by tree-hugging environmentalists.


What you're saying is that none of these ideas is good or bad and should, at any rate, never be discussed in a public forum, such as the opinion pages of a newspaper, since they are public.


Right?

[iverglas]

176. well, you got it half right

That's a marked improvement over much of what goes on here. I suppose I should laud the achievement.

Ideas are not inherently good or bad? And we should discuss them only in private?

Yup, that's what I said: ideas are not inherently good or bad.

I don't know who said that ideas should be discussed only in private. Certainly not I. So I don't know why you're putting a question mark at the end of that statement and aiming it at me.



What you're saying is that none of these ideas is good or bad and should, at any rate, never be discussed in a public forum, such as the opinion pages of a newspaper, since they are public. Right?

Wrong. That is not what I said. But then I'm sure you knew that.

Just think. If so many people didn't waste so much time misrepresenting what other people said, we might have cured cancer by now.

[unschooler]

177. I was referring to this.

I don't think anyone here has been discussing PRIVATE evaluation of belief systems, and I don't think you were referring to any such thing in what you said. I therefore had no cause to respond to something said about something not in issue. I was very obviously referring to PUBLIC "criticism" of someone's religion.

And, just to clarify again, "Negroes are less intelligent than white people" is NOT a bad idea, right?

[iverglas]

178. and just to clarify again

You can play your rude and stupid games all you want, and if I'm ever interested in having my time wasted by someone who can't/won't speak a straight and civil word, I'll let you know.

[unschooler]

179. Ah. The old ad hominem attack. When in doubt, just insult the author.

That works.

[iverglas]

180. it works?

You must think so, or you wouldn't be doing it.

It takes either a complete idiot or a complete villain to think that s/he can lie about what someone else said and not be called on it, doncha think?

Like I expect a straight answer to that, or to a request for the correct time ...

[unschooler]

183. Here some examples of ad hominem attacks.

someone who can't/won't speak a straight and civil word

a complete idiot or a complete villain

I don't believe I've engaged in this sort of name-calling.

[iverglas]

185. hahahahaha

Here is an example of someone hiding behind punctuation to make a false statement about what someone else says/thinks, for the purpose of holding that someone else up to contempt so that his/her own words will be discredited in the eyes of a reader:

Ideas are not inherently good or bad? And we should discuss them only in private?

Here is another one:

What you're saying is that none of these ideas is good or bad and should, at any rate, never be discussed in a public forum, such as the opinion pages of a newspaper, since they are public. Right?

And another:

And, just to clarify again, "Negroes are less intelligent than white people" is NOT a bad idea, right?

And then we have:

The old ad hominem attack. When in doubt, just insult the author.

-- the best defence being a good offence, I guess. When engaged in ad hominem attacks, be sure to accuse the target of doing it.

Here's another one of those hiding behind punctuation to say things that are false thingies:

So do you think Voltaire and Paine should have just shut up and kept their ideas to themselves rather than offend people?

Quite the pattern there, isn't it?

For your homework, you could go through this thread and count the number of times the tactic is used by yourself and others. You'll run out of fingers and toes before you hardly get started.

There are a lot of people hereabouts whom I'd dearly love to see having to make their cases in courtroom format. They need to try these bullshit tactics in the real world among intelligent people concerned about the truth, and see how far they get them.

[unschooler]

188. That's my understanding of what you are saying.

It seems to me that you are making a two-pronged argument:

No idea is better than another. I think you have confirmed this one.

Criticism of religion should be done in private only. I am unclear as to your position on this. If you want to silence people who publicly criticize religion, it follows that you would have wished to silence Voltaire and Paine as well as modern newspaper editorials.


I am asking honest questions.

[iverglas]

190. sure it is

I am asking honest questions.

sure you are.

And I am Marie of Rumania.

[unschooler]

192. You called me a pig.

And you can't even bring yourself to say murdering 11 million people was a bad idea.

:wtf:

[iverglas]

193. and you've called my words pearls

Ta. Hope they were tasty.

[unschooler]

194. Actually, you called your opinions on the Holocaust "pearls."

I'm not at all certain I would call them "pearls."

[iverglas]

195. well then

I'm not at all certain I would call them "pearls."

I guess you wouldn't say that I called you a pig.

Getting the hang of this at all yet?

You really really don't get to choose which parts of a single metaphor you are going to adopt as your own, y'know.

Any more than you get to represent your own silly games as anyone else's deeds.

Aren't you bored yet?

[unschooler]

196. You called me a pig and you called your opinions on the Holocaust pearls.

I haven't adopted any portion of the metaphor. It is yours entirely.

Since you refuse to state that the Holocaust was a bad idea, I cannot be certain whether I would agree that your opinions on the subject are indeed "pearls."

[iverglas]

199. thar it blows again

you refuse to state that the Holocaust was a bad idea

Yup, I refuse to play your nasty deceitful little games.

Glad we agree.

[iverglas]

181. I'll help you out

And, just to clarify again, "Negroes are less intelligent than white people" is NOT a bad idea, right?

You got it.

It isn't a bad idea -- it's a false statement of fact. Statements of facts are not ideas.

If you need any further assistance, just ring.

[unschooler]

182. OK. "If we just exterminated all Jews, Germany would be wonderful."

Good idea or bad?



















edited to correct spelling

[iverglas]

184. you're asking my opinion??

I could give it to you, of course, but shiny objects and porcine entities, and all that.

Whether that idea is good or bad is a matter of opinion. How could you possibly think otherwise? How do you imagine that you would go about proving that it is bad -- which, if it is, inherently, you should certainly be able to do? It is an opinion, and it is not capable of proof or disproof.

How about if European Jews would just assimilate, Europe would be a better place? Good or bad? Got any facts or argument to back up your answer?

Both statements are, of course, predictions of facts rather than the "ideas" we were actually discussing, so you're just equivocating on and on. My statement was made in a particular context, and if you want to pretend that you don't know what it was, and that you can ignore the context and pretend it meant something it didn't, that ain't my problem.

I must say it's fascinating that in a thread in which the topic of discussion is the incitement of hatred of Muslims, you go casting about for some other subject to switch to in your efforts to discredit me. What was wrong with Muslims should be deported from Denmark: good idea or bad?

[unschooler]

186. Wow. You can't even say the Holocaust was a bad idea.

And when did this thread become about hatred of Muslims? I believe it was about the effort of certain governments to get other governments to limit the right of their citizens to speak freely about religion.


By your definition, what constitutes an "idea"?

[iverglas]

187. let's just say

By your definition, what constitutes an "idea"?

Nothing I've read that's come out of your keyboard.

You can't even say the Holocaust was a bad idea.

Wow. And thar she blows again. I sure wouldn't dignify *that* one with the title of "idea". Remember: false statements of facts are not "ideas". Getting the hang of it at all yet?

[unschooler]

189. So, by your definition, what constitutes an "idea"?

I'll accept that false statements of fact are not "ideas."

Can you give me an example of an idea?

[iverglas]

191. too late

Boring.
Bored.

Opportunity for good faith discussion missed. Opportunity does not knock an infinite number of times; after a certain number of refusals, it moves on, and the householder will probably have to leave home and go searching for an opportunity willing to make itself available despite the foreseeable pointlessness. Good luck with that.

[CJCRANE]

136. ...except in European history

attacks on religion have been attacks on weaker minorities. In British history for example, Catholics and Jews have been previously persecuted but now have more equality and protection under law.

Also don't forget the Pilgrim Fathers were escaping religious persecution...

[iverglas]

138. and don't forget --

In British history for example, Catholics and Jews have been previously persecuted ...

-- in British history, Protestants were also persecuted by Roman Catholics. Just about anybody can claim "they did it first", when it comes right down to it.

[unschooler]

171. "Attacks on religion" need not involve persecution of its practitioners.

I can say I believe Catholicism is BS and give you the reasons why I think so without harming a hair on the head of the Catholic next door, who I may very well happen to like.

Some healthy criticism of religion might well have weakened the ability of those 17th century European monarchs to use it as an excuse to persecute certain groups based on their "heresies."

[Name removed]

174. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

165. Bullshit. As a gay man, since these ASSHOLES wish me HARM,

I'd say I have not only a RIGHT but a DUTY to ridicule and maginalize these ASSHOLES & their FUCKING MOHAMMED FREAK whenever I want to.

"Someone's religion does not become fair game for ridicule, and s/he does not become fair game for hatred, simply because someone else claims to be following that religion when s/he does something ridiculous or contemptible"

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!

YOU CAN GO STUFF YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS KRAP UP YOUR ASS!

THEY are the ones who are trying to PERSECUTE ME.

If they would leave us the fuck alone, then fine, I'd leave them the fuck alone.

BUT THEY ARE ANOTHER GROUP OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER-THAN-THOU ASSHOLES WHO WOULD FORCE ME TO OBEY THEIR IMAGINARY FREAK SHOW OF A "GOD"!

[iverglas]

168. well, I guess that told all us bad people [edited to add]

I'd say I have not only a RIGHT but a DUTY to ridicule and maginalize these ASSHOLES & their FUCKING MOHAMMED FREAK whenever I want to.

You also have a right to think straight and speak civilly. If only there were such a duty ...

THEY are the ones who are trying to PERSECUTE ME.

They. They they they they they.

The ones trying to persecute you (actually, I would think that would be someone other than Muslims, given as how you don't live anywhere where Muslims exercise power) are identifiable by what they do and say on that issue -- NOT BY THEIR RELIGION. See, I can holler too.

The fact that THEY want to put their religion in issue in that regard DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEIR RELIGION IS IN ISSUE.

For fuck's sake; you tell them their religion is not in issue when it comes to your sexual orientation, AND THEN YOU PUT IT IN ISSUE. Does the, uh, irony not seem rather strong here?

BUT THEY ARE ANOTHER GROUP OF RELIGIOUS HOLIER-THAN-THOU ASSHOLES WHO WOULD FORCE ME TO OBEY THEIR IMAGINARY FREAK SHOW OF A "GOD"!

No -- that doesn't even make any sense, does it now?

What they want to do is FORCE YOU TO DO WHAT THEY TELL YOU TO DO. What can it possibly matter what their REASONS for that are? Why would you care? Why would you even want to dignify what they do by playing along with the charade that they HAVE a reason for it?

If they would leave us the fuck alone, then fine, I'd leave them the fuck alone.

Ah, I see you subscribe to the "some unrelated person's eye for my eye" school of thought.

When you place the religion of someone you hate in issue, you attack EVERYONE WHO ADHERES TO THAT RELIGION, even those who HAVE DONE NOTHING TO HARM YOU AND WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HARM YOU. That's both irrational and evil.

No one's religion is any threat to you, or any of your business. THEIR ACTIONS (which include words spoken) are what are legitimately your business. Attacking their religion is neither justified nor even an intelligent response to THEIR ACTIONS.

But damn, it sure must feel good.

YOU CAN GO STUFF YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS KRAP UP YOUR ASS!

Yes, well, there was already considerable evidence that you are unable to speak civilly and rationally, but if you want to shriek it to the rafters, be my guest.


Oh, and in case there's a chance you might get it, try my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2097179&mesg_id=2103094

Allow me to quote it for you, with emphasis:

"When would criticism of a religion qualify as 'necessary' in your view?"

Very easy answer: NEVER. No more than "criticism" of anyone's sexual orientation or choice of foods or manner of dress, or anything else that is NONE OF ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, is ever "necessary".

[fedsron2us]

85. Exactly

Freedom of speech and freedom of religious conscience are indivisibly linked. Remove one and the other will not survive for long. For over a thousand years western Europe was a closed society that tolerated no deviation from an officially sanctioned and enforced faith. Will it revert to its former state ?

[Harper_is_Bush]

112. of COURSE it's moot.

In what way is it not moot to say that it's blashphemy only to Muslims? It's an obvious point, and of no value.

You point out that Muslims in Pakistan do not have the right to dictate to non-Muslim Danes what they can and cannot say. That is unreleated to the moot point. But, coincidentally, it's another moot point! I'm not saying they should.

[Hoping4Change]

123. "mohammed prophet guy" borders on blasphemous as it is disrespectful.

Might even be one of the things you wouldn't be allowed to say.:spank:

[unschooler]

172. So every religion gets to sit down an make a list of things that nobody

else can say? Great. x(

[VirginiaDem]

208. Nope. Only Islam. n/t

[adriennui]

6. all religion is BS

i wish everyone would just loosen up. anti-blaspheme laws have no place in secular organizations or governments.

[Megahurtz]

7. These people just need to shut the fuck up

and get over it.

[skooooo]

12. yup

what you said

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nebraska_Liberal]

9. this coming from rastaman?

strange

[rastaman]

16. My original name

was burning bushes. Does that mean that I was actually in the bushes on fire? I chose rastaman because, strangely, my four other choices were taken.
Plus my hair is kinda long and I am jamaican. Otherwise who cares?

[skooooo]

27. Welcome Rastaman!

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Fundies never seem to get the concept that religious crimes,

like blasphemy and heresy, can only be committed by believers of the same religion that is being blasphemed.

Coming from those outside the religion in question, such statements may be ignorant, predjudicial, insulting, intolerant, narrow-minded, or what have you, but they are not blasphemous. Otherwise, all those who despise the Jews could be charged with blasphemy because the Torah claims that they are god's chosen people. That would make a large percentage of the Muslim world guilty of blasphemy.

Is that so hard to understand?

[VirginiaDem]

78. Exactly! n/t

[unschooler]

105. Woo hoo! It's obvious that "blasphemy" cannot exist in heterogeneous

society.

[skooooo]

11. In a word - NO!

this is bs

[Dunvegan]

13. Maybe this will blowback on US religious fundie fanatics.

Perhaps the outcry from those in this country who believe in free speech, a free and vital press, and freedom from intervention and interception of our private communications will...

What am I saying?

Doomed I tells ya, doomed.

[Mike Daniels]

20. Given that it's strictly Islamic nations putting forth this request

Why would it blow back onto any of the Christian sects here?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. They've allied with Islamic fundies when it has suited them.

I.E. against international conventions on rights for women, family planning, that kind of thing.

Being completely fucked in the head --and drunk on dogma-- makes for strange bedfellows.

[fujiyama]

51. Good point

The US recently sided with Iran regarding human rights for gays and lesbians.

Pat Robertson rants about Islam, but he'd be surprised how much in common he has with extremist muslims.

[Psephos]

163. "being...drunk on dogma makes for strange bedfellows"

Which, I suppose, explains some of the Galloway fans on DU.

Enough to make me take the pledge.

Peace.

[Hoping4Change]

125. It would be covered under international law. Let me prophesize for a

moment. It such a law took effect, xhristian fundies would suddenly take a shine to the U.N. and claim the same priviledge to stifle speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Maybe if we had anything resembling a rational, adversarial press.

As it is, George W. Bush has a helluva lot more in common with Osama Bin Laden- not just in terms of rigid, extreme religious beliefs, but also in terms of common family connections and business interests- than Michael Moore could EVER have with OBL.


So, of course, who do they compare to whom?

[Pavulon]

15. And I want

a new porsche and to be 23 again.

Sorry fellas time to join the twenty first century.

[thinkingwoman]

17. sure, right after...

the UN adopts a "no killing in the name of anyone's G-d clause." :eyes:

[Igel]

18. Would it be subject to the usual clause the OIC

insists on--yeah, human rights, but nothing that violates our beliefs, and we get to define them?

Still a bad idea. Just curious as to whether we need to extend the hypocrisy scale 10x, or 1k x.

[Endangered Specie]

19. My opinion of the UN is not high...

if they so much as consider this it will drop lower.

[saltpoint]

21. Well of course they do, the dears.

'Blasphemy' meaning THEIR definition of 'blasphemy'? Why not have a similar measure introduced to the U.S. Constitution to protect against 'blasphemy' against Christianity?

How about corporate dumping of neurotoxins in streams and ground water? Doesn't that constitute blasphemy to pagans and other earth-centered religions?

I don't like anybody knocking the music I enjoy, so I demand an official document that says nobody can do it, ever. It also inflames me if anyone expresses a political view different from mine. If anyone tries, I feel I then have the right to burn down their country's embassy.

____
I'd suggest that the United Nations has other fish to fry right now in Northern Africa, for example, and the cartoon crisis is just going to have to wait.

[Matariki]

24. well, as long as no one gets to blaspheme against Satan either

or The Goddess. or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.

[Zhade]

25. It's religion. Fuck that.

People are free to believe what they want.

They are not free to demand I respect the nonsense and bullshit they may believe, however.

[TankLV]

166. Exactly - especially when one of their actions is to KILL all gay persons.

No matter what those that defend these VIOLENT luntatics and their various VIOLENT sects of Islam.

Same with the fundie Christians.

They wish me HARM - in a very direct and not vague way. THEY are therefore my ENEMY and not only diserving of RIDICULE but my deepest CONTEMPT.

[HuffleClaw]

26. a baaaaaaaad idea

who gets to say what 'blasphemy' is? it could mean just about anything. imagine what fundies like pat robertson would do with a thing like that. brrrrrrrrrrrr.

[RaRa]

28. Give me a god damn fucking break n/t

[FlaGranny]

29. Whose blasphemy would that be? n/t

[iamjoy]

30. Shall We Burn Offenders At The Stake?

while we're at it, why not have human rights clauses against heresy, too.

[VegasWolf]

32. But then we can't ridicule imaginary sky people!

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. To all those piling on against this....

what the fuck is up with the knee-jerk condemnations?

Did I miss something? Is this anti-Muslim week?

If freedom of speech and expression is your concern, then discussions about blasphemy and how it relates to human rights should be applauded by you.

[rinsd]

34. What is knee jerk about it?

Thinking the codification of blasphemy as opposed to religious hatred into the human rights charter is foolish and antithical to the seperation of church and state?

On edit: I am a terrible speller

[Warren DeMontague]

35. "discussions about blasphemy and how it relates to human rights"

Here's your discussion:

If you're talking about "blasphemy" in the context of it being anything resembling a crime, you've just tossed "human rights" out the fucking WINDOW.

The only thing "knee-jerk" around here is misguided folks bending over backwards to apologize for fanatical religious extremism that everyone interested in human rights and freedom should find noxious, merely because it happens to be allegedly "Islamic" in nature. :crazy:

[Zenlitened]

40. Well said.

:applause:

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. ya think?

He misrepresented what I've said, but got away with it by saying "if".

He implied that I was "bending over backwards to apologize for fanatical religious extremism".

I guess it was "well said" in the same way that the ring dialogue for the WWF is "well said".

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Okay, then. Why don't YOU explain what you meant.

You know, to those of us "knee-jerk anti-Muslims" who are "piling on" against the addition of "Blasphemy" as a crime or infringement against human rights in a UN Charter.

Really. What's your take? Best way to avoid being misrepresented is to stand up and clearly explain what it is you mean.

[Zenlitened]

59. No, he made it into a broad statement about general conditions and ideals

... by adding the word "if." So it became a way of describing the societal, rather than the personal.

Not every statement is about you personally. Although that's just the kind of mindset that leads people to riot and kill over cartoons.

Perhaps you were intentionally demonstrating that very point in a subtle way?

:shrug:

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. "bending over backwards to apologize for fanatical religious extremism"

Who, exactly, has done that?

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Who, exactly, has engaged in

"Knee-jerk anti-Muslim condemnations"?

[TankLV]

167. Well said. Thank you.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. I don't understand your post at all....

would you care to explain or elaborate, please?

[Zhade]

46. We don't have an anti-blasphemy law with regards to Santa Claus.

Why should we make any exceptions for beliefs rooted in just as much myth?

"Blasphemy" is only a crime to those who believe in that stuff. It has no place in secular law.

[Darranar]

52. Blasphemy has nothing to do with human rights.

There is no "right" not to be offended.

This ridiculous move should not be opposed because some Muslims are behind it, it should be opposed because it is an attempt to restrict freedom of expression, and that is disgusting.

[madmark]

58. blasphemy laws are tools to control speech content regardless

if they are pushed by muslims, christians or anybody else. I condemn blasphemy laws across the board.

[VirginiaDem]

62. Would you support the proposed resolution?

You've been a consistent critic on the cartoon threads of the notion that this is about freedom of the press. You have made a consistent case that the cartoons are indeed offensive.

So, would you support it (or something like it)?

[truthInCO]

63. Blasphemy?

What is blasphemy? I could give a f*ck. No one, and especially no U.N. agency, is going to dictate what I can say, print or draw. The can pass whatever laws they want!! Blasphemy does not exist for us atheists. If another group of medieval bastards (catholic, muslim, scientology, whatever) is offended, tough titties! It's their responsibility to react peacefully.

Do you really want it to be a crime to lampoon Tom Cruise and his beliefs!

[iverglas]

71. yeah, eh?

If freedom of speech and expression is your concern, then discussions about blasphemy and how it relates to human rights should be applauded by you.

Why, when "Fuck you!" has always been such an excellent and productive way of achieving progress in human relationships?

The discussion provides an opportunity for "the West" to identify and advocate for its values. How terrible.

How much more effective for "the West" to say what we say trumps what you say! like it or lump it! ... and if you don't accept those terms, we'll have to bomb you, I guess.

The fact that nothing anybody says EVER trumps anything anybody else says, in the actual real world, can be ignored -- if the party claiming trump doesn't care what happens next. Trump only wins when the parties have agreed to that rule. If I try to trump your Jack of clubs with a ten of hearts, when you have called clubs trump, I will lose by the rules of euchre ... but if I didn't agree that clubs were trump, and I decide to just hit you over the head and take your money, you might not feel like you've won much.

Anyone advocating that his/her interests, whatever they may be, trumps someone else's interest in saying whatever s/he likes has not agreed to the rules that the other party wants to play by. And vice versa. So it does that neither party very much good to say "my interest trumps your interest" and claim victory.

It is the rules themselves that need to be agreed to, and that can only be done by exchanging views and negotiating terms where views remain unreconciled. Saying "fuck you" to the other party to the negotiations might feel grand, but it isn't going to resolve whatever the difference is, and it isn't going to provide much protection against whatever method the other party might choose to resolve it in its own favour.

I'm not clear on what is being asked for in this instance (and I doubt that many here are any clearer).

The body under discussion hears complaints against governments, not individuals or corporations. Only complaints of blasphemy committed by states would appear to be subject to its jurisdiction -- although legislation that permitted blasphemy might be a basis for complaint, like legislation that permitted racial discrimination etc.

The 1848 Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains these clauses:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (my emphasis)

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, ...

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ...

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

There is, of course, an inherent contradiction there: incitement to discrimination is speech. And similar contradictions exist in the laws of even the most "free" societies: there *are* limits on speech for a variety of reasons.

Objections to blasphemy based purely on religious tenets are no more acceptable, to those who do not adhere to any such tenets, than objections to abortion based purely on such tenets are, to those who do not adhere to them.

There is no question that a prohibition on blasphemy, based purely on religious tenets, is not consistent with the preponderance of opinion among adherents to most religions, and adherents of no religion -- the preponderance of opinion of us, human beings. But a prohibition on blasphemy can be based on other factors that we can recognize as overriding: for instance, an attempt to preserve a minimum of order in a society in which blasphemous speech would truly amount to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

If those advocating such a prohibition cannot offer reasons that are consistent with the consensus view of when limits on speech are acceptable, we regard them as defining their position out of the discourse. We would look the same way on anyone who proposed that article 4 of the Declaration:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

apply to everyone except women, say. The exception isn't justified; it essentially negates the entire idea of a prohibition on slavery, just as we believe that a prohibition on blasphemy negates the entire idea of free speech.

These aren't ideas that we are all born with. They are ideas we as human beings invent. They gain acceptance through exposing people to them, and advocating them by presenting facts and arguments to support them. If the other side is engaging in the discussion honestly and in good faith, they listen. If the ideas are good, they are accepted.

If the other side has reasons for rejecting them that have nothing to do with the values that are supposedly the basis of the discussion -- if slave owners reject a prohibition on slavery not because they disagree that slavery is harmful to individuals and society and thus "wrong", but because it will cause them to lose money -- there may well be nothing that can be done to persuade them; in essence, they are already persuaded, they just won't act accordingly. That's when the party with the power makes the rule it wants regardless of the other party's disagreement, and force is the only possible response by either side to an attempt to enforce or disobey the rule.

Sometimes the sides aren't what they seem to be. Sometimes the side that purports to be upholding the important value in issue is speaking with a forked tongue. Sometimes people arguing the slavery is beneficial to the slave are just protecting their profits. And sometimes the people waving the flag of free speech are just bigots who want to use speech to incite harm to other people.

If the aim is to avoid the use of force by either side, the persuasive process has to be undertaken and continued -- for as long as it can, and as long as it takes.

Or hell, we can just say "fuck you" and wait for the next bomb to go off.

If we really do believe that the other party is wrapping itself up in a common value but actually seeking to achieve an unacceptable end, we may have no choice but to say "fuck you". I may believe that someone using the language of human rights (dignity, respect, equality ...) to impose an anti-blasphemy rule really has no respect for human rights at all and is simply seeking to acquire power for his/her own ends. But equally, someone else may believe that I am using that language for the same purpose.

Surely continuing the discussion until one is sure is better than walking away from it based on what may be an inaccurate pre-judgment of the other party.

[NashVegas]

82. Thanks to Our Idiot-in-Chief and His Courtiers

I am becoming convinced that there's no way to avoid this confrontation.

Side question: by any chance are you a James Carse reader?

[iverglas]

83. side answer

No ... but I'm betting I should be.

Do you suppose James Carse is an iverglas reader? ;)

Cereally, I'd never heard of James Carse. I read all day for work, and it's all law and law and more law, and social policy and stuff like that. I hardly ever read by choice!

First up on google:
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/carse/

Envision life as play and possibility. Instead winning and losing, what would happen if our objective was to keep life's relationships going? Instead of playing by the rules, what if we played with the rules? What if we moved from what James Carse calls "finite games" to "infinite" games, focused on engaging people rather than elevating winners and discarding losers, accepted that we are profoundly out of control, embraced life's unknowns with an eagerness for surprises?

Dang! Embrace the contradictions, that's what I say. Do you suppose he's available??

Oh well, then he uses the word "spiritual". Damn, I hate having to settle. ;)

(type fixed)

[NashVegas]

92. To Answer Your Question ...

The first one, anyway, I have no idea.

2nd question: I don't know, perhaps it would depend on what you'd want him to be available for.

Here's a little more, a very brief encapsulation from Finite and Infinite Games:

http://www.newciv.org/pos/infinitegames.html

FWIW, here's the same book referred to in law context:

http://www.wvu.edu/~lawfac/jelkins/imagine/carse.html

[iverglas]

118. very interesting again, thanks

Reminds me of the cooperative-game movement, and of course the many things said by many people about men's and women's different approaches to problem-solving.

I often think how if phys ed had been approached this way when I was in school, I wouldn't be counting carbs today.

Back when I did about a year of water aerobics (which I quite enjoyed except for having to put up with all the annoying other people in the pool), our instructor, one of those all-round athlete types, tried to get us to warm up one day by making us stand in a circle, giving us a ball and telling us to play some game or other with it. After about 5 minutes of everybody trying to avoid ever having to deal with the ball, I pointed out to her that the whole reason we were here was that we were the ones who hated sports in school, and we weren't going to play with her stupid ball now any more than we did 30 years ago.

Finite games are played to win.
Infinite games are played to play.

If phys ed were an infinite game instead of a bunch of kids standing around hoping to get picked for the team ... or hoping not to get picked ... there'd probably be a lot of kids growing up a lot healthier.

But I digress. Thanks again, it is very interesting, and I'll be looking at him some more.

[Hoping4Change]

126. Blasphemy and free speech are polar opposites. Free speech ends where

blasphemy begins.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

205. Death threats ought not be applauded. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

36. And who decides what blasphemy is?

Whose opinion counts? Blasphemy against whom?

Can Muslim nations continue to safely deride Jews and Hindus?

What an extremely silly idea. Extremely.

[corporate_mike]

80. the UN of course :)

[buddysmellgood]

38. Same shit, different religion. Just like Falwell and his ilk.

[Zenlitened]

41. Making "blasphemy" a crime just gives fundies a license to kill.

Fundies of any stripe will just run with that shit: "See? You broke the law. THAT'S why we're punishing you. Because you're a criminal."

:puke:

[smirkymonkey]

69. The Vigilante Religious Nut-Case Brigade....

that's all we need. :eyes:

[Xithras]

202. Exactly. It will fuel religious wars.

If a Christian calls Muhammed a fraud, is that blasphemy? What about the fact that Christianity teaches that Jesus was the last savior and the son of God? Their theology plainly states that Muhammed can't be who he says he is.

On the flipside, when an imam declares that Jesus was just a man, isn't that blasphemy against Christians who believe that he was the boldily incarnation of God himself?

The very nature of religion dictates that each one believes it's the one true way. Since other religions say the same thing and only one can be right, that means there's a lot of blaspheming going on around the world. And of course the atheists are blapheming every day when they laugh at the silly people practicing their ancient superstitions and bending over to sniff butts in honor of their fictitious sky people.

Blasphemy laws only work if the state is trying to push one official religion, and even then they're a violent abuse of minorities. People have the right to publically support or denounce any religion they choose, and the government should have no role in the matter.

[wordpix2]

44. how about anti-beheading & stop the nasty madrass teachings clause?

[barb162]

162. funny isn't it? that cartoons about the prophet gets on their nerves

but not the things you mention.

:eyes:

[drhilarius]

47. What? And give up my collection of Muhammad screwing Jesus jokes...

never! We should all refuse to codify religious insanity, be it Christian, Muslim, or other.

[sleipnir]

53. They can go fuck themselves back to the 5th Century.

I've had it with this anti-free speech talk coming out of the Muslim governments. I guess their true colors are starting to show. Being an artist, this talk is very dangerous and I wonder where it will lead.

Listen up guys, take a joke, learn to see that others see this world in different ways, and sit the fuck back down and get with modern society.

This is absurd. Beyond the pale.

And this is the kind of shit that makes me put on my tinfoil hat and wonder if all of the last 10 years have just been one big PsyOp...

[fujiyama]

158. It will lead

to a noose to your neck or a bullet in your back.

Ask Theodore Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker that was gunned down. Or ask the Japanese translator for the Satanic Verses.

Blasphemy laws go against absolutely everything in the UN Charter of Human Rights. It is the antithesis of a free society.

[pop goes the weasel]

54. would such a rule

force penalties on nations which allow for negative remarks and characterizations of Satan? After all, there are plenty of Satanists. Would a Satanist be able to bring suit against, say, Iran for maligning Satan by comparing him to the United States?

It could prove an amusing rule to enforce, but I'd just as soon religious people spent their energy running their own lives according to their own faith instead of trying to run other people's lives.

[BiggJawn]

60. Give it to them.

In return, they agree to start treating women like HUMAN BEINGS. No burkhas, no stoning of rape victims, no throwing acid on women wearing make-up, Saudi women can go out w/o their male relatives herding them like goats. None of that stuff that's so "fun" about being a good Sharia-observing Muslim man...

Bet they'd back down REAL fast.

[Bushy Being Born]

61. HAH! Over my dead body!

n/t

[genie_weenie]

64. No.

No. Just no, not followed by some witty remark or cutting insight, just NO.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20051212-062513-7587r.htm

[slackmaster]

65. In the words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

"Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!"

[Megahurtz]

81. My thoughts as well! n/t

[Indy Lurker]

66. I think it's agreat idea.

I will declare myself a god, then whenever anyone disagrees with me I will have them arrested for blasphemy.



Or is it only for certain Religions?

[Carni]

101. That's the way to go

I think I will also declare myself a God and follow suit...I have always wanted to shut people up without challenge.

[Javaman]

67. becareful what they wish for, the door swings both ways. morons n/t

[Bragi]

70. I'm thinking... NOT. Thanks anyway /eom

[azurnoir]

72. Well folks

try and remember just how and why this got started-because a right-wing newspaper and a right wing christian magazine printed cartoons they knew to be offensive then supposed clerics in an Islamic country with close ties to our right wing government whipped up the population or at least a small percentage of it.
Some things to keep in mind the Danish paper could very possibly have averted the whole mess by simply printing an apology saying they did not mean to offend anyone no not a retraction just an apology-(I believe a US paper would have)they chose not to,in no small part because offense is exactly what was intended and also the head of the Islamic religion (grand mufti?) publicly denounced clerics inciting these riots. However the it winds up with Islamic countries asking the UN to add to the UN bill of rights an anti-blasphemy clause. This clause would cut all ways although it seems that many posters here think in only two dimensions Islam and everyone else.
It should be remembered that it was the wingers that chose to frame this as "freedom of speech".to me this whole incident has the feeling of a propaganda tool being used to whip anti Islamic sentiment on a wide scale, so while your all going on about ignorant, back wards, savage Islamics maybe you should stop and think about just WHO's agenda benefits from this and WHY this propaganda is (apparently successfully) being catapulted.

[iverglas]

73. out of the mouths of newbies ;)

Thank you.

[azurnoir]

74. You're Welcome

and thank you I was afraid I was going to get flamed big time on this.

[iverglas]

76. your time will come

The savage-ignorant-Muslim crowd seems to have, er, flamed out for now. Others of us endured their wrath this time around; you can be on the relief team next time. ;)

[DemExpat]

84. In The Netherlands the leftist parties are all standing firmly on the side

of freedom of speech and of the press on this issue, while it is some of the right wing parties (Bush allies and Christian parties) who are saying that we need to bend to Islamic demands for censorship of speech in the West and show respect for religious beliefs and taboos.

From your post:
It should be remembered that it was the wingers that chose to frame this as "freedom of speech".to me this whole incident has the feeling of a propaganda tool being used to whip anti Islamic sentiment on a wide scale, so while your all going on about ignorant, back wards, savage Islamics maybe you should stop and think about just WHO's agenda benefits from this and WHY this propaganda is (apparently successfully) being catapulted.

This crisis may well be just what the Bush administration wants and will use to fuel their plans, but OTOH I believe the Islamic extremists and totalitarian regimes are whipping this up for their reasons (anti-West, anti-modernity) propoganda for theocracy, and show of power/intimidation.

Of all the utter outrages ocurring against their fellow Muslims the world over, (and those committed by fellow Muslims), a 6 month old cartoon series in Denmark is what ignites all of this religious rage and hurt......

Very complex issues playing out here, IMO.

I support free speech tempered by the law in the courts, even speech from other ideologies/beliefs that offend me.


DemEx

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. They apologized on the 30th January

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
...
Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

Some Danish Muslims have accepted it, other say it's too ambiguous.

[Karenina]

89. THIS is the atmosphere

into which these "cartoons" were released.

For hot links go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=377584&mesg_id=378206

Context is EVERYTHING
COPENHAGEN, August 4, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A Danish radio commentator has been charged with violating anti-racism laws for his anti-Muslim remarks in which he called for "exterminating Muslims" in Europe.
<snip>
A recent report by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) also said that Muslim minorities across Europe have been experiencing growing distrust, hostility and discrimination since the 9/11 attacks.
Danish Muslims - estimated at 170,000 or around 3 per cent of Denmark's 5.4 million - sounded the alarms that much more restrictive steps would be taken by the government in future.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/04/arti...

COPENHAGEN, April 15, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II claimed that Islam poses a global threat and urged government to show no tolerance toward the Muslim minority in the north European country, reported the Telegraph on Friday, April 15.
“We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance,” the queen said in an official biography published on Thursday, April 14.
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-04/15/article0...


WASHINGTON, September 8 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – In an article published in the Canadian newspaper the National Post, two Danish politicians said that they were offended by the way integration problems in Denmark were portrayed in an article written by authors Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard.
<snip>
According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Pipes has throughout his career exhibited troubling bigotry toward Muslims and Islam. As early as 1983, even an otherwise positive Washington Post book review noted that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them," CAIR said on their website.
Recently, Pipes questioned the origins of the Quran, Islam's revealed text, and questioned whether the Prophet Muhammad ever existed. According to Pipes, the night journey of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem referred to in the Quran (17:1) never occurred.
Pipes also displays a racist's distaste for Muslim immigrants who "wish to import the customs of the Middle East and South Asia." (Los Angeles Times, 7/22/99) For Pipes, this sort of raw bigotry is nothing new.
In 1990, he said: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National Review, 11/19/90).
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-09/08/arti...

By BOUTHAINA SHAABAN
Oustside View Commentator
DAMASCUS, Syria, Feb. 6 (UPI)

Denmark has become the country heading the spear of hatred against Islam and Muslims. In the 1990s, the Danish Popular Party considered Muslims in Denmark -- 4 percent of the population -- a "troubling problem." After Sept. 11, other Danish parties started sharing the same concern, and talking against "Muslims in Denmark" became a tool in election campaigns. The media started focusing on emigrant problems and accused Muslims of "violence" and "extremism." Even the queen herself joined the choir and expressed worry over the problems that her "Muslim" subjects represented.

A Danish Popular Party candidate in Copenhagen, Luis Ferivrette described Danish Muslims as "cancerous disease in the Danish society." The Party's spokesperson, Martin Henriksen, said that "Islam, since its beginning, has been a terrorist movement," and he warned against allowing Danish Muslims candidacy to the parliament or city councils. Henriksen describes Danish Muslim converts as "moral criminals" and prides in the fact that "criticizing Islam is the official policy of (his) Party." Within this context, the cartoon contest organized by Yandposten came as a natural result.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?S...

Research courtesy of DulceDecorum

[DemExpat]

91. Part of the atmosphere.....unfortunately.

Here is IMO a rather more balanced pov from a Danish journalist familiar with Danish society, journalism and laws.

http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=1R26hu

DemEx

[Karenina]

106. "More balanced?"

I appreciate the link to an individual who has his head screwed on straight AND sharp peripheral vision. However wonderful, a blog does NOT have the power to conteract the daily output of major print media dedicated to the demonization of a minority. NO WAY, NO HOW.

Americans believe that black people dominate the welfare rolls. Whites be paying for lazy, overbreeding leeches on the system. Major media promotes that misconception. It's a LIE, the same as it is in Denmark.
Those who take it upon themselves to EXPOSE the lies are to be commended.
They unfortunately do not have the WEIGHT or circulation to counterbalance on their own.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. On the subject of Margrethe's remarks - 3 days later on IslamOnline

CAIRO, April 18, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – Danish Queen Margrethe II’s statements on Islam have been distorted by some Western media, which unsurprisingly make too much fuss about nothing when it comes to the Muslim faith, a Danish Muslim activist has said.

“The queen did say that 'radical Islam' and not 'Islam' posed a threat and was a cause of concern,” Abul Hassan Mohammad Shehada, the director of Al-Aqsa Cultural Center in the northern city of Odense, told IslamOnline.net by phone.

“Make no mistake: I'm not defending her, but it is impossible for a queen best known for her moderation and acceptance of the other to attack Islam as a whole,” he added.

Shehada said representatives of Islamic centers in Denmark, who met Sunday, April 17, in Odense, saw nothing offensive in the queen's statements.

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-04/18/article04.shtml

They blame bad translation into English by Reuters and the Daily Telegraph. They go on to say they do have some problems with Danish laws, such as laws about marrying people from outside the country, or the right to reject someone for employment without giving a reason - which they fear can be used to discriminate against Muslim applicants.

[Karenina]

98. Thanx for this...

Just goes to show how complex the myriad agendas really are...

[Karenina]

93. Sweetiekins! Welcome to DU!!!

You've just lengthened this old lady's life with hope that some young'uns GET IT. There are actors on all sides of the political fence milking this shit for every drop of propaganda they can pull. It's the PERFECT "Clash of Civilizations" frame; A. "dem damn crazy Muslim fanatics think they can come in hyah an ABRIDGE our RIGHTS!!! THEY need to chill and get a clue! THEY are VIOLENT!!! Let's poke 'em in the eye again with another sharp stick!" FUCK 'EM, dey ain't nothin' but savage barbarians anyhoo!!!" B. "The INFIDELS be bombing us, rapin' our wimmin and chilluns, stealing our shit WHOLESALE, destroying or way of life, manipulating out gub'mints, callin' us vermin in need of extermination and NOW they be mountin' an assault on The Prophet!!!" :argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[HEyHEY]

147. Uh, yeah....

This was something that happened months ago, then the Islamics got ahold of it and made it into a big deal. The only people using it for propaganda reasons are Clerics drumming up hatred of the west, this is a fucking cartoon. If it had poked fun at Christians we would not be having this conspiracy conversation.

[brentspeak]

88. Rotsa ruck

You can "want" language against blasphemy all you want, but you're not gonna get it, morons.

[alarimer]

90. How about a "treating women like human beings" clause?

Like, no stoning of rape victims and guaranteed equal rights.

[JerseygirlCT]

94. You radical, you. nt

[PittPoliSci]

97. i had the same thought!

:Hi:

[alarimer]

102. Great minds think alike

LOL

But the problem I have with all fundamentalists, as many others have mentioned, is their aim to force their beliefs on everyone else. I do not ask that people not practice their religion as they see fit; all I ask is to be left alone. I think that the UN Human Rights Commission can prohibit religious hatred of whatever stripe but that is a far cry from legislating against blasphemy because one person's blasphemy is another's joke or satire or what have you.

[iverglas]

119. great minds? you mean ...

... the one that came up with the bigoted insinuation that European Muslims don't treat women like human beings?

Not the adjective I'd be using for such a mind, myself. Befuddled, hairbrained, blinded by prejudice ... they would be more like it.

I do not ask that people not practice their religion as they see fit; all I ask is to be left alone.

All about you, isn't it? Not remotely about all the Muslims in Europe who just ask the same thing, no, not at all. Them, they're fair game for target practice by anyone with a keyboard.

I think that the UN Human Rights Commission can prohibit religious hatred of whatever stripe but that is a far cry from legislating against blasphemy because one person's blasphemy is another's joke or satire or what have you.

Hey, I think that people can honestly and sincerely defend that position.

But that's a far cry from making false and despicable allegations about a group of people identified by their religion. That kind of thing is what I see as falling precisely under the first rubric in that statement.

Too bad you didn't skip that first post.

[alarimer]

129. I'll stand by it

These fundamentalist ASSHOLES do not treat women like human beings. Stoning to death RAPE VICTIMS, as is about to happen in Iran. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive. BARBARIC by any definition. Until this religion (and the others too by the way) join the 21st century, they can all go to hell.

The Muslims moved to Europe, they weren't forced to go there. They need to adapt just a little bit.

[RandomKoolzip]

110. Zing! Nice retort.

[TankLV]

169. How about not KILLING gay persons?

I think that would be more urgent need here than legislation against WORDS!

FUCKING DARK AGE RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES!

[PittPoliSci]

96. yeah slide that in there...

just as soon as they give women some rights and stop fucking stoning people.

[iverglas]

120. and someone slides in ...

just as soon as they give women some rights and stop fucking stoning people.

... yet another vicious, dishonest generalization about millions of people who do no such fucking thing.

Goodness, how could any of those millions of people possibly feel that they are being exposed to hatred by people saying vicious, false things about them?

What a mystery.

[Megahurtz]

99. Just one more reason for

the Separation of Church and State!

So in the case with the UN here.....
How about the Separation of Church and World?:think:

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fovea]

107. Will that include holocaust denial?

including the witch burning times?

[Spinoza]

108. There should be an anti-blasphemy provision

as soon as all (100%) member states can agree on the exact definition of blasphemy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

109. Censorship demands by Arab/Muslims

How much are we going to kowtow to the censorship demands by the Arab/Muslims? They need to start by censoring their own attacks of Hindus, Hindu religions, Jews, Jewish religion, Christians, Christian religion.

Are we next going to censor ourselves from using cartoons to attack Bush and Cheney?

This is bullshit.

[iverglas]

121. they, they, they

You sure have a lot to say. Too bad all of it is so ugly.

Imagine what you might be able to accomplish if you tried saying something true and useful.

I guess we'll never know.

Are we next going to censor ourselves from using cartoons to attack Bush and Cheney?

I guess you'll let us know when someone appoints one of them god, in whcih case this pointless remark might actually have something to do with something.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

128. I've yet to hear anything about cartoons against Jews and Hindus

Apparently you think that Arab/Muslims are to be allowed every sort of behavior and catered to any demand at all. I'm not even going to bother to ask why.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

142. If it's false, then let's see you condemn anti-semitism on their part

and anti-Hindu cartoons ridiculing Hindus and their gods and goddesses which they hold so dear. And let's see you condemn the public beatings and public executions of women for hearsay accusations of activity which men are not executed for. Let's see you condemn those things. Then you'll have proved me wrong.

[iverglas]

143. if it's false

then let's see you prove you don't beat your dog.

You just don't get the whole concept of civil discourse, do you?

Let's see you condemn those things. Then you'll have proved me wrong.

Sweetheart, you're the one who made a statement about me. Let's see YOU prove it TRUE.

If you can't do that, let's see you hold your tongue.

No one in the world has any onus of proving that anything that happens to come out of your mouth is false.

Civilized people simply don't go around the world making false statements about other people, portraying those other people as stupid or evil, and then demand that those other people refute them.

No one can stop uncivilized people from doing that, but no one is under any obligation to dignify their false statements by refuting them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

144. You just made my point by not condemming anti-semitism and

the mistreatment and murder of women by Arabs/Muslims. The discussion with you ends here.

[iverglas]

145. you beat your dog!

You're right, the discussion ends here. I don't talk to dog-beaters.

[HEyHEY]

148. What statement was false?

[iverglas]

152. follow discussions much?

Any reason you've decided to be johnny come lately in these discussions, and any reason for the particular posts you've decided to reply to?

I have a theory.

Try reading more than the last post in this particular little sub-discussion (not to mention just about anything my interlocutor in it has said in the past several days), and you really shouldn't have much difficulty spotting the false statement.

[HEyHEY]

206. Try keeping one to the point, and then one can follow them

Instead of dodging the argument

[iverglas]

207. I repeat: try reading the discussion

Apparently someone later took offence at something in the post in which I initially rejected the false statement. I don't recall what was in that post, but how it could be regarded as worse than the racism and bigotry and ethnocentrism and xenophobia spewed all over these threads, I have no clue.

In any event, here you go:

Apparently you think that Arab/Muslims are to be allowed every sort of behavior and catered to any demand at all.

What is APPARENT is that I think no such thing, and that the poster had no basis whatsoever for thinking, let alone saying in public, that I think any such thing. The statement is false as regards what I think, and false as regards what it is apparent that I think.

How anyone couldn't have figured this out, I also don't know.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

157. fascinating

Not only am I "trolling", and nobody except you has figured that out after my thousands of posts over these several years, but I've also apparently had gender reassignment surgery without my even noticing.

Tired of shooting your mouth off and hitting yourself in the foot yet?

[iverglas]

146. btw, that one wasn't true either

"I've yet to hear anything about cartoons against Jews and Hindus"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2102155&mesg_id=2103104

Addressed to you -- oops, after you posted that stupid statement.

You got yer little gold star; YOU do the research -- BEFORE opening your mouth and emitting false statements.

We all know you won't, so here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080827&mesg_id=2089656

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2090429&mesg_id=2092310

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2090429&mesg_id=2094265

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2089572&mesg_id=2089856

Now I'm bored; I'm sure you can find others.

If you can think of some way that repeatedly comparing the hateful representation of European Muslims today to the hateful representation of European Jews in the previous century = saying nothing about cartoons about Jews, you've got a serious case of failure to think.

I am engaged in a discussion of the representation of European Muslims today, not the representation of Jews today anywhere in the world. I have no obligation to say anything about that or about the price of tea in China, or the state of your poor dog's health, in a discussion of the representation of European Muslims today.

If you know this and nonetheless demand that I speak on a subject that is not the topic at hand or you will say things about me that you have no basis for saying, you are despicable. If you really fail to understand it, you simply have no business saying anything at all in public until you learn how to think straight. If there's some other reason for your behaviour that hasn't occurred to me, I'm always open to hearing it.

For now, the nausea at your entire schtick is becoming overwhelming.

[Harper_is_Bush]

122. Yeah

And while we're at it, let's publish some racist cartoons offending nigg#rs!

How much are we going to kowtow to the censorship demands of the nigg#rs?

This is bullshit.

[jahyarain]

127. is being black a religion now?

oh, and you're right about one thing.
this is most definitely bullshit.
preplanned by both sides (it came out three fucking years ago)
but bullshit nonetheless

Peace

it's the religions, stupid

[Harper_is_Bush]

130. I was being satirical by repeating the "bullshit" comment

..so you're wrong to think I'm right about that.

I think the bullshit part is all the anti-Muslim sentiment I've seen spill out over this.

Peace that yo.

[Megahurtz]

203. You got THAT right!

:applause:

[HEyHEY]

149. One is a RACE of people, one is a religion

Big difference. Plus, black people do not enjoy an international law prohibiting racist sentiment against them.

[Oak2004]

150. Such cartoons exist

Have you ever seen American white supremicist publications?

They're disgusting.

And I will defend their right to publish such crap, because I know their right to speak is intimately tied to my right to speak.

There are other, better, ways to address racism than to trample civil liberties.

[iverglas]

141. oh, by the way

Are we next going to censor ourselves from using cartoons to attack Bush and Cheney?

What can you tell me about those free speech zone thingies I've heard so much about?

I guess people in the US are just censoring themselves when they're herded like cattle into remote paddocks to express their political dissent ...

[unschooler]

198. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to attack any of these religions.

Criticizing Hindu, Jewish or Christian people is certainly more distasteful, but I still defend their right to do it.

[liberalpragmatist]

111. Absolutely not

Anybody can track my posts to see that I will aggressively defend the Muslim world from DU'ers who try to project collective guilt over the entire Muslim world. The overwhelming majority of Muslims want nothing to do with the extremists and nutcases who have been burning down embassies and calling for the deaths of the cartoonists.

I will also fully defend the right of any Muslim to be offended, since freedom of speech and expression is a two-way road.

But no way should their be a blasphemy clause. People should be allowed to criticize religious figures; religious followers should the right to be offended but that does not give them the excuse to deny others the freedom to say what they want.

[Julius Civitatus]

114. Nobody expects the Muslim Inquisition!!!

"Anti-Blasphemy clause"???

Sure. Let's bring back the auto-de-fe, as well.
And the witch trials...

[madmark]

116. fuck that; if shit like that gets in the UN then im joining the black

helicopter crowd.

[BonjourUSA]

124. They're simply asking us to stop to be ourselves !!!!

[flashdebadge]

134. Give me a break! Freedom of speech means freedom to be offended!

[slackmaster]

135. I phrase that as nobody has a right to feel any particular way

People always have a choice about how to feel about something another person says. You have an option to feel offended, but you do not have a right not to feel offended.

[Spankydem]

139. anti-blasphemy clause = No freedom of speech

thaks anyway.

[NNguyenMD]

151. wasn't there a painting exhibit in NYC of the Virgin Mary splattered with

feces? And though there were calls to take it down, no one seriously feared any threats of death and violence.

Being able to express yourself without the fear of violence and reprisal makes for a better society trust me.

[iverglas]

153. yeah, and snore, hasn't it been mentioned here already

several bazillion times, without any of the mentioners managing to explain how it might relate to the portrayal of an entire group of nameless people as worshippers of a terror bomber?

Some Muslims, and in particular some Muslims in positions of political power with obvious agendas of their own, want international agreement that blasphemy is a human rights violation.

One suspects they know perfectly well what's gonna happen to that little proposal ... and just how bigoted a whole lot of non-Muslims, and their political leaders, are going to manage to demonstrate themselves to be in the process.

What a non-issue. But what an issue those people with ugly agendas, on both sides of that big clash of civilizations thingy, are managing to make of it, and how well they have managed to obscure the issues worth talking about.

What a bunch of trained seals some people are awfully desperate to be perceived as.

[Coastie for Truth]

156. ROFLMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[barb162]

161. ditto

[fujiyama]

159. Ah the UN wasting time

Valuable time that could be spent trying to do something about victims of Dar-fur genocide, but then again why would Islamic governments care about ethnic cleansing of Christians and animists in Sudan, especially when its Muslim militias doing the killing?

Of course, the US doesn't seem to care much either besides issuing a few statements here and there.

Or otherwise, valuable time spent on figuring out how to battle aids and other diseases...or fight hunger, or poverty, or lack of education, or...

But OTOH, if someone draws a cartoon mocking a religious figure in some small European country, the world goes ape shit.

And to the religious fanatics, this is what I think of your blasphemy laws:

[corporate_mike]

200. what else is new?

[barb162]

164. How about an anti-polygamy clause

[dubya_dubya_III]

201. An extremely germaine point of discussion!

When Utah was established it was specifically due to Judeo-Christian Fascist persecution.

It seems America learned nothing from it's struggle with the persecutions of Colonial British Anglican Fascism.

The unconstitutional establishment of the tyranny of Judeo-Christian socialism in America has been a gradual creep down a slippery slope toward totalitarian religious fascist tyranny.

Many fundamental religious-socialist groups favor polygamy and as such it is simply a matter of religious freedom. The gay marriage 'issue' is also intimately tied to this horrific and dangerous tragedy.

The Constitutions non-establishment clause seems to have been an empty and useless gesture since "Christian Coalitionists" are allowed to run for political office on the "hate everyone else, our ways or punishment" ticket and rabid fundamentalist Christian and Jewish socialists seem to dominate our courts.

The idea of non-establishment was specifically crafted to be a positive permission, preventing religious socialism from becoming established fascism, thus destroying individual freedom. Religious socialist marital fascism seems to have been the first step toward imposing negative prohibitionism and the crack in the door that established religious fascism to the detriment of our human rights and freedom.

Most ironic of all is that a true Christians principle commandment is to love their neighbor as themselves, a tenet that seldom matches it's socialist proselytizers venomous behavior.

In my opinion any official or legal prohibition of Mohammad Toonz would constitute the establishment and imposition of Muslim Fascist Tyranny over America and must be resisted at all costs, regardless of it's proselytizers silly, ridiculous notions of courtesy. They have religious icons which they buy and sell and display when it suits their ends to do so, and the justification for their persecution of non believers who may wish to do so in a different manner is unenlightened, regressive, unjustifiable and hypocritical.

If they don't want to see them they don't have to look.

[Megahurtz]

204. NOT!

:argh: