Why are the religious so often in need of having their feelings protected?

[BurtWorm]

Is it not true, then, that religion is a source of strength?



http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200602/eb82f6ec-3a87-4def-98e8-fbb6295169bc.htm


EU media code set to follow Muslim cartoons row

A new EU media code of conduct may follow an international row over the publication of cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad in many European newspapers.

EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini is concerned that controversy over the caricatures may damage relations between Christian, secular and Islamic Europeans.

“What we are planning is to organise, in the near future, a round-table with the relevant actors… touching on very difficult, complicated issues,” said Frattini’s spokesman on Friday.

“On the one hand we have freedom of expression, on the other respect for religion and opinions.”

A top level meeting of media bosses, journalists and religious leaders is to be hosted by the European commission by the end of April.

[JuniperLea]

1. Pft... atheists are just as bad

They don't want the word God on our money or in the POA... more intolerance. I'm sick to death of intolerance.

[BuyingThyme]

2. You haven't a clue what tolerance is.

[JuniperLea]

12. You haven't a clue who I am or what I'm about or what I know

It's a myth printed on metal and paper because of an old custom. Doesn't hurt me or anyone else.

[BuyingThyme]

29. No offense, you just have no idea what you're saying.

[JuniperLea]

34. What do you think I'm saying???

There is a time and a season for everything. That is biblical... but true:)

You have to choose your battles well. This is insignificant and yet so many freak out and get all hot and bothered at the mere mention. I say it's a huge waste of time. Our energies are better used elsewhere and we look like sniveling idiots fawning over the small stuff.

[Bill McBlueState]

4. you think that's intolerance?

It's not intolerance; it's a demand that the Establishment Clause be adhered to. You know, the one in our apparently intolerant Constitution.

[Lars39]

5. It's not intolerance to insist on seperation of church and state.

[JuniperLea]

14. True! I'm all for that!

Old customs die hard. God on my coins means nothing to me. Someone forcing God into my womb or my laws is quite another thing. I'm tolerant of old customs and words don't hurt me.

[LittleClarkie]

35. The one that got me when I used to hang at alt.atheism

was the attempt to ban roadside memorials that featured a cross. Granted that was a minority of atheists, and the majority jumped all over the idea as being unnecessary.

You know the roadside memorials I mean. The places where people died are often marked with flowers or crosses or ribbons or teddybears if it was a child. I remember asking someone there if they had a problem with cemeteries too. Tried to justify his stance by saying it had to do with road safety, that someone putting up such a memorial was a hazzard on the side of the road, and that the memorials were a distraction, so they should go.

Because, you know, when you think atheism, you think "road safety." Seemed quite disingenuous to me.

Several of the other people on the board seemed to think that making such a big deal out of a small thing kinda hurt their cause. Indeed surely there were bigger issues than coins and roadside memorials.

[JuniperLea]

43. Exactly!

Bigger fish to fry I say!

When people get all oogly and googly and touchy over insignificant minutia, boy do we look dumb.

Sure it sucks that God is included on our money. If he is real, he probably doesn't like being associated with the root of all evil either! Instead of making fools of ourselves and creating more enemies, how about a firm resolve NOT to let stuff like this happen in the future. The time to stop things is before they happen.

[Goblinmonger]

71. So at what point do we draw the line?

You seem to be the guardian of when things get important, so let me know. It pisses me off that federal money/land is going to exhibit 12 FOOT crosses in Utah (12 FEET is pretty obtrusive, isn't it). I would think it should piss us all off since we are supposed to have a WALL between church and state.

But, please, let me know when I should worry. When we have to pledge allegiance to a nation formed by god in school? When every piece of money I spend tells me that I trust in a god that is fictional? When the majority of the supreme court is Catholic? When can I start caring about the establishment clause? And then, when we do start wondering, and everything is now TRADITION, how do we change it back when even people like yourself that are progressives say that things about god that are TRADITION are not a violation of the establishment clause?

See the problems?

[Goblinmonger]

72. Well I'll give you the better answer

The cemetary is the grave site of someone. The federal cemetaries allow you to choose from a number of different emblems (no grave stones are in the shape of a cross in Arlington), including atheist, that you can put on the grave marker. The crosses in Utah are just crosses. Nothing else. That's the difference.

Plus, one of the tests of the establishment clause is that there is no less intrusive means. Why not put up a marker of the shield of the officer in Utah that was killed? Why not use something in the shape of the badge? Because, you know, when I see a cross on the side of the road I think car accident here, officer killed here, or drunk driving death here.

I am sick and tired of democrats saying that we stop making such a "big deal out of small things." Know where that has got us. Alito on the SCOTUS. But at least our powder is dry for the next time we will never filibuster.

[PassingFair]

76. That's crap.

The "memorials" in question were 12 foot high crucifix like markers, placed and paid for with PUBLIC funds to "memorialize" state troopers.

NOT the little "teddy-bear" memorials one finds along any roadway.

Puhleeze.

[PassingFair]

75. "old customs" from the 50's?

Quaint.

[BurtWorm]

6. It's our money too. That's why we don't want the word God on the money.

But truth is, I'm inured to that shit, as are most atheists, I think.

On the other hand, liberal democratic governments frequently feel they have to bend over backwards, even to the point of sacrificing the fundamental principle of free speech, making it a *crime* for individuals to even hint about intolerance.

[1620rock]

9. Ha ha, I don't care if they put the word fuck on our money....

...as long as it will spend.

[JuniperLea]

18. Exactly!

We get so hung up on petty shit. Time to choose our battles wisely or it will be used against us. They will spread us so thin we will be totally ineffective!

[madmom]

39. they have to have the word god on money it helps them justify

their worship of it.

[JuniperLea]

44. Hahaha!

Good one! Love it! Even when they "know" that money is the root of all evil and it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle... etc.

[maxsolomon]

7. which God is on the money?

YHWH? Allah? The Great Pumpkin?

Please know the history of "In God we Trust" on the money BEFORE you accuse opponent's of its presence of intolerance.

[JuniperLea]

11. Ha! Knew I'd strike a nerve with that one...

My point exactly! Who's God is it anyway? To me, it's just an old fairy tale printed due to an old custom. It doesn't hurt anyone, so why all the hate?

[Lars39]

13. It's presence has emboldened the religious right to to now insist

that this country was founded to be christian.

[JuniperLea]

22. We know that's a pack of lies!

Why do you buy into that crap?

The religious right is a minority! Why do we let them push our buttons so?

The real question here is why is BushCo pandering to them?

[Lars39]

28. What crap?

There's good reason to be concerned. The religious "right" is a minority that has gained a major hold on the rest of us.

[JuniperLea]

36. They are spreading fear, true.

It's crap that this nation was founded on christian "crap".

Seems we give them the power and feed right into their hands.


All I'm saying is we need to choose our battles wisely and not waste effort.

[Lars39]

41. Multi-tasking is possible, you know.

[JuniperLea]

46. I'm the queen of multi-tasking! Just ask my boss!

But you never do one thing quite as well when your energies and focus are divided.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Well, considering the reasons those things happen to be there...

I'd say they OUGHT to be removed.

'In God We Trust' is on US currency thanks to Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, who was a religious fanatic.

'Under god' is in the pledge of allegiance thanks to 1950's hysteria over 'godless Commies' (certain members of Congress deciding that having this in there would be a good way to differentiate the US from said 'godless COmmies', and the First Amendment be damned).

Given that history, and also given the clear wording of the establishment clause of the first amendment, I would say that SUPPORTING these very obvious symbolic kowtows to monotheism is not only intolerant, but 'un-American' (in the sense that it contradicts the principles of the Constitution which forms the basis of our Union and federal government).

[WritingIsMyReligion]

25. Oh no! Not the godless commies!

YES, the godless commies! Yes! Aiiiieeeee!

:scared:

Sorry. That was today's dramatic fit.

;)

[JuniperLea]

26. Two wrongs don't make a right

We need to learn to ignore bullshit like that and choose our battles carefully. Don't you get that it's a trap? To go against "God" is "blasphemous" and you can do nothing but look horribly bad by raising a ruckus over piddly shit like this. The real fight is to keep things like this from happening again.

Key phrase here is choose your battles wisely.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

27. God managed to stay clear of US currency for nearly 100 years.

He stayed off of paper currency until the 1950's.

If I were an infinite creator, I don't think I'd be all that keen to be associated with money. POA? Whazzat?

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[JuniperLea]

32. Pledge of Allegiance

You are so right! That money spent just as well without God on it for a very long time. And when you think about it, that is a dirty nasty place to put his name! heh! Money is the root of all evil, just ask BushCo... no, wait, evil doesn't recognize evil in itself... never mind.

My point is, these are just words that mean nothing. Our efforts are better used elsewhere, imho.

[jonnyblitz]

37. many people of faith ,especially PROGRESSIVE people of faith

don't want "god" on their money either, because most PROGRESSIVES believe in seperation of church and state. I can't believe I have to point that out here at DU of all places.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. I'm a Christian who doesn't want God on the money. But

But I don't really give a shit.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

They got Jesus primarily for tax evasion. He was telling people it was not a sin to pay taxes to Rome because the money was not consecrated money and they shouldn't value money so highly, anyway.

"Whose image is that on the back of the dollar bill? George Washington?"

"So Render unto Washington what is Washington's, and render unto God what is God's."

[Bill McBlueState]

3. sigh, you're right

But they're not gonna like hearing you say that...

[mikelewis]

8. I'm not a muslim but I can see why they find things like that offensive...

It's not really a question of protecting their feelings; it's that we should respect their right to have any beliefs they choose and should be afforded some level of dignity. Casting them as suicide Bombers is like describing all Americans as Neo-Cons. That may just offend a few people around here.

[BurtWorm]

15. But is the solution to outlaw a type of free speech?

This is something I don't get about the other democracies. I think it's a cowardly reaction.

It would be one thing if the speech were inciting riots or hatred against the object of the speech. Ironic that the ones rioting in the case of the Muhammed cartoons are the offended parties. Ironic but telling. It's not that the cartoons are hateful; it's that the believers can't bear to have their beliefs discussed in disbelief. And that returns me to my first question: why are believers so fragile? Isn't belief supposed to be a source of strength? Doesn't this show it up as a source of weakness?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. I resepectfully disagree

What I find offensive about the cartoons is that, by using Mohammaed as a symbol, the cartoons imply that all Muslims are like this-ie bombers, terrorists, bloodthirsty. I have seen cartoons showing Mohammed where valid points are made (ie, the importance is the message and not the messenger) and they did not offend me at all.

Would you be offended if someone posted a cartoon showing an African American in a stereortypical demeaning light? Or a cartoon emphasizing all the negative stereotypes about gays? I would hope you would, because these cartoons would be showing hatred and disrespect towards these groups of people. Same thing with the Danish cartoons, at least in my book.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. Right...

it's as offensive as, say, a cartoon showing Jesus as an abortion-clinic bomber with a mad glint of bloodlust in his eye (which is the closest parallel I can think of re Christianity).

One can't blame Muhammad for the perversion of his message by his followers any more than one can blame Jesus for the Inquisition; and it seems that a reasonable non-theist should be able to see that most Muslims, and indeed most Christians, aren't wild-eyed zealots with a burning desire to put heretics and infidels to the sword--it's just that the fanatics are the loudest, and they tend to be the ones who get noticed.

[BurtWorm]

52. But is it not reasonable for a nonbeliever to make a connection

between the violence of some believers and the violence that must be inherent in the belief system? I can see why it's plain wrong to smear all believers as terrorists, for example. But what is it about religion--not just Islam by any stretch of the imagination--that breeds so many terrorists.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Actually, no, it's NOT reasonable.

Not reasonable because such a train of association and conclusion betrays a profound ignorance of human nature.

Human beings are innately violent; it is part of our evolutionary heritage as social primates with a hierarchical social dominance structure. All social animals, from dogs to chimpanzees to humans, are violent; this violence is directed against those not perceived as a part of one's particular group, pack, tribe, race, nation, religion, political party, or whatever the overarching social organisation is. Thus we have the Israelites exterminating the Midianites and Canaanites, the Romans destroying Carthage, the Crusaders slaughtering Muslims, the Inquisition roasting heretics and Jews, the pogroms of the Middle Ages up through the 19th century, the Taiping Rebellion in China that led to over fifty million dead, lynchings in the post-Civil War Southern United States, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, Lothar von Trotha's extermination of the Herero in German Southwest Africa, Stalin's purges of his political enemies, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, and so on. And the common theme? Not religion, nor ideology; merely one group of people destroying another. Because that's what we've done since time immemorial, and we really haven't changed that much as a species.

Put quite simply, it's not religion that's the problem; it's humanity that's the problem.

[BurtWorm]

54. Religion is often the excuse, though.

As it is in this case.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

Danish embassy torched in Syria

Syrians have set fire to the Danish embassy in Damascus to protest against the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, witnesses say.

The caricatures have sparked outrage in Muslim countries across the world, following their publication in a Danish newspaper in September.

...

The cartoons have sparked diplomatic sanctions, boycotts and death threats in some Arab nations, while some newsapers have defended publication of the images in the name of press freedom.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for calm and urged Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that first published the cartoons....

[manic expression]

55. It wasn't an excuse

I wouldn't be happy if someone I held in high regard was caricatured in a foreign newspaper. No one would. No one.

This wasn't just about religion, it was about cultural differences, long standing political conflicts, misunderstandings and insensitivity; religion is merely one part of a big situation.

[BurtWorm]

58. Who is more at fault?

Are the Syrian mobs guilty of insensitivity to Danish belief in freedsom of the press?

[manic expression]

60. That's not the question

They have the right to publish insensitive and malicious content, but they also have a responsibility to be culturally fair and tolerant. Sure, they CAN publish that kind of stuff, but they should have expected the reaction that would naturally come of it.

[BurtWorm]

61. The Danish govenment should have?

The Danish newspaper, which is responsible, apologized. Why is the Danish government being punished for something the "guilty" party has already apologized for?

[manic expression]

62. No

This is just a backlash against the government. Again, it wasn't unexpected, even if you think it is unreasonable.

[manic expression]

63. Oh, and

what does this have to do with what I said? I was saying that this whole mess had as much to do with culture, politics and misunderstanding as it did with religion.

[BurtWorm]

64. Perhaps I misread your reply as an excuse of a sort for the reaction

in certain Islamic communities, an excuse, in particular, for the violence. I thought you were implying that the Danes in general were guilty of misunderstanding and insensitivity. I suppose I was asking you if you agreed that those rioting against "Denmark" as scapegoat for Western cultural insensitivity were guilty themselves of cultural misunderstanding and insensitivity, to the idea of press freedom, for example, which is sacred to some of us in the Western democracies.

PS: I'm stepping out for a bit. If I don't reply right away to any reply of yours to this, it's not for lack of interest in the discussion, to be sure.

[manic expression]

66. OK

I understand.

I was implying the newspapers were "guilty" of insensitivity alone. I think that many are guilty of, among other things, an overreaction, but I think that any group would react in much the same way. If there were cartoons that were insensitive to Judaism, or any religion, you can bet your house that there would be a huge backlash against it.

There's no rush to reply.

[BurtWorm]

67. Exactly. Insensitive to religion.

Of course, in the 1980s, Americans took out anger over the failing American auto industry on Japanese cars. And people all over the world often take out anger on a favorite sports' team's defeats on other people's property or bodies. However, I don't find this kind of irrational behavior excusable or defensible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Yes, but if it's not religion it's ethnicity, or territoriality....

(both of which find expression in nationalism), or greed (which we call 'commerce'), or politics, or something else. People always find an excuse. Anything that defines the difference between two groups of people can be a proximate cause of violence, human nature being what it is.

[manic expression]

73. True

people who want to engage in insane and wrong actions will find a false reason to do so. It's not human nature, but ignorance.

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. Ignorance? Maybe.

But also the result of several million years' worth of evolutionary hard-wiring thanks to our development as social, territorial, group-oriented animals. I don't really say how anyone who isn't deluding himself can look at the totality of known human history--which is essentially a long and unbroken tapestry of violence and atrocity, from the dawn of civilisation on the banks of the Euphrates up until now--and say it ISN'T human nature. Or, at least, the nature of human societies, which inevitably leads to a mentality of 'us' vs 'them' (whichever group of outsiders 'them' is currently defined as).

The nature of human societies is inherently geared towards conflict--which inevitably occurs (whether ideological conflict or the bloodier variety), thanks to fear-driven hatred of those perceived as 'enemies'. Which may be ignorance, on some level, but is ALSO human nature, whether you like it or not.

[manic expression]

78. If anything,

I think that nurture does play a central role in someone's behavior. There is hardwiring, but this is perhaps a collective ignorance that was built up over time. However, I do not think people are very territorial unless their upbringing involves such concepts.

It may be that humans are naturally group-oriented, as other animals are. The problem is that group-orientation does not mean hatred for other groups. The goal is not the loss of difference, but the acceptance of difference. There will always be differences between people, be they religious, cultural, political, tribal or otherwise, but regardless of them, we transcend these lines and are ultimately one.

Warfare is not alien to the natural world, as packs of wolves engage in turf wars and ants form massive assaults on other colonies (some examples of many). The problem arises from unneeded destruction and misled action. The tapestry of violence and atrocity has been woven from a cloth of ignorance, and this material is not inherent in human beings. There is more to history than war, although it may be an unfortunately prominent part of it. Humans do demonstrate actions for the good, they do oppose wrongdoing. The Saracens fought off the Crusaders, the Rajputs and Marathis fought off the Mughals. More importantly, no matter what the action, no matter what the environment, conscience is palpable to the individual. Right is correctly discerned from wrong, but vision can be blurred by willful blindness of the individual or the group. Truth can be denied by collective insanity, hatred for another group, the camouflaging of wrong aims and other forms of ignorance.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. I think you're wrong.

You say 'it may be that humans are naturally group oriented'; I think it's pretty obvious that they ARE. And that this group-oriented social organisation is the chief source of human conflict. Just look at it in terms of ideology: Republican vs. Democrat, capitalist vs Communist, religious vs agnostic, et cetera. I think you'd have to agree that there's no 'maybe' about it. Not to mention that suggesting otherwise displays a staggering ignorance of human social organisation and evolutionary psychology.

And humans ARE inherently ignorant; what you call 'collective insanity' is more natural than cooperation and conscience, which are the results of what we call 'civilisation'. Just go to any place where the strictures of civilisation have broken down, and you see how close to the surface the animal is in humanity. And this 'opposition to wrongdoing' you speak of is nothing more than self-interest; the Saracens fought the Crusaders because had they not they should have been utterly destroyed. In human relations right and wrong, truth and falsehood, depend more on where one stands than on any objective criterion.

And 'nurture', as you put it, only serves to reinforce to some extent already existing hardwiring (concepts such as 'patriotism', et cetera, being but an outgrowth of inherent tendency to group organisation and territoriality).

This is NOT a question of philospohy; it is one of biology. A point you seem to miss.

[manic expression]

89. Respectfully, likewise

To disregard philosophy in favor of mere observation is to lose perspective.

Yes, almost all of humans are group oriented. However, that is not an infallible rule. Even wolves, animals that are dependent upon group-activity, leave packs and fend for themselves alone.

You can find "groups" of anything, be they ants or planets. However, these groupings are quite superficial, as individuals form various groups, the largest group being everything. The subdivisions that are derived from the "group" of all things are but small divisions. Wars may be fought among them, genocide may occur, any calamity that you could think of may play out, but they are crimes against members of the same ultimate group, and THAT is ignorance.

Humans, in regards to reason, are contradictory. Most people, if engaged in a discussion, will come to sensible conclusions, they will listen to their conscience. However, when manipulation and delusion becomes a factor, and this natural vision is lost, people are apt to commit wrong actions. This delusion is almost always brought about by a collective insanity, which distorts perceptions of right and wrong. THAT is ignorance, and it is neither natural nor inherent.

It is no shock that humans are animals, that much is a fact. It is the concept of "civilization" that has fueled many atrocities throughout history. What were the true causes of these atrocities, one must ask. Well, it is clear that they were almost always not for necessity. They were also done with a blindness to both the undeniable worth and kinship of the victim, as well as a blindness to the doer's conscience and better judgement. What's more is that all atrocities have ended in an equal and opposite reaction, like how the Gothic tribes brought down the same walls that the Roman Legions marched out of to conquer other peoples (German tribes among them, incidentally), for example. So why is it that these terrible actions are done? Well, knowing that individuals can and do choose the right thing in absence of ill influences, usually from a group, it is the ignorance of the truth that is brought upon a person AND a group by insanity and delusion that fuels wrongdoing. It is not nature, it is ignorance (of that very nature).

[Spider Jerusalem]

90. Well, see...

this is why I think the problem is not so much people as it is GROUPS of people; it seems that most social groupings have some degree of inherent dysfunction. Individual humans can generally be reasonable and come to reasonable conclusions; groups, however, more often can't, and the nature of groups leads to conflict.

I have a bit of an 'outside' perspective on this; I'm autistic (Asperger's Syndrome) and not by nature social (a 'lone wolf', if you will; and in reference to your comment re same above, it's worth noting that loners, whether humans or wolves, are generally ostracised by the larger social group and viewed as aberrant).

[BurtWorm]

51. That's one interpretation, true.

That cartoon, the one with Mohammed in the turban with a fuse, is, perhaps, the least defensible of the lot for the reasons you cite.

On the other hand, isn't it possible that the cartoonist was implying, not that *Muslims* (the people) are all like this (which clearly would be a racist position), but that *Islam* (the idea) is inherently destructive? Is there really anything wrong with expressing that opinion? Are people not permitted to express the opinion that religion is inherently destructive? Perhaps this is less tolerable for people like yourself who are religious. But many who are religious feel perfectly free to express the opinion that lack of religion is evil, for example. Isn't that permissable?

What baffles me about the controversy over these cartoons is that people who evidently believe that God is with them feel harmed by some nonbeliever's opinion about their religion. It's not only Muslims who can't tolerate nonbeliever's critical statements about their religion. Christians are in the news lately because they want TV to stop broadcasting heterodox views in fiction about Jesus and the Christian clergy. Hasidim want Madonna banned from the airwaves because they can't tolerate her heterodox views of one of their saints.

Contrary to what juniperx was arguing above, these are not the same as atheists wanting "God" off coins and the pledge. It should be obvious why.

[Inland]

56. No. I wonder why you didn't frame it that way in the OP?

Not sufficiently inflammatory?

Of course it isn't, because you switch back to believers being fragile. The concept that there's something else going on isn't even considered.

So it doesn't make any sense to discuss the position of the middle east vs. Europe, where they see the west invading an oil rich ME country, supporting Israel over Palestine, supporting safe dictators over democracy. It isn't about a recent colonialism, or an inferiority complex, or a resentment. It's all about believers being fragile, and nothing else, as if all believers are in the middle east and all cartoons get threats and there's absolutely nothing else going on.

Nothing to see here. Everyone dismiss the anger as something that either is fixed by making a cartoon go away or something that is ignored because it's silly. Nobody look at what is really going on. Thanks for your contribution.

[BurtWorm]

59. Why are they picking on Denmark?

If Denmark is as guilty as any other Western country because of mere association, why isn't any given Islamic country as guilty as any Christian one because of mere association with the Abrahamic tradition? Maybe because such a connection is just as flimsy as Denmark's connection with US oil imperialism?

[Inland]

65. Why, because they are religious, why other possible reason?

If I don't understand something, I just pretend I understand it by saying it's because they are religious and therefore sensitive fragile little flowers and clearly weak in the faith. It's like failing my course on evolution and saying that life is the way it is because God must of planned it that way, except with the added value of giving a poke to religious believers and then wondering why they are so fricken SENSITIVE about everything.

Or one can try to make sense of a matter.

The cartoons were from Denmark. That, plus mere association with the west, might be enough. After all, some people don't bother to make distinctions, in an act of intellectual laziness and bigotry, much like some who lump all believers together for their own purposes, not just across cultures, but across the centuries. It isn't just Muslims who bring up the crusades as relevant to today's disputes. Just saying.

[BurtWorm]

68. The sense I make of the matter is that religion is being used as an excuse

What sense are you making of it? You're saying it's reasonable to attack the Danish embassy because the US illegally invaded Baghdad? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Inland]

70. Why do people confuse understanding with approval?

What is it about understanding that leads fundamentalists to find an approval? Is the only way to keep someone from accusing me of condoning violence to keep myself entirely ignorant?

But you've now changed your tune to religious as "sensitive" to somebody using religion as an excuse. An excuse for what? An excuse for being sensitive?

Why, if your intent was to condemn violence instead of religion, did you frame the issue as religious sensitivity in your thread title?

Just what IS your point?

[BurtWorm]

74. Guess.

[Inland]

80. Because they are dense? Or because it scores petty debating points?

In other words, for the same reason they say "Guess?" and for the same reason why they merely keep asking one rhetorical question after another?

[BurtWorm]

82. Guess again.

And again.

:hi:

[Inland]

83. Guess again, because I got it right and you won't admit it?

As part of the device to ask rhetorical questions to cover up the lack of any substantive ideas you care to defend?

[BurtWorm]

84. Guess again, just to keep yourself busy.

;)

[Inland]

85. Because you have nothing to say, yet that won't stop you from posting?

Because you can't even bring yourself to say, "that's wrong, guess again" because we both know it's right? Because you are irritated that somebody is pointing out that you ask rhetorical questions, loaded with implications that you dance away from as it suits you? Because you have no substance?

[BurtWorm]

86. More like because your posts are pointedly hostile toward me.

That's about all I'm getting out of them.

:hi:

[Inland]

87. Really, that's too funny, considering your thread title.

and the next sentence, both asked as rhetorical questions loaded with negative implication.

You can't take the slightest bit of responsibility for the use of your rhetorical device and when used against you, suddenly you figure out that it's "hostile".

You ask a rhetorical question loaded with implication, which you then dance away from because hey, you just asked a question, right? And then it's another question asking why I approve of violence.

It's really a dishonest and cowardly way to drop bombs. And that ain't guessing. Bye now.

[BurtWorm]

88. Interesting.

Bye!

:hi:

PS: I stand by my original post. I think the question is valid. Sorry you don't think so. I'm more sorry, for your sake, you express yourself in such a way that makes it clear right way you're not worthwhile discussing things with for having a mind set in stone.

[Inland]

79. self delete

[JAbuchan08]

31. I'm not a muslim and I found that cartoon offensive

but I defend the right of the cartoonist to draw it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. thank you

You have said it far better than I could. And frankly, I'm tired of being called a violent terrorist, especially since I practice non-violence.

[JuniperLea]

47. I applaud your post!

Well said!

[Left Below]

10. No kidding - I just got reprimanded on another thread

because I support women's sexual rights in opposition to Islam/sharia'.

I love Madonna! She would be "honor killed" amongst Muslims...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. I didn't see that thread

so I don't know exactly what you mean by the term "sexual rights". If by that you mean the right of women to have affairs with whomever they wish without having to marry them, you are right, that is against Islamic teachings. But if you are not a Muslim, I wouldn't judge you using those laws (I believe in seperation of church and state:) ) I would also add it is against Islamic teachings for men to be sexually permiscuous as well. Many folks don't understand what Islam really says about the sexes and their rights, and many many many get the culture of certain areas confused with what it says in Islam about certain practices.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

16. Two words:

Persecution complex.

Because the whole world is out to get 'em, you know?

:crazy::crazy:

[BurtWorm]

20. Don't tell anyone but...

...I am out to get 'em!


;)

[WritingIsMyReligion]

24. *gasp*

:scared:

:D :D ;)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. I think you hae said more than you realize

This cartoon bruhaha is merely a symptom of larger conflicts going on in the world as we live closer together and become more crowded. Right now, many Europeans are expressing concern over the large Muslim immigrant populations in their countries (not unlike the concern expressed when the US experienced a large influx of Chinese to help build the railroads in the nineteenth century). They needed the laborers at one time, but now the number of jobs are down, and yet the number of immigrants and, more important, their children, there is a real concern. Please remember that Muslims are "other"-they have a different relgion, look different, have a different language, and tend to stay within their own immigrant community. Historically, this has always called friction. Look at the plight of the Chinese in the US. You can go back to Civil War times and read accounts where Germans were persecuted not only for their immigrant ways, but also for supporting Union (Germans were massacered in Texas during the war); there was a time when newspapers in New York carried want ads that said "No Irish Need Apply". History has shown that eventually the disperate groups in the US were accepted, more or less, by society in general, though it is an ongoing process (ask Hispanics about this). Let us hope Europeans can learn to accept Muslims and that Muslims realize that they can become Europeans without losing their faith.

[undeterred]

17. Why do the non-religious feel the constant need to attack the religious?

Isn't your non-religiousness supposed to be a source of strength? :sarcasm:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

19. But why do the religious attack the non-religious?

Don't you know that we don't give a damn about the second coming of Jesus?

:shrug:

:sarcasm:

:D :D ;) :hi:

[BurtWorm]

23. I attack from strength.

;)

[Inland]

57. It might be the lack of anything positive to promote. I'm not sure.

If there's something behind the various threads that pop up besides "I'm not that" or "I want to stop them", I'd like to know what it is. I'm becoming very conscious of the lack of a positive agenda.

[daleo]

30. God is a fragile flower

Who can be destroyed with a careless word or thought. Or so it would seem.

[seabeyond]

33. being a christian i couldnt agree with you more. the fear, pray pray

pray.... where is the faith. as a christian we are taught god is in all things. christ is in heart. christ fully understand what is up, who am i to interfer. and surely i know jesus doesnt need to be defended. i agree. but it is a lot of people fighting, literally killing fighting their hardest to protect....defend.....christ??? come on

[JuniperLea]

48. Exactly!

I was raised in a fundamentalist family and their ways have caused me to become agnostic.

Bottom line for me is this: If God wanted to force his laws upon all of human race, there would be no human race. Satan would have been killed immediately instead of being put on Earth and we would all be in Heaven, happy, with no choices to make.

God gave us free will and religious zealots are trying to take that away. If I were God, I'd be pissed as Hell!