West and Muslims clash on free speech

[Roasted Cashew]

Muslims worldwide are demanding that we treat, for example, Muhammed as a holy figure beyond criticism.

If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?

 

[Keltoi]

If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?

Could be either one or both if you want to get technical about it. The point isn't whether something is offensive, the question is should someone be allowed to say it. If a secular/democratic country begins censoring speech deemed to be offensive to one group or another, it becomes a neverending speech monitoring beaucracy. Probably not that much different than Stalin's Russia...without the Great Purges hopefully.

 

[Amadeus85]

If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?

I agree with hmmm, its just that the problem is that our western provocators(those who insult religion) wont stop their actions and we cannt do anything about this.So if religions must be insulted, they should be insulted equally.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Be very careful with repressing speech. Put in hate speech laws and expand them just a tiny bit, and most of your holy books (christians, jews, muslims alike) could very well be banned. Christians in the west are aware of this. You want to ban hate speech against identified groups? Ok... we'll include homosexuals as such a group and there goes your bible.

 

[Amadeus85]

Be very careful with repressing speech. Put in hate speech laws and expand them just a tiny bit, and most of your holy books (christians, jews, muslims alike) could very well be banned. Christians in the west are aware of this. You want to ban hate speech against identified groups? Ok... we'll include homosexuals as such a group and there goes your bible.

In West when you criticize christianity/islam you are a freedom fighter.
When you criticize homosexuality you can face a judge for hate speech or go to jail(vide Ake Green).

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am for complete freed of expression, and that includes the freedom for people to preach their ridiculus and even harmful religious views. The only limit I'd place on free speech is where it directly causes a situation of danger, such as the tired example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

 

[Amadeus85]

I am for complete freed of expression, and that includes the freedom for people to preach their ridiculus and even harmful religious views. The only limit I'd place on free speech is where it directly causes a situation of danger, such as the tired example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

I think that freedom of speech must have some aim. Of course freedom of speech is needed in dictatorships, in communist regimes. I just dont think that everyone who wants to spit on mine/others religion should have right to do this, only because he WANTS to do this. For me its no sense, as it is fruitless.It doesnt have any depth or meaning. there should be some rules to follow, some limits.
Today a singer from polish black metal band was accused for insulting religious feelings of catholics, because during one concert he tore down Bible in pieces and burned it. he may face 2 years in prison(but its unlikely to happen,probably he would have to pay and apologize).Few years ago,so called artist girl, hanged a man's sexual organ on cross and put it to museum exhibition. She also had to face judge and stopped from this exhibition.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Could be either one or both if you want to get technical about it. The point isn't whether something is offensive, the question is should someone be allowed to say it. If a secular/democratic country begins censoring speech deemed to be offensive to one group or another, it becomes a neverending speech monitoring beaucracy. Probably not that much different than Stalin's Russia...without the Great Purges hopefully.

There is no point getting technical about it. Indeed you are right. It's all about whether they are allowed to say it or not. That's what is called freedom of speech after all. BUT please don't be cowards and keep on talking about how Muslims can't take criticism. Please be honest enough and say that Muslims should learn to take INSULTS.

Being a Muslim myself, I am ashamed that some Muslims would take law into their own hands. This is indeed the work of WEAK Muslims who get angry easily.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: A strong man is not he who defeats his adversary by wrestling, but a strong man is he who controls himself at the time of anger.

Yet, it's a disgrace that people would let it go by calling it "freedom of expression" or even worse "criticism". I do believe in dialog and debate but such a thing is a direct provocation and shows how morally dead are the cartoonists and people who back them.

 

[Keltoi]

There is no point getting technical about it. Indeed you are right. It's all about whether they are allowed to say it or not. That's what is called freedom of speech after all. BUT please don't be cowards and keep on talking about how Muslims can't take criticism. Please be honest enough and say that Muslims should learn to take INSULTS.

Being a Muslim myself, I am ashamed that some Muslims would take law into their own hands. This is indeed the work of WEAK Muslims who get angry easily.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: A strong man is not he who defeats his adversary by wrestling, but a strong man is he who controls himself at the time of anger.

Yet, it's a disgrace that people would let it go by calling it "freedom of expression" or even worse "criticism". I do believe in dialog and debate but such a thing is a direct provocation and shows how morally dead are the cartoonists and people who back them.

Yes, I understand it is insulting, and yes I believe Muslims should grow thicker skins if they want to be citizens in Western secular societies. Criticism comes in many forms, and many times it takes the form of an insult. To be frank, insulting free speech used to be much more common in the U.S.(can't speak for Europe) in the past. John Adams, the second president of the United States, was called a hermaphrodite..among many other colorful insults. This was in major newspapers of the day. In more modern times, political and religious insults tend to be more subtle, especially in the U.S. Occasionally someone comes along to push the boundaries out again.

There comes a time when one must accept that many people do not have the same beliefs as you do, do not hold the same things as sacred, and do not feel the need to censor themselves in order to achieve "good taste".

 

[barney]

Thre was a good deal of debate recently in the UK wether religion was byond critisism.
Overwhelmingly the debaters on Radio 4 and other stations said that it shouldnt be.
The panel was Christian Clergy and politicians.

It's my beleif that once a subject is banned from free speech on the grounds of being "insulting", thats the start of a dictatorship.
Free speech means you can insult back.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I think that freedom of speech must have some aim. Of course freedom of speech is needed in dictatorships, in communist regimes. I just dont think that everyone who wants to spit on mine/others religion should have right to do this, only because he WANTS to do this. For me its no sense, as it is fruitless.It doesnt have any depth or meaning. there should be some rules to follow, some limits.

But there is plenty of reason to disrespect religions, as many of them disrespect us. I find it highly suspect that a person could declare others "sinful" and deserving of eternal torture simply because they live a different lifestyle. and then call shenanigans when there is backlash.

You may say that those who disrespect and ridicule religion are meanspirited and insulting, but seriously... these religions get much less than they give. Most anti-religious folks don't approve of the idea that the religious should be subjected to eternal torture, simply for believing what they do.

 

[barney]

Christian attacks on atheism. Cartoon horror.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Are you sure that isn't an attack on monkeys? I bet they'd be mighty miffed to see us comparing them to the horrid human species

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Criticism comes in many forms, and many times it takes the form of an insult.

I still can't comprehend how is an insult a criticism? I believe though they are both part of free speech; there is a manifest difference between them.

 

[barney]

OK.
Im going to critisise the Tellytubbies. Ahem:
The tellytubbies is a TV program for children. It's lack of use of language is going to in my opinion, stunt the development of kids language. The repetetive and seemingly absurd storylines are trite and farcical, they teach children little of the real world and provide intellectually restrictive challenges. The spinning windmill that provides magical powers is an eyesore on the land. The Tubbies tubbyhouse is a architectual nightmare. Its covered with grass that is hard to mow, it has no letterbox, its open plan interior is chaos and the tubbycustard machine is inefficient and provides a bland and tasteless diet. The Tubbies suits are garish and loud, their anatomy is promoting obesity and a TV culture not to mention providing little stability for the tubbies themselves.

Now i will insult them.
Tubbies are a waste of freaking space, i mean their suits look gay and their house sucks. their sentinant vacum cleaner is a freaking slave to the lazy fat useless nutjob loser Tellytubby dictator scum.
They can all go to freaking hell and i'll laugh when they do.

Hope this helps

 

[Roasted Cashew]

^One is called constructive criticism and another is loathful bashing. What was the point again you were trying to make?

 

[Keltoi]

^One is called constructive criticism and another is loathful bashing. What was the point again you were trying to make?

Sometimes one is insulted by the position of another. I think a comment by Barak Obama is perfect for this. At a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama made the comment(I paraphrase) "Small town people are bitter and cling to guns and God and are anti-immigrant as a result of their bitterness". Now did Obama intentionally mean to insult these people? Obviously not, as he depends on their votes in Penn. However, these people were offended.

Was Obama making a criticism or an insult?

 

[barney]

Neither! He made a "Informed Observation"
Whhooo! Score!!!!

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Sometimes one is insulted by the position of another. I think a comment by Barak Obama is perfect for this. At a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama made the comment(I paraphrase) "Small town people are bitter and cling to guns and God and are anti-immigrant as a result of their bitterness". Now did Obama intentionally mean to insult these people? Obviously not, as he depends on their votes in Penn. However, these people were offended.

Was Obama making a criticism or an insult?

So you are suggesting that sometimes criticism from one's point of view are perceived as insults by another group of people. I don't know much about the remarks made by Obama and the state of people who live in small towns but can you explain how is depicting Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) as a terrorist with a bomb on his head criticism of the Prophet from any point of view?

Mind you, I wouldn't mind had he drew Osama in a similar manner but Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)? He never even saw a bomb during his lifetime to be fair.

 

[Keltoi]

So you are suggesting that sometimes criticism from one's point of view are perceived as insults by another group of people. I don't know much about the remarks made by Obama and the state of people who live in small towns but can you explain how is depicting Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) as a terrorist with a bomb on his head criticism of the Prophet from any point of view?

Mind you, I wouldn't mind had he drew Osama in a similar manner but Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)? He never even saw a bomb during his lifetime to be fair.

Okay, if you can, step away from the "blasphemy" angle. What do you think that cartoon was trying to say? Was it supposed to say Muhammed liked bombs? Did they draw those cartoons simply because they thought it would be funny to draw Muhammed with bombs in his turban? We both know the answer to that question. It was meant to depict, in parody, the ideology and the cult of death that is embraced by a particular sub-section of Muslims. I understand why many Muslims, who have no connection to this terrorist ideology, found the cartoons offensive. However, those cartoons were attempting to make a point. I'm not defending the "artwork" involved, but those cartoons were also a form of criticism.