The West has lost its freedom of speech

[Bintang]

Interesting. These many Muslims who confide in you that they want to update their "holy scripture" are playing a dangerous game. Any Muslim who thinks they can update, rewrite or revise the quran ("the word of god") would be considered an apostate.

wiki

It's only dangerous for them if they live in a muslim country. But in other places like Australia they are so perfectly protected by our 'freedom of speech' that they should be able to modify their Holy Scripture to their heart's content.

 

[Bintang]

Rejecting aspects of a particular religion, ideally also offering a rational explanation for having formed such an opinion, would be far more palatable. Many Muslims that I know, as well as Jews and Christians, are only too willing to accept criticism and agree that their respective "Holy Scripture" is in dire need of an update.

This sounds a bit like what the Ahmadiyyan Muslims have tried to do :

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century. It originated with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908). Ahmadiyya adherents believe that Ahmad appeared in the likeness of Jesus, to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace. They believe that upon divine guidance he divested Islam of fanatical and innovative beliefs and practices by championing what is in their view, Islam’s true and essential teachings as practised by Muhammad and the early Islamic community.[8] Thus, Ahmadis view themselves as leading the revival and peaceful propagation of Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

It sounds like they are peaceful and moderate muslims so let’s examine how they are treated in Indonesia:

In 2005, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) re-issued their fatwa (edict) declaring Ahmadiyah a deviant sect.

Ahmadiyah members have been labeled as deviant (sesat), apostates (murtad), infidels (kafir), crazy, and labeled Mirza Ghoelam Ahmad a false prophet.

80percent of Muhammadiyah leaders and 67 percent of NU leaders say that no members of Ahmadiyah should be allowed to build a house of worship in Jakarta; 88 percent of Muhammadiyah leaders and 82 percent of NU leaders say that no members of Ahmadiyah should be permitted to hold public office, build houses of worship or teach Islamic studies in public schools

Muhammadiyah and NU are widely seen as the backbone of Indonesia’s culture of tolerance. Yet, they have not protected members of Ahmadiyah

Hard-line Islamists shuttered an Ahmadiyah mosque after reportedly threatening to burn it down latest example of religious intolerance to plague West Java

Ahmadiyah bans: Legal justification for intolerance?

But perhaps there is a glimmer of hope:

For first time, displaced Ahmadiyah receive aid from government

 

[pixel]

Interesting. These many Muslims who confide in you that they want to update their "holy scripture" are playing a dangerous game. Any Muslim who thinks they can update, rewrite or revise the quran ("the word of god") would be considered an apostate.

wiki

Maybe the difference is that I can engage with people to the point where we discuss ideas rather than ideologies. For me, it is more important how educated individuals think about doctrines, than to read the general summary in a wiki article. Neither wiki nor fundamental clerics would see the need to mention that modern-day Muslims and Jews alike are enjoying foods that were "forbidden" in ancient times when there was no refrigeration. I have also yet to see a Muslim leave a business meeting or seminar because it is time for one of the prescribed push-up sessions. And I've met only one person who really believed in the King James translation being literally correct because its writers assured the gullible that God confirmed they got it right whenever they were uncertain and asked his advice in prayer.

Classic cases of circular reasoning: "The Qur'an is Allah's word because the guy that wrote it down said so." Or the more general "proof": If God didn't exist, where would all his words come from? No wonder so many sci-fi fans and Hollywood actors believe in L.Ron Hubbard's script.

It all benefits the organisation and a few power brokers in the background. If a few clever marketing and salesmen hadn't seen a lucrative business model that would turn donations into tax-free income for themselves in the hierarchy, Joseph Smith would have remained an unknown polygamist, Hubbard a B-grade sci-fi hack. And that, Bintang, is the reason why I detest the organisations and their fakery, but feel sorry for the victims that fall for it and get fleeced.

PS: Bintang, of course I'm talking about educated people here in Australia, not Indonesia or any other Islamiccountry. That's because this topic is about freedom of speech in the West.

 

[Bintang]

PS: Bintang, of course I'm talking about educated people here in Australia, not Indonesia or any other Islamiccountry. That's because this topic is about freedom of speech in the West.

This topic 'freedom of speech in the west' should apply to everyone in the West - both non-muslims and muslims.

In this context it is therefore relevant to consider whether muslims in the west can actually avail themselves of freedom of speech within their own families and moslem communities.

Pixel, perhaps your muslim friends only avail themselves of the opportunity of freedom of speech when they talk to you.

 

[DB008]

You can add Israel to the list as well

CNN’s Jim Clancy resigns after controversial Israel tweets

Veteran anchor steps down after mocking pro-Israel tweeters on a thread discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
Veteran CNN anchor Jim Clancy stepped down on Friday, one week after a series of Twitter posts in which he mocked pro-Israel tweeters on a thread discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Neither CNN nor Jim Clancy gave a reason for his departure, which was reported by AdWeek. Clancy had worked at CNN for 34 years.

Although Clancy’s Twitter account no longer existed as of Thursday, the tweets have been preserved on a number of websites, including Twitchy and Mediaite, and by Tablet journalist Yair Rosenberg.

On January 7, Clancy posted a tweet arguing that the cartoons posted by the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked last week by Islamist gunmen who killed 12, did not mock the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

“The cartoons NEVER mocked the Prophet,” he wrote. “They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word. Pay attention.”

Challenged on the accuracy of the statement by Oren Kessler, a deputy director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Clancy tweeted, “Hasbara?,” a Hebrew term used to describe public relations efforts by the Israeli government.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.637572?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social

 

[Bintang]

You can add Israel to the list as well

DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't? Here is something a bit easier to understand.

 

[luutzu]

DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't? Here is something a bit easier to understand.

View attachment 61193

Ever stop and think what it would mean if it's true what you, and your comics, are saying?

So let me try it for you.


You said Islam and Muslims are violent, dangerous and will not permit you or anyone else to criticise them or their religion or their prophet.

Those that dare will be killed or physically harmed or verbally abused by Muslims.

If any of that is true, wouldn't we see all, ALL, Muslims... or at least MOST Muslims, or at least a fair percentage of Muslims, or at least a bunch of them going after you and all brave critics of Islam?

Have we ever seen that kind of violent and murderous mob behaviour from Muslims in retaliation to the "critics" and freedom of speech cartoonists?

I haven't.


So with Charlie Hebdo, did a bunch of French Muslims plan to attack them also but got there late?

In short, if what you say is true of Islam and of Muslims - that it is violent and call for death on all critics etc. - then all Muslims would have attack and murder any and all critics and shock jocks, not just by a couple of terrorists trained and instructed by a declared and sworn enemy of the West.

---

So what's your definition of freedom of speech?

That you and others like minded have the right to mock people's faith and beliefs for pure sadism, and they in turn have no right to get upset? No right to raise their voice?

How many Australians are Muslims? some 200, 000? I'm pretty sure most of them are somewhat or very upset at their Prophet and their religion being insulted... have there been violence and mayhem on our streets from them?

Maybe they're planning to.. maybe they just get upset but got over it and ignore idiots and bigots like we all must now and then.

 

[Calliope]

Maybe the difference is that I can engage with people to the point where we discuss ideas rather than ideologies. For me, it is more important how educated individuals think about doctrines, than to read the general summary in a wiki article.

Pixel, you and I being "educated individuals" know that the quran is just a crock. And of course your educated muslim friends who don't point their ar$es in the air five times a day probably know it is a crock. But I think they are having a lend of you. Anyone who expresses these thoughts and doubts about the quran to a kafir obviously cannot be a muslim. You can't be a muslim in name only without subscribing to all the bull$hit that goes with it. Maybe they have an ulterior motive.

 

[Bintang]

Anyone who expresses these thoughts and doubts about the quran to a kafir obviously cannot be a muslim. You can't be a muslim in name only without subscribing to all the bull$hit that goes with it.

I agree and therefore if they are not muslims they also cannot be ‘moderate muslims' because in fact there is no such thing.

If so-called ‘moderate’ moslems in the West ‘hold back’ and fail to exercise freedom of speech within their own muslim communities to express views which conflict with Islamic doctrine and teaching then they are not moderating anything and should not be called ‘moderate’.

They cannot be muslim and moderate at the same time. It’s a bit like you cannot be early and late at the same time. For example, if the early worm ‘held back’ and stayed in bed waiting for the early bird to finish breakfast then the adjective ‘early’ is not applicable to either the worm or the bird.

Teacher Worm: Why are you late?
Pupil Worm: Sorry teacher, I was waiting for the bird to finish breakfast

Teacher Bird: Why are you late?
Pupil Bird: Sorry teacher, I was finishing my breakfast.

 

[pixel]

DB008, do you understand that story cause I sure don't?

I do understand it, Bintang;
I take it to mean that granting someone freedom of speech doesn't bestow on them an ability to speak intelligently. Just as giving someone a drivers license doesn't make them careful and considerate drivers. I guess that's also the gist of Brandis' saying you can't legislate against bigotry. If we grant freedom of speech, we have to be prepared to hear something stupid and not be offended.

btw, the complaint against the use of the word 'cripple' is outright stupid and should be covered under the topic "Political correctness gone mad".

 

[pixel]

I agree and therefore if they are not muslims they also cannot be ‘moderate muslims' because in fact there is no such thing.

If so-called ‘moderate’ moslems in the West ‘hold back’ and fail to exercise freedom of speech within their own muslim communities to express views which conflict with Islamic doctrine and teaching then they are not moderating anything and should not be called ‘moderate’.

They cannot be muslim and moderate at the same time. It’s a bit like you cannot be early and late at the same time. For example, if the early worm ‘held back’ and stayed in bed waiting for the early bird to finish breakfast then the adjective ‘early’ is not applicable to either the worm or the bird.

Teacher Worm: Why are you late?
Pupil Worm: Sorry teacher, I was waiting for the bird to finish breakfast

Teacher Bird: Why are you late?
Pupil Bird: Sorry teacher, I was finishing my breakfast.

Earlier today, I exposed as circular reasoning the "proof" for God's existence or the Qur'an being Allah's word. Your and Calli's redefinition of Muslim appears to me as following a similar fallacy. The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."

 

[Bintang]

Earlier today, I exposed as circular reasoning the "proof" for God's existence or the Qur'an being Allah's word. Your and Calli's redefinition of Muslim appears to me as following a similar fallacy. The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."

It is not circular reasoning at all. It is simply that muslim and moderate muslim are mutually exclusive and it is the Qu'uran that has made it this way.

PS: re-read my post about the Ahmadiyyan moslems. They are considered to be apostates by most Indonesian moslems. Who then is being moderate?

 

[Calliope]

. The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."

It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of those who do not agree with them.

None of the above nonsense bears any relationship to anything I have said...and you know it. It is a deliberate distortion.

 

[Bintang]

The essence of what you're saying is "All Muslims are bad radicals; anyone who has been brought up a Muslim and is not bad and radical, can no longer be called a Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are bad radicals. q.e.d."

It is a common feature of posters whose arguments are going up a blind alley to ascribe this sort of twisted inference to the statements of those who do not agree with them.

None of the above nonsense bears any relationship to anything I have said...and you know it. It is a deliberate distortion.

Perhaps pixel, you would be pleased to know that Geert Wilder’s frequently states that there are many moderate muslims:

"Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – of course, there are many moderate Muslims.
I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam.
There is only one Islam – the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord.
But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority.
They are not."

However, I think he is being too congenial with his language and I disagree with him. Why? Because if moderate Islam does not exist neither do moderate muslims exist. In other words under Islam there can only be muslims, ex-muslims (apostates) and those who have never been muslims (kafirs).

 

[luutzu]

Perhaps pixel, you would be pleased to know that Geert Wilder’s frequently states that there are many moderate muslims:

"Of course – I repeat it wherever I go – of course, there are many moderate Muslims.
I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam.
There is only one Islam – the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord.
But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority.
They are not."

However, I think he is being too congenial with his language and I disagree with him. Why? Because if moderate Islam does not exist neither do moderate muslims exist. In other words under Islam there can only be muslims, ex-muslims (apostates) and those who have never been muslims (kafirs).

Is there a moderate Christianity? Moderate Judaism? Moderate any-religion?

How many conquerors and founder of states can you name that were peaceful? That were not warmongering?

George Washington was called "he who burn villages" or something like that by the Native Americans.
Caesar? Napoleon? etc. etc.


A positive, very optimistic, look at your point of view is that you dislike Islam (and Muslims) because you dislike violence, dislike bigotry, war and terrorism, oppression - and you don't like Islam because you think it preaches all these stuff. Fair enough, very admirable qualities... but you and a couple of others really need to know history, know politics, and maybe get to know a few Muslims.

To see an entire religion, some 1.6 billion people, as bad and evil.. .that's the kind of thinking that will lead you agree to policies that does away with them as politicians and you see fit. You know, they bad and evil... so go and clean up.... Everytime that happen, lots of innocent people get blown up or gassed, or locked up, tortured without charge.

So in hating Islam thinking it's all bad and evil and you're against bad and evil... what are you really doing? Doing the same loathsome thing you think shouldn't be done.

 

[Bintang]

A positive, very optimistic, look at your point of view is that you dislike Islam (and Muslims).

what are you really doing? Doing the same loathsome thing you think shouldn't be done.

Iuutzu, Congratulations! Within your diatribe against me you managed to get one thing correct. Yes, I hate Islam. But I do not hate muslims and in fact I have many muslim friends.

I try very hard myself to avoid personally attacking the integrity of people on this forum. Sometimes I am sarcastic and sometimes I try to be humorous. If I slip up and do something worse than that I will apologise but I will not apologise for having opinions with which someone else disagrees.

I am happy to maintain discussion with you for as long as you can remain civil but if you direct another personal attack at me I will follow the lead of some others on this forum and put you on ignore.

 

[bellenuit]

Yes, I hate Islam. But I do not hate muslims

Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......

 

[pixel]

Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......

View attachment 61197

Why is Ricky grinning from ear to ear?
I reckon it is because he knows his analogy won't quite fit:

You can choose your religion, even if your parents have given you a particular one in your genes. Once old enough, and especially with the benefit of a Western-style education, you should be able to step from Stone Age beliefs into the Here and Now. But no matter how well educated you are, you'll find it impossible to beat cancer with rational thought.

That doesn't mean the "hatred" argument isn't valid: Hating a person for an affliction visited upon them is stupid, especially if they caught it involuntarily. Feeling pity for the innocent victim would be more appropriate.

On the positive side though, Ricky's pointed comment that "even the dumbest should understand" can be appreciated as a kind of humorous caricature, not unlike a Charlie Hebdo cartoon.

 

[luutzu]

Iuutzu, Congratulations! Within your diatribe against me you managed to get one thing correct. Yes, I hate Islam. But I do not hate muslims and in fact I have many muslim friends.

I try very hard myself to avoid personally attacking the integrity of people on this forum. Sometimes I am sarcastic and sometimes I try to be humorous. If I slip up and do something worse than that I will apologise but I will not apologise for having opinions with which someone else disagrees.

I am happy to maintain discussion with you for as long as you can remain civil but if you direct another personal attack at me I will follow the lead of some others on this forum and put you on ignore.

A lot of people, myself included, does not like any religion. Do you see us talking about Muslims or Islam or any religion or group of people the way you do Muslims and Islam?

You got Muslim friends and are only against Islam, not its followers? Stop fooling yourself.

A good Muslim is not really a Muslim right?

What else?

Yea, Christianity and Judaism have nasty bits in it but its followers don't take that seriously - only Muslims take the evil bits in their Koran seriously because if they don't they'd be killed, and if they're not killed they'd just do it anyway because that's Islam for ya.


What's the Pope's view on contraception again? The current one. He's OK with it?
How about gay marriage?
How about stem cell research?

How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the Church, through its various subsidiaries around the world, have? Are those being use to feed the poor and shelter the homeless among their own flocks?

----

Yes, Islam, like cancer, is bad. If only Muslims (the Arabs) have that cancer removed they'd be a healthy and happy and peaceful person and we won't have to be in the Middle East spreading democracy.

So we in the West, the good non-Islamic, the Christian ones... Our religion have moderated our values and be more scientific, more civilised, more good and less evil, less violent, less or non-existent warmongering preaching.... and we do not fight wars at all?

I guess all we do with our jets and drones, our destroyers and submarines... are just creating craters in deserts... making it bloom.


Howard Zinn was right... without knowing history a person is like a child born yesterday. And like all children, are led and used at the whim of their dear leaders with no more effort than a few slogans.

Yes mein Fuhrer, those dirty Jews and gypsies and disabled must be cleanse from our myst so that you can build a 1000 year third Reich.

Yes mein Fuhrer, those German troops of ours returning from the Eastern front with no eyelids, no nose, no limbs from frostbites... they are just weaklings who cannot stand the gentle cold.

Yes Team Captain, we must fight them over there so they won't have the chance to fight us over here.

 

[Calliope]

Yes, a monumental difference that so many fail to see or don't want to see. Ricky Gervais puts it in terms even the dumbest should understand.......

View attachment 61197

When I read this post bellenuit, I thought that perhaps you were underestimating the capacity of those with opposing views, for engaging in fallacious reasoning and argument.