Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Clthomps wrote:In Islam the Muhammad is a prophet not a god.

As soon as I hit "post" I realized I had phased it poorly, and that it might imply just such a thing. Then I remembered where I was posting it and that no one here is smart enough to make such a distinction. Am I right? HIGH FIVE!



Seriously though I did realize it, I just didn't care enough to edit it.

Is that the original cartoon which caused all that ruckus?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But... But...

I loves me Applejuice! And nothing beats a hangover like Fresh Squeezed Oranges

Metallifan wrote:I once remember reading about a time one member hacked into a White Supremacy site and made each link in the menu go to a rather infamous video of a horse humping some guy until he died.

I've watched that video and honestly, no one deserves that.

I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life. It's just not funny.

The Green Git wrote:I can see from the quotes no time was wasted dragging Jesus and Glen Beck through the mud. How incredibly imaginative and refreshing.

How can anyone in their right mind possibly defend Islamic head sawing feths and try to compare Christians and political opinion show hosts to death threats for cartoons?

Some people are seriously self deluded.

No one did that. Try to read the fething posts you pretend to respond to. At least put that last tiny bit of effort in.

Lord-Loss wrote:I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life.

Hey, it's okay folks - he didn't die after all! He's just got a few scars. Understandable, really.



@Frazzled - What were you thinking? How did you honestly think this thread would end? If someone had posted something about Christians being violent and idiotic, you would have locked it quicker than a very quick thing indeed. I honestly expected better from you, but that's not your fault - it's mine.

Clthomps wrote:Saw the episode and it's pretty funny how these guys are reacting. The whole episode basically is how to depict Mohamed without offending Muslims. Of course they go to the silly lengths to do it. First putting him in a U-haul van. Then the mascot suit since it seems to fit all criteria. None of Mohamed is showing and the suit is padded and what not so even his shape is not shown.

So what you are saying here is that you saw the episode, and yet still don't understand that the episode is about making fun of certain religious rules?

I see them making fun of a group that demands the entire world adhere to their religious interpretation and having a fit when it doesn't happen. This is the response of a child when someone makes fun of them, not the response of adults. Southpark set these guys up and they fell for it hard. That is the true comedy of a show that's not really that good.

There's also a shot of Buddha snorting coke, no Buddhist outrage yet.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time... Congratulations

What? That other religions can stand having their Gods/Prophets mocked and that this one fringe group makes theirs look stupid by their childish outbursts over a stupid cartoon?

What this reaction basically shows is some Muslims are tight-arsed idiots with no sense of humor and seem to look forward to reasons to be "outraged!".

Not all, not even a majority, but the vocal fringe.

Do you even know anyone that is Muslim? That is one of the most offensive responses yet. While it is a small minority of Muslims that would act upon their outrage, I would say the vast majority are offended. I assume that you yourself are not religious and therefor have no idea how strong feelings are regarding mandates from god.

I know people of all religions, Muslims included and besides one jerk "Nation of Islam" fella I knew in the Army I found Muslims to be great people. These same Muslims I know would agree that the statements of these radicals damage the image of Muslims everywhere.
Whether I'm religious or not means nothing and has no bearing. Other Muslims can look at this, sigh and carry on with their lives. Other Muslims can laugh at it. Then there are the fringe groups (and they exist in every religion/political party) that want to create violence over something stupid.

Do you think someone keeping Kosher would be happy if you fed them pork? How is displaying a picture of the Prophet any different? Its a direct violation of the word of god.

If I did, certainly. As others have sad. If I ate pork in front of them and they got upset, that's their problem and not mine.
Again, it's their religion and they have absolutely no right in the world to demand that anyone outside of their religion adhere to their beliefs and threatening violence shows them as thugs.
Thank you for your oh so level headed response.

There's also a shot of Buddha snorting coke, no Buddhist outrage yet.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time... Congratulations

What? That other religions can stand having their Gods/Prophets mocked and that this one fringe group makes theirs look stupid by their childish outbursts over a stupid cartoon?

wow I did't think it was necessary to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous quotes ever, but I guess it is...

Buddhism boils down to the removal of all negative thoughts and actions, it is the cornerstone of their religion. Hence and outraged Buddhist is an oxymoron.

Clthomps wrote:

There's also a shot of Buddha snorting coke, no Buddhist outrage yet.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time... Congratulations

What? That other religions can stand having their Gods/Prophets mocked and that this one fringe group makes theirs look stupid by their childish outbursts over a stupid cartoon?

wow I did't think it was necessary to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous quotes ever, but I guess it is...

Buddhism boils down to the removal of all negative thoughts and actions, it is the cornerstone of their religion. Hence and outraged Buddhist is an oxymoron.

Incorrect. Zen buddhism is far from the entirety of buddhism and the removal of negative emotions and distorted thoughts are the merest fraction of it's purpose. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

The conflicts in thailand and burma alone prove that wrong, let alone significant historical eras of violence in practicing buddhist cultures such as China japan or india. Buddhists can be just as violent as any other religious practitioner, violence is an inherent aspect of human nature and is not something religion can simply do away with.

Clthomps wrote:wow I did't think it was necessary to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous quotes ever, but I guess it is...

Buddhism boils down to the removal of all negative thoughts and actions, it is the cornerstone of their religion. Hence and outraged Buddhist is an oxymoron.

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

The Buddha's sermons seem, however, to condemn all violence, toward oneself and toward others. Suicide, it is true, is not formally forbidden. And Buddhism remains ambivalent toward the interiorized form of violence that is asceticism. Well-ordered violence begins with oneself. Chinese monks, to show their determination, would sometimes mutilate themselves—cutting off or burning one or more of their fingers. In extreme cases self-denial could extend to self-immolation by fire. We recall the horrific image of the Vietnamese monk who, at the start of the U.S. military intervention in his country, chose this death as a sign of protest.

You can call what the monk is doing in this image whatever you want, but for me, this is far and beyond outrage, while being on the same scale of reaction.

I guess it is fun to believe whatever you want, really...

Something else that is interesting, is the fact that Buddhism has 'a' hell. Looks pretty cool if you ask me.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Is that the original cartoon which caused all that ruckus?

Yes...

Anung Un Rama wrote:Is that the original cartoon which caused all that ruckus?

That's one of 'em. There were many cartoons by many artists, the famous 12 created on the request of the newspaper that published them. One, containing arabic writing, actually attacked the newspaper itself - overlooked by the non-arabic-reading editor.

When the delegation of imams discussed the offensive imagery in the middle east, they actually included three more cartoons that were far more offensive, but completely unconnected to the publications in the newspaper other than the subject matter. The most offensive one was probably of a dog mounting a praying Muslim, with the caption saying something along the lines of 'this is why they pray'.

The Danish imams who provided these three additional images were obviously trying to stir up controversy, unless of course they were misled themselves.

There are plenty of examples of Mohammed in full view in period artwork, however. Many left the face blank but drew the figure, but this is artwork from 1307.

The issue is not depictions of the Prophet, it is insults to the Prophet.

In that case they have far less of an excuse to throw a tantrum.

The satire was of the Muslim practice of refusing to depict Mohammad, it had nothing to do with Mohammad personally. And many other religious (and political, and cultural...) figures actually have been insulted by the show, and are insulted by many other shows to a worse degree, without this kind of immaturity showing up everywhere.

Albatross wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life.

Hey, it's okay folks - he didn't die after all! He's just got a few scars. Understandable, really.

This was worth reading through the entire thread for.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In that case they have far less of an excuse to throw a tantrum.

The satire was of the Muslim practice of refusing to depict Mohammad, it had nothing to do with Mohammad personally. And many other religious (and political, and cultural...) figures actually have been insulted by the show, and are insulted by many other shows to a worse degree, without this kind of immaturity showing up everywhere.

I think this is the part where we all have a big epiphany and understand that reactionary and extremist people are not creatures of logic or restraint.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:In that case they have far less of an excuse to throw a tantrum.

The satire was of the Muslim practice of refusing to depict Mohammad, it had nothing to do with Mohammad personally. And many other religious (and political, and cultural...) figures actually have been insulted by the show, and are insulted by many other shows to a worse degree, without this kind of immaturity showing up everywhere.

I think this is the part where we all have a big epiphany and understand that reactionary and extremist people are not creatures of logic or restraint.

You just blew my mind.

As for Buddhism, it is like most other major religions in that there are many different forms and not everyone the belongs to it thinks the same of it. Much like Westboro Baptist and Quakers are dissimilar but are both Christian groups.

Albatross wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life.

Hey, it's okay folks - he didn't die after all! He's just got a few scars. Understandable, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kenneth_Pinyan

Anway watch the video and tell me that man could have survived.

Um, no. It's bad enough that that image is banded into my imagination, so I think I'll think I'll spare the scarring of my retinas with the same thing.

Albatross wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life.

Hey, it's okay folks - he didn't die after all! He's just got a few scars. Understandable, really.



@Frazzled - What were you thinking? How did you honestly think this thread would end? If someone had posted something about Christians being violent and idiotic, you would have locked it quicker than a very quick thing indeed. I honestly expected better from you, but that's not your fault - it's mine.

No we had an 11 page post on the pope. I think that noe is still open.
You can attack these nutjobs as the nutjobs they are. We (and the moderates in the religion) need to start separating the nutjob crazies from the rest of the religion or it will beomce accepted dogma that that does indeed represent the entire religion.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:I still can't look a horse in the eye, not that I need to anway... and I'm permantly scarred for life.

Hey, it's okay folks - he didn't die after all! He's just got a few scars. Understandable, really.



@Frazzled - What were you thinking? How did you honestly think this thread would end? If someone had posted something about Christians being violent and idiotic, you would have locked it quicker than a very quick thing indeed. I honestly expected better from you, but that's not your fault - it's mine.

No we had an 11 page post on the pope. I think that noe is still open.
You can attack these nutjobs as the nutjobs they are. We (and the moderates in the religion) need to start separating the nutjob crazies from the rest of the religion or it will beomce accepted dogma that that does indeed represent the entire religion.

Whatever, man. It just strikes me that by starting a thread on an issue like this, you're making more work for yourself. Islam threads rarely end well.

On the plus side, they ARE often fun to read...

metallifan wrote:

The Green Git wrote:How can anyone in their right mind possibly defend Islamic head sawing feths and try to compare Christians and political opinion show hosts to death threats for cartoons?

No one was "defending" them. History will show you just how easy it is to compare.

Beg to differ. All sorts of excuses were offered in this very thread and it's inexcusable.

Defend your beliefs on intellectual grounds... but murdering those who disagree with you on the sole basis of their disagreement, ethnic heritage or perceived slights against your beliefs is backwards, savage and wrong. Period.

The Green Git wrote:

metallifan wrote:

The Green Git wrote:How can anyone in their right mind possibly defend Islamic head sawing feths and try to compare Christians and political opinion show hosts to death threats for cartoons?

No one was "defending" them. History will show you just how easy it is to compare.

Beg to differ. All sorts of excuses were offered in this very thread and it's inexcusable.

Defend your beliefs on intellectual grounds... but murdering those who disagree with you on the sole basis of their disagreement, ethnic heritage or perceived slights against your beliefs is backwards, savage and wrong. Period.

I think you posted in the wrong thread. Your post is clearly a blatant lie when it's here.

Can't we get rid of religion and simply just go back to fighting over land if we must fight so much >_>

Obviously at first they were meant to provoke hope, but that seems to have been misinterpreted ages ago.

The Green Git wrote:
Beg to differ. All sorts of excuses were offered in this very thread and it's inexcusable.

Defend your beliefs on intellectual grounds... but murdering those who disagree with you on the sole basis of their disagreement, ethnic heritage or perceived slights against your beliefs is backwards, savage and wrong. Period.

Like Shuma said, why don't you try -reading- a thread before posting comments in it? No one was standing up for extremist behavior at any point. Rather, people were defending the Muslim faith, and pointing out that it's a very ignorant person that makes the mistake of assuming "Muslim" and "Extremist" are one and the same. Such assumptions could also be called "backwards, savage and wrong."

Is it really news to anyone that wingnut Muslims threaten violence over minor offences? They're out there, they're crazy, and we all know about it. Like talking about every single thing the Westboro Baptist church does, at some point I suspect the only effect is to tar the majority with the craziness of the minority. We shouldn't ignore the crazy fringe, but we should keep it in perspective.


Also, it doesn't make much sense to me that Muhammed can't be depicted, but it doesn't have to make sense to me, taboos don't have to make much sense, and certainly not to anyone outside of that group. That isn't to say depictions of Muhammed should be banned, but it stands to reason that someone should exercise restraint and decent judgement. The image with the bomb turban would be a pretty good example of completely and utterly failing to do that.

I haven't seen the South Park episode in question, but I liked the last episode they used to address the topic, with Family Guy and the manatees. I figure this will probably be worthwhile as well.

n0t_u wrote:Can't we get rid of religion and simply just go back to fighting over land if we must fight so much >_>

Obviously at first they were meant to provoke hope, but that seems to have been misinterpreted ages ago.

Getting rid of religion and doing much better things like race based tribal violence, ethnic cleansing (Hitler!), communist national reformation (cultural revolution!), and forced industrial-economic revitalization (soviet collective industry!) is a great idea. Clearly religion (rather than what caused napoleons invasions, alexander the greats conquests, Ghengis Khans empire building, or the ethnic cleansing of north and south america by european colonists!) is the issue here. It has absolutely nothing to do with inherent human indecency towards other humans when under the guise of movements or great changes for progress.

Clthomps wrote:

There's also a shot of Buddha snorting coke, no Buddhist outrage yet.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time... Congratulations

What? That other religions can stand having their Gods/Prophets mocked and that this one fringe group makes theirs look stupid by their childish outbursts over a stupid cartoon?

wow I did't think it was necessary to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous quotes ever, but I guess it is...

Buddhism boils down to the removal of all negative thoughts and actions, it is the cornerstone of their religion. Hence and outraged Buddhist is an oxymoron.

And wow... I thought maybe you had some grounding in the real world. I don't need to add how Buddhists kill and slaughter others since people already supplied that for me.

MadEdric wrote:

Clthomps wrote:

There's also a shot of Buddha snorting coke, no Buddhist outrage yet.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time... Congratulations

What? That other religions can stand having their Gods/Prophets mocked and that this one fringe group makes theirs look stupid by their childish outbursts over a stupid cartoon?

wow I did't think it was necessary to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous quotes ever, but I guess it is...

Buddhism boils down to the removal of all negative thoughts and actions, it is the cornerstone of their religion. Hence and outraged Buddhist is an oxymoron.

And wow... I thought maybe you had some grounding in the real world. I don't need to add how Buddhists kill and slaughter others since people already supplied that for me.

I think you need to turn that kill into "have killed". Minor changes in word structure prevent major misinterpretations!