|
|
 | How free is the free press?
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 04:00 |
|
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8808AC96-0809-4BE8-98E2-ED963AE8FDE4.htm
-------------------------------
Denmark PM rejects apology demand
Monday 30 January 2006, 2:57 Makka Time, 23:57 GMT
Denmark's prime minister has said his government cannot act against
satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after Libya closed its
embassy in Copenhagen amid growing Muslim anger over the dispute.
[...]
"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
them blasphemous.
Since Jyllands-Posten published the drawings in September, the Danish
government has repeatedly defended the right of free speech.
"The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
[...]
----------------------------
How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
| |
 J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 07:11 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138590024.874100.27220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
I cannot remember the exact wording of his speech when I heard it, but
the context is true. Someone in this forum doesn't think that free speech
should include drawings of Mohamed though. For more on the issue, read:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/30/news/islam9.php
J.
| |
B. Nice (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 30-01-06 07:49 |
|
On 29 Jan 2006 19:00:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8808AC96-0809-4BE8-98E2-ED963AE8FDE4.htm
>-------------------------------
>Denmark PM rejects apology demand
>
>Monday 30 January 2006, 2:57 Makka Time, 23:57 GMT
>
>Denmark's prime minister has said his government cannot act against
>satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after Libya closed its
>embassy in Copenhagen amid growing Muslim anger over the dispute.
>
>[...]
>
>"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
>them blasphemous.
>
>Since Jyllands-Posten published the drawings in September, the Danish
>government has repeatedly defended the right of free speech.
>
>"The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
>government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
>what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
>
>[...]
>
>----------------------------
>
>How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
"How true" - You mean on a scale from 0 to 100 or what???
In that case it's a 100 of course.
Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish government
has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
media is free to take the matter to court.
| |
Jim Walsh (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 30-01-06 09:25 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:49:05 +0800, B. Nice wrote (in article
<kqcrt11iodkjvvi30kf2f9h1n11nf1h6vp@4ax.com>):
> ... Unlike in many middle east countries for example
And China, for another example
> the danish government has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels
> offended by the media is free to take the matter to court.
I doubt that the courts can do what the government can not do.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
 J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 10:13 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C003EE5D00020DD5F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> I doubt that the courts can do what the government can not do.
With due respect, Jim, that is incorrect. The Danish court has the power
to demand an apology from the Danish government on the issue, if it feels
that it was the proper thing to do, or have the cartoonist brought to court
and tried for the crime which he was supposed to have committed, and the
opposition parties can also demand that the government do so - they can even
go as far as to demand an election to determine what the majority of the
Danish people want. In this case, the Danish people (not counting the
Muslims, of course) stand unanimously on the side of the said cartoonist.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 10:59 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> The Danish court has the power
> to demand an apology from the Danish government on the issue, if it feels
> that it was the proper thing to do,
Certainly not. What the courts can do is limited by law - by the
Constitution and by the laws passed by Parliament. They cannot demand an
apology from the Government.
> or have the cartoonist brought to court
Certainly not. This can by done by the Crown Prosecution Service only
which has already rejected the informations preferred by Islamist groups
in Denmark.
> and tried for the crime which he was supposed to have committed, and the
> opposition parties can also demand that the government do so - they can even
> go as far as to demand an election to determine what the majority of the
> Danish people want.
Certainly not - that is if you by "the Opposition" mean the /real/
Opposition consisting of The Radical Left Party {Social Liberals,
Anti-National}, The Social Democratic Party, The Socialist People's
Party and The [Socialist] Unity List.
The Danish People's Party {Social Liberals, National} is the
Government's firm supportive party.
> In this case, the Danish people (not counting the Muslims, of course)
> stand unanimously on the side of the said cartoonist.
Yes, though it should be said that lots of Muslims reject the jihad
against The Jutland Post and Denmark too.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 30-01-06 11:00 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:13:02 +0800, J.Venning wrote
(in article <43ddd8a2$0$38706$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>):
> "Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C003EE5D00020DD5F0284550@family.alibis.com...
>> I doubt that the courts can do what the government can not do.
>
> With due respect, Jim, that is incorrect. The Danish court has the power
> to demand an apology from the Danish government on the issue,....
You think?
What law would it be that gives the Danish courts that power?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:39 |
|
B. Nice wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> >muslim worldwide.
>
> You only get insulted if You choose to.
You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
objective reality to the muslims.
| |
B. Nice (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:53 |
|
On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>B. Nice wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
>> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
>> >muslim worldwide.
>>
>> You only get insulted if You choose to.
>
>You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
>insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
>objective reality to the muslims.
But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:01 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:38:46 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1138667926.773075.115260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> B. Nice wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
>>> sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>>> however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
>>> muslim worldwide.
>>
>> You only get insulted if You choose to.
>
> You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an objective
> reality to the muslims..
The use of word Chink is insulting to Chinese. That simple truth does not
justify repression or denial of the right to say that word.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 02-02-06 02:27 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
>
> In this cas, "owning a Bible" was considered apostatic in itself.
I don't know that is true.
>
> But it seem as if you approve of beheading people for apostasy if they
> are of Islamic background? We all know that that was Mohammad's view -
> and he practised mass executions on non-Moslems.
No. But apostasy is a more serious and different type offense.
For instance, you cannot accuse a non-believer or a believer of other
religions of apostasy.
>
> > In addition, many people, including Americans don't believe 911 was caused
> > by 19 Arabs.
>
> Only fools have such views. But we all know that in the Islamic world it
> is quite common to blame "World Judaism" for the atrosity.
Bingo. There are fools in every culture.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 10:45 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rønne wrote:
> > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
> >
> > In this cas, "owning a Bible" was considered apostatic in itself.
>
> I don't know that is true.
> >
> > But it seem as if you approve of beheading people for apostasy if they
> > are of Islamic background? We all know that that was Mohammad's view -
> > and he practised mass executions on non-Moslems.
>
> No. But apostasy is a more serious and different type offense.
> For instance, you cannot accuse a non-believer or a believer of other
> religions of apostasy.
Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates, though, is
a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad committed several
times.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
1man4all (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 03-02-06 21:54 |
|
Phaedrine wrote:
> > I like Lebanese women; most of them are very good looking. Can your
> > wife's sister shop around for wife #2 and #3 for me? [I understand that
> > Ms. Phaedrine is already a hopeful candidate for the #4 spot  ]
> I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> a poisonous toad like you.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> And besides, I'm already married you silly
> old goat.
Then how about you becoming my captured slave?
| |
Bob Cooper (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 04-02-06 02:38 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139000062.852712.283960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phaedrine wrote:
>
> > > I like Lebanese women; most of them are very good looking. Can your
> > > wife's sister shop around for wife #2 and #3 for me? [I understand that
> > > Ms. Phaedrine is already a hopeful candidate for the #4 spot ]
>
> > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> > a poisonous toad like you.
>
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
"The course of true love never did run smooth."
> > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > old goat.
>
> Then how about you becoming my captured slave?
"Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?"
| |
Phaedrine (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:02 |
|
In article <dpTEf.35988$bF.20081@dukeread07>,
"Bob Cooper" <rcooper1@cox.net> wrote:
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139000062.852712.283960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> > > a poisonous toad like you.
> >
> > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> "The course of true love never did run smooth."
>
> > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > old goat.
> >
> > Then how about you becoming my captured slave?
>
> "Being your slave, what should I do but tend
> Upon the hours and times of your desire?"
Yes Cooper, this is obviously much more your kind of thing.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Phaedrine (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:04 |
|
In article <1139000062.852712.283960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Phaedrine wrote:
>
> > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> > a poisonous toad like you.
>
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > old goat.
>
> Then how about you becoming my captured slave?
Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 09:19 |
|
Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1139000062.852712.283960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> >
> > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> > > a poisonous toad like you.
> >
> > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> >
> > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > old goat.
> >
> > Then how about you becoming my captured slave?
>
> Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
Well, in some cultures the biological sex of the one who is penetrated
doesn't matter, what matters is whether you are a man who penetrates or
a woman or half-man who is getting penetrated ...
Like in ancient Rome, in Dar al-Islam or in US prisons ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:11 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Bob Cooper wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138802725.239071.232410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
> > > > religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
> > > > majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
> > > > Could they? No?
> > >
> > > Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
> > > just for /owning/ a Bible?
> > >
> > > This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
> >
> > I don't aware of that.
> > Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
> > official verdict?
> >
> > *******************
> > According to this article, written by a Saudi Muslim, it was 1993, actually,
> > and he was beheaded for "apostasy":
>
> Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
Sigh. They're obviously related in this case. It's not so hard to
understand.
>
> > =======================================================
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006712
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > "The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In
> > September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge
> > of apostasy for owning a Bible."
> >
> > (...)
> > =======================================================
>
> The article dateed, May 20, 2005 did not really discuss the case nor
> provide any information which will allow a reader to decide what was
> the real cause of the beheading.
>
> In addiaiton, the author of the above article did not claim that owning
> a bible would invariably lead to beheading.
>
>
> > *******************
> >
> > Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
> > or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
> > answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
> >
> > ***********
> > Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam; the site of its holiest places, its
> > early history; the birthplace of its Prophet.
>
> May be you are confusing Saudi Arabia a geographic region with Saudia
> Arabia government. Geography does kill.
>
> > It's the place all Muslims are
> > bound to go on their Hajj pilgrimage, and Arabian is the language of the
> > Koran. It is the heart of Islam, and any attempt to divorce the Saudis
> > from "Islam in general" is absurd.
>
> Not at all.
> No all muslims belong to the Sunni branches. In addition, not all
> Sunnis practices Wahabism. In constrast, may be you are seeing Muslim
> through the lens of catholic church where all catholics belongs to the
> same church under one pope.
>
> > ***********
> >
> > More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
> > cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
> > influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
> >
> > ***********
> > It relates to your statement above that, "In contrast, million of preachers preach
> > against Islam and other religions every week in America and other countries
> > with Christian majorities all over the world." As an American, I can tell you, first
> > of all, that -- sadly, in my opinion -- there's not much of that going on.
>
> I had gone to churches before. I heard preachers preaching against
> Islams and buddhism.
> "No much." May be so. How about 30 seconds on the average in a 30 to
> 60 minutes? But then multiply it by the number of sermons every week
> all over the world and 52 weeks a year. It sure added up.
>
> > Yet.
> >
> > However, the larger point is that no Christian country beheads Muslims for
> > owning a Koran. You can walk into any book store in America and purchase
> > a copy freely. There will be several translations to choose from. Muslims are
> > entirely free to practice their religion peacefully and without interference in
> > every Christian country I know of. Now, tell me, why isn't that same right
> > accorded to Christians in Saudi Arabia?
> >
> > How does it relate to the cartoons? Simple. It illustrates the absurdity of
> > Muslims going ape about 12 rather innocuous cartoons when Muslims are
> > beheading Christians for owning a bible. Clear?
>
> Again, if you are going to use the beheading as the cornerstone of your
> belief, why not make sure that it is indeed the case. An official
> release from the Sauid could help. Secondly, as I had posted, the
> cartoon which attack Islam in general have zero influence on the Saudi
> government.
>
> >
> > Furthermore, has it occurred to you that the furor and outrage from Muslims
> > about these silly cartoons -- demonstrations, diplomatic protests, bomb
> > threats, boycotts -- far exceeds any similar outrage on the part of Muslims
> > in reaction to the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 911? Their response
> > to that -- from those few who condemned it -- was generally along the lines
> > of, "Tsk, tsk. Yes, it was wrong, *BUT*....blah, blah, blah....American
> > Imperialism...blah, blah, blah....evil jooze....blah, blah, blah......."
>
> Not relevant. Currently, there is not universal guideline on how to
> protest to what degree on all preceived or real offense. In addition,
> many people, including Americans don't believe 911 was caused by 19
> Arabs.
>
>
> > > Per Erik Rønne
> > > http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 04:26 |
|
Just curious.
What is this wise group and what did the group say?
| |
KANGAROOISTAN (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : KANGAROOISTAN |
Dato : 30-01-06 07:58 |
|
WELL THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO COURT OR BOUYCOT THEIR PAPER/ TV OR
PRODUCTS
THE MUSLIMS MUST BOY COTT ALL PAPERS / COUNTRIES AND BUSINESSES
THAT USE THESE PAPERS
INDEED IT IS THE MUSLIMS THEMSELVES THAT ARE TO BLAME FOR CONTINUING
TO BUY ANYTHING FROM WARCRIMINAL COUNTRIES
A BOYCOTT WOULD STOP THE CAPITALISTS RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS THEM
THE MOST
| |
Réné (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Réné |
Dato : 30-01-06 13:33 |
|
"KANGAROOISTAN" <theoldman@kangarooistan.com.au> wrote in message
news:1138604275.079436.103120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> WELL THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO COURT OR BOUYCOT THEIR PAPER/ TV OR
> PRODUCTS
>
> THE MUSLIMS MUST BOY COTT ALL PAPERS / COUNTRIES AND BUSINESSES
> THAT USE THESE PAPERS
>
> INDEED IT IS THE MUSLIMS THEMSELVES THAT ARE TO BLAME FOR CONTINUING
> TO BUY ANYTHING FROM WARCRIMINAL COUNTRIES
>
> A BOYCOTT WOULD STOP THE CAPITALISTS RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS THEM
> THE MOST
>
Go ahead Muslims.
Boycott.
Boycott all the White Christian capitalist countries.
Do it.
Stop just saying it and do it.
Muslims always have a lot to say, but hardly ever follow it up with actual
action.
So no worries, their meager GDP's aside.
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:34 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:32:58 +0800, Réné wrote (in article
<iJnDf.1876$Iw6.128649@news20.bellglobal.com>):
> ... Go ahead Muslims.
>
> Boycott.
>
> Boycott all the White Christian capitalist countries.
No nation, capitalist or otherwise, is white.
If the oil rich Arab nations stopped trading with Europe, there would be huge
suffering, on both sides.
Be careful what you wish for.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Martin (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Martin |
Dato : 30-01-06 08:35 |
|
KANGAROOISTAN skrev:
> WELL THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO COURT OR BOUYCOT THEIR PAPER/ TV OR
> PRODUCTS
>
> THE MUSLIMS MUST BOY COTT ALL PAPERS / COUNTRIES AND BUSINESSES
> THAT USE THESE PAPERS
>
> INDEED IT IS THE MUSLIMS THEMSELVES THAT ARE TO BLAME FOR CONTINUING
> TO BUY ANYTHING FROM WARCRIMINAL COUNTRIES
>
> A BOYCOTT WOULD STOP THE CAPITALISTS RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS THEM
> THE MOST
As in:
If they hurt the prophet, lets hurt their profit.
B/R
Martin
| |
Jim Walsh (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 30-01-06 09:28 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:35:08 +0800, Martin wrote (in article
<1138606508.569127.8020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> KANGAROOISTAN skrev:
>
>> .... A BOYCOTT WOULD STOP THE CAPITALISTS RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS THEM
>> THE MOST
>
> As in: If they hurt the prophet, lets hurt their profit.
Mohammed is beyond being injured by any cartoon. Fanatics fear the expression
of any opinion not identical with theirs. Fortunately only a few countries
are run by fanatics.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Martin (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Martin |
Dato : 30-01-06 09:43 |
|
Jim Walsh skrev:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:35:08 +0800, Martin wrote (in article
> <1138606508.569127.8020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >
> > KANGAROOISTAN skrev:
> >
> >> .... A BOYCOTT WOULD STOP THE CAPITALISTS RIGHT WHERE IT HURTS THEM
> >> THE MOST
> >
> > As in: If they hurt the prophet, lets hurt their profit.
>
> Mohammed is beyond being injured by any cartoon. Fanatics fear the expression
> of any opinion not identical with theirs. Fortunately only a few countries
> are run by fanatics.
>
True, only a few contries in the world is run by fanatics. However,
quite many muslim countries are run by godfearing feudalists.
Hate & War
Martin
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 09:43 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
> government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
> what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
> How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
I don't remember his exact words but that was the meaning [although the
translation is bad;-(]
The Islamic countries demand our Prime Minister to "punish" the Jutland
Post - by decapitating the editor? Well, that would be a break of our
Constitution. We've got a free press and independent couts.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 10:32 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h9z196.fxupr91n0svozN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> I don't remember his exact words but that was the meaning [although the
> translation is bad;-(]
> The Islamic countries demand our Prime Minister to "punish" the Jutland
> Post - by decapitating the editor? Well, that would be a break of our
> Constitution. We've got a free press and independent couts.
> Per Erik Rønne
Kære Per Rønne!
Jeg har forsøgt at forsvare Danmark og det danske befolknings synspunkter om
emnen. Læs lige tråden, der heder "The Gift from the coalition: Rising
poverty" i soc.culture.china , og du kan måske tilføje noget til den.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 10:59 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1h9z196.fxupr91n0svozN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > I don't remember his exact words but that was the meaning [although the
> > translation is bad;-(]
> > The Islamic countries demand our Prime Minister to "punish" the Jutland
> > Post - by decapitating the editor? Well, that would be a break of our
> > Constitution. We've got a free press and independent couts.
> > Per Erik Rønne
>
> Kære Per Rønne!
> Jeg har forsøgt at forsvare Danmark og det danske befolknings synspunkter om
> emnen. Læs lige tråden, der heder "The Gift from the coalition: Rising
> poverty" i soc.culture.china , og du kan måske tilføje noget til den.
Jamen, så må jeg jo heller abonnere på også den nyhedsgruppe ...
FUT dk.politik.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Martin (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Martin |
Dato : 30-01-06 09:56 |
|
Jim Walsh skrev:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:49:05 +0800, B. Nice wrote (in article
> <kqcrt11iodkjvvi30kf2f9h1n11nf1h6vp@4ax.com>):
>
> > ... Unlike in many middle east countries for example
>
> And China, for another example
>
> > the danish government has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels
> > offended by the media is free to take the matter to court.
>
> I doubt that the courts can do what the government can not do.
>
Naturally not, but you´ve got it rather mixed up. I will help you.
- The government can pass a law which if partitioned by the parliament,
will be in effect from a certain point of time. The courts now, must
follow this law as it must follow all other laws. If the government
however chose via the police f.ex., to hassle or intimidate certain
members of the free press, and this course of action is listed in an
existing law as a criminal act, the courts must press charges against
the government.
The majority of the danish people is really in to this "free press"
thing. So any government or political party that wants to limit the
conditions of "freedom" in any way for the danish people or its
spokesmen, is doomed. Well, there are some neo-nazis where your points
of view with this "strong leader" idea of yours might be taken serious,
but you know..........
Hate & War
Martin
| |
Jim Walsh (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 30-01-06 10:59 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:56:23 +0800, Martin wrote (in article
<1138611383.241314.289100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Jim Walsh skrev:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:49:05 +0800, B. Nice wrote (in article
>> <kqcrt11iodkjvvi30kf2f9h1n11nf1h6vp@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> ... Unlike in many middle east countries for example
>>
>> And China, for another example
>>
>>> the danish government has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels
>>> offended by the media is free to take the matter to court.
>>
>> I doubt that the courts can do what the government can not do.
> Naturally not, but you´ve got it rather mixed up. I will help
> you.....Well, there are some neo-nazis where your points of view with this
> "strong leader" idea of yours might be taken serious,
thanks. You have me confused with someone else.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 12:20 |
|
B. Nice wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 19:00:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8808AC96-0809-4BE8-98E2-ED963AE8FDE4.htm
> >-------------------------------
> >Denmark PM rejects apology demand
> >
> >Monday 30 January 2006, 2:57 Makka Time, 23:57 GMT
> >
> >Denmark's prime minister has said his government cannot act against
> >satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after Libya closed its
> >embassy in Copenhagen amid growing Muslim anger over the dispute.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> >them blasphemous.
> >
> >Since Jyllands-Posten published the drawings in September, the Danish
> >government has repeatedly defended the right of free speech.
> >
> >"The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
> >government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
> >what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >----------------------------
> >
> >How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
>
> "How true" - You mean on a scale from 0 to 100 or what???
> In that case it's a 100 of course.
>
> Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish government
> has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
> media is free to take the matter to court.
I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence. To
me, it is unbelievable.
Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing its
view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
it to have any influence internationally.
No. I don't buy your answer that it's a 100 case.
| |
Mogens Michaelsen (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mogens Michaelsen |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:49 |
|
ltlee1 skrev:
> B. Nice wrote:
>
>>On 29 Jan 2006 19:00:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8808AC96-0809-4BE8-98E2-ED963AE8FDE4.htm
>>>-------------------------------
>>>Denmark PM rejects apology demand
>>>
>>>Monday 30 January 2006, 2:57 Makka Time, 23:57 GMT
>>>
>>>Denmark's prime minister has said his government cannot act against
>>>satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after Libya closed its
>>>embassy in Copenhagen amid growing Muslim anger over the dispute.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
>>>them blasphemous.
>>>
>>>Since Jyllands-Posten published the drawings in September, the Danish
>>>government has repeatedly defended the right of free speech.
>>>
>>>"The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
>>>government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
>>>what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
>>
>>"How true" - You mean on a scale from 0 to 100 or what???
>>In that case it's a 100 of course.
>>
>>Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish government
>>has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
>>media is free to take the matter to court.
>
>
> I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence. To
> me, it is unbelievable.
>
> Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing its
> view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> it to have any influence internationally.
>
> No. I don't buy your answer that it's a 100 case.
>
You are 100% correct! Although the government cannot in any way
*control* the media, the Prime Minister is giving the impression
that a *statement* from the government should be directly
*un-constitutional* - which is NOT true. His motives are
political, although at the same time supported by a majority of
danes.
--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 15:13 |
|
Mogens Michaelsen <momi@stofanet.dk> wrote:
> You are 100% correct! Although the government cannot in any way
> *control* the media, the Prime Minister is giving the impression
> that a *statement* from the government should be directly
> *un-constitutional* - which is NOT true. His motives are
> political, although at the same time supported by a majority of
> danes.
By the overall majority of Danes. 80% I think opinion polls said.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 19:25 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h9zgsx.lt37lae8zb7fN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> By the overall majority of Danes. 80% I think opinion polls said.
> Per Erik Rønne
This evening's TV news reported that 12 countries are now boycotting
Danish products, and the Danish prime minister is keeping his stance about
not making apologies of any kind.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 19:57 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1h9zgsx.lt37lae8zb7fN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > By the overall majority of Danes. 80% I think opinion polls said.
> This evening's TV news reported that 12 countries are now boycotting
> Danish products, and the Danish prime minister is keeping his stance about
> not making apologies of any kind.
Well, these countries purchase 1,2% of the total Danish export which
does, btw, increase with 10% a year. In no ways will it be a disaster to
the Danish economy which is, btw, one of the strongest of Europe. With
large surpluses on the balance of payments, on the budget - and with one
of Europe's smallest unemployment rates, 4%.
At the same time we have unemployment benefits at ¤11.8 an hour {37
hours a week, and five weeks of compulsory vacation a year, church
holydays excluded} or $14.3. Three times the US mimimum wage, I think.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 20:21 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h9zthz.1jco4zf16o31rrN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Well, these countries purchase 1,2% of the total Danish export which
> does, btw, increase with 10% a year. In no ways will it be a disaster to
> the Danish economy which is, btw, one of the strongest of Europe. With
> large surpluses on the balance of payments, on the budget - and with one
> of Europe's smallest unemployment rates, 4%.
> At the same time we have unemployment benefits at ¤11.8 an hour {37
> hours a week, and five weeks of compulsory vacation a year, church
> holydays excluded} or $14.3. Three times the US mimimum wage, I think.
It is not the actual bulk of Danish products boycotted that is causing
trouble, but the overall impact of heightening world tension, which the
Muslims are doing that does. There is no doubt that there are differences in
the way we live and the way we think. If Denmark were to give in on this
issue, it will certainly create a precedent for more demands from the
Muslims to elbow their way to change the Danish society to suit themselves.
Where else in the world would they get those benefits you describe in your
post above?
J.
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 21:04 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1h9zthz.1jco4zf16o31rrN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > Well, these countries purchase 1,2% of the total Danish export which
> > does, btw, increase with 10% a year. In no ways will it be a disaster to
> > the Danish economy which is, btw, one of the strongest of Europe. With
> > large surpluses on the balance of payments, on the budget - and with one
> > of Europe's smallest unemployment rates, 4%.
> > At the same time we have unemployment benefits at ¤11.8 an hour {37
> > hours a week, and five weeks of compulsory vacation a year, church
> > holydays excluded} or $14.3. Three times the US mimimum wage, I think.
>
> It is not the actual bulk of Danish products boycotted that is causing
> trouble, but the overall impact of heightening world tension, which the
> Muslims are doing that does. There is no doubt that there are differences in
> the way we live and the way we think. If Denmark were to give in on this
> issue, it will certainly create a precedent for more demands from the
> Muslims to elbow their way to change the Danish society to suit themselves.
Yes.
> Where else in the world would they get those benefits you describe in your
> post above?
Are you talking about the Islamic immigrant society in Denmark, or the
Islamic world, "Dar al-Islam", as a whole?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 30-01-06 21:10 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h9zwtz.e2dzvi17qa6gbN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Are you talking about the Islamic immigrant society in Denmark, or the
> Islamic world, "Dar al-Islam", as a whole?
> Per Erik Rønne
The former.
J.
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:38 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:19:40 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> B. Nice wrote:
>> Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish government
>> has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
>> media is free to take the matter to court.
>
> I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence. To
> me, it is unbelievable.
An example of your ignorance and an opportunity to learn.
> Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing its
> view on such matter?
It has. It's view is that it was legal to publish the cartoon.
> Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> it to have any influence internationally.
Weird. Governments should represent not control the people. And the ability
to "influence" its own people is not remotely related to ability to other
nations.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 12:29 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
> > government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
> > what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
>
> > How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
>
> I don't remember his exact words but that was the meaning [although the
> translation is bad;-(]
Please improve upon the translation.
As is, Fogh Rasmussen's statement rings false. Government is, first and
foremost, to influence, internally and internationally.
>
> The Islamic countries demand our Prime Minister to "punish" the Jutland
> Post - by decapitating the editor? Well, that would be a break of our
> Constitution. We've got a free press and independent couts.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Per Rønne (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:21 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rønne wrote:
> > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "The government can in no way could influence the media. And the Danish
> > > government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held responsible for
> > > what is published in independent media," Fogh Rasmussen said."
> > > How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
> > I don't remember his exact words but that was the meaning [although the
> > translation is bad;-(]
> Please improve upon the translation.
> As is, Fogh Rasmussen's statement rings false. Government is, first and
> foremost, to influence, internally and internationally.
Well, in the first sentence you see two verbs - "can" and "could".
And we've got a free press that can write anything it wants. This is
stated in our constitution which says:
§77 Everybody has the right to publish his opinions in print, script and
speech - with responsibility to the courts. Censorship and other
preventive actions measures can never again be introduced.
§3 The legislative power is with the King and Parliament in unison. The
executive power is with the King. The judicial power is with the courts.
==
Simply put, the Government hasn't got the right to punish anybody. This
right belongs to the independent courts. And anybody can take "libel
action" if he is dissatisfied with what another person, or a newspaper,
has written about him in public.
Furthermore, we've got a blesphemy section in our Penal Code but the
only conviction on that provision was back in the 1930s - to protect the
Jews. Not even a public painting of Jesus on the cross, naked and with
erected penis leads to a conviction in Denmark, although the
Constitution states:
§4 The Evangelical-Lutheral Church is the Danish People's Church and is
as thus supported by the State.
==
BTW, the formal head of the church is the King {since 1972: Queen
Margrethe II - to be succeeded by her son Frederik [X] who will in turn
be succeeded by his son Christian [XI] who is only three months old}. In
reality, Parliament is the /real/ head of the church.
---
But the small association "Islamic Community" was unseccesful when it
tried to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service to institute proceedings
aganinst The Jutland Post. It does, btw, only represent a few percents
of the 250,000 Islamic immigrants in Denmark, and Muslims like Naser
Khader, MP, has come close to condemning them for their actions.
And just remember that when this group visited the Islamic countries to
get backup to their jihad against The Jutland Post and The Kingdom of
Denmark, they lied up hill and down dale. They even fabricated fake
drawings like the one showing a worshipping Islamic man, bottom up,
getting raped by a boar {at least, I think it was a boar}.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:04 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:29:21 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1138620561.058383.87160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Government is, first and foremost, to influence, internally and
> internationally.
False.
Government exist to do what their citizens want them to do. They are
servants, not masters.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Richard Dell (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 30-01-06 12:50 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
government
| > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
| > media is free to take the matter to court.
|
| I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
| above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence.
To
| me, it is unbelievable.
Believe it.
"As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the
14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
Christianity and not used for decades.
| Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
its
| view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
| influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
| it to have any influence internationally.
Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
slander). Cartoons are not lies.
This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
now enjoy.
| |
MichaelC (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 30-01-06 13:04 |
|
"Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138621789.742051.242420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> | > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
> government
> | > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
> | > media is free to take the matter to court.
> |
> | I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> | above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence.
> To
> | me, it is unbelievable.
>
> Believe it.
>
> "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
> nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
> http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
>
> I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
> think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the
> 14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
> Christianity and not used for decades.
>
> | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> its
> | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> | it to have any influence internationally.
>
> Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> slander). Cartoons are not lies.
>
> This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> now enjoy.
It should always be pointed out in discussions such as this that a "freedom
of speech" that does not permit the speaker to offend another person is not
freedom of speech at all.
Mike
>
| |
Phaedrine (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 30-01-06 16:18 |
|
In article <IgnDf.15296$_S7.5811@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It should always be pointed out in discussions such as this that a "freedom
> of speech" that does not permit the speaker to offend another person is not
> freedom of speech at all.
Amen
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:40 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:03:52 +0800, MichaelC wrote (in article
<IgnDf.15296$_S7.5811@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):
> .... a "freedom of speech" that does not permit the speaker to offend
> another person is not freedom of speech at all.
>
> Mike
Exactly right.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 04:43 |
|
B. Nice wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >B. Nice wrote:
> >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> >> >muslim worldwide.
> >>
> >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> >
> >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> >objective reality to the muslims.
>
> But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
> of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
them blasphemous."
It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
speculative and irrelevant. The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
| |
Phaedrine (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:16 |
|
In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> B. Nice wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >B. Nice wrote:
> > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > >>
> > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > >
> > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > >objective reality to the muslims.
> >
> > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
> > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
>
> "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> them blasphemous."
>
> It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> speculative and irrelevant.
Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
non-muslims newspaper customs?
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:55 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:15:35 +0800, Phaedrine wrote
(in article
<Phaedrine.Stonebridge-196C1E.23153530012006@news-50.dca.giganews.com>):
>....So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> non-muslims newspaper customs?
Bingo.
BTW, the vast majority of Muslims are perfectly content to live peacefully
beside those who do not share their views.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 02-02-06 12:52 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
> > >
> > > In this cas, "owning a Bible" was considered apostatic in itself.
> >
> > I don't know that is true.
> > >
> > > But it seem as if you approve of beheading people for apostasy if they
> > > are of Islamic background? We all know that that was Mohammad's view -
> > > and he practised mass executions on non-Moslems.
> >
> > No. But apostasy is a more serious and different type offense.
> > For instance, you cannot accuse a non-believer or a believer of other
> > religions of apostasy.
>
> Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates, though, is
> a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad committed several
> times.
May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god. Is it in principle
different from how some people see free speech.as a god given right?
(Exceptions were allowed in both cases.)
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 02-02-06 13:09 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138881131.881478.8310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
> > >
> > > In this cas, "owning a Bible" was considered apostatic in itself.
> >
> > I don't know that is true.
> > >
> > > But it seem as if you approve of beheading people for apostasy if they
> > > are of Islamic background? We all know that that was Mohammad's view -
> > > and he practised mass executions on non-Moslems.
> >
> > No. But apostasy is a more serious and different type offense.
> > For instance, you cannot accuse a non-believer or a believer of other
> > religions of apostasy.
>
> Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates, though, is
> a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad committed several
> times.
May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god. Is it in principle
different from how some people see free speech.as a god given right?
(Exceptions were allowed in both cases.)
The question has already been answered. Apostacy is always a religious
notion (you can't have an "apostacy" without a religious POV) whilst free
speech can exist outside of a religious context. Thus, the principle is
quite different.
The German newspaper said it best, on this one: "In Berlin, Die Welt argued
there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was
capable of coping with satire. "The protests from Muslims would be taken
more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial. "
And asks this question:
"Is it possible to satirize Islam? How much humor is compatible with the
religion of Islam, this metaphysics of world conquest by an early medieval
robber prince, who with his caravan army created a great empire on the basis
of polygamy and a strict code of honor?"
On a related note: " In Germany, the vice-chairman of the central council of
Muslims said Muslims would be deeply offended. "
It should be said that Western society will, without question, defend the
right of any individual to be offended, regardless of religious persuasion.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 16:45 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rønne wrote:
> > Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates, though, is
> > a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad committed several
> > times.
> May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god.
Yes, in islam apostasy is a crime with one possible punishment only:
death. If it is apostasy from islam ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 07:29 |
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:52:11 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1138881131.881478.8310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Per Rønne wrote:
>> Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates, though, is
>> a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad committed several
>> times.
>
> May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god. Is it in principle
> different from how some people see free speech.as a god given right?
> (Exceptions were allowed in both cases.)
Acting contrary to the rules of a religion (i.e., apostasy) can not be a
crime in a healthy, democratic society because the rules of a religion are
not adopted by a legislature elected by the people, subject to a constitution
that protects minority rights.
The only *punishment* which is valid for apostasy is expulsion from the
membership of the religion.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Enkil (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Enkil |
Dato : 05-02-06 12:09 |
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:52:11 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
> (in article <1138881131.881478.8310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>> Per Rønne wrote:
>
>>> Apostasy, of course, is no crime at all. To punish apostates,
>>> though, is a /very/ serious crime - a crime we know Mohammad
>>> committed several times.
>>
>> May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god. Is it in principle
>> different from how some people see free speech.as a god given right?
>> (Exceptions were allowed in both cases.)
>
> Acting contrary to the rules of a religion (i.e., apostasy)
Apostasy is more accurately described as renouncing or leaving ones
religion.
> can not
> be a crime in a healthy, democratic society because the rules of a
> religion are not adopted by a legislature elected by the people,
> subject to a constitution that protects minority rights.
>
> The only *punishment* which is valid for apostasy is expulsion from
> the membership of the religion.
Which isn't really a valid punishment either since the person has already
left their religion. So there isn't a valid punishment for apostasy.
| |
Per Rønne (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 05-02-06 12:42 |
|
Enkil <nospam@yanoo.com> wrote:
> > The only *punishment* which is valid for apostasy is expulsion from
> > the membership of the religion.
>
> Which isn't really a valid punishment either since the person has already
> left their religion.
Replace "religion" with "church". You'll find members of the Danish
State Church, a priest included who publicly announce that God is a
creation of the human mind ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 13:36 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1haadr1.kj1lmkcfvq65N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Replace "religion" with "church". You'll find members of the Danish
> State Church, a priest included who publicly announce that God is a
> creation of the human mind ...
> Per Erik Rønne
The ironic thing is that his congregation demanded that he be reinstate him as priest in that church when he was suspended from his duties by the Bishop - and they got him back.
J.
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 13:48 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:43e5f130$0$38727$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1haadr1.kj1lmkcfvq65N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Replace "religion" with "church". You'll find members of the Danish
> State Church, a priest included who publicly announce that God is a
> creation of the human mind ...
> Per Erik Rønne
> The ironic thing is that his congregation demanded that he be reinstate him as priest in that church when he was suspended from his duties by the Bishop - and they got him back.
Oops - The ironic thing is that his congregation demanded that he be reinstated as priest in that church when he was suspended from his duties by the Bishop - and they got him back.
(too big a lunch).
J.
| |
Richard Dell (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 02-02-06 14:54 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138881131.881478.8310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
May be they see apostasy a crime decreed by god. Is it in principle
different from how some people see free speech.as a god given right?
(Exceptions were allowed in both cases.)
-----------------------------------------------------
No doubt they do.
So Muslims say God says this, and Christians say God says that. We have
an impasse.
Worse as far as Christianity and Islam is concerned, because we have
mutual blasphemy. "Jesus was the son of God" is blasphemy to a Muslim;
"God has no son" is blasphemy to a Christian.
So the only way a secular society that includes both Muslims and
Christians can function fairly is to apply minimal laws, i.e. laws that
protect people from hurting this other, and insults do not count. We
can make exceptions for racist insults, as history has shown these lead
to serious intolerance, such as lynchings on the ground of a human
attribute that the victim cannot change.
Laws that protect religion also protect bigots. How do you determine
what constitutes a "religion" that merits protection? What about Santa
Claus and the Tooth Fairy? Plenty of kids believe in them. Why is their
belief in those less valid than Allah? Numbers? History? Age? Justice?
Fairness? You go there and Chritianity trumps Islam every time. What
about Pagans? They are even older.
You see the mess you get into in a pluralist society as soon as you
treat any faith group as special. Now please stop bleating about
Muslims being mistreated. In most of the world, they are doing the
mistreating, and not just with a few piffling cartoons.
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 16:45 |
|
Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Worse as far as Christianity and Islam is concerned, because we have
> mutual blasphemy. "Jesus was the son of God" is blasphemy to a Muslim;
> "God has no son" is blasphemy to a Christian.
And as the Muslims assert that Allah is identical to Yahweh, and that
depicting Allah is forbitten, it would be natural for them to demand
Michelangelo's "blesphemous" frescos of God whitened out - as it
happened to the frescos in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople 1453.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 07:29 |
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:45:02 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1ha542z.1rcjnrqt6zk6hN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Worse as far as Christianity and Islam is concerned, because we have
>> mutual blasphemy. "Jesus was the son of God" is blasphemy to a Muslim;
>> "God has no son" is blasphemy to a Christian.
>
> And as the Muslims assert that Allah is identical to Yahweh, and that
> depicting Allah is forbitten, it would be natural for them to demand
> Michelangelo's "blesphemous" frescos of God whitened out - as it
> happened to the frescos in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople 1453.
Another recent case was the destruction of ancient Buddhas by the Taliban.
A not so recent example was the destruction of virtually all Inca writing by
the Catholic invaders.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Per Rønne (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 05-02-06 08:12 |
|
Jim Walsh <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote:
> A not so recent example was the destruction of virtually all Inca writing by
> the Catholic invaders.
No - no destruction of "virtually all Inca writing" took place. Simply
put, the Incas never had any "writings" to destroy. They only had
quipus.
What we know of Inca history comes from what the Spaniards and noble
Inca descandants {brought up in the Catholic faith} wrote.
I think you think of the horrible destruction of Maya libraries ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 10:30 |
|
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:11:42 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1haa0wc.wfysjb52dpmsN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> Jim Walsh <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote:
>
>> A not so recent example was the destruction of virtually all Inca writing
>> by
>> the Catholic invaders.
>
> No - no destruction of "virtually all Inca writing" took place. Simply
> put, the Incas never had any "writings" to destroy. They only had
> quipus.
>
> What we know of Inca history comes from what the Spaniards and noble
> Inca descandants {brought up in the Catholic faith} wrote.
>
> I think you think of the horrible destruction of Maya libraries ...
Oops. You are right. I meant the destruction of Mayan libraries by Spanish
Catholics.
Anyway, illiberal censorship is a feature of almost all religions more or
less equally.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Egon Stich (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Egon Stich |
Dato : 05-02-06 12:54 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00BE6A9000B4549F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:11:42 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
> (in article <1haa0wc.wfysjb52dpmsN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
>
> Oops. You are right. I meant the destruction of Mayan libraries by Spanish
> Catholics.
>
> Anyway, illiberal censorship is a feature of almost all religions more or
> less equally.
>
>
>
> --
> Love, Jim
>
>
>
You don´t see a difference between things happening several hundred years
ago, and things happening today?
ES.
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 13:51 |
|
"Jim" <Jim@donteventhinkaboutitpal.com> wrote in message news:43e5cd22$0$2103$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> And people from Turkey are called turkeys. ;0)
> At least they sound like turkeys... ;)
I think you better put your glasses on, when checking for the term that denotes the people of that country. Incidentally, if the people from Portugal are called Portuguese, wouldn't that automatically follow that a man from Portugal be called Portugander, a woman Portugoose, and a child Portugosling? (Thank you, Victor Borge).
J.
| |
Jim (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim |
Dato : 05-02-06 14:03 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43e5f4ba$0$38680$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
"Jim" <Jim@donteventhinkaboutitpal.com> wrote in message
news:43e5cd22$0$2103$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> And people from Turkey are called turkeys. ;0)
> At least they sound like turkeys... ;)
I think you better put your glasses on, when checking for the term that
denotes the people of that country. Incidentally, if the people from
Portugal are called Portuguese, wouldn't that automatically follow that a
man from Portugal be called Portugander, a woman Portugoose, and a child
Portugosling? (Thank you, Victor Borge).
J.
Victor Rosenbaum, one of my favorit artists on the stage.
J.
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 14:19 |
|
"Jim" <Jim@donteventhinkaboutitpal.com> wrote in message news:43e5f79a$0$2101$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Victor Rosenbaum, one of my favorit artists on the stage.
Bravo ! My compliments to you. I met his son, Ronald, in Stamford last summer, and during my concert I asked him to come up and help my lovely soprano in her number where she sang a drunken song. Little did he know to what he was subjected, because she had water in her wine glass which eventually ended up on him. Not only was he a good sport, but added to the delight of the audience by playing along the whole way through. I saw a lady in the audience fall off her chair from violent laughter. He told me afterwards that he had not have such a good laugh in a very long time.
J.
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 22:00 |
|
"Egon Stich" <egon-stich@mail.dk> wrote in message news:43e5fdc3$1$38646$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> You don´t see a difference between things happening several hundred years
> ago, and things happening today?
> ES.
What do you suggest that we do to settle the things happening today? The same way they did several hundred years ago?
J.
| |
Per Rønne (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 05-02-06 22:42 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> "Egon Stich" <egon-stich@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:43e5fdc3$1$38646$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> > You don´t see a difference between things happening several hundred years
> > ago, and things happening today?
> > ES.
>
> What do you suggest that we do to settle the things happening today?
> The same way they did several hundred years ago?
I think there's something wrong with your newsreader. You reply to Egon
Stich, but your answer is linked to something I wrote - which means
there's something wrong in your headers.
Furthermore, you send each paragraph as one line - which means that I
have to correct them manually if I want quotes from you to be readable.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 23:03 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1hab4tv.bqcrkle78h6rN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> I think there's something wrong with your newsreader.
Don't I know it! I often cannot send a post, and have to go round using another header, or start another post with the same heading to get it sent. Any suggestions would be welcomed - other than "go away", or "format your harddisk".
J.
| |
Per Rønne (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 06-02-06 08:42 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1hab4tv.bqcrkle78h6rN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > I think there's something wrong with your newsreader.
>
> Don't I know it! I often cannot send a post, and have to go round
> using another header, or start another post with the same heading to get
> it sent. Any suggestions would be welcomed - other than "go away", or
> "format your harddisk". J.
Other people know how to set up Outlook Express correctly; I'm using
MacSOUP on a Macintosh for news.
But I can recommend Forte Agent to you. It is a shareware program for
Windows which will be reduced to Free Agent after 30 days of use without
paying for it. $29.
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
1man4all (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 04-02-06 15:29 |
|
NAH wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0800, "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
> >much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
> >but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
> >purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
> >art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
> >ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
> So you condemn the almost daily anti-Jew, anti-Israel. anti-US
> cartoons in the newspapers all across the muslim world?
I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison is
extremely foolish and deceptive.
| |
Bob Cooper (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 04-02-06 15:46 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139063357.968120.277530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NAH wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0800, "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
> > >much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
> > >but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
> > >purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
> > >art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
> > >ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
>
> > So you condemn the almost daily anti-Jew, anti-Israel. anti-US
> > cartoons in the newspapers all across the muslim world?
>
> I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> mind if you caricaturize their political leaders.
To a non-Muslim, Mohammed *is* a political leader.
> So your comparison is extremely foolish and deceptive.
>
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 16:09 |
|
Bob Cooper <rcooper1@cox.net> wrote:
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139063357.968120.277530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > NAH wrote:
> > > On 3 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0800, "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
> > > >much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
> > > >but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
> > > >purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
> > > >art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
> > > >ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
> >
> > > So you condemn the almost daily anti-Jew, anti-Israel. anti-US
> > > cartoons in the newspapers all across the muslim world?
> >
> > I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> > US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> > caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> > mind if you caricaturize their political leaders.
I've seen cartoons of Jews in Arab newspapers, on the net, that come
more or less directly from Der Stürmer.
> To a non-Muslim, Mohammed *is* a political leader.
And a bloody political leader who committed genocide against the Jews in
Medina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 04-02-06 15:44 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139063357.968120.277530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NAH wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0800, "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
> > >much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
> > >but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
> > >purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
> > >art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
> > >ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
>
> > So you condemn the almost daily anti-Jew, anti-Israel. anti-US
> > cartoons in the newspapers all across the muslim world?
>
> I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison is
> extremely foolish and deceptive.
It's not, really, because there's a cultural difference here. The West
(secular as it is) does not distinguish between spoofing a religious figure
and spoofing a political leader. To most of us, the difference is specious.
This is why NAH wrote what he did, because "The West" simply sees a large
group of people of the same religion going off because of a silly cartoon,
which to us is no big deal.
So, the point raised above, that the Muslims spoof (or attack) political
leaders is, to the Western mind, the same thing as the Mohammed cartoons.
Mike
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 08:49 |
|
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:29:18 +0800, 1man4all wrote
(in article <1139063357.968120.277530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison is
> extremely foolish and deceptive.
>
Why? the right to express my opinion is not limited to my opinion of
politicians. I also have the right to express my opinion of religions (they
are all bad -- evil -- disgusting) and religious leaders (almost always
evil).
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
1man4all (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 04-02-06 17:03 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> > I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> > US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> > caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> > mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison is
> > extremely foolish and deceptive.
> It's not, really, because there's a cultural difference here. The West
> (secular as it is) does not distinguish between spoofing a religious figure
> and spoofing a political leader. To most of us, the difference is specious.
> This is why NAH wrote what he did, because "The West" simply sees a large
> group of people of the same religion going off because of a silly cartoon,
> which to us is no big deal.
First of all, you don't need to lecture me on what "Western" culture
is. I already live in it even if I am not 'living' it, as you probably
define it. Secondly, there is big difference between "spoofing" a
contemporary "religious figure" and the Prophet of a world religion,
embraced by one-fifth of all humanity. We don't care if you "spoof"
Muft Desai, for instance. Thirdly, if you are claiming that Western
civilization is about denigrating religions embraced by minorities or
religion in general, then I say that 'your' civilization is impishly
immature and perhaps need to be straightened out. Finally, as I stated
earlier, this is about teasing or provoking a religious minority into
acts of violence so there would be greater backlash against them. There
is only one word for it: evil.
> So, the point raised above, that the Muslims spoof (or attack) political
> leaders is, to the Western mind, the same thing as the Mohammed cartoons.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "Western mind," or at least I
have not seen any evidence of it. See my points above.
| |
MichaelC (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 04-02-06 17:28 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139069006.766788.79130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> > > I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> > > US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> > > caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> > > mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison
is
> > > extremely foolish and deceptive.
>
> > It's not, really, because there's a cultural difference here. The West
> > (secular as it is) does not distinguish between spoofing a religious
figure
> > and spoofing a political leader. To most of us, the difference is
specious.
> > This is why NAH wrote what he did, because "The West" simply sees a
large
> > group of people of the same religion going off because of a silly
cartoon,
> > which to us is no big deal.
>
> First of all, you don't need to lecture me on what "Western" culture
> is. I already live in it even if I am not 'living' it, as you probably
> define it. Secondly, there is big difference between "spoofing" a
> contemporary "religious figure" and the Prophet of a world religion,
> embraced by one-fifth of all humanity. We don't care if you "spoof"
> Muft Desai, for instance.
There's no question there's a big difference. The question is whether or not
whether the difference is relevant, vis a vis the classic freedoms of speech
and expression,
> Thirdly, if you are claiming that Western
> civilization is about denigrating religions embraced by minorities or
> religion in general, then I say that 'your' civilization is impishly
> immature and perhaps need to be straightened out.
Nope, that's not what I was claiming. So, straw man.
> Finally, as I stated
> earlier, this is about teasing or provoking a religious minority into
> acts of violence so there would be greater backlash against them. There
> is only one word for it: evil.
In this case, you *may* be right, considering the Danish history. However,
it's quite possible that other similary expressions may have no objective of
provocation.
>
> > So, the point raised above, that the Muslims spoof (or attack) political
> > leaders is, to the Western mind, the same thing as the Mohammed
cartoons.
>
> I don't think there is such a thing as a "Western mind," or at least I
> have not seen any evidence of it. See my points above.
There is absolutely no question that there is a difference in cultural
paradigm afoot here. You may wish to obfuscate it by accusations of "evil",
but that's entirely your business.
Mike
| |
Bob Cooper (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 04-02-06 18:14 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139069006.766788.79130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> > > I have seen 'some' cartoons of Israel [represented by Sharon] and the
> > > US [represented by Bush or Uncle Sam] in the Arab press but never
> > > caricatures of Judaism or Christianity or its figures. Muslim don't
> > > mind if you caricaturize their political leaders. So your comparison is
> > > extremely foolish and deceptive.
>
> > It's not, really, because there's a cultural difference here. The West
> > (secular as it is) does not distinguish between spoofing a religious figure
> > and spoofing a political leader. To most of us, the difference is specious.
> > This is why NAH wrote what he did, because "The West" simply sees a large
> > group of people of the same religion going off because of a silly cartoon,
> > which to us is no big deal.
>
> First of all, you don't need to lecture me on what "Western" culture
> is. I already live in it even if I am not 'living' it, as you probably
> define it. Secondly, there is big difference between "spoofing" a
> contemporary "religious figure" and the Prophet of a world religion,
> embraced by one-fifth of all humanity. We don't care if you "spoof"
> Muft Desai, for instance. Thirdly, if you are claiming that Western
> civilization is about denigrating religions embraced by minorities or
> religion in general, then I say that 'your' civilization is impishly
> immature and perhaps need to be straightened out.
And, how would you "straighten it out?" If you were in charge, would you
make it illegal to ridicule Mohammed? If so, what sort of punishment do
you propose?
BTW, your characterization of "our" civilization as "impishly immature"
is quite amusing coming from a representative of a culture where
thugs run around shooting AK-47's in the air at the drop of a hat, and
threaten to blow up newspapers over a few silly cartoons.
> Finally, as I stated
> earlier, this is about teasing or provoking a religious minority into
> acts of violence so there would be greater backlash against them. There
> is only one word for it: evil.
Oh, yes! In a world where terrorists are blowing up and decapitating people
almost daily, 1Man has employed Muslim logic to discern the true Root of All
Evil: cartoons :>)
Tell me, sir, why it is that the Muslim world has been thrown into a furor of
outrage and indignation over cartoons, when the best they were able to
muster over 911 -- those who were not dancing in the streets, that is -- was
a few lukewarm "tsk, tsk's", followed by the ever-present "but's"? I am
genuinely curious.
> > So, the point raised above, that the Muslims spoof (or attack) political
> > leaders is, to the Western mind, the same thing as the Mohammed cartoons.
>
> I don't think there is such a thing as a "Western mind," or at least I
> have not seen any evidence of it. See my points above.
Sure there is. You are simply infected with a mental virus that renders you
incapable of understanding it.
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 08:50 |
|
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 00:03:26 +0800, 1man4all wrote
(in article <1139069006.766788.79130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> First of all, you don't need to lecture me on what "Western" culture
> is. I already live in it .....
> I don't think there is such a thing as a "Western mind," or at least I
> have not seen any evidence of it. See my points above.
You have closed your mind. No wonder you are blind.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:51 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> them blasphemous."
Not all Muslims have that view and images of their Prophet are common in
Iran - which is shiite.
Caricatures might be another matter.
BTW, another Danish newspaper, the weekly "Weekendavisen", published
another "image" of Muhammed. A photograph of an empty chair with the
text "this i Muhammed" - this upset imam Abu Laban even more ... well,
in Danish a "laban" is a "scoundrel", from the Patriarch Jacob's
father-in-law.
It is imam Abu Laban and his few followers that have evoked the
world-wide Islamic protests. It is from his groups that statements like
"Unfaithful women should get stoned" and "Danish girls who are getting
raped by Muslim boys are themselves to blame for their rapes - after
all, they dont wear decent clothes (burqa and the like)". Most Islamic
immigrants in Denmark reject him.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 08:36 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:51:18 +0800, Per Rønne wrote (in article
<1ha0nsu.60o8bi1dl3hpwN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of them
>> blasphemous."
>
> Not all Muslims have that view ... Most Islamic immigrants in Denmark
> reject him.
Good points.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
B. Nice (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 31-01-06 07:18 |
|
On 30 Jan 2006 19:43:26 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>B. Nice wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >B. Nice wrote:
>> >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
>> >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>> >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
>> >> >muslim worldwide.
>> >>
>> >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
>> >
>> >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
>> >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
>> >objective reality to the muslims.
>>
>> But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
>> of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
>
>"Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
>them blasphemous."
Some muslims interpret their holy book that way, yes. Not all muslims
do.
>
>It is their law.
Islam is not a law.
>If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
>law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
>speculative and irrelevant.
I don't recall mentioning anything about what I think on how they
think. I am not talking specifically about muslims. I am talking about
human beings in general.
>The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
>indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
Exactly. Muslim *leaders* have decided that muslims should be
insulted.
I can tell You, there are actually a lot of muslims who does not care
very much about these cartoons. I even know muslims who back the
newspapers right to publish those cartoons. Be careful not to look at
muslims as a homogeneous group.
Sadly enough, the muslims that we mostly hear from are the most rabid
ones.
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:39 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:49:49 +0800, Richard Dell wrote (in article
<1138621789.742051.242420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish government
>>> has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
>>> media is free to take the matter to court.
>>
>> I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
>> above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence. To
>> me, it is unbelievable.
>
> Believe it.
>
> "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press - nor do
> I want such power." - Rasmussen. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
>
> I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not think
> Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the 14th
> century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to Christianity
> and not used for decades.
Exactly right.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 11:55 |
|
Phaedrine wrote:
> In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > B. Nice wrote:
> > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > >>
> > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > >
> > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > >
> > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
> > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> >
> > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > them blasphemous."
> >
> > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > speculative and irrelevant.
>
> Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
>
> > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
>
> So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> non-muslims newspaper customs?
This is how I see it.
There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
>
> --
> Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
> < http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 12:28 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phaedrine wrote:
> > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
Islam's
> > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
million of
> > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > >
> > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > >
> > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
will
> > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > >
> > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > them blasphemous."
> > >
> > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > speculative and irrelevant.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> >
> > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > non-muslims newspaper customs?
>
> This is how I see it.
> There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
Over time, nobody escapes the ridicule of a freely expressive society. So,
why are YOU focusing all your attention on this one incident, whilst
ignoring others?
Mike
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:20 |
|
Enkil wrote:
> Apostasy is more accurately described as renouncing or leaving ones
> religion.
> > The only *punishment* which is valid for apostasy is expulsion from
> > the membership of the religion.
>
> Which isn't really a valid punishment either since the person has already
> left their religion. So there isn't a valid punishment for apostasy.
They could give them nasty glares.
| |
Jim (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:01 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phaedrine wrote:
>> In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > B. Nice wrote:
>> > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >B. Nice wrote:
>> > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
>> > > >> >Islam's
>> > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>> > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million
>> > > >> >of
>> > > >> >muslim worldwide.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
>> > > >
>> > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
>> > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
>> > > >objective reality to the muslims.
>> > >
>> > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
>> > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
>> >
>> > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
>> > them blasphemous."
>> >
>> > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
>> > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
>> > speculative and irrelevant.
>>
>> Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
>> opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
>>
>> > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
>> > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
>> opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
>> non-muslims newspaper customs?
>
> This is how I see it.
> There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
So what you are really saying is that a pedophile gangleader and murdere is
the symbol of islam?
I'm happy I'm not af muslim then.
J.
| |
Phaedrine (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 31-01-06 17:29 |
|
In article <1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Phaedrine wrote:
> > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > > > >> >Islam's
> > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million
> > > > >> >of
> > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > >
> > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > >
> > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
> > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > >
> > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > them blasphemous."
> > >
> > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > speculative and irrelevant.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> >
> > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > non-muslims newspaper customs?
>
> This is how I see it.
> There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the same
right about muslim culture.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
1man4all (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 04-02-06 23:07 |
|
Phaedrine wrote:
> > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
> > > a poisonous toad like you.
> > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > old goat.
> Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
I REFUSE to share you with Cooper!
| |
MichaelC (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 05-02-06 02:15 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139090827.224065.104400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phaedrine wrote:
>
> > > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than
marry
> > > > a poisonous toad like you.
>
> > > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> > > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > > old goat.
>
> > Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
>
> I REFUSE to share you with Cooper!
OK......this thread is screwing up my very vivid imagination way too
much......
Mike
| |
Bob Cooper (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 05-02-06 17:47 |
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kkcFf.51832$PL5.18525@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139090827.224065.104400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than
> marry
> > > > > a poisonous toad like you.
> >
> > > > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> >
> > > > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > > > old goat.
> >
> > > Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
> >
> > I REFUSE to share you with Cooper!
>
> OK......this thread is screwing up my very vivid imagination way too
> much......
>
> Mike
Mike, some topics are best left unexplored :>)
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 12:40 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> Islam's
> > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> million of
> > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > >
> > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> will
> > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > >
> > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > > them blasphemous."
> > > >
> > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> > >
> > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > >
> > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> >
> > This is how I see it.
> > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
>
> Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
Christianity based societies. Can we say the same about the cartoon
series? Are they any kind of internal criticism? Are some of the
cartoonists originated from Arab or muslim countries?
In addition, an exhibition in Australia was phyically attacked. What
next? The authority stepped in and cut short the exhibition. Not
respecting free speech over Christianity? They didn't. Other governemnt
intervention: His grant was terninated.
>
> Over time, nobody escapes the ridicule of a freely expressive society. So,
> why are YOU focusing all your attention on this one incident, whilst
> ignoring others?
>
> Mike
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 13:17 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138707601.814891.325140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > Islam's
> > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
cartoons,
> > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> > million of
> > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
cartoons
> > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is
an
> > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> > will
> > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures
of
> > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be
the
> > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
money.
> > > >
> > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > >
> > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > >
> > > This is how I see it.
> > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't
make
> > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
>
> I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
>
> He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> Christianity based societies.
Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find stuff from
Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That calls the
Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as a
drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
Mike
> Can we say the same about the cartoon
> series? Are they any kind of internal criticism? Are some of the
> cartoonists originated from Arab or muslim countries?
>
> In addition, an exhibition in Australia was phyically attacked. What
> next? The authority stepped in and cut short the exhibition. Not
> respecting free speech over Christianity? They didn't. Other governemnt
> intervention: His grant was terninated.
>
>
> >
> > Over time, nobody escapes the ridicule of a freely expressive society.
So,
> > why are YOU focusing all your attention on this one incident, whilst
> > ignoring others?
> >
> > Mike
>
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 13:15 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138707601.814891.325140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MichaelC wrote:
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > > Islam's
> > > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
> cartoons,
> > > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> > > million of
> > > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
> cartoons
> > > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is
> an
> > > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> > > will
> > > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures
> of
> > > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be
> the
> > > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
> money.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > > >
> > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> > >
> > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't
> make
> > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> >
> > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
> >
> > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> > Christianity based societies.
>
> Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find stuff from
> Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That calls the
> Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as a
> drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
Alright, you will have a case if you do find
1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is
God" and
2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not do
this kind of stuff.
Care to present your the stuff?
>
> Mike
>
>
> > Can we say the same about the cartoon
> > series? Are they any kind of internal criticism? Are some of the
> > cartoonists originated from Arab or muslim countries?
> >
> > In addition, an exhibition in Australia was phyically attacked. What
> > next? The authority stepped in and cut short the exhibition. Not
> > respecting free speech over Christianity? They didn't. Other governemnt
> > intervention: His grant was terninated.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Over time, nobody escapes the ridicule of a freely expressive society.
> So,
> > > why are YOU focusing all your attention on this one incident, whilst
> > > ignoring others?
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:20 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138709685.625651.120920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138707601.814891.325140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > MichaelC wrote:
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > > > In article
<1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why
picked on
> > > > Islam's
> > > > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
> > cartoons,
> > > > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult
100
> > > > million of
> > > > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
> > cartoons
> > > > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons
is
> > an
> > > > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual
has a
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and
caricatures
> > of
> > > > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may
be
> > the
> > > > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think
is
> > > > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders
one's
> > > > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
> > money.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right
to an
> > > > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can
make
> > > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many
will
> > > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of
Islam?
> > > >
> > > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had
to
> > > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just
two
> > > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It
didn't
> > make
> > > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take
our
> > > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> > >
> > > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
> > >
> > > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> > > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> > > Christianity based societies.
> >
> > Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find stuff
from
> > Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That calls
the
> > Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as a
> > drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
>
> Alright, you will have a case if you do find
>
> 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is
> God" and
> 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not do
> this kind of stuff.
>
> Care to present your the stuff?
http://freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
For starters. Although my wife speaks Arabic, I'm not of a mind to have her
do what it takes to go further than the above to answer the question, which
is to peruse various mosque sermons and other writings not normally
translated to provide more grist for the USENET circle-jerk. Suffice to say
that its not difficult to find articles in the ME press and by
publically-funded imams that scorn Christianity (and Hinduism, another
popular topic), and you probably
Mike
| |
1MAN4ALL (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1MAN4ALL |
Dato : 31-01-06 13:29 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> Islam's
> > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> million of
> > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > >
> > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> will
> > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > >
> > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > > them blasphemous."
> > > >
> > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> > >
> > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > >
> > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> >
> > This is how I see it.
> > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
>
> Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
expression, if not more.
Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
freedom from filth!
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:50 |
|
"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138710533.218207.180510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > Islam's
> > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
cartoons,
> > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> > million of
> > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
cartoons
> > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is
an
> > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> > will
> > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures
of
> > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be
the
> > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
money.
> > > >
> > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > >
> > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > >
> > > This is how I see it.
> > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't
make
> > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
>
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
> not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> expression, if not more.
Rubbish. What is decent and what is not is a subjective judgement which, in
a multiethinic and religiously heterogeneous society, has no concrete
definition, as it varies from individual to individual.
You cannot create a law that penalizes people for not adhering to a standard
of decency which cannot be defined.
..
>
> Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
> have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
> deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
> Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
> consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
Quite so, but that has nothing to do with the Danish cartoons and their
analogies, which is the matter under discussion. In fact, the one positive I
see coming out of the Danish business is that the Middle East is figuring
out your last sentence, and how that gets the attention of Western countries
more than threats and bluster.
>
> In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
All religion has been reduced to that level in the West, not just
Christianity, as far as the goverments are concerned.
> Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
That's fine, as long as it's done according to current law. Freedom of
speech, and the power of the individual purse, is really all the weapons
that are necessary.
>
> The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> freedom from filth!
Although you and I are likely on the same page WRT the moral path Western
society is taking, IMO, you're blending two different topics which are very
different as I see them. There is, and must always be, a distinct difference
between legality and morality. You or I may agree that gratutious insults of
the beliefs of other religions are immoral and lack character. You and I may
agree that such behavior is untoward, and ought to be avoided. You and I may
agree that our children should be raised to avoid such behavior, and to keep
criticisms in this regard, if in discourse, to facts, rather than emotional
allegations.
And, if 100% of the people in this country were raised in such a manner,
indidents such as the Danish cartoons would not occur, classified as they
would be in our minds as characterless bigotry. Perhaps we would agree that
if all people thought thusly, we'd have a better country. However, that does
not infer that legality ought to confer legitimacy to a particular set of
sensibilities.
Freedom and plurality being what it is, a consensus or homogenous set of
moral sensibilities will never occur. The legal system has to account for
all views on a particular subject, particularly when they involve matters of
innate importance to people such as freedom of expression. Do you want your
imam to be enjoined from teaching that Isa was a human prophet because it
offends Christians to say that? Do you want suggestions that Trinitarianism
is polytheism to be banned from your religious teaching for the same reason?
Should BOTH your religion and mine be enjoined from teaching our traditional
views of homosexual relations?
If NO, then you also have to accept fact that the TV preacher might lambast
Muhammad as having taken dictation from a demon rather than an angel, and
that something like the Danish cartoons might appear in your local newspaper
someday.
Of course, the alternative is that we take all the beliefs of everyone in
the country, put 'em in a blender, and agree to believe in what comes out.
Which would probably make the Bahai very happy...... 
Mike
| |
Bob Cooper (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:08 |
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:DWJDf.21232$Jd.14132@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
<snip>
>
> If NO, then you also have to accept fact that the TV preacher might lambast
> Muhammad as having taken dictation from a demon rather than an angel, and
> that something like the Danish cartoons might appear in your local newspaper
> someday.
I would love to see major American papers publish the cartoons as part
of a story on the controversy they have stirred up. It seems to me this would
be an excellent way to express support for the Danish paper, and for the
First Amendment principles involved. Even better, print them prominently
on the editorial page, along with an editorial supporting the right to publish
them. After all, the New York Times *does* support free speech, right?
> Of course, the alternative is that we take all the beliefs of everyone in
> the country, put 'em in a blender, and agree to believe in what comes out.
Ah, a true "multicultural" solution :>)
> Which would probably make the Bahai very happy......
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:51 |
|
Bob Cooper <rcooper1@cox.net> wrote:
> I would love to see major American papers publish the cartoons as part
> of a story on the controversy they have stirred up. It seems to me this would
> be an excellent way to express support for the Danish paper, and for the
> First Amendment principles involved. Even better, print them prominently
> on the editorial page, along with an editorial supporting the right to publish
> them. After all, the New York Times *does* support free speech, right?
What a lovely idea .
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 31-01-06 20:57 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha1llf.16nqp7v1v7mbrfN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
>> I would love to see major American papers publish the cartoons as part
>> of a story on the controversy they have stirred up. It seems to me this
>> would
>> be an excellent way to express support for the Danish paper, and for the
>> First Amendment principles involved. Even better, print them prominently
>> on the editorial page, along with an editorial supporting the right to
>> publish
>> them. After all, the New York Times *does* support free speech, right?
> What a lovely idea .
> Per Erik Rønne
I cannot see and end to this conflict. I don't think Denmark should
apologise to a group of people whose values are not only different, but are
often opposite to those of the Western Civilization. Like I wrote on another
thread dealing with this issue, the cartoons were drawn by a Dane living in
Denmark, in a Danish newspaper. Had they been done by the Dane in a Muslim
newspaper in an Islamic country, the issue would be entirely different. If
the Muslims in Denmark truly believe that they are being treated so badly by
the Danes, nothing is stopping them from leaving the country to settle in
their paradise land in the Middle East.
The boycotting of Danish goods in the Middle East had given rise to a
surge in sales of Danish goods in the United States, where people are simply
sick and tired of Muslims dictating what people in the West should and
should not do.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:51 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> If NO, then you also have to accept fact that the TV preacher might lambast
> Muhammad as having taken dictation from a demon rather than an angel, and
> that something like the Danish cartoons might appear in your local newspaper
> someday.
Well, didn't Muhammed himfelf say that that was exactly what he did? Do
you remember the Satanic Verses that were removed from the Quran three
centuries afther Muhammed's death?
And, btw, isn't it conceivable some to Muslims that he was fooled in
other places? Such ideas might form the basis of an Islamic Reformation
- I think that was exactly what Salman Rushdie thought of when he wrote
his Satanic Verses.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Warren Hopper (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Warren Hopper |
Dato : 01-02-06 17:40 |
|
"Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
- Pope Gregory VII
Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD ) ordered
her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
Do you approve of that action ?
It's one thing to say that "public decency is as important as freedom of
expression", but it's quite another to do something about it. The Nazis
were nothing if not the epitome of 'public decency' and they were quite
willing to do something about. 'Decency' has killed millions of innocent
people and caused great suffering through the millennia. Whenever I hear
the word 'decency', I hear screams of agony and see bodies writhing in
flames.
I predict that in the year 2073, one thousand years after Gregory VII's vile
action, the life and remaining poetry of Sappho will be celebrated and the
name of Gregory VII ( if he remembered at all ) will be cursed by a million
tongues in a world he could never have imagined.
Sic transit gloria ? Or sic transit 'decency' ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you have a comment, I'll try to get back to you in a few days. I'm very
busy these days. I've embarked on a second ( or third ? ) career in
computer security and forensics. While writing this message, I had an
attack alert and did a backtrace on the attacker. Guess what I found !!!
Interesting, eh wot ? I would send a nastygram to "Mathew Newton", but I
doubt very much if he exists. Illegal government spying's been good for
bu$ine$$.
Attacker site: 25.7.204.215
OrgName: DINSA, Ministry of Defence
OrgID: DMD-16
Address: HQ DCSA, Copenacre, c/o Basil Hill Barracks,
City: Corsham
StateProv: Wiltshire
PostalCode: SN13 9NR
Country: GB
NetRange: 25.0.0.0 - 25.255.255.255
CIDR: 25.0.0.0/8
NetName: RSRE-EXP
NetHandle: NET-25-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.CS.UCL.AC.UK
NameServer: RELAY.MOD.UK
Comment:
RegDate: 1985-01-28
Updated: 2005-09-06
OrgTechHandle: MNE30-ARIN
OrgTechName: Newton, Mathew
OrgTechPhone: +44 1225 813191
OrgTechEmail: mathew.newton643@mod.uk
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-01-31 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138710533.218207.180510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > Islam's
> > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
cartoons,
> > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> > million of
> > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
cartoons
> > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is
an
> > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> > will
> > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures
of
> > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be
the
> > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
money.
> > > >
> > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > >
> > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > >
> > > This is how I see it.
> > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't
make
> > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
>
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
> not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> expression, if not more.
>
> Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
> have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
> deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
> Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
> consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
>
> In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
>
> The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> freedom from filth!
>
| |
1man4all (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 05-02-06 16:12 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139090827.224065.104400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than
> marry
> > > > > a poisonous toad like you.
> >
> > > > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> >
> > > > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > > > old goat.
> >
> > > Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
> >
> > I REFUSE to share you with Cooper!
>
> OK......this thread is screwing up my very vivid imagination way too
> much......
LOL. A fly can never understand the complexities of human
relationships. Bug off.
| |
MichaelC (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 05-02-06 16:21 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139152298.099205.162000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1139090827.224065.104400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!)
than
> > marry
> > > > > > a poisonous toad like you.
> > >
> > > > > "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> > >
> > > > > > And besides, I'm already married you silly
> > > > > > old goat.
> > >
> > > > Cooper has already volunteered... you and he can have a blast.
> > >
> > > I REFUSE to share you with Cooper!
> >
> > OK......this thread is screwing up my very vivid imagination way too
> > much......
>
> LOL. A fly can never understand the complexities of human
> relationships. Bug off.
Well, WOMEN understand the complexities of human relationships. As Dave
Barry says on this topic (parap) "When it comes to the nuances of complex
relationships, men's minds are good for figuring out how much gravel they
need to cover their driveways, and not much else."
Mike
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:41 |
|
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > Islam's
> > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100
> > million of
> > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a
> > will
> > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> > > >
> > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > >
> > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > >
> > > This is how I see it.
> > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
>
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
> not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> expression, if not more.
>
> Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
> have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
> deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
> Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
> consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
>
> In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
>
> The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> freedom from filth!
Excellent!! Well said.
| |
rfdell@hotmail.com (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : rfdell@hotmail.com |
Dato : 31-01-06 15:48 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138709685.625651.120920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do snip the dross, old chap.
| > > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
| > >
| > > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
| > > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
| > > Christianity based societies.
| >
| > Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find
stuff from
| > Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That
calls the
| > Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as
a
| > drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
|
| Alright, you will have a case if you do find
|
| 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus
is
| God" and
The inscriptions around the Dome of the Rock, placed in the heart of
Christendom with the deliberate intent of insulting Christians,
including:
"It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself
a son."
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
Is that Kosher enough for you?
| 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not
do
| this kind of stuff.
True, desecration of the holy sites, symbols and texts is a mainly
Muslim practice:
.... a nun arrived at the customs desk at Jeddah airport.
"Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah.
You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be
tormented."
"They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book
through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
tormented her for many minutes."
http://tinyurl.com/d65lr
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:09 |
|
Phaedrine wrote:
> In article <1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
> > > > > >> >Islam's
> > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million
> > > > > >> >of
> > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
> > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
> > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > >
> > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
> > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > >
> > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > > > them blasphemous."
> > > >
> > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
> > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
> > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
> > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
> > >
> > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > >
> > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
> > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> >
> > This is how I see it.
> > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
>
> I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
> opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the same
> right about muslim culture.
No. I am saying the issue is not about right. If you insist on the
language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
the right to ridicule Islam. As is, the Danish government is not
granting the muslims any right to determine Danish newspaper tradition.
One side's god given right/command is in conflict with the other side's
god given right/command. Finally, power or its proxy money, or
something worse has to step in to break the deadlock.
The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have make
fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see no
reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the necssecity
or need for that?
You can also read the post by another poster 1man4all.
>
> --
> Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
> < http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Mitch (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mitch |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:56 |
|
On 31 Jan 2006 09:09:22 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Phaedrine wrote:
>> In article <1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Phaedrine wrote:
>> > > In article <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > B. Nice wrote:
>> > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
>> > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
>> > > > > >> >Islam's
>> > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>> > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million
>> > > > > >> >of
>> > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the cartoons
>> > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons is an
>> > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual has a will
>> > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
>> > > > them blasphemous."
>> > > >
>> > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may be the
>> > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think is
>> > > > speculative and irrelevant.
>> > >
>> > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders one's
>> > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and money.
>> > >
>> > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
>> > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
>> > >
>> > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right to an
>> > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
>> > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
>> >
>> > This is how I see it.
>> > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
>> > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
>> > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
>> > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
>>
>> I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
>> opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the same
>> right about muslim culture.
>
>
>No. I am saying the issue is not about right. If you insist on the
>language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
>the right to ridicule Islam.
Listen up fucktard, cartoonists do not NEED permission granted from
anyone, certainly not from Muslim primitives. Get it? Man, are you
people backwards.
>As is, the Danish government is not
>granting the muslims any right to determine Danish newspaper tradition.
What in the heck are you talking about? What kind of a convoluted
point is that?
>One side's god given right/command is in conflict with the other side's
>god given right/command. Finally, power or its proxy money, or
>something worse has to step in to break the deadlock.
Here's an idea: The cartoonist and Danish paper can publish what it
wants, when it wants, however it wants. Offended Muslims can feel
offended all they want, write letters all they want, boycott all they
want, and speak their minds all they want. They cannot lop off the
head of the cartoonist, and if this basic ideal is too complicated for
their primitive minds, they can go back to Muslimville from where they
escaped. There is a reason they left in the first place, and it wasn't
for the purpose of one day acting offended over some cartoons for
crying out loud. They left for EXACTLY the reasons illustrated in
those cartoons however. Get it now?
>The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have make
>fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see no
>reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the necssecity
>or need for that?
Yes, Danish cartoonists have never made fun of anyone else! LOL! Of
course, maybe it's just that Muslims never bitched about other targets
in past cartoons, or were just too stupid to understand in the first
place. If there is one thing certain, it's painfully obvious that
Muslims in general cannot laugh at themselves. No worries, we'll make
up for that and pick up the slack.
>You can also read the post by another poster 1man4all.
Oi vay.
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 19:51 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have make
> fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see no
> reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the necssecity
> or need for that?
Because Kåre Bluitgen, a writer of children's books was unable to find
any illustrators who were willing illustrate his Mohammad biography
strictly based on the oldest Islamic sources. It was still fresh in
memory what happened to Theo van Gogh. In the end he did find one - but
this illustrator demanded /anonymity/.
Consequently, to test how great this tendency to self-censorship was,
The Jutland Post asked 12 Danish caricaturists to make drawings of
Mohammad. They accepted though some can be said to have cheated. Turning
the ridicule towards JP, or showing a positive view of this "prophet".
Let me quote from the biography:
==
Marriage with Aisha
-------------------
Mohammad had married again: Sauda, large and round, had become the
Prophet's wife.
By now, Mohammad had become more than half a hundred years old, but in
Mecca he had also been betrothed with Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha. When
she was only seven years old stll playing with her toy horses and dolls.
But around half a year after the exit to Mecca Aisha had become nine
years old. A day when she swung outside with her friends, her mother
came and fetched her and had her face washed. The hair which reached to
her earlips was combed, and then she was dressed. Thereafter, together
they went out to the guest who had arrived. It was Mohammad.
Aisha was set on his lap. He smelled by musk and ambra. The marriage
formula was said, and Mohammad could take her and her dolls with him,
and finally fully fulfill the marriage. Aisha was the first virgin with
whom Mohammad married.
==
On the genocide on the Jews in Medina is written a lot. I'll just quote
a little. The sentence:
==
"All the men shall be killed. Their property shall be divided amongst us
und their wives and children shall be turned into slaves."
==
And a small part of the atrocity itself:
==
When it became morning, the Jewish men and boys who had reached
pubescence and the first shaving, were bounded taken out to the market
place in groups of five or six. They were ordered to kneel on the edge
of the grave.
Then their heads were cut off and together with their bodys thrown into
the trenches.
All of the day the executioners sweat, and the whetstones had to sharpen
the swords over and over again.
In an apparantly infinite stream the Jews were brought up, and the smell
of blood was all over the town. Hundreds and hundreds were executed.
Tired arms raised the sword over and over again, and before the day had
passed, half a thousand men had been beheaded. But there was still many
left, and there was hardly room for the corpses.
One group of Jews after the other was fetched. The children and the
women cried and wailed, and some of the confined men still hoped. They
asked, where they were taken, and what was to happen to them.
"Don't you comprehend?" Kab ibn Asad asked. "Don't you see that of all
of those who get fetched, not one singe returns!"
==
It is difficult to imagine a man more different from the Crucified than
Mohammad. Nevertheless, he is the ideal of the Islamic world - and from
the reactions to JP's caricature, a kind of Islamic demigod.
Of course, Kåre Bluitgen's biography hasn't been translated into English
yet. After all, there has just gone a week since it was published in
Danish.
--
Per.
| |
B. Nice (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 31-01-06 20:19 |
|
On 31 Jan 2006 09:09:22 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>No. I am saying the issue is not about right. If you insist on the
>language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
>the right to ridicule Islam.
Islamic rules may be valid for muslims. They have absolutely no
validity for others.
>The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have make
>fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see no
>reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the necssecity
>or need for that?
See, this is one of the big problems in cases like this. People see
only a fraction of the story. Most people don't care to look into the
context in which the drawings were made.
And everytime the story is re-told, information is lost and new
information is added. Read the famous fairytale "It's quite true" by
the danish writer Hans Christian Andersen about how a little feather
grows to become five hens and You will know what I mean.
>
>You can also read the post by another poster 1man4all.
>
>>
>> --
>> Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
>> < http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 20:23 |
| | |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 20:37 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha1ps8.qt60551li1t6cN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> B. Nice <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Islamic rules may be valid for muslims. They have absolutely no
> > validity for others.
>
> And now a Belgian newspaper follows in JP's footsteps:
>
> http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/736
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
Part of this is worth commenting on:
Norway
Yesterday Muslim outrage over the cartoons led to an armed raid on the EU
offices in Gaza. Terrorist groups threatened Scandinavian officials and
demanded that they leave Palestine at once, despite the EU's donation of
$338 million per year to Palestine, a donation which includes money from
Danish taxpayers. All over Palestine Danish and Norwegians flags have been
burned in protest against the publication of the cartoons. In addition to
Jyllands-Posten three Norwegian papers also published the cartoons:
Magazinet, Aftenposten and Dagbladet.
While the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Norwegian government was quick to
apologize, even before apologies were demanded, this has not prevented
Muslims from boycotting Norwegian products.
[Mike] So, lutefisk is selling slow in the middle east these days.
Meanwhile Magazinet journalist Vebjørn Selbekk has already received more
than twenty death threats. Mr Selbekk and his family are now under police
protection.
[Mike] Death threats. Back to the definition of "insecurity."
Unlike the Norwegian government, Per Edgar Kokkvold of the Norwegian press
association Norsk Presseforbund defended the right of Magazinet and the
other papers to publish the cartoons. Anne Lene Dale Sandsten, the
spokesperson of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, declared
that the ministry never apologized for the publication of the cartoons, but
only for the unrest they have caused. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre
claims that "since no leading Norwegian paper has published the cartoons"
the Norwegian press has shown its sense of responsibility. However, though
Magazinet is a small Christian paper, Aftenposten is Norway's second largest
paper and its leading quality newspaper, while Dagbladet is the third
largest paper in the country, read by a quarter of the Norwegian adult
population.
Yesterday Yasser Najjar, the Palestinian ambassador to Oslo, said that those
who published the cartoons were asking for a "war of civilizations." He said
that freedom of speech does not allow one to "insult 1.3 billion Muslims."
[Mike] Actually, it does, but a fundamental lack of understanding of
"freedom of speech" is fairly typical in that part of the world.
The cartoons, he said, are not the expression of an opinion but pure
provocation. "Our Prophet cannot be humiliated. I do not believe a Muslim
has ever said anything negative about Christianity or Jesus Christ."
[Mike] Obviously Mr. Najjar has never logged on to alt.religion.islam.
Media commentator Henrik Færevåg, however, declared that Norway should
reconsider its financial aid to Palestine. The Norwegians have been "stupid
idiots" to give more subsidies to Palestine than Saudi Arabia, he said. If
the Palestinians cannot tolerate Norway's freedom of speech they should not
accept its money either.
[Mike] Ah. The voice of reason.
Though the twelve Muhammad cartoons are pretty mild, except perhaps for two
of them (which are also mild by Western standards), Muslims are offended by
the simple fact of depicting their prophet. According to Islam it is
blasphemy to draw Muhammad. Nevertheless the Mohammed Image Archive shows
many depictions of the prophet throughout history, some of them apparently
made by Muslims.
[Mike] The double standard isn't new.
Mike
| |
Phaedrine (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 31-01-06 21:40 |
|
In article <1138727362.266388.223390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Phaedrine wrote:
> > In article <1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1"
> > > > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1"
> > > > > > >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why
> > > > > > >> >picked on Islam's sacred symobol? Free speech is an
> > > > > > >> >internal matter. The cartoons, however, have effects
> > > > > > >> >world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of muslim
> > > > > > >> >worldwide.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
> > > > > > >cartoons insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the
> > > > > > >cartoons is an objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual
> > > > > > has a will of its own an can decide whether to get insulted
> > > > > > or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and
> > > > > caricatures of them blasphemous."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that
> > > > > may be the law should change. Otherwise, what you think on
> > > > > how they think is speculative and irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders
> > > > one's opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's
> > > > power and money.
> > > >
> > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly indicated
> > > > > that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > >
> > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right
> > > > to an opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to
> > > > tell non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > >
> > > This is how I see it. There are more than 6 billion people on
> > > this earth. The number of people will be bigger if you add the
> > > dead people. Cartoonists can make fun and practice free speech on
> > > 99.999999% of them and not many will complain. Why they have to
> > > single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
> > opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the
> > same right about muslim culture.
>
> No. I am saying the issue is not about right.
I didn't mean that... "right".... quite so literally. I'm addressing
mindset more than anything else. (I have never seen the cartoon so I am
not defending it) Muslims think it's perfectly fine for muslims to
criticize non-muslim culture and customs but, at the same time, they
can't fathom that it works the same in reverse--- that it's just fine
for non-muslims to criticize muslims. It's a double standard as with so
many things in islam including the treatment of women. I've seen
absolutely ghastly Palestinian cartoons especially about Jews but the
Palestinians could give a rat's foot whether Jews are offended or not.
And I've never seen any muslims in ARI taking offense either. It's the
same as with muslims dancing in the streets when non-muslim people they
hate die or are killed. If non-muslims ever did that, muslims would go
off like rockets. Most muslims just don't seem to comprehend the "It
works both ways" aphorism.
There are several reasons for this and also several attendant issues to
include:
(1) Superiority: Pursuant to the koran, Islam has a mission of
converting the entire world to islam. For that and other reasons,
muslims think they are superior to everyone else and that standards they
apply to others do not apply to themselves (& vice versa)--- the
sanction of murdering non-muslims for instance. It's just not the same
with muslims who are murdered--- unless the murdered person is a woman,
of course, and then it's almost the same.
(2) Isolationism, aloofness and inattention to the rest of the
non-muslim world: If it's not muslim, then it has no merit. Therefore,
muslims have little compassion for and generally don't notice or care
that non-muslims are offended by certain, nearly ubiquitous muslim
behaviors. Further, since muslims tend to only notice things offensive
to them, they think they are the only ones being "picked on".... the
only victims as in the cartoon case. The notion that Danish cartoonists
only pick on muslims is balderdash.
> ...If you insist on the
> language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
> the right to ridicule Islam. As is, the Danish government is not
> granting the muslims any right to determine Danish newspaper
> tradition. One side's god given right/command is in conflict with the
> other side's god given right/command. Finally, power or its proxy
> money, or something worse has to step in to break the deadlock.
>
> The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have
> make fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see
> no reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the
> necssecity or need for that?
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbu~ (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbu~ |
Dato : 31-01-06 22:17 |
|
Just a quick response follows...
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> > > This is how I see it.
> > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> >
> > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
>
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> endured it, so must Muslims.
Uh, no, it was more like saying that:
(A) Muslims are not the only ones who have had their religious heros
lampooned or derided by people in the West, and
(B) The Christians in America did not "kill the infidels" when their
religious heros were being dipped in urine, or in other cases, animal
feces.
Regarding the second point, I am *NOT* claiming that you have said
anything about killing infidels. I'm just making it clear what the
person actually said (wrote). [By the way, as an interesting side note,
my father is actually good friends with Andres Serrano].
> The alternative solution, which you are
> not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> expression, if not more.
The problem with this seems to fly in the face of our notions of free
expression. So, having considered that option, it is now that we can
say that if the Christians, and the Jews, and the Hindus and various
others were able to endure Western forms of art (however tacky) which
upset them, we should expect the Muslims to do the same. I think there
might be a potential slippery slope in curtailing freedom of expression
for the sake of protecting the religious sensibilities of one group.
That being said, the many Muslims have engaged in objecting in a very
understandable way (e.g. boycotting certain products), and should
continue to do so.
Now for that taboo subject alluded to already: violence. It is that
sort of elephant in the room, where we know there is a possibility for
a violent reaction, and even a possibility of certain people in this
newsgroup (*ahem*) trying to justify such violence after the fact by
proclaiming it to be the logical outcome of long history of feeling
humiliated. I'm not predicting that there will be a violent reaction,
but let me say that any clear thinking person should agree that any
violence should be condemned, and not be tolerated (nor should the
creators of any sort of tacky art be blamed for any violence that may
be inflicted upon them in response). I hope we're clear on that!
> Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> speech is concerned but are by no means totally free.
Agreed.
> In Europe, people
> have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust.
That is a tough issue. But that is only certain parts of Europe, and
America is quite different.
> Muslims have been deported for their political views.
True. But that is due to two factors:
(1) An actual threat posed by some of those individuals.
(2) An overreaction on the part of the government to the views of
people who were not actually a threat.
> In the United States, thousands of
> Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> charges after 9-11.
Yes, and some of those people had their rights violated. But that was
not about cartoons. That was about an attempt to purge the country of a
very real threat. And a law enforcement aparatus that was not
overwhelmingly familiar with its subject did tend to overreact on many
occasions.
> Ands as we all know, there are economic
> consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
Is this a bad thing? Muslims should follow this same path (a close
friend of mine who was a huge Latino rights activist used to note that
Latinos and Asians don't get the same "protections" that African
Americans and Jews get, and thus they should try to form more cohesive
political blocs so as to have more power to strike down things they
find offensive).
> In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
I'm generally in agreement. Though I also believe that if a person
things the offended side is overreacting, they should speak up. For
example, not all examples of purported antiSemitism, anti-Christianity,
Islamophobia or Homphobia are actually such, and thus sometimes there
should be debate in certain instances. In this regard, the Muslims
shouldn't merely complain about the ability of Jews and African
Americans to hear their grievances. Rather, they should attempt to
emulate that approach of strong critique within the confines of the
law.
> The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> freedom from filth!
This last paragraph confused me. Could you elaborate on what it is that
you think the West should do, and how exactly it would be in their best
interests to do such?
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 23:54 |
|
"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1138742233.335830.93820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just a quick response follows...
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
>
> > The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> > demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> > political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> > 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> > respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> > freedom from filth!
>
> This last paragraph confused me. Could you elaborate on what it is that
> you think the West should do, and how exactly it would be in their best
> interests to do such?
Uh, there are certain questions you DON"T want to ask him., and that's one
of them.
I'm sure a tome will follow.....
Mike
| |
Richard Dell (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 31-01-06 23:25 |
|
"Phaedrine" <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge-44340E.14400031012006@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
| > > I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
| > > opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the
| > > same right about muslim culture.
| >
| > No. I am saying the issue is not about right.
|
| I didn't mean that... "right".... quite so literally. I'm addressing
| mindset more than anything else. (I have never seen the cartoon so I
am
| not defending it) Muslims think it's perfectly fine for muslims to
| criticize non-muslim culture and customs but, at the same time, they
| can't fathom that it works the same in reverse--- that it's just fine
| for non-muslims to criticize muslims. It's a double standard as with
so
| many things in islam including the treatment of women. I've seen
| absolutely ghastly Palestinian cartoons especially about Jews but the
| Palestinians could give a rat's foot whether Jews are offended or
not.
| And I've never seen any muslims in ARI taking offense either. It's
the
| same as with muslims dancing in the streets when non-muslim people
they
| hate die or are killed. If non-muslims ever did that, muslims would
go
| off like rockets. Most muslims just don't seem to comprehend the "It
| works both ways" aphorism.
|
| There are several reasons for this and also several attendant issues
to
| include:
|
| (1) Superiority: Pursuant to the koran, Islam has a mission of
| converting the entire world to islam. For that and other reasons,
| muslims think they are superior to everyone else and that standards
they
| apply to others do not apply to themselves (& vice versa)--- the
| sanction of murdering non-muslims for instance. It's just not the
same
| with muslims who are murdered--- unless the murdered person is a
woman,
| of course, and then it's almost the same.
|
| (2) Isolationism, aloofness and inattention to the rest of the
| non-muslim world: If it's not muslim, then it has no merit.
Therefore,
| muslims have little compassion for and generally don't notice or care
| that non-muslims are offended by certain, nearly ubiquitous muslim
| behaviors. Further, since muslims tend to only notice things
offensive
| to them, they think they are the only ones being "picked on".... the
| only victims as in the cartoon case. The notion that Danish
cartoonists
| only pick on muslims is balderdash.
That is a pretty good summation. Take away all restraint, add a massive
dose of hormones and money and you have WW3. Parochial, paranoid,
supremacist, ruthless, treacherous, sex-starved - all the worst
characteristics of a spoilt and petulant brat.
Those cartoons, and many more here:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
| |
forahmad@hotmail.com (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : forahmad@hotmail.com |
Dato : 01-02-06 04:34 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Excellent!! Well said.
Thanks
| |
1man4all (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 01-02-06 06:03 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> > endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
> > not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> > not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> > _expression, if not more.
> Rubbish. What is decent and what is not is a subjective judgement which, in
> a multiethinic and religiously heterogeneous society, has no concrete
> definition, as it varies from individual to individual.
It's not "rubbish" at all. Just because Western society has lost its
moral compass it does not mean that other cultures cannot or should not
have free speech standards, which in some cases have developed over
centuries. In fact, civilization ‘is’ about standards. [Most people
confuse technological advancement with civilization, but the two are
not one and the same.]
> You cannot create a law that penalizes people for not adhering to a standard
> of decency which cannot be defined.
Of course you can. There is a clear difference between desecration and
criticism, which nobody is suggesting should be outlawed. For example,
in an Islamic country, it should be illegal, if it isn’t already, to
burn a cross, to draw nasty cartoons of Jesus or St. Paul, to demolish
Hindu idols, to surround Hindu idols with filth etc. On the other hand,
respectful criticism of any religion, including Islam, should be
tolerated, and in most cases it usually is. Any person who is familiar
with Islamic literature knows that religious debates have been going on
since the very beginning of Islam and just about every issue has been
questioned, criticized and explained countless times. If you take into
account the last one thousand years of history, communal violence in
Islamic countries----often exaggerated by some Western writers-----has
been rather rare as compared to European conflicts.
> > Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> > speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
> > have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
> > deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
> > Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> > charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
> > consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> > the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
 Quite so, but that has nothing to do with the Danish cartoons and
their
> analogies, which is the matter under discussion. In fact, the one positive I
> see coming out of the Danish business is that the Middle East is figuring
> out your last sentence, and how that gets the attention of Western countries
> more than threats and bluster.
The point was that if you are going to be selective about what kind of
free speech you would allow, protecting some communities more than
others, you don't have much of an argument. Therefore, it is necessary
that you have some minimal standards that can be universally applied
and not leave things to marketplace of ideas when bigotry is rife.
> > In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> > because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> All religion has been reduced to that level in the West, not just
> Christianity, as far as the goverments are concerned.
Is that good? I don't think so. You are simply defending the status quo
without providing a rational basis for your argument.
> > Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> > lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> > this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> > not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> > should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> > Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> > responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> > disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> > out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
> That's fine, as long as it's done according to current law. Freedom of
> speech, and the power of the individual purse, is really all the weapons
> that are necessary.
Once again, you are appealing to keep the status quo and are unable to
provide a reasonable argument.
I am suggesting that your idea of free speech i.e. having no standards,
or a system in which the limits on free speech are subjectively applied
to protect certain groups and not others, is somewhat contradictory and
indefensible.
Not sure what you mean by your last statement: What power of the
"individual purse?" A reporter working for a major daily who is afraid
to criticize Israel (unless he is Jewish of course) out of fear of
loosing his job does not have freedom of speech. His individual purse
and his will are owned by his employer who has determined that Jews in
America must not be offended.
If the protection of a minority and its most cherished values is
dependent on how influential or resourceful a particular community is,
you essentially have an unjust system. And my suggestion is that you
need to do one of two things to balance things in favor of the
powerless: 1). Encourage standards to protect dignity of all
minorities, or 2). Develop a society where those who belittle
minorities as a whole or desecrate religious icons/ ridicule founders
of other religions are condemned. But you don't want to take either
approach because you are in the majority, and even if somebody
ridicules your religion it is of little consequence because you know
that your status in society would remain the same, whereas a minority
person in the same position has to fear much more.
> > The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> > demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> > political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> > 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> > respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> > freedom from filth!
> Although you and I are likely on the same page WRT the moral path Western
> society is taking, IMO, you're blending two different topics which are very
> different as I see them. There is, and must always be, a distinct difference
> between legality and morality. You or I may agree that gratutious insults of
> the beliefs of other religions are immoral and lack character. You and I may
> agree that such behavior is untoward, and ought to be avoided. You and I may
> agree that our children should be raised to avoid such behavior, and to keep
> criticisms in this regard, if in discourse, to facts, rather than emotional
> allegations.
Free speech laws, by themselves, should not be used as the basis of
your argument, unless you are willing to say that you are living in a
time-frozen perfect environment and there is no room for improvement.
I, on the other hand, emphasize social standards and policy, to be
taught in schools and adopted as national domestic policy.
Nobody can legislate decency but governments can certainly encourage it
and condemn those who violate it. Instead, what we have seen is that
Western governments are encouraging every Tom, Dick and Rushdie who
uses inflammatory language against Islam and Muslims. What they need to
do is to stop hiding behind free speech laws and openly express/admit
their bigotry, so Muslims can do unto Christians in their own countries
what Christians/secularists have been doing unto Muslims in Europe.
Let's fight fire with fire, cartoon against cartoon, racial slur
against racial slur. [Being sarcastic here]. Where would this all end?
> And, if 100% of the people in this country were raised in such a manner,
> indidents such as the Danish cartoons would not occur, classified as they
> would be in our minds as characterless bigotry. Perhaps we would agree that
> if all people thought thusly, we'd have a better country. However, that does
> not infer that legality ought to confer legitimacy to a particular set of
> sensibilities.
It seems to me that you are using what's legal as the basis of your
argument but then in the last sentence downplaying it. In other words,
what you have is a non-argument.
> Freedom and plurality being what it is, a consensus or homogenous set of
> moral sensibilities will never occur. The legal system has to account for
> all views on a particular subject, particularly when they involve matters of
> innate importance to people such as freedom of _expression. Do you want your
> imam to be enjoined from teaching that Isa was a human prophet because it
> offends Christians to say that? Do you want suggestions that Trinitarianism
> is polytheism to be banned from your religious teaching for the same reason?
> Should BOTH your religion and mine be enjoined from teaching our traditional
> views of homosexual relations?
As I stated above, there is a huge difference between
disagreement/dissent and desecration/ridicule, especially when there
are minorities involved. Let me give you an example: If I say that
Christianity is wrong and God never begot a Son, that’s criticism.
You as a Christian can always provide a rebuttal. However, if I say
that St. Paul was a SOB, you as a member of a small Christian minority
living in a Muslim country would have no choice but to swallow that
insult. Taking advantage of the fact that you are a minority and unable
to fight back, I could make your life miserable by exercising my right
of free speech. In the end, I would make you feel so small that you and
your children would be forced to leave the country. And THAT in my view
would be criminal.
> If NO, then you also have to accept fact that the TV preacher might lambast
> Muhammad as having taken dictation from a demon rather than an angel, and
> that something like the Danish cartoons might appear in your local newspaper
> someday.
If a Christian preacher says on American TV what you have described,
hardly any Muslim would complain. Muslims would simply dismiss him as
ignorant and his speech as a sermon for equally foolish Christians. But
an inflammatory cartoon that appears in a newspaper, created to
humiliate a religious minority and to test its patience, is vastly
different because a newspaper is meant for the general public.
> Of course, the alternative is that we take all the beliefs of everyone in
> the country, put 'em in a blender, and agree to believe in what comes out.
>
> Which would probably make the Bahai very happy......
Well, if you want to exaggerate to obfuscate issues, go ahead. But that
is not helpful to your point of view.
| |
MichaelC (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 01-02-06 07:59 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138770179.717157.241070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
> That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> > endured it, so must Muslims. The alternative solution, which you are
> > not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> > not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> > _expression, if not more.
> Rubbish. What is decent and what is not is a subjective judgement which,
in
> a multiethinic and religiously heterogeneous society, has no concrete
> definition, as it varies from individual to individual.
It's not "rubbish" at all. Just because Western society has lost its
moral compass it does not mean that other cultures cannot or should not
have free speech standards, which in some cases have developed over
centuries. In fact, civilization 'is' about standards. [Most people
confuse technological advancement with civilization, but the two are
not one and the same.]
[Mike]You're off the point -- " moral compasses" have nothing to do with the
matter at hand (Perhaps that's why you're having difficulty with the
concept.) "Standards", in a heterogenous society, vary from person to person
within the boundaries of legality. If you're arguing that what sort of thing
ought to be legal (or illegal) to meet some hypothetical standard, I'll
first ask you which dictator will you pick to establish that standard, and
then point out that legislating to that standard (assuming it would make
religious insults illegal) would require more than one amendment to the
Constiuttion of the United States of America.
In short, you have no logical basis for establishing a standard, especially
since any such standard would be rejected by, at the very least, a
substantial minority of the population.
> You cannot create a law that penalizes people for not adhering to a
standard
> of decency which cannot be defined.
Of course you can. There is a clear difference between desecration and
criticism, which nobody is suggesting should be outlawed.
[Mike] So you think there is a "clear difference?" Indeed. What test do you
propose to determine what is desecration and what is criticism? (Because in
a culturally heterogenious society, what is "clear" to you will not be
"clear" to someone else.) For instance, the Lemon test is used (sometimes
 ) to determine what is a permissible expression of religion and what is
establishment of religion. What test to do you propose, understanding that
the test must not be based on public opinion?
For example,
in an Islamic country, it should be illegal, if it isn't already, to
burn a cross, to draw nasty cartoons of Jesus or St. Paul, to demolish
Hindu idols, to surround Hindu idols with filth etc. On the other hand,
respectful criticism of any religion, including Islam, should be
tolerated, and in most cases it usually is. Any person who is familiar
with Islamic literature knows that religious debates have been going on
since the very beginning of Islam and just about every issue has been
questioned, criticized and explained countless times. If you take into
account the last one thousand years of history, communal violence in
Islamic countries----often exaggerated by some Western writers-----has
been rather rare as compared to European conflicts.
> > Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> > speech is concerned but are by no means totally free. In Europe, people
> > have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust. Muslims have been
> > deported for their political views. In the United States, thousands of
> > Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> > charges after 9-11. Ands as we all know, there are economic
> > consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> > the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
? Quite so, but that has nothing to do with the Danish cartoons and
their
> analogies, which is the matter under discussion. In fact, the one positive
I
> see coming out of the Danish business is that the Middle East is figuring
> out your last sentence, and how that gets the attention of Western
countries
> more than threats and bluster.
The point was that if you are going to be selective about what kind of
free speech you would allow, protecting some communities more than
others, you don't have much of an argument. Therefore, it is necessary
that you have some minimal standards that can be universally applied
and not leave things to marketplace of ideas when bigotry is rife.
[Mike] Yes, that's why I started my prior paragraph with "quite so."
> > In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> > because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> All religion has been reduced to that level in the West, not just
> Christianity, as far as the goverments are concerned.
Is that good? I don't think so. You are simply defending the status quo
without providing a rational basis for your argument.
[Mike] I don't think it's good either, speaking from the position of a
theist, but I acknowledge that avowed and militant atheists like Brick and
CT have as much right to their position and beliefs (or lack thereof) as do
you and I. And respect for THAT point of view requires that religion take a
position in the public sphere that does not attribute to it any especial
rights, priviledges, or even respect as compared to any other group, set of
beliefs, or organization.
> > Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> > lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> > this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> > not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> > should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> > Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> > responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> > disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> > out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
> That's fine, as long as it's done according to current law. Freedom of
> speech, and the power of the individual purse, is really all the weapons
> that are necessary.
Once again, you are appealing to keep the status quo and are unable to
provide a reasonable argument.
[Mike] If you're not willing to acknowledge the benefits of a society where
all beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered equal, then there is no
"reasonable argument" to be made. (I'll point out here that the only
"reasonable argument" that you've raised was above, where you said "I don't
think so." Far from a well thought out, logical process, that.)
I am suggesting that your idea of free speech i.e. having no standards,
or a system in which the limits on free speech are subjectively applied
to protect certain groups and not others, is somewhat contradictory and
indefensible.
[Mike] You have pointed out no reasoned contradiction other than your
disagreement.
Not sure what you mean by your last statement: What power of the
"individual purse?" A reporter working for a major daily who is afraid
to criticize Israel (unless he is Jewish of course) out of fear of
loosing his job does not have freedom of speech. His individual purse
and his will are owned by his employer who has determined that Jews in
America must not be offended.
[Mike] Boycotts of products and services.
If the protection of a minority and its most cherished values is
dependent on how influential or resourceful a particular community is,
you essentially have an unjust system.
[Mike] Quite so. That's why laws ought to be applied equally on a
dispassionate basis, without regard to whether a person is a "minority" or
otherwise.
And my suggestion is that you
need to do one of two things to balance things in favor of the
powerless: 1). Encourage standards to protect dignity of all
minorities, or 2). Develop a society where those who belittle
minorities as a whole or desecrate religious icons/ ridicule founders
of other religions are condemned. But you don't want to take either
approach because you are in the majority, and even if somebody
ridicules your religion it is of little consequence because you know
that your status in society would remain the same, whereas a minority
person in the same position has to fear much more.
[Mike] Well, this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" logical
fallacy. You can set your little straw men all you want -- if you have
predetermined that my support for these liberties is simply because I hold a
position of power, then you have your conclusion, and I have mine.
> > The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> > demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> > political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> > 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> > respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> > freedom from filth!
> Although you and I are likely on the same page WRT the moral path Western
> society is taking, IMO, you're blending two different topics which are
very
> different as I see them. There is, and must always be, a distinct
difference
> between legality and morality. You or I may agree that gratutious insults
of
> the beliefs of other religions are immoral and lack character. You and I
may
> agree that such behavior is untoward, and ought to be avoided. You and I
may
> agree that our children should be raised to avoid such behavior, and to
keep
> criticisms in this regard, if in discourse, to facts, rather than
emotional
> allegations.
Free speech laws, by themselves, should not be used as the basis of
your argument, unless you are willing to say that you are living in a
time-frozen perfect environment and there is no room for improvement.
I, on the other hand, emphasize social standards and policy, to be
taught in schools and adopted as national domestic policy.
[Mike] Policies are fine, and I'm all good with education to help kids
appreciate our multi-everything society.
Nobody can legislate decency but governments can certainly encourage it
and condemn those who violate it. Instead, what we have seen is that
Western governments are encouraging every Tom, Dick and Rushdie who
uses inflammatory language against Islam and Muslims. What they need to
do is to stop hiding behind free speech laws and openly express/admit
their bigotry, so Muslims can do unto Christians in their own countries
what Christians/secularists have been doing unto Muslims in Europe.
Let's fight fire with fire, cartoon against cartoon, racial slur
against racial slur. [Being sarcastic here]. Where would this all end?
[Mike] Well, you'd be dead. We have better guns. [Being cynical here.]
Look, anyone who has been paying attention to Denmark knows that they've
lost their interest in Muslim immigration a few years ago. We can argue
until we're blue if that fact is because they're bigots at the core, or the
Muslim immigrants in Denmark are being antisocial. Probably both. However,
it's *nearly* impossible to distinguish between overt bigotry, or anger over
an event, or fear, or whathave you. When applied ethnically, all these
emotions come to the surface in almost the same way.
> And, if 100% of the people in this country were raised in such a manner,
> indidents such as the Danish cartoons would not occur, classified as they
> would be in our minds as characterless bigotry. Perhaps we would agree
that
> if all people thought thusly, we'd have a better country. However, that
does
> not infer that legality ought to confer legitimacy to a particular set of
> sensibilities.
It seems to me that you are using what's legal as the basis of your
argument but then in the last sentence downplaying it. In other words,
what you have is a non-argument.
[Mike] Not at all. There are very few things as clear as the fact that
legality does not in any way lead to, cause, or even teach, morality. If it
does, a society is in deep trouble, as all they have is a bunch of people
doing the right thing simply because of the negative consequences, rather
than for reasons of character.
> Freedom and plurality being what it is, a consensus or homogenous set of
> moral sensibilities will never occur. The legal system has to account for
> all views on a particular subject, particularly when they involve matters
of
> innate importance to people such as freedom of _expression. Do you want
your
> imam to be enjoined from teaching that Isa was a human prophet because it
> offends Christians to say that? Do you want suggestions that
Trinitarianism
> is polytheism to be banned from your religious teaching for the same
reason?
> Should BOTH your religion and mine be enjoined from teaching our
traditional
> views of homosexual relations?
As I stated above, there is a huge difference between
disagreement/dissent and desecration/ridicule, especially when there
are minorities involved. Let me give you an example: If I say that
Christianity is wrong and God never begot a Son, that's criticism.
[Mike] To you. But technically, it's blasphemy to a Christian. You do
undertand that, eh? You see the grey area you've already walked into? **I**
would take it as criticism, or a start to a debate topic, but there are
without question others who would take it the othe way.
You as a Christian can always provide a rebuttal. However, if I say
that St. Paul was a SOB, you as a member of a small Christian minority
living in a Muslim country would have no choice but to swallow that
insult.
[Mike] Sounds like a typical line from ARI, but go on.....
Taking advantage of the fact that you are a minority and unable
to fight back, I could make your life miserable by exercising my right
of free speech. In the end, I would make you feel so small that you and
your children would be forced to leave the country. And THAT in my view
would be criminal.
[Mike] Actually, if pursued to the degree you hypothesize, a particular
person could indeed be hit with a restraining order to enjoin him from
verbally harrassing you. You're actually mixing up two different scenarios
in the same sentence (above and below this post.) Any individual who
personally harrasses another may be legally restrained. No ongoing verbal
harrassment. Now, is it possible that you might feel like you have to move?
Sure. All you do is look at the news and you see people hiding from nutcases
who violate such orders. The law can't do everything. However, BELOW, if a
muslim preacher were taking the Paul is an SOB line on TV, we'd say exactly
what you've said below -- ignorant man speaking to stupid Muslims. Who
cares. Nobody has to leave the country because of him.
> If NO, then you also have to accept fact that the TV preacher might
lambast
> Muhammad as having taken dictation from a demon rather than an angel, and
> that something like the Danish cartoons might appear in your local
newspaper
> someday.
If a Christian preacher says on American TV what you have described,
hardly any Muslim would complain. Muslims would simply dismiss him as
ignorant and his speech as a sermon for equally foolish Christians. But
an inflammatory cartoon that appears in a newspaper, created to
humiliate a religious minority and to test its patience, is vastly
different because a newspaper is meant for the general public.
[Mike] Yea, but the cartoon wasn't in the Christian daily in Beirut. It was
in DENMARK, for mercy's sake. Why would the entire Middle East be up in arms
about DENMARK??????
> Of course, the alternative is that we take all the beliefs of everyone in
> the country, put 'em in a blender, and agree to believe in what comes out.
>
> Which would probably make the Bahai very happy......
Well, if you want to exaggerate to obfuscate issues, go ahead. But that
is not helpful to your point of view.
[Mike] My point of view doesn't need "help." The 1st Amendment, and the
Western understanding of freedom of speech, stands as written. It's up to
others to conform to it, not for us to conform to their hypersensitivity.
All you've done above is make a "no shit, sherlock" argument that there are
circumstances were this particular liberty is very difficult on people,
which is precisely why it's so important to have. Freedom of speech, if
constrained to prevent offense to others, is not freedom of speech at all,
and if you think it can be so constrained, then you've completely missed the
point of its importance.
Mike
| |
forahmad@hotmail.com (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : forahmad@hotmail.com |
Dato : 01-02-06 06:03 |
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> Just a quick response follows...
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> > >
> > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> >
> > That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> > endured it, so must Muslims.
>
> Uh, no, it was more like saying that:
>
> (A) Muslims are not the only ones who have had their religious heros
> lampooned or derided by people in the West, and
>
> (B) The Christians in America did not "kill the infidels" when their
> religious heros were being dipped in urine, or in other cases, animal
> feces.
I have answered most of your comments in my response to Mike Craney,
which I am about to post. But the point that I would reiterate is that
there is a big difference between being in the majority and somebody
from your own race/culture/religious background lampooning your
race/culture/religion versus you being in a small minority and members
of the majority ridiculing your race/culture/religion.
[ I am extremely short of time these days, otherwise I would have
answered in greater detail].
> Regarding the second point, I am *NOT* claiming that you have said
> anything about killing infidels. I'm just making it clear what the
> person actually said (wrote). [By the way, as an interesting side note,
> my father is actually good friends with Andres Serrano].
>
> > The alternative solution, which you are
> > not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> > not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> > expression, if not more.
>
> The problem with this seems to fly in the face of our notions of free
> expression. So, having considered that option, it is now that we can
> say that if the Christians, and the Jews, and the Hindus and various
> others were able to endure Western forms of art (however tacky) which
> upset them, we should expect the Muslims to do the same. I think there
> might be a potential slippery slope in curtailing freedom of expression
> for the sake of protecting the religious sensibilities of one group.
>
> That being said, the many Muslims have engaged in objecting in a very
> understandable way (e.g. boycotting certain products), and should
> continue to do so.
>
> Now for that taboo subject alluded to already: violence. It is that
> sort of elephant in the room, where we know there is a possibility for
> a violent reaction, and even a possibility of certain people in this
> newsgroup (*ahem*) trying to justify such violence after the fact by
> proclaiming it to be the logical outcome of long history of feeling
> humiliated. I'm not predicting that there will be a violent reaction,
> but let me say that any clear thinking person should agree that any
> violence should be condemned, and not be tolerated (nor should the
> creators of any sort of tacky art be blamed for any violence that may
> be inflicted upon them in response). I hope we're clear on that!
>
> > Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> > speech is concerned but are by no means totally free.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > In Europe, people
> > have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust.
>
> That is a tough issue. But that is only certain parts of Europe, and
> America is quite different.
>
> > Muslims have been deported for their political views.
>
> True. But that is due to two factors:
>
> (1) An actual threat posed by some of those individuals.
>
> (2) An overreaction on the part of the government to the views of
> people who were not actually a threat.
>
> > In the United States, thousands of
> > Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> > charges after 9-11.
>
> Yes, and some of those people had their rights violated. But that was
> not about cartoons. That was about an attempt to purge the country of a
> very real threat. And a law enforcement aparatus that was not
> overwhelmingly familiar with its subject did tend to overreact on many
> occasions.
>
> > Ands as we all know, there are economic
> > consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> > the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
>
> Is this a bad thing? Muslims should follow this same path (a close
> friend of mine who was a huge Latino rights activist used to note that
> Latinos and Asians don't get the same "protections" that African
> Americans and Jews get, and thus they should try to form more cohesive
> political blocs so as to have more power to strike down things they
> find offensive).
>
> > In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> > because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> > Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> > lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> > this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> > not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> > should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> > Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> > responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> > disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> > out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
>
> I'm generally in agreement. Though I also believe that if a person
> things the offended side is overreacting, they should speak up. For
> example, not all examples of purported antiSemitism, anti-Christianity,
> Islamophobia or Homphobia are actually such, and thus sometimes there
> should be debate in certain instances. In this regard, the Muslims
> shouldn't merely complain about the ability of Jews and African
> Americans to hear their grievances. Rather, they should attempt to
> emulate that approach of strong critique within the confines of the
> law.
>
> > The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> > demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> > political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> > 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> > respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> > freedom from filth!
>
> This last paragraph confused me. Could you elaborate on what it is that
> you think the West should do, and how exactly it would be in their best
> interests to do such?
| |
forahmad@hotmail.com (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : forahmad@hotmail.com |
Dato : 01-02-06 06:03 |
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
> Just a quick response follows...
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can make
> > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many will
> > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> > >
> > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had to
> > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just two
> > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It didn't make
> > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take our
> > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> >
> > That's like saying that crap is everywhere and if Christians have
> > endured it, so must Muslims.
>
> Uh, no, it was more like saying that:
>
> (A) Muslims are not the only ones who have had their religious heros
> lampooned or derided by people in the West, and
>
> (B) The Christians in America did not "kill the infidels" when their
> religious heros were being dipped in urine, or in other cases, animal
> feces.
I have answered most of your comments in my response to Mike Craney,
which I am about to post. But the point that I would reiterate is that
there is a big difference between being in the majority and somebody
from your own race/culture/religious background lampooning your
race/culture/religion versus you being in a small minority and members
of the majority ridiculing your race/culture/religion.
[ I am extremely short of time these days, otherwise I would have
answered in greater detail].
> Regarding the second point, I am *NOT* claiming that you have said
> anything about killing infidels. I'm just making it clear what the
> person actually said (wrote). [By the way, as an interesting side note,
> my father is actually good friends with Andres Serrano].
>
> > The alternative solution, which you are
> > not willing to consider, is to remove that crap, allowing dissent but
> > not desecration. Public decency is as important as freedom of
> > expression, if not more.
>
> The problem with this seems to fly in the face of our notions of free
> expression. So, having considered that option, it is now that we can
> say that if the Christians, and the Jews, and the Hindus and various
> others were able to endure Western forms of art (however tacky) which
> upset them, we should expect the Muslims to do the same. I think there
> might be a potential slippery slope in curtailing freedom of expression
> for the sake of protecting the religious sensibilities of one group.
>
> That being said, the many Muslims have engaged in objecting in a very
> understandable way (e.g. boycotting certain products), and should
> continue to do so.
>
> Now for that taboo subject alluded to already: violence. It is that
> sort of elephant in the room, where we know there is a possibility for
> a violent reaction, and even a possibility of certain people in this
> newsgroup (*ahem*) trying to justify such violence after the fact by
> proclaiming it to be the logical outcome of long history of feeling
> humiliated. I'm not predicting that there will be a violent reaction,
> but let me say that any clear thinking person should agree that any
> violence should be condemned, and not be tolerated (nor should the
> creators of any sort of tacky art be blamed for any violence that may
> be inflicted upon them in response). I hope we're clear on that!
>
> > Western countries are 'freer' than other countries whereas freedom of
> > speech is concerned but are by no means totally free.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > In Europe, people
> > have been jailed for questioning the Holocaust.
>
> That is a tough issue. But that is only certain parts of Europe, and
> America is quite different.
>
> > Muslims have been deported for their political views.
>
> True. But that is due to two factors:
>
> (1) An actual threat posed by some of those individuals.
>
> (2) An overreaction on the part of the government to the views of
> people who were not actually a threat.
>
> > In the United States, thousands of
> > Muslims were rounded up, deported or jailed, on flimsy immigration
> > charges after 9-11.
>
> Yes, and some of those people had their rights violated. But that was
> not about cartoons. That was about an attempt to purge the country of a
> very real threat. And a law enforcement aparatus that was not
> overwhelmingly familiar with its subject did tend to overreact on many
> occasions.
>
> > Ands as we all know, there are economic
> > consequences for criticizing Jews and African Americans on the airways;
> > the speech of a person is controlled through his pocket.
>
> Is this a bad thing? Muslims should follow this same path (a close
> friend of mine who was a huge Latino rights activist used to note that
> Latinos and Asians don't get the same "protections" that African
> Americans and Jews get, and thus they should try to form more cohesive
> political blocs so as to have more power to strike down things they
> find offensive).
>
> > In the West, it is socially acceptable to criticize Christianity
> > because it has been reduced to the level of an inspirational movement.
> > Because of the abuses of the past, the Church, as an institution, has
> > lost respect and credibility. Thus, the argument, often expressed in
> > this forum, that Islam must go through what Christianity has endured is
> > not a good proposition for Muslims. That does not mean that Muslims
> > should kill those who blaspheme their religion, but I do think that
> > Muslims AND Christians [the majority always have greater
> > responsibilities in this regard] must ensure that the ignorant who
> > disrespects a religion or an entire religious/ethnic group is shouted
> > out, humiliated, not turned into a hero.
>
> I'm generally in agreement. Though I also believe that if a person
> things the offended side is overreacting, they should speak up. For
> example, not all examples of purported antiSemitism, anti-Christianity,
> Islamophobia or Homphobia are actually such, and thus sometimes there
> should be debate in certain instances. In this regard, the Muslims
> shouldn't merely complain about the ability of Jews and African
> Americans to hear their grievances. Rather, they should attempt to
> emulate that approach of strong critique within the confines of the
> law.
>
> > The culture of creating 'sympathy' for the socially deviant and for one
> > demeans an unpopular religion has led to loss of moral values,
> > political chaos, and would ultimately result in a backlash. It is in
> > 'your' interest to ensure that decency, which must be based on mutual
> > respect not some fuzzy notions of free speech, must prevail. Free
> > freedom from filth!
>
> This last paragraph confused me. Could you elaborate on what it is that
> you think the West should do, and how exactly it would be in their best
> interests to do such?
| |
1man4all (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 02-02-06 04:18 |
|
Warren Hopper wrote:
> "Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
>
> - Pope Gregory VII
> Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
> decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD ) ordered
> her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
> Do you approve of that action ?
I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
> It's one thing to say that "public decency is as important as freedom of
> expression", but it's quite another to do something about it.
This is probably the fifth time that I am repeating this, but I am NOT
advocating imposing decency. The only point that I have been making is
this: It 'is' the responsibility of political leaders and the majority
in any country to encourage civil discourse by condemning those who
belittle minorities and ridicule/desecrate their religious icons or
cherished beliefs. That type of moral support is something that
minorities always count on to keep their dignity and self-respect in
any society.
> The Nazis
> were nothing if not the epitome of 'public decency' and they were quite
> willing to do something about. 'Decency' has killed millions of innocent
> people and caused great suffering through the millennia. Whenever I hear
> the word 'decency', I hear screams of agony and see bodies writhing in
> flames.
I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
This reminds me of a story (can't remember if it's a Hadith). Once upon
a time there was a town steeped in sin. Evil had grown to such an
extent that God was left with no choice but to destroy the entire town.
The angels pleaded that there is a man living in the same town who is
so pious that he has never committed a sin. Why should he face the
wrath of God? And God's answer was: punish him the most. Because he
knew what was right and wrong and never once tried to correct his
townsfolk.
> I predict that in the year 2073, one thousand years after Gregory VII's vile
> action, the life and remaining poetry of Sappho will be celebrated and the
> name of Gregory VII ( if he remembered at all ) will be cursed by a million
> tongues in a world he could never have imagined.
Chances are that neither Gregory VII nor Sappho would be remembered. A
million poets would be born and most of them would not be celebrated at
all. My religious belief is that all words and deeds are recorded, so
perhaps in another world, in another life, you would be able to read
every single word that Sappho wrote. Until then, why not celebrate the
poetry of your own heart?
> Sic transit gloria ? Or sic transit 'decency' ?
How about gloria vertutis umbra?
> If you have a comment, I'll try to get back to you in a few days. I'm very
> busy these days. I've embarked on a second ( or third ? ) career in
> computer security and forensics. While writing this message, I had an
> attack alert and did a backtrace on the attacker. Guess what I found !!!
>
> Interesting, eh wot ? I would send a nastygram to "Mathew Newton", but I
> doubt very much if he exists. Illegal government spying's been good for
> bu$ine$$.
Interesting. Why are they after you?
> Attacker site: 25.7.204.215
>
> OrgName: DINSA, Ministry of Defence
> OrgID: DMD-16
> Address: HQ DCSA, Copenacre, c/o Basil Hill Barracks,
> City: Corsham
> StateProv: Wiltshire
> PostalCode: SN13 9NR
> Country: GB
>
> NetRange: 25.0.0.0 - 25.255.255.255
> CIDR: 25.0.0.0/8
> NetName: RSRE-EXP
> NetHandle: NET-25-0-0-0-1
> Parent:
> NetType: Direct Assignment
> NameServer: NS1.CS.UCL.AC.UK
> NameServer: RELAY.MOD.UK
> Comment:
> RegDate: 1985-01-28
> Updated: 2005-09-06
>
> OrgTechHandle: MNE30-ARIN
> OrgTechName: Newton, Mathew
> OrgTechPhone: +44 1225 813191
> OrgTechEmail: mathew.newton643@mod.uk
>
> # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-01-31 19:10
> # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
| |
Jim Walsh (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 02-02-06 05:36 |
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:18:15 +0800, 1man4all wrote
(in article <1138850295.530145.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
>> "Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
>>
>> - Pope Gregory VII
>
>> Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
>> decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD ) ordered
>> her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
>
>> Do you approve of that action ?
>
> I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
That you feel the need to read before you judge the destruction of poetry
speaks volumes about your disregard for human rights.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 11:20 |
|
1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > "Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
> >
> > - Pope Gregory VII
>
> > Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
> > decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD ) ordered
> > her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
>
> > Do you approve of that action ?
>
> I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
both ways .
> I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
> of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
> countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
> its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
> shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
Well, the situation in contemporaty Europe is quite the reverse. Islamic
immigrants who want segregation and family reunions to such an extent
that were they to continue that, the aboriginal European populations
were soon to become ethnic and religious minorities in their own
countries.
Experince shows that they, we, would be turned into dhimmies, second
class citizens - were the development to continue. Please do realize the
true nature of the Islamic world's apartheid countries.
Atheists and pagans, of course, wouldn't even have the limited rights of
a dhimmi.
> This reminds me of a story (can't remember if it's a Hadith). Once upon
> a time there was a town steeped in sin. Evil had grown to such an
> extent that God was left with no choice but to destroy the entire town.
> The angels pleaded that there is a man living in the same town who is
> so pious that he has never committed a sin. Why should he face the
> wrath of God? And God's answer was: punish him the most. Because he
> knew what was right and wrong and never once tried to correct his
> townsfolk.
Sounds like one of Mohammad's misapprehensions of Biblical tales - that
of Sodoma and Gomarrha.
But let my quote from Knud Larsen's post in another thread, translated
into English:
Message-ID <43e1c2af$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>
As Rashid Rushy {a female, Moslem journalist of Pakistani descent, PER}
said in television yesterday, she telles foreign journalists that the
Danes are NOT a racist people, and that Denmark is the only country in
the world where she would want to be a Moslem. Because Denmark has been
in the media on things you don't speak about in other countries, foreign
journalists get a fully wrong impression. Just like thinking there is
more liberty and freedom of expression in Yemen than here, just because
you hear so much negative on DK, and nothing on Yemen.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Warren Hopper (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Warren Hopper |
Dato : 03-02-06 17:28 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138850295.530145.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > "Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
> >
> > - Pope Gregory VII
>
> > Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
> > decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD )
ordered
> > her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
>
> > Do you approve of that action ?
>
> I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read it or
seen it.
The translation process itself can be brutal. This one seems to avoid 19th
century gushiness.
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/sappho/sappeter.htm
THE BRIDE OF SARDIS
In Lydia's golden city, gleaming Sardis,
With beauteous Arignota e'er my heart is,
And Atthis, oft she thinks of thee.
She thinks of us of old together living,
Of how she, godlike honor to thee giving,
Did hear thy song with greatest glee.
But now among the Lydians she dwelleth,
And, like the moon at night, she there excelleth,
Aye, like the rosy-fingered queen,
Which conquers all the stars, in radiance gleaming,
Across the briny Ocean brightly beaming,
And o'er the flowery meadow green.
Refreshing dew-drops leaves and flowers cover;
The gorgeous roses and the honeyed clover,
Anthriscus too is now in bloom.
But when she thinks of Atthis, gentle maiden,
Her heart with longing and with sorrow laden,
She anxiously about doth roam.
She loudly calls to us to follow thither.
In vain-for Night of Thousand Ears lets hither
No sound across the waters come.
>
> > It's one thing to say that "public decency is as important as freedom of
> > expression", but it's quite another to do something about it.
>
> This is probably the fifth time that I am repeating this, but I am NOT
> advocating imposing decency. The only point that I have been making is
> this: It 'is' the responsibility of political leaders and the majority
> in any country to encourage civil discourse by condemning those who
> belittle minorities and ridicule/desecrate their religious icons or
> cherished beliefs. That type of moral support is something that
> minorities always count on to keep their dignity and self-respect in
> any society.
Of course. At best, the cartoons are silly. I think 'hate-mongering' would
be an even-handed appraisal of their worth.
>
> > The Nazis
> > were nothing if not the epitome of 'public decency' and they were quite
> > willing to do something about. 'Decency' has killed millions of
innocent
> > people and caused great suffering through the millennia. Whenever I
hear
> > the word 'decency', I hear screams of agony and see bodies writhing in
> > flames.
>
> I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
> of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
> countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
> its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
> shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
I agree with you, in part. However, it wasn't the silent Germans who
allowed the Nazis to gain power. The great majority of 'decent' Germans
actively supported the Nazis and their ideals of cleaning up what they
regarded as the decadent Weimar culture and replacing it with 'decent'
Christian values.
There was an interesting show on PBS the other night about the role of the
church and the Deutche Christien movement in the rise of the Nazis. That
role has been under-appreciated, if not ignored, by German historians for
obvious reasons. Admittedly, there has been some discussion of this nasty
bit of history, but it has largely been relegated to way-out leftie type
historians, not the mainstream.
This sudden recognition 60 years after the fact may be one of the benefits
of having a German pope.
>
>
> This reminds me of a story (can't remember if it's a Hadith). Once upon
> a time there was a town steeped in sin. Evil had grown to such an
> extent that God was left with no choice but to destroy the entire town.
> The angels pleaded that there is a man living in the same town who is
> so pious that he has never committed a sin. Why should he face the
> wrath of God? And God's answer was: punish him the most. Because he
> knew what was right and wrong and never once tried to correct his
> townsfolk.
Unalloyed evil ? The *entire* town was evil. Not in this world.
But, again, I agree with the point of the fable.
>
> > I predict that in the year 2073, one thousand years after Gregory VII's
vile
> > action, the life and remaining poetry of Sappho will be celebrated and
the
> > name of Gregory VII ( if he remembered at all ) will be cursed by a
million
> > tongues in a world he could never have imagined.
>
> Chances are that neither Gregory VII nor Sappho would be remembered. A
> million poets would be born and most of them would not be celebrated at
> all. My religious belief is that all words and deeds are recorded, so
> perhaps in another world, in another life, you would be able to read
> every single word that Sappho wrote. Until then, why not celebrate the
> poetry of your own heart?
Beautifully said. Some of us do not have that kind of expressive power. We
sing the sad song of our souls in COBOL.
>
> > Sic transit gloria ? Or sic transit 'decency' ?
>
> How about gloria vertutis umbra?
As Google ( soon to become God ) says: "Did you mean: gloria virtutis
umbra?".
Obviously, your Latin is 27 times better than mine. I would never attempt a
venture into Latinizing "Glory (is) virtue's shadow" without a Google
search first. Is "virtue's shadow" a good thing ? Maybe glory is virtue's
*dark* shadow.
>
> > If you have a comment, I'll try to get back to you in a few days. I'm
very
> > busy these days. I've embarked on a second ( or third ? ) career in
> > computer security and forensics. While writing this message, I had an
> > attack alert and did a backtrace on the attacker. Guess what I found
!!!
> >
> > Interesting, eh wot ? I would send a nastygram to "Mathew Newton", but
I
> > doubt very much if he exists. Illegal government spying's been good for
> > bu$ine$$.
>
> Interesting. Why are they after you?
They are throwing the Wide Net over "Die Vurld Veid Veb", so to speak. It's
nothing personal, the computers are running themselves.
The Bushheads talk about thousands when the truth is millions. They have
also 'privatized' the intelligence machine, more billion$ for the Bush Boys.
The question of who they were spying on hasn't even gotten off the ground
yet. I can hear it already: "those environmental terroist who opposed oil
drilling in the Alaska were a clear and present danger to homeland
security", blah blah.
They are extremely ruthless and visious, but they are also extremely
predictable. They'll go for the Big $$$$s every time, no matter what, like
rats to the cheese. Always have, always will. Like Abramoff, it's what
they *do*.
This particular case is somewhat mysterious ( it's been going on for at
least the last several years ). The MOD servers are not doing the actual
portscans, but they are screening the ones who are, presumably the new breed
of privatized intelligence agencies and their far-flung minions.
Why use a public MOD server to do the cloaking ? They could easily route
themselves through old standbys like ICMP-challenged servers in Eastern
Europe to hide themselves, but they don't.
As I said, interesting, eh wot. The True Sons of Sejanus.
>
> > Attacker site: 25.7.204.215
> >
> > OrgName: DINSA, Ministry of Defence
> > OrgID: DMD-16
> > Address: HQ DCSA, Copenacre, c/o Basil Hill Barracks,
> > City: Corsham
> > StateProv: Wiltshire
> > PostalCode: SN13 9NR
> > Country: GB
> >
> > NetRange: 25.0.0.0 - 25.255.255.255
> > CIDR: 25.0.0.0/8
> > NetName: RSRE-EXP
> > NetHandle: NET-25-0-0-0-1
> > Parent:
> > NetType: Direct Assignment
> > NameServer: NS1.CS.UCL.AC.UK
> > NameServer: RELAY.MOD.UK
> > Comment:
> > RegDate: 1985-01-28
> > Updated: 2005-09-06
> >
> > OrgTechHandle: MNE30-ARIN
> > OrgTechName: Newton, Mathew
> > OrgTechPhone: +44 1225 813191
> > OrgTechEmail: mathew.newton643@mod.uk
> >
> > # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-01-31 19:10
> > # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
>
| |
1man4all (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 06-02-06 02:31 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> Well, WOMEN understand the complexities of human relationships. As Dave
> Barry says on this topic (parap) "When it comes to the nuances of complex
> relationships, men's minds are good for figuring out how much gravel they
> need to cover their driveways, and not much else."
I don't think that's entirely true. I have met women who were
intellectually shallow and were only interested in materialistic
things. On the other hand, there are men who can feel and love very
deeply, even hopelessly for the rest of their lives. It's true that
women are more sensitive, generally speaking, but a deeply sensitive
man can be hurt much more emotionally than many women. Like everything
else, relationships depend on many different factors: upbringing, in
particular relationship with parents; social circle, friends one
associates with; culture; past experience; education; spiritual outlook
etc.
| |
MichaelC (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 06-02-06 02:47 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139189458.932942.256050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> > Well, WOMEN understand the complexities of human relationships. As Dave
> > Barry says on this topic (parap) "When it comes to the nuances of
complex
> > relationships, men's minds are good for figuring out how much gravel
they
> > need to cover their driveways, and not much else."
>
> I don't think that's entirely true. I have met women who were
> intellectually shallow and were only interested in materialistic
> things. On the other hand, there are men who can feel and love very
> deeply, even hopelessly for the rest of their lives. It's true that
> women are more sensitive, generally speaking, but a deeply sensitive
> man can be hurt much more emotionally than many women. Like everything
> else, relationships depend on many different factors: upbringing, in
> particular relationship with parents; social circle, friends one
> associates with; culture; past experience; education; spiritual outlook
> etc.
It's indeed a generalization, one that is true more often than not, but
certainly there are many exceptions for each gender.
Mike
| |
ltlee1 (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 02-02-06 13:20 |
|
Phaedrine wrote:
> In article <1138727362.266388.223390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > In article <1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1"
> > > > > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1"
> > > > > > > >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why
> > > > > > > >> >picked on Islam's sacred symobol? Free speech is an
> > > > > > > >> >internal matter. The cartoons, however, have effects
> > > > > > > >> >world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of muslim
> > > > > > > >> >worldwide.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
> > > > > > > >cartoons insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the
> > > > > > > >cartoons is an objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual
> > > > > > > has a will of its own an can decide whether to get insulted
> > > > > > > or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and
> > > > > > caricatures of them blasphemous."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that
> > > > > > may be the law should change. Otherwise, what you think on
> > > > > > how they think is speculative and irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders
> > > > > one's opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's
> > > > > power and money.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly indicated
> > > > > > that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right
> > > > > to an opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to
> > > > > tell non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > > >
> > > > This is how I see it. There are more than 6 billion people on
> > > > this earth. The number of people will be bigger if you add the
> > > > dead people. Cartoonists can make fun and practice free speech on
> > > > 99.999999% of them and not many will complain. Why they have to
> > > > single out one figure, the symbol of Islam?
> > >
> > > I guess I'll take that as a "yes"--- that muslims have a right to
> > > opinions about non-muslim culture but non-muslims don't have the
> > > same right about muslim culture.
> >
> > No. I am saying the issue is not about right.
>
> I didn't mean that... "right".... quite so literally. I'm addressing
> mindset more than anything else. (I have never seen the cartoon so I am
> not defending it) Muslims think it's perfectly fine for muslims to
> criticize non-muslim culture and customs but, at the same time, they
> can't fathom that it works the same in reverse--- that it's just fine
> for non-muslims to criticize muslims. It's a double standard as with so
> many things in islam including the treatment of women. I've seen
> absolutely ghastly Palestinian cartoons especially about Jews but the
> Palestinians could give a rat's foot whether Jews are offended or not.
> And I've never seen any muslims in ARI taking offense either. It's the
> same as with muslims dancing in the streets when non-muslim people they
> hate die or are killed. If non-muslims ever did that, muslims would go
> off like rockets. Most muslims just don't seem to comprehend the "It
> works both ways" aphorism.
Mindset is a good way to put it. But I have a different take on the
mindset. Many psychology 101 text books show an ambiguous drawing. Some
see the drawing as the picture of a beautiful yound woman. Some come to
see the same drawing as an ugly old woman.
Let us see whether you agree with the following: At present, muslims
fail to see free speech as a beautiful woman and many westerners fail
to see Islam as a beautiful young woman. The muslims, however, see
their faith as the most beautify thing and they will defend against any
slight. Violating free speech is no big dea to them. To many
westerners, free speech is best thing ever bestow to thing. In
comparison, Islam is such an ugly faith, may be it should be ridiculed.
Anyway, this will be my last post on this thread. Thank all of you for
your thoughtful comments.
>
> There are several reasons for this and also several attendant issues to
> include:
>
> (1) Superiority: Pursuant to the koran, Islam has a mission of
> converting the entire world to islam. For that and other reasons,
> muslims think they are superior to everyone else and that standards they
> apply to others do not apply to themselves (& vice versa)--- the
> sanction of murdering non-muslims for instance. It's just not the same
> with muslims who are murdered--- unless the murdered person is a woman,
> of course, and then it's almost the same.
>
> (2) Isolationism, aloofness and inattention to the rest of the
> non-muslim world: If it's not muslim, then it has no merit. Therefore,
> muslims have little compassion for and generally don't notice or care
> that non-muslims are offended by certain, nearly ubiquitous muslim
> behaviors. Further, since muslims tend to only notice things offensive
> to them, they think they are the only ones being "picked on".... the
> only victims as in the cartoon case. The notion that Danish cartoonists
> only pick on muslims is balderdash.
>
>
> > ...If you insist on the
> > language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
> > the right to ridicule Islam. As is, the Danish government is not
> > granting the muslims any right to determine Danish newspaper
> > tradition. One side's god given right/command is in conflict with the
> > other side's god given right/command. Finally, power or its proxy
> > money, or something worse has to step in to break the deadlock.
> >
> > The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have
> > make fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see
> > no reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the
> > necssecity or need for that?
>
> --
> Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
> < http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
MichaelC (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 02-02-06 13:28 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138882814.004207.80940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phaedrine wrote:
<bandwidth snip>
>
> Mindset is a good way to put it. But I have a different take on the
> mindset. Many psychology 101 text books show an ambiguous drawing. Some
> see the drawing as the picture of a beautiful yound woman. Some come to
> see the same drawing as an ugly old woman.
>
> Let us see whether you agree with the following: At present, muslims
> fail to see free speech as a beautiful woman and many westerners fail
> to see Islam as a beautiful young woman. The muslims, however, see
> their faith as the most beautify thing and they will defend against any
> slight. Violating free speech is no big dea to them. To many
> westerners, free speech is best thing ever bestow to thing. In
> comparison, Islam is such an ugly faith, may be it should be ridiculed.
To me, this is the best thing you wrote yet on the subject, and accurately
explains the issues, EXCEPT for the last sentence. It implies that Islam is
in and of itself a desireable target for ridicule in the West, which is not
so. It would be more accurate to rewrite the last sentence as follows:
"And, should ANY religion do anything to merit ridicule, there is no reason
not to do so."
I've said this many times -- the natural state of Islam in the western mind
is that of irrelevance. It's not part of our background or our culture. What
keeps it from being irrelevant is the tendency of its adherents towards
nonsensical posturing and agressive behavior.
Mike
>
>
> Anyway, this will be my last post on this thread. Thank all of you for
> your thoughtful comments.
>
> >
> > There are several reasons for this and also several attendant issues to
> > include:
> >
> > (1) Superiority: Pursuant to the koran, Islam has a mission of
> > converting the entire world to islam. For that and other reasons,
> > muslims think they are superior to everyone else and that standards they
> > apply to others do not apply to themselves (& vice versa)--- the
> > sanction of murdering non-muslims for instance. It's just not the same
> > with muslims who are murdered--- unless the murdered person is a woman,
> > of course, and then it's almost the same.
> >
> > (2) Isolationism, aloofness and inattention to the rest of the
> > non-muslim world: If it's not muslim, then it has no merit. Therefore,
> > muslims have little compassion for and generally don't notice or care
> > that non-muslims are offended by certain, nearly ubiquitous muslim
> > behaviors. Further, since muslims tend to only notice things offensive
> > to them, they think they are the only ones being "picked on".... the
> > only victims as in the cartoon case. The notion that Danish cartoonists
> > only pick on muslims is balderdash.
> >
> >
> > > ...If you insist on the
> > > language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
> > > the right to ridicule Islam. As is, the Danish government is not
> > > granting the muslims any right to determine Danish newspaper
> > > tradition. One side's god given right/command is in conflict with the
> > > other side's god given right/command. Finally, power or its proxy
> > > money, or something worse has to step in to break the deadlock.
> > >
> > > The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have
> > > make fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see
> > > no reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the
> > > necssecity or need for that?
> >
> > --
> > Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your
representatives!
> >
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir
>
>
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 13:21 |
|
Richard Dell wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> | > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
> government
> | > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
> | > media is free to take the matter to court.
> |
> | I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> | above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence.
> To
> | me, it is unbelievable.
>
> Believe it.
>
> "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
> nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
> http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
>
> I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
> think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the
> 14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
> Christianity and not used for decades.
America has laws against hate speech.
>
> | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> its
> | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> | it to have any influence internationally.
>
> Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> slander).
I don't understand your response.
I did not suggesting rule by fear. Rather, I am saying the government
can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
>Cartoons are not lies.
Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
is no exception. .
> This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> now enjoy.
Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
| |
MichaelC (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 30-01-06 13:28 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138623653.803253.273590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Dell wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > | > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
> > government
> > | > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
> > | > media is free to take the matter to court.
> > |
> > | I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> > | above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence.
> > To
> > | me, it is unbelievable.
> >
> > Believe it.
> >
> > "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
> > nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
> > http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
> >
> > I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
> > think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the
> > 14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
> > Christianity and not used for decades.
>
> America has laws against hate speech.
We have nothing of the sort. We have additional penalties for crimes
committed if they can be classified as hate CRIMES, but not speech.
>
> >
> > | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> > its
> > | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> > | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> > | it to have any influence internationally.
> >
> > Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> > cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> > wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> > they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> > slander).
>
> I don't understand your response.
> I did not suggesting rule by fear. Rather, I am saying the government
> can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
> what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
> not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
>
> >Cartoons are not lies.
>
> Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
> is no exception.
Yes, cartoons can also lie, mislead, or hurt. However, the effect of the
first two is mitigated by better education; people who feel hurt by that
sort of expression should seek professional therapy.
>
> > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > now enjoy.
>
> Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
And it is their right to do so.
Mike
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:49 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:20:53 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1138623653.803253.273590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> .... America has laws against hate speech.
These laws generically punish "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Read the above. As usual you are over-simplifying a complex issue. The
cartoon is not remotely hate speech. BTW, a drawing of Mohammed is a sin
under the rules of the religion even if the drawing shows him in a positive
way.
> Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I can
> understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed disturbed
> by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
I am disturbed when Bush says, God bless American." I speak out. I do not
propose killing Bush or even preventing him from his blasphemy.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:21 |
|
Jim Walsh <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote:
> BTW, a drawing of Mohammed is a sin under the rules of the religion even
> if the drawing shows him in a positive way.
Nevertheless, the Iranians do it all the time.
And, btw, some of the cartoons in The Jutland Post do show Mohammed in a
positive way ... and some of the cartoons shown in the Islamic world are
fabrications of Islamic immigrants in Denmark, like the one showing him
in prayer, bottom up, getting raped by a roar.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:59 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:21:19 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1ha0mi1.1pqubpfwas028N%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> Jim Walsh <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, a drawing of Mohammed is a sin under the rules of the religion even
>> if the drawing shows him in a positive way.
>
> Nevertheless, the Iranians do it all the time.
>
> And, btw, some of the cartoons in The Jutland Post do show Mohammed in a
> positive way ... and some of the cartoons shown in the Islamic world are
> fabrications of Islamic immigrants in Denmark, like the one showing him
> in prayer, bottom up, getting raped by a roar.
Good points all.
I should have indicated that "the religion" which forbids pictures of
Mohammed is not Islam generally but one of its many sub-sets.
Similarly it is better to say "Some Jews keep kosher" than "Jews eat only
kosher food". Thanks for the reminder.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
1man4all (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 02-02-06 13:36 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> > I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
> In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
> 1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
> both ways .
Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways." She liked women who
used to be men but were thinking of becoming men again? LOL.
> > I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
> > of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
> > countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
> > its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
> > shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
> Well, the situation in contemporaty Europe is quite the reverse. Islamic
> immigrants who want segregation and family reunions to such an extent
> that were they to continue that, the aboriginal European populations
> were soon to become ethnic and religious minorities in their own
> countries.
Why blame everything on immigrants? Assimilation is always a two-way
street.
> Experince shows that they, we, would be turned into dhimmies, second
> class citizens - were the development to continue. Please do realize the
> true nature of the Islamic world's apartheid countries.
That is an extreme exaggeration. Muslim population in most European
countries is less than 5%. There is no evidence that Muslims would
outnumber Christians any time soon. And if they do, it would be so many
generations later that these Muslims would be fully European albeit
with a Muslim identity/religion. Muslim themselves are not a monolithic
group; they come from all over the world with very different social,
cultural and political views. Many immigrant Muslims don't practice or
even fully believe in Islam, yet they call themselves "Muslims."
Regarding your last statement, that is totally false. I have lived and
worked in Muslim countries. And I can tell you that generally speaking
Christians are better assimilated in Muslim countries than Muslims are
in Europe. Race has something to do with it. Muslims in Europe are of a
different race/ethnicity and are quickly identified, whereas Christians
living in Muslim countries are only recognized by their name and
sometimes not even by that. Obviously, there have been problems in the
Muslim world as well, such as the civil wars in Sudan and Lebanon,
blasphemy laws in Pakistan, communal violence in Egypt and Indonesia,
but there also have been great successes. In Bahrain I was delighted to
see a small but prosperous Jewish community. Egypt has had one
Christian Prime Minister and a Foreign Minister. Pakistan once had a
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was a Christian. The example of
Saudi Arabia is also usually given about how Christians (none of whom
are citizens and are temporary guest workers) are not allowed to
practice their religion (build churches), but people forget---I guess
they don't want to acknowledge----that Westerners (Christians) are also
the highest paid and receive much greater compensation that Muslims of
equal qualifications. You may generalize all that you want, but the
Muslim World is not as bad or as 'anti-infidels' as you think.
The problem that we have is that most Americans are ignorant about the
rest of world; their ideas and ideals have been shaped by American TV,
the international coverage of which is deplorably little or highly
deceptive, packaged to engender a certain point of view. I suggest that
you take a tour of some Muslim countries and find out if Muslims are
indeed the monsters that you are imagining them to be.
> Atheists and pagans, of course, wouldn't even have the limited rights of
> a dhimmi.
"Dhimmi" means a "protected minority." And I believe that the debate
whether to grant Dhimmi status to Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists
was settled long ago, when Muslim armies came into contact with such
people in the Eighth Century. I have written quite a bit on these
issues recently, and you are welcome to do a Google Groups Advanced
search and pull those comments.
> > This reminds me of a story (can't remember if it's a Hadith). Once upon
> > a time there was a town steeped in sin. Evil had grown to such an
> > extent that God was left with no choice but to destroy the entire town.
> > The angels pleaded that there is a man living in the same town who is
> > so pious that he has never committed a sin. Why should he face the
> > wrath of God? And God's answer was: punish him the most. Because he
> > knew what was right and wrong and never once tried to correct his
> > townsfolk.
> Sounds like one of Mohammad's misapprehensions of Biblical tales - that
> of Sodoma and Gomarrha.
Actually, the story of Sodom is also mentioned in the Quran, similar to
what's in the Bible, with some additional details. In that story, Lot
(if he is to be considered as the sinless person) did survive.
According to the Bible, Lot then got drunk and committed incest with
his daughters, which should make you wonder why God didn't kill him or
at least his daughters along with the Sodomites. But that's another
subject
> But let my quote from Knud Larsen's post in another thread, translated
> into English:
>
> Message-ID <43e1c2af$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>
> As Rashid Rushy {a female, Moslem journalist of Pakistani descent, PER}
> said in television yesterday, she telles foreign journalists that the
There must be some mistake because Rashid is a man's name. Must have
been Rashida.
> Danes are NOT a racist people, and that Denmark is the only country in
> the world where she would want to be a Moslem. Because Denmark has been
> in the media on things you don't speak about in other countries, foreign
> journalists get a fully wrong impression. Just like thinking there is
> more liberty and freedom of expression in Yemen than here, just because
> you hear so much negative on DK, and nothing on Yemen.
Look, finding one or two Muslims who are willing to give you a blank
check is not difficult. The main issue is whether Europeans are willing
to do some soul searching to see if they have actually welcomed
immigrants into their fold. I am proud to say that the United States
has done a better job in accommodating immigrants than Europeans. The
reason is that as an immigrant you 'can' call yourself an "American",
or at least your children can, but in Europe no matter for how many
generations you live there, you will never be French, German or Swiss.
People there will always identify you by where you/your ancestors came
from. Once Europeans learn to "own" these immigrants, they would
assimilate.
I believe it was Robert Frost who once said that home is place where if
they take you, they would have to admit you in. That's the test.
| |
MichaelC (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 02-02-06 14:25 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138883776.323962.138790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Per Rønne wrote:
> > I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
> In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
> 1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
> both ways .
Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways." She liked women who
used to be men but were thinking of becoming men again? LOL.
> > I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
> > of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
> > countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
> > its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
> > shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
> Well, the situation in contemporaty Europe is quite the reverse. Islamic
> immigrants who want segregation and family reunions to such an extent
> that were they to continue that, the aboriginal European populations
> were soon to become ethnic and religious minorities in their own
> countries.
Why blame everything on immigrants? Assimilation is always a two-way
street.
[Mike] It's not supposed to be 50/50, though.
> Experince shows that they, we, would be turned into dhimmies, second
> class citizens - were the development to continue. Please do realize the
> true nature of the Islamic world's apartheid countries.
That is an extreme exaggeration. Muslim population in most European
countries is less than 5%. There is no evidence that Muslims would
outnumber Christians any time soon. And if they do, it would be so many
generations later that these Muslims would be fully European albeit
with a Muslim identity/religion. Muslim themselves are not a monolithic
group; they come from all over the world with very different social,
cultural and political views. Many immigrant Muslims don't practice or
even fully believe in Islam, yet they call themselves "Muslims."
[Mike] There are a range of estimates on the actual percentage of Muslims
who will be in Europe, percentage wise, in, say, 2050. WRT Mulims
outnumbering Christians in some countries, the reason there is *no evidence*
is because most European countries do not collect demographic data that
would, in fact, BE evidence. Thus, we are reduced to anecdotal information
and referencing general population trends which are well known. Suffice to
say that Muslims COULD, in some countries, achieve majority prior to then
end of the century, but it is difficult to be precise.
Regarding your last statement, that is totally false. I have lived and
worked in Muslim countries. And I can tell you that generally speaking
Christians are better assimilated in Muslim countries than Muslims are
in Europe. Race has something to do with it. Muslims in Europe are of a
different race/ethnicity and are quickly identified, whereas Christians
living in Muslim countries are only recognized by their name and
sometimes not even by that. Obviously, there have been problems in the
Muslim world as well, such as the civil wars in Sudan and Lebanon,
blasphemy laws in Pakistan, communal violence in Egypt and Indonesia,
but there also have been great successes. In Bahrain I was delighted to
see a small but prosperous Jewish community. Egypt has had one
Christian Prime Minister and a Foreign Minister. Pakistan once had a
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was a Christian. The example of
Saudi Arabia is also usually given about how Christians (none of whom
are citizens and are temporary guest workers) are not allowed to
practice their religion (build churches), but people forget---I guess
they don't want to acknowledge----that Westerners (Christians) are also
the highest paid and receive much greater compensation that Muslims of
equal qualifications. You may generalize all that you want, but the
Muslim World is not as bad or as 'anti-infidels' as you think.
[Mike] I'm sure that most white Alabamans in 1955, those without virulent
racial bias, would have said much the same thing about the condition of
blacks in the U.S. South. Bottom line is that if you want to know what life
is like for a non-Muslim in the Middle East, ask non-Muslims, not Muslims. I
know hundreds, and their story is different.
The problem that we have is that most Americans are ignorant about the
rest of world; their ideas and ideals have been shaped by American TV,
the international coverage of which is deplorably little or highly
deceptive, packaged to engender a certain point of view. I suggest that
you take a tour of some Muslim countries and find out if Muslims are
indeed the monsters that you are imagining them to be.
[Mike] The "media" issue is a worldwide problem, not an American problem.
Europeans often expose incredible naivete about laws and conditions in the
US, for example, and they have a media which, like ours, is ostensibly free,
and what you accuse the US media of above, although true, is also true of
the European media. However, your suggestion is well taken -- you gotta go
there, but a tour isn't going to do it. Staying at a Hilton in Abu Dhabi ,
sipping wine by the pool, and occasionally venturing out for a "native" meal
that the concierge at the hotel recommends (because he knows they cater to
Westerners) won't do it. Go native. Rent an apartment, find a job. Drink
coffee in seedy cafes. See how things go for you. Surely you're not
suggesting that tourism can give answers to actual sociological questions.
> Atheists and pagans, of course, wouldn't even have the limited rights of
> a dhimmi.
"Dhimmi" means a "protected minority." And I believe that the debate
whether to grant Dhimmi status to Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists
was settled long ago, when Muslim armies came into contact with such
people in the Eighth Century. I have written quite a bit on these
issues recently, and you are welcome to do a Google Groups Advanced
search and pull those comments.
> > This reminds me of a story (can't remember if it's a Hadith). Once upon
> > a time there was a town steeped in sin. Evil had grown to such an
> > extent that God was left with no choice but to destroy the entire town.
> > The angels pleaded that there is a man living in the same town who is
> > so pious that he has never committed a sin. Why should he face the
> > wrath of God? And God's answer was: punish him the most. Because he
> > knew what was right and wrong and never once tried to correct his
> > townsfolk.
> Sounds like one of Mohammad's misapprehensions of Biblical tales - that
> of Sodoma and Gomarrha.
Actually, the story of Sodom is also mentioned in the Quran, similar to
what's in the Bible, with some additional details. In that story, Lot
(if he is to be considered as the sinless person) did survive.
According to the Bible, Lot then got drunk and committed incest with
his daughters, which should make you wonder why God didn't kill him or
at least his daughters along with the Sodomites. But that's another
subject
> But let my quote from Knud Larsen's post in another thread, translated
> into English:
>
> Message-ID <43e1c2af$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>
> As Rashid Rushy {a female, Moslem journalist of Pakistani descent, PER}
> said in television yesterday, she telles foreign journalists that the
There must be some mistake because Rashid is a man's name. Must have
been Rashida.
> Danes are NOT a racist people, and that Denmark is the only country in
> the world where she would want to be a Moslem. Because Denmark has been
> in the media on things you don't speak about in other countries, foreign
> journalists get a fully wrong impression. Just like thinking there is
> more liberty and freedom of expression in Yemen than here, just because
> you hear so much negative on DK, and nothing on Yemen.
Look, finding one or two Muslims who are willing to give you a blank
check is not difficult. The main issue is whether Europeans are willing
to do some soul searching to see if they have actually welcomed
immigrants into their fold. I am proud to say that the United States
has done a better job in accommodating immigrants than Europeans. The
reason is that as an immigrant you 'can' call yourself an "American",
or at least your children can, but in Europe no matter for how many
generations you live there, you will never be French, German or Swiss.
People there will always identify you by where you/your ancestors came
from. Once Europeans learn to "own" these immigrants, they would
assimilate.
[Mike] I think you're quite right, but I'd also add that the US operates as
a meritocracy where education and financial success are respected, and our
immigration system does not take all who apply -- we screen for the ability
to support oneself, meaning the our immigrants tend to be educated and able
to work in fields where jobs are avaiable. This decreases ghettoization,
because the immigrant community can afford to live in the same neighborhoods
as the natives, increases assimilation. Compare that to Europe where you've
often had "all comers" immigration.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 18:09 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [Mike] I think you're quite right, but I'd also add that the US operates as
> a meritocracy where education and financial success are respected, and our
> immigration system does not take all who apply -- we screen for the ability
> to support oneself, meaning the our immigrants tend to be educated and able
> to work in fields where jobs are avaiable. This decreases ghettoization,
> because the immigrant community can afford to live in the same neighborhoods
> as the natives, increases assimilation. Compare that to Europe where you've
> often had "all comers" immigration.
Perhaps I should add that the unemployment benefit in Denmark is dkr
88.33 an hour, $14.30. For a 37 hours week in a country with five weeks
of compulsory vacation. Much more than US minimum wages.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 07:29 |
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:25:15 +0800, MichaelC wrote
(in article <%KnEf.6391$2O6.6225@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>):
>
> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138883776.323962.138790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Per Rønne wrote:
>
>
>>> I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
>
>> In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
>> 1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
>> both ways .
>
> Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways."
Lesbos is a place. People from their are called Lesbians; just like people
from Germany are called Germans.
Because Sappho was (apparently) a female homosexual, Sapphic and Lesbian came
to be used with the meaning "female homosexual".
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Jim (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim |
Dato : 05-02-06 11:02 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00BBC280002E5CBF0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:25:15 +0800, MichaelC wrote
> (in article <%KnEf.6391$2O6.6225@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>>
>> "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138883776.323962.138790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Per Rønne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
>>
>>> In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
>>> 1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
>>> both ways .
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways."
>
> Lesbos is a place. People from their are called Lesbians; just like people
> from Germany are called Germans.
And people from Turkey are called turkeys. ;0)
At least they sound like turkeys... ;)
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 18:09 |
|
1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rønne wrote:
>
>
> > > I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
>
> > In litereture history, she is the only female poet mentioned before the
> > 1800s. Sappho from Lesbos, the most famous Lesbian ever. 'Lesbian' in
> > both ways .
>
> Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways." She liked women who
> used to be men but were thinking of becoming men again? LOL.
A person from Athens is an Athenian. A person from Lesbos is a Lesbian.
> > > I am sorry but you are putting the wrong spin on it. Had the majority
> > > of Germans spoken out against hateful speeches and excesses of Nazis,
> > > countless lives could have been saved. But because the majority kept
> > > its silence, I guess believing in the right of free speech, the bigots
> > > shouted their way into the halls of power and brought untold suffering.
>
> > Well, the situation in contemporaty Europe is quite the reverse. Islamic
> > immigrants who want segregation and family reunions to such an extent
> > that were they to continue that, the aboriginal European populations
> > were soon to become ethnic and religious minorities in their own
> > countries.
> Why blame everything on immigrants? Assimilation is always a two-way
> street.
> > Experince shows that they, we, would be turned into dhimmies, second
> > class citizens - were the development to continue. Please do realize the
> > true nature of the Islamic world's apartheid countries.
>
> That is an extreme exaggeration. Muslim population in most European
> countries is less than 5%. There is no evidence that Muslims would
> outnumber Christians any time soon.
Population surveys in Denmark before the 2001 Parliamentary Election
showed that 97% of 3rd generation Turkish Immigrants married a boy or
girl from the family's original home village - or one of this village's
neighbouring villages {they were usually betrothed as infants}. These
spouses were family reunited to Denmark. Furthermore, statistics show
that they get close to four children per couple, which means that they
quadruple each generation.
Before the end of this century, the Danes had become an ethnic and
religious minority in our country.
And of course I have to add that the Immigrant fertility is reduced to
the Danish level within a few generations - if no family reunion is
taking place.
> > Atheists and pagans, of course, wouldn't even have the limited rights of
> > a dhimmi.
> "Dhimmi" means a "protected minority." And I believe that the debate
> whether to grant Dhimmi status to Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists
> was settled long ago, when Muslim armies came into contact with such
> people in the Eighth Century. I have written quite a bit on these
> issues recently, and you are welcome to do a Google Groups Advanced
> search and pull those comments.
Hindus were given dhimmi status, buddhists not. As such the buddhists
were fully wiped out in the areas conquered by the Muslims.
And, btw, dhimmies /are/ 2nd class citizens.
> > But let my quote from Knud Larsen's post in another thread, translated
> > into English:
> >
> > Message-ID <43e1c2af$0$67257$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk>
>
> > As Rashid Rushy {a female, Moslem journalist of Pakistani descent, PER}
> > said in television yesterday, she telles foreign journalists that the
>
> There must be some mistake because Rashid is a man's name. Must have
> been Rashida.
No.
> > Danes are NOT a racist people, and that Denmark is the only country in
> > the world where she would want to be a Moslem. Because Denmark has been
> > in the media on things you don't speak about in other countries, foreign
> > journalists get a fully wrong impression. Just like thinking there is
> > more liberty and freedom of expression in Yemen than here, just because
> > you hear so much negative on DK, and nothing on Yemen.
>
> Look, finding one or two Muslims who are willing to give you a blank
> check is not difficult. The main issue is whether Europeans are willing
> to do some soul searching to see if they have actually welcomed
> immigrants into their fold. I am proud to say that the United States
> has done a better job in accommodating immigrants than Europeans. The
> reason is that as an immigrant you 'can' call yourself an "American",
> or at least your children can, but in Europe no matter for how many
> generations you live there, you will never be French, German or Swiss.
> People there will always identify you by where you/your ancestors came
> from. Once Europeans learn to "own" these immigrants, they would
> assimilate.
This is not correct. Any immigrant from a Western country is accepted as
a Dane, as soon as he speaks Danish with a Danish accent, and of course
this will be the case with his children. It is even the case with East
Asian immigrants who are fully willing to have their children marry a
Danish boy or girl in a Danish parish church. But of course these people
don't choose to live in ghettos.
Islamic immigrants, on the other hand, don't allow their children to
marry outside their own circles {and marriages are usually arranged when
the children are infants}. In the rare cases where such marriages are
allowed, it is demanded that the Dane converts to Islam.
And of course this is a generalization. Exceptions do exist and the most
well-known of well-integrated and moderate Muslim in Denmark is Naser
Khader, MP, who asserts that Denmark should not give in to the demands
from Middle East dictatorships.
http://www.folketinget.dk/BAGGRUND/Biografier_english/Naser_Khader.htm
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Haines Brown (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Haines Brown |
Dato : 30-01-06 13:52 |
|
Is this not a classic issue? First, the ideology of the western press
is to convey the facts, and do so truthfully. Second, governments have
some responsibility for social health, and can't tolerate behavior
that is too anti-social or threaten public order.
The terms of this contradiction are such that there's no simple
answer, but all governments to a degree limit freedom of speech. In
Europe in some places, expressions of Nazism or racism are not allowed. And
there is frequently prohibitions of child pornography, etc.
Such crude and unstable balancing acts may be necessary, but don't
seem very satisfying, for they tend to slide into government
suppression on one hand or encouraging our worst inclinations on the
other. Also, while attention if fixated on the issue de jour, other
expressions are ignored or repressed more than they should be.
In cases like this, one has to look critically at the starting
assumptions, the categories we adopt to arrive at policy.
In the West, we often rely on a wise self-censorship by the press
itself so that it remains independent, but this tends to break down as
the press comes under increasing competitive pressure or seeks
monopoly. A monopoly press, which seems more and more typical in my
own country, can take the high road, but is often not doing so in
fact. In its competitive drive, the press strays from merely conveying
information or editorials to allow their bias to color the selection
and treatment of the facts and to pander to our worst instincts.
Someone might suggest a typical approach in the face of such a
contradiction, which would be a government-funded, but institutionally
independent press that is not competitive. However, this seems
inadequate. Influence follows the money, and there is good reason to
believe the government's wishes will prevail. Also, there is need for
press diversity, and sanctioning of an an official press is likely to
discourage that.
I could speculate about other scenarios, but there's no point because
I don't have an answer. In a real democracy I feel the government has
a responsibility to protect, even promote, cultural norms, and these
norms might serve to reign in the press. Also, there may be reason to
believe that news via Internet offers some potentials. However, I'm
not optimistic about any of this, although the issue is a critical
one.
--
Haines Brown
KB1GRM
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:06 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:52:18 +0800, Haines Brown wrote
(in article <87zmldq3lv.fsf@teufel.hartford-hwp.com>):
> Is this not a classic issue? First, the ideology of the western press
> is to convey the facts, and do so truthfully. Second, governments have
> some responsibility for social health, and can't tolerate behavior
> that is too anti-social or threaten public order.
Even if speech threatens the public order, it must be permitted.
When Dr. King said segregation was wrong, his house was bombed. The social
order was disturbed.
The responsibility of the government is to prosecute the bomber. In no way
does a violent response to speech entitle the government to suppress it.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:01 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138623653.803253.273590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > | > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
> > > government
> > > | > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by the
> > > | > media is free to take the matter to court.
> > > |
> > > | I understand that the government does not control the press. But the
> > > | above, if translated correctly, is the government has no influence.
> > > To
> > > | me, it is unbelievable.
> > >
> > > Believe it.
> > >
> > > "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
> > > nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
> > > http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
> > >
> > > I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
> > > think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from the
> > > 14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
> > > Christianity and not used for decades.
> >
> > America has laws against hate speech.
>
> We have nothing of the sort. We have additional penalties for crimes
> committed if they can be classified as hate CRIMES, but not speech.
> >
> > >
> > > | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> > > its
> > > | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> > > | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> > > | it to have any influence internationally.
> > >
> > > Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> > > cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> > > wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> > > they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> > > slander).
> >
> > I don't understand your response.
> > I did not suggesting rule by fear. Rather, I am saying the government
> > can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
> > what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
> > not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
> >
> > >Cartoons are not lies.
> >
> > Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
> > is no exception.
>
> Yes, cartoons can also lie, mislead, or hurt. However, the effect of the
> first two is mitigated by better education; people who feel hurt by that
> sort of expression should seek professional therapy.
> >
> > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > > now enjoy.
> >
> > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
>
> And it is their right to do so.
And their grievance also needed to be addressed. No?
>
> Mike
| |
MichaelC (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:04 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138626063.947862.96410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138623653.803253.273590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138619980.751092.24230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > | > Unlike in many middle east countries for example the danish
> > > > government
> > > > | > has no power to control the media. Anyone who feels offended by
the
> > > > | > media is free to take the matter to court.
> > > > |
> > > > | I understand that the government does not control the press. But
the
> > > > | above, if translated correctly, is the government has no
influence.
> > > > To
> > > > | me, it is unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > Believe it.
> > > >
> > > > "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press -
> > > > nor do I want such power." - Rasmussen.
> > > > http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/413
> > > >
> > > > I know of no democratic country where this is not the case. I do not
> > > > think Denmark has a blasphemy law. Britain does, but it dates from
the
> > > > 14th century and is an anachronism, derided by all, specific to
> > > > Christianity and not used for decades.
> > >
> > > America has laws against hate speech.
> >
> > We have nothing of the sort. We have additional penalties for crimes
> > committed if they can be classified as hate CRIMES, but not speech.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement
expressing
> > > > its
> > > > | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment
cannot
> > > > | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one
expect
> > > > | it to have any influence internationally.
> > > >
> > > > Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> > > > cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any
democrat
> > > > wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say
what
> > > > they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> > > > slander).
> > >
> > > I don't understand your response.
> > > I did not suggesting rule by fear. Rather, I am saying the government
> > > can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
> > > what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
> > > not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
> > >
> > > >Cartoons are not lies.
> > >
> > > Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
> > > is no exception.
> >
> > Yes, cartoons can also lie, mislead, or hurt. However, the effect of the
> > first two is mitigated by better education; people who feel hurt by that
> > sort of expression should seek professional therapy.
> > >
> > > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict
freedom
> > > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms
they
> > > > now enjoy.
> > >
> > > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> > > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
> >
> > And it is their right to do so.
>
> And their grievance also needed to be addressed. No?
No.
Mike
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:51 |
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:01:04 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1138626063.947862.96410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138623653.803253.273590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
>>> can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
>>> disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
>>
>> And it is their right to do so.
>
> And their grievance also needed to be addressed. No?
If "addressing their grievance" means prevent speech that offends them, NO.
Their grievance does NOT need to be addressed.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:06 |
|
Haines Brown wrote:
> Is this not a classic issue? First, the ideology of the western press
> is to convey the facts, and do so truthfully. Second, governments have
> some responsibility for social health, and can't tolerate behavior
> that is too anti-social or threaten public order.
>
> The terms of this contradiction are such that there's no simple
> answer, but all governments to a degree limit freedom of speech. In
> Europe in some places, expressions of Nazism or racism are not allowed. And
> there is frequently prohibitions of child pornography, etc.
>
> Such crude and unstable balancing acts may be necessary, but don't
> seem very satisfying, for they tend to slide into government
> suppression on one hand or encouraging our worst inclinations on the
> other. Also, while attention if fixated on the issue de jour, other
> expressions are ignored or repressed more than they should be.
This is why the governments have to be flexible. And proactive measures
are often needed. Of course, proactive measures could also lead to
suppression or interpreted as suppression.
> In cases like this, one has to look critically at the starting
> assumptions, the categories we adopt to arrive at policy.
>
> In the West, we often rely on a wise self-censorship by the press
> itself so that it remains independent, but this tends to break down as
> the press comes under increasing competitive pressure or seeks
> monopoly. A monopoly press, which seems more and more typical in my
> own country, can take the high road, but is often not doing so in
> fact. In its competitive drive, the press strays from merely conveying
> information or editorials to allow their bias to color the selection
> and treatment of the facts and to pander to our worst instincts.
>
> Someone might suggest a typical approach in the face of such a
> contradiction, which would be a government-funded, but institutionally
> independent press that is not competitive. However, this seems
> inadequate. Influence follows the money, and there is good reason to
> believe the government's wishes will prevail. Also, there is need for
> press diversity, and sanctioning of an an official press is likely to
> discourage that.
>
> I could speculate about other scenarios, but there's no point because
> I don't have an answer. In a real democracy I feel the government has
> a responsibility to protect, even promote, cultural norms, and these
> norms might serve to reign in the press. Also, there may be reason to
> believe that news via Internet offers some potentials. However, I'm
> not optimistic about any of this, although the issue is a critical
> one.
Great post.
> --
>
> Haines Brown
> KB1GRM
| |
Richard Dell (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 30-01-06 14:19 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
<snip>
> > | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> > its
> > | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> > | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> > | it to have any influence internationally.
> >
> > Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> > cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> > wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> > they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> > slander).
>
> I don't understand your response.
> I did not suggesting rule by fear.
Indeed you didn't. But one of the most important features of a
democratic state as opposed to a totalitarian one, is that you *cannot*
rule by fear, and it is vital to appreciate this. Many who have lived
in a totalitarian state do not.
> Rather, I am saying the government
> can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
> what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
> not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition had
permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic
dogma?
You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction in
terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics to
be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
seeing any.
> >Cartoons are not lies.
>
> Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
> is no exception. .
Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt by
counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to test
for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits. We
have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood or
reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear to
attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
> > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > now enjoy.
>
> Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out as
much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper. Not
only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
respect or an argument.
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:39 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138709685.625651.120920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MichaelC wrote:
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1138707601.814891.325140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > MichaelC wrote:
> > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why
> picked on
> > > > > Islam's
> > > > > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The
> > > cartoons,
> > > > > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult
> 100
> > > > > million of
> > > > > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel the
> > > cartoons
> > > > > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the cartoons
> is
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each individual
> has a
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and
> caricatures
> > > of
> > > > > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that may
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they think
> is
> > > > > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which renders
> one's
> > > > > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power and
> > > money.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no right
> to an
> > > > > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to tell
> > > > > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The number of
> > > > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists can
> make
> > > > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not many
> will
> > > > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol of
> Islam?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have had
> to
> > > > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking just
> two
> > > > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It
> didn't
> > > make
> > > > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't take
> our
> > > > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> > > >
> > > > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
> > > >
> > > > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> > > > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> > > > Christianity based societies.
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find stuff
> from
> > > Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That calls
> the
> > > Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as a
> > > drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
> >
> > Alright, you will have a case if you do find
> >
> > 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is
> > God" and
> > 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not do
> > this kind of stuff.
> >
> > Care to present your the stuff?
>
> http://freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
>
> For starters. Although my wife speaks Arabic, I'm not of a mind to have her
> do what it takes to go further than the above to answer the question, which
> is to peruse various mosque sermons and other writings not normally
> translated to provide more grist for the USENET circle-jerk. Suffice to say
> that its not difficult to find articles in the ME press and by
> publically-funded imams that scorn Christianity (and Hinduism, another
> popular topic), and you probably
1. Without presenting the stuff, there is no way anyone can judge
whether the above is factual.
2. As a matter of fact, if you presented your stuff and they are indeed
like what you said, that is still irrelevant.Your stuff may allow
Christians, Hindus and etc to complain. But this still do not make the
current complaints against the cartoonists invalid.
>
> Mike
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:52 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138714723.342357.306820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138709685.625651.120920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > MichaelC wrote:
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138707601.814891.325140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > MichaelC wrote:
> > > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1138704918.872704.148330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phaedrine wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > <1138679005.987024.226520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2006 16:38:46 -0800, "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >B. Nice wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1"
> > <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why
> > picked on
> > > > > > Islam's
> > > > > > > > > > >> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter.
The
> > > > cartoons,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they
insult
> > 100
> > > > > > million of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >muslim worldwide.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> You only get insulted if You choose to.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >You have a point if large number of muslims don't feel
the
> > > > cartoons
> > > > > > > > > > >insulting. Otherwise, the insulting nature of the
cartoons
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >objective reality to the muslims.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But to me it is not a question of numbers. Each
individual
> > has a
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > of its own an can decide whether to get insulted or not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and
> > caricatures
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them blasphemous."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is their law. If you are a muslim, you could argue that
may
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > law should change. Otherwise, what you think on how they
think
> > is
> > > > > > > > > speculative and irrelevant.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not necessarily. It is not strictly muslimhood which
renders
> > one's
> > > > > > > > opinion on muslim matters relevant to muslims. It's power
and
> > > > money.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...The responses of the muslim leaders clearly
> > > > > > > > > indicated that, they, the muslims, are insulted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So what you are saying is that while non-muslims have no
right
> > to an
> > > > > > > > opinion on muslim 'customs', muslims have every right to
tell
> > > > > > > > non-muslims newspaper customs?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is how I see it.
> > > > > > > There are more than 6 billion people on this earth. The
number of
> > > > > > > people will be bigger if you add the dead people. Cartoonists
can
> > make
> > > > > > > fun and practice free speech on 99.999999% of them and not
many
> > will
> > > > > > > complain. Why they have to single out one figure, the symbol
of
> > Islam?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nobody gets singled out. Christians in the US, for example, have
had
> > to
> > > > > > endure "art" that has featured Jesus and his mother, picking
just
> > two
> > > > > > examples, bathed in urine. Freedom of speech and expression. It
> > didn't
> > > > make
> > > > > > us particularly happy, and we made that known, but we didn't
take
> > our
> > > > > > rhetoric down to the "kill the infidels" either.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
> > > > >
> > > > > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> > > > > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> > > > > Christianity based societies.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find
stuff
> > from
> > > > Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That
calls
> > the
> > > > Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as
a
> > > > drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
> > >
> > > Alright, you will have a case if you do find
> > >
> > > 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is
> > > God" and
> > > 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not
do
> > > this kind of stuff.
> > >
> > > Care to present your the stuff?
> >
> > http://freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
> >
> > For starters. Although my wife speaks Arabic, I'm not of a mind to have
her
> > do what it takes to go further than the above to answer the question,
which
> > is to peruse various mosque sermons and other writings not normally
> > translated to provide more grist for the USENET circle-jerk. Suffice to
say
> > that its not difficult to find articles in the ME press and by
> > publically-funded imams that scorn Christianity (and Hinduism, another
> > popular topic), and you probably
>
> 1. Without presenting the stuff, there is no way anyone can judge
> whether the above is factual.
The "stuff" is presented in the link I provided.
>
> 2. As a matter of fact, if you presented your stuff and they are indeed
> like what you said, that is still irrelevant.Your stuff may allow
> Christians, Hindus and etc to complain. But this still do not make the
> current complaints against the cartoonists invalid.
They can complain all they want. That's liberty.
Mike
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 16:16 |
|
rfdell@hotmail.com wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138709685.625651.120920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Do snip the dross, old chap.
>
> | > > I guess you are talking about Andre Serrano's PISS CHRIST
> | > >
> | > > He is a member of a society which is mainly Christian. Hence, his
> | > > action can be considered some kind of internal criticism within
> | > > Christianity based societies.
> | >
> | > Doesn't matter. Do you think it's particularly difficult to find
> stuff from
> | > Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus is God? That
> calls the
> | > Trinity polytheism? The notions are as blasphemous to Christians as
> a
> | > drawing of Mo' is to the Muslims.
> |
> | Alright, you will have a case if you do find
> |
> | 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus
> is
> | God" and
>
> The inscriptions around the Dome of the Rock, placed in the heart of
> Christendom with the deliberate intent of insulting Christians,
> including:
When was the Dome of the Rock placed there and why did the muslim
choose that place?
> "It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself
> a son."
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
>
> Is that Kosher enough for you?
>
> | 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not
> do
> | this kind of stuff.
>
> True, desecration of the holy sites, symbols and texts is a mainly
> Muslim practice:
>
> ... a nun arrived at the customs desk at Jeddah airport.
>
> "Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah.
> You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be
> tormented."
>
> "They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book
> through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
> tormented her for many minutes."
> http://tinyurl.com/d65lr
Americans buy a lot of bibles everyyear. They also put a lot of bibles
into the waste baskets which end up in city dumps.The same to cheaply
made crucifix."...took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
tormented her for many minutes." is a different story. The nun's
country should protest and seek apologies and/or compensation if the
nun had legitimate reason to enter the country.
| |
Richard Dell (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:29 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> > | Alright, you will have a case if you do find
> > |
> > | 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus
> > is
> > | God" and
> >
> > The inscriptions around the Dome of the Rock, placed in the heart of
> > Christendom with the deliberate intent of insulting Christians,
> > including:
>
> When was the Dome of the Rock placed there and why did the muslim
> choose that place?
I am sure you can do your own research from here on.
> > | 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not
> > do
> > | this kind of stuff.
> >
> > True, desecration of the holy sites, symbols and texts is a mainly
> > Muslim practice:
> >
> > ... a nun arrived at the customs desk at Jeddah airport.
> >
> > "Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah.
> > You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be
> > tormented."
> >
> > "They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book
> > through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
> > tormented her for many minutes."
> > http://tinyurl.com/d65lr
>
> Americans buy a lot of bibles everyyear. They also put a lot of bibles
> into the waste baskets which end up in city dumps.The same to cheaply
> made crucifix."...took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
> tormented her for many minutes." is a different story. The nun's
> country should protest and seek apologies and/or compensation if the
> nun had legitimate reason to enter the country.
She was in transit - not entering the country at all, though why that
makes any difference escapes me. Stop making excuses for outrageous
behaviour by a very nasty culture. As for apologies, dream on - they
don't do humility.
Try doing that to a Koran ... anywhere. Do it in the west and your
local Muslim brethren will smash your windows. Do it in Islamia and you
could be hanging from a rope, or battered to death by a mob.
You say you are not a Muslim. Wake up, we are in a World War, declared
by Islam, with the intent of converting, enslaving or killing everyone
on the planet. Methods, decency, compassion, truth, law, tolerance,
justice - all are irrelevant to them, only conquest matters.
| |
Richard Dell (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 01-02-06 09:49 |
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:g%YDf.29054$H71.22977@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| If a Christian preacher says on American TV what you have described,
| hardly any Muslim would complain. Muslims would simply dismiss him as
| ignorant and his speech as a sermon for equally foolish Christians.
But
| an inflammatory cartoon that appears in a newspaper, created to
| humiliate a religious minority and to test its patience, is vastly
| different because a newspaper is meant for the general public.
|
| [Mike] Yea, but the cartoon wasn't in the Christian daily in Beirut.
It was
| in DENMARK, for mercy's sake. Why would the entire Middle East be up
in arms
| about DENMARK??????
Just one example (probably the best) of IMAN's screwed up thinking.
What he keeps coming back to is "I can say something but you can't".
And he is a "moderate"!
You are doind a good job here, Mike, but 1MAN has never yet got what
Western culture is all about and why it is successful, benign and fair,
and I don't think he ever will.
| |
J.Venning (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 01-02-06 10:22 |
|
"Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138783724.024977.131650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> | [Mike] Yea, but the cartoon wasn't in the Christian daily in Beirut.
> It was
> | in DENMARK, for mercy's sake. Why would the entire Middle East be up
> in arms
> | about DENMARK??????
> Just one example (probably the best) of IMAN's screwed up thinking.
> What he keeps coming back to is "I can say something but you can't".
> And he is a "moderate"!
> You are doind a good job here, Mike, but 1MAN has never yet got what
> Western culture is all about and why it is successful, benign and fair,
> and I don't think he ever will.
As a resident of Denmark for over a quarter of a century, I think I can
answer the question as well. The Muslims in Denmark do not have a political
leader, only religious leaders in the form of "imams". Through their refusal
to integrate, the Muslims feel themselves discriminated, and inter-racial
problems have grown out of proportions. These imams in turn use hatred to
gather his flock around him, and unite them against a common enemy. They
have so far used the United States and Western Civilization as targets, but
these cartoons seemed like Allah-sent, in that they offer a new and fresh
enemy to target close at home. It is a fact that these imams have flown to
the Middle East to rouse further hatred towards Denmark, and obviously those
religious leaders saw that it was indeed a new and good target on which to
spew their hatred.
One can very easily say that not all Muslims are extremists, but the
fact remains that these extremists have absolutely no trouble in rousing
hatred amongst all Muslims towards the West. In today's Danish newspaper,
Berlingske Tidende, the Muslims have been quoted to say that a mere apology
is not enough to appease their anger towards the cartoonist in question.
Bomb threats have been sent to offices of the newspaper in question, and
Danish soldiers in the Middle East are now targeted as free-for-all.
J.
| |
MichaelC (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 01-02-06 13:06 |
|
"Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138783724.024977.131650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:g%YDf.29054$H71.22977@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> | If a Christian preacher says on American TV what you have described,
> | hardly any Muslim would complain. Muslims would simply dismiss him as
> | ignorant and his speech as a sermon for equally foolish Christians.
> But
> | an inflammatory cartoon that appears in a newspaper, created to
> | humiliate a religious minority and to test its patience, is vastly
> | different because a newspaper is meant for the general public.
> |
> | [Mike] Yea, but the cartoon wasn't in the Christian daily in Beirut.
> It was
> | in DENMARK, for mercy's sake. Why would the entire Middle East be up
> in arms
> | about DENMARK??????
>
> Just one example (probably the best) of IMAN's screwed up thinking.
> What he keeps coming back to is "I can say something but you can't".
> And he is a "moderate"!
>
> You are doind a good job here, Mike, but 1MAN has never yet got what
> Western culture is all about and why it is successful, benign and fair,
> and I don't think he ever will.
Well, IIRC, the last time he took this "restricted speech" position in
active debate (at least in a thread I was reading), he took the "social
order trumps free speech" position that is typical of Lenin, Stalin, Mao,
Ceacescau, and which is to some extent the postion of the Middle Eastern
totalitarians. He's now moved on in his thinking to the protection of
minorities, which sounds all warm and fuzzy and noble, but simply
substitutues "anti-bigotry" for "social order" in the above equation.
(There's also an element of "liberties are fine as long as they are rational
and reasoned", which is, in my view, just a variant of "liberties are
granted by the goverment, and are not innate."
Doesn't matter what color lipstick you put on that fascist/communist pig,
it's still a fascist/communist pig.
Mike
| |
1man4all (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 01-02-06 13:18 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
Next time, please keep my comments as quoted text...
> [Mike]You're off the point -- " moral compasses" have nothing to do with the
> matter at hand (Perhaps that's why you're having difficulty with the
> concept.) "Standards", in a heterogenous society, vary from person to person
> within the boundaries of legality. If you're arguing that what sort of thing
> ought to be legal (or illegal) to meet some hypothetical standard, I'll
> first ask you which dictator will you pick to establish that standard, and
> then point out that legislating to that standard (assuming it would make
> religious insults illegal) would require more than one amendment to the
> Constiuttion of the United States of America.
You simply are not getting my point. WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF LEGALITIES
HERE. WE ARE SPEAKING OF SOCIAL STANDARDS, TO WHICH A
GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENTS CAN CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTE. Got it? As I stated
earlier, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to strictly impose
decency in any society. However, a government can put forward domestic
policies and objectives which would encourage public decency and
protect minorities from being put in a humiliating position. In
addition, political leaders can and must condemn those who are hurting
majority-minority relations.
> In short, you have no logical basis for establishing a standard, especially
> since any such standard would be rejected by, at the very least, a
> substantial minority of the population.
Let them reject it. But as long as the majority adheres to those
standards and condemns those who do not, it's okay. As long as
minorities feel that the majority would defend their dignity, honor,
safety, and deeply held religious values, they are satisfied. But as
soon as minorities realize that the majority is encouraging bigots by
its silence, there are grave dangers for the society, and every now and
then few members of minority groups would take the law into their hands
to correct that wrong. Americans and Europeans NEVER understood the
role of the majority; they always expected minorities to conform to
whatever the majority would dish out. And that's the crux of the
problem.
> > You cannot create a law that penalizes people for not adhering to a
> standard
> > of decency which cannot be defined.
> Of course you can. There is a clear difference between desecration and
> criticism, which nobody is suggesting should be outlawed.
> [Mike] So you think there is a "clear difference?" Indeed. What test do you
> propose to determine what is desecration and what is criticism? (Because in
> a culturally heterogenious society, what is "clear" to you will not be
> "clear" to someone else.) For instance, the Lemon test is used (sometimes
> ) to determine what is a permissible expression of religion and what is
> establishment of religion. What test to do you propose, understanding that
> the test must not be based on public opinion?
Part of the problem is that until recently, Western society barely
tolerated religious minorities, so the standards which should have
developed over centuries, in how to deal with religious minorities,
never did evolve. In contrast, Christians, Jews and Hindus have lived
in Muslim societies since the very beginning of Islam, and I do think
that Muslims have done a better job of protecting their religious
minorities. In Islamic countries, one can find a vast literature
critical of these religions but it is rare to find instances where
Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism was publicly ridiculed. And the
reason is that people all over the world have understood that when you
belong to a minority, you are vulnerable, you are extremely sensitive
about your cherished values, and you will always look to the majority
to defend your honor. When the majority does not know what would be
injurious to minorities living in the country, that majority has lost
its sense of right and wrong and must be condemned.
> The point was that if you are going to be selective about what kind of
> free speech you would allow, protecting some communities more than
> others, you don't have much of an argument. Therefore, it is necessary
> that you have some minimal standards that can be universally applied
> and not leave things to marketplace of ideas when bigotry is rife.
>
> [Mike] Yes, that's why I started my prior paragraph with "quite so."
But that doesn't answer my comment.
> [Mike] I don't think it's good either, speaking from the position of a
> theist, but I acknowledge that avowed and militant atheists like Brick and
> CT have as much right to their position and beliefs (or lack thereof) as do
> you and I. And respect for THAT point of view requires that religion take a
> position in the public sphere that does not attribute to it any especial
> rights, priviledges, or even respect as compared to any other group, set of
> beliefs, or organization.
Once again, you are confusing issues. WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF RIGHTS OR
LEGALITIES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL STANDARDS. I have absolutely no
problem in atheists criticizing my religion, as long as their speech is
civil and they are not desecrating my religious books or ridiculing my
God and His prophets.
> > That's fine, as long as it's done according to current law. Freedom of
> > speech, and the power of the individual purse, is really all the weapons
> > that are necessary.
>
> Once again, you are appealing to keep the status quo and are unable to
> provide a reasonable argument.
>
> [Mike] If you're not willing to acknowledge the benefits of a society where
> all beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered equal, then there is no
> "reasonable argument" to be made. (I'll point out here that the only
> "reasonable argument" that you've raised was above, where you said "I don't
> think so." Far from a well thought out, logical process, that.)
AGAIN, A FASLE ARGUMENT AND A RED HERRING. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH
EQUALITY OF RELIGION. WE ARE DISCUSSING CIVILITY OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE,
PROTECTION OF MINORITIES FROM ABUSE, AND WHETHER POLITICAL LEADERS CAN
ENCOURAGE IT.
> [IMAN4ALL] I am suggesting that your idea of free speech i.e. having no standards,
> or a system in which the limits on free speech are subjectively applied
> to protect certain groups and not others, is somewhat contradictory and
> indefensible.
> [Mike] You have pointed out no reasoned contradiction other than your
> disagreement.
Then you are not reading.
> Not sure what you mean by your last statement: What power of the
> "individual purse?" A reporter working for a major daily who is afraid
> to criticize Israel (unless he is Jewish of course) out of fear of
> loosing his job does not have freedom of speech. His individual purse
> and his will are owned by his employer who has determined that Jews in
> America must not be offended.
>
> [Mike] Boycotts of products and services.
But when you are a member of a small minority group, what good is
boycott of "products and services"?
> If the protection of a minority and its most cherished values is
> dependent on how influential or resourceful a particular community is,
> you essentially have an unjust system.
> [Mike] Quite so. That's why laws ought to be applied equally on a
> dispassionate basis, without regard to whether a person is a "minority" or
> otherwise.
No, because a majority can successfully "boycott products and services"
but a small minority cannot. So the equality that you are speaking of
does not exist.
>[1man4all] And my suggestion is that you
> need to do one of two things to balance things in favor of the
> powerless: 1). Encourage standards to protect dignity of all
> minorities, or 2). Develop a society where those who belittle
> minorities as a whole or desecrate religious icons/ ridicule founders
> of other religions are condemned. But you don't want to take either
> approach because you are in the majority, and even if somebody
> ridicules your religion it is of little consequence because you know
> that your status in society would remain the same, whereas a minority
> person in the same position has to fear much more.
> [Mike] Well, this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" logical
> fallacy. You can set your little straw men all you want -- if you have
> predetermined that my support for these liberties is simply because I hold a
> position of power, then you have your conclusion, and I have mine.
But it's obvious that your views would have been vastly different if
you were a member of small minority religion in some other country.
[Got to go now...if there something important that I should have
answered but didn't do let me know]
| |
MichaelC (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 01-02-06 14:28 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138796266.850964.41250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> Next time, please keep my comments as quoted text...
>
> > [Mike]You're off the point -- " moral compasses" have nothing to do with
the
> > matter at hand (Perhaps that's why you're having difficulty with the
> > concept.) "Standards", in a heterogenous society, vary from person to
person
> > within the boundaries of legality. If you're arguing that what sort of
thing
> > ought to be legal (or illegal) to meet some hypothetical standard, I'll
> > first ask you which dictator will you pick to establish that standard,
and
> > then point out that legislating to that standard (assuming it would make
> > religious insults illegal) would require more than one amendment to the
> > Constiuttion of the United States of America.
>
> You simply are not getting my point. WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF LEGALITIES
> HERE. WE ARE SPEAKING OF SOCIAL STANDARDS, TO WHICH A
> GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENTS CAN CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTE. Got it?
I got it the first time. In your last post, you used the term "policy" which
I agreed with. [Got it? ] The current govermental policy emphasizing
sexual abstinence, controversial as that is, is an example of a "policy"
which (possibly) contrbutes to a social standard.
Where I draw the line is at coersion to enforce the policy (under those
conditions, you wouldn't have "policy", you'd have a "law", of course).
> As I stated
> earlier, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to strictly impose
> decency in any society. However, a government can put forward domestic
> policies and objectives which would encourage public decency and
> protect minorities from being put in a humiliating position. In
> addition, political leaders can and must condemn those who are hurting
> majority-minority relations.
Policies and objectives, fine. But, "can and must"? No. A man like Le Pen is
entitled to his views and to run for office. As soon as you litmus-test a
political office, you no longer have freedom.
>
> > In short, you have no logical basis for establishing a standard,
especially
> > since any such standard would be rejected by, at the very least, a
> > substantial minority of the population.
>
> Let them reject it. But as long as the majority adheres to those
> standards and condemns those who do not, it's okay. As long as
> minorities feel that the majority would defend their dignity, honor,
> safety, and deeply held religious values, they are satisfied. But as
> soon as minorities realize that the majority is encouraging bigots by
> its silence, there are grave dangers for the society, and every now and
> then few members of minority groups would take the law into their hands
> to correct that wrong. Americans and Europeans NEVER understood the
> role of the majority; they always expected minorities to conform to
> whatever the majority would dish out. And that's the crux of the
> problem.
Fair enough statement. There's no question that social minorities face
difficulties and challenges not faced by the majority -- that's not an
argument you'll get from me. What is under discussion is the appropriate
remedy, if any, in a free society.
>
> > > You cannot create a law that penalizes people for not adhering to a
> > standard
> > > of decency which cannot be defined.
>
> > Of course you can. There is a clear difference between desecration and
> > criticism, which nobody is suggesting should be outlawed.
>
> > [Mike] So you think there is a "clear difference?" Indeed. What test do
you
> > propose to determine what is desecration and what is criticism? (Because
in
> > a culturally heterogenious society, what is "clear" to you will not be
> > "clear" to someone else.) For instance, the Lemon test is used
(sometimes
> > ) to determine what is a permissible expression of religion and what
is
> > establishment of religion. What test to do you propose, understanding
that
> > the test must not be based on public opinion?
>
> Part of the problem is that until recently, Western society barely
> tolerated religious minorities, so the standards which should have
> developed over centuries, in how to deal with religious minorities,
> never did evolve. In contrast, Christians, Jews and Hindus have lived
> in Muslim societies since the very beginning of Islam, and I do think
> that Muslims have done a better job of protecting their religious
> minorities. In Islamic countries, one can find a vast literature
> critical of these religions but it is rare to find instances where
> Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism was publicly ridiculed. And the
> reason is that people all over the world have understood that when you
> belong to a minority, you are vulnerable, you are extremely sensitive
> about your cherished values, and you will always look to the majority
> to defend your honor. When the majority does not know what would be
> injurious to minorities living in the country, that majority has lost
> its sense of right and wrong and must be condemned.
The laws of the US protect minorities from overt bigotry in employment,
housing, and other matters of day to day life. You're suggesting that those
well thought out, established, and accepted laws, firmly established in the
status quo, are insufficient to show minorities that we wish to "defend
their honor?"More rubbish. Any well thought out argumentation here accepts
the reality of civil protections by law and under the Constitution, and
grants that we indeed have (over time, admittedly) devleloped an acute sense
of right and wrong in these matters.
By this line of "reasoning", you're ignoring said reality and looking for
special treatment, not just for individuals (which is what the Constitution
protects) but for classified GROUPS of individuals (which the Constitution
implicits ignores, by design.
Now, this brings us back to the question which (eons ago) started this
little thread, which is "What the hell do you people want, that laws that
have on the books for decades, and have produced (over time) a marvellously
variegated culture such as the world has never before seen, where all these
people from all over the place and different religions and different
backgrounds manage to live together with a minimum of ghettoish behavior in
the larger society? What makes what you believe so special, and so
different, that you cannot bear the same satirous light to be turned upon
you as we turn on anyone else?"
The answer, of course, is that there's absolutely **nothing** special about
you, vis a vis the rest of the cultures and religions society. You sincerely
think there is, and you have the right to believe that there is. But, the
larger society is under no obligation to acknowledge those beliefs, and we
certainly aren't inclined to "fix what ain't broken" in order to accede to
this self-important perception y'all have. The fact remains that we've
assimilated far larger and more relevant minorities than Islam and Arabs
without all this baying at the moon, and we're not inclined to change the
liberties ingrained in our culture simply because you enjoy yelping about
the matter.
>
> > The point was that if you are going to be selective about what kind of
> > free speech you would allow, protecting some communities more than
> > others, you don't have much of an argument. Therefore, it is necessary
> > that you have some minimal standards that can be universally applied
> > and not leave things to marketplace of ideas when bigotry is rife.
> >
> > [Mike] Yes, that's why I started my prior paragraph with "quite so."
>
> But that doesn't answer my comment.
The answer is that communities have no rights in the U.S. PEOPLE do.
>
> > [Mike] I don't think it's good either, speaking from the position of a
> > theist, but I acknowledge that avowed and militant atheists like Brick
and
> > CT have as much right to their position and beliefs (or lack thereof) as
do
> > you and I. And respect for THAT point of view requires that religion
take a
> > position in the public sphere that does not attribute to it any especial
> > rights, priviledges, or even respect as compared to any other group, set
of
> > beliefs, or organization.
>
> Once again, you are confusing issues. WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF RIGHTS OR
> LEGALITIES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL STANDARDS. I have absolutely no
> problem in atheists criticizing my religion, as long as their speech is
> civil and they are not desecrating my religious books or ridiculing my
> God and His prophets.
Then you absolutely *do* have a problem with atheists criticizing your
religion. You're parsing that criticism accoriding to your own personal set
of cultural sensibilities, of which there is no way (even if we would wish
to) codify into law acceptable to a majority in a democratic society.
>
> > > That's fine, as long as it's done according to current law. Freedom of
> > > speech, and the power of the individual purse, is really all the
weapons
> > > that are necessary.
> >
> > Once again, you are appealing to keep the status quo and are unable to
> > provide a reasonable argument.
> >
> > [Mike] If you're not willing to acknowledge the benefits of a society
where
> > all beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered equal, then there is no
> > "reasonable argument" to be made. (I'll point out here that the only
> > "reasonable argument" that you've raised was above, where you said "I
don't
> > think so." Far from a well thought out, logical process, that.)
>
> AGAIN, A FASLE ARGUMENT AND A RED HERRING. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH
> EQUALITY OF RELIGION. WE ARE DISCUSSING CIVILITY OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE,
> PROTECTION OF MINORITIES FROM ABUSE, AND WHETHER POLITICAL LEADERS CAN
> ENCOURAGE IT.
Sigh. OK, public discourse cannot be made to be civil in a free society.
Minorities are already sufficiently protected by the Constitution and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and political leaders can say whatever they like
in a democracy.
Satisfied? (I think not.)
>
> > [IMAN4ALL] I am suggesting that your idea of free speech i.e. having no
standards,
> > or a system in which the limits on free speech are subjectively applied
> > to protect certain groups and not others, is somewhat contradictory and
> > indefensible.
>
> > [Mike] You have pointed out no reasoned contradiction other than your
> > disagreement.
>
> Then you are not reading.
Oh, but I am. It's your usual purile argumentation, after which you preen
yourself and disparage everyone else who disagrees with you for "not getting
it." "Proving a point" involves far more that spouting off a few infantile
opinions and writing "Q.E.D" at the end. It involves back and forth dialogue
on the points made, which is generally the part you (like in this case)
prefer to dissisociate yourself form.
>
> > Not sure what you mean by your last statement: What power of the
> > "individual purse?" A reporter working for a major daily who is afraid
> > to criticize Israel (unless he is Jewish of course) out of fear of
> > loosing his job does not have freedom of speech. His individual purse
> > and his will are owned by his employer who has determined that Jews in
> > America must not be offended.
> >
> > [Mike] Boycotts of products and services.
>
> But when you are a member of a small minority group, what good is
> boycott of "products and services"?
If you're in the right, you'll get the support of part of the majority. If
you're full of shit, that's what the process gets you. It all works out
according to the free market of ideas.
>
> > If the protection of a minority and its most cherished values is
> > dependent on how influential or resourceful a particular community is,
> > you essentially have an unjust system.
>
> > [Mike] Quite so. That's why laws ought to be applied equally on a
> > dispassionate basis, without regard to whether a person is a "minority"
or
> > otherwise.
>
> No, because a majority can successfully "boycott products and services"
> but a small minority cannot. So the equality that you are speaking of
> does not exist.
Nope. We;ve gone past boycotts and are now discussing laws (see the word
"law" clearly stated above). Boycotts are to affect a situation not covered
by law. You have yet to explain why existing law is unsatisfactory to you
(oh, sorry, we're not talking about you, we're talking about some
hypothetical minority. ROTF.)
>
> >[1man4all] And my suggestion is that you
> > need to do one of two things to balance things in favor of the
> > powerless: 1). Encourage standards to protect dignity of all
> > minorities, or 2). Develop a society where those who belittle
> > minorities as a whole or desecrate religious icons/ ridicule founders
> > of other religions are condemned. But you don't want to take either
> > approach because you are in the majority, and even if somebody
> > ridicules your religion it is of little consequence because you know
> > that your status in society would remain the same, whereas a minority
> > person in the same position has to fear much more.
>
> > [Mike] Well, this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" logical
> > fallacy. You can set your little straw men all you want -- if you have
> > predetermined that my support for these liberties is simply because I
hold a
> > position of power, then you have your conclusion, and I have mine.
>
> But it's obvious that your views would have been vastly different if
> you were a member of small minority religion in some other country.
Fiddle. In fact, I expect no special treatment because of my religion or
race when I travel abroad, nor would I feel like I was entitled to it if I
happened to live there. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" and all that.
Mike
>
> [Got to go now...if there something important that I should have
> answered but didn't do let me know]
>
| |
ltlee1 (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 01-02-06 13:46 |
|
J.Venning wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha1llf.16nqp7v1v7mbrfN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> >> I would love to see major American papers publish the cartoons as part
> >> of a story on the controversy they have stirred up. It seems to me this
> >> would
> >> be an excellent way to express support for the Danish paper, and for the
> >> First Amendment principles involved. Even better, print them prominently
> >> on the editorial page, along with an editorial supporting the right to
> >> publish
> >> them. After all, the New York Times *does* support free speech, right?
> > What a lovely idea .
> > Per Erik Rønne
>
> I cannot see and end to this conflict. I don't think Denmark should
> apologise to a group of people whose values are not only different, but are
> often opposite to those of the Western Civilization. Like I wrote on another
> thread dealing with this issue, the cartoons were drawn by a Dane living in
> Denmark, in a Danish newspaper.
That is totally irrelevant. Why?
There are muslims living in Denmark and they cannot live Denmark
readiy.
In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
Could they? No?
Both situations create an enviornment not the muslim's liking. The
difference. A muslim who is also a member of the Danish society can
readily escape the latter enviornment and not the former.
> Had they been done by the Dane in a Muslim
> newspaper in an Islamic country, the issue would be entirely different. If
> the Muslims in Denmark truly believe that they are being treated so badly by
> the Danes, nothing is stopping them from leaving the country to settle in
> their paradise land in the Middle East.
>
> The boycotting of Danish goods in the Middle East had given rise to a
> surge in sales of Danish goods in the United States, where people are simply
> sick and tired of Muslims dictating what people in the West should and
> should not do.
Source please.
> J.
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 14:12 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
> religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
> majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
> Could they? No?
Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
just for /owning/ a Bible?
This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 01-02-06 16:27 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138797981.295656.97030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>There are muslims living in Denmark and they cannot live Denmark
>readiy.
I presume you meant "leave Denmark readily". Anyone can leave Denmark
anytime he/she wishes. Denmark is a free country, unlike some you may know
from first hand. The only reason that not anyone can enter the country is
because of the influx of aliens coming into the country to usurp the system
for their own benefit, or to create anti Western terrorist groups, and they
must all be screened.
>In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
>religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
>majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
>Could they? No?
If that happens in Denmark, you can be sure that the Muslims in Denmark
will complain - violently.
>Source please.
Berlingske Tidende, dated 31-01-06, page 4. article with headline
"Amerikansk 'Køb dansk kampagne'". Read carefully.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 19:54 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@Yahoo.dk> wrote:
> Berlingske Tidende, dated 31-01-06, page 4. article with headline
> "Amerikansk 'Køb dansk kampagne'". Read carefully.
The title means: "American 'Purchase Danish Campaign' ".
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
1man4all (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 02-02-06 12:21 |
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:18:15 +0800, 1man4all wrote
> (in article <1138850295.530145.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Warren Hopper wrote:
> >
> >> "Sappho et lyrici reliqui combusti"
> >>
> >> - Pope Gregory VII
> >
> >> Pope Gregory VII regarded the poetry of Sappho as an offense to 'public
> >> decency'. Gregory ( actually two Gregories, in 380AD and 1073AD ) ordered
> >> her works destroyed, with great success. Only fragments survive today.
> >> Do you approve of that action ?
> > I haven't read the fragments so I cannot judge
> That you feel the need to read before you judge the destruction of poetry
> speaks volumes about your disregard for human rights.
You missing the obvious joke [hint: smiley] speaks more volumes about
your lack of sense of humor.
| |
1man4all (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 04-02-06 05:25 |
|
Warren Hopper wrote:
> Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read it > or seen it.
That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas], I can say
that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
also burn his toes.
Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
Sometimes, in poetry and art, ego speaks. Pride and arrogance take
over. Other times, the poet finds pleasure in bewilderment. Sorrow
becomes his friend. His words, like children, are nourished in the
cradle of defeat. Every loss becomes his gain.
Beware of all that. Even Quran criticizes this attitude, for life was
meant to be a struggle for success, not celebration of defeatism.
> The translation process itself can be brutal. This one seems to avoid 19th
> century gushiness.
>
> http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/sappho/sappeter.htm
>
> THE BRIDE OF SARDIS
>
> In Lydia's golden city, gleaming Sardis,
> With beauteous Arignota e'er my heart is,
> And Atthis, oft she thinks of thee.
>
> She thinks of us of old together living,
> Of how she, godlike honor to thee giving,
> Did hear thy song with greatest glee.
> But now among the Lydians she dwelleth,
> And, like the moon at night, she there excelleth,
> Aye, like the rosy-fingered queen,
>
> Which conquers all the stars, in radiance gleaming,
> Across the briny Ocean brightly beaming,
> And o'er the flowery meadow green.
>
> Refreshing dew-drops leaves and flowers cover;
> The gorgeous roses and the honeyed clover,
> Anthriscus too is now in bloom.
>
> But when she thinks of Atthis, gentle maiden,
> Her heart with longing and with sorrow laden,
> She anxiously about doth roam.
>
> She loudly calls to us to follow thither.
> In vain-for Night of Thousand Ears lets hither
> No sound across the waters come.
Okay, you convinced me that this piece should not have been burned
> I agree with you, in part. However, it wasn't the silent Germans who
> allowed the Nazis to gain power. The great majority of 'decent' Germans
> actively supported the Nazis and their ideals of cleaning up what they
> regarded as the decadent Weimar culture and replacing it with 'decent'
> Christian values.
> There was an interesting show on PBS the other night about the role of the
> church and the Deutche Christien movement in the rise of the Nazis. That
> role has been under-appreciated, if not ignored, by German historians for
> obvious reasons. Admittedly, there has been some discussion of this nasty
> bit of history, but it has largely been relegated to way-out leftie type
> historians, not the mainstream.
> This sudden recognition 60 years after the fact may be one of the benefits
> of having a German pope.
My view is that bigotry is always looking for excuses, religion being
one, and insecurity much more than anything is the prime mover of this
emotion. But public decency is something else. It is the desire to have
a clean environment, free from verbal and visual filth. Now, I know
you will argue, as Mike was doing earlier, that "filth" couldn't be
defined. I say, it can be. For example, FCC has done a fairly good job
of defining what can and cannot be on regular TV or radio. [I keep
hoping that they would extend that to Cable/Dish but that seems
unlikely]. So there is precedence for coming up with some minimal
social standards, which I think are better to have than leave
everything to the marketplace of freedom of expression.
> > Chances are that neither Gregory VII nor Sappho would be remembered. A
> > million poets would be born and most of them would not be celebrated at
> > all. My religious belief is that all words and deeds are recorded, so
> > perhaps in another world, in another life, you would be able to read
> > every single word that Sappho wrote. Until then, why not celebrate the
> > poetry of your own heart?
> Beautifully said. Some of us do not have that kind of expressive power. We
> sing the sad song of our souls in COBOL.
I am flattered When I was in college, long time ago, I sat in one
COBOL class to take notes for a friend who had major hearing problems.
No matter what I did to stay awake, I just couldn't help it. A week
later, as expected, I was told that my help was no longer needed. I was
disheartened, and after that couldn't even imagine taking a computer
class. I can truly sympathize with you, my friend
I do admire your style of writing. You have a heart which shows
> > > Sic transit gloria ? Or sic transit 'decency' ?
> >
> > How about gloria vertutis umbra?
>
> As Google ( soon to become God ) says: "Did you mean: gloria virtutis
> umbra?".
> Obviously, your Latin is 27 times better than mine. I would never attempt a
> venture into Latinizing "Glory (is) virtue's shadow" without a Google
> search first. Is "virtue's shadow" a good thing ? Maybe glory is virtue's
> *dark* shadow.
I'll have to look that one one up again, but I think it's spelled
vertutis. Could be wrong. And I am sure it means Glory is under the
shadow of virtue.
> > Interesting. Why are they after you?
> They are throwing the Wide Net over "Die Vurld Veid Veb", so to speak. It's
> nothing personal, the computers are running themselves.
> The Bushheads talk about thousands when the truth is millions. They have
> also 'privatized' the intelligence machine, more billion$ for the Bush Boys.
I had figured that would be the case, and I am sure foreign
intelligence agencies are also benefiting. It's called the
"outsourcing," remember?
> The question of who they were spying on hasn't even gotten off the ground
> yet. I can hear it already: "those environmental terroist who opposed oil
> drilling in the Alaska were a clear and present danger to homeland
> security", blah blah.
> They are extremely ruthless and visious, but they are also extremely
> predictable. They'll go for the Big $$$$s every time, no matter what, like
> rats to the cheese. Always have, always will. Like Abramoff, it's what
> they *do*.
> This particular case is somewhat mysterious ( it's been going on for at
> least the last several years ). The MOD servers are not doing the actual
> portscans, but they are screening the ones who are, presumably the new breed
> of privatized intelligence agencies and their far-flung minions.
> Why use a public MOD server to do the cloaking ? They could easily route
> themselves through old standbys like ICMP-challenged servers in Eastern
> Europe to hide themselves, but they don't.
>
> As I said, interesting, eh wot. The True Sons of Sejanus.
All this is Greek to me, or should we say, Latin?
| |
NAH (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : NAH |
Dato : 04-02-06 05:40 |
|
On 3 Feb 2006 20:25:27 -0800, "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
>much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
>but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
>purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
>art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
>ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
So you condemn the almost daily anti-Jew, anti-Israel. anti-US
cartoons in the newspapers all across the muslim world?
--
"I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and
it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with
reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this
information," - Porter Goss, CIA Director, 2/2006
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 09:19 |
|
1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Warren Hopper wrote:
> > Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read it
> > or seen it.
> That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas], I can say
> that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> also burn his toes.
Well, Sappho from Lesbo lived in the 600s BC, more than half a millenium
before Christ. For sure she didn't try to provoke Christians - and, btw,
the idea that the purpose of art is to provoke is a quite new one.
> > "1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138850295.530145.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Chances are that neither Gregory VII nor Sappho would be remembered.
Gregory VII, Hildebrand, lived 1600 years after Sappho.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm
To destroy 1600 years old poetry is a crime - like the one Taleban
committed against Afghanistan's Buddhist past when the destroyed the
Buddha statues.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 05-02-06 08:51 |
|
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:18:44 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1ha8711.pjk4x113e40pfN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> To destroy 1600 years old poetry is a crime - like the one Taleban
> committed against Afghanistan's Buddhist past when the destroyed the
> Buddha statues.
Agree, without limitation.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Warren Hopper (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Warren Hopper |
Dato : 05-02-06 20:19 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139027127.471175.118150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read it
> or seen it.
>
> That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas],
Oh, oh. Better hope your wife doesn't have an email sniffer installed on
your machine, you may want to think about encrypting all your ARI
correspondence ... but she's probably used to it by now.
> I can say
> that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> also burn his toes.
Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists, much
the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
>
> Words and pictures are not always harmless; they can hurt, and hurt
> much more than any beating. I am generally not in favor of censorship,
> but I do feel that the artist/poet, who fails to understand that the
> purpose of art is to warm the heart not scorch it, has not mastered the
> art itself and therefore must either be criticized for his/her
> ignorance (not condemned) or his work quickly brushed aside.
I'm not sure if the word art applies to these cartoons. In fact they are
intended to hurt and wouldn't exist if they didn't hurt. So many of the
viscous lies that appear in this newsgroup have no basis other than 'putting
it to the Muzzies'. Its object ( in so far as it has an objective ) is to
poison peoples minds. All very warped stuff, as it's intended to be.
But then, not all the warped stuff that hurts or even the warped stuff that
is intended to hurt actually hurts. I think particularly of the case of the
photograph of Jesus taken through a pool of urine, which offended so many of
the people in America who call themselves Christians. At first I thought it
was yet another example of doing the nasty, until I saw the photograph in a
magazine. I found it to be beautiful. Out of a blood orange haze appeared
an image of deep humanity, immediately present and ghostly at the same
moment.
To me, it was uniquely beautiful, although I'm sure that others were
genuinely hurt by it.
>
> Sometimes, in poetry and art, ego speaks. Pride and arrogance take
> over. Other times, the poet finds pleasure in bewilderment. Sorrow
> becomes his friend. His words, like children, are nourished in the
> cradle of defeat. Every loss becomes his gain.
There's been one positive aspect of the malevolent cartoons about Muhammad
( a very small positive, but I'll grasp at anything at this point ). I
think it highlights the many misconceptions about Muhammad, not only among
Westerners but among Muslims as well.
Ask yourself, how would Muhammad have reacted to these silly attacks against
him ? I think he would have laughed and made a joke about it. He was not a
small man, anything but a small man. He towered above everyone around him
and I think that very few of his contemporaries understood him, with the
possible exception a Ayesha ( which make the lies about her even more
obnoxious ).
At some point, in my journey of trying to shrugging off the thousand years
of bad blood between Christians and Muslims, I made the connection between
Muhammad and Julius Caesar, who also towered over those around him. I have
developed a very elaborate set of analogies between Caesar and Muhammad, of
interest to no one but myself, but the point is that Muhammad himself was
anything but thin-skinned. He had a vision and he had a clear focus and was
condemned and criticized for it during his lifetime. But that did not deter
him. He was not a volatile, jumpy man who easily took offense at insults.
He was also the kind of man who could make every loss his gain.
In a way, this line of reasoning returns to his essential mission, to
transform the backwardness of Arab society in the 7th century. He probably
understood he must stand apart from Arab society in order to transform it.
In as sense, the persecution by the Quaresh was a god-send because it made
Muhammad the outsider he had to be.
Not that he was an 'outsider' in the strict sense of the word. At the time,
he was from one of the oldest and most powerful families in Arabia. In
fact, quite similar to Julius Caesar.
Rather that go on and on about my pet theories, let me end this segment by
saying that Muslims would do well by looking to the example of Muhammad in
reacting to silly, untrue and ultimately inconsequental insults of this
sort.
End of sermon.
>
> Beware of all that. Even Quran criticizes this attitude, for life was
> meant to be a struggle for success, not celebration of defeatism.
>
> > The translation process itself can be brutal. This one seems to avoid
19th
> > century gushiness.
> >
> > http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/sappho/sappeter.htm
> >
> > THE BRIDE OF SARDIS
> >
> > In Lydia's golden city, gleaming Sardis,
> > With beauteous Arignota e'er my heart is,
> > And Atthis, oft she thinks of thee.
> >
> > She thinks of us of old together living,
> > Of how she, godlike honor to thee giving,
> > Did hear thy song with greatest glee.
> > But now among the Lydians she dwelleth,
> > And, like the moon at night, she there excelleth,
> > Aye, like the rosy-fingered queen,
> >
> > Which conquers all the stars, in radiance gleaming,
> > Across the briny Ocean brightly beaming,
> > And o'er the flowery meadow green.
> >
> > Refreshing dew-drops leaves and flowers cover;
> > The gorgeous roses and the honeyed clover,
> > Anthriscus too is now in bloom.
> >
> > But when she thinks of Atthis, gentle maiden,
> > Her heart with longing and with sorrow laden,
> > She anxiously about doth roam.
> >
> > She loudly calls to us to follow thither.
> > In vain-for Night of Thousand Ears lets hither
> > No sound across the waters come.
>
> Okay, you convinced me that this piece should not have been burned
I think it shows that what ever lesbians seek from one another, it isn't
peace of mind. From what I've seen, they live in a state of constant
emotional turmoil.
They just need a strong male hand to guide them ... when push comes to
shove, chauvinism always rears its ugly head in the end ... ah, so to speak.
>
> > I agree with you, in part. However, it wasn't the silent Germans who
> > allowed the Nazis to gain power. The great majority of 'decent' Germans
> > actively supported the Nazis and their ideals of cleaning up what they
> > regarded as the decadent Weimar culture and replacing it with 'decent'
> > Christian values.
>
> > There was an interesting show on PBS the other night about the role of
the
> > church and the Deutche Christien movement in the rise of the Nazis.
That
> > role has been under-appreciated, if not ignored, by German historians
for
> > obvious reasons. Admittedly, there has been some discussion of this
nasty
> > bit of history, but it has largely been relegated to way-out leftie type
> > historians, not the mainstream.
>
> > This sudden recognition 60 years after the fact may be one of the
benefits
> > of having a German pope.
>
> My view is that bigotry is always looking for excuses, religion being
> one, and insecurity much more than anything is the prime mover of this
> emotion. But public decency is something else. It is the desire to have
> a clean environment, free from verbal and visual filth. Now, I know
> you will argue, as Mike was doing earlier, that "filth" couldn't be
> defined. I say, it can be. For example, FCC has done a fairly good job
> of defining what can and cannot be on regular TV or radio.
Are we talking about the same society that allows 'decent' images of a human
breast being ripped open by bullets while condemning the shockingly
'indecent' exposure of a human breast at a Superbowl Game ?
And I have to add, I thought I was looking at *Michael* Jackson's breast for
a flash of a second ... at this point, I'm not sure if exposing Brother
Michael's breast would be considered indecent or not. Probably.
> [I keep
> hoping that they would extend that to Cable/Dish but that seems
> unlikely]. So there is precedence for coming up with some minimal
> social standards, which I think are better to have than leave
> everything to the marketplace of freedom of expression.
I'll have to get a tee-shirt made for myself, "EXCEEDS MINIMUM SOCIAL
STANDARDS".
>
> > > Chances are that neither Gregory VII nor Sappho would be remembered. A
> > > million poets would be born and most of them would not be celebrated
at
> > > all. My religious belief is that all words and deeds are recorded, so
> > > perhaps in another world, in another life, you would be able to read
> > > every single word that Sappho wrote. Until then, why not celebrate the
> > > poetry of your own heart?
>
> > Beautifully said. Some of us do not have that kind of expressive power.
We
> > sing the sad song of our souls in COBOL.
>
> I am flattered When I was in college, long time ago, I sat in one
> COBOL class to take notes for a friend who had major hearing problems.
> No matter what I did to stay awake, I just couldn't help it. A week
> later, as expected, I was told that my help was no longer needed. I was
> disheartened, and after that couldn't even imagine taking a computer
> class. I can truly sympathize with you, my friend
The first thing you have to understand about computers is that they are
malevolent beings, like jinn. Maybe it's the quantum-level electron
tunneling inside the transistors or something, but somehow they tap into a
dark energy that manifests itself as a willful defiance of human beings.
On the other hand, if you consider their lives, trudging over the same
algorithms day after day, you can hardly blame them. It's what makes me
malevolent.
>
> I do admire your style of writing. You have a heart which shows
Thank you. It's the result of never having figured what I want to do when I
grow up.
Actually, I'm something of a burgeoning writer, working on a book with the
title of "The Firewall of the Mind - A Short History of Neo-Republicanism in
the Early 21st Century".
So far, it consists of:
iptables -P INPUT REJECT
iptables -P OUTPUT MASQUERADE
iptables -P FORWARD BLOCK
At this point, I'm in the grip of a writers block myself. Unforutnately for
my writing career, the three lines pretty much says it all.
>
> > > > Sic transit gloria ? Or sic transit 'decency' ?
> > >
> > > How about gloria vertutis umbra?
> >
> > As Google ( soon to become God ) says: "Did you mean: gloria virtutis
> > umbra?".
>
> > Obviously, your Latin is 27 times better than mine. I would never
attempt a
> > venture into Latinizing "Glory (is) virtue's shadow" without a Google
> > search first. Is "virtue's shadow" a good thing ? Maybe glory is
virtue's
> > *dark* shadow.
>
> I'll have to look that one one up again, but I think it's spelled
> vertutis. Could be wrong. And I am sure it means Glory is under the
> shadow of virtue.
>
> > > Interesting. Why are they after you?
>
> > They are throwing the Wide Net over "Die Vurld Veid Veb", so to speak.
It's
> > nothing personal, the computers are running themselves.
>
> > The Bushheads talk about thousands when the truth is millions. They
have
> > also 'privatized' the intelligence machine, more billion$ for the Bush
Boys.
>
> I had figured that would be the case, and I am sure foreign
> intelligence agencies are also benefiting. It's called the
> "outsourcing," remember?
What's the Latin for "money is the root of all evil" ? Considering Roman
history, it's quite possible that the words were never expressed in the
Latin language.
>
> > The question of who they were spying on hasn't even gotten off the
ground
> > yet. I can hear it already: "those environmental terroist who opposed
oil
> > drilling in the Alaska were a clear and present danger to homeland
> > security", blah blah.
>
> > They are extremely ruthless and visious, but they are also extremely
> > predictable. They'll go for the Big $$$$s every time, no matter what,
like
> > rats to the cheese. Always have, always will. Like Abramoff, it's what
> > they *do*.
>
> > This particular case is somewhat mysterious ( it's been going on for at
> > least the last several years ). The MOD servers are not doing the
actual
> > portscans, but they are screening the ones who are, presumably the new
breed
> > of privatized intelligence agencies and their far-flung minions.
>
> > Why use a public MOD server to do the cloaking ? They could easily
route
> > themselves through old standbys like ICMP-challenged servers in Eastern
> > Europe to hide themselves, but they don't.
> >
> > As I said, interesting, eh wot. The True Sons of Sejanus.
>
> All this is Greek to me, or should we say, Latin?
>
Sejanus was the Father of Homeland Security in ancient Rome. He is widely
regarded as the subject of the famous Roman saying, "and who shall guard the
guardians?".
Of course, in typical fashion, historians have ignored the historical fact
that the saying originated in Juvenal's (? ) play "The Women", the real
subject being the advisability of employing eunuchs to guard your womenfolk.
Makes you wonder about the Democrats, doesn't it. Or should we say the
Eunuchrats ?
| |
thereactionary (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : thereactionary |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:41 |
|
Samuel Huntington is looking more like a genius all the time.
| |
Bo Warming (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:47 |
|
"thereactionary" <thereactionary@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1139031686.010677.106800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Samuel Huntington is looking more like a genius all the time.
Vedr amerikansk akademikerdebat var hans Clash of Civilizations et
gennembrud - og den refereres grundigt i bøgerne på www.glistrup.com
1973 bidrog Glistrup til indvandringsstop og 1979 startede han sammen
med dyrlæge Riemann for alvor debatten om at de formerer sig til at
eje Danmark, pga flertalsstyrets tossegodhed.
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:55 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:vdXEf.50196$Sb.33648@fe30.usenetserver.com...
> "thereactionary" <thereactionary@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1139031686.010677.106800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Vedr amerikansk akademikerdebat var hans Clash of Civilizations et
> gennembrud - og den refereres grundigt i bøgerne på www.glistrup.com
> 1973 bidrog Glistrup til indvandringsstop og 1979 startede han sammen
> med dyrlæge Riemann for alvor debatten om at de formerer sig til at
> eje Danmark, pga flertalsstyrets tossegodhed.
Nu betaler vi for denne "tossegodhed", og jeg kan ikke se en løsning til problemet, som vokser dag efter dag. Har du en teori, om hvordan det nuværende problem kan løses?
J.
| |
Bo Warming (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 04-02-06 07:31 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:43e441cc$0$38659$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message
news:vdXEf.50196$Sb.33648@fe30.usenetserver.com...
> "thereactionary" <thereactionary@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1139031686.010677.106800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Vedr amerikansk akademikerdebat var hans Clash of Civilizations et
> gennembrud - og den refereres grundigt i bøgerne på www.glistrup.com
> 1973 bidrog Glistrup til indvandringsstop og 1979 startede han
> sammen
> med dyrlæge Riemann for alvor debatten om at de formerer sig til at
> eje Danmark, pga flertalsstyrets tossegodhed.
Nu betaler vi for denne "tossegodhed", og jeg kan ikke se en
løsning til problemet, som vokser dag efter dag. Har du en teori, om
hvordan det nuværende problem kan løses?
BW: Stem DF og skab et nyt Fremskridtsparti eller noget andet, der
overgår DF. Gør alle samtaler i dit liv til antimuslim-samtaler.
Har du en bil så lad os brænde nogle koraner på Rådhuspladsen idag.
Mød mig idag ved Dansk Front demo 1400 nær Hillerød Station, et sted
kaldet "Posen"
Dansk Front er ikke nazier og hvis de var så er det en bagatel idag. .
Der skal smedes mens jernet er varmt, og at muslimer viser deres sande
censur-ansigt er en chance der bør gribes - jeg ved ikke meget om
Dansk Front men at de slår til nu og søger en dansk samling, har min
respekt.
Hjælp mig at få et stort skilt op på mit tag (1salshøjde) med fx
teksten
Koran=hatespeech
DET ER IKKE ET ALT ELLER INTET SLAG - der er ingen snuptagsløsninger,
men at halvere-helvede er bedre end intet at gøre. Da jeg som
ulandsidealist læste om Glistrups opstart af partiet og hans logiske
ræsonementer bag alt hvad han gør, så rejste jeg hjem og blev
fremskridtsmand for der er ikke bedre idealisme at kaste sig over end
hans ideer.
Og livet er kedeligt hvis man ikke er idealist, men ikke alle sager er
OK.
At spinde selv livets kæde videre og således, at tråden
bliver stadig stærkere - det er opgaven. Nietzsche
De elsker mig ikke - er det en Grund til ikke at velsigne
dem!Nietzsche
Den der ved hvorfor han skal leve, tåler næsten et hvilken
somhelst hvordan Nietzsche
Den døende Zarathustra omfavner Jorden.Nietzsche
Jorden tilhører ikke mennsket, det er mennesket, der
tilhører jorden. Høvding Seattle
Lad mig kun flagre som blad i høst/ Når du mit land, min
stamme må leve. Jesper Aakjær
Livet er os skænket, vi fortjener det ved selv at skænke det.
Tagore, Rabindranath
Mine politiske karrieredrømme er inderligt ligegyldige. Det er
Fremskridtspartiets idegrundlag, der er det afgørende. Jeg er kun en
lille koral på vejen til at opbygge koralrevet.
Glistrup
Rødderne under jorden kræver ingen belønning for at gøre grenene
frugtbare. Tagore, Rabindranath, Indisk
Nobelpristager i litteratur 1861-1941
"At hjælpe en ulykkelig er en fornuftshandling, som ikke behøver
støtte af medlidenheden" Spinoza
Danmark er jo ikke de to Millioner Danske, som lever nu, men de mange
Gange så mange Millioner Danske, der i den historiske Tid har levet på
Landets Grund, og de Tænkende, Virkende, Frembringende i den nuværende
Slægt er kun forsåvidt Danmark, som de betyder de Levendes
Sammenslutning med de Døde og de Ufødte, Nutiden med Fortid og
Fremtid. Georg Brandes
For mig er nyttevirkningen det afgørende i alle etiske
spørgsmål, men nytte i ordets bredeste forstand: nytte for mennesker i
udvikling. John Stuart Mill
Begavelse er ingen rettighed; det er en pligt. Henrik Ibsen
I kampen mellem dig og verden, sekundér verden.Kafka1883-1924
At gøre en hel person ud af sig og i alt, hvad man gør, have
dettes højeste vel for øje - det fører videre end medlidende
bevægelser og handlinger til gavn for andre. Nietzsche
Når vi vænner os af med at elske andre, finder vi snart intet
elskeligt i os selv heller.Nietzsche
"Der findes overfladiske og dybtgående egoister. De sidste kalder man
altruister" Egon Friedell
.. Vor sociale personlighed skabes af de andres tanker.
Marcel Proust
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 07:45 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:uSXEf.1289$Fe3.832@fe55.usenetserver.com...
> BW: Stem DF og skab et nyt Fremskridtsparti eller noget andet, der
> overgår DF. Gør alle samtaler i dit liv til antimuslim-samtaler.
Det har jeg gjort, og er kommet et skridt længere - jeg er blevet god venner med nogle af partiets folketingsmedlemmer.
> Har du en bil så lad os brænde nogle koraner på Rådhuspladsen idag.
Det hjælper ikke problemet - bare gør det værre.
> Mød mig idag ved Dansk Front demo 1400 nær Hillerød Station, et sted
> kaldet "Posen"
Kan desværre ikke - optaget hele dagen.
> Dansk Front er ikke nazier og hvis de var så er det en bagatel idag.
Det ved man alle.
> Der skal smedes mens jernet er varmt, og at muslimer viser deres sande
> censur-ansigt er en chance der bør gribes - jeg ved ikke meget om
> Dansk Front men at de slår til nu og søger en dansk samling, har min
> respekt.
Også min.
> Hjælp mig at få et stort skilt op på mit tag (1salshøjde) med fx
> teksten
> Koran=hatespeech
Jeg tror ikke, at det kommer til at nå målet.
> DET ER IKKE ET ALT ELLER INTET SLAG - der er ingen snuptagsløsninger,
> men at halvere-helvede er bedre end intet at gøre. Da jeg som
> ulandsidealist læste om Glistrups opstart af partiet og hans logiske
> ræsonementer bag alt hvad han gør, så rejste jeg hjem og blev
> fremskridtsmand for der er ikke bedre idealisme at kaste sig over end
> hans ideer.
> Og livet er kedeligt hvis man ikke er idealist, men ikke alle sager er
> OK.
Forresten, hvad er der blevet af ham?
> At spinde selv livets kæde videre og således, at tråden
> bliver stadig stærkere - det er opgaven. Nietzsche
> De elsker mig ikke - er det en Grund til ikke at velsigne
> dem!Nietzsche
> Den der ved hvorfor han skal leve, tåler næsten et hvilken
> somhelst hvordan Nietzsche
> Den døende Zarathustra omfavner Jorden.Nietzsche
> Jorden tilhører ikke mennsket, det er mennesket, der
> tilhører jorden. Høvding Seattle
> Lad mig kun flagre som blad i høst/ Når du mit land, min
> stamme må leve. Jesper Aakjær
> Livet er os skænket, vi fortjener det ved selv at skænke det.
> Tagore, Rabindranath
> Mine politiske karrieredrømme er inderligt ligegyldige. Det er
> Fremskridtspartiets idegrundlag, der er det afgørende. Jeg er kun en
> lille koral på vejen til at opbygge koralrevet.
> Glistrup
> Rødderne under jorden kræver ingen belønning for at gøre grenene
> frugtbare. Tagore, Rabindranath, Indisk
> Nobelpristager i litteratur 1861-1941
> "At hjælpe en ulykkelig er en fornuftshandling, som ikke behøver
> støtte af medlidenheden" Spinoza
> Danmark er jo ikke de to Millioner Danske, som lever nu, men de mange
> Gange så mange Millioner Danske, der i den historiske Tid har levet på
> Landets Grund, og de Tænkende, Virkende, Frembringende i den nuværende
> Slægt er kun forsåvidt Danmark, som de betyder de Levendes
> Sammenslutning med de Døde og de Ufødte, Nutiden med Fortid og
> Fremtid. Georg Brandes
> For mig er nyttevirkningen det afgørende i alle etiske
> spørgsmål, men nytte i ordets bredeste forstand: nytte for mennesker i
> udvikling. John Stuart Mill
> Begavelse er ingen rettighed; det er en pligt. Henrik Ibsen
> I kampen mellem dig og verden, sekundér verden.Kafka1883-1924
> At gøre en hel person ud af sig og i alt, hvad man gør, have
> dettes højeste vel for øje - det fører videre end medlidende
> bevægelser og handlinger til gavn for andre. Nietzsche
> Når vi vænner os af med at elske andre, finder vi snart intet
> elskeligt i os selv heller.Nietzsche
> "Der findes overfladiske og dybtgående egoister. De sidste kalder man
> altruister" Egon Friedell
> . Vor sociale personlighed skabes af de andres tanker.
> Marcel Proust
Jeg synes, at du burde skrive alt det der som læserbrev til dagpressen.
J.
| |
Bo Warming (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 04-02-06 16:45 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:43e44d6f$0$38693$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
Jeg synes, at du burde skrive alt det der som læserbrev til
dagpressen.
Jeg har ikke bestilt andet i 27 år, men aviserne pånær EB og
Information syns efterhånden jeg har fået mine 15 min berømmelse og
afviser alt
Folk der får læserbrev i, bliver trofaste abbonenter, så andre skal
til orde
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 17:05 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:MZ3Ff.90581$l8.57581@fe77.usenetserver.com...
>> Jeg synes, at du burde skrive alt det der som læserbrev til
>> dagpressen.
> Jeg har ikke bestilt andet i 27 år, men aviserne pånær EB og
> Information syns efterhånden jeg har fået mine 15 min berømmelse og
> afviser alt
> Folk der får læserbrev i, bliver trofaste abbonenter, så andre skal
> til orde
Det lyder urimeligt til mig, men jeg ved jo heller hvad redaktionen hos de to nævnte aviser påtager sig. Det er måské en god idé, hvis du formulere dig på en anden måde, så de ikke bliver skræmmet væk. Hvad med at tage imod Berlingens eller Politikkens tilbud, der en gang i mellem kommer med gratis abbonementer i 3 måneder, og så skriv dine læserbreve? Forresten, var du på Kbh Rådhuspladsen i dag?
J.
| |
Bo Warming (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 05-02-06 03:05 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:43e4d0a3$0$38674$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
Det lyder urimeligt til mig, men jeg ved jo heller hvad redaktionen
hos de to nævnte aviser påtager sig. Det er måské en god idé, hvis du
formulere dig på en anden måde, så de ikke bliver skræmmet væk. Hvad
med at tage imod Berlingens eller Politikkens tilbud, der en gang i
mellem kommer med gratis abbonementer i 3 måneder, og så skriv dine
læserbreve? Forresten, var du på Kbh Rådhuspladsen i dag?
BW: Hvis aviserne gav plads på deres hjemmesider, til alle de afviste
indlæg, ville disses antal blive tusind gange større end antal trykte.
Det er en svær kunst at få læserbrev trykt. I perioder har jeg været
god til det, især når andre lagde navn til mine indlæg, men et
fremskridtparti med godt sammenhold eksisterer ikke længere.
De er dygtige, de "gode"..
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 07:50 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:Z2dFf.3$vG6.0@fe58.usenetserver.com...
> BW: Hvis aviserne gav plads på deres hjemmesider, til alle de afviste
> indlæg, ville disses antal blive tusind gange større end antal trykte.
Det tænkte jeg også. Så, du må hellere stå i kø,
> Det er en svær kunst at få læserbrev trykt. I perioder har jeg været
> god til det, især når andre lagde navn til mine indlæg, men et
> fremskridtparti med godt sammenhold eksisterer ikke længere.
> De er dygtige, de "gode"..
Tålmodighed, gode mand. Forresten, du har stadig ikke svaret mit spørgsmål om hvad der i dag er blevet af M.Glistrup.
J.
| |
Bo Warming (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 05-02-06 09:54 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:43e5a008$0$38702$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message
news:Z2dFf.3$vG6.0@fe58.usenetserver.com...
> BW: Hvis aviserne gav plads på deres hjemmesider, til alle de
> afviste
> indlæg, ville disses antal blive tusind gange større end antal
> trykte.
Det tænkte jeg også. Så, du må hellere stå i kø,
Måske en million danskere har stået i kø med gentagne læserbreve i
årevis og erfaret, at der er ingen sikkerhed for at forbedring og
forbedring af kvalitet og originalitet, fører til optagelse.
> Det er en svær kunst at få læserbrev trykt. I perioder har jeg været
> god til det, især når andre lagde navn til mine indlæg, men et
> fremskridtparti med godt sammenhold eksisterer ikke længere.
> De er dygtige, de "gode"..
Tålmodighed, gode mand. Forresten, du har stadig ikke svaret mit
spørgsmål om hvad der i dag er blevet af M.Glistrup.
..Han nyder lykkeligt optium med sin kone, p.t. dog på hospitalet, men
næppe alvorligt.
Ring (fx hvis du mener noget med "gode mand") og især hvis du vil være
med til læserbrevs-samarbejde 35861000
| |
J.Venning (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 05-02-06 10:15 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:_2jFf.194$ni.167@fe30.usenetserver.com...
> Måske en million danskere har stået i kø med gentagne læserbreve i
> årevis og erfaret, at der er ingen sikkerhed for at forbedring og
> forbedring af kvalitet og originalitet, fører til optagelse.
Ja, det formoder jeg også, men hvad med dine lokalaviser? Du må da få bedre muligheder hos dem?
> .Han nyder lykkeligt optium med sin kone, p.t. dog på hospitalet, men
> næppe alvorligt.
Da jeg i lang tid hverken har læst eller hørt om ham, troede jeg at han måské var død, men tak for oplysningen.
> Ring (fx hvis du mener noget med "gode mand") og især hvis du vil være
> med til læserbrevs-samarbejde 35861000
Tak for tilbudet! Jeg foretrækker at holde internetbekendtskab adskilt fra mit privateliv, men jeg kan sikre dig, at alt hvad jeg skriver på nettet mener jeg 100%. Jeg læser i dagens Berlinger, at der skete lidt uro oppe i Hillerød i går. Hvordan gik det hele efter din mening?
J.
| |
Bo Warming (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 05-02-06 15:17 |
|
"J.Venning" <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:43e5c1fe$0$38685$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
på nettet mener jeg 100%. Jeg læser i dagens Berlinger, at der skete
lidt uro oppe i Hillerød i går. Hvordan gik det hele efter din mening?
BW; Jonni Hansen er altid sej og glistrupsk i TV, og havde ret i at
folk må sku tage sig sammen og gå til demo i stedet for selv at
brokke sig. alene hjemme.
Og folk må holde op at holde afstand til extremister - vi har fælles
antimuslimsk mål der er langt vigtigere end forskel mellem V,DF og
DNSB og det unazistiske Dansk Front
Som nævnt havde der været mange hundreder DanskFrontsympatisører i
Hillerød, hvis ikke politiet havde fjernet dem indespærret dem,
deporteret dem, fra Hovedbanen, fra Allerød, fra Birkerød, med busser
og med tog.
Men det undlader medierne at fortælle om, eller politiet er snu og
skjuler det så de forudindtagede promuslimske journalister
misinformerer.
Forslag
1. Dansk Front og andre helte der laver demo, bør samarbejde med et
parti fx Fremskridtspartiet, så det bliver politisk demo, som
politiet ikke nær så let kan stoppe grundlovsstridigt, som de gjorde
2. Pia og Helle (og evt andre end disse to store arbejder og midter
partier) bør gå sammen og genoptage ALSANG så Dansk Industri kan se
at vi er danske og vil vedblive at være danske.
NB se iøvrigt trådstart om demo igår, hvor jeg skrev om sandsynlige
hundreder (og tilføjede parantetiskeller tusinder for man ved jo intet
når de magtfulde griber antidemokratisk ind og medierne skjuler
tingenes realiteter.)
| |
Bo Warming (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming |
Dato : 04-02-06 07:09 |
|
> "thereactionary" <thereactionary@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1139031686.010677.106800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Samuel Huntington is looking more like a genius all the time.
>
> Vedr amerikansk akademikerdebat var hans Clash of Civilizations et
> gennembrud - og den refereres grundigt i bøgerne på www.glistrup.com
>
> 1973 bidrog Glistrup til indvandringsstop og 1979 startede han
> sammen med dyrlæge Riemann for alvor debatten om at de formerer sig
> til at eje Danmark, pga flertalsstyrets tossegodhed.
" Når solen skinner tænker menneskene ikke på at det også kan
blive regnvejr - men det er statsmandens opgave. Niccolo
Machiavelli(1469-1527)
VÆR FORUDSEENDE - stem på folk som Krarup og Langballe, der tænker
hundred år frem og ikke een valgperiode frem
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 07:25 |
|
"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message news:vyXEf.50212$Sb.32068@fe30.usenetserver.com...
> " Når solen skinner tænker menneskene ikke på at det også kan
> blive regnvejr - men det er statsmandens opgave. Niccolo
> Machiavelli(1469-1527)
>
> VÆR FORUDSEENDE - stem på folk som Krarup og Langballe, der tænker
> hundred år frem og ikke een valgperiode frem
>
Det kommer ikke til at løse det nuværende problem, som truer danskerne i Mellemøsten, og ødelægger danske virksomheder.
J.
| |
#MMM# (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : #MMM# |
Dato : 30-01-06 16:40 |
|
IMHO, The Media have been given liberties to print News. True and
correct news known as Freedom of the Press. This is a privelege
accorded them and with this privelege should come Responsibility. The
Press is responsible via the Editor who should not be biased or bigoted
or prejudiced. If the press accuses anyone wrongly, or maligns anyone
wrongly, they can be sued in a court of law it it can be proven. It
could be in a criminal court or a civil court. However, there could be
slander promulgated by the press, they could be sued for this.
Here, we have a "Press Complaints Committee" where greviances can be
adjudicated, and certain actions taken, such as restrictions, or fines,
or suspensions. This is a safety valve for irrational behaviour of
certain editors. Of course, the Public can always vote with their
purchasing power if they find one paper not to their tastes.
Most media use their powers of discretion, and sensibility, to direct
their content. I believe that the media should always try to be factual
and neutral with their views. Media that stirs up hate and anger should
be declared illegal and shut down.
| |
MichaelC (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 30-01-06 17:35 |
|
"#MMM#" <mbplee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138635623.186533.251610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> IMHO, The Media have been given liberties to print News. True and
> correct news known as Freedom of the Press. This is a privelege
> accorded them and with this privelege should come Responsibility.
NO! This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberty is.
Basic liberties, including the right to say whatever the hell you want in
print, are either innate or God-given, depending upon whether you're a
religious person or not. Goverments that restrict those liberties for any
reason other than the health and safety of other citizens (the colloquial
"you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" example) unjustly restrict those
innate, or God-given, liberties.
So, although we'd agree that there are responsibilities incumbent upon the
exercise of liberty, it is the individual who (theoretically) ought to
exercise that responsibility, and the government cannot, nor should not,
intervene other than to advise.
The
> Press is responsible via the Editor who should not be biased or bigoted
> or prejudiced. If the press accuses anyone wrongly, or maligns anyone
> wrongly, they can be sued in a court of law it it can be proven.
That's libel, and that's a different matter. Libel is the maligning of the
reputation of another person in writing. In order to bring a suit, the
person defamed has to be able to show harm. (Note: A dead person cannot
bring a lawsuit. Their legal heirs can, under some circumstances, in the
case of someone recently deceased.
> It
> could be in a criminal court or a civil court. However, there could be
> slander promulgated by the press, they could be sued for this.
Slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation.
>
> Here, we have a "Press Complaints Committee" where greviances can be
> adjudicated, and certain actions taken, such as restrictions, or fines,
> or suspensions. This is a safety valve for irrational behaviour of
> certain editors. Of course, the Public can always vote with their
> purchasing power if they find one paper not to their tastes.
Bingo. The last sentence is the best way to insure a responsible press.
>
> Most media use their powers of discretion, and sensibility, to direct
> their content. I believe that the media should always try to be factual
> and neutral with their views.
Agreed.
> Media that stirs up hate and anger should be declared illegal and shut
down.
Rubbish. You need a relatively thick skin in a heterogeneous society. Again,
if I can't say anything to piss you off, then I don't have freedom of
speech. People don't need a protected right to speak kindly to one another;
they only need a protected right to say things that are offensive to other
people. "Social Order" is not the highest objective of civilized
societies -- it's the highest objective of totalitarian ones.
Mike
| |
Phaedrine (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:49 |
|
In article <FerDf.39354$PL5.36664@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "#MMM#" <mbplee@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138635623.186533.251610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > IMHO, The Media have been given liberties to print News. True and
> > correct news known as Freedom of the Press. This is a privelege
> > accorded them and with this privelege should come Responsibility.
>
> NO! This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberty is.
>
> Basic liberties, including the right to say whatever the hell you want in
> print, are either innate or God-given, depending upon whether you're a
> religious person or not. Goverments that restrict those liberties for any
> reason other than the health and safety of other citizens (the colloquial
> "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" example) unjustly restrict those
> innate, or God-given, liberties.
Legally in the US, God has naught to do with it but I agree otherwise. :)
> So, although we'd agree that there are responsibilities incumbent upon the
> exercise of liberty, it is the individual who (theoretically) ought to
> exercise that responsibility, and the government cannot, nor should not,
> intervene other than to advise.
>
> > The Press is responsible via the Editor who should not be biased or
> > bigoted or prejudiced. If the press accuses anyone wrongly, or
> > maligns anyone wrongly, they can be sued in a court of law it it
> > can be proven.
>
> That's libel, and that's a different matter. Libel is the maligning of the
> reputation of another person in writing.
To a third party.
> ...In order to bring a suit, the person defamed has to be able to
> show harm. (Note: A dead person cannot bring a lawsuit. Their legal
> heirs can, under some circumstances, in the case of someone recently
> deceased.
Harm can take many forms including humiliation and emotional pain or
stress.
>
> > It could be in a criminal court or a civil court. However, there
> > could be slander promulgated by the press, they could be sued for
> > this.
>
> Slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation.
It is often not that clear. For example, a slanderous statement might
be quoted in a newspaper or repeated in a TV news broadcast. To
determine whether it's libel or slander, one of the factors that must be
considered is how permanent it is.
> > Here, we have a "Press Complaints Committee" where greviances can be
> > adjudicated, and certain actions taken, such as restrictions, or fines,
> > or suspensions. This is a safety valve for irrational behaviour of
> > certain editors. Of course, the Public can always vote with their
> > purchasing power if they find one paper not to their tastes.
>
> Bingo. The last sentence is the best way to insure a responsible press.
> >
> > Most media use their powers of discretion, and sensibility, to direct
> > their content. I believe that the media should always try to be factual
> > and neutral with their views.
>
> Agreed.
> > Media that stirs up hate and anger should be declared illegal and shut
> down.
>
> Rubbish. You need a relatively thick skin in a heterogeneous society. Again,
> if I can't say anything to piss you off, then I don't have freedom of
> speech. People don't need a protected right to speak kindly to one another;
> they only need a protected right to say things that are offensive to other
> people. "Social Order" is not the highest objective of civilized
> societies -- it's the highest objective of totalitarian ones.
>
> Mike
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
B. Nice (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 30-01-06 17:12 |
|
On 30 Jan 2006 07:40:23 -0800, "#MMM#" <mbplee@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most media use their powers of discretion, and sensibility, to direct
>their content. I believe that the media should always try to be factual
>and neutral with their views.
There is no such thing as factual and neutral. A view can never be
objective.
>Media that stirs up hate and anger should
>be declared illegal and shut down.
And who should be the judge of that?
| |
#MMM# (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : #MMM# |
Dato : 30-01-06 18:35 |
|
No further constructive comments necessary! I rest my case!
| |
ltlee1 (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 30-01-06 20:29 |
|
Richard Dell wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > | Do you think that the government cannot make a statement expressing
> > > its
> > > | view on such matter? Statecraft is soulcraft. If a gvoernment cannot
> > > | influence its people and organizations and people, how can one expect
> > > | it to have any influence internationally.
> > >
> > > Because a democratic government can be thrown out by the people, it
> > > cannot rule by fear, it must rule by persuasion. Why would any democrat
> > > wish to persuade the people that they should not be allowed to say what
> > > they wish - with exceptions in regard of defamatory lies (libel and
> > > slander).
> >
> > I don't understand your response.
> > I did not suggesting rule by fear.
>
> Indeed you didn't. But one of the most important features of a
> democratic state as opposed to a totalitarian one, is that you *cannot*
> rule by fear, and it is vital to appreciate this. Many who have lived
> in a totalitarian state do not.
>
> > Rather, I am saying the government
> > can make a stand on various things, internally or internationally, on
> > what's right and what's wrong. What is good and appropriate and what's
> > not. Is it not what rule by persuasion means?
>
> Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
> other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
> important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
> dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition had
> permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic
> dogma?
Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
>
> You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction in
> terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
> don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics to
> be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
> irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
> response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
> game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
> seeing any.
I am not talking about legislation for pluralism. Rather, I find it
strange that the
government claimed to have no influence on its citizens and
organziations.
> > >Cartoons are not lies.
> >
> > Words can lie/mislead and hurt. So are all human expressions. Cartoon
> > is no exception. .
>
> Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
> views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
> until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt by
> counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to test
> for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits. We
> have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood or
> reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
> outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear to
> attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
Agree that Flat Earth believers are their own problems because the
earth is not flat. A
matter of the physical sciences. Rejecting flat earth theory is
inevitable in our search for truth. Can we say the same about the
cartoon series? Are the cartoons attempts to search for truth, or
defending the truth.
> > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > > now enjoy.
> >
> > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
>
> They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out as
> much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
> using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper. Not
> only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
> respect or an argument.
In most disputes, neither sides can claimed to be blameless. I have no
problem with that. My question, as I had posted in my original post is
whether the government is telling the truth when it claimed to have no
influence at all.
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:53 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:29:00 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1138649340.636333.40010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Richard Dell wrote:
>> Would you rather that the Inquisition had permanently suppressed
>> Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic dogma?
>
> Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
Yes. He expressed an idea viewed by the Church as blasphemous. The Muslims
regard the cartoon as blasphemous. Exactly the same.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:51 |
|
Jim Walsh <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:29:00 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
> <1138649340.636333.40010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> > Richard Dell wrote:
> >> Would you rather that the Inquisition had permanently suppressed
> >> Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic dogma?
> > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> Yes. He expressed an idea viewed by the Church as blasphemous. The Muslims
> regard the cartoon as blasphemous. Exactly the same.
BTW, Giordano Brune was burned on the stake in Rome 1600 for stating
that the Universe had no centre, that the stars were suns like Sol and
that the stars had planets orbiting them with people living on them.
Blesphemeous to the Roman Catholic Church as this would degrade
Humankind as a unique creation of God.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
ltlee1 (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 01-02-06 15:05 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
> > religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
> > majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
> > Could they? No?
>
> Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
> just for /owning/ a Bible?
>
> This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
I don't aware of that.
Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
official verdict?
Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Bob Cooper (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 01-02-06 16:50 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138802725.239071.232410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
> > religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
> > majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
> > Could they? No?
>
> Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
> just for /owning/ a Bible?
>
> This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
I don't aware of that.
Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
official verdict?
*******************
According to this article, written by a Saudi Muslim, it was 1993, actually,
and he was beheaded for "apostasy":
=======================================================
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006712
(...)
"The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In
September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge
of apostasy for owning a Bible."
(...)
=======================================================
*******************
Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
***********
Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam; the site of its holiest places, its
early history; the birthplace of its Prophet. It's the place all Muslims are
bound to go on their Hajj pilgrimage, and Arabian is the language of the
Koran. It is the heart of Islam, and any attempt to divorce the Saudis
from "Islam in general" is absurd.
***********
More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
***********
It relates to your statement above that, "In contrast, million of preachers preach
against Islam and other religions every week in America and other countries
with Christian majorities all over the world." As an American, I can tell you, first
of all, that -- sadly, in my opinion -- there's not much of that going on. Yet.
However, the larger point is that no Christian country beheads Muslims for
owning a Koran. You can walk into any book store in America and purchase
a copy freely. There will be several translations to choose from. Muslims are
entirely free to practice their religion peacefully and without interference in
every Christian country I know of. Now, tell me, why isn't that same right
accorded to Christians in Saudi Arabia?
How does it relate to the cartoons? Simple. It illustrates the absurdity of
Muslims going ape about 12 rather innocuous cartoons when Muslims are
beheading Christians for owning a bible. Clear?
Furthermore, has it occurred to you that the furor and outrage from Muslims
about these silly cartoons -- demonstrations, diplomatic protests, bomb
threats, boycotts -- far exceeds any similar outrage on the part of Muslims
in reaction to the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 911? Their response
to that -- from those few who condemned it -- was generally along the lines
of, "Tsk, tsk. Yes, it was wrong, *BUT*....blah, blah, blah....American
Imperialism...blah, blah, blah....evil jooze....blah, blah, blah......."
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Mitch (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mitch |
Dato : 01-02-06 17:56 |
|
On 1 Feb 2006 06:05:25 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Per Rønne wrote:
>> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
>> > religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
>> > majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
>> > Could they? No?
>>
>> Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
>> just for /owning/ a Bible?
>>
>> This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
>
>I don't aware of that.
>Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
>official verdict?
Yes, it claimed he also read it! That's what really did him in.
Say, can you provide me with the address of the nearest Christian
church or Jewish Synagogue near Riyadh? Thanks.
>Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
>or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
>answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
There's a difference? Besides, a five year old can answer the
question. You only refuse to because it makes you uncomfortable with
the truth about your backwards primitive religion.
>More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
>cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
>influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
Ouch, that was a stinging rebuttal.
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 19:54 |
|
Mitch <mitch@nospamplease.com> wrote:
> Say, can you provide me with the address of the nearest Christian
> church or Jewish Synagogue near Riyadh?
Jerusalem .
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Richard Dell (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 02-02-06 15:06 |
|
1man4all wrote:
> Not sure what you mean by "lesbian in both ways." She liked women who
> used to be men but were thinking of becoming men again? LOL.
Lesbian 1: Inhabitant of Lesbos, 2: Female homosexual.
> > Experince shows that they, we, would be turned into dhimmies, second
> > class citizens - were the development to continue. Please do realize the
> > true nature of the Islamic world's apartheid countries.
>
> That is an extreme exaggeration.
Your very selective memory in operation again. This is exactly what
happened in Lebanon and East Timor.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19016
| |
1man4all (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 03-02-06 13:21 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> Population surveys in Denmark before the 2001 Parliamentary Election
> showed that 97% of 3rd generation Turkish Immigrants married a boy or
> girl from the family's original home village - or one of this village's
> neighbouring villages {they were usually betrothed as infants}. These
> spouses were family reunited to Denmark. Furthermore, statistics show
> that they get close to four children per couple, which means that they
> quadruple each generation.
That sounds like sexual jealousy that why Turks are not
marrying/sleeping around with Danes. There could be several reasons for
that:
1. Danes have never accepted the immigrants as 'their' people, so the
immigrants have no choice but to find spouses among those who do accept
and love them.
2. Although immigrants love Denmark and its people, they do not like
sexual promiscuity prevalent in Europe, and parents prefer to find
spouses for their sons and daughters who have similar moral/cultural
values.
3. It takes one or two generations for cultural attitudes to change.
First generation immigrants almost always maintain some links with
their country of origin. By the third generation, immigrants finally
begin to assimilate.
4. Immigration needs to be tightened up. That would force immigrants to
look within Denmark for prospective spouses. As long as doors remain
open and there is a flood of immigrants, old and new immigrants are
treated alike, which forces older immigrants to have a greater bond
with their own kind.
5. Religion could be a factor, but I know from personal experience that
for most Turks, religion is less of a factor than culture or ethnicity.
As you stated above, they are marrying people from their own villages
and are not even interested in Muslims from other backgrounds. On the
other hand, most Turks do want to be part of Europe and want to feel
European. My view is that you need to slow down immigration and give
immigrants who are already in your country some more time. Assimilation
does not happen overnight.
> Before the end of this century, the Danes had become an ethnic and
> religious minority in our country.
I don't think that would happen.
> And of course I have to add that the Immigrant fertility is reduced to
> the Danish level within a few generations - if no family reunion is
> taking place.
If you want to ban "family reunions," go ahead. I don't have any
problem with that. But that should neither result in discrimination or
ridicule of immigrants who are already in your country nor result in
insults to Islam or its Prophet. In fact, you've confirmed what I've
always suspected, which is essentially behind these recent attacks on
Islam--- justified in the name of freedom of expression----is a racial
animus which must be dealt with before things get totally out of hand.
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 13:30 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138969232.807440.293350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Per Rønne wrote:
> Population surveys in Denmark before the 2001 Parliamentary Election
> showed that 97% of 3rd generation Turkish Immigrants married a boy or
> girl from the family's original home village - or one of this village's
> neighbouring villages {they were usually betrothed as infants}. These
> spouses were family reunited to Denmark. Furthermore, statistics show
> that they get close to four children per couple, which means that they
> quadruple each generation.
That sounds like sexual jealousy that why Turks are not
marrying/sleeping around with Danes. There could be several reasons for
that:
1. Danes have never accepted the immigrants as 'their' people, so the
immigrants have no choice but to find spouses among those who do accept
and love them.
[Mike] For the record, my wife's sister and family in Sweden had to go
shopping back in Lebanon for a wife for her son, even though he was born in
Sweden and wasn't facing any sort of religious barriers. The dark hair and
olive skin was enough to make dating miserable for him (and this is one good
looking kid, I might add.) So, I think your (1) is pretty likely to be a
factor.
2. Although immigrants love Denmark and its people, they do not like
sexual promiscuity prevalent in Europe, and parents prefer to find
spouses for their sons and daughters who have similar moral/cultural
values.
[Mike] Eh. This is assuming that media values reflect moral values, and they
generally don't. It's not tough at all to find Americans with the same sort
of morals as traditional Muslims -- the difference is in the level of
expression permitted in society. The immigrants may claim your (2) is the
case, but I think it's mostly bullshit.
3. It takes one or two generations for cultural attitudes to change.
First generation immigrants almost always maintain some links with
their country of origin. By the third generation, immigrants finally
begin to assimilate.
[Mike] It's faster than that. People born in a country are usually native to
it, unless their parents are horses-asses and do whatever they can to
prevent assimilation, like sending them to immigrant language schools,
moving only in immigrant social circles, and insisting that most or all of
the kid's friends are also immigrants.
4. Immigration needs to be tightened up. That would force immigrants to
look within Denmark for prospective spouses. As long as doors remain
open and there is a flood of immigrants, old and new immigrants are
treated alike, which forces older immigrants to have a greater bond
with their own kind.
[Mike] Yep. There appears to be a given rate of immigration, if you will,
that a society can comfortably absorb without ghettoization occurring.
Mike
5. Religion could be a factor, but I know from personal experience that
for most Turks, religion is less of a factor than culture or ethnicity.
As you stated above, they are marrying people from their own villages
and are not even interested in Muslims from other backgrounds. On the
other hand, most Turks do want to be part of Europe and want to feel
European. My view is that you need to slow down immigration and give
immigrants who are already in your country some more time. Assimilation
does not happen overnight.
> Before the end of this century, the Danes had become an ethnic and
> religious minority in our country.
I don't think that would happen.
> And of course I have to add that the Immigrant fertility is reduced to
> the Danish level within a few generations - if no family reunion is
> taking place.
If you want to ban "family reunions," go ahead. I don't have any
problem with that. But that should neither result in discrimination or
ridicule of immigrants who are already in your country nor result in
insults to Islam or its Prophet. In fact, you've confirmed what I've
always suspected, which is essentially behind these recent attacks on
Islam--- justified in the name of freedom of expression----is a racial
animus which must be dealt with before things get totally out of hand.
| |
Per Rønne (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 03-02-06 13:43 |
|
1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Before the end of this century, the Danes had become an ethnic and
> > religious minority in our country.
>
> I don't think that would happen.
You seem to forget my use of pluperfect. Because the law has changed, it
will not happen.
> > And of course I have to add that the Immigrant fertility is reduced to
> > the Danish level within a few generations - if no family reunion is
> > taking place.
>
> If you want to ban "family reunions," go ahead. I don't have any
> problem with that. But that should neither result in discrimination or
> ridicule of immigrants who are already in your country nor result in
> insults to Islam or its Prophet. In fact, you've confirmed what I've
> always suspected, which is essentially behind these recent attacks on
> Islam--- justified in the name of freedom of expression----is a racial
> animus which must be dealt with before things get totally out of hand.
There's nothing "racial" in this, and most Islamic immigrants belong to
the same "race" as do the Danes - some are even blond with blue eyes.
Furthermore, you forgot that most of these marriages were arranged by
the parents when the children were infants.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 15:51 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha6r81.mhlbrh1hhz66uN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> 1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Before the end of this century, the Danes had become an ethnic and
> > > religious minority in our country.
> >
> > I don't think that would happen.
>
> You seem to forget my use of pluperfect. Because the law has changed, it
> will not happen.
>
> > > And of course I have to add that the Immigrant fertility is reduced to
> > > the Danish level within a few generations - if no family reunion is
> > > taking place.
> >
> > If you want to ban "family reunions," go ahead. I don't have any
> > problem with that. But that should neither result in discrimination or
> > ridicule of immigrants who are already in your country nor result in
> > insults to Islam or its Prophet. In fact, you've confirmed what I've
> > always suspected, which is essentially behind these recent attacks on
> > Islam--- justified in the name of freedom of expression----is a racial
> > animus which must be dealt with before things get totally out of hand.
>
> There's nothing "racial" in this, and most Islamic immigrants belong to
> the same "race" as do the Danes - some are even blond with blue eyes.
>
> Furthermore, you forgot that most of these marriages were arranged by
> the parents when the children were infants.
Hah? Are we talking Arabs/Turks, or Indians, here? Middle Easterners don't
arrange marriages between children, generally speaking -- they prefer
consenual agreements between families and the prospective mates negotiated
whe the prospectives are of marrigable age.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 03-02-06 16:33 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Furthermore, you forgot that most of these marriages were arranged by
> > the parents when the children were infants.
>
> Hah? Are we talking Arabs/Turks, or Indians, here? Middle Easterners don't
> arrange marriages between children, generally speaking -- they prefer
> consenual agreements between families and the prospective mates negotiated
> whe the prospectives are of marrigable age.
Most Islamic immgrants / refugees in Denmark come from Turkey, Pakistan,
Somalia and the Arab world. And as the result in a survey made by the
sociologist Eyvind Vendelboe, MA, MP showed, 97% of the third generation
Turkish immigrants married a boy or girl from the original home village
or one of its neighbouring villages.
http://www.ft.dk/BAGGRUND/Biografier/PDF/english/VEYVE.pdf
Of course not all of these marriages were arranged when the kids were
infants. But I was told this true story by the then mayor of Ishøj {he
is now retired after almost 30 years as mayor - he must be close to 80
years old}:
Three Turkish boys had come in the age where they were about to get
married. Their father considered it most practical if they married three
sisters that he knew from Turkey. And since it didn't matter which boy
married which girl, he choosed each couple randomly. And it just so
happened that the younget boy, 18, got the oldest girl, 23.
They were married by the mayor at the borough hall. Two boys and three
girls came - the youngest boy was absent.
Next day this boy came together with his father and the bride, and got
married. The boy had apparent pains in his bottom.
This took place in Ishøj back in the 1980s when I attended the
University of Copenhagen, and was chairman of the Social Democratic
Youth {Englishmen might call it: Labour Youth} in the borough, a
Copenhagen suburb.
But Vendelsboe's report showed what happened until the 2001
Parliamentary Election. Since then legislation has drastically changed.
Now these couples had probably had to get family reunited in /Turkey/,
but of course, they were Turks after all.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 17:56 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha6y12.1oczujaorrvdyN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Furthermore, you forgot that most of these marriages were arranged by
> > > the parents when the children were infants.
> >
> > Hah? Are we talking Arabs/Turks, or Indians, here? Middle Easterners
don't
> > arrange marriages between children, generally speaking -- they prefer
> > consenual agreements between families and the prospective mates
negotiated
> > whe the prospectives are of marrigable age.
>
> Most Islamic immgrants / refugees in Denmark come from Turkey, Pakistan,
> Somalia and the Arab world. And as the result in a survey made by the
> sociologist Eyvind Vendelboe, MA, MP showed, 97% of the third generation
> Turkish immigrants married a boy or girl from the original home village
> or one of its neighbouring villages.
>
> http://www.ft.dk/BAGGRUND/Biografier/PDF/english/VEYVE.pdf
Sure, but that's different from what you asserted, that the ME culture
arranges infant marriages. That's not the case. IMAN properly provided a
number of reasons why they go back to to look for brides, IMO.
Mike
>
> Of course not all of these marriages were arranged when the kids were
> infants. But I was told this true story by the then mayor of Ishøj {he
> is now retired after almost 30 years as mayor - he must be close to 80
> years old}:
>
> Three Turkish boys had come in the age where they were about to get
> married. Their father considered it most practical if they married three
> sisters that he knew from Turkey. And since it didn't matter which boy
> married which girl, he choosed each couple randomly. And it just so
> happened that the younget boy, 18, got the oldest girl, 23.
>
> They were married by the mayor at the borough hall. Two boys and three
> girls came - the youngest boy was absent.
>
> Next day this boy came together with his father and the bride, and got
> married. The boy had apparent pains in his bottom.
>
> This took place in Ishøj back in the 1980s when I attended the
> University of Copenhagen, and was chairman of the Social Democratic
> Youth {Englishmen might call it: Labour Youth} in the borough, a
> Copenhagen suburb.
>
> But Vendelsboe's report showed what happened until the 2001
> Parliamentary Election. Since then legislation has drastically changed.
> Now these couples had probably had to get family reunited in /Turkey/,
> but of course, they were Turks after all.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Per Rønne (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 03-02-06 18:31 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Sure, but that's different from what you asserted, that the ME culture
> arranges infant marriages.
I didn't assert such a folly. Parents and grand parents arrange infant
betrothals, cultures don't. But the phenomenon may be more common in
some cultures and in certain ages than others. And simply put, it cannot
be a coincidence when 97% of all third generation Turkish immigrants
marry with a cousin from the family's original village or one of its
neighbouring villages.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 19:12 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha74kj.g5c4ez1nlknw7N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure, but that's different from what you asserted, that the ME culture
> > arranges infant marriages.
>
> I didn't assert such a folly. Parents and grand parents arrange infant
> betrothals, cultures don't. But the phenomenon may be more common in
> some cultures and in certain ages than others. And simply put, it cannot
> be a coincidence when 97% of all third generation Turkish immigrants
> marry with a cousin from the family's original village or one of its
> neighbouring villages.
Point here is that your statistic does not imply infant-arranged marriages.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 03-02-06 19:42 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha74kj.g5c4ez1nlknw7N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure, but that's different from what you asserted, that the ME culture
> > > arranges infant marriages.
> >
> > I didn't assert such a folly. Parents and grand parents arrange infant
> > betrothals, cultures don't. But the phenomenon may be more common in
> > some cultures and in certain ages than others. And simply put, it cannot
> > be a coincidence when 97% of all third generation Turkish immigrants
> > marry with a cousin from the family's original village or one of its
> > neighbouring villages.
>
> Point here is that your statistic does not imply infant-arranged marriages.
In this country it is well-known that they take place and that children
who don't accept these arranged marriages are in danger of getting
killed by father or brother.
Furthermore, you should realize that in their original villages, such
marriages are seen as a way of helping /their/ children to a better
future in Denmark, with cash benefits higher than what they would be
able to earn in Turkey or Pakistan. Furthermor, you'll have to realize
that our transfer incomes are much higher than the minimum wages in USA
and Canada - this is one of the reasons behind the differences between
the result of Islamic immigration into Europe {especially Scandinavia}
and Anglo America.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 20:22 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha77j7.1aueiuhrwafemN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1ha74kj.g5c4ez1nlknw7N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > > MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure, but that's different from what you asserted, that the ME
culture
> > > > arranges infant marriages.
> > >
> > > I didn't assert such a folly. Parents and grand parents arrange infant
> > > betrothals, cultures don't. But the phenomenon may be more common in
> > > some cultures and in certain ages than others. And simply put, it
cannot
> > > be a coincidence when 97% of all third generation Turkish immigrants
> > > marry with a cousin from the family's original village or one of its
> > > neighbouring villages.
> >
> > Point here is that your statistic does not imply infant-arranged
marriages.
>
> In this country it is well-known that they take place and that children
> who don't accept these arranged marriages are in danger of getting
> killed by father or brother.
I didn't say they never take place. I'm saying that the ***typical*** model
for Middle Eastern courtship is either for parents to get the ball rolling
by inquiring about eligible mates for their eligible young adults, or for
the eligible bachelor to take the initiative and inquire himself about an
eligible female. If either secnario is accepted, the families plunk down in
someone's living room and drink high-octane coffee for awile, after which
the potential young couple might tear away in a corner and chat a bit. If
all systems are go, the scenario is repeated a couple of times, after which
a wedding date is set. If IMAN has a tweak to my understanding, I'm sure
he'll add it.
Now, it's entirely possible that you have, time and again, a domineering
parent who wants to force the issue a bit more than the above, and possibly
a LOT more than the above, especially when daughters are involved. There are
also variations on practice from tribe to tribe, such that there's no
question that the issue may be forced at times. However, that is not "infant
arranged marriage", and there's no question in my mind that 97% of the 97%
you cite above go back home to either (1) shop for spouse, or (2) pick up an
eligible first cousin, which is a common practice in the region.
> Furthermore, you should realize that in their original villages, such
> marriages are seen as a way of helping /their/ children to a better
> future in Denmark, with cash benefits higher than what they would be
> able to earn in Turkey or Pakistan.
Of course.
> Furthermor, you'll have to realize
> that our transfer incomes are much higher than the minimum wages in USA
> and Canada - this is one of the reasons behind the differences between
> the result of Islamic immigration into Europe {especially Scandinavia}
> and Anglo America.
Because they're looking for a free ride? Is that your point?
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 08:39 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha77j7.1aueiuhrwafemN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > Furthermor, you'll have to realize that our transfer incomes are much
> > higher than the minimum wages in USA and Canada - this is one of the
> > reasons behind the differences between the result of Islamic immigration
> > into Europe {especially Scandinavia} and Anglo America.
> Because they're looking for a free ride? Is that your point?
I'm just saying that the European experiences with immigration are much
different from the Anglo American experiences, to a great extent as a
result of our welfare systems.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 09:22 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1ha86vk.1nvtmhj1s7y1olN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> I'm just saying that the European experiences with immigration are much
> different from the Anglo American experiences, to a great extent as a
> result of our welfare systems.
> Per Erik Rønne
People immigrating into the United States are those who want to pursue the American dream of making something of their lives, and are willing to work. Internet forum posters with no knowledge of Denmark are not aware of the fact that there are many non-Danes who come into the country to escape persecution - economic persecution. They cannot survive the rules and regulations of the country from which they come, and discover that they can live comfortably in Denmark doing absolutely nothing, and just draw money from social welfare. Yes, it is as simple as that.
J.
| |
MichaelC (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 04-02-06 13:31 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha86vk.1nvtmhj1s7y1olN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1ha77j7.1aueiuhrwafemN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
>
> > > Furthermor, you'll have to realize that our transfer incomes are much
> > > higher than the minimum wages in USA and Canada - this is one of the
> > > reasons behind the differences between the result of Islamic
immigration
> > > into Europe {especially Scandinavia} and Anglo America.
>
> > Because they're looking for a free ride? Is that your point?
>
> I'm just saying that the European experiences with immigration are much
> different from the Anglo American experiences, to a great extent as a
> result of our welfare systems.
I quite agree, but one must also add the fact that the US doesn't permit
just anyone to fill out a form and immigrate -- one has to PROVE that one is
not going to be a burden on our welfare system (rudimentary, in Euro terms,
as it may be) -- and thus our immigrants, in large majority, are either
educated or have undebateably marketable skills. This leads to an immigrant
community with an entirely different outlook on life, religion, morality,
assimilation, etc.
I don't know what Denmark is doing, but this sort of "ability test"
immigration is not done, to my understanding, in other European countries,
thus leading to an immigrant population with markedly lower skills and
assimilation.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 14:09 |
|
MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha86vk.1nvtmhj1s7y1olN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > I'm just saying that the European experiences with immigration are much
> > different from the Anglo American experiences, to a great extent as a
> > result of our welfare systems.
> I quite agree, but one must also add the fact that the US doesn't permit
> just anyone to fill out a form and immigrate -- one has to PROVE that one is
> not going to be a burden on our welfare system (rudimentary, in Euro terms,
> as it may be) -- and thus our immigrants, in large majority, are either
> educated or have undebateably marketable skills. This leads to an immigrant
> community with an entirely different outlook on life, religion, morality,
> assimilation, etc.
> I don't know what Denmark is doing, but this sort of "ability test"
> immigration is not done, to my understanding, in other European countries,
> thus leading to an immigrant population with markedly lower skills and
> assimilation.
As stated, Denmark's immigration policy has been drastically altered
after the 2001 Parliamentary Election. But to have such demands used to
be considered very non-PC, even racist. It still is in Sweden where the
Islamic proportion in the population is now 10-15%, still growing and
still living segregated in parallel societies and frequently without
being able to speak Swedish - and living on the dole.
A recent survey showed that 80% of the Swedish considered it impossible
become democratic Europeans. Those who made the survey, however, was
still hoping it would be possible to "educate" the people to accept the
immigrants.
In Sweden, every open debate on this matter is held down, and since they
don't really have secret ballots [they have to openly pick up a voting
card for the party they want to vote for - these cards are in different
colours], voting is somehow controlled.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
MichaelC (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 04-02-06 14:53 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha8mpo.153enxa6ktq3lN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> MichaelC <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1ha86vk.1nvtmhj1s7y1olN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
>
> > > I'm just saying that the European experiences with immigration are
much
> > > different from the Anglo American experiences, to a great extent as a
> > > result of our welfare systems.
>
> > I quite agree, but one must also add the fact that the US doesn't permit
> > just anyone to fill out a form and immigrate -- one has to PROVE that
one is
> > not going to be a burden on our welfare system (rudimentary, in Euro
terms,
> > as it may be) -- and thus our immigrants, in large majority, are either
> > educated or have undebateably marketable skills. This leads to an
immigrant
> > community with an entirely different outlook on life, religion,
morality,
> > assimilation, etc.
>
> > I don't know what Denmark is doing, but this sort of "ability test"
> > immigration is not done, to my understanding, in other European
countries,
> > thus leading to an immigrant population with markedly lower skills and
> > assimilation.
>
> As stated, Denmark's immigration policy has been drastically altered
> after the 2001 Parliamentary Election. But to have such demands used to
> be considered very non-PC, even racist. It still is in Sweden where the
> Islamic proportion in the population is now 10-15%, still growing and
> still living segregated in parallel societies and frequently without
> being able to speak Swedish - and living on the dole.
Right. I have relatives in Sweden. They're concerned -- in fact, in the
process of emigrating to here (although this issue is only one of the
factors).
>
> A recent survey showed that 80% of the Swedish considered it impossible
> become democratic Europeans. Those who made the survey, however, was
> still hoping it would be possible to "educate" the people to accept the
> immigrants.
>
> In Sweden, every open debate on this matter is held down, and since they
> don't really have secret ballots [they have to openly pick up a voting
> card for the party they want to vote for - these cards are in different
> colours], voting is somehow controlled.
Ah....democracy......
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 17:37 |
|
And I just hear that the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria, has been
stormed and burnt down by a Syrian mob - the police didn't interfere.
The embassy building also contained the Swedish and Chilenean embassy.
And just now, the Norwegian embassy in Damascus is stormed too.
Are the followers of Mohammad gaga?
Will the next embassies to be stormed be the French, German, Spanish,
Swiss, Italian, Dutch and Belgian? Will Danish embassies in other
Islamic countries be stormed too?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 18:30 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1ha8wo8.1ncqwr71id0v1qN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> And I just hear that the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria, has been
> stormed and burnt down by a Syrian mob - the police didn't interfere.
> The embassy building also contained the Swedish and Chilenean embassy.
> And just now, the Norwegian embassy in Damascus is stormed too.
> Are the followers of Mohammad gaga?
> Will the next embassies to be stormed be the French, German, Spanish,
> Swiss, Italian, Dutch and Belgian? Will Danish embassies in other
> Islamic countries be stormed too?
> Per Erik Rønne
I have been discussing this with my friends who are politicians in the Danish Parliament, and we noted how Rushdi's Satanic Verses, the flushing of the Koran down toilets in Guantanamo Prison, and the writing of verses of the Koran on the naked body of a Muslim woman in the Dutch film didn't go to this extent. Now, a mere cartoonist's drawings sparked a world-wide hate campaign against a country that has helped and supported Muslims over the decades. There are pictures in today's Berlingske Tidende showing Muslims holding out placards demanding the beheading of the cartoonist in question. We concluded that the hate campaign has been boiling steadily amongst the Muslims, and this incident came at the right time for them to unite what have otherwise been a very separated Muslim people in Europe and the Middle East. We do not see a peaceful settlement in sight, and the worst scenario would be a real Holy War the world over.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 19:04 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>There are pictures in today's Berlingske Tidende showing Muslims
>holding out placards demanding the beheading of the cartoonist in
>question. We concluded that the hate campaign has been boiling steadily
>amongst the Muslims, and this incident came at the right time for them
>to unite what have otherwise been a very separated Muslim people in
>Europe and the Middle East. We do not see a peaceful settlement in
>sight, and the worst scenario would be a real Holy War the world over.
>
And we know that at least one Arab imam in Denmnark, Abu Laban, has come
with duplicitous utterances, one in English for the Danish population,
one 180° different for the Arab population on Al Arabia.
Other imams have claimed that Danes were to burn off the Koran to-day -
no Koran was burnt, but the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
have been burnt down, and the Swedish and Chilean too {because they were
in the sae building as the Danish embassy}. The French embassy will
probably be the next.
BTW, we don't really understand why our allies in NATO and Iraq, the US
and UK governments, haven't supported us in this case. Instead we have
been supported by the European press, and the French and German
governments.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 04-02-06 19:36 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message news:1ha90mb.17bp7qs1hgfh20N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> BTW, we don't really understand why our allies in NATO and Iraq, the US
> and UK governments, haven't supported us in this case. Instead we have
> been supported by the European press, and the French and German
> governments.
> Per Erik Rønne
I have brought that up with the American Ambassador today, and he said that the US does support Denmark in every way, but not openly, just so that these incidents would not spread into the U.S. This incident can spark off a chain reaction that can go out of control - like I said, a full-scale Holy War. I think everyone (except the Muslims) is now trying to find an acceptable solution to the issue. Personally, I have also been affected in that our concert tour to Dubai this Easter has been cancelled - for obvious reasons.
J.
| |
Jim Walsh (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 15-02-06 07:28 |
|
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 02:36:04 +0800, J.Venning wrote
(in article <43e4f416$0$38673$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>):
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha90mb.17bp7qs1hgfh20N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
>> BTW, we don't really understand why our allies in NATO and Iraq, the US
>> and UK governments, haven't supported us in this case. Instead we have
>> been supported by the European press, and the French and German
>> governments.
>> Per Erik Rønne
>
> I have brought that up with the American Ambassador today, and he said
> that the US does support Denmark in every way, but not openly, .....
I call that cowardly. Shame on Bush.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
N/A (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : N/A |
Dato : 04-02-06 22:36 |
|
| |
nat (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : nat |
Dato : 04-02-06 22:36 |
|
>This incident can spark off a chain reaction that can go out of control -
>like I >said, a full-scale Holy War. I think everyone (except the Muslims)
>is now trying >to find an acceptable solution to the issue.
The only temporary "solution" is for the Western world to back off and
appease the Muslims. But if anyone thinks that will end the conflict, please
contact me; I have a great bridge in Manhattan for sale.
Seriously; It's well known that the muslins want to convert the world to
Islam. this is the goal of many religions, but the difference here is that
the militant muslins are willing, nay, EAGER to commit mindless mayhem to
speed up the process.
I think they are shooting holes in their own boat with their public insanity
and obvious instability. We (the Western world) are slow on the uptake, but
I think we are finally coming to realize that we are facing a serious and
vicious enemy who delight in causing us pain. I expect it won't be long
before we are fed up to the point of cocking and carefully aiming our
weapons and calling out, "THAT'S IT!"
The "good and peaceful Muslim multitude"? Where was their outrage when
several thousand innocents were slaughtered without warning on 9/11?
Where was their outrage when one of their cowardly "brothers" waited outside
an Israeli home for the man of the house to leave, then broke in and shot
the mother reading bedtime stories to her two sons? Oh yes, the pig killed
the kids too.
Where was their outrage when another "brother" beheaded two your young girls
in Indonesia on their way to Sunday school? Their crime? They were
Christians.
Nuf sed.
NH
| |
Per Rønne (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 05-02-06 06:42 |
|
nat <hoopRemovethisnat-a@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where was their outrage when one of their cowardly "brothers" waited outside
> an Israeli home for the man of the house to leave, then broke in and shot
> the mother reading bedtime stories to her two sons? Oh yes, the pig killed
> the kids too.
Or when a suicide bomber choosed to go into a group of kindergarten
children - taking as many of the children with him in death as possible.
> Where was their outrage when another "brother" beheaded two your young girls
> in Indonesia on their way to Sunday school? Their crime? They were
> Christians.
Or when Saudi Arabia beheaded a 23-year old Saudi boy for /owning/ a
Bible - they asserted he had actually /read/ in it and that consequently
he was an apostate. Apostasy from islam is the most serious crime in the
sharia and is always punished with death {in the west we have seem
examples of family members "excecuting" children and siblings for this
"crime"}.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
N/A (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : N/A |
Dato : 05-02-06 06:42 |
|
| |
N/A (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : N/A |
Dato : 04-02-06 19:52 |
|
| |
Kim Henriksen (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Kim Henriksen |
Dato : 04-02-06 19:52 |
|
per@RQNNE.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) writes:
[...]
>BTW, we don't really understand why our allies in NATO and Iraq, the US
>and UK governments, haven't supported us in this case. Instead we have
>been supported by the European press, and the French and German
>governments.
The US state department is currently investigating the issue. The
cartoons could be the missing WMDs.....
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 20:39 |
|
Kim Henriksen <hsmik@ukid.kd> wrote:
> per@RQNNE.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >BTW, we don't really understand why our allies in NATO and Iraq, the US
> >and UK governments, haven't supported us in this case. Instead we have
> >been supported by the European press, and the French and German
> >governments.
>
> The US state department is currently investigating the issue. The
> cartoons could be the missing WMDs.....
Oh, you're from DIKU, the Computer Science Department of the University
of Copenhagen?
I used to be a student there - until I got my MSc degree .
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Egon Stich (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Egon Stich |
Dato : 04-02-06 21:55 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1ha8wo8.1ncqwr71id0v1qN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> And I just hear that the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria, has been
> stormed and burnt down by a Syrian mob - the police didn't interfere.
> The embassy building also contained the Swedish and Chilenean embassy.
>
> And just now, the Norwegian embassy in Damascus is stormed too.
>
> Are the followers of Mohammad gaga?
>
> Will the next embassies to be stormed be the French, German, Spanish,
> Swiss, Italian, Dutch and Belgian? Will Danish embassies in other
> Islamic countries be stormed too?
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
According to German TV, their representation in Gaza has been attacked.
MVH
Egon
| |
1man4all (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 04-02-06 15:55 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> 1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > > Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read it
> > > or seen it.
>
> > That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> > inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas], I can say
> > that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> > but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> > good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> > reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> > artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> > also burn his toes.
> Well, Sappho from Lesbo lived in the 600s BC, more than half a millenium
> before Christ. For sure she didn't try to provoke Christians - and, btw,
Art is timeless, but if you are claiming that Sappho only wrote for her
contemporaries you would have a point. I am not saying that her work
should have been banned or destroyed, but if it appeared to be
encouraging lesbianism then her work, perhaps, should have been admired
in the same way that one is intrigued by works of art by mentally
challenged people. As I have said in the past, sympathy and
understanding of homosexuality need not result in our acceptance of it
as 'normal.'
> the idea that the purpose of art is to provoke is a quite new one.
I stated, "evoke emotion," not "provoke". There is a subtle difference
between the two.
| |
MichaelC (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 04-02-06 16:00 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139064895.002913.54690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Per Rønne wrote:
> 1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > > Not many 'decent' people who condemn a work of art have actually read
it
> > > or seen it.
>
> > That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> > inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas], I can say
> > that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> > but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> > good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> > reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> > artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> > also burn his toes.
> Well, Sappho from Lesbo lived in the 600s BC, more than half a millenium
> before Christ. For sure she didn't try to provoke Christians - and, btw,
Art is timeless, but if you are claiming that Sappho only wrote for her
contemporaries you would have a point. I am not saying that her work
should have been banned or destroyed, but if it appeared to be
encouraging lesbianism then her work, perhaps, should have been admired
in the same way that one is intrigued by works of art by mentally
challenged people. As I have said in the past, sympathy and
understanding of homosexuality need not result in our acceptance of it
as 'normal.'
[Mike] Sappho's lesbianism is likely as much folklore as it was reality. She
was an adherent of the goddess Aphrodite, and tended the Temple to Aphrodite
on the island of Lesbos (pretty remote, back at the time) with a group of
women. Some of her poetry alludes to some sort of lesbianism, but it's
highly interpretive, and there certainly (as I remember it) was no
"encouraging" of lesbianism. Ultimately, she was symbolically demonized
after her death, by my read.
Mike
> the idea that the purpose of art is to provoke is a quite new one.
I stated, "evoke emotion," not "provoke". There is a subtle difference
between the two.
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 17:03 |
|
1man4all <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Art is timeless, but if you are claiming that Sappho only wrote for her
> contemporaries you would have a point. I am not saying that her work
> should have been banned or destroyed, but if it appeared to be
> encouraging lesbianism then her work, perhaps, should have been admired
> in the same way that one is intrigued by works of art by mentally
> challenged people. As I have said in the past, sympathy and
> understanding of homosexuality need not result in our acceptance of it
> as 'normal.'
The Greeks and Romans had no word for "homosexuality" but would had
considered a person who was sexually attracked to one sex only -
handicapped.
However, there is a difference between Roman and Greek ideas; in Rome it
was totally unacceptable for a free Roman boy or man to get penetrated -
though it was an accepted punishment for them if a Roman got penetrated
by a man he had cuckolded - thus being turned into a 'half-man'.
Lesbianism was of no major interest.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
mkao (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : mkao |
Dato : 30-01-06 23:01 |
|
You do open up with a big lie.
"First, the ideology of the western press is to convey the facts, and
do so truthfully."
The Western press does not convey all the fact nor any truth. The free
press for them is the way of protection of all their lies.
| |
mkao (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : mkao |
Dato : 30-01-06 23:02 |
|
You do open up with big lie in your statement.
"First, the ideology of the western press is to convey the facts, and
do so truthfully. "
The Western press does not convey any fact nor any truth. The Western
lies everyday. They need government to protect their lies.
| |
Richard Dell (30-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 30-01-06 23:13 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
> > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
> > important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
> > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition had
> > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic
> > dogma?
>
> Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
> > You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction in
> > terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
> > don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics to
> > be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
> > irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
> > response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
> > game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
> > seeing any.
>
> I am not talking about legislation for pluralism. Rather, I find it
> strange that the
> government claimed to have no influence on its citizens and
> organziations.
That has been answered elsewhere in this thread.
> > Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
> > views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
> > until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt by
> > counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to test
> > for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits. We
> > have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood or
> > reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
> > outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear to
> > attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
>
> Agree that Flat Earth believers are their own problems because the
> earth is not flat. A
> matter of the physical sciences. Rejecting flat earth theory is
> inevitable in our search for truth. Can we say the same about the
> cartoon series? Are the cartoons attempts to search for truth, or
> defending the truth.
They are not just about truth, they are more about freedom. Just as you
should be able to say the world is not flat, you should be free to say
that Mohammad was a brutal charlatan. A cartoon of a round world may
offend flat-earthers, and a cartoon of Mohammad the Terrorist may
offend Muslims. In both cases a picture is worth a thousand words.
> > > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > > > now enjoy.
> > >
> > > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> > > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
> >
> > They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out as
> > much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
> > using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper. Not
> > only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
> > respect or an argument.
>
> In most disputes, neither sides can claimed to be blameless. I have no
> problem with that. My question, as I had posted in my original post is
> whether the government is telling the truth when it claimed to have no
> influence at all.
Of course it has influence, but it considers that to use its influence
in such a matter (being outside any legal power it has) would be the
improper use of such influence. The issue that the paper wished to
highlight was that nobody dared to say boo to Muslims on account of
their extreme sensitivity and propensity for violence, and that such an
atmosphere of self censorship by fear was intolerable. Most people in
the Free World would agree with that.
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:42 |
|
Richard Dell wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > > | Alright, you will have a case if you do find
> > > |
> > > | 1. "stuff from Islamic countries that ridicules the idea that Jesus
> > > is
> > > | God" and
> > >
> > > The inscriptions around the Dome of the Rock, placed in the heart of
> > > Christendom with the deliberate intent of insulting Christians,
> > > including:
> >
> > When was the Dome of the Rock placed there and why did the muslim
> > choose that place?
>
> I am sure you can do your own research from here on.
My bet: The inscriptions was put there when the city was dwelled by
muslims.
>
> > > | 2. in general people from countries with Christian majorities do not
> > > do
> > > | this kind of stuff.
> > >
> > > True, desecration of the holy sites, symbols and texts is a mainly
> > > Muslim practice:
> > >
> > > ... a nun arrived at the customs desk at Jeddah airport.
> > >
> > > "Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah.
> > > You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be
> > > tormented."
> > >
> > > "They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book
> > > through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
> > > tormented her for many minutes."
> > > http://tinyurl.com/d65lr
> >
> > Americans buy a lot of bibles everyyear. They also put a lot of bibles
> > into the waste baskets which end up in city dumps.The same to cheaply
> > made crucifix."...took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it,
> > tormented her for many minutes." is a different story. The nun's
> > country should protest and seek apologies and/or compensation if the
> > nun had legitimate reason to enter the country.
>
> She was in transit - not entering the country at all, though why that
> makes any difference escapes me. Stop making excuses for outrageous
> behaviour by a very nasty culture. As for apologies, dream on - they
> don't do humility.
May be you guys can complain harder. Write to your congressman.
> Try doing that to a Koran ... anywhere. Do it in the west and your
> local Muslim brethren will smash your windows. Do it in Islamia and you
> could be hanging from a rope, or battered to death by a mob.
>
> You say you are not a Muslim. Wake up, we are in a World War, declared
> by Islam, with the intent of converting, enslaving or killing everyone
> on the planet. Methods, decency, compassion, truth, law, tolerance,
> justice - all are irrelevant to them, only conquest matters.
I wonder whether you know you are talking about a good percentage of
humanity.
| |
Richard Dell (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 01-02-06 17:03 |
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Au1Ef.21447$Jd.9161@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
| Well, IIRC, the last time he took this "restricted speech" position
in
| active debate (at least in a thread I was reading), he took the
"social
| order trumps free speech" position that is typical of Lenin, Stalin,
Mao,
| Ceacescau, and which is to some extent the postion of the Middle
Eastern
| totalitarians. He's now moved on in his thinking to the protection of
| minorities, which sounds all warm and fuzzy and noble, but simply
| substitutues "anti-bigotry" for "social order" in the above equation.
| (There's also an element of "liberties are fine as long as they are
rational
| and reasoned", which is, in my view, just a variant of "liberties
are
| granted by the goverment, and are not innate."
|
| Doesn't matter what color lipstick you put on that fascist/communist
pig,
| it's still a fascist/communist pig.
I wonder if he has mirrors in his house, as he does not seem able to
see himself as others see him. Until we can all do this, we can never
agree on what "fair" means. The trouble is I don't think he wants to.
Over the years I have studied Islam, it keeps being impressed on me the
vast cultural gulf there is between Islam and not just the West, but
just about everyone else on this planet and also with each other. As
Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
In yesterday's debate on Blair's ridiculous religious hatred bill, Bob
Marshall-Andrews (of Blair's own Labour party) said:
"The problem is not that the legislation is unclear, but that it is
too blisteringly clear, in that the examples that have been given
recently-the cartoons of the Prophet-would undoubtedly be caught
under the recklessness provisions. It could not possibly be argued that
those who produced them were not reckless as to the fact that some
people were likely to have religious hatred stirred within them. Does
not that underline the fact that whereas we have always inhibited our
freedom of speech to deal with race and racial matters, for 300 years
we have turned our face against protecting faith by legislation because
we cannot protect faith without protecting bigotry?"
http://tinyurl.com/c8hca
Also http://tinyurl.com/exwtg
Michael Gove also spoke well: http://tinyurl.com/99gn2
And that is the point the Muslims cannot get due to their extreme
parochial view of the world: "We're right and you're wrong".
Regards, Richard
| |
MichaelC (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 01-02-06 17:29 |
|
"Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138809789.302711.23010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Au1Ef.21447$Jd.9161@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> | Well, IIRC, the last time he took this "restricted speech" position
> in
> | active debate (at least in a thread I was reading), he took the
> "social
> | order trumps free speech" position that is typical of Lenin, Stalin,
> Mao,
> | Ceacescau, and which is to some extent the postion of the Middle
> Eastern
> | totalitarians. He's now moved on in his thinking to the protection of
> | minorities, which sounds all warm and fuzzy and noble, but simply
> | substitutues "anti-bigotry" for "social order" in the above equation.
> | (There's also an element of "liberties are fine as long as they are
> rational
> | and reasoned", which is, in my view, just a variant of "liberties
> are
> | granted by the goverment, and are not innate."
> |
> | Doesn't matter what color lipstick you put on that fascist/communist
> pig,
> | it's still a fascist/communist pig.
>
> I wonder if he has mirrors in his house, as he does not seem able to
> see himself as others see him. Until we can all do this, we can never
> agree on what "fair" means. The trouble is I don't think he wants to.
> Over the years I have studied Islam, it keeps being impressed on me the
> vast cultural gulf there is between Islam and not just the West, but
> just about everyone else on this planet and also with each other. As
> Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
It's not Islam entirely, but also cultural. As you're likely aware, my wife
is Syrian, her dad is Iraqi. I can tell you categorically that there's
certain libertarian concepts that I can reason with my wife about until I'm
blue in the face, but she's just not going to get it. (The most typical one
is that a crime does *not*, in the US legal system, create a debt-in-kind on
the part of the perpetrator. My wife's view of justice, at its core, is
eye-for-eye, and she sees no problem with revenge being an element in the
justice equation.)
Bottom line is that not everything computes from culture to culture. Now,
when you add a triumphalistic and inherently arrogant religious tradition on
top of the entire matter, it compounds the problem, granted.
>
> In yesterday's debate on Blair's ridiculous religious hatred bill, Bob
> Marshall-Andrews (of Blair's own Labour party) said:
>
> "The problem is not that the legislation is unclear, but that it is
> too blisteringly clear, in that the examples that have been given
> recently-the cartoons of the Prophet-would undoubtedly be caught
> under the recklessness provisions. It could not possibly be argued that
> those who produced them were not reckless as to the fact that some
> people were likely to have religious hatred stirred within them. Does
> not that underline the fact that whereas we have always inhibited our
> freedom of speech to deal with race and racial matters, for 300 years
> we have turned our face against protecting faith by legislation because
> we cannot protect faith without protecting bigotry?"
> http://tinyurl.com/c8hca
Spot on. Look at Italy, where the lawsuits brought against Oriana Fallaci
have quickly revealed the hornet's nest this sort of misguided legislation
leads to. We've got your double standard RIGHT HERE -- look no further. (I
should add that the action of Muslims tossing Chrisitans religious symbols
out the window is one which my wife has experience with, first-hand.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci
In 2002 in Switzerland the Islamic Center and the Somal Association of
Geneva, SOS Racisme of Lausanne and a private citizen sued her for the
supposedly racist content of The Rage and The Pride. In November 2002 a
Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for violations of article 261 and 261
bis of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to
either trial or extradite her. Roberto Castelli, Italian minister of Justice
mentioned this fact in an interview broadcasted by Radio Padania affirming
that the Italian Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech and thus the
extradition request had to be rejected, the episode is mentioned in her book
The force of the Reason [7][8][9]
In 2003 the MRAP (Movement against racism and for the friendship among
peoples) sued to have The Rage and The Pride banned in France. A French
court rejected the request, as well as the group's request for a disclaimer
to be placed in each book.
In May, 2005, Adel Smith, the President of the Union of Italian Muslims (one
of the numerous Islamic communities in Italy), launched a lawsuit against
Fallaci charging that "some of the things she said in her book The Force of
Reason are offensive to Islam." Smith's attorney, Matteo Nicoli, cited a
phrase from the book that refers to Islam as "a pool that never purifies."
Consequently an Italian judge ordered her to stand trial set for June 2006
in Bergamo on charges of "defaming Islam." A previous prosecutor had sought
dismissal of the charges.
Ironically, on June 14, 2005 Adel Smith himself was sentenced by an Italian
court in Padua to six months in prison (commuted to a fine of ? 6.000), for
the crime of defaming religion. On January 4, 2003, during a live broadcast
on Italian TV, Smith had characterized Christianity as a "criminal
association" and described Pope John Paul II as "a foreigner who leads the
church ... a con man". On 13 Januar 2006 Adel Smith was sentenced again to 8
months in prison for the crime of defaming religion. On 15 December 2003 he
trew out of the window a crucifix in the hospital room where his mother and
two other women were ailing, he describes the crucifix as "the small corpse
that scares childrens". The hospital direction nd numerous persons in Italy
sued him afterwards.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 19:55 |
|
Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
Dictionary knows the word
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Bob Cooper (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bob Cooper |
Dato : 01-02-06 20:24 |
|
"Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
>
> What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> Dictionary knows the word
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
Per, many dictionaries have it:
in·nards [ ínn?rdz ]
plural noun
Definitions:
1. internal organs: the internal organs of the body, especially the intestines
2. internal parts of a machine: the internal working parts of a machine or
mechanical device
[Early 19th century. Alteration of inwards (plural noun)]
More here:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=innards&ls=a
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 20:34 |
|
Bob Cooper <rcooper1@cox.net> wrote:
> "Per Rønne" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
> >
> > What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> > Dictionary knows the word
> Per, many dictionaries have it:
> in·nards [ ínn?rdz ]
> plural noun
OK, I looked up "innard" ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
J.Venning (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 01-02-06 20:15 |
|
""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> Dictionary knows the word
> Per Erik Rønne
He meant "innards". På dansk heder det indvolde.
J.
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 20:34 |
|
J.Venning <Venning@Yahoo.dk> wrote:
> ""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> > What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> > Dictionary knows the word
> > Per Erik Rønne
>
> He meant "innards". På dansk heder det indvolde.
OK.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Phaedrine (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 01-02-06 21:31 |
|
In article <1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
>
> What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> Dictionary knows the word
That's weird. I found it in my OED:
innards: Dial. and vulgar alteration of inwards (see INWARD a. and n.
B. 1b) Œentrails¹. Now in common colloq. use. (Marshall, 1787 (see
E.D.D.) has only inwards.) Also transf. and fig., the inside (of
anything).
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 10:45 |
|
Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
> per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
>
> > Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
> >
> > What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> > Dictionary knows the word
>
> That's weird. I found it in my OED:
>
> innards: Dial. and vulgar alteration of inwards (see INWARD a. and n.
> B. 1b) 'entrails'. Now in common colloq. use. (Marshall, 1787 (see
> E.D.D.) has only inwards.) Also transf. and fig., the inside (of
> anything).
And I looked up "innard" - I've got the CD-ROM version on the harddisk
so I wasn't informed on the "innards".
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Phaedrine (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 02-02-06 20:16 |
|
In article <1ha4nsn.9dfru31bso9yzN%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ha3iyl.thsqvhq7d524N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
> > per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Dell <rfdell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As Huntington said: "Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards".
> > >
> > > What does "innard" mean? Not even my 23 volumes Oxford English
> > > Dictionary knows the word
> >
> > That's weird. I found it in my OED:
> >
> > innards: Dial. and vulgar alteration of inwards (see INWARD a. and n.
> > B. 1b) 'entrails'. Now in common colloq. use. (Marshall, 1787 (see
> > E.D.D.) has only inwards.) Also transf. and fig., the inside (of
> > anything).
>
> And I looked up "innard" - I've got the CD-ROM version on the harddisk
> so I wasn't informed on the "innards".
I see. I thought the CD-ROM was only for the Windows platform, by the
way.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Per Rønne (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 02-02-06 21:45 |
|
Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> > And I looked up "innard" - I've got the CD-ROM version on the harddisk
> > so I wasn't informed on the "innards".
>
> I see. I thought the CD-ROM was only for the Windows platform, by the
> way.
There is a CD-ROM for the MacOS too though it has been "out of print"
for years. I'm using OED3 on Windows, actually, I'm using a Mac desktop,
an IBM Thinkpad laptop and a Windows desktop every day - the ladder
mainly as a harddisk recorder with dvd-burner.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Phaedrine (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 03-02-06 06:21 |
|
In article <1ha5inz.1kkhm7v1e72wd7N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I looked up "innard" - I've got the CD-ROM version on the harddisk
> > > so I wasn't informed on the "innards".
> >
> > I see. I thought the CD-ROM was only for the Windows platform, by the
> > way.
>
> There is a CD-ROM for the MacOS too though it has been "out of print"
> for years. I'm using OED3 on Windows, actually, I'm using a Mac desktop,
> an IBM Thinkpad laptop and a Windows desktop every day - the ladder
> mainly as a harddisk recorder with dvd-burner.
Well you're sure prepared. That's quite a setup. :)
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Per Rønne (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 03-02-06 06:58 |
|
Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1ha5inz.1kkhm7v1e72wd7N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
> per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
>
> > Phaedrine <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And I looked up "innard" - I've got the CD-ROM version on the harddisk
> > > > so I wasn't informed on the "innards".
> > >
> > > I see. I thought the CD-ROM was only for the Windows platform, by the
> > > way.
> >
> > There is a CD-ROM for the MacOS too though it has been "out of print"
> > for years. I'm using OED3 on Windows, actually, I'm using a Mac desktop,
> > an IBM Thinkpad laptop and a Windows desktop every day - the ladder
> > mainly as a harddisk recorder with dvd-burner.
>
> Well you're sure prepared. That's quite a setup. :)
I'm a computer science major and have English as my minor subject. Six
years of university study [official duration of study programme] after
my S-levels. And I teach at our three-year Sixth Form Colleges for the
16-19 year-olds.
Having a university education in a foreign language doesn't mean that
you are 100% perfect in this language. But I have noticed that people
with my background use large dictionaries much more than people with
less background who rarely use dictionaries at all. They think they are
perfect ;-(.
--
Per Erik Rønne, MSc
Frederikssundsvej 308B, 3. tv.
DK-2700 Brønshøj, Denmark
Telephone + fax +45 38 89 00 16, mobile +45 28 23 09 92
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Axel Hammerschmidt (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Axel Hammerschmidt |
Dato : 04-02-06 01:58 |
|
Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> ... actually, I'm using a Mac desktop, an IBM Thinkpad laptop and a
> Windows desktop every day - the ladder mainly as a harddisk recorder with
> dvd-burner.
A neat trick
| |
Per Rønne (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 04-02-06 08:39 |
|
Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > ... actually, I'm using a Mac desktop, an IBM Thinkpad laptop and a
> > Windows desktop every day - the ladder mainly as a harddisk recorder with
> > dvd-burner.
>
> A neat trick
And much cheaper .
And better even ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Axel Hammerschmidt (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Axel Hammerschmidt |
Dato : 04-02-06 21:11 |
|
Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
<snip snip>
> > > - the ladder mainly as a harddisk recorder with dvd-burner.
> >
> > A neat trick
>
> And much cheaper .
>
> And better even ...
The joke's on me - I snipped to early
| |
marika (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : marika |
Dato : 05-02-06 21:28 |
|
Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
> many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
> mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
>
> Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists, much
> the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
>
>
but what drives cartoonist?
I am catching up with my emails here and I am watching the Cartoon
Network
(Cartoon Cartoon)
And there is this short little betty boop type thing on, clearly an
original, but it was dubbed with some music. It appears to mainly
"revolve"
around a race track, and then betty playing an organ
but the music dubbed over seems to me to be SOUL COUGHING????!!!!!
I am not imagining this. Anyone else seen it???
mk5000
"So listen to my Y-O, heres my bio
And next to me, ha, your not fly yo
Ya lack skills to be a woman thats black
Fake hair in the back, plus green contacts"--you can't play with my
yo-yo
| |
Jim (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim |
Dato : 05-02-06 22:05 |
|
"marika" <marika5000@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139171305.704586.88480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
>> many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
>> mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
>>
>> Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists,
>> much
>> the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
>>
>>
>
> but what drives cartoonist?
The same that drives a writer I guess.
> I am catching up with my emails here and I am watching the Cartoon
> Network
> (Cartoon Cartoon)
>
> And there is this short little betty boop type thing on, clearly an
> original, but it was dubbed with some music. It appears to mainly
> "revolve"
> around a race track, and then betty playing an organ
>
> but the music dubbed over seems to me to be SOUL COUGHING????!!!!!
>
> I am not imagining this. Anyone else seen it???
No, but perhaps you should lay off the coffee at this time at the evening.
;0)
| |
1man4all (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 08-02-06 05:15 |
|
Warren Hopper wrote:
> > That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> > inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas],
> Oh, oh. Better hope your wife doesn't have an email sniffer installed on
> your machine, you may want to think about encrypting all your ARI
> correspondence ... but she's probably used to it by now.
Actually buying the home computer was her idea [she now denies it!...]
but few months later she told me that it would have been better if I
had brought home another wife. I think you know how it is...Anyway, my
wife is not computer savvy enough to do what you are suggesting. Thank
God for that.
> > I can say
> > that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> > but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> > good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> > reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> > artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> > also burn his toes.
> Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
> many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
> mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
Fetish? Burned toes? Are you serious? Are practicing for sex in their
ultimate abode, hell?
> Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists, much
> the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
I do believe in visions. One possible theory is that a brain is like a
computer, capable of browsing and transforming for its own needs
millions of images it has stored and, if sufficiently trained, is also
capable of receiving messages, which appear in the form of visions,
symbolic dreams or sudden ideas, transmitted from other people or even
transmitted across the universe. So it could very well be that when
your brain is browsing, in a dream-like state, it can come across a
cosmic 'site' and there is a 'popup', not something that your brain
instantly invents but you come across.
[I have snipped the rest of your post because quite frankly I've
gotten bored with this subject of cartoons and need to move on to
something else. I truly wanted to discuss your "book" and Jinns in
the computer but I'll leave that for another time. This thread is
getting too long as it is : -)].
| |
Warren Hopper (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Warren Hopper |
Dato : 08-02-06 18:37 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139372126.498600.307710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > > That's very true, but as a person, who is somewhat artistically
> > > inclined and used to write poetry [then I got married, alas],
>
> > Oh, oh. Better hope your wife doesn't have an email sniffer installed
on
> > your machine, you may want to think about encrypting all your ARI
> > correspondence ... but she's probably used to it by now.
>
> Actually buying the home computer was her idea [she now denies it!...]
> but few months later she told me that it would have been better if I
> had brought home another wife.
After hearing this, I know many computer widows who will take a very
different view of the 'other' woman.
> I think you know how it is...Anyway, my
> wife is not computer savvy enough to do what you are suggesting. Thank
> God for that.
>
> > > I can say
> > > that a true artist or a poet does seek either honor or condemnation,
> > > but never neglect. If the very objective of art is to evoke emotion,
> > > good or bad, it should come as no surprise that occasionally the
> > > reaction would overwhelm or even destroy the work of art itself. The
> > > artist or the poet must consider the risk that the fire he starts can
> > > also burn his toes.
>
> > Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
> > many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
> > mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
>
> Fetish? Burned toes? Are you serious? Are practicing for sex in their
> ultimate abode, hell?
>
> > Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists,
much
> > the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
>
> I do believe in visions. One possible theory is that a brain is like a
> computer, capable of browsing and transforming for its own needs
> millions of images it has stored and, if sufficiently trained, is also
> capable of receiving messages, which appear in the form of visions,
> symbolic dreams or sudden ideas, transmitted from other people or even
> transmitted across the universe. So it could very well be that when
> your brain is browsing, in a dream-like state, it can come across a
> cosmic 'site' and there is a 'popup', not something that your brain
> instantly invents but you come across.
I have been fascinated by the subject of vision, or maybe 'non-perceptual
perception', for many years. When I was very young, I experienced
'enormity', maybe in a sense of 'extra-normity'. It's difficult to find the
right words. I was well into my teens when I read the book "Varieties of
Mystic Experience" and realized that most people don't have these
experiences. It was something of a shock to me.
I could write a long treatise on the subject but will try to restrain
myself.
One important aspect is what I call 'computational feats'. There was an
excellent article in Scientific American a few months ago about a man who
suffered from massive developmental anomalies to the structural of his
brain. Yet he remembers virtually everything he has ever read or heard.
There are countless examples of people who can not perform the most
rudimentary acts of daily life, and yet can multiply two large numbers in a
fraction of a second.
Another important aspect is 'location', both in the sense where one is and
the innate ability to put oneself in the other 'location'. One
manifestation of 'location' is dreams.
We receive of flood of stimuli from our brain during sleep which we try to
put into a context based on our experience. From that seed of context, our
'minds' ( as distinct from brains ) build an entire inner world of
perceptions, the visions of dreams. In fact, there is an elaborate
mechanism within our brains to deactivate the motor areas during sleep so we
don't run around and walk off cliffs and such. One can imagine early modern
humans as inveterate sleep walkers.
From perception, both inner and outer, we build complex networks of symbolic
reference that are in some way meaningful to us. We are in a sense
programmed to seek meaning, to 'locate' ourselves within a world of symbolic
reference.
Yet sometimes we run into the shadow or scaffolding of the 'watcher watching
the watcher'. We somehow transcend the mechanics of our own perception and
meanings. We recognize ourselves for what we truly are. And the experience
can be truly terrifying. I stopped doing transcendental mediation because I
was beginning to 'drift away'. Even now I wake up some mornings to the
world that is, quite literally, a dull winter gray compared to what I have
just seen ( this morning was one of them ). The physical mechanics of outer
perception can not support the unmediated purity and intensity of inner
perception.
Where's God in all this ? I have no idea. Some Hindus say "Atman is
Brahman", crudely translated as "The Self is God". But it's no boast, rather
it's a terrible burden, with rewards of course, but nonetheless an agony in
the midst of comfort.
Sometimes I envy animals. You want to chase the cat, chase the cat. You
want to poop on the new rug, poop on the new rug. At least until I see them
sleep running and whimpering, from excitement or terror I can't tell.
I think it may center on what I call the 'Mystery of Personality', which
even animals seem to have. Except for cats ( don't give cats an inch or
they will rule over you ).
I promised to make it brief and haven't done too badly. Vision, especially
the prophetic quality of vision, is a mystery and maybe that's the way it's
intended to be.
>
> [I have snipped the rest of your post because quite frankly I've
> gotten bored with this subject of cartoons and need to move on to
> something else. I truly wanted to discuss your "book" and Jinns in
> the computer but I'll leave that for another time. This thread is
> getting too long as it is : -)].
>
Mercifully snipped.
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 00:49 |
|
Richard Dell wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
> > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
> > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
> > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition had
> > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for Catholic
> > > dogma?
> >
> > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
>
> The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
What point?
Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance that
respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
muslim worldwide.
> > > You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction in
> > > terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
> > > don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics to
> > > be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
> > > irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
> > > response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
> > > game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
> > > seeing any.
> >
> > I am not talking about legislation for pluralism. Rather, I find it
> > strange that the
> > government claimed to have no influence on its citizens and
> > organziations.
>
> That has been answered elsewhere in this thread.
>
> > > Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
> > > views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
> > > until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt by
> > > counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to test
> > > for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits. We
> > > have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood or
> > > reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
> > > outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear to
> > > attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
> >
> > Agree that Flat Earth believers are their own problems because the
> > earth is not flat. A
> > matter of the physical sciences. Rejecting flat earth theory is
> > inevitable in our search for truth. Can we say the same about the
> > cartoon series? Are the cartoons attempts to search for truth, or
> > defending the truth.
>
> They are not just about truth, they are more about freedom. Just as you
> should be able to say the world is not flat, you should be free to say
> that Mohammad was a brutal charlatan. A cartoon of a round world may
> offend flat-earthers, and a cartoon of Mohammad the Terrorist may
> offend Muslims. In both cases a picture is worth a thousand words.
>
> > > > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict freedom
> > > > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get the
> > > > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the freedoms they
> > > > > now enjoy.
> > > >
> > > > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far as I
> > > > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > > > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak out.
> > >
> > > They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out as
> > > much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
> > > using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper. Not
> > > only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
> > > respect or an argument.
> >
> > In most disputes, neither sides can claimed to be blameless. I have no
> > problem with that. My question, as I had posted in my original post is
> > whether the government is telling the truth when it claimed to have no
> > influence at all.
>
> Of course it has influence, but it considers that to use its influence
> in such a matter (being outside any legal power it has) would be the
> improper use of such influence. The issue that the paper wished to
> highlight was that nobody dared to say boo to Muslims on account of
> their extreme sensitivity and propensity for violence, and that such an
> atmosphere of self censorship by fear was intolerable. Most people in
> the Free World would agree with that.
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:11 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Dell wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> >
> > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
> > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
> > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
> > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition
had
> > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for
Catholic
> > > > dogma?
> > >
> > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
> >
> > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
>
> What point?
> Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance that
> respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
> findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
>
> If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> muslim worldwide.
Why? The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the Danes say?
Why is there such a collective insecurity on the part of Muslims?
Mike
>
>
> > > > You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction
in
> > > > terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
> > > > don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics
to
> > > > be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
> > > > irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
> > > > response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
> > > > game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
> > > > seeing any.
> > >
> > > I am not talking about legislation for pluralism. Rather, I find it
> > > strange that the
> > > government claimed to have no influence on its citizens and
> > > organziations.
> >
> > That has been answered elsewhere in this thread.
> >
> > > > Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
> > > > views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
> > > > until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt
by
> > > > counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to
test
> > > > for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits.
We
> > > > have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood
or
> > > > reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
> > > > outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear
to
> > > > attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
> > >
> > > Agree that Flat Earth believers are their own problems because the
> > > earth is not flat. A
> > > matter of the physical sciences. Rejecting flat earth theory is
> > > inevitable in our search for truth. Can we say the same about the
> > > cartoon series? Are the cartoons attempts to search for truth, or
> > > defending the truth.
> >
> > They are not just about truth, they are more about freedom. Just as you
> > should be able to say the world is not flat, you should be free to say
> > that Mohammad was a brutal charlatan. A cartoon of a round world may
> > offend flat-earthers, and a cartoon of Mohammad the Terrorist may
> > offend Muslims. In both cases a picture is worth a thousand words.
> >
> > > > > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict
freedom
> > > > > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get
the
> > > > > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the
freedoms they
> > > > > > now enjoy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far
as I
> > > > > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > > > > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak
out.
> > > >
> > > > They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out
as
> > > > much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
> > > > using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper.
Not
> > > > only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
> > > > respect or an argument.
> > >
> > > In most disputes, neither sides can claimed to be blameless. I have no
> > > problem with that. My question, as I had posted in my original post is
> > > whether the government is telling the truth when it claimed to have no
> > > influence at all.
> >
> > Of course it has influence, but it considers that to use its influence
> > in such a matter (being outside any legal power it has) would be the
> > improper use of such influence. The issue that the paper wished to
> > highlight was that nobody dared to say boo to Muslims on account of
> > their extreme sensitivity and propensity for violence, and that such an
> > atmosphere of self censorship by fear was intolerable. Most people in
> > the Free World would agree with that.
>
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:57 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:11:20 +0800, MichaelC wrote
(in article <IWxDf.15441$_S7.4735@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):
> The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the Danes say?
Some Danes are Muslims.
I am an atheist. I care what Danes say. I care what you say. I care what the
President of the PRC says.
In some sense, I care what everyone says.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
B. Nice (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:19 |
|
On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
>sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
>muslim worldwide.
You only get insulted if You choose to.
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 02:17 |
|
"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64btt1le4t7itgulgsv3rk0p7m7gf94ten@4ax.com...
> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> >sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> >however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> >muslim worldwide.
>
> You only get insulted if You choose to.
I recall a very wise group of saying by various people of history that would
infer that if a word from the Danes (or anyone) can cause such distress
amongst Muslims, then it means the Muslims consider the Danes to be superior
to them, else the Danes would not have such power over them.
Mike
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:59 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:18:34 +0800, B. Nice wrote
(in article <64btt1le4t7itgulgsv3rk0p7m7gf94ten@4ax.com>):
> On 30 Jan 2006 15:48:30 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
>> sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
>> however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
>> muslim worldwide.
>
> You only get insulted if You choose to.
And anyway, insults do not justify repression or violence.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 22:19 |
|
B. Nice wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006 09:09:22 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >No. I am saying the issue is not about right. If you insist on the
> >language of right, then Islam certainly does not grant the cartoonist
> >the right to ridicule Islam.
>
> Islamic rules may be valid for muslims. They have absolutely no
> validity for others.
>
> >The alternative view I presented is: Danish cartoonists could have make
> >fun and practice free speech on most of humanity. However, I see no
> >reason why they have to single out one figure. What is the necssecity
> >or need for that?
>
> See, this is one of the big problems in cases like this. People see
> only a fraction of the story. Most people don't care to look into the
> context in which the drawings were made.
>
> And everytime the story is re-told, information is lost and new
> information is added. Read the famous fairytale "It's quite true" by
> the danish writer Hans Christian Andersen about how a little feather
> grows to become five hens and You will know what I mean.
The following is from NYtimes.
Is the article good enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/international/europe/08denmark.ready.html
------------------------------
The New York Times
January 8, 2006
Denmark Is Unlikely Front in Islam-West Culture War
By DAN BILEFSKY
COPENHAGEN - When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, including one in which he is shown
wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, it expected a
strong reaction in this country of 5.4 million people.
But the paper was unprepared for the global furor that ensued,
including demonstrations in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir,
death threats against the artists, condemnation from 11 Muslim
countries and a rebuke from the United Nations.
"The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular
Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims," said
Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest
newspaper, which has declined to apologize for the drawings.
"But if we talk of freedom of speech, even if it was a provocation,
that does not make our right to do it any less legitimate before the
law," he added in an interview from Miami. He spent months living under
police protection in Denmark.
As countries across Europe grapple with how to assimilate their growing
Muslim populations in the post-9/11 world, Denmark has become an
unlikely flashpoint in the escalating culture wars between Islam and
the West. The publication of the cartoons in late September has
provoked a fierce national debate over whether Denmark's famously
liberal laws on free speech have gone too far.
It also has tested the patience of Denmark's 200,000 Muslims. Many of
them say the cartoons reflect an intensifying anti-immigrant climate
that is stigmatizing minorities and radicalizing young Muslims.
In Norrebro, an ethnically mixed neighborhood of Copenhagen where the
philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is buried and where kebab stands dot the
tree-lined streets, Imam Ahmed Abu-Laban, a leader among Denmark's
Muslims, bristles at what he calls the "Islam phobia" gripping the
country. He asserted that the cartoons had been calculated to incite
Muslims because it was well known that in Islam depictions of the
prophet were considered blasphemy.
"We are being mentally tortured," Imam Ahmed said at his mosque, an
anonymous building that looks more like an apartment complex than a
house of worship. "The cartoons are an insult against Islam, an attempt
by right-wing forces in this country to get a rise out of the Muslim
community and so portray us as against Danish values."
Mr. Rose, once a journalist in Iran, said he decided to commission the
cartoons for Jyllands-Posten when he heard that Danish cartoonists were
too scared of Muslim fundamentalists to illustrate a new children's
biography of Muhammad.
Annoyed at the self-censorship he said had overtaken Europe since the
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered last year by a Muslim
radical for criticizing Islam's treatment of women, Mr. Rose said he
decided to test Denmark's free speech norms.
The cartoons were published amid the growth of an anti-immigrant
sentiment in Denmark, reflected in the rise of the far-right Danish
People's Party. The party, which holds 13 percent of the seats in the
Danish Parliament, has helped to push through the toughest
anti-immigration rules on the Continent, including a rule preventing
Danish citizens age 24 or younger from bringing in spouses from outside
Denmark.
Soren Krarup, a retired priest and leading voice in the party, said the
Muslim response to the cartoons showed that Islam was not compatible
with Danish customs. He said Jesus had been satirized in Danish
literature and popular culture for centuries - including a recent
much-publicized Danish painting of Jesus with an erection - so why not
Muhammad? He also argues that Muslims must learn to integrate.
"Muslims who come here reject our culture," he said. "Muslim
immigration is a way for Muslims to conquer us, just as they have done
for the past 1,400 years."
Muslim leaders say that such talk helped create the atmosphere that
allowed the cartoons to be published. And they contend that it is
alienating the people the Danish People's Party says it wants to
assimilate.
In a sign that some Muslims are becoming radicalized, Danish
counterterrorism officials say more young Danish Muslims are being
drawn to Hizb ut-Tahrir, or the Party of Liberation, which seeks the
unification of all Muslim countries under one leader and Shariah, the
Islamic legal code. The group, which distributes literature at mosques
and on the Internet, is banned in most of the Muslim world, as well as
in Russia and Germany.
But because its main weapon is ideology rather than explosives, Danish
officials say, it is allowed to operate in Denmark under the same
permissive rules that allowed the publication of the cartoons. Under
Danish law, inciting someone to commit an act of terror is illegal, but
spouting vitriol against the West or satirizing Muhammad is not. The
State Prosecutor's Office investigated the group in spring 2004 and
decided not to ban it because it had not broken the law.
The free speech debate and the concerns over Hizb ut-Tahrir swept
through Denmark's public schools last month when the imam's 17-year-old
son, Taim, was expelled from Vester Borgerdyd School, after teachers
overheard him giving sermons calling for the destruction of Israel and
assailing Danish democracy during Friday Prayer at the school. The imam
said his son became radicalized after being recruited by Hizb
ut-Tahrir.
He said he opposed his son's sermons and had told his son to leave the
house for defying him. But he also criticized the ruling that followed:
a committee of mostly Christian rectors banned Friday Prayer at public
schools across Denmark.
"They are trying to turn Denmark into a banana republic," said Imam
Ahmed. "How is it O.K. to publish the cartoons, yet my son is portrayed
as an ayatollah?"
At Vester Borgerdyd School, where the walls are lined with photographs
of smiling students in Muslim dress, the headmistress, Anne Birgitte
Rasmussen, said that Taim Abu-Laban had attracted a following and that
she had feared his sermons would raise tensions among the school's more
moderate Muslims.
"The tone of the political debate in this country, the talk about
Muslims and immigrants, is making it very difficult for us," she said.
Mr. Rose, the editor, said free speech, no matter how radical, should
be allowed to flourish, from all varieties of perspectives.
"Muslims should be allowed to burn the Danish flag in a public square
if that's within the boundaries of the law," he said. "Though I think
this would be a strange signal to the Danish people who have hosted
them."
-------------------------
> >You can also read the post by another poster 1man4all.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
> >> < http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
marika (05-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : marika |
Dato : 05-02-06 22:15 |
|
Jim wrote:
> "marika" <marika5000@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139171305.704586.88480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Warren Hopper wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes .... but .... but what ? Burned toes do not an artist make and too
> >> many modern artists make a fetish of having burned toes. Popular
> >> mythologies about the 'suffering artist' are vastly overstated.
> >>
> >> Certainly there is a authentic vision of something that drives artists,
> >> much
> >> the same sort of vision that drives scientists.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > but what drives cartoonist?
>
> The same that drives a writer I guess.
the lyrics, I found are actually a band called Cake. The musician is
driven too I guess, around the track, and the lyrics are quite
strangely appropriate for this discussion, see below, where I will
attach them
>
> > I am catching up with my emails here and I am watching the Cartoon
> > Network
> > (Cartoon Cartoon)
> >
> > And there is this short little betty boop type thing on, clearly an
> > original, but it was dubbed with some music. It appears to mainly
> > "revolve"
> > around a race track, and then betty playing an organ
> >
> > but the music dubbed over seems to me to be SOUL COUGHING????!!!!!
> >
> > I am not imagining this. Anyone else seen it???
>
> No, but perhaps you should lay off the coffee at this time at the evening.
> ;0)
It's really early afternoon here, and I had my coffee at around 11 am.
but still lol.
mk5000
Reluctantly crouched at the starting line
Engines pumping and thumping in time
The green light flashes, the flags go up
Churning and burning they yearn for the cup
They deftly manuver and muscle for rank
Fuels burning fast on an empty tank
Reckless and wild, they pour through the turns
Their prowess is potent and secretly stern
As they speed through the finish, the flags go down
The fans get up and they get out of town
The arena is empty except for one man
Still driving and striving as fast as he can
The sun has gone down and the moon has come up
Not long ago somebody left with the cup
But he's driving and striving an hugging the turns
And thinking of someone for who he still burns
He's going the distance
He's going for speed
She's all alone, all alone, all alone in a time of need
Because he's racing and pacing and plotting the course
He's fighting and biting and riding on his horse
He's going the distance
No trophies, no flowers, no flashbulbs, no lime
He's haunted by something he cannot define
Bowel shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse
Assail him and bail him with monster truck force
In his mind he's still driving, still making the grade
She's hoping in time that her memories will fade
'Cause he's racing and pacing and plotting the course
He's fighting and biting and riding on his horse
The sun has gone down and the moon has come up
Not long ago somebody left with the cup
But he's striving and driving and hugging the turns
And thinking of someone for who he still burns
'Cause he's going the distance,
He's going for speed
She's all alone
All alone
All alone
In a time of need
Because he's racing and pacing and plotting the course
He's fighting and biting and riding on his horse
He's racing and pacing and plotting the course
He's fighting and biting and ridding on his horse
He's going the distance
He's going for speed
He's going the distance
| |
1man4all (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 09-02-06 05:55 |
|
Warren Hopper wrote:
> > I do believe in visions. One possible theory is that a brain is like a
> > computer, capable of browsing and transforming for its own needs
> > millions of images it has stored and, if sufficiently trained, is also
> > capable of receiving messages, which appear in the form of visions,
> > symbolic dreams or sudden ideas, transmitted from other people or even
> > transmitted across the universe. So it could very well be that when
> > your brain is browsing, in a dream-like state, it can come across a
> > cosmic 'site' and there is a 'popup', not something that your brain
> > instantly invents but you come across.
> I have been fascinated by the subject of vision, or maybe 'non-perceptual
> perception', for many years. When I was very young, I experienced
> 'enormity', maybe in a sense of 'extra-normity'. It's difficult to find the
> right words.
A vision is always such that for some strange reason you would have
great trouble in telling other people about it. And even if you do, it
just wouldn't sound right and you would end up embarrassing yourself.
That is why people who are blessed with it eventually learn that this
gift is not to be shared. It is also difficult to interpret what a
vision means. Sometimes it's literal; other times it's all symbolic. I
have been studying for years how to interpret dreams and have become
quite good at it. If you are interested, a good place to start is to
get Zolar's Book of Dreams. Eventually, you would develop your own
interpretations.
> I was well into my teens when I read the book "Varieties of
> Mystic Experience" and realized that most people don't have these
> experiences. It was something of a shock to me.
I think it's genetic, but not everybody in the family inherits it. Your
parents or forefathers must have had the same ability. If you have
visions (images flashes before your eyes that you are not consciously
thinking about) that means that you are highly imaginative and your
mind can project some symbolic images, which Carl Jung called
"universal archetypes." You can do an experiment. You can concentrate
on an event, then close your eyes, just relax, but try not to think of
anything. If an image flashes before your eyes, that image is the
archetype of that event. To see an image and interpret it correctly is
lot more difficult.
At one time I was thinking about writing a book about dreams mentioned
in religious scriptures/texts. It seems that almost all prophets from
Abraham to Muhammad believed in interpretations of dreams.
> I could write a long treatise on the subject but will try to restrain
> myself.
> One important aspect is what I call 'computational feats'. There was an
> excellent article in Scientific American a few months ago about a man who
> suffered from massive developmental anomalies to the structural of his
> brain. Yet he remembers virtually everything he has ever read or heard.
> There are countless examples of people who can not perform the most
> rudimentary acts of daily life, and yet can multiply two large numbers in a
> fraction of a second.
Mind is truly a mystery and it's amazing what it's capable of.
> Another important aspect is 'location', both in the sense where one is and
> the innate ability to put oneself in the other 'location'. One
> manifestation of 'location' is dreams.
I believe that you are where your heart is
> We receive of flood of stimuli from our brain during sleep which we try to
> put into a context based on our experience. From that seed of context, our
> 'minds' ( as distinct from brains ) build an entire inner world of
> perceptions, the visions of dreams. In fact, there is an elaborate
> mechanism within our brains to deactivate the motor areas during sleep so we
> don't run around and walk off cliffs and such. One can imagine early modern
> humans as inveterate sleep walkers.
I don't know if you ever had a dream in which you only heard somebody's
voice without seeing anything. I've had that experience twice and
whatever I heard came about exactly the way that I had heard. It was
remarkable. Christians may call it the Holy Ghost, but it could simply
have been my own brain talking to me or my brain reading a message that
it had received that day, or a script that was embedded in my mind
before my birth.
Moody Blues had an album that always intrigued me: "Days of Future
Passed." And the way some Quranic verses are written, it appears that
days of future have indeed passed. So it may very well be that our
minds can sometimes glean at the future because its memory already
contains it.
> From perception, both inner and outer, we build complex networks of symbolic
> reference that are in some way meaningful to us. We are in a sense
> programmed to seek meaning, to 'locate' ourselves within a world of symbolic
> reference.
I totally agree.
> Yet sometimes we run into the shadow or scaffolding of the 'watcher watching
> the watcher'. We somehow transcend the mechanics of our own perception and
> meanings. We recognize ourselves for what we truly are. And the experience
> can be truly terrifying. I stopped doing transcendental mediation because I
> was beginning to 'drift away'. Even now I wake up some mornings to the
> world that is, quite literally, a dull winter gray compared to what I have
> just seen ( this morning was one of them ). The physical mechanics of outer
> perception can not support the unmediated purity and intensity of inner
> perception.
Very well put. The most remarkable dream that I ever had was in around
1983/1984. I saw a desert and the sunlight was so brilliant that I
cannot describe it. And in this empty desert there is this sad-looking
woman, who I am told is a descendant of the Pharaohs, wearing tattered
clothes and holding an infant as if raising the child to the heavens.
To this day, I have wondered what that dream meant.
> Where's God in all this ? I have no idea. Some Hindus say "Atman is
> Brahman", crudely translated as "The Self is God". But it's no boast, rather
> it's a terrible burden, with rewards of course, but nonetheless an agony in
> the midst of comfort.
Could it be that we are getting Spam from the devil and his agents and
some true messages from God and His angels in our dreams?
> Sometimes I envy animals. You want to chase the cat, chase the cat. You
> want to poop on the new rug, poop on the new rug. At least until I see them
> sleep running and whimpering, from excitement or terror I can't tell.
> I think it may center on what I call the 'Mystery of Personality', which
> even animals seem to have. Except for cats ( don't give cats an inch or
> they will rule over you ).
LOL. I know what you mean.
> I promised to make it brief and haven't done too badly. Vision, especially
> the prophetic quality of vision, is a mystery and maybe that's the way it's
> intended to be.
I agree. Good post!
| |
Warren Hopper (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Warren Hopper |
Dato : 09-02-06 20:58 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139460901.387952.92690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Warren Hopper wrote:
>
> > > I do believe in visions. One possible theory is that a brain is like a
> > > computer, capable of browsing and transforming for its own needs
> > > millions of images it has stored and, if sufficiently trained, is also
> > > capable of receiving messages, which appear in the form of visions,
> > > symbolic dreams or sudden ideas, transmitted from other people or even
> > > transmitted across the universe. So it could very well be that when
> > > your brain is browsing, in a dream-like state, it can come across a
> > > cosmic 'site' and there is a 'popup', not something that your brain
> > > instantly invents but you come across.
>
> > I have been fascinated by the subject of vision, or maybe
'non-perceptual
> > perception', for many years. When I was very young, I experienced
> > 'enormity', maybe in a sense of 'extra-normity'. It's difficult to find
the
> > right words.
>
> A vision is always such that for some strange reason you would have
> great trouble in telling other people about it. And even if you do, it
> just wouldn't sound right and you would end up embarrassing yourself.
> That is why people who are blessed with it eventually learn that this
> gift is not to be shared. It is also difficult to interpret what a
> vision means. Sometimes it's literal; other times it's all symbolic. I
> have been studying for years how to interpret dreams and have become
> quite good at it. If you are interested, a good place to start is to
> get Zolar's Book of Dreams. Eventually, you would develop your own
> interpretations.
I 'toothed' on Freud, so my whole conceptual framework is very different
from classical dream interpretation. I went through a Babylonian phase not
long ago and they were certainly the originators and masters of dream
interpretation in the ancient world. If any one invents a time machine,
ancient Athens and Babylon are my top picks ( I think many of the criticisms
of Babylon in the Old Testament are *mostly* a hatchet job on a brilliant
and vital society. )
Actually, I believe I read "Zolar Book of Dreams" about the time I
encountered "Varieties of Mystic Experience". My interpretations are more
fluid and non-specific than most. Often they are starkly simple. When I
dream of my father, I know it's because I miss him so much. The dream is
telling me something I don't want to or can't deal with directly in waking
life ( a la Freud ).
But then there are others, particularly recurrent themes in dream cycles
that may go on for months or even years. I had water dreams for several
years, the meaning of which I still can't put a label to. Obviously change,
but there was a swampy, decaying quality to them that was saying something
else. My mother is getting old and I feel considerable anxiety about it.
???
But then there are others. I had a great one the other night about flying
in a super-jumbo jet over the streets of Paris at about 20 feet off the
ground, a huge traffic jam coiling away beneath me. I interpreted that one
as "I'm bored and want to do some serious traveling", which I haven't done
for too many years. It was the most fun I've had in a while.
One night I was in a blinding blizzard, practically swimming through deep
snow. It got colder and colder, and suddenly I woke up shivering. The
temperature of the room was about 60 degrees F and I had kicked the covers
off myself.
I camp out alot and have come to recognize threatening, harmful situations
in my dreams as images generated in response to noises that my apparently
unparalyzed auditory processes are picking up. Simply, it's a warning.
Many are the nights that I have cursed all chipmunks.
But then there are others, not always when I am asleep.
Visions are probably one of the reasons I am so interested in and accepting
of Muhammad's experience, if in a radically heretical way from a Muslim view
of his life. I'm also radically heretical in my view of Jesus' life,
particularly the role of poor old Judas in the tragedy, who may win the
prize for the most unfairly maligned person in history.
I've always been a heretic among the heretics. How many people have been
worked over by a mob of angry Quakers ?
One thing I know is that human beings have a genius for getting the story
screwed up. We can observe it every day in the process of careful
falsification grinding away here on ARI. But that's just one man's opinion.
>
> > I was well into my teens when I read the book "Varieties of
> > Mystic Experience" and realized that most people don't have these
> > experiences. It was something of a shock to me.
>
> I think it's genetic, but not everybody in the family inherits it. Your
> parents or forefathers must have had the same ability. If you have
> visions (images flashes before your eyes that you are not consciously
> thinking about) that means that you are highly imaginative and your
> mind can project some symbolic images, which Carl Jung called
> "universal archetypes." You can do an experiment. You can concentrate
> on an event, then close your eyes, just relax, but try not to think of
> anything. If an image flashes before your eyes, that image is the
> archetype of that event. To see an image and interpret it correctly is
> lot more difficult.
Jung was a huge influence on me, in the long run probably greater than that
of Freud. As I've developed a more Universalist view of existence, the
universal archetypes that Jung discovered in the bizarre demi-world of
alchemy have become, in my mind, literally universal among the billions of
sentient, DNA-based, oxygen-breathing worlds in our universe.
As I was commenting to Kuff not long ago, I believe that the many billions
of worlds share a common saying: "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you". In my system of beliefs, it's as clear as the hand in front of
my face, as close to a mathematical certainty as anything I know.
If these DNA-based worlds have sex ( and for reasons of the genetic
stability of a population, it's hard to image that they don't ), it would
mean that one is well on the way to a universal framework for dream
symbolization.
Of course, there are likely to be large biological variations between one
sentient world and the next, but the 'logic of life' will tend to attract
them to a ( more or less ) universal set of biological forms and mental
principles. In other words, the evolutionary process itself is universal;
evolution *is* intelligent design.
More of my wacky theories.
>
> At one time I was thinking about writing a book about dreams mentioned
> in religious scriptures/texts. It seems that almost all prophets from
> Abraham to Muhammad believed in interpretations of dreams.
>
> > I could write a long treatise on the subject but will try to restrain
> > myself.
>
> > One important aspect is what I call 'computational feats'. There was an
> > excellent article in Scientific American a few months ago about a man
who
> > suffered from massive developmental anomalies to the structural of his
> > brain. Yet he remembers virtually everything he has ever read or heard.
> > There are countless examples of people who can not perform the most
> > rudimentary acts of daily life, and yet can multiply two large numbers
in a
> > fraction of a second.
>
> Mind is truly a mystery and it's amazing what it's capable of.
The number of possible connections between the neurons that compose our
brains far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. It's quite beyond
our understanding at present and will probably remain beyond our
understanding into the distant future - and maybe always.
>
> > Another important aspect is 'location', both in the sense where one is
and
> > the innate ability to put oneself in the other 'location'. One
> > manifestation of 'location' is dreams.
>
> I believe that you are where your heart is
As long as the heart keeps ticking, and then who knows. But who believes
that miracles can only happen once.
>
> > We receive of flood of stimuli from our brain during sleep which we try
to
> > put into a context based on our experience. From that seed of context,
our
> > 'minds' ( as distinct from brains ) build an entire inner world of
> > perceptions, the visions of dreams. In fact, there is an elaborate
> > mechanism within our brains to deactivate the motor areas during sleep
so we
> > don't run around and walk off cliffs and such. One can imagine early
modern
> > humans as inveterate sleep walkers.
>
> I don't know if you ever had a dream in which you only heard somebody's
> voice without seeing anything. I've had that experience twice and
> whatever I heard came about exactly the way that I had heard. It was
> remarkable. Christians may call it the Holy Ghost, but it could simply
> have been my own brain talking to me or my brain reading a message that
> it had received that day, or a script that was embedded in my mind
> before my birth.
You raise a very interesting issue about perception in dreams. Supposedly
we can't read the printed word inside dreams because of the structure of our
brains, but I know that I have *seemed* to read within dreams. On the other
hand, I'm fairly musical, but rarely remember sounds or spoken words playing
a large role in my dreams. But it may be an issue of dream memory rather
than dream perception.
And maybe I just don't listen to what people say to me, which seems likely.
>
> Moody Blues had an album that always intrigued me: "Days of Future
> Passed." And the way some Quranic verses are written, it appears that
> days of future have indeed passed. So it may very well be that our
> minds can sometimes glean at the future because its memory already
> contains it.
I see it as one of the 'computational feats' I was describing earlier. I
think there may be a mathematics of statistical convergence working in the
brain that we haven't discovered. It may be a simulation of the sort of
higher dimensional topologies that we are just beginning to discover in the
structure of the universe. There's a sense of being inside and outside
simultaneously that one can trivially demonstrate by seeing both the inside
and outside of a circle drawn on flat, 2-dimensional paper.
There is also the hazy area of non-deterministic, quantum-level effects in
the brain: a grossly unscientific speculation that has been thoroughly
disproved by reputable and highly empirical science.
But there remains a strong sense of defiance of physical determinism in our
conscious lives, a refusal of the hypothetic pebble on a mountain top to
inevitably rest on the ocean floor. It's as if the pebbles of thought
within our minds can tunnel through states that are forbidden by our
physical brains and wind up on the mountain top again, despite their
seemingly inevitable fate .
This is an area of active research, so there may be surprises yet.
>
> > From perception, both inner and outer, we build complex networks of
symbolic
> > reference that are in some way meaningful to us. We are in a sense
> > programmed to seek meaning, to 'locate' ourselves within a world of
symbolic
> > reference.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> > Yet sometimes we run into the shadow or scaffolding of the 'watcher
watching
> > the watcher'. We somehow transcend the mechanics of our own perception
and
> > meanings. We recognize ourselves for what we truly are. And the
experience
> > can be truly terrifying. I stopped doing transcendental mediation
because I
> > was beginning to 'drift away'. Even now I wake up some mornings to the
> > world that is, quite literally, a dull winter gray compared to what I
have
> > just seen ( this morning was one of them ). The physical mechanics of
outer
> > perception can not support the unmediated purity and intensity of inner
> > perception.
>
> Very well put. The most remarkable dream that I ever had was in around
> 1983/1984. I saw a desert and the sunlight was so brilliant that I
> cannot describe it. And in this empty desert there is this sad-looking
> woman, who I am told is a descendant of the Pharaohs, wearing tattered
> clothes and holding an infant as if raising the child to the heavens.
> To this day, I have wondered what that dream meant.
Interesting. The key may not be in what it meant but what it was. It may
have been your mind giving you a lesson in compassion. I've had many.
And who can say that you didn't see something that actually happened long
ago. It seems very likely given the vast suffering in human history.
Even Republicans deserve compassion ... so I'm told.
>
> > Where's God in all this ? I have no idea. Some Hindus say "Atman is
> > Brahman", crudely translated as "The Self is God". But it's no boast,
rather
> > it's a terrible burden, with rewards of course, but nonetheless an agony
in
> > the midst of comfort.
>
> Could it be that we are getting Spam from the devil and his agents and
> some true messages from God and His angels in our dreams?
I don't know. I used to think that only human beings were capable of evil,
until I saw one of those PBS nature shows where an adult chimpanzee kills
and eats a baby chimp. Perhaps I imaged it, but I thought I detected a
knowledge of evil in the malefactors eye. Rage, jealousy ? Was it simple
madness ? It was an evil act nonetheless.
Humans seem quite capable of basting themselves in the juices of the own
evil without any assistance from a host of satanic chefs. Let's see, the
recipe for evil calls for one heaping cup of greed and a big dollop of lust,
stirred slowly in boiling anger until ...
>
> > Sometimes I envy animals. You want to chase the cat, chase the cat.
You
> > want to poop on the new rug, poop on the new rug. At least until I see
them
> > sleep running and whimpering, from excitement or terror I can't tell.
>
>
>
> > I think it may center on what I call the 'Mystery of Personality', which
> > even animals seem to have. Except for cats ( don't give cats an inch or
> > they will rule over you ).
>
> LOL. I know what you mean.
>
> > I promised to make it brief and haven't done too badly. Vision,
especially
> > the prophetic quality of vision, is a mystery and maybe that's the way
it's
> > intended to be.
>
> I agree. Good post!
>
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:55 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:48:30 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Free speech is an internal matter.
False. The denial of free speech anywhere is important everywhere.
We saw an example of that when suppression of free speech prevented WHO from
getting accurate information about SARS.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Richard Dell (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Richard Dell |
Dato : 01-02-06 16:00 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> > Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
> > just for /owning/ a Bible?
> >
> > This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
>
> I don't aware of that.
> Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
> official verdict?
This sort of thing goes on in the Muslim world, day in, day out. Do
they listen to Western protests - do they buggery.
> Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
> or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
> answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
There seems to be a lot you are not aware of. Why? Because the West is
tolerant, measured and understated. When President Armageddon says he
wants to wipe Israel of the Earth, most of us just shrug, and think
it's just the way they are, uncivilised, brutal and stupid. When a
badly reported story about a Koran being damaged gets out, the Muslim
world goes on a rampage. How are civilised people supposed to deal with
an entire culture that has gone mad? If we were to respond in kind, we
should be at war.
> More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
> cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
> influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
The bias of the Arab (in particular) media is nothing short of obscene.
Have a look at these, and ask yourself why Jews around the world are
not rioting in the streets, torching cars and threatening to boybott
all Arab products. I say because Jews are civilised and Arabs are not.
How say you?
http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoon_arab_press_080702.asp
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
| |
ltlee1 (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 01-02-06 17:31 |
|
Bob Cooper wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138802725.239071.232410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Per Rønne wrote:
> > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In contrast, million of preachers preach against Islam and other
> > > religions every week in America and other countries with Christian
> > > majorities all over the world. Did the muslim countries complains?
> > > Could they? No?
> >
> > Do you accept that Saudi Arabia 1995 beheaded a 23-year-old Saudi boy
> > just for /owning/ a Bible?
> >
> > This is an example of Islamic religious "tolerance".
>
> I don't aware of that.
> Was he beheaded just for owning a christian bible? Had you read the
> official verdict?
>
> *******************
> According to this article, written by a Saudi Muslim, it was 1993, actually,
> and he was beheaded for "apostasy":
Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
> =======================================================
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006712
>
> (...)
>
> "The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported.. In
> September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge
> of apostasy for owning a Bible."
>
> (...)
> =======================================================
The article dateed, May 20, 2005 did not really discuss the case nor
provide any information which will allow a reader to decide what was
the real cause of the beheading.
In addiaiton, the author of the above article did not claim that owning
a bible would invariably lead to beheading.
> *******************
>
> Let us assume the above is true. Who is to blame? The Saudi government
> or Islam in general? I sure don't know. I am not sure you can really
> answer the question unless you are a Saudi or an Islamist.
>
> ***********
> Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam; the site of its holiest places, its
> early history; the birthplace of its Prophet.
May be you are confusing Saudi Arabia a geographic region with Saudia
Arabia government. Geography does kill.
> It's the place all Muslims are
> bound to go on their Hajj pilgrimage, and Arabian is the language of the
> Koran. It is the heart of Islam, and any attempt to divorce the Saudis
> from "Islam in general" is absurd.
Not at all.
No all muslims belong to the Sunni branches. In addition, not all
Sunnis practices Wahabism. In constrast, may be you are seeing Muslim
through the lens of catholic church where all catholics belongs to the
same church under one pope.
> ***********
>
> More germane to this thread, how does it related to the cartoons? The
> cartoons were viewed as attack on the religion while they have zero
> influence on the behavior of the Saudi government.
>
> ***********
> It relates to your statement above that, "In contrast, million of preachers preach
> against Islam and other religions every week in America and other countries
> with Christian majorities all over the world." As an American, I can tell you, first
> of all, that -- sadly, in my opinion -- there's not much of that going on.
I had gone to churches before. I heard preachers preaching against
Islams and buddhism.
"No much." May be so. How about 30 seconds on the average in a 30 to
60 minutes? But then multiply it by the number of sermons every week
all over the world and 52 weeks a year. It sure added up.
> Yet.
>
> However, the larger point is that no Christian country beheads Muslims for
> owning a Koran. You can walk into any book store in America and purchase
> a copy freely. There will be several translations to choose from. Muslims are
> entirely free to practice their religion peacefully and without interference in
> every Christian country I know of. Now, tell me, why isn't that same right
> accorded to Christians in Saudi Arabia?
>
> How does it relate to the cartoons? Simple. It illustrates the absurdity of
> Muslims going ape about 12 rather innocuous cartoons when Muslims are
> beheading Christians for owning a bible. Clear?
Again, if you are going to use the beheading as the cornerstone of your
belief, why not make sure that it is indeed the case. An official
release from the Sauid could help. Secondly, as I had posted, the
cartoon which attack Islam in general have zero influence on the Saudi
government.
>
> Furthermore, has it occurred to you that the furor and outrage from Muslims
> about these silly cartoons -- demonstrations, diplomatic protests, bomb
> threats, boycotts -- far exceeds any similar outrage on the part of Muslims
> in reaction to the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 911? Their response
> to that -- from those few who condemned it -- was generally along the lines
> of, "Tsk, tsk. Yes, it was wrong, *BUT*....blah, blah, blah....American
> Imperialism...blah, blah, blah....evil jooze....blah, blah, blah......."
Not relevant. Currently, there is not universal guideline on how to
protest to what degree on all preceived or real offense. In addition,
many people, including Americans don't believe 911 was caused by 19
Arabs.
> > Per Erik Rønne
> > http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Per Rønne (01-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 01-02-06 19:54 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apostasy is quite different from "owning a bible."
In this cas, "owning a Bible" was considered apostatic in itself.
But it seem as if you approve of beheading people for apostasy if they
are of Islamic background? We all know that that was Mohammad's view -
and he practised mass executions on non-Moslems.
> In addition, many people, including Americans don't believe 911 was caused
> by 19 Arabs.
Only fools have such views. But we all know that in the Islamic world it
is quite common to blame "World Judaism" for the atrosity.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
1man4all (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : 1man4all |
Dato : 03-02-06 17:52 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> That sounds like sexual jealousy that why Turks are not
> marrying/sleeping around with Danes. There could be several reasons for
> that:
> 1. Danes have never accepted the immigrants as 'their' people, so the
> immigrants have no choice but to find spouses among those who do accept
> and love them.
I agree.
> [Mike] For the record, my wife's sister and family in Sweden had to go
> shopping back in Lebanon for a wife for her son, even though he was born in
> Sweden and wasn't facing any sort of religious barriers. The dark hair and
> olive skin was enough to make dating miserable for him (and this is one good
> looking kid, I might add.) So, I think your (1) is pretty likely to be a
> factor.
I like Lebanese women; most of them are very good looking. Can your
wife's sister shop around for wife #2 and #3 for me? [I understand that
Ms. Phaedrine is already a hopeful candidate for the #4 spot ]
> 2. Although immigrants love Denmark and its people, they do not like
> sexual promiscuity prevalent in Europe, and parents prefer to find
> spouses for their sons and daughters who have similar moral/cultural
> values.
I agree.
> [Mike] Eh. This is assuming that media values reflect moral values, and they
> generally don't. It's not tough at all to find Americans with the same sort
> of morals as traditional Muslims -- the difference is in the level of
> expression permitted in society. The immigrants may claim your (2) is the
> case, but I think it's mostly bullshit.
I didn't say that they one cannot find Americans/Europeans with similar
moral values as Muslims, but you'll have to agree that there are very
few of them, competition is intense, and they are quickly grabbed in
high schools or churches.
> 3. It takes one or two generations for cultural attitudes to change.
> First generation immigrants almost always maintain some links with
> their country of origin. By the third generation, immigrants finally
> begin to assimilate.
> [Mike] It's faster than that. People born in a country are usually native to
> it, unless their parents are horses-asses and do whatever they can to
> prevent assimilation, like sending them to immigrant language schools,
> moving only in immigrant social circles, and insisting that most or all of
> the kid's friends are also immigrants.
You have to be practical. The desire to maintain one's identity is
almost always as strong as the urge to assimilate. Immigrants would
make compromises wherever they can, but on some things they would
maintain their heritage and culture no matter how liberal they are.
It's only after a few generations that immigrant families begin to have
roots in the country and have a sense of 'ownership' of the country.
> 4. Immigration needs to be tightened up. That would force immigrants to
> look within Denmark for prospective spouses. As long as doors remain
> open and there is a flood of immigrants, old and new immigrants are
> treated alike, which forces older immigrants to have a greater bond
> with their own kind.
> [Mike] Yep. There appears to be a given rate of immigration, if you will,
> that a society can comfortably absorb without ghettoization occurring.
Ghettoization is directly proportional to how isolated a community
feels within a host country and how strong the urge is to maintain
one's religion or heritage. Even after two thousand years of their
living in the Christian West, "Jewish neighborhoods" were/are fairly
common in the US and Europe. On the other hand, it is indeed rare to
find a Muslim ghetto in the US. The reason is that most Muslims, until
now, feel safe and comfortable living in regular neighborhoods. In
fact, I know Muslims who don't want to live in neighborhoods where
there are too many of their own kind [I guess it's too close for
comfort], even though they socialize only within their own cultural
group. In Europe, it's different. Most immigrants don't feel welcome in
white/local neighborhoods; they get tired of rude stares. And
eventually they withdraw to places where they feel more comfortable.
African Americans have had similar experiences in white neighborhoods,
and thus the phenomena of "Black Neighborhood."
Social acceptance is the key factor in resolving racial/ethnic
conflicts. And it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the majority---the
hosts---to welcome immigrants and people of other ethnic groups. Once
immigrants feel that they are accepted, they lower their guard and do
try hard to be part of the mainstream. Otherwise, leaving home every
morning is like stepping outside into a foreign, hostile territory; the
person is nervously conscious of his own attitudes and how the majority
would act towards him or her.
Let me give you a piece of advice which would always be helpful and
would bring you great rewards in life: When you meet 'any' person for
the first time, always have love in your heart and in your eyes. When
you have touched a person's heart, all barriers are broken.
| |
MichaelC (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 03-02-06 18:11 |
|
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138985524.348209.320510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> > That sounds like sexual jealousy that why Turks are not
> > marrying/sleeping around with Danes. There could be several reasons for
> > that:
>
> > 1. Danes have never accepted the immigrants as 'their' people, so the
> > immigrants have no choice but to find spouses among those who do accept
> > and love them.
>
> I agree.
>
> > [Mike] For the record, my wife's sister and family in Sweden had to go
> > shopping back in Lebanon for a wife for her son, even though he was born
in
> > Sweden and wasn't facing any sort of religious barriers. The dark hair
and
> > olive skin was enough to make dating miserable for him (and this is one
good
> > looking kid, I might add.) So, I think your (1) is pretty likely to be a
> > factor.
>
> I like Lebanese women; most of them are very good looking. Can your
> wife's sister shop around for wife #2 and #3 for me? [I understand that
> Ms. Phaedrine is already a hopeful candidate for the #4 spot ]
Boy, I'd like to be a fly on the wall for both the courtship and the
wedding.....
>
> > 2. Although immigrants love Denmark and its people, they do not like
> > sexual promiscuity prevalent in Europe, and parents prefer to find
> > spouses for their sons and daughters who have similar moral/cultural
> > values.
>
> I agree.
>
> > [Mike] Eh. This is assuming that media values reflect moral values, and
they
> > generally don't. It's not tough at all to find Americans with the same
sort
> > of morals as traditional Muslims -- the difference is in the level of
> > expression permitted in society. The immigrants may claim your (2) is
the
> > case, but I think it's mostly bullshit.
>
> I didn't say that they one cannot find Americans/Europeans with similar
> moral values as Muslims, but you'll have to agree that there are very
> few of them, competition is intense, and they are quickly grabbed in
> high schools or churches.
I think there are *quite* a few of moral people, but I think you're correct
in saying that quality marriage partners don't stay on the market long after
their education ends, and if they have the "pick of the litter", so to
speak, they're not likely to consider people in immigrant communities.
>
> > 3. It takes one or two generations for cultural attitudes to change.
> > First generation immigrants almost always maintain some links with
> > their country of origin. By the third generation, immigrants finally
> > begin to assimilate.
>
> > [Mike] It's faster than that. People born in a country are usually
native to
> > it, unless their parents are horses-asses and do whatever they can to
> > prevent assimilation, like sending them to immigrant language schools,
> > moving only in immigrant social circles, and insisting that most or all
of
> > the kid's friends are also immigrants.
>
> You have to be practical. The desire to maintain one's identity is
> almost always as strong as the urge to assimilate. Immigrants would
> make compromises wherever they can, but on some things they would
> maintain their heritage and culture no matter how liberal they are.
> It's only after a few generations that immigrant families begin to have
> roots in the country and have a sense of 'ownership' of the country.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply saying that it doesn't take as long as you
think, UNLESS there is unusual pressure on the part of the parents to keep
the children from assimilating. Greeks, for example, tend to stay clannish
for a couple of generations. Eastern Europeans stay clannish for about 15
minutes.
>
> > 4. Immigration needs to be tightened up. That would force immigrants to
> > look within Denmark for prospective spouses. As long as doors remain
> > open and there is a flood of immigrants, old and new immigrants are
> > treated alike, which forces older immigrants to have a greater bond
> > with their own kind.
>
> > [Mike] Yep. There appears to be a given rate of immigration, if you
will,
> > that a society can comfortably absorb without ghettoization occurring.
>
> Ghettoization is directly proportional to how isolated a community
> feels within a host country and how strong the urge is to maintain
> one's religion or heritage. Even after two thousand years of their
> living in the Christian West, "Jewish neighborhoods" were/are fairly
> common in the US and Europe. On the other hand, it is indeed rare to
> find a Muslim ghetto in the US.
Dearborn, but you're right, it's an exception.
> The reason is that most Muslims, until
> now, feel safe and comfortable living in regular neighborhoods. In
> fact, I know Muslims who don't want to live in neighborhoods where
> there are too many of their own kind [I guess it's too close for
> comfort], even though they socialize only within their own cultural
> group. In Europe, it's different. Most immigrants don't feel welcome in
> white/local neighborhoods; they get tired of rude stares. And
> eventually they withdraw to places where they feel more comfortable.
> African Americans have had similar experiences in white neighborhoods,
> and thus the phenomena of "Black Neighborhood."
>
> Social acceptance is the key factor in resolving racial/ethnic
> conflicts. And it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the majority---the
> hosts---to welcome immigrants and people of other ethnic groups. Once
> immigrants feel that they are accepted, they lower their guard and do
> try hard to be part of the mainstream. Otherwise, leaving home every
> morning is like stepping outside into a foreign, hostile territory; the
> person is nervously conscious of his own attitudes and how the majority
> would act towards him or her.
>
> Let me give you a piece of advice which would always be helpful and
> would bring you great rewards in life: When you meet 'any' person for
> the first time, always have love in your heart and in your eyes. When
> you have touched a person's heart, all barriers are broken.
Yea, we know how to do that. Fellow named Jesus, maybe you heard of him...
Mike
>
| |
Phaedrine (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 03-02-06 21:31 |
|
In article <S8MEf.29612$H71.5686@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Boy, I'd like to be a fly on the wall for both the courtship and the
> wedding.....
Be careful what you wish for... ::brandishing a large fly swatter::
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
Phaedrine (03-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 03-02-06 21:14 |
|
In article <1138985524.348209.320510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"1man4all" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I like Lebanese women; most of them are very good looking. Can your
> wife's sister shop around for wife #2 and #3 for me? [I understand that
> Ms. Phaedrine is already a hopeful candidate for the #4 spot ]
I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers (UGH!) than marry
a poisonous toad like you. And besides, I'm already married you silly
old goat.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:34 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to each
> > > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even more
> > > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to tell
> > > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the Inquisition
> had
> > > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for
> Catholic
> > > > > dogma?
> > > >
> > > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
> > >
> > > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
> >
> > What point?
> > Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance that
> > respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
> > findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
> >
> > If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> > sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> > muslim worldwide.
>
> Why? The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the Danes say?
>
> Why is there such a collective insecurity on the part of Muslims?
I am not Muslims. So I really can't tell whether it is a case of
collective insecurity.
Are you a muslim? Are you sure that their concern reflects collective
insecurity? What is your evidence?
How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
insecuirty too?
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > > You cannot legislate for pluralism, because that is a contradiction
> in
> > > > > terms - respect must be earned. The problem for Muslims is that they
> > > > > don't want pluralism - they want control and they want some topics
> to
> > > > > be off-limits. Both government and people realise this, hence the
> > > > > irritation with Muslims demanding special treatment. All we see in
> > > > > response to accession to Muslim demands, is more demands. Sorry, the
> > > > > game is up, "give and take" requires a bit of give, and we a re not
> > > > > seeing any.
> > > >
> > > > I am not talking about legislation for pluralism. Rather, I find it
> > > > strange that the
> > > > government claimed to have no influence on its citizens and
> > > > organziations.
> > >
> > > That has been answered elsewhere in this thread.
> > >
> > > > > Hurt is no reason for shutting down debate. Should we "respect" the
> > > > > views of the Flat Earth Society? We can just ignore nuts like that -
> > > > > until they start making unacceptable demands, and if they get hurt
> by
> > > > > counter-arguments and ridicule, too bad. Ideas are not people - to
> test
> > > > > for truth some ideas must be challenged, none should be off-limits.
> We
> > > > > have libel and slander laws to prevent lies damaging the livelihood
> or
> > > > > reputation of citizens and discrimination laws against racism, but
> > > > > outside these speech is and should be free. Muslims are using fear
> to
> > > > > attempt to shut down debate on Mohammad and his Koran.
> > > >
> > > > Agree that Flat Earth believers are their own problems because the
> > > > earth is not flat. A
> > > > matter of the physical sciences. Rejecting flat earth theory is
> > > > inevitable in our search for truth. Can we say the same about the
> > > > cartoon series? Are the cartoons attempts to search for truth, or
> > > > defending the truth.
> > >
> > > They are not just about truth, they are more about freedom. Just as you
> > > should be able to say the world is not flat, you should be free to say
> > > that Mohammad was a brutal charlatan. A cartoon of a round world may
> > > offend flat-earthers, and a cartoon of Mohammad the Terrorist may
> > > offend Muslims. In both cases a picture is worth a thousand words.
> > >
> > > > > > > This applies particularly to those who would wish to restrict
> freedom
> > > > > > > of speech by the use of threats - nothing is more likely to get
> the
> > > > > > > backs up of people who have fought long and hard for the
> freedoms they
> > > > > > > now enjoy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before freedom, one must be able to be himself or herself. As far
> as I
> > > > > > can understand it, the muslims found their peace of mind disturbed
> > > > > > disturbed by the cartoon. Hence they have to or forced to speak
> out.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are not noted for diffidence in this respect and can speak out
> as
> > > > > much as they like. But they are trying to do more that that, such as
> > > > > using threats against the Danish government and a free newspaper.
> Not
> > > > > only is that outrageous, but it is stupid, i.e. no way to win either
> > > > > respect or an argument.
> > > >
> > > > In most disputes, neither sides can claimed to be blameless. I have no
> > > > problem with that. My question, as I had posted in my original post is
> > > > whether the government is telling the truth when it claimed to have no
> > > > influence at all.
> > >
> > > Of course it has influence, but it considers that to use its influence
> > > in such a matter (being outside any legal power it has) would be the
> > > improper use of such influence. The issue that the paper wished to
> > > highlight was that nobody dared to say boo to Muslims on account of
> > > their extreme sensitivity and propensity for violence, and that such an
> > > atmosphere of self censorship by fear was intolerable. Most people in
> > > the Free World would agree with that.
> >
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 02:19 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138667620.393747.96910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to
each
> > > > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > > > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even
more
> > > > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to
tell
> > > > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the
Inquisition
> > had
> > > > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for
> > Catholic
> > > > > > dogma?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > > > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
> > > >
> > > > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
> > >
> > > What point?
> > > Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance that
> > > respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
> > > findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
> > >
> > > If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> > > sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> > > muslim worldwide.
> >
> > Why? The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the Danes
say?
> >
> > Why is there such a collective insecurity on the part of Muslims?
>
> I am not Muslims. So I really can't tell whether it is a case of
> collective insecurity.
> Are you a muslim? Are you sure that their concern reflects collective
> insecurity? What is your evidence?
Psych 101. An insecure person is in constant need of affirmation and
reassurance that they are, in fact, capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever,
and are extremely vunerable to any suggestion that they are NOT
capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever.
>
> How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
> insecuirty too?
No, that would be collective competence.
Mike
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 06:51 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
> insecuirty too?
A free press, or rather free speech and free access to information is a
prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, if the Government could control
what the voters knew, how could they vote /freely/?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 08:34 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:51:18 +0800, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1ha0nfg.k0xd751f6mmxnN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
>> insecuirty too?
>
> A free press, or rather free speech and free access to information is a
> prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, if the Government could control
> what the voters knew, how could they vote /freely/?
It is a virtuous cycle. Democracy promotes freedom. Freedom promotes
democracy.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 01:40 |
|
Idealism would be more appropriate.
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 02:30 |
|
MichaelC wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138667620.393747.96910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MichaelC wrote:
> > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to
> each
> > > > > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most do,
> > > > > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even
> more
> > > > > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to
> tell
> > > > > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the
> Inquisition
> > > had
> > > > > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for
> > > Catholic
> > > > > > > dogma?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > > > > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
> > > >
> > > > What point?
> > > > Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance that
> > > > respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
> > > > findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
> > > >
> > > > If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
> > > > sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
> > > > muslim worldwide.
> > >
> > > Why? The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the Danes
> say?
> > >
> > > Why is there such a collective insecurity on the part of Muslims?
> >
> > I am not Muslims. So I really can't tell whether it is a case of
> > collective insecurity.
> > Are you a muslim? Are you sure that their concern reflects collective
> > insecurity? What is your evidence?
>
> Psych 101. An insecure person is in constant need of affirmation and
> reassurance that they are, in fact, capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever,
> and are extremely vunerable to any suggestion that they are NOT
> capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever.
I don't see the relevance.
> > How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
> > insecuirty too?
>
> No, that would be collective competence.
May be you are not a Dane. Or you would notice your claim implies that
Danes before the age of free press were all suffereing collective
incompetence.
>
> Mike
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 02:40 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138670971.425261.75910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138667620.393747.96910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > MichaelC wrote:
> > > > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Dell wrote:
> > > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice
to
> > each
> > > > > > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most
do,
> > > > > > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an
even
> > more
> > > > > > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to
> > tell
> > > > > > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the
> > Inquisition
> > > > had
> > > > > > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect"
for
> > > > Catholic
> > > > > > > > dogma?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
> > > > > > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > What point?
> > > > > Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance
that
> > > > > respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing
Galileo's
> > > > > findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
> > > > >
> > > > > If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on
Islam's
> > > > > sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
> > > > > however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million
of
> > > > > muslim worldwide.
> > > >
> > > > Why? The Danes aren't Muslim, so why would Muslims care what the
Danes
> > say?
> > > >
> > > > Why is there such a collective insecurity on the part of Muslims?
> > >
> > > I am not Muslims. So I really can't tell whether it is a case of
> > > collective insecurity.
> > > Are you a muslim? Are you sure that their concern reflects collective
> > > insecurity? What is your evidence?
> >
> > Psych 101. An insecure person is in constant need of affirmation and
> > reassurance that they are, in fact,
capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever,
> > and are extremely vunerable to any suggestion that they are NOT
> > capable/efficient/wise/correct/whatever.
>
> I don't see the relevance.
It's highly relevant. In a religious context, what a nonbeliever says or
does about your religion is, to a secure religionist, irrelevant; since
they're not a believer, they can't be expected to adhere to the precepts of
the religion, and when they do not, it's no surprise, and thus not
offensive.
>
> > > How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
> > > insecuirty too?
> >
> > No, that would be collective competence.
>
> May be you are not a Dane. Or you would notice your claim implies that
> Danes before the age of free press were all suffereing collective
> incompetence.
I believe that any goverment that limits freedom of the press is indeed
suffering from collective insecurity, and ergo, incompetence.
Mike
| |
Jim Walsh (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:59 |
|
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:29:31 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1138670971.425261.75910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> Or you would notice your claim implies that Danes before the age of free
> press were all suffereing collective incompetence.
The absence of freedom in a country hurts everyone in the country.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
mkao (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : mkao |
Dato : 31-01-06 04:22 |
|
Idealism Western Press lie without mercy. They call it free press.
| |
B. Nice (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : B. Nice |
Dato : 31-01-06 07:29 |
|
On 30 Jan 2006 19:21:34 -0800, "mkao" <mkao@post.com> wrote:
>Idealism Western Press lie without mercy. They call it free press.
Do You have some arguments to back that up, or are You just babbling.
| |
Jim (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim |
Dato : 31-01-06 14:09 |
|
"mkao" <mkao@post.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1138677694.806078.280710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Idealism Western Press lie without mercy. They call it free press.
What exactly is a lie?
J.
| |
Enkil (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Enkil |
Dato : 31-01-06 05:24 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8808AC96-0809-4BE8-98E2-ED963AE8FDE4.htm
> -------------------------------
> Denmark PM rejects apology demand
>
> Monday 30 January 2006, 2:57 Makka Time, 23:57 GMT
>
> Denmark's prime minister has said his government cannot act against
> satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed after Libya closed its
> embassy in Copenhagen amid growing Muslim anger over the dispute.
>
> [...]
>
> "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> them blasphemous.
>
> Since Jyllands-Posten published the drawings in September, the Danish
> government has repeatedly defended the right of free speech.
>
> "The government can in no way could influence the media. And the
> Danish government and the Danish nation as such cannot be held
> responsible for what is published in independent media," Fogh
> Rasmussen said."
>
> [...]
>
> ----------------------------
>
> How true is the above statement by Fogh Rasmussen?
Completely. What are you questioning about it?
| |
ltlee1 (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 31-01-06 13:28 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Islam considers images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures of
> > them blasphemous."
>
> Not all Muslims have that view and images of their Prophet are common in
> Iran - which is shiite.
>
> Caricatures might be another matter.
>
> BTW, another Danish newspaper, the weekly "Weekendavisen", published
> another "image" of Muhammed. A photograph of an empty chair with the
> text "this i Muhammed" - this upset imam Abu Laban even more ... well,
> in Danish a "laban" is a "scoundrel", from the Patriarch Jacob's
> father-in-law.
>
> It is imam Abu Laban and his few followers that have evoked the
> world-wide Islamic protests. It is from his groups that statements like
> "Unfaithful women should get stoned" and "Danish girls who are getting
> raped by Muslim boys are themselves to blame for their rapes - after
> all, they dont wear decent clothes (burqa and the like)". Most Islamic
> immigrants in Denmark reject him.
Don't know much about this guy.
But Saudi and Libya had recalled their ambassadors. As is, the
complaint is not one man's ranting.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Per Rønne (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne |
Dato : 31-01-06 18:51 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don't know much about this guy.
> But Saudi and Libya had recalled their ambassadors. As is, the
> complaint is not one man's ranting.
But the Arab false information. Furthermore, many Arab rules are using
this case as a discharge valve - better to let the mob get furious over
a provincial Danish paper and the Danish government than to have them
getting furious over their own governments misgovernment.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
Phaedrine (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Phaedrine |
Dato : 31-01-06 21:45 |
|
In article <1ha1k2d.9ohit014i5cd5N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't know much about this guy.
> > But Saudi and Libya had recalled their ambassadors. As is, the
> > complaint is not one man's ranting.
>
> But the Arab false information. Furthermore, many Arab rules are using
> this case as a discharge valve - better to let the mob get furious over
> a provincial Danish paper and the Danish government than to have them
> getting furious over their own governments misgovernment.
Exactly... very insightful.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
< http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
| |
MichaelC (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : MichaelC |
Dato : 31-01-06 23:49 |
|
"Phaedrine" <Phaedrine.Stonebridge@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge-ABFAAA.14445231012006@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <1ha1k2d.9ohit014i5cd5N%per@RQNNE.invalid>,
> per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
>
> > ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't know much about this guy.
> > > But Saudi and Libya had recalled their ambassadors. As is, the
> > > complaint is not one man's ranting.
> >
> > But the Arab false information. Furthermore, many Arab rules are using
> > this case as a discharge valve - better to let the mob get furious over
> > a provincial Danish paper and the Danish government than to have them
> > getting furious over their own governments misgovernment.
>
> Exactly... very insightful.
Always the case -- traditionally, its the Jews (and the US) who are
(ostensibly) keeping them in squalor, and if the US would mend its evil ways
and the Jews would all go home to Brooklyn, then the rules could loosen up
and establish the World's Most Perfect Democracy.
And these poor sods believe them
Mike
| |
rfdell@hotmail.com (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : rfdell@hotmail.com |
Dato : 31-01-06 15:28 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138664910.644664.32400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > ltlee1 wrote:
| >
| > > > Of course government can try to persuade people to be nice to
each
| > > > other and to respect the culture and beliefs of others. Most
do,
| > > > including Denmark's - it is called pluralism. However, an even
more
| > > > important principle than being nice to people is the need to
tell
| > > > dispute wrong or bad ideas. Would you rather that the
Inquisition had
| > > > permanently suppressed Galileo's beliefs out of "respect" for
Catholic
| > > > dogma?
| > >
| > > Are the cartoon series really comparable to Galileo's finding?
| > > If so, please enlighten me and other netters.
| >
| > The point was that dogma of any form does not merit respect.
|
| What point?
| Your post above asserted that the cartoon is of such significance
that
| respecting the Islam point of view is akin to suppressing Galileo's
| findings out of respect for Catholic dogma? No?
No. I used Galileo merely as an example of a religious institution
trying to silence its critics. Just as the Muslim world does not want
anyone criticising Mohammad, despite his serious shortcomings as a
human, and is prepared to use threats and violence to do so. In the
case of Galileo, Europe had a choice, and the focus of learning moved
to northern Europe, where a more liberal attitude to dogma prevailed,
and has not moved back.
| If your point is the principle of free speech, why picked on Islam's
| sacred symobol? Free speech is an internal matter. The cartoons,
| however, have effects world wide. Namely, they insult 100 million of
| muslim worldwide.
Because it *is* "sacred". Nothing should be sacred - the very word is
an affront to free speech because it means undebatable. To consider a
man sacred, particularly when he himself made no such claim is an
absurdity. I thought you people claim only God is sacred and that
reverence for symbols was idolatry?
JP is a Danish paper, published in Danish. If you stick your nose into
the affairs of others and don't like what you see, that is your
problem. If you want to see something really offensive, try the Arab
media.
The measure of the degree of civilisation of a society is the way it
treats dissent. Islam fails at the first hurdle.
| |
mkao (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : mkao |
Dato : 31-01-06 16:58 |
|
WMD in Iraq, Falung Gone, Tibet invation etc......................
| |
mkao (31-01-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : mkao |
Dato : 31-01-06 16:58 |
|
WMD in Iraq, Falung Gone, Tibet invation etc......................
| |
ltlee1 (02-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 02-02-06 02:31 |
|
Per Rønne wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about Danish insistence on free press? Is it a case of collective
> > insecuirty too?
>
> A free press, or rather free speech and free access to information is a
> prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, if the Government could control
> what the voters knew, how could they vote /freely/?
May be you prove my point. May be you over estimate the government. And
underestimate the people. Such error could certainly cause insecurity.
As I see it, people can always find out what they want to know. And
then they can inform their friends and relatives which will inform
their friends and families. Reporters, after all, are as human as other
people in the society.
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
> http://www.RQNNE.dk
| |
thereactionary (04-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : thereactionary |
Dato : 04-02-06 06:51 |
|
"The Western press does not convey any fact nor any truth. The Western
lies everyday. They need government to protect their lies. "
Do you believe that Mohammed was a pedophile? Does screwing a 9 year
old girl make him a pedophile?
Do you believe that Mohammed was a murderer? Does having pregnant
women killed because they spoke against him make him a murderer?
Do you believe that Mohammed was a liar? Does telling his followers
that they can lie for Islam make him a liar?
Do you believe that Mohammed was a terrorist? Does beheading 800 bound
Jewish prisoners make him a terrorist?
Do you believe that Mohammed was a slave trader? Does owning 28 slaves
make him a slave trader?
Do you believe that Mohammed was an immperialist? Does leading 17
major attacks make him an imperialist?
Do you believe that Mohammed was a bigot? Does constant preaching
against Jews and Christians make him a bigot?
| |
|
|