Death threats against Mohammed cartoonists

[Duke]

I don't see them bitching about a Jew wearing a kippah

Actually, most people do mind. So take your ignorance and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[tupacmansion]

the ignorant people are the ones who object to the wearing of these religious garments.
All this does is prevent people from expressing their beliefs, why not allow people to freely express their beliefs as long as it doesn't offend. ....its just shows how intolerant society is if your not allowed to wear a headscarf or cross...etc

 

[jimmyk88]

Actually, most people do mind. So take your ignorance and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

So you're telling me that all western countries find it offensive when a jew passes by wearing a kippah?You're making it sound as if Muslims and Jews were treated equally in western countries.

 

[Sebastian]

^
in "western countries"? lol, dont trivialise like that. there are huge differences.

the ignorant people are the ones who object to the wearing of these religious garments.
All this does is prevent people from expressing their beliefs, why not allow people to freely express their beliefs as long as it doesn't offend. ....its just shows how intolerant society is if your not allowed to wear a headscarf or cross...etc

maybe because it offends someone actually? i cant understand how someone would be offended by someone else wearing a cross or a headscarf. personally i dont mind but i think its the best if there are no "religious objects" allowed in school.

if it is so important for a muslim woman to wear her headscarf then i think she should search another job in the first place (same for christians).

 

[jimmyk88]

Duke and I were talking about western countries.

 

[tupacmansion]

maybe because it offends someone actually? i cant understand how someone would be offended by someone else wearing a cross or a headscarf. personally i dont mind but i think its the best if there are no "religious objects" allowed in school.

if it is so important for a muslim woman to wear her headscarf then i think she should search another job in the first place (same for christians).

well the people who it offends must be intolerant, thats not the problem of the person wearing the scarf/cross. Why should they suffer due to the total intolerance of others.
why do you think Religous objects should be banned in school?
'Religous objects' or no 'Religous objects' the persons beliefs remain the same. All this does is restrict freedom of expression.

And to say that they must search for another job is ridiculous, thats pure discrimination.....they may aswell label jobs seperatly for muslims, christians, and jews. Members of religions shouldn't be discriminated against due to intolerance and lack of understanding!

 

[Duke]

So you're telling me that all western countries find it offensive when a jew passes by wearing a kippah?You're making it sound as if Muslims and Jews were treated equally in western countries.

No. Same as not all people in every Western country have a problem with headscarves. Some do. Most people who are against headscarves are equally against kippahs. Me, i don't care, but i can see where they come from. But because it's about headscarves worn by muslim women, whoooheeey, there comes the storm of critics clamouring it's anti-Islamic.

Exactly like the whole storm about the French banning religious symbols in school. Exactly the same as with this thread.

 

[Sebastian]

well the people who it offends must be intolerant, thats not the problem of the person wearing the scarf/cross. Why should they suffer due to the total intolerance of others.
why do you think Religous objects should be banned in school?
'Religous objects' or no 'Religous objects' the persons beliefs remain the same. All this does is restrict freedom of expression.

its not like religious objects are totally banned from school. for example, muslim girls are allowed to wear their headscarf. i think the reason why they dont allow teachers to wear the cross, etc is because they should be as neutral as possible. thats why they arent allowed to tell which party they vote either. in my opinion the neutral aspect is a good one.

are you against school uniforms as well?

And to say that they must search for another job is ridiculous, thats pure discrimination.....they may aswell label jobs seperatly for muslims, christians, and jews. Members of religions shouldn't be discriminated against due to intolerance and lack of understanding!

discrimination against every religion? most people in germany are christians, the government made the law, so did they discriminate themselves?

and its not like religious objects are forbidden in every job. teacher is the only one i can think of at the moment. so there are definitely enough other jobs they can choose from.

like i said before if people can absolutely not forego to wear their headscarf or whatever, because thats the most important thing to them, they have to search for another job.

 

[Illuminattile]

the ignorant people are the ones who object to the wearing of these religious garments.
All this does is prevent people from expressing their beliefs, why not allow people to freely express their beliefs as long as it doesn't offend. ....its just shows how intolerant society is if your not allowed to wear a headscarf or cross...etc

And if it does offend? If I'm a homosexual male I might be offended by people wearing symbols of religions which teach that I'm an evil sinner. Do I not have a valid reason to be offended?

well the people who it offends must be intolerant, thats not the problem of the person wearing the scarf/cross. Why should they suffer due to the total intolerance of others.

OK, so religious objects don't offend, but if they do then its because the other person is intolerant?

why do you think Religous objects should be banned in school?
'Religous objects' or no 'Religous objects' the persons beliefs remain the same. All this does is restrict freedom of expression.

Exactly the same can be said for other beliefs. Just because I can't march up and down the school corridors Sieg Heil-ing the teachers doesn't mean I'm not a Nazi. Just because I can't wear my white robes and burn crosses in the classrooms doesn't mean I'm not in the KKK. My beliefs remain the same, all this does is restrict freedom of expression. If someone is offended by my beliefs, doesn't that make them intolerant? You might not approve of my beliefs as a Nazi or as a member of the KKK, just as I might not approve of your beliefs as a Jew, Muslim or Christian. Why are my beliefs outlawed but yours allowed to be freely expressed in schools?

 

[shaamu]

I DONT CARE WHAT YALL "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" MOTHERFUCKERS SAY BUT ALL I KNOW IS YALL BETTER KILL US ALL BEFORE YOU DESRESPECT OUR RELIGION LIKE THAT. NOW FOR THAT CARTOONIST MOTHERFUCKER NOT ONLY DID HE LOST HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH I THINK HE ALSO LOST HIS FREEDOM OVERALL AS THEIR IS A PRICE ON HIS MOTHERFUCKING ASS.:fury:

 

[Sebastian]

for real, its sad to see something like this knwoing that you are not kidding...

 

[RFTP]

I DONT CARE WHAT YALL "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" MOTHERFUCKERS SAY BUT ALL I KNOW IS YALL BETTER KILL US ALL BEFORE YOU DESRESPECT OUR RELIGION LIKE THAT. NOW FOR THAT CARTOONIST MOTHERFUCKER NOT ONLY DID HE LOST HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH I THINK HE ALSO LOST HIS FREEDOM OVERALL AS THEIR IS A PRICE ON HIS MOTHERFUCKING ASS.:fury:

Yes you idiot, you proved a very good point. Now move along gangsta, this shit ain't gangsta enough for you.

 

[RFTP]

And if it does offend? If I'm a homosexual male I might be offended by people wearing symbols of religions which teach that I'm an evil sinner. Do I not have a valid reason to be offended?

Come on don't be ridicilous. Teachings also tell us about other evil things, does it stop people from doing it without any remorse? I live in a islamic community yet the use of drugs and alcohol is ridicilously high. Do you think I get offended cause some might find me an evil sinner? If you want to nitpick then yea you can be offended by almost anybody.

Exactly the same can be said for other beliefs. Just because I can't march up and down the school corridors Sieg Heil-ing the teachers doesn't mean I'm not a Nazi. Just because I can't wear my white robes and burn crosses in the classrooms doesn't mean I'm not in the KKK. My beliefs remain the same, all this does is restrict freedom of expression. If someone is offended by my beliefs, doesn't that make them intolerant? You might not approve of my beliefs as a Nazi or as a member of the KKK, just as I might not approve of your beliefs as a Jew, Muslim or Christian. Why are my beliefs outlawed but yours allowed to be freely expressed in schools?

Why do you always have to take the most extreme examples to put an argument? Religion resemblance to KKK/Nazi and whatnot only during the crusade. Despite wars where religion is involved it can't be compared to the ideology of these movements, so basing an argument around it is just ridicilous and you know it! There are alot of ways to prove a point but comparing KKK to a religious belief is not one of them. As for the second part of your post; NOWHERE in the books (bee it christian or islamic) does it say that we CAN'T live without the "others" while Nazis has a perfectly view about this. Comparing this is really stupid. Quran/Bible might look down on the "evil sinners" but they never say to torch them up, or judge them by their colour. So if a jew sees someone with a Nazi sign he'll feel threatened, so will a black guy if he sees a KKK member. You could argue that people feel threatened about Islam, then I can only respond that they lack knowledge and simply following the new trend: Islamphobia!

 

[Illuminattile]

Come on don't be ridicilous. Teachings also tell us about other evil things, does it stop people from doing it without any remorse? I live in a islamic community yet the use of drugs and alcohol is ridicilously high. Do you think I get offended cause some might find me an evil sinner? If you want to nitpick then yea you can be offended by almost anybody.

I'm not claiming that you get offended, I'm claiming that as part of a group who have been persecuted by religious people, homosexuals might be offended by blatant religion symbolism.

Why do you always have to take the most extreme examples to put an argument?
I picked a couple of examples I knew you (and everyone else) would object to.

Religion resemblance to KKK/Nazi and whatnot only during the crusade. Despite wars where religion is involved it can't be compared to the ideology of these movements, so basing an argument around it is just ridicilous and you know it! There are alot of ways to prove a point but comparing KKK to a religious belief is not one of them.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. Nazism teaches that gays are inferior. The Big Three religions teach that gays are immoral sinners. If a homosexual can take offence to someone walking around with a Swastika armband on, why can't they take offence to someone walking around with a Crucifix necklace?

As for the second part of your post; NOWHERE in the books (bee it christian or islamic) does it say that we CAN'T live without the "others" while Nazis has a perfectly view about this. Comparing this is really stupid. Quran/Bible might look down on the "evil sinners" but they never say to torch them up, or judge them by their colour. So if a jew sees someone with a Nazi sign he'll feel threatened, so will a black guy if he sees a KKK member.

This isn't about fear of violence. If Nazis or KKK members are going to violently assault a Jewish person or a black person then they're going to do it regardless of whether they're 'dressed for the occasion'. The issue is about causing offence. I don't have to fear for my life to be offended by something. I'm not a Jew and I'm not gay, but I'd still be offended by someone wearing a Swastika or a white robe in my lectures. Religion can incite violence against homosexuals, just as it can incite violence against abortionists or any group a religion teaches is "evil". Not all racist groups advocate violence against other races, just like not all religious groups advocate violence against 'sinners'. Like I said, it's not an issue of violence.

 

[RFTP]

I'm not claiming that you get offended, I'm claiming that as part of a group who have been persecuted by religious people, homosexuals might be offended by blatant religion symbolism.

Not in a western country. You can't claim that gays would feel persecuted by religious people in countries like sweden and others. In countries like Iran then of course but that's not the discussion here.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. Nazism teaches that gays are inferior.

But that's not where the line stops. There isn't a nazism book where it says; "Gays are inferior, full stop". They want DEATH to anyone who can't match their stupid criterias something that NONE of the 3 holy books don't.

The Big Three religions teach that gays are immoral sinners. If a homosexual can take offence to someone walking around with a Swastika armband on, why can't they take offence to someone walking around with a Crucifix necklace?

For the reason up^^. As long as they only preach about how IMMORTAL sinners or evil sinners gays are then it's ok. Assuming they don't have signs on clothes to tell that.

This isn't about fear of violence. If Nazis or KKK members are going to violently assault a Jewish person or a black person then they're going to do it regardless of whether they're 'dressed for the occasion'.

Yes it's true, but it's also stupid to forbid religious signs cause of this as we know that those things doesn't happen here, in these countries.

The issue is about causing offence. I don't have to fear for my life to be offended by something. I'm not a Jew and I'm not gay, but I'd still be offended by someone wearing a Swastika or a white robe in my lectures. Religion can incite violence against homosexuals, just as it can incite violence against abortionists or any group a religion teaches is "evil".

I agree with you. But as much as they hate gays, "normal" people do to. I mean, there are alot of non-religious ppl that can't stand gays so what do we do about them? Banning clothes/signs and whatever won't make the threat dissapear if anything it will only be harder for people to identify.

 

[Illuminattile]

Not in a western country. You can't claim that gays would feel persecuted by religious people in countries like sweden and others. In countries like Iran then of course but that's not the discussion here.

Actually, I was thinking more of the US Bible Belt.

But that's not where the line stops. There isn't a nazism book where it says; "Gays are inferior, full stop". They want DEATH to anyone who can't match their stupid criterias something that NONE of the 3 holy books don't.

The "Holy Books" might not specifically say "kill the gays" (they might, I haven't read them) but people certainly manage to interpret what they do say in that manner. Whether intended or not, people take a message of hatred against homosexuals from the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah etc.

For the reason up^^. As long as they only preach about how IMMORAL sinners or evil sinners gays are then it's ok. Assuming they don't have signs on clothes to tell that.

Why is it OK to claim that gays are immoral and evil but not that black people are inferior life forms?

Yes it's true, but it's also stupid to forbid religious signs cause of this as we know that those things doesn't happen here, in these countries.

Gay people are persecuted by religious (and non-religious) people regardless of country. The West isn't a big haven for homosexuals where everyone's pro-gay.

I agree with you. But as much as they hate gays, "normal" people do to. I mean, there are alot of non-religious ppl that can't stand gays so what do we do about them? Banning clothes/signs and whatever won't make the threat dissapear if anything it will only be harder for people to identify.

In that case, why ban swastikas? I don't see how you can have it one way or the other. You can't pick and choose what to ban and what not to ban. My point is, either you allow people to express their beliefs no matter how much you may disagree with them, or you put a blanket ban on everything and enforce a strict uniform policy.

 

[RFTP]

The "Holy Books" might not specifically say "kill the gays" (they might, I haven't read them) but people certainly manage to interpret what they do say in that manner. Whether intended or not, people take a message of hatred against homosexuals from the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah etc.

Where I live we have a strong islamic community. We have some real fanatics here. Among them we have the more neutral ones like me, who do almost anything (drinking, sex and other). They condamn what I do but it's not their business to come up to me and say; The devil is tricking you, you're an evil sinner. That's not how it works. They mind their own business.

Why is it OK to claim that gays are immoral and evil but not that black people are inferior life forms?

Because the books don't see them as inferior lifeforms. They see them as humans doing evil deeds while the nazis don't think of them at all they only want to eliminate them. Quite the difference there

Gay people are persecuted by religious (and non-religious) people regardless of country. The West isn't a big haven for homosexuals where everyone's pro-gay.

That's not entirely true. I haven't heard one statement to say that gays are beeing hunted by religious people more then by "normal" people. In fact, recent tv show in sweden showed that one of the most dangerous place for a gay is in the clubs. If he hits on a heterosexual by mistake he is more likely to get really beaten up. A guy got his throat cut cause he tried to make a move on a guy.

Homophobia is very strong regardless of faith. For some, or for most it's still a new phenomena.

In that case, why ban swastikas? I don't see how you can have it one way or the other. You can't pick and choose what to ban and what not to ban.

Yes you can, cause the world can't be seen just in 2 layers. Swastika have been more famous for the genocide then beeing an hindu sign for sun and peace. It's about recognition. If you show 10 people the swastika about 8 of them would connect it to the WW.

My point is, either you allow people to express their beliefs no matter how much you may disagree with them, or you put a blanket ban on everything and enforce a strict uniform policy.

Why does it have to be either extreme a or extreme b?

It's not about disagreeing here either. I disagree on alot of things with some of these deeply involved muslims even though I am a muslim but it doesn't bother me. But letting people having KKK or Nazi symbols is nothing to disagree/agree about.

 

[Duke]

Why does it have to be either extreme a or extreme b?

Because this is about the principle of freedom of speech.

Sorry if that sounds cheesy in any way, but Ilu hits the nail on the head when he says:

"I don't see how you can have it one way or the other. You can't pick and choose what to ban and what not to ban. My point is, either you allow people to express their beliefs no matter how much you may disagree with them, or you put a blanket ban on everything and enforce a strict uniform policy."



If, in this case, you don't follow extreme course A or extreme course B, you end up with a never ending debate about where to draw the line what is "tolerated" and what is not.

 

[RFTP]

Because this is about the principle of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speach applys, should apply, only if noone feels threatened for their life. And I've posted several posts to show that religion is different to the nazi/kkk stuff. If you still didn't understand it then I don't know what will.

If, in this case, you don't follow extreme course A or extreme course B, you end up with a never ending debate about where to draw the line what is "tolerated" and what is not.

What are you talking about? The line is already drawn here. You can't have signs that are a threat to a sort of people(example the nazi symbols etc). There is already a line drawn which says that nazi symbols AREN'T allowed. So far society haven't paniced about it cause people understand the difference.

 

[Duke]

Freedom of speach applys, should apply, only if noone feels threatened for their life.

That, however, is not freedom of speech, my dear friend.