Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[rosends]

Such poor analogies!
Here's a slightly better one!
Nasty kids laughing and heckling a loner, it goes on and on, and one day the loner turns and punches one of the kids. Shock Horror! Johnny is so violent! He dreadful, hurting innocent kiddies !
Try that one

Not liking the point of my analogies doesn't make them any less apt. In your analogy, Johnny is a loner. In reality, Muslims are a large contingent. But even in yours, what Johnny does is criminal. Making excuses for him doesn't get him any better. The world is a tough place and our Johnny analogue has its own history of picking on others but now wants protected status when the world puts him in the same category as anyone else.

I can only speak to that as well, it's trashy.

Which part is trashy? Obeying the law?

Don't pretend I'm doing that.
I'm simply saying that France's idea of equality and anti harassment law is junk.

I'm not pretending anything. If someone doesn't like a law, does that justify someone's going out and killing anyone? There are all sorts of other recourses available for someone who disagrees with a law. Making any excuse for someone's choice to resort to murder doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Now..... since you obviously do remember Satanic Verses, can you remember exactly why a fatwa was passed? What exactly was written?
And do you remember the date of the publication?
Btw our Equality Act was passed in 2010.

The wiki site gives a reasonable overview of the Rushdie affair. To some Muslims 'The Satanic Verses', although a fictional account, drew parallels with Muhammad's life, and that they didn't like. It was considered to be an irreverent portrayal of Islam's greatest prophet. That was enough to lead the Iranian leadership to issue a fatwa, calling for the death of Rushdie. The fatwa led directly to other people being killed.

Even if the Equality Act had been in force in Britain in 1988, it would not have prevented the events that unfolded. The book would still have been published in Britain; the reaction against it would still have been the same, and some Muslims would still have wanted to kill Rushdie. In fact, I seem to remember hearing part of a discussion with Rushdie quite recently, and I believe I'm right in saying that he still has to take precautions because there are still threats to his life.

How can anyone claim that Muhammad 'got it wrong' without causing offence?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I believe there are many Muslims wrong about many things.

The same can be said about Christians!!

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I agree, as I said earlier in the thread. But is it actually a sign of weakness in your own faith that you feel it necessary to respond violently?

It's not a question of faith nor truth claims, it's a matter of politics, and the extremists found in all corners of politics. It's a matter, in truth, about them being used as pawns on a chessboard within the pathetic trends of contemporary politics.

 

[JerryMyers]

I believe it's called Islamaphobia.

Yes, I would say so, but, the fact remains western world is justifying those who provoke Muslims as freedom of speech/expression, when they should be promoting peace through respect and sensitivity to other people’s faith and belief.

Actually you are confusing mocking a people with mocking their beliefs under the guise of the word "insensitive" here, but I can tell you there are a lot of people who don't believe in being excessively sensitive towards people and will happily mock Judaism and or Islam for the benefit of Jews and Muslims everywhere.

Confused ? Not really… as one’s belief is also part of who he is. Whether you mock a person for his physical disability or you mock his belief, in both cases, you are being insensitive to his feelings. The world will be a better place if people are more sensitive and respectful to each other belief.

No one deserves to have their head sawed off for being offensive.

True and people who react violently are people who cannot control their emotions, but still, why mock and provoke in the first place ? When you provoke, you are actually inviting a reaction. Whether you get a violent reaction or not depends on the individual(s) who has decided to take action on your provocation - a violent reaction by Muslim individuals or extremist groups is not a reflection of all Muslims as every Muslim is an individual in his own self and Muslims, by large, would condemn such a violent reaction. However, the point is, if you accept provocation and insensitivity to what others hold dearly to as freedom of expression, then, you must also accept retaliation, violent or not, as a freedom to react. So, why mock and provoke in the first place ?

 

[danieldemol]

The world will be a better place if people are more sensitive and respectful to each other belief.

No it won't, if peoples beliefs are protected from criticism science and progress would come to a standstill.

ETA and peoples beliefs are either not a part of them or are a changeable part of them like all their other thoughts.

 

[danieldemol]

the point is, if you accept provocation and insensitivity to what others hold dearly to as freedom of expression, then, you must also accept retaliation, violent or not, as a freedom to react.

Ridiculous, I see no requirement of such acceptance. ETA as the freedom to harm others is not an essential freedom

 

[oldbadger]

Freedom should always supercede cowardice and butthurt.

Cowardice?
Butthurt?
Lovely bit of rhetoric there.

Where did you dig those up to chuck in to this debate?

 

[oldbadger]

@oldbadger Let's say that a lot of Mormon missionaries show up in the U.K. and as you might know Tea is forbidden by their beliefs. So if they were to start demanding that British citizens stop drinking it because they find it offensive, would you give up tea or defy their demands?

So you're having a bad morning, that's obvious.
And you've decided to equate 'actions which upset millions of citizens' with 'silly demands about drinking tea'.

The logice is just flowing off your keyboard this morning........... not.

Lots of Mormon missionaries have shown up here, there is a large Mormon Centre in Canterbury....... so don't even throw those very decent evangelists in to your silly idea of an analogy.

Let's start with something different. Let's try:-

...... Let's say that millions of folks who hate Muslims and Islam .........

..... nowe take it from there.

 

[oldbadger]

Not liking the point of my analogies doesn't make them any less apt.

They were quite inappropriate imo.

In your analogy, Johnny is a loner. In reality, Muslims are a large contingent.

No they are not! They are a MINORITY GROUP in France.
I wonder how many Muslims there are per million in France. The number would be very small.

But even in yours, what Johnny does is criminal. Making excuses for him doesn't get him any better. The world is a tough place and our Johnny analogue has its own history of picking on others but now wants protected status when the world puts him in the same category as anyone else.

This is what your para looks like, Rosends:- So there you are, joining those bullies on the wall, laughing at Johnny until he breaks, and then you can put him down.
Where I live many 'Johnnies' end up as suicide risks, but you don't want to worry about Johnny because now you can keep on shouting about him.

Which part is trashy? Obeying the law?

Are you really a teacher?
Surely you can figure out that my point was not about obeying laws, but about the leaders who made them.

I'm not pretending anything. If someone doesn't like a law, does that justify someone's going out and killing anyone?

You've really lost the plot now.
Do you actually believe that terrorist madmen have gone out killing people in France because they don't like a law?
No, Rosends. The issue is this, in countries where laws allow discrimination and harassment of minority groups, that in itself is just trashy, and where its Leaders make speech which might actually encourage further upsets ....... a different policy to that could have saved from much of what is happening.

It's not just Islam that has had its nutter terrorists in the past, you know.

There are all sorts of other recourses available for someone who disagrees with a law. Making any excuse for someone's choice to resort to murder doesn't sit well with me.

Nobody went out killing because they didn't like a law or the absence of it.

 

[oldbadger]

The wiki site gives a reasonable overview of the Rushdie affair. To some Muslims 'The Satanic Verses', although a fictional account, drew parallels with Muhammad's life, and that they didn't like. It was considered to be an irreverent portrayal of Islam's greatest prophet. That was enough to lead the Iranian leadership to issue a fatwa, calling for the death of Rushdie. The fatwa led directly to other people being killed.

Countries do make decisions to war, terminate, assassinate and murder, and sometimes we get to hear about these policies and actions.

Please don't paint the Muslims of Europe with the decision of a Shi-ite Muslim Leader. Do you realise that most Muslims are not Shia Mslims?

And 'No', most Muslims here didn't long to read that Rushdie had been murdered.

Even if the Equality Act had been in force in Britain in 1988, it would not have prevented the events that unfolded.

We know. The Ayatollah didn't actually live here.

The book would still have been published in Britain; the reaction against it would still have been the same, and some Muslims would still have wanted to kill Rushdie.

Exactly how many British Muslims tried to murder Rushdie?

In fact, I seem to remember hearing part of a discussion with Rushdie quite recently, and I believe I'm right in saying that he still has to take precautions because there are still threats to his life.

Lots of people in the UK take precautions because of life-risk.
Please don't pretend that British Muslims are a risk to us.......

How can anyone claim that Muhammad 'got it wrong' without causing offence?

Easy. All folks have to do is to say/write that they are not Muslim, do not believe in Islam.

Many many writers have written about their doubts about Islam, and many others have written about Islamic countries that did bad things, and yet many others have written about wicked Muslims in fiction and faction. THey can all still go about their shopping or whatever.

If you like French Nationalist policy and its craze about National purity, I can't help you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Countries do make decisions to war, terminate, assassinate and murder, and sometimes we get to hear about these policies and actions.

Please don't paint the Muslims of Europe with the decision of a Shi-ite Muslim Leader. Do you realise that most Muslims are not Shia Mslims?

And 'No', most Muslims here didn't long to read that Rushdie had been murdered.


We know. The Ayatollah didn't actually live here.


Exactly how many British Muslims tried to murder Rushdie?


Lots of people in the UK take precautions because of life-risk.
Please don't pretend that British Muslims are a risk to us.......


Easy. All folks have to do is to say/write that they are not Muslim, do not believe in Islam.

Many many writers have written about their doubts about Islam, and many others have written about Islamic countries that did bad things, and yet many others have written about wicked Muslims in fiction and faction. THey can all still go about their shopping or whatever.

If you like French Nationalist policy and its craze about National purity, I can't help you.

It's interesting to see how you read and refer to my post. I can only assume that you have intentionally twisted my words.

Nowhere did I say that all the Muslims of Europe agreed with the Iranian fatwa. Nor have I said that most Muslims would like to see Rushdie dead.

Nowhere have I said that all British Muslims pose a risk. These are your words and your assumptions.

Nowhere have I expressed any support for French nationalism. Again, these are your words.

What I am asking, with genuine interest, is whether threats and intimidation of violence will make genuine dialogue between faiths more difficult. A genuine dialogue will, of course, include statements of faith and truth claims.

Here is something I do believe to be true. 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' [Ephesians 4:4-6]

This is a statement of faith, of what I believe to be true. It puts me at odds with you, a deist, and with those who hold alternative truths. I do not, however, desire to see you harmed.

Muslims, to be Muslims, believe in the words of the Qur'an, and the Qur'an states explicitly that Allah has no Son. There are a number of other significant differences between the truth claims of the Qur'an compared to the Bible.

It's very reasonable to ask the question, Does Christian belief, or Islamic belief, conflict with secularism? This is a very pertinent question to ask at a time when the law [including the Equality Act] makes pluralism in the UK more likely. At the present time, the Head of State in the UK is the head of the Church and the heritage of the country is still largely Christian.

 

[Father Heathen]

Cowardice?
Butthurt?
Lovely bit of rhetoric there.

Where did you dig those up to chuck in to this debate?

Flying into a murderous rage over silly cartoons = butthurt.
Giving up freedom to appease murderers = cowardice.

 

[oldbadger]

It's interesting to see how you read and refer to my post. I can only assume that you have intentionally twisted my words.

Oldbadger the Deist Twister, eh?

Nowhere did I say that all the Muslims of Europe agreed with the Iranian fatwa. Nor have I said that most Muslims would like to see Rushdie dead.

Excellent! Let us all hold those words dear......
Glad you wrote that.

Nowhere have I said that all British Muslims pose a risk. These are your words and your assumptions.

Excellent. British Muslims are decent and safe people.
Glad to read that.

Nowhere have I expressed any support for French nationalism. Again, these are your words.

Well you clearly support their Nationalistic approach to upsetting Muslims.
I'll pass on that one.

What I am asking, with genuine interest, is whether threats and intimidation of violence will make genuine dialogue between faiths more difficult. A genuine dialogue will, of course, include statements of faith and truth claims.

Huh? You've already stated that Brit (and French?) Muslims haven't done anything. The murderous crazed nutter was not a French Muslim.

Here is something I do believe to be true. 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' [Ephesians 4:4-6]

Oh dear........ Paul. The trouble he has caused over the millenia, eh?
Didn't he support slavery?

This is a statement of faith, of what I believe to be true. It puts me at odds with you, a deist, and with those who hold alternative truths. I do not, however, desire to see you harmed.

Then you've got Christianity wrong, imo.
Let's just hope you don't gain too many Christian Theocracies........ those 'odds' against the rest of the people could produce some bad things, imo.

Muslims, to be Muslims, believe in the words of the Qur'an, and the Qur'an states explicitly that Allah has no Son. There are a number of other significant differences between the truth claims of the Qur'an compared to the Bible.

The Jews don't believe that either, and its their bible too....... most of it.
I've studied the gospels for many years, and I don't believe that at all.
So you're distancing yourself from people because of Christianity? Your loss!

It's very reasonable to ask the question, Does Christian belief, or Islamic belief, conflict with secularism?

I'll bet that's you! My guess!
I knew Christians who worked within Worldwide Religion Conventions to bring all Religions of the World in to closer friendship, acknowledgement and understanding.
I don't think that work would suit you, imo.

This is a very pertinent question to ask at a time when the law [including the Equality Act] makes pluralism in the UK more likely.

Exactly! Just what we need here!
That is exactly what this land has been build upon over 1700 years.
We are a land of mixed race, culture, religion, nationality the lot.....

And we won't want any extremism to damage that.

At the present time, the Head of State in the UK is the head of the Church and the heritage of the country is still largely Christian.

No it isn't......... there aren't that many Christians here, even.
Don't take any notice of the little boxes which the Brits tick for religion...... most of them haven't been to a church service since that last funeral/wedding/christening, and those were social events in the main.

I reckon there are more JWs in Britain that real Christians.
Our local Kingdom Hall has two full congregations, the local churches couldn't gather that number between the lot of them.

 

[oldbadger]

Flying into a murderous rage over silly cartoons = butthurt.

If you say so.
I would think of different words for 'murderous rage' myself.

Giving up freedom to appease murderers = cowardice.

Not a good word for an American to use at this time, imo.

Drop your use of coward, I would. It's causing you all so many problems.
But that's another thread.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not a good word for an American to use at this time, imo.

Care to elaborate?
We're not clones. Neither the U.S. government nor any other U.S. citizen speaks for me, or vice versa.

 

[Father Heathen]

So you're having a bad morning, that's obvious.
And you've decided to equate 'actions which upset millions of citizens' with 'silly demands about drinking tea'.

It's no more silly than demands about drawing cartoons.

The logice is just flowing off your keyboard this morning........... not.

Both are religious prohibitions, so the comparison is apt.

Lots of Mormon missionaries have shown up here, there is a large Mormon Centre in Canterbury....... so don't even throw those very decent evangelists in to your silly idea of an analogy.

The fact that they don't make threats and demands regarding your deviant consumption of the devil's brew is a credit to their decency.

Let's start with something different. Let's try:-

...... Let's say that millions of folks who hate Muslims and Islam .........

..... nowe take it from there.

I don't hate Muslims. I hate the notion that our freedoms should be sacrificed upon demand for the sake of their irrational superstitions.
Nobody is forcing anyone to look at the silly things. Nobody would be drawing them in the first place if people simply ignored them like civilized adults.

 

[oldbadger]

Care to elaborate?

It's a whole different thread, really, but you used the word.
I think many Americans chuck that word round in just about any direction.
You're in so much trouble because if that, imo.

[We're not clones. Neither the U.S. government nor any other U.S. citizen speaks for me, or vice versa.

Well I find that strange, because you dumped the word 'coward' down in connection with another odd word, 'Freedom'.

I can't remember if I did start a thread on 'cowards and heroes' on RF, I'll check back and see......

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a whole different thread, really, but you used the word.
I think many Americans chuck that word round in just about any direction.
You're in so much trouble because if that, imo.


Well I find that strange, because you dumped the word 'coward' down in connection with another odd word, 'Freedom'.

I can't remember if I did start a thread on 'cowards and heroes' on RF, I'll check back and see......

If you remain cryptic, I can only shrug and dismiss the comment.

 

[oldbadger]

It's no more silly than demands about drawing cartoons.

Both are religious prohibitions, so the comparison is apt.

Rubbish.
Totally out of context with what's been happening, and why.

The fact that they don't make threats and demands regarding your deviant consumption of the devil's brew is a credit to their decency.

Indeed it is, although this point is as lost to the debate as an arrow shot to distance in a storm. (I've been reading some prose.......... don't worry too much).

I don't hate Muslims. I hate the notion that our freedoms should be sacrificed upon demand for the sake of their irrational superstitions.

Oh well!
How do you think your country is going to manage if strong Christians should gain high positions, eh?
Stay with problems closer to home, maybe?

Nobody is forcing anyone to look at the silly things. Nobody would be drawing them in the first place if people simply ignored them like civilized adults.

Nobody would be drawing them if the French Government had some decent equality legislation and promoted wider understanding of and for more cultures etc. But France........ hey..... !!!