Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Libya consulate, US ambassador attacked,

2012

  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#81 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:23 PM

View Postscherzo, on 17 September 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Quote

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?
Yeah that last thing. I may not agree with the form or the details of the criticism, but I sure as hell understand the impulse.

I appreciate the frankness.  (Not snark.  I really do.)  

Are all insults against all religions understandable?  Or just against this one?  I'm not trying to play gotcha -- Again, I'm not a fan of religion.  

Quote

Quote

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.
The issue here is the enormous segment of the world population that considers violence an appropriate reaction to being offended. No civilized human being should  prop up the notion that there's an ounce of validity to their behavior, and even discussing this irrelevant movie does just that.

I think this is an enormously important point and I agree with it.  I just don't think discussing this movie validates the violence, or that the movie is irrelevant, since it was expressly designed to instigate the violence.  How can you discuss an explosion without discussing the powderkeg?  

All throughout history, political texts have provoked violent responses, and this film -- like it or not -- is a political text.  Let's discuss that -- but let's discuss all of it.  Not just part.

Quote

The most damning and negative film about modern day Islam, could  be based solely on their actual scripture, and a simple body count.

I think you could say that about Christianity and Judaism, too, though.  And I'm happy to!  In any case, can we agree that THIS film is not that?

Quote

The extremists require no D-movies to kick-start their murderous impulses. Until the violence is permanently eradicated from their ranks, we shouldn't spend even a second worrying about "offending" them. Or put it this way: We should worry about offending them, about as much as they worry about offending us. That seems fair.

Understandable, but if we consider our civilization superior -- and I do -- isn't it incumbent upon us to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#82 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:50 PM

Fox News lets Mikey Weinstein clear the air, somewhat, about fallen hero, Glen Doherty:


Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#83 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:24 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 17 September 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?  

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.  

Dev -- Interesting article.  I suspected that there must be a disconnect for people in societies that do not have a freedom of speech tradition.  Of course, they would assume that all Hollywood movies must pass through the office of a government censor, and that the existence of any given movie is proof that the government stamped a seal of approval on it.

Why should it matter who made the video or why?

Motive always matters.  Context always matters.  Nothing happens in a vacuum.  A criminal who hates Muslims partners with a porn director to make a "movie" that he hopes will instigate violence and blood shed.  And indeed, it does.  You think that's irrelevant to the story?  On the contrary, it's a material detail without which you would think this is another Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh situation -- but it's not.  Not even close.

Quote

The victim is not the offended Muslims.

No one said otherwise.

Quote

Nor is the victim the filmmaker.  Though there is an odd push to "investigate" him.

He's a criminal who is on probation following his release from prison.  Because of the nature of his crimes (bank fraud), he has limitations placed on his usage of computers, and is prohibited from using the internet.  If he violated the terms of his probation in the making and distribution of this "film," he should have to answer for that -- and indeed, he should probably have to go back to prison.  

Why is that odd?

Quote

At stake in this is the ability to criticize under threat of violence.

No, it really isn't.  The First Amendment is alive an well.

What makes it different than Rushdie or van Gogh?
Do we know the intent of Theo Van Gogh? We do have his words, and quoting them would violate board policy. Does a motive to provoke Muslims matter in terms of tolerating Muslim outrage?
Does the "context" of the body count matter?
I agree that context matters, which is why I mention Van Gogh and Rushdie.

I get that a parole violation likely occured.
Why law enforcement resources are spent identifying him is politically suspect to me.
Call it yet another appeasement move that projects weakness.
If the projection of weakness were to have an identifiable body count, would that be persuasive? Or would some other rationalization for appeasment present itself?

Let us compare the production of this video with the SPLC's labelling of a conservative religious organization which opposes SSM (or gay rights in general). By the SPLC's "fatwa" against the organization, a lone activist attempted murder at the offices of that group.
If the production of this video is deplorable, why then not criticize SPLC's "fatwa" and those who propagate it?
Or does the body count matter? Is it less important because the effort to kill was unsuccessful?

Do you really think that this does not threaten 1st Amendment liberties?
Do you really claim that this does not have a chilling effect, caused by the threat of violence from the outraged party?
The 1st is still law, but it is under assault on many fronts by people with diverse motives.
Some just want to punish Chik-fil-A, and others want a U.N. law against blasphemy.

To the extent that civil unrest has been caused by offending believers, should we draw a line here to prevent unrest, or should we champion liberty?
What makes it wrong to produce a film that mocks Islam by dramatic portrayal of its own history taken from its own texts, but fine to wave a sign that boldly proclaims "God Hates Shrimp" to mock Jewish sexual ethics? Or the Woodmont Baptist Church's interpretation of their scriptures?

How do you know this video was "expressly designed to instigate the violence?"
What about taking the position that violence is not a valid response to being embarassed?

The remark about Xianity and Judaism also being mockable strikes me as an effort at a moral equivalence argument.
Are all religions "equally bad" or are there actually differences that make some sets of believers more violent, less tolerant, and more likely to kill in the name of their religion?
I assert that we can judge and criticize religions based both upon the religious texts to which they claim to adhere, and the behavior of the believers.
If you agree, can you examine Islam on that basis without the distraction tactic of pointing out "other religions suck to!" or not?

What higher standard should we hold?
Do we ban blasphemy to appease the mob?

Is there a slippery slope effect in play?
If we exercise prior restraint on speech that offends the religious, what possible consequences can we foresee?
Will there be similar objections that depictions of forbidden sexaul behavior must also be restrained?
Must consumption of alcohol or shellfish or pork be forbidden lest it offend?
Put differently; why fight efforts to "legislate morality" in the west when it comes to blue laws (and the rest of the Xian theocratic agenda), but fail to oppose vigorously Muslim efforts to impose religious law in our secular world?

While it is not a good thing to point and laugh saying something to the effect of "Those guys belong to group X, and therefore we must laugh at them!" it is the spirit of free inquiry that compells many of us to say instead "Look at what these people believe, this makes no sense, and may present a danger to public safety."
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#84 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:09 PM

Quote

If we exercise prior restraint on speech that offends the religious, what possible consequences can we foresee?
Will there be similar objections that depictions of forbidden sexaul behavior must also be restrained?
Must consumption of alcohol or shellfish or pork be forbidden lest it offend?
Put differently; why fight efforts to "legislate morality" in the west when it comes to blue laws (and the rest of the Xian theocratic agenda), but fail to oppose vigorously Muslim efforts to impose religious law in our secular world?


I see your point to a degree but don't we have laws here about porn? You can't have sex in public, I don't beleive you can post porn in the public square or even on message board, correct? You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building etc...Now before you get the wrong idea, I'm NOT advocating censorship. I have real issues with religion there and here. I no more want Evangelicals and Catholics here deciding if my daughter can have an abortion to save her life than I want Islam deciding what I can do. There they burn flags and protest violently and kill people NOT involved in the publication of that pitiful hate film.  Here, we bomb abortion clinics, kill OBGYN's, deny marriage to gays, compare them to pedophiles and try to legislate God to Americans who don't agree with them. Are they really that different? Fanatics are fanatics, they simply have more violent ones than we do. I don't want ANY religion dictating my life period.

I do wonder if we are talking "free speech" here or hate speech. I absolutely support people's right to voice their opinion but this seemed to be nothing but provocation, plain and simple. From what I gather, middle eastern countries want to pass laws that prohibit defaming ANY of what they consider the 3 great religions (Islam, Chrisitianity and Judism). If that's the case then it will become a problem their own governments will have to contend with. An Egyptian tv station wouldn't run that in the first place because it would be illegal to. Perhaps they will discover what we've discovered, in the technology age, controlling content can be difficult if next to impossible. At the end of the day though, I do see a vast difference between say The Satanic Verses and this D movie crappolla.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#85 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:04 AM

View Postscherzo, on 17 September 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:


Oh wait... Bernanke just printed up some fresh paper the other day...so we're good.

I may have mentioned this somewhere else but....we're doomed. :humble:
You are right. We are doomed.
J ulianus :wine:

#86 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:51 AM

Quote

Or put it this way: We should worry about offending them, about as much as they worry about offending us. That seems fair.

I'm somewhere between Scott and Scherzo on this (who perhaps largely agree anyway...).

I agree with scherzo that the Islamic world (some of them) responding with violence- sure, in theory one solution could be that we never say anything to offend Islamic extremists. But that's really not the problem here. The problem is (as scherzo says) with people responding to being offended with irrational violence. The problem is on their side, not on ours.

On the other hand, as Scott points out - intent is always relevant. Whether successful or not - if someone intends to cause violence - or even just intends to offend a swathe of people just for the sake of it, making no decent argument, making no valid contribution, just hoping to attack and harm ... that makes them a douche, and there's no moral high ground way out of that- they're just a douche. They have that right. But they still are.

Religion can easily be criticised for what it really is - without any help whatsoever. All religion.

Sparky
 

Edited by SparkyCola, 18 September 2012 - 04:52 AM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#87 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:04 AM

View PostLin731, on 17 September 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Quote

If we exercise prior restraint on speech that offends the religious, what possible consequences can we foresee?
Will there be similar objections that depictions of forbidden sexaul behavior must also be restrained?
Must consumption of alcohol or shellfish or pork be forbidden lest it offend?
Put differently; why fight efforts to "legislate morality" in the west when it comes to blue laws (and the rest of the Xian theocratic agenda), but fail to oppose vigorously Muslim efforts to impose religious law in our secular world?


I see your point to a degree but don't we have laws here about porn? You can't have sex in public, I don't beleive you can post porn in the public square or even on message board, correct? You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building etc...Now before you get the wrong idea, I'm NOT advocating censorship. I have real issues with religion there and here. I no more want Evangelicals and Catholics here deciding if my daughter can have an abortion to save her life than I want Islam deciding what I can do. There they burn flags and protest violently and kill people NOT involved in the publication of that pitiful hate film.  Here, we bomb abortion clinics, kill OBGYN's, deny marriage to gays, compare them to pedophiles and try to legislate God to Americans who don't agree with them. Are they really that different? Fanatics are fanatics, they simply have more violent ones than we do. I don't want ANY religion dictating my life period.

I do wonder if we are talking "free speech" here or hate speech. I absolutely support people's right to voice their opinion but this seemed to be nothing but provocation, plain and simple. From what I gather, middle eastern countries want to pass laws that prohibit defaming ANY of what they consider the 3 great religions (Islam, Chrisitianity and Judism). If that's the case then it will become a problem their own governments will have to contend with. An Egyptian tv station wouldn't run that in the first place because it would be illegal to. Perhaps they will discover what we've discovered, in the technology age, controlling content can be difficult if next to impossible. At the end of the day though, I do see a vast difference between say The Satanic Verses and this D movie crappolla.

Who can't have sex in public?
Sure, freedom of speech is not an absolute. So the conversation become one of where is the line drawn?
Wile you can't yell "Fire!" at the wrong time without getting fined or jailed, you can still yell it.
Prior restraint is the legal term that prohibits speech before it happens.

If reproductive rights are a "single issue" that decides your vote, I am not going to argue against you holding that position.
Mentioning murders of doctors, and bombing clinics raises a few flags for me. These things have indeed happened, are tragic, and wrong.
How often have such events occured though? Is pro-choice "terrorism" really on the same level of magnitude as other forms of religiously inspired terrorism?
And in terms of SSM, gays have the same rights as everyone else; to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sure, it isn't what they may prefer, but it isn't "discriminatory" in the sense that there is a persecution involved. Just a slanted cultural standard.
An unfair status quo ante is not the same as a targetted persecution.
Absolutely, American theocrats should be opposed.
But why point at them when it is others elsewhere that are the topic?
Moral equivalence again?
Trying to reframe "The REAL problem?"

The concept of "hate speech" is not something I can support as a legal concept.
The Southpark hate crime episode is an excellent commentary on the problems with the concept.
And the silly codes of conduct at American universities points out other issues with it as a concpet and policy.

Out of Pakisatn, a comment was something to the effect of "American must criminalize blasphemy against our prophet, or they must close their embassy." It isn't just enforcing locla religious standards, it is a drive to impose their standards upon the world.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#88 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:25 AM

http://www.volokh.co...to-more-deaths/

Quote

Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.
What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.
Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#89 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:17 PM

Quote

If reproductive rights are a "single issue" that decides your vote, I am not going to argue against you holding that position.
Mentioning murders of doctors, and bombing clinics raises a few flags for me. These things have indeed happened, are tragic, and wrong.
How often have such events occured though? Is pro-choice "terrorism" really on the same level of magnitude as other forms of religiously inspired terrorism?
And in terms of SSM, gays have the same rights as everyone else; to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sure, it isn't what they may prefer, but it isn't "discriminatory" in the sense that there is a persecution involved. Just a slanted cultural standard.
An unfair status quo ante is not the same as a targetted persecution.
Absolutely, American theocrats should be opposed.
But why point at them when it is others elsewhere that are the topic?
Moral equivalence again?
Trying to reframe "The REAL problem?"

The concept of "hate speech" is not something I can support as a legal concept.
The Southpark hate crime episode is an excellent commentary on the problems with the concept.
And the silly codes of conduct at American universities points out other issues with it as a concpet and policy.

Out of Pakisatn, a comment was something to the effect of "American must criminalize blasphemy against our prophet, or they must close their embassy." It isn't just enforcing locla religious standards, it is a drive to impose their standards upon the world.

Hey DarthMarley,
I'm not a single issue voter but that it a huge one for me along with some other social issues and my concern over what feels like the far religious right taking over the GOP.As for Gay Marriage...an issue for another day. I can only say I wonder how equitable straight people would find a law that said they weren't being discriminated against, they were free to marry any gay person they wanted to?

I only mentioned some of the violent events here in context to how even in the US we have some violent religious fanatics (and I did specify we just don't have nearly as many of them). Not condoning by any means what's been happening in the Middle east. Like I said though, I think it's just a pretext for violence for those who resent our presense and occupation in different parts of the region, those who seek political and religious domination and wanted an excuse to kill Americans and try to become a pious voice for Islam amongst the radicals. We're not exactly loved over there.

Should we censor here? No. I wish people had the commonsense and decency to not deliberately poke the bear but there will always be morons who don't. If they want to censor in their own country, that's on them but not here.

I would support cutting aid to these countries.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#90 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:28 AM

Article

Quote

(Reuters) - A French magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, threatening to fuel the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a film depicting him as a womanizing buffoon.
The French government, which had urged the magazine not to print the images, said it was temporarily shutting down premises including embassies and schools in 20 countries on Friday, when protests sometimes break out after Muslim prayers.
Riot police were deployed to protect the Paris offices of satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo after it hit the newsstands with a cover showing an Orthodox Jew pushing the turbaned figure of Mohammad in a wheelchair. On the inside pages, several caricatures of the Prophet showed him naked.
Reacting to the publication, Essam Erian, acting head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, told Reuters: "We reject and condemn the French cartoons that dishonour the Prophet and we condemn any action that defames the sacred according to people's beliefs."
Calling for a U.N. treaty against insulting religion, he added: "We condemn violence and say that peaceful protests are a right for everyone. I hope there will be a popular western and French reaction condemning this."

A UN treaty against "insulting religion" ?? Are you kidding me? Never gonna happen (I sincerely hope).

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#91 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:08 AM

Time to ramp up the insults.   :angry:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#92 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:17 AM

Nonsense.  And ironic because it would cause a sea-change in Egyptian media, which is filled with vicious anti-semitic lies.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#93 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

That is what I have been talking about for a while.
Odd how it gets dismissed until those who don't follow the story see it in mainstream print.

Never going to happen?
I suppose we all hope not.
But that this is something for which another people are intent upon fighting and killing for, we have the choice, surrender, or fight back.
We can fight back with words and ideas, but that still involves being confrontational and offensive.

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Nations

http://www.nationalr...rest-nina-shea#
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#94 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 01:28 PM

Quote

Odd how it gets dismissed until those who don't follow the story see it in mainstream print.

I haven't dismissed you at all.

But despite my initial reaction, ...let's not get carried away.

Perspective.This is just one guy talking about something not just unlikely, but which goes massively against all probability. He wants to introduce something which is counter to the UN's human declaration of human rights:

Quote

Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

He's not going to win over the UN to such a fringe view which goes against the very principles of the UN- particularly when the UN is dominated by very Western, and some fairly secular parties. The permanent countries with veto power are China, France, UK, US, and Russia. All except China are very Western. All except Russia are very, or relatively secular. And just one would be enough. Not that there is even the slightest risk.

The thing is that a lot of the violence and killing going on is due to high rates of ignorance, illiteracy, lack of education, poverty. Let's be honest - violence isn't going to change the fact that the Western countries have all the power in this world.

In other words: one guy made one suggestion based on his opinion. It ain't gonna happen.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#95 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 02:47 PM

Now, see? this is some of the stuff that happens in the name of religion, well beside molotovs and rpg and murdering people ; it's not region itself per se, it's taking advantage, agenda, excuse, using- '
But he said there was no evidence to suggest the insults really occurred and that police only opened a blasphemy case because they were pressured by the mob. Opening such a case doesn't mean the person is necessarily charged with the crime but that police are investigating him or her.
Protesters ransacked Khan's house, and surrounded a police station, refusing to go away until officials opened a blasphemy case, Abbasi said ' ........ http://www.ctvnews.c...g-film-1.962187 ...... '
Critics say the laws are often abused to harass non-Muslims or to settle personal rivalries. Radical Islamist groups have also been behind some of the blasphemy accusations.
In this case, Abbasi said, police suspect some of the complaints against Khan by other shopkeepers may have been sparked more by his desire to evict some of them for late payment as opposed to any actual insults ' .... now why is it I don't see this with Buddhist or Confucian or Jewish or, or, others ............. ' The situation became even more inflamed when religious leaders from one of the biggest mosques in the city issued an edict calling for Khan's death and announced from the mosque's loudspeakers that he should be killed, Abbasi said ' ..... a cleric, a religious teacher, almost the equal of a rabbi or vicar, Espousing Murder ...... ' Last year, a minister and a governor were assassinated when they spoke out about misuse of the laws and suggested changing them. The governor was shot and killed by his own guard. ' ...... sheesh, what IS it with them?
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#96 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:19 AM

Here is a counter protest I can fully support;

WARNING - linked images include topless women

http://www.spiegel.d...p-a-856780.html

Quote

The Ukranian women's group Femen, famous for its radical topless protests, opened its first foreign office with a bare-chested march through a predominantly Muslim neighborhood in Paris' 18th arrondissement on Tuesday.

These women have more testicular fortitude than the sitting US president (SCoaMF).

Note also the French response to the possibility of a free press enraging religious radicals:

http://www.reuters.c...E88I0BU20120920

They did not "voluntarily" haul in the cartoonist for questioning. They did caution against inflammatory speech, and responsibly prepared for the backlash.

With regards to the OIC UN blasphemy push, it isn't just "one guy" making a suggestion, it is an organized effort to criminalize speech.
While the toothless resolution comes up every year, fearful people might relent, and hope that adopting such a law will save lives and end violence.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#97 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:09 PM

The mere fact that the UN is  proposing such a treaty demonstrates how ineffective it really is.  The whole politics and religion not mixing is a two-way street.
Posted Image

#98 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 19 September 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Nonsense.  And ironic because it would cause a sea-change in Egyptian media, which is filled with vicious anti-semitic lies.

http://www.reuters.c...E88I1EG20120919

Quote

A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

It really is happening, and has been going on for a while.
Sure, it involves some cognitive dissonance on the part of its proponents, as there are many verses in the Koran that do denegrate other religions. That is propbably true of many sycretic religions.
Even so, this is a policy push from the OIC.

Rather than calling it nonsense, why not take a stand against it?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#99 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:16 PM

Because it can't ever happen.  If I took a stand on all the bad things that can't ever happen I would do nothing else.  

As sparky noted, even if this did get all the way through the UN it would be vetoed by any or all of the permanent mbwrs of the security council with veto power (including the US).  

So let's worry about bad things that COULD happen, shall we?  I propose that it's a much more efficient use of our time.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#100 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:56 PM

Right, it can't happen because you say it can't happen.

One might take the same stance towards those who are deeply concerned that the right wing in America wants to ban abortion, and send gays to death camps.

Do you offer the same advice to those who worry about those extremes?

Should they stop thier worrying and focus on something else?
Or is that completely different for some magical reason?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users