Islam and the Teddy Bear

[Bagpuss]

We're not concerned about it hurting the Prophet or God. We're concerned about it hurting you.

You know I'm willing to bet insulting a prophet doesn't hurt me half as much as lashing or beheading would.

[Varaj]

You know I'm willing to bet insulting a prophet doesn't hurt me half as much as lashing or beheading would.

Your soul isn't hurt by either of those.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Your soul isn't hurt by either of those.

Depends on if they target the feet


Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I'll be here all night. Try the fish

[Eliezer]

You are aware of the irony of this statement since you're condeming me for not following your way of thinking?

Well, this is one of those cases where we have to discriminate between value systems. And yes, I am calling categorically for a distinction between the values espoused by modern Islam and Western culture.

You advocate a system that believes controlling people's religious views and speech about religion is not only okay but expected. Case in point: ridiculing the prophet or apostasy or speaking out against Islam would all be illegal and criminally punishable under your world view.

My world view holds that all people have a right to think as they choose and believe as they choose. They have the right to express those opinions and ridicule what I hold dear.

I even support your right to think as you do. I also believe I have a right to call your view evil, wrong and immoral.

So... Nope, I'm not seeing the irony of this. I see a vast gulf of difference in the entire perspective and how we view things.

All your statement did was demonstrate that you fundamentally don't understand my perspective on this. You apparently don't understand how fundamental the right of conscience is.

[Eliezer]

I can certainly agree with the part I've bolded. I can't call them fundie or crazy though. If you've been around here for long, you already know some Mormons. Several much loved, long time members of this extended community are Mormons. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of them in person, and I think even more highly of them now.

So yeah, that religion has it's whack job extreme fringe, like any religion does. But it also has lots of Good People. Like IUD. Or Sobek. Or Joshua Dyal. Or Psion/Sangrolu/Caesar Slaad. :)

Edit: Yes, I know this isn't on topic. I don't care, because it's important to me to stand up for these really good guys.

Goblin Girl,

I know and respect many mormons. What I said, was "some people"...

No criticism meant on this end, I even cited mormon scripture to talk about how this group that is considered pretty radical in the doctrine department by mainstream christianity has views about enforcement of churches of rules that include only expulsion from they order/church or limiting fellowship within the same.

But thanks for standing up for your mormon friends. It warms my heart :D

[Brynja]

Hey...you gave us the Osmonds, how can we hate you?

;)

[Bagpuss]

Your soul isn't hurt by either of those.

I lack soul other than in my R&B collection.

[Varaj]

I lack soul other than in my R&B collection.

Well Darkfire believes in your soul for you and willing to strip you of rights to protect it.

[Darkfire]

Since you want to remove freedoms based on this truth you must prove it is true. What proof do you have, or are you willing to remove freedoms on unfounded beliefs?

Our proof is the Qur'an and all the other messages delivered by the prophets (and yes we do believe that since they said it came from God that it indeed came from God)

[Darkfire]

Islam says you should beat and stone people to death for their own good? :confused:

Laws without a threat of punishment tend to be kinda ineffective.

[Varaj]

Our proof is the Qur'an and all the other messages delivered by the prophets (and yes we do believe that since they said it came from God that it indeed came from God)

That isn't proof. :rolleyes:

[Darkfire]

Well Darkfire believes in your soul for you and willing to strip you of rights to protect it.

Yep, bet you didn't know that Bush and Co are actually secret muslims slowly working on stripping your rights away from you ;)

[Darkfire]

That isn't proof. :rolleyes:

It isn't for you. It is for us.

[Varaj]

It isn't for you. It is for us.

It isn't proof for anybody. Look up the definition of proof. It is a belief. Do you honestly not know the difference between proof and faith?

[Varaj]

Yep, bet you didn't know that Bush and Co are actually secret muslims slowly working on stripping your rights away from you ;)

Bush is working on stripping our rights even with out muslim help. He is evil too. :D

[Bagpuss]

Well Darkfire believes in your soul for you and willing to strip you of rights to protect it.

Seriously if they actually cared about our souls they would make sure we converted BEFORE they killed us.

[Varaj]

Seriously if they actually cared about our souls they would make sure we converted BEFORE they killed us.

You have to remember that Islam is about showing faith not actual belief. So if they can force you to act how they want it is just as good as if you converted. So forcing you to act in a certain way is saving your soul in the eyes of Islam.

[Brynja]

The Catholics had that down cold.

[The Winslow]

Our proof is the Qur'an and all the other messages delivered by the prophets (and yes we do believe that since they said it came from God that it indeed came from God)

That's circular logic.


If you're going to accept this as a foundation stone of your moral worldview, what would you think of a country (we'll keep it abstract) in which they have laws based on a religious book that would look, to you, completely false: written long ago by a phony guru, containing moral precepts that are sometimes valid and sometimes very wrong, lacking in internal consistency, and -- that's the point -- instituting harsh punishments for whoever doesn't abide by that book. Oh, and it's radically incompatible with Islam, of course. Maybe it's an oppressive, polytheistic matriarchy and you have to eat pork every Monday, or whatever you (don't) want it to be.

The thing is, they justify everything by saying "our proof is the Book, and since the Book reads that it was written by the Goddesses then it indeed it was written by the Goddesses.

Who's right? You, or they? Of course your viewpoint is going to be biased -- for the purpose of this thought exercise, I've already posited that you find their beliefs completely wrong. So instead, let's picture the case of an impartial arbiter -- someone who finds both Islam and this hypothetical religion to have equally some merit; or someone who finds both to be utterly dumb, your choice. How could he (or she) issue a definitive judgment on which cult is "truer" or "falser" than the other?

It isn't for you. It is for us.

I suppose you've heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This mock-religion was created to mock the doctrine of Biblical Creationism, which some obscurantist fundies are trying to masquerade as science. However, if you go beyond the deliberately silly outlook of the whole initiative, couldn't you imagine Pastafarians declaring the same thing?

[Darkfire]

That's circular logic.


If you're going to accept this as a foundation stone of your moral worldview, what would you think of a country (we'll keep it abstract) in which they have laws based on a religious book that would look, to you, completely false: written long ago by a phony guru, containing moral precepts that are sometimes valid and sometimes very wrong, lacking in internal consistency, and -- that's the point -- instituting harsh punishments for whoever doesn't abide by that book. Oh, and it's radically incompatible with Islam, of course. Maybe it's an oppressive, polytheistic matriarchy and you have to eat pork every Monday, or whatever you (don't) want it to be.

The thing is, they justify everything by saying "our proof is the Book, and since the Book reads that it was written by the Goddesses then it indeed it was written by the Goddesses.

Who's right? You, or they? Of course your viewpoint is going to be biased -- for the purpose of this thought exercise, I've already posited that you find their beliefs completely wrong. So instead, let's picture the case of an impartial arbiter -- someone who finds both Islam and this hypothetical religion to have equally some merit; or someone who finds both to be utterly dumb, your choice. How could he (or she) issue a definitive judgment on which cult is "truer" or "falser" than the other?

In all fairness I'd accept their argument, but thats a strictly personal thing, as I can hardly use it for myself and not allow them to use.

I wouldn't go near them with a ten foot pole, but I'd still allow them to use the argument ;)

[Eliezer]

In all fairness I'd accept their argument, but thats a strictly personal thing, as I can hardly use it for myself and not allow them to use.

I wouldn't go near them with a ten foot pole, but I'd still allow them to use the argument ;)

So they are right and you are wrong?

[Varaj]

In all fairness I'd accept their argument, but thats a strictly personal thing, as I can hardly use it for myself and not allow them to use.

I wouldn't go near them with a ten foot pole, but I'd still allow them to use the argument ;)

So how should a conflict between Helga's hypothetical and Islam be resolved? Blood shed?

[Darkfire]

So how should a conflict between Helga's hypothetical and Islam be resolved? Blood shed?

I'm guessing violently(probably in a number of arenas; economical, philosophically and military), but thats drawing on the previous evidence from cultures have clashed in the past.

[Darkfire]

So they are right and you are wrong?

I accept their right to believe that they're right (and by elimination, if they follow the 'one and only way' approach that I'm wrong).

[Varaj]

I'm guessing violently(probably in a number of arenas; economical, philosophically and military), but thats drawing on the previous evidence from cultures have clashed in the past.

And that is a problem with Islam. It cannot co-exist it must shed blood because its faith based oppression gives no alternative.
The western version is "believe what you want as long as you don't take from me" doesn't require that. Islam is "believe what we tell you or die."

[Darkfire]

And that is a problem with Islam. It cannot co-exist it must shed blood because its faith based oppression gives no alternative.
The western version is "believe what you want as long as you don't take from me" doesn't require that. Islam is "believe what we tell you or die."

Right..so the west has never indulged in meddling in other countries to make them fit their idology?

Right.....so hows that Jewish community doing in Iran? All killed/stoned because they disagree with the majority muslim community yet?

[Varaj]

Right..so the west has never indulged in meddling in other countries to make them fit their idology?

Never said they didn't. But the idology doesn't require it, unlike Islam.


Right.....so hows that Jewish community doing in Iran? All killed/stoned because they disagree with the majority muslim community yet?

What happens to them if the convert a Muslim, what happens to them if they insult Islam?

Once again there is one group here discussing giving freedoms and another group justifying removing freedoms.
You very clearly stated that you don't want freedom of speech and religion. There isn't much getting past that.

[Darkfire]

What happens to them if the convert a Muslim, what happens to them if they insult Islam?

Once again there is one group here discussing giving freedoms and another group justifying removing freedoms.
You very clearly stated that you don't want freedom of speech and religion. There isn't much getting past that.

Heh, where exactly have I said that I don't want freedom of religion?

As for freedom of speech. I believe in the freedom to think, the freedom discuss things in a factual manner, I believe in the right to disagree with people, but I do not believe that leads to a right to be crassly insulting.

[Varaj]

Heh, where exactly have I said that I don't want freedom of religion?

Post 228 and all your responses on laws against apostasy.


As for freedom of speech. I believe in the freedom to think, the freedom discuss things in a factual manner, I believe in the right to disagree with people, but I do not believe that leads to a right to be crassly insulting.

So you think a Muslim should be able to talk about his coming to the belief that the Prophet was not seeing visions of from Allah and that the Koran is an evil book that hurts more than helps? That the Muslim should be allowed to actively convert people to these beliefs?

[Darkfire]

Post 228 and all your responses on laws against apostasy.

You're just not getting this are you? Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences. We also consider the basic charter of human rights to largely with ours, but in cases where it doesn't we hold ours to be right.

An attitude held by many groups I might add, not just Islam.

So from this you drew the conclusion that I don't support the freedom of religion? How exactly did you come by that conclusion?


So you think a Muslim should be able to talk about his coming to the belief that the Prophet was not seeing visions of from Allah and that the Koran is an evil book that hurts more than helps? That the Muslim should be allowed to actively convert people to these beliefs?

Yes I do, provided its factual and not insulting, just bear in mind I also believe that no one's actually obliged to listen to him.

[Varaj]

So from this you drew the conclusion that I don't support the freedom of religion? How exactly did you come by that conclusion?


In 228 those were the two UN articles of rights you disagreed with.


Yes I do, provided its factual and not insulting, just bear in mind I also believe that no one's actually obliged to listen to him.

Except any criticism of Mohammad is a insult, even showing a picture of him is an insult. Saying "Mohammad is a dirty old man that fucked a nine year old and plagiarized from Jews to write the Koran." is an insult but it is just as factual as saying "Mohammad is a Prophet of God with divine guidance in his fucking of a nine year old and writing the Koran"

[Darkfire]

In 228 those were the two UN articles of rights you disagreed with.

To be picky I never disagreed with those two article, I just pointed out that while Islam agrees in most points with the Charter of Human Rights that in points that it doesn't agree with it'll hold itself to be right.


Except any criticism of Mohammad is a insult, even showing a picture of him is an insult. Saying "Mohammad is a dirty old man that fucked a nine year old and plagiarized from Jews to write the Koran." is an insult but it is just as factual as saying "Mohammad is a Prophet of God with divine guidance in his fucking of a nine year old and writing the Koran"

Actually it isn't, showing a picture of him, while culturally avoided isn't hiram (so far as I know) and the issue with the cartoons was linkage to suicide bombers.

I really doubt God sat giving the Prophet tips on how to have sex, so the second isn't factual and I also don't see how 'dirty old man' is factual either.

[Varaj]

Actually it isn't, showing a picture of him, while culturally avoided isn't hiram (so far as I know) and the issue with the cartoons was linkage to suicide bombers.

I really doubt God sat giving the Prophet tips on how to have sex, so the second isn't factual and I also don't see how 'dirty old man' is factual either.

I didn't say it was factual I said it was just as factual as the other claim.

[Goblin Girl]

We're not concerned about it hurting the Prophet or God. We're concerned about it hurting you.
So to protect me from myself you'll arrest me and maybe beat me to death? That's so enlightened! :grey:

[Goblin Girl]

Hey...you gave us the Osmonds, how can we hate you?

;)
I like my Mormon friends in spite of that atrocity, not because of it. :grey:

[nerfherder]

We're not concerned about it hurting the Prophet or God. We're concerned about it hurting you.

Islam says you should beat and stone people to death for their own good? :confused:

Laws without a threat of punishment tend to be kinda ineffective.

That's very good of you to kill people to stop them hurting themselves... :what:

The more of your posts I read in this thread, the more I'm tending to get off the fence and put my foot into the garden of "Woah! I have a major moral disagreement with these guys - I hope they never get into power here." :(

[Space Cadet B^3]

Some of my best friends are former Mormons.

[AZRogue]

Everything else aside, Darkfire (and I have to say that I respect your big brass ones for still posting on a topic which has to be dear to you when you must know that nearly everyone here is going to strongly disagree with you), where do you see modern Islam going?

We're in an age where information and ideas are spread far more quickly than ever before and where a measure of tolerance is just about mandatory if you want to survive with your sanity intact. How is Islam going to survive?

The "Teddy Bear" incident is just another indicator, IMO. It seems to me that the leaders of Islam--and many of its followers--are struggling to assert their laws in the face of a growing awareness that the rest of the world either thinks they're crazy, or holds their methods and laws to be barbaric (at best). Are they going to continue to react violently, already half-angry and looking for any excuse to lash out, or are they going to accept that they are going to have to compromise?

[Freedom Canadian]

Freedom Canadian

I want to spend some time on your post and I've got to rush off to work, my apologies for that, but inshallah I'll be able to answer it later today.

No hurry. :)


That's very good of you to kill people to stop them hurting themselves... :what:


It's kinda like laws against suicide, in a way.

[Andreas]

This topic got hammered to death on Nutkinland a few months ago and to be honest I don't have the energy to handle it now, but in brief it's something the muslim in the west are grappling with and the outcome from that is something which will ripple throughout the islamic world. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see what happens, but in the meantime Tariq Ramadan's call for the suspension of corperal punishment is probably the next best thing.

So, anything new? ;)

[Droid101]

So, anything new? ;)

Cruel, cruel bump.

But awesome.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

LOL!

[Trainz]

So, anything new? ;)

http://www.epsilonminus.com/somethingawful/internetchampion.jpg

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Tiger blood. WINNING.

[Scarbonac]

So, anything new? ;)

Smartass. :heh:

[Ancalagon]

http://www.epsilonminus.com/somethingawful/internetchampion.jpg

My god, that bump was indeed deserving of a medal...

[Harry]

I've got an online friend who is a British citizen who has lived in Jordan for many years, as a teacher to Jordanian youth. Every once in a while, he reports on some rather odd local happenings as they relate to him. Most recently, a mutual friend of ours sent him a small, 48th scale plastic airplane kit. The kit was rather somewhat delayed on the Jordanian end and took over a month to make the last couple of miles of the trip. Turns out the Jordanian police thought the plastic kit was a potential terrorist weapon.

Today the fellow posted these remarks, concerning one of his students:

Religion and Science!!!

Today a student asked if it was true that electrons orbit a nucleus in an anti-clockwise direction. I asked why he asked and he told me that a teacher had told him this was true. It turned out to be one of the religion teachers! He said that the electrons must go in the same direction as the pilgrims at the Haj.

I'm wasting my time I think.

[Hatter]

I've heard worse in US universities. My evangelical broadcasting professor stating that satellite technology would be the means by which the whole world would see the second coming of Christ simultaneously as foretold in Revelations.

Notably he wasn't my satellite tech professor since he didn't appreciate my argument that propagation delay and indeed relativity would prevent absolute simultaneity.

[hobbiteer]

I've got an online friend who is a British citizen who has lived in Jordan for many years, as a teacher to Jordanian youth. Every once in a while, he reports on some rather odd local happenings as they relate to him. Most recently, a mutual friend of ours sent him a small, 48th scale plastic airplane kit. The kit was rather somewhat delayed on the Jordanian end and took over a month to make the last couple of miles of the trip. Turns out the Jordanian police thought the plastic kit was a potential terrorist weapon.

Today the fellow posted these remarks, concerning one of his students:

::facepalm::

I've heard worse in US universities. My evangelical broadcasting professor stating that satellite technology would be the means by which the whole world would see the second coming of Christ simultaneously as foretold in Revelations.

Notably he wasn't my satellite tech professor since he didn't appreciate my argument that propagation delay and indeed relativity would prevent absolute simultaneity.

Now that is hilarious.