|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 0:56:46 GMT -5
ISKANDERAZEM (2/15/06 4:02 am)
Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure?
It's not about the freedom of speech; it's about insulting peoples beliefs.
Muslims would be offended even if you showed Jesus Christ in a similar manner, because we believe that Jesus was an important messenger too, just like all other messengers.
People seem to forget that all stories of the messengers, like Moses, Abraham and including Jesus are in Koran.
While the stories of Abraham and Moses are exactly the same, there is a little difference as far as Jesus we're concerned. Jesus being crucified as it is the case with Jews and Christians in Koran is swapped by another man. So when Jews came to crucify Jesus his appearance is swapped by the other man, and the other man (can't think for the moment of his name, the guy who betrays Jesus) is crucified instead of Jesus. I personally like this version.
And the only difference between the Bible and Koran is that the latest contains one extra chapter, that of the last messenger from God.
With other words all religious books were written by the same author, at different times, and different places.
This is like saying the first edition of a book is better then the last edition. The only difference is that the first edition is the original, and the last edition might contain something extra, according to the latest research by the author. Whichever way both versions are good.
And if you just wondered if the first edition was Jewish Bible, my answer to you would be NO. The first edition was written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The stories of Abraham and Moses are told in exactly the same way as in the Bible. Jesus came a bit later.
I am sure you get some ideas why Muslims will never insult our past prophets.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 1:00:21 GMT -5
Meltdown711(2/16/06 8:54 pm) Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure? Learn to realize that nobody has to give your gods the respect you give them. Face it and come to terms with it. I don't care at all about any of your doctrines and myths. Believe in whatever may help you sleep at night, but you weakness as a human to accept life as it as, and your inferiority and need to have some happy eternal existence doesn't effect me whatsoever, in short, YOU Dogmas are YOURS. That being said, I will proudly wear my Mohammad being mocked shirt. Maybe I will go to a designer and put something that makes fun of Jesus too. Its just my right, get over it. One right that doesn't exist is the right to dictate, Muslims cant understand this because the world is full of it. Want to make some Islamic unity? Do as you please, have you Ummah's, in the western society it will just mean less searching. Want people to stop mocking Islam? Stop telling people Islam is a religion of peace, SHOW them that it is. Comments like "decapitate" or "kill" or the mass rioting and hysteria show me nothing. Until then, until the death of an American or death of an Israeli doesn't bring mass happiness to Muslims, until comments like "Israel must be destroyed" stop. There is no reason for me to even discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 1:02:37 GMT -5
ISKANDERAZEM (2/16/06 9:34 pm)
Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure?
You have a freedom to do whatever you wish.
The next thing you should try is put some of the Holocaust victims in your shirt. I am sure Jews being so democratic will never even mention it.
If insulting people makes you happy just go ahead and do it.
I always keep saying "there are 1000 ways to be happy". Well I would not list this method with others, but you can do that.
And the most important thing for you to ask is.
What makes you different from those Muslim troublemakers? Nothing! You are as bad as them! That is if you're able to look at yourself in the mirror. I strongly suggest you do, it's good for your health, and possibly for your love life.
If you were better then them you wouldn't come here and round them up on a ship and ship them faster
Don't forget to be happy!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 1:06:13 GMT -5
AAdmin (2/20/06 9:10 am) Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure? ___________________ European Chief Defends Speech Freedom in Cartoon DisputeBy GRAHAM BOWLEY Published: February 16, 2006 STRASBOURG, France, Feb. 15 — In the face of attacks against foreigners in the Muslim world by violent critics of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, the European Union's chief executive said Wednesday that Europe had to fight for its core European values, including freedom of speech. "We have to stick very much to these values," said José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission. "If not, we are accepting fear in this society."Referring to his youth during a totalitarian regime in Portugal, Mr. Barroso, a former Portuguese prime minister, said in an interview that Europe had to defend its right to have in place a system that allowed the publication of the cartoons. "I understand that it offended many people in the Muslim world, but is it better to have a system where some excesses are allowed or be in some countries where they don't even have the right to say this?" he said. "This reminds me of my own country up to 1974. I defend the democratic system."He said European society was based on principles that included equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech and a distinction between politics and religion. Mr. Barroso has faced criticism that he has not done enough to support Denmark, a member of the European Union, after threats and attacks over the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper. But in the interview, he expressed solidarity with the Danish people and said, "What is not right is to put the blame on a single people or say the people of Denmark have to be blamed." In order to avoid a clash of civilizations in Europe and help integration, he said, European leaders have to be careful to make a "clear distinction" between nondemocratic Muslims in Europe and those who believe in European values, which "are the vast majority of Muslims," and to reach out to those. "Islam is part of Europe," he said. "We have a very important Islamic heritage."He said Europeans from every walk of society had to be careful to expunge all forms of prejudice against Islam from public life. "We have to speak to the moderate Islamic leaders and make a clear distinction between natural expression of belief, which we respect, and what is a manipulation and fundamentalism," he said. He also distinguished between the initial publication of the cartoons by the Danish newspaper and the republication by many newspapers and magazines across Europe, which he termed a " provocation." Since taking office 15 months ago, Mr. Barroso has presided over a populist backlash against economic changes and the defeat of Europe's constitutional treaty, caused partly by voters' fears about the possible expansion of the European Union to new countries, including overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey, and the fear of competition from immigrants. That backlash has forced him to accept the watering down of major economic programs. But speaking on the eve of a crucial vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on legislation to liberalize Europe's services sector, he defended his reformist credentials and said the slower pace of change was a reflection of the democratic processes of a European Union of 25 nations. "We can't compare the E.U. with an integrated polity" like the United States, he said. "We are 25, not one. They take a lot of time. We are not China or the U.S. It is the essence of Europe. We want to be 25 free democracies."www.nytimes.com/
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 1:11:37 GMT -5
JannissaryofByzantium (2/23/06 12:19 pm)
Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure?
Let us agree on some facts before tackling the problems stemming from so called "boundaries of freedom".
What does boundaries of freedom stand for?
* Some piece of land one claims as his/her own whilst standing upon? * Regulated borders/boundaries preventing breaches by "others"? * A set of rules and regulations that one has to follow when interacting within the lines determining those boundaries? * Freewill to manifest in line with the conclusive rationales one bears in mind?
In fact, all of those concepts interact with each other when human beings work for the future of the mankind. However, let us raise some more questions about the concept of "freedom of boundaries":
* What are the determining factors that result in violation these "boundaries"? * Could all of those boundaries be interpreted identical by everyone? * Do some group of people have rights to determine the validity of some specified boundaries at the expense of others? * Could one claim flexible boundaries for him/her self whilst implementing rigid boundaries for others?
The boundaries of freedom does not only cover "freedom of expression", or "freedom of speech", or "freedom for the movements of goods and services". In fact, "boundaries of freedom" can not be separated from an individual in any sense of human activity.
When one wishes to walk from Peking to London, he/she is very much subject to those "boundaries of freedom". Conversely, when one wants to shoot a gun in the crowd, then he/she is subject to the boundaries that sum up the boundaries of the others walking in the crowd. Similarly, one can not shoot in the crowd and claim that his/her intension was not to shoot people, but only to exercise his/her right exist before the "boundaries of freedom". One can not move from Pakistan on his/her freewill and migrate to Toronto for a better job since he/she is subject to migration restrictions applied by the corresponding government.
Nevertheless, let us recall what has been happening in the world starting from the 20th Century to the 21st Century:
* Struggle amongst imperialist powers for world dominion via WWI. * Emergence of Soviet Union as an alternative power to the Western Nation States. * Continuation of the late colonist and early capitalist era, Jazz Age followed by the Great Depression. * The end of early capitalist development, and drastic changes in modes of production. Massive layouts, and depreciation of currencies coupled with hyper inflation in various countries. * Rise in extremist movements followed by the WWII. Semi-destruction of the Soviet Union, Germany, France, Italy, and the Great Britain, as well as some other European North African, and Asian countries. * Extermination of some 40-50 million people, destruction of property and goods that account for thousands of billion dollars. * "Long Economic Boom" following the WWII, which was halted by the Oil Crisis. * Depressive Economic Cycles all around the world until the end of "Cold War" resulting in chronic unemployment, increase in level of credits and debts, chronic inflation trespassing the boundaries and borders.
Post-Cold War Era:
* Emergence of the USA, as the prevailing super power to rule the world. * Small era of recovery stemming from the inclusion of new economies into the existing system, namely China, Russia, and former communist block countries. *The rise of so called "Extreme Islam" replacing the horror of communists with the Medieval Islamic fears of the West. * Rise of unemployed anti-communist (Islamic) groups supported and financed during the era of cold war. * Demographic decline in the west coupled with high levels of unemployment, proliferation of multinational companies, structural changes in the modes of production, emigration of capital from places with higher cost to the places with lower costs. * Free flow of capital over the national and regional boundaries. * Dilemma to deport the migrant workers back to their home when there is more need for younger and well-educated workforce for the future of the declining west. * Substantial increase in need for resources and energy, enormous need to revitalize the need for arms and weapons in order to maintain the western arm industry and know-how. * General Western assault (not necessarily by arms) on former buffer zones and former Soviet Republics, and the Middle Eastern countries accelerated following the events of September 11th. Respectfully, rise of terrorism that could be attributed to anyone when necessary. * General vulgarization process of democracy and human rights coupled with the probability of large scale economic crisis and natural disasters that were experienced in Balkans, in Asia, in Africa, and in the Middle East and else where. * Emergence and convergence of regional trade, economic and political blocks empowered by the ongoing uncertainty of forming the confronting blocks of the future.
As one could envisage, the world is once again is about to enter to a new era of conflicts, and the sparkle for such conflicts could stem from any problem. The rise of leftist block in South America, and the rise of Islamic resistance in sphere of Islam are some indications for such confrontation. In that regard, preventing the proliferation process of weapons of mass destruction appears to be a crucial issue for the Western countries. Since China and India are deemed as the major confronting forces, preventing the risk of a possible Eastern alliance is quite important to assert the political, economic and military superiority of the west whilst assuring the continuation of the existing contrasts amongst countries, regions, continents, and civilizations. Nevertheless, I don't think that bulk of Muslim people living on earth really cares about how and why some Danish papers publish cartoons about Islam, and Mohamed. However, there is certain percentage of the Muslim population, which are poorly educated, living in bad conditions, and living under the oppressive regimes supported by the west. Thus, it should be noted that the wars and crimes in Bosnia, Kosova, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine certainly had an impact on the perceptions of these poorly educated people.
While the Western media promotes the idea of democracy and human rights, many could also blame the members of a whole religion just because an individual kills a right wing director named Van Gogh. Conversely, they could all close their ears and eyes when some migrants were shot to dead by the French Police without any questioning, or when some migrant houses were set on fire by the racists and extremists . When the Spanish Forces shoot the refugees in Algerian desert, it is deemed as "protection of borders". However, when the CIA tortures people in the air zone of the EU, or sends people to their NAZI-style concentration camp in Cuba, it is not deemed as the violent tendencies of Christianity, but an indecent act of a super power. When those uneducated people walk on flags of some western countries, or when they plunder some western consulates, it is deemed as violence, intolerance, barbarity, and terror. However, when the US drops bombs on civilian targets and mosques with the help of Italian, Danish, Polish, and British troops, it is deemed as a war for democracy and human rights. In fact, evidencing such irrationale could go on forever since everyday, another act of hypocrisy is deployed in the name of such universal notions that has never been exclusively European or the Western.
In conclusion, I believe that assessing and discussing all these conflicts are quite important to maintain the dialogue amongst confronting parties. Thus, rejecting to put the blame of our problems to certain group of people/nation/religion/block is crucial. NAZIs were not elected by the NAZIs, but by people who thought that the NAZIs had the keys to resolve their problems. Finally, let us all bear in mind that "terror of war" is the worst terror of all kind, and "decent boundaries of freedom" is a concept that could only exist when it embodies free space to move for all the people living in the world. Respectfully, it is worthless when it is applicable only for some people who could accuse others for infecting their culture, life style and freedom by their very existence.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 1:14:23 GMT -5
Boz429 (2/26/06 12:19 am)
Re: The boundaries of freedom or it's censure?
I could care less what shirt meltdown wears or anyone else. This is about journalists slinging filth and insults at a major chunk of the world's population. Newspapers as all other forms of media are constantly censored for various offensive material yet when it's only offensive to Muslims it's ok to publish. Free speech has it's limits especially when what you're publishing is untruthful as well as insulting and provocative to others.
If the best two examples of free speech that you can come up with is the KKK and other white supremacy groups then I think there's a serious problem with your definition of freedom. Besides the KKK and the neo-nazis aren't allowed to publish anything hateful, especially about the Jews.
|
|