I think you guys have misunderstood my post, It's not a direct reply to Adams post. Which I totally agree with. How anyone can be offended by a country's culture, one they choose to live in is beyond me. Being offended by a flag! what the hell! get a life.
What I meant was I don't understand why minorities feel the need to indulge in their own separate cultures which does little to help them integrate with other groups.
How did this turn into a discussion of pre-War politics?!
I think Marko's point about the white-supremacist thugs is illuminating. When Britain (for example) acts as a collective that says 'white supremacy is wrong', by organising marches, political debate and, let's not forget, laughing at groups like the BNP and the EDL, this is also saying 'we accept other cultures, they are welcome here'. When the Muslim world is silent about its own extremist factions, this acts almost as acceptance.
And Muz - about the depictions of Mohammed - it's quite ironic there there that you say how offensive and horrible it is to draw a picture of Mohammed, and in the same paragraph suggest that 'drunk pedophiles become priests'; do you not think this is equally offensive to Catholics? Or are insults to Islam more insulting than insults to Catholicism? Is it okay for a Muslim to issue death threats because his religion is somehow more valid than Catholicism? Just imagine I'd said 'drunk pedophiles become imams' and imagine the fall-out.
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Oh, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Muhhamud because that would be worshipping the man rather than God. Or something similar.
True. Also jews are not allowed to eat pork. The difference is that jews aren't making death threats to the rest of the world for eating pork.
Lol, awful comparison. Muslims are not allowed to eat pork either, and they don't even make death threats to people for not eating pork. Worst they did was killed a lot of pigs during the swine flu thing
Think of it more like someone tying up a Jew and then stuffing ham and feces into his mouth. This is worse. It's not so bad in cartoons like South Park where that kind of thing is common, but it's still a horrible insult.
If someone did it in the name of "free speech", when it's completely unnecessary, then it's even more of an insult. Really, I don't get the free speech argument. Free speech is good in fighting against dictators and spreading knowledge, but you draw the line when you're using free speech as a reason to be rude. It's not even that funny, it's just an attempt to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. You'd actually get away with it by making Muhammad invisible, and it'd be funnier.
And Muz - about the depictions of Mohammed - it's quite ironic there there that you say how offensive and horrible it is to draw a picture of Mohammed, and in the same paragraph suggest that 'drunk pedophiles become priests'; do you not think this is equally offensive to Catholics? Or are insults to Islam more insulting than insults to Catholicism? Is it okay for a Muslim to issue death threats because his religion is somehow more valid than Catholicism? Just imagine I'd said 'drunk pedophiles become imams' and imagine the fall-out.
That's it. Drunk pedophiles who become imams are not anywhere near as offensive. It's a dark stain, and they cover it by being louder about something else. Some of the most horrible people I know - the ones who are drunk/pedophiles/adulterers - are on those Facebook groups that oppose depiction of Muhammad.
The irony is that a depiction of Muhammad is even more offensive than being a drunk, pedophile imam. In fact, people love it when that happens, they plaster it all over the media and use it as a scapegoat. It's all very complicated.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Huh? I wasn't addressing anything you had said before. But...
Indulging in your own culture is actually really important for identifying who you are. It's likely that your parents had indulged in that culture, and they passed their values on to you. So you've got these cultural roots that compose your background. It's about individuality, and hanging on to values that are important to you. What makes those cultural values important can't be determined by anyone but yourself.
What's also important is not to impose your culture on others, as doing so says to them, "I don't care what your culture is, mine is better so adapt." So, you have to respect other people's cultures. A lot of people identify themselves based on the culture they grew up in, and to disrespect it is to disrespect them.
I do have to agree with the point about being offended by flags bit, though.
About those links Adam posted, I think it's not really people giving in to someone else's culture. It's this thing called tolerance. Which goes way too far. It starts of with hate, fear, then tolerance. Tolerance is possibly the worst stage... it's that stage when people avoid doing anything at all because they don't want to offend people.
Passport photos are fine. Muslims consider female hair as offensive/attractive as the Western world considers cleavage. It's inappropriate for religious situations, but a choice. And with kids, there's nothing wrong at all.
There's no rule that says you can't have toy pigs or stories using them as characters. I'm sure most Muslim countries don't ban them.
The holocaust should definitely be taught, though. Even the Crusades. I think racism has nothing to do with it, it's mostly the recent fighting in Israel.
The part about the game having a few lines from the Quran shouldn't be there though. Just like people would get offended if there were Bible lines in a song. It's not the Muslims who would mostly be offended about it (unless it depicted them badly). It's the non-Muslims and atheists who'd be more annoyed by it.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
You're really missing the point Muz. By saying that depictions of Muhammed are the most insulting thing ever, you are consequently saying that Islam has more validation to be insulted than any other religion (or indeed non-religion). You are saying "yeah, say whatever you want, just don't mention Muhammed - Muslims are special, you know".
This isn't just some simple 'clash of cultures' as I once thought it used to be; it is a non-acceptance of Western society by Western Muslims. Our right to free speech is as valid as the Islamic divine belief in Mohammed as the final prophet; when you suggest free speech should be toned down, should be compromised, that IS as offensive to me as an image of Mohammed would be to a Muslim (and nobody has the right to tell me it isn't).
There is a lot spoken about tolerance, but there is only one side of the world practising it.
Tolerance is exactly what you said. Making death threats, setting fire to embassies, and killing known critics of Islam is not tolerance. The extreme Islamic line is "I don't agree with your opinions and I will hurt you if you speak about them".
Political correctness has got nothing to do with this. Political correctness is apolitical and governmental policy designed to erradicate discrimination. Stewart Lee once called it "forced politeness". Jyllands Posten is a private Danish newspaper, and by Danish law does not have to subscribe to politically correct speech.
Advertisement
Post Reply
