USA: “Obsession” Anti-Islam Film Angers Bloggers
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But you do boys?
No, you must have mistaken me for a Catholic Priest. Or maybe Adnan... :-D
-
You're right, freedom isn't free - it comes at great cost. True freedom from everything isn't an illusion, it's death. But that's rather impractical. Thus, as many rights as possible must be fought for and protected in order to guard "freedom". That's the ideology in the west and in the west, one of those rights is freedom of speech. It's no more than that and no less than that.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
And I don't disagree with that. But respect should get equal footing as well. Some people believe religion should be respected before freedom. Some believe freedom above all else. I say if you had respect, you would have both. But people seem to lose sight of love thy neighbor and all that. And I'm not talking about the US or any particular country. I'm saying people in general, except playboy bunnies of course.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'm also saying that the US usually forbids this
Not at all. As long as the film did not directly urge violence against muslims or muslim property, it is permissible speech. And there is no substantive legal difference between paying a newspaper to distribute it as a paid advertisement, and selling it in a store. And to assert that this would have been stopped if it were anti-Christian is simply not true: there have been numerous anti-christian films made in recent years that received similar advertisement and were publicly displayed and sold in the US (mostly without any similar outcry from Christians).
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'm also saying that the US usually forbids this
Not at all. As long as the film did not directly urge violence against muslims or muslim property, it is permissible speech. And there is no substantive legal difference between paying a newspaper to distribute it as a paid advertisement, and selling it in a store. And to assert that this would have been stopped if it were anti-Christian is simply not true: there have been numerous anti-christian films made in recent years that received similar advertisement and were publicly displayed and sold in the US (mostly without any similar outcry from Christians).
Only since it was Christians who made the movie about their religion, even if they don't have faith in it. However, if one religion bashes another and sends movies through newspapers for distribution, then something is definitely foul and the government should intervene. Like I said to Oakman, the government has stopped certain things when it wanted to. I've seen it happen a couple more times, but that was the only example I remember.
-
Only since it was Christians who made the movie about their religion, even if they don't have faith in it. However, if one religion bashes another and sends movies through newspapers for distribution, then something is definitely foul and the government should intervene. Like I said to Oakman, the government has stopped certain things when it wanted to. I've seen it happen a couple more times, but that was the only example I remember.
You sir, are full of horse puckey. The reason you can't find an example of the government intervening is that there are none. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from taking sides in issues involving religion. And just because one religion takes offense at the statements of another is no reason to silence one or the other. It would appear that Muslims are so lacking in confidence in Islam that they cannot ignore fools who speak trash against it, nor present rational argument to counter those fools. Your very reaction lends credence to what is clearly a very slanted piece of propaganda. You serve your own cause very poorly, as by protesting and demanding they be silenced you lend credence to your enemies words.
-
And I don't disagree with that. But respect should get equal footing as well. Some people believe religion should be respected before freedom. Some believe freedom above all else. I say if you had respect, you would have both. But people seem to lose sight of love thy neighbor and all that. And I'm not talking about the US or any particular country. I'm saying people in general, except playboy bunnies of course.
Respect is earned, not granted automatically. You are not helping earn that respect with your protest.
-
And I don't disagree with that. But respect should get equal footing as well. Some people believe religion should be respected before freedom. Some believe freedom above all else. I say if you had respect, you would have both. But people seem to lose sight of love thy neighbor and all that. And I'm not talking about the US or any particular country. I'm saying people in general, except playboy bunnies of course.
I think the key difference is freedom of speech vs. freedom to act and/or freedom of expression. There is no reason not to criticise religion be it Christianity, Islam or anything else. That is the Western ideal. In certain social settings it may be polite to not comment, but in any other situation it is acceptable and is a right. You cannot remove that right, that is oppression. If I am only allowed to say positive things all the time, that is unproductive and ridiculous. It builds nothing but distrust and dishonesty. No progress will ever be made.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
-
You sir, are full of horse puckey. The reason you can't find an example of the government intervening is that there are none. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from taking sides in issues involving religion. And just because one religion takes offense at the statements of another is no reason to silence one or the other. It would appear that Muslims are so lacking in confidence in Islam that they cannot ignore fools who speak trash against it, nor present rational argument to counter those fools. Your very reaction lends credence to what is clearly a very slanted piece of propaganda. You serve your own cause very poorly, as by protesting and demanding they be silenced you lend credence to your enemies words.
That's absurd. I gave one example of a caricature being removed on the government's insistence. Just because I can't recall the rest does not make me a liar. I am not a Muslim. I see wrong against every religion and subscribe to none. I thought the Da Vinci Code was pure propaganda (yes I read it), but it was written by a "Christian". I stand by what I said even if I am to be labeled whatever for it.
-
You sir, are full of horse puckey. The reason you can't find an example of the government intervening is that there are none. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from taking sides in issues involving religion. And just because one religion takes offense at the statements of another is no reason to silence one or the other. It would appear that Muslims are so lacking in confidence in Islam that they cannot ignore fools who speak trash against it, nor present rational argument to counter those fools. Your very reaction lends credence to what is clearly a very slanted piece of propaganda. You serve your own cause very poorly, as by protesting and demanding they be silenced you lend credence to your enemies words.
-
Respect is earned, not granted automatically. You are not helping earn that respect with your protest.
-
I think the key difference is freedom of speech vs. freedom to act and/or freedom of expression. There is no reason not to criticise religion be it Christianity, Islam or anything else. That is the Western ideal. In certain social settings it may be polite to not comment, but in any other situation it is acceptable and is a right. You cannot remove that right, that is oppression. If I am only allowed to say positive things all the time, that is unproductive and ridiculous. It builds nothing but distrust and dishonesty. No progress will ever be made.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
I don't disagree with that. You are 100% right. I'm just saying that what was done was underhanded. It wasn't a debate or something discussed or anything. It was propaganda, nothing more. And I'm not talking about every instance, just this one. I take each event as it comes so as not to generalize.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right,
So there were these two asian guys named Wong and a girl named Sally Wright. . .
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
it just propagates one
I didn't know you were into horticulture. In other words, when the fuck did Muslims adopt the idea of turning the other cheek? No, not those cheeks!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So there were these two asian guys named Wong
Reminds me of a story about three Chinese guys named Chu, Bu and Fu. They went to America and decided to assimilate by changing their names. Chu and Bu took to calling themselves Chuck and Buck. Fu decided to go back to China.
-
Just another attempt to win votes through fear. :rolleyes:
-
I don't disagree with that. You are 100% right. I'm just saying that what was done was underhanded. It wasn't a debate or something discussed or anything. It was propaganda, nothing more. And I'm not talking about every instance, just this one. I take each event as it comes so as not to generalize.
It may be underhanded, but even propaganda (with the exception of hate speech, libel, slander, etc...) is covered by free speech. Like I said, freedom of speech and freedom to act are two very separate things. Even if the film is wrong (I haven't watched it) they are entitled to their opinion. Now, if it falls under hate, libel, slander, etc... then actions can be taken against it. If not, then it's just somebody's opinion and you are free to ignore it and even free to speak out against it. Sure, it may be distasteful, but to oppress it is to be no better than those who would seek to oppress you.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
-
Only since it was Christians who made the movie about their religion, even if they don't have faith in it. However, if one religion bashes another and sends movies through newspapers for distribution, then something is definitely foul and the government should intervene. Like I said to Oakman, the government has stopped certain things when it wanted to. I've seen it happen a couple more times, but that was the only example I remember.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
something is definitely foul
Definitely.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
the government should intervene
Start distributing free toilet paper rolls?
In January you said "Money in April" - That was two years ago! B. Python
-
It may be underhanded, but even propaganda (with the exception of hate speech, libel, slander, etc...) is covered by free speech. Like I said, freedom of speech and freedom to act are two very separate things. Even if the film is wrong (I haven't watched it) they are entitled to their opinion. Now, if it falls under hate, libel, slander, etc... then actions can be taken against it. If not, then it's just somebody's opinion and you are free to ignore it and even free to speak out against it. Sure, it may be distasteful, but to oppress it is to be no better than those who would seek to oppress you.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
I agree in principle. But how do you determine if it is hate speech or libel when it already reached it's target audience? That's the point I was trying to make. If it was released in a store where some people decide to get it, and then complain, fine. But this way, having people complain is too late. The deed is done. How many people actually read retractions?
-
I agree in principle. But how do you determine if it is hate speech or libel when it already reached it's target audience? That's the point I was trying to make. If it was released in a store where some people decide to get it, and then complain, fine. But this way, having people complain is too late. The deed is done. How many people actually read retractions?
Does the film directly and actively incite people to violence against a religious group? If not, then there's really not much to be done about it. The majority of people will just shrug and move on. I really don't think the film is really that much to worry about. No doubt just someone's opinion on radical Islam. I don't think it's going to influence millions of people.
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
-
That's absurd. I gave one example of a caricature being removed on the government's insistence. Just because I can't recall the rest does not make me a liar. I am not a Muslim. I see wrong against every religion and subscribe to none. I thought the Da Vinci Code was pure propaganda (yes I read it), but it was written by a "Christian". I stand by what I said even if I am to be labeled whatever for it.
First off, I'm not sure what caricature you are even talking about (nor do I care), but frankly it doesn't even sound relevant. Second, I never mentioned "The Davinci Code" (I don't even regard it as particularly "anti-christian"). In fact what I had in mind was "The Beast Movie" a 2006 film whose premise was thet Jesus never existed, but was made up as part of a world domination plot". Made by a very non-christian film maker... My point is simply that the right to free speech is more important than the feelings of any religion. Just not liking what is said about a particular religion is no excuse for allowing the government to censor that speech.
-
First off, I'm not sure what caricature you are even talking about (nor do I care), but frankly it doesn't even sound relevant. Second, I never mentioned "The Davinci Code" (I don't even regard it as particularly "anti-christian"). In fact what I had in mind was "The Beast Movie" a 2006 film whose premise was thet Jesus never existed, but was made up as part of a world domination plot". Made by a very non-christian film maker... My point is simply that the right to free speech is more important than the feelings of any religion. Just not liking what is said about a particular religion is no excuse for allowing the government to censor that speech.
Rob Graham wrote:
but frankly it doesn't even sound relevant
It never does when it counts against you. :rolleyes:
Rob Graham wrote:
Second, I never mentioned "The Davinci Code" (I don't even regard it as particularly "anti-christian")
No, I did and I do. But there's a difference between having people choose to see something and sending it to them yourself. I'm amazed that newspapers would agree to this.
-