Debate Mansion

   

Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's (Page 3)

Post Reply New Post

Page 3 of 29

_Artemis_

Newbie

_Artemis_

Joined: 17 September 2012

Posts: 16

Posted: 19 September 2012 at 4:24am | IP Logged

As I said earlier I agree that unnecessary provocation of religious sentiments is to be discouraged. The film maker has been arrested or so I heard. But what is being done about the people who are actually engaging in violence? Is something being done about them? Making a film is one thing but killing people is quite another. Which is the greater evil of the two?

As for inciting violence any damn excuse seems to be enough be it a movie or torn pages or a cartoon! How do these things become more valuable than human lives? Hooliganism thrives in the shade of mob culture. Violence erupted in UP in North India because someone reportedly discovered a few torn pages of a Holy book. Without going into who tore it or under what circumstances, some miscreants used that an  excuse to gather a mob and attack a police station and so far six innocents have lost their lives and several injured. To add to it the key witness denied having found those torn pages!

There appears to be a deliberate attempt at fanning hatred on one pretext or the others. As long as there is no efficient way to deal with such unruly mobs or riots censorship seems to be the only way but to what extent ? If tolerance is to be practiced it should apply to all the parties involved. What is unfortunate is that very often innocent people on both sides have to bear the brunt of misdirected hatred.

                                            

The following 8 member(s) liked the above post:

HeartzorrroLeadNitratesub_rosaRehanismmonar-Chandramukhi-Samraat_92

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's (Page 3)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

King-Anu

IF-Rockerz

King-Anu

Joined: 01 April 2009

Posts: 5278

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 7:10am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

Very true..We should learn civility and the "limits" and proper use of freedom of expression from them:




Islam IS The Religion of Peace...Dare you say otherwise!!


 
1) When I saw this picture my first reaction was okay this does not make sense. Sure one can have an extremist view but why would someone make a statement with a clear contradiction. Initially I took the conspiracy theorist route and thought okay it is possible this is a planted person trying to malign Islam. Then I noticed that "who say islam is violent" is darker  while the top two words are faded. I googled and I found that picture is fake. It was edited to make the ironic point.
 
 
2) Your claim is as if I pick up an event lets say burning of Quran by Terry Jones and claim ok the western civilization or christianity is not civil.
 
I would request you not to deviate from this topic.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some other comments
 
1) Natural Sentiment:
 
I noticed that words natural sentiment and victims were used here. Lets analyze this case.
 
We basically have a thug (with a criminal past) who used a fake name, fake religious identity, fake citizenship, showed fake source of funding, cheated actors, who made a movie (which was translated recently and gained views around time of 9/11) insulting a religion which regardless of anyone's liking is followed and respected by billions of people. I don't know about you but it is more like a deliberate act of instigation than a sentiment. Similarly is burning of Quran a sentiment? Posting of nude pictures of prophet by a paper is a sentiment? I mean who do you think we are? 
 
2) Discussion at DM
 
And what was the debate here on DM anyway? Lets even accept and say that Islam is bad and Muslims are violent and all that. The point was not Islam but that this freedom of expression has become a farce because you have laws keeping sensitivity of certain people in mind (example removal of hate speech/videos against race or getting jailed term for denying holocaust) but at the same time a whole religion is being ridiculed but a video cannot be removed because it represents freedom of one individual. That was the debate here.
 
If I were to put cartoons depicting anyone's loved ones in bad taste then there is no debate in it. Its a shameful act and should be called it that way and action should be taken against me. Period.
 
3) Violence
 
There have been violence and most of it is politically motivated. I saw some TV shows and I am happy to say that the general view was that the way some reacted was wrong. People do realize that. There is awareness that some are doing it to instigate violence and then blame the religion. Many politicans said that. Imran Khan was saying that yesterday.  
  
@ 21.53 SECONDS
 
 
4) Western Civilization
 
Another point is that whenever we have such issues we immediately start talking about civilizations and how we should be thankful for things like freedom of speech and other values. Thats fine but that is not an excuse to justify such acts.
 
Western civilization has its issues also. There is no need to get overboard. My colleague here once summarized her civilization. She said we have obliterated cities, killed millions, treated other races as second class, taken slaves, we use to tie balcks and drag them on roads, burned them and hanged them, discriminated against women, took land from native people here, occupied other countries, looted their wealth and even today we are killing thousands in these wars. She said even more believe me lol. There is a history to this world and it did not start with us coming into this world. Hope I am not acting as Akshay Kumar of Namastey London here lol.
 
Conclusion: The point is lets not talk civilizations and religion and stick to issue. The issue is that we need to be clear on this freedom of expression as right now, in its current shape and form, it is biased and it does not matter who of what religion is doing what in what civilization.  
 
P.S I wrote this few days back. I have edited it to shorten it and today remove some personal advice lol. Also added a video now to show that people do realize what we have been saying here.


Edited by King-Anu - 20 September 2012 at 9:06am

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Aya.Fair-n-luvlyHawaaPot

LOVE_DMG

IF-Dazzler

LOVE_DMG

Joined: 29 January 2010

Posts: 2892

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 9:56am | IP Logged
it not a freedsom of expression it just anther way of creating islamafobia. well one movie is defintly not going to bring the Prophet muhammad  image  down , and ever notice that this movie was lunched on the aniversary of 9/11 ( which till this date no one really knows who did it) and the Us election are going on now.  . -
 
one more thing as i muslims i agree that you should stand up agisnt such a a ins**t to islam but not in a way of killing a an innocent person( US ambasdaor) and showing up these kinds of sign . that muslims right now are going wrong. instead of acting like ignornet pple why dont clear some misconcuption about phophet muhammad and islam 
 
 
to muslims who are aksing why they are making these such of videos  -this is why. if a non muslims reads these sign he/she is going to think that prophet muhammad was like that. thes  kind of guys like him here is destorying the image of islam and ins**ting the Prophet more then the movie it self.


Edited by LOVE_DMG - 20 September 2012 at 10:07am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Aya.King-AnuHawaaPotFair-n-luvly

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11596

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 11:05am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

SportsFreak

Senior Member

SportsFreak

Joined: 19 January 2011

Posts: 443

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 12:04pm | IP Logged
Is freedom of expression selective? I ask this because if today an offensive film is made on the holocaust then it will be said it is insensitive and that it hurts the sentiments of the Jews and i bet YouTube will block it in a day. So why is such a video that clearly hurts sentiments of others not removed in the name of freedom of expression?

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Aya.King-AnuHawaaPot

King-Anu

IF-Rockerz

King-Anu

Joined: 01 April 2009

Posts: 5278

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 12:53pm | IP Logged

From that link

 
"Reader Stanislaw Pak points me to this version, which apparently is the original. So the image above was altered to make it ironic."
 
Just type the title of the picture and do a google search. There are many places where it is mentioned that it was photoshopped. The original is also present at various sites (usually anti Islam sites) where it was presented to make the point that Muslims are violent. Another link
 
 
Ayway that is not the point. The more important point that I am making is how we generalize act of few onto many.
 
P.S If you still do not believe it I will update this post later.


Edited by King-Anu - 20 September 2012 at 3:37pm

robertbentham

Newbie

robertbentham

Joined: 14 May 2012

Posts: 23

Posted: 20 September 2012 at 10:22pm | IP Logged
all claimed gods; are false gods... i'm sorry(eh not so much)... that's really just how it is... if your god demands you kill someone for any reason (hint hint they all do), the rest of humanity would prefer you start with yourself.

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3338

Posted: 21 September 2012 at 2:05am | IP Logged
Originally posted by King-Anu

 
1) When I saw this picture my first reaction was okay this does not make sense. Sure one can have an extremist view but why would someone make a statement with a clear contradiction. Initially I took the conspiracy theorist route and thought okay it is possible this is a planted person trying to malign Islam. Then I noticed that "who say islam is violent" is darker  while the top two words are faded. I googled and I found that picture is fake. It was edited to make the ironic point.
 
http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/behead-those-who-say-islam-is-violent/

Thanks for correcting my mistake..However that still doesn't reduce insanity and sickness of the original placard or other similar placards..

 
2) Your claim is as if I pick up an event lets say burning of Quran by Terry Jones and claim ok the western civilization or christianity is not civil.

Burning a book or pissing on it or flushing it in toilet doesn't really jeopardize human lives, no matter how crazy these behaviors might look. And secondly, I don't remember Christians and Jews demanding decapitation of those who insult their religions..Compared to few anti-Islamic works there are hundreds of literary and satirical criticism of Christianity, several parody religions like FSM, movies and animated works mocking Christiany and its icons like this one :


But we don't see Christians rampaging or demanding execution of the movie makers, nor do the critics of Christianity in the West feel the need to flee their homeland in fear of being hounded up and murdered by an angry mob!! Its true that there are cranks and crackpots in every society but even cranks can stay in limits if they choose to.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/hitler_anne_frank.jpg

This cartoon (above) was published almost in the same time as the infamous Danish cartoons, to be precise in retaliation of the latter. It depicts Adolf Hitler in bed with young Anne Frank. Surely this might have hurt several Jews, but I don't remember any death threat or riot coming from their side; on the other hand, the reactions to the Danish cartoons are history.
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some other comments
 
1) Natural Sentiment:
 
I noticed that words natural sentiment and victims were used here. Lets analyze this case.
 
We basically have a thug (with a criminal past) who used a fake name, fake religious identity, fake citizenship, showed fake source of funding, cheated actors, who made a movie (which was translated recently and gained views around time of 9/11) insulting a religion which regardless of anyone's liking is followed and respected by billions of people. I don't know about you but it is more like a deliberate act of instigation than a sentiment. Similarly is burning of Quran a sentiment? Posting of nude pictures of prophet by a paper is a sentiment? I mean who do you think we are?

This what I had written:

"
We have chosen to ignore the fact that while getting offended might be quite natural, riots and pogroms unleashed by religious communities are not a natural or involuntary reaction to criticism or mockery of religions. Its a conscious choice on behalf of the community to resort to violence and hooliganism rather than addressing their grievances through debates and discussions; like civilized humans are expected to do."

Which part of it seems inappropriate to you? I agree that getting offended is not a crime, but what you do after that is certainly your own responsibility..For instance, if someone abuses my parents, its natural that I'll be hurt - however if in retaliation I kill that person or burn his house, then definitely I need to be shifted to a mental asylum. The violent behavior of religious communities is not excusable because they are hurt. None of us are defending the said director. He may have been an idiot, a miscreant. He may have hoodwinked the cast and crew into making this atrocious film; in which case he can be prosecuted on charges of forgery and defamation. However that doesn't cover up for the hooliganism of the religious loonies. Religious people would react in the same way even if a sober and well-versed author publishes a book criticizing their religion and prophet. What I am defending here is Democracy and humanity which loonies have no regard for if they come in the way of them and their precious religion's honor.

 
2) Discussion at DM
 
And what was the debate here on DM anyway? Lets even accept and say that Islam is bad and Muslims are violent and all that. The point was not Islam but that this freedom of expression has become a farce because you have laws keeping sensitivity of certain people in mind (example removal of hate speech/videos against race or getting jailed term for denying holocaust) but at the same time a whole religion is being ridiculed but a video cannot be removed because it represents freedom of one individual. That was the debate here.
 
If I were to put cartoons depicting anyone's loved ones in bad taste then there is no debate in it. Its a shameful act and should be called it that way and action should be taken against me. Period.

The discussion, I reckon, was whether anti-religious stuff - or things that offend religious sentiments - should be banned as they instigate violent repercussions from the members of religious communities..This in-turn passes the blame of barbarity and violence perpetrated by religious communities on the shoulders of the secularists/critics of religion. There was no debate on double standard of Western Media, holocaust denial or any other matter; but still I would like the TM to clarify it, in case I had misunderstood his post.

My understanding of Freedom of Speech and Expression requires that every individual be free to express themselves as long as:
1. S/he does not cause any physical or material harm to another person or property.
2. Doesn't call for violent action upon another individual or group of individual (that's Hate Speech for me).
3. Doesn't infringe upon others freedom and fundamental rights.
4. Doesn't abet anyone to suicide, through their word or action.
 
3) Violence
 
There have been violence and most of it is politically motivated. I saw some TV shows and I am happy to say that the general view was that the way some reacted was wrong. People do realize that. There is awareness that some are doing it to instigate violence and then blame the religion. Many politicans said that. Imran Khan was saying that yesterday.  
  
@ 21.53 SECONDS
 
 
Tell me one thing then, why is it so that politicians find religious sentiments most veritable source of instigating violence. I have never heard of a politician trying to motivate atheists into violence just because someone drew a disparaging cartoon of Charles Darwin or Christopher Hitchens! Yesterday a girl made another topic on the same issue and now its been banned, but something that I found very intriguing in her post is this line "...so that we can answer Allah(SWT) when he asks us what action we took when his beloved(SAW) was insulted". She wasn't demanding for any violent action, to be sure. However this idea that you have got to answer God about not doing anything when "his beloved (prophet) was insulted" and that you may face God's wrath and possible damnation in hell can be exceptionally damaging to the believer's mind and possibly, enough to lead people of faith into seeking violent retribution. That is the reason why you don't see people killing to avenge the dishonor of their parents or favorite political or social icon, but wherever faith is involved their rage and madness knows no boundary. No amount of political motivation can possibly lead you to violence unless you actually believe that blasphemy is a crime worthy of death penalty or similar violent retribution. Political instigation might be a catalyst for communal violence, but a catalyst is useless unless reactants and appropriate conditions are available.

4) Western Civilization
 
Another point is that whenever we have such issues we immediately start talking about civilizations and how we should be thankful for things like freedom of speech and other values. Thats fine but that is not an excuse to justify such acts.
 
Western civilization has its issues also. There is no need to get overboard. My colleague here once summarized her civilization. She said we have obliterated cities, killed millions, treated other races as second class, taken slaves, we use to tie balcks and drag them on roads, burned them and hanged them, discriminated against women, took land from native people here, occupied other countries, looted their wealth and even today we are killing thousands in these wars. She said even more believe me lol. There is a history to this world and it did not start with us coming into this world. Hope I am not acting as Akshay Kumar of Namastey London here lol.

Conclusion: The point is lets not talk civilizations and religion and stick to issue. The issue is that we need to be clear on this freedom of expression as right now, in its current shape and form, it is biased and it does not matter who of what religion is doing what in what civilization.  
This is plain and simple red herring and I need not have responded to it, but still I think its important to clear things out. First of all I do not worship West, but I do admire Western Culture immensely for its adherence to tolerance and democracy and regard for individualism and freedom - something that is totally absent in mob-cultures like those of Islam and India.

Whatever your learned friend has said is a matter of past for the Western civilization but for the Islamic societies its their present and, perhaps, future too. Of 49 Muslim majority states, not a single can be rated as a true democracy and most have greater tendency towards hegemony and feudalism. Almost all of them practice blasphemy laws which condemns blasphemers to death. Only one is a secular state (note: according to a recent survey nearly 70% of Turkey responded that they would prefer Sharia to secular laws, if they were to make a choice) and only three have abolished polygamy or mandatory veiling.
The condition of minorities in Islamic states is deplorable. Living like 2nd class citizens, they have few legal rights, no right to practice their religion freely and a life of fear, abuses and humiliation. Almost all Muslim majority states have informally backed out from Universal Declaration of Human Rights and instead signed the Cairo Declaration which promises "human rights" in adherence to Sharia; a laughable oxymoron.

And the story doesn't end here. The Muslims are not content with the regressive state of their own nations; they want even the Western countries to abandon their democratic and secular principles and submit to Sharia. 31% of British Muslims believe that Sharia law should be imposed in Britain and over 60% believe that blasphemy against Islam must be criminalized. Similar is the situation with rest of Europe and America. Whence do they get this audacity to demand that laws of their host countries be changed as per their beliefs even when they are merely 1-3% minority? Whence do they get the audacity to spurn human rights and try to impose a 7th century tribal law in secular societies that host them? This audacity, this supremacism, stems from the belief of superiority and immutability of their religious doctrines and laws over any 'man-made' law. What chance does infidel concepts of democracy, equality and human rights stand before Allah's eternal laws?

Its true that every society, be it east or west, has its share of issues, but that doesn't put Islamic or Indian society in perspective with Western societies..





Edited by Rehanism - 21 September 2012 at 7:14am

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

_Artemis_Beyond_the_VeilSamraat_92

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Religious freedom at workplace..

2 3

blue-ice 16 994 03 July 2011 at 9:43am
By _Angie_
Universalism or religious fanatics!

2 3

Vinzy 21 841 13 May 2011 at 7:02am
By monar
Is religious guidance important in life?! Vinzy 5 571 11 April 2011 at 4:48pm
By Summer3
Religious tags: Really needed?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 14

mind-googling 105 4604 27 May 2010 at 5:11pm
By Bartz
Being Spiritual and religious

2 3 4 5

Khatarnak 34 1664 27 March 2010 at 10:06am
By Summer3

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.