Was not quite sure where to post this, so I settled for this part of the forum.
As you may have heard by now, an Egyptian mob stormed the US embassy in Cairo and Benghazi, and the US Ambassador to Libya was murdered. The attacks on Americans in those two countries have apparently been prompted by the promotion of an anti-muslim film entitled Innocence of Muslims. Here's the link to the YouTube trailer.
The film, which to me anyway, seems to be of obvious piss poor quality, appears to be intentionally designed to outrage all true believes of the prophet. It's sponsored in some way by Florida trailer trash minister Terry Jones of "Let's All Burn a Q'uran Day."
I guess my questions are this? Is the motive behind Innocence of Muslims really any different that "Let's All Draw Mohammed" day that was popularized a year or so ago? Both were done knowing it would infuriate Allah's true believers. Or, for that matter, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders's film Fitna, which portrays Islam as a bloodthirsty, psychopathic cult?
And, irrespective of the motives, where do we come down on the freedom to speak, knowing that such speech is designed to provoke angry, and even violent, outrage? As for me, I'm going with free speech - period.
This morning, I heard some pundit state (and correctly in my opinion) that Terry Jones and his ilk are identical to the Imam or Mullah calling for death to the infidels. Morons each, who just happen to be on different sides of the same coin.
Yeah I heard about this.
It's ok to show Jesus looking at porn, it's ok to show Buddha snorting cocaine.
It's ok to call mormonism dumb 136 times in one episode, and it's ok to call the followers of scientology gay, but it's NOT ok to show an image of Muhammad?
No, it isn't.
A long time ago, someone made a movie entitled: Mohammed: Messenger of God. To avoid the problem of the supposed "sin" of showing the prophet, the entire movie was supposed to have been shot from the "first person" perspective, with the camera being Mohammed! However, when it came time to release the film (this was easily 30-40 years ago), the protest was so loud that the filmmaker relented ... and probably took a considerable bath in the process!
Frankly, this thin-skinned nature which muslims exhibit strikes me as being both tiresome and infantile and I for one have no desire nor intention to tolerate it. I'm not making provocative films (not all that interested in them, really), though I WILL admit to putting up the following as an avatar on Everyone Draw Mohammed Day:
But let's be real here. If they decided to take a whiz on Hitchens' God Is Not Great, it wouldn't bother me, because no action they could take would impact on the IDEAS he put forward. To me, their protests reflect their own insecurity about their god and his prophet. Being that one never existed and the other is questionable at best, they have a reason to be insecure, but to act out in such a fashion reflects not just insecurity but immaturity and irresponsibility as well. Modern societies generally don't take well to such behaviors, and if they look to restrain or suppress them, no one should be surprised.
My suspicion is that islam is taught purely from an emotional angle, with very little reason or thought associated with it, and that such emotion has become an integral part of the islamic culture. So, big surprise: when muslims feel challenged or insulted, they react emotionally. Telling them to get over it, though, won't be enough, so embedded is this attitude. Getting them shut of this overreaction will be as difficult as persuading them that it and the religion behind it are not worth their time.
We're expecting them to think and reason. They are not used to either.
This is what theocracy looks like. Does anyone really believe that if we were really a "Christian nation" it would be any different here? Intolerance is intolerance wherever found.
Well said James, that's where my head was too honestly. Religion seems to breed insecurity and does a grand job of maintaining divisions so that we can never reach out and come to understand and appreciate one another. Both sides in this instance are showing their insecurities but frankly, their books tell them the other side is unholy or infidels and unworthy of respect. It's sad when the crutches we choose to help us cope have tottering ends.
I did not know that folks on atheistnexus had such compulsions to be politically correct. Christian nutcases do not bomb cities or kill innocents whereas islamic "non-nutcases" usually do. Those muslims who stormed the US embassy are NOT - let me repeat - NOT nut cases but are the "true genuine believers" of the arbaric desert cult. Those who believe that there is a milder and more civilized version of isam are the TRUE nut cases - they are living under a suicidal delusion. When the bomb hits them, it will be too late for them.
Personally, I would not mind having a christian nutcase for a neighbour, but I would not want a muslim anywhere near my neighbourhood. People on this forum need to do some reading and educate themselves about this fast spreading cancer called islam. For starters, watch the speeches given by Wafa Sultan on YouTube (search for Wafa Sultan on Google)
The greatest danger to any religion is a challenge which could get its members to thinking. Thinking and religion are anathema to each other. Intelligent members of any religion are accustomed to blocking off their intelligence where their beliefs are concerned. But an open questioning, especially an interesting or clever one, could bridge that rift for some members. Once it begins, it's almost impossible to stop. (Haven't some of us, earlier in life, tried?) As long as only a small number of believers are losing (flinging away?) their faith, the danger is small. But when challenging belief becomes widespread, as it now is in Europe and, to a lesser degree, the U S, it can snowball. Muslim and Catholic leaders are doing what they can to avoid this danger, in ways consistent with their cultures. If a belief can become a butt of jokes, that's scary to its leadership.