Mohammed Cartoon Controversy

“LOL Nigal - that kinds of sums up what I was saying in my first post on this thread! And it makes the point better and more quickly.
last edited: 2/07/06 8:37:30 AM”

“It's one thing to talk about facts and denounce a group of people's activities, but the TOP clearly states:

"Posts that demean a country, nation, religion, or particular group of people" (are not acceptable)

"demean" means to "debase":To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade.

I think there is plenty of room for debate and disagreement without demeaning the various religions in discussion.”


[post from sarge, emphasis mine].



It is a fact that there is no god. Saying that their is no god does not demean any religion or faith . . .it is a simple statement of fact.


Observing that there are ranting lunatics out there who burn, murder, ransack and riot in the name of a fictional mythological being are also observations of fact.

I am all for freedom of worhship, and from worhsip and of expression.

You and they can believe anything you want. I think its great for you and them.


But don't expect me to start a discussion of this stuff accepting the premise that a god exists.

One doesn't. The fact that one doesn't therefore colors my entire view of the actions of the islamic extremists and the christian fundementalists, and the jewish settlers, and the taliban.


Actually Sarge . ..purely as an intellectual exercise, put my hat on for two seconds.

Look at this brohahaaha from the perspective of some who doesn't merely belive that the islam is the wrong religion, but taht all religions are wrong.


It might be fun for you. It might help you to understand the utter frustration that a non-religous person has when every discussion in America today seems to begin with accepting the premise that there is a Christian God.

If you pretend for a moment to NOT accept that premise (as I don't) it becomes a tad frustrating to communicate with folks like . . .. like .. . ..you.”

“Nigal's Tip #284635:

"Things one says are best said as an opinion by clarifying, "I believe [blank]." rather than stating an unprovable fact. By doing so it protects the person from looking like an ass."”

“Lee, strong atheism rests on *faith*. You're more religious than I am!”

“



I resent the hell out of these cartoons!!!”

“You dare blaspheme Tom Terrific and Manfred!


May all your children be born with snowshoes!”

“Am I wrong . ...or did you just call me an Ass????




Mutt --

I have never ascribed to the argument that it is an act of faith to not believe in a higher power.


I think it is a pretty weak crock of poop in the last line of many crocks of poop in trying to attack the fact of a lack of a god.


How about this Nigal.

I believe there is a harmony in the universe that has absolutely nothing to do with a higher power.”

“SO how long will it take the world to figure out we have a WORLD WAR against Islamic Fascisim going on here....”

“"I have never ascribed to the argument that it is an act of faith to not believe in a higher power."

Amen, brother!!

There are those who claim that a lack of religion is a religion................moronic!!!”

“MarkO, that is moronic, but that's not what I'm saying.

Lee says it's a fact that there is no God. Unless he can show direct evidence of that fact, then it's merely an assertion of faith.”

““Am I wrong . ...or did you just call me an Ass????"

I would be breaking my own rule then wouldn't I? But if I said I think you're an ass, well that's all good. Now if you were to call me an ass then that's fine because that is a provable fact that has been demonstrated again and again. LOL!”

““SO how long will it take the world to figure out we have a WORLD WAR against Islamic Fascisim going on here....”

I just hope that the world wakes up before too many have to die. I think Europe's alarm clock has just went off.

The funniest thing is that these cartoons ran back in Sept. of 2005. The emmums have been sitting on them and just now came out against them and chose the time to make a stink about it.”

“There once was an evil poster on TT who did far worse than present cartoon images of Tom Terrific. He took the name of Tom Terrific as his own and for purposes of posting on TT (a place bearing the great Initials).”

“that's hooey.


The absence of belief is not in and of itself a belief.

Are you going to argue that every non-provable lack of belief creates an 'anti-belief" system???


I do not believe in God. I have an absence of faith, a vacuum of faith in a higher power.


that absence of faith is not in and of itself a faith.

I am no more of the "fatih of non-believers in God"

than you are a member of the "faith of non-believers in Santa Claus"

there are hundreds of millions of people who believe ardently in Santa Claus.

Although you and I have anecdotal facts and evidence that he does not exist, and we do not believe in him, we cannot prove that he does not exist.

Because we cannot prove that the tooth fairy, zesus, the easter bunny, santa, satan (scary anagram) do not exist doesn't mean we have somehow taken leap and joined "the faith of non-believers"

I think its a stupid and specious argument. I always have. And I am always right.

I have no need, nor any burden, to prove the abscence of something that others must take a leap of faith to believe in.




If I declare that I have faith that there is life on Planet Poopton in a galaxy far away. And you do not have the technology to prove me wrong, are you reduced to the rather weak and namby pamby position of declaring . . .. Yes Lee, your faith is admirable, and my lack of faith in your faith has no more legitimacy than your faith.

Since I can't prove you're wrong, my lack of faith in your believe has no more credence than your faith in Poopton.

That sounds just stupid and illogical to me.


It gets trotted out time and time again.

I have no burden of proof here. I hae a simple lack of faith.”

“Although you and I have anecdotal facts and evidence that he does not exist, and we do not believe in him, we cannot prove that he does not exist.

Because we cannot prove that the tooth fairy, zesus, the easter bunny, santa, satan (scary anagram) do not exist doesn't mean we have somehow taken leap and joined "the faith of non-believers"

There's no *reason* to make positive statements that these social phenomena don't exist, as there's no evidence for their existence in the first place. It's simply a complete lack of faith. You're adding an element to this complete lack of faith - an unnecessary positive statement on something for which there is no proof in the first place - i.e. a statement of belief.

I have a complete lack of faith/belief. You don't!”

“For me, certain claims about God are refutable as a matter of fact. Others are not. Many can be rejected on the basis of a rule of thumb, evident patterns etc... i.e. as improbable, but not factually impossible (just as I know email that ends up in my spam box telling me I've won an ipod is going to be a rip off). Others cannot be rejected with much confidence.”

“I found God today. My dentist was drilling one of my Wisdom teeth. While drilling she said:

"This is a big Cavity. I hope it doesn't go to the Nerve."

"Hope"?????? WTF? She doesn't know??????

I didn't need that kind of painful discovery. So I prayed and prayed to God. And I felt no pain, the nerve was fine.

Praise God!
Of course, she may have to pull it later.”

“Pull yourself together, Beramagnet.






last edited: 2/07/06 2:03:23 PM”

“sorry. My dentist is a babe. Indian Babe. Hot smokin' Hindulicious.”

“Ha!

You said, "pull"!”

“Hindulicious! You're out of your mind, LOL.”

“Faith - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.”

“I would say fashion tasteless but not necessarily blind.”

“To whom was that cryptic message intended, jimmy san?

**corrected grammar**
last edited: 2/07/06 2:39:24 PM”

“Hey Bearmagnet, that photo is from 1969.

That's a 24 year old Eric Clapton in the middle with the groovy necktie.”

“I stand by my statement.”

“I don't disagree, Bm.

Rick Gretch looks like a skinny girl.”

“It is a fact that there is no god. Saying that their is no god does not demean any religion or faith . . .it is a simple statement of fact.

It's not a fact (even by a scientific definition of the word), but if it were, I didn't say saying so was demeaning, so what's your point unless you are trying to be trollish by obviously trying to antagonize?

Observing that there are ranting lunatics out there who burn, murder, ransack and riot in the name of a fictional mythological being are also observations of fact.

Again, I didn't say it wasn't, so again, what's your point?

I am all for freedom of worhship, and from worhsip and of expression.

Good for you, but I wouldn't go around calling myself a "saint" if I were you.

You and they can believe anything you want. I think its great for you and them.

Again, do you have a point?

But don't expect me to start a discussion of this stuff accepting the premise that a god exists.

Nobody asked you to. I'm beginning to think you're arguing with yourself.

One doesn't. The fact that one doesn't therefore colors my entire view of the actions of the islamic extremists and the christian fundementalists, and the jewish settlers, and the taliban.

That's fascinating! Please tell me more things that colors your view. I can't wait to hear more.

Actually Sarge . ..purely as an intellectual exercise, put my hat on for two seconds.

Did you spray it?

Look at this brohahaaha from the perspective of some who doesn't merely belive that the islam is the wrong religion, but taht all religions are wrong.

I'm playing your game! You've got my attention! Make it good ...

It might be fun for you. It might help you to understand the utter frustration that a non-religous person has when every discussion in America today seems to begin with accepting the premise that there is a Christian God.

I don't think they begin that way at all. I just think you focus on that because that concept irritates you so. Would it make you feel any better if we assumed there wasn't a God? Then wouldn't that cause "utter frustration" for those that do? The fact is the people who think there is a God argue from that viewpoint. Those that don't, don't. It's not more complicated than that. If you are intolerant of that fact, maybe you should find another hobby because any discussion you have won't get past your intolerence for others' beliefs.

If you pretend for a moment to NOT accept that premise (as I don't) it becomes a tad frustrating to communicate with folks like . . .. like .. . ..you.

lee - Have you been a Christian? How many years have you been a Christian? I've been a non-Christian most of my life, most of my adult life. I'm 38 years old. I've been a Christian less that 7 years. You do the math. I know how a non-Christian thinks. I have looked at these issues from both sides of the coin. What about you? Tell me how you have looked at things from a Christian viewpoint. What have you done to try to see things from a religious person's view? From the "hat game" you wanted me to play, can I assume you've gone to great lengths to wear another hat? Please ... list for us the many wonderful role-playing activities you've engaged in when in your life as a debator. Have you "switched sides"? Are you as open-minded as I am? How do you know? Have you done a compelete 180 on your political or religious beliefs? I have. So what right do you have to assume I am not open-minded in this or any discussion? Please answer that, I'd love to hear your answer.

lee - You are a patronizer. You think you're better than Christians because you think you have the answers. For proof, just read your post to me. Instead of acting like an adult and exchanging ideas, you use your voice to invoke ad-hominem attacks. You patronize by insinuating (more like outright proclaiming) that the other person needs to "know what you know" or to "think like you think" in order for them to be accepted in your circle of trolls. It's boring lee ... very boring.”

““I have never ascribed to the argument that it is an act of faith to not believe in a higher power.”

lee


Well that’s just spiffy that you call what you believe not an act of faith, lee. However…

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Abraham Lincoln





A voice in the wilderness:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prophet-drawings-denmarks-dismay,0,4269499.story

At least a few folks are honestly self-examining. I like what Carsten Jensen says. Maybe some folks in Europe will listen.

But it is not surprising that those who seem to hold a lot of anger and resentment towards organized religion are the first to denounce others for not showing tolerance and acceptance for causes and groups which they support.


I don’t justify violence. But I wouldn’t be shocked if I went into a bar, insulted a drunk with a reputation for a bad temper, and he punched me. I’d say to myself, “Gee, I don’t think I’ll make that mistake again.”

Say I’m a stupid (but steadfast in my beliefs) journalist. I think to myself, “If that drunk with a reputation for a bad temper punches me after I insult him, I’ll just call the cops on him.” So I still get punched and the cop may say that I incited the incident. Should I be shocked?




Another interesting view:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/cl-et-rutten4feb04,0,2914835.column?coll=la-news-columns

Unavoidable journalism? Mild little doodles? Apparently Rutten lacks the sort of empathy that he most likely accuses Southern Baptists of when they criticize homosexuals. He lacks respect for the core beliefs of those who don’t share his values.

Rutten does his best to justify these insults. Is this guy saying that, just because Muslims insult others, insulting them back will finally produce self-examination from both journalists and outraged Muslims?

This is the type of media “self-examination” that allows journalists to justify bias by placing the blame squarely on those with whom they disagree. This is the type of media “self-examination” that says it’s perfectly acceptable to yell fire in a crowded theater in the name of freedom of the press.




People often want to argue about who is MORE at fault in an argument. This may have some small benefit, but the “winner” usually uses his “moral high ground” to justify not examining ANY part he may have played in creating a bad situation. And this has a much more detrimental effect than determining who is MORE at fault.

Violence starts with an idea. What if someone insults your wife with every expletive imaginable? Would you justify it if she slapped him? Would you justify it if you hit him? What level of insult would be acceptable? What level of violence would be acceptable and justifiable to defend your core beliefs from insult?

I would not argue that this reaction from some Muslims is acceptable behavior. And I would not insult someone’s core beliefs without expecting consequences. People like Rutten seem to expect to act in any manner they see fit without accepting any detrimental consequences. Only those who react without outrage to the criticism of THEIR core beliefs can claim the “moral high ground” in these situations. I seriously doubt that Rutten qualifies. I doubt that the majority of people qualify.






If the media paid as much attention to criticizing NAMBLA as it does religion we may see enough public outrage mustered to change a reprehensible act. Could this lack of criticism be effected by the media’s endorsement of most homosexual causes? Could their criticism be effected by a resentment of organized religion? Maybe the media should self-examine those ideas…

…nah. Why listen to a bunch of homophobes and religious fundamentalists?
last edited: 2/07/06 5:05:19 PM”

“The following is, in my opinion, a spot on analysis from stratfor. Basically, America and Iran are the beneficiaries of this scandal, and Y2's Old Europe is busy eating crow. Pay attention to the bolded parts:

The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
February 07, 2006 20 49 GMT

By George Friedman

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't
help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare.
Nonetheless, there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that
Denmark -- which has made a national religion of not being offensive
to anyone -- could become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight
of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and
Scandinavians in general being warned to leave Islamic countries --
has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway.
Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and
Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney.
History has its interesting moments.

At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The
explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by
a minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in
September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of
the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion
something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean
here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly
part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world
and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.

Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is
a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed.
There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a
cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules
simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by
these cartoons.

It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the
cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should
respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist
view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires
"sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid
hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The
Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating
the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims
frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about
other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers
of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example,
were not concerned about the views among other religions when they
destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest
and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular
respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been
to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European
newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted
the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism
has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many
countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to
imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if
a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the
reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if
a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were
intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing,
by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his
resignation.)

In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse
even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need
for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws
against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly
marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference
between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who
offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire
nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The
European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not
threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also
distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States
who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.

These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this:
The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to
the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept
visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept
that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be
published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into
geopolitics.

In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual
inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims
-- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend
them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact
that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but
against European states.

One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that
each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault
line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the
manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the
jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the
war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a
critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the
cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split
and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that
unifies as well as divides.

The Fissures in the West

It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" --
there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that
generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely,
there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times
refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we
mean now.

In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted
to 9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that
the United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation
within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the
Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes,
the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added
unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European
criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that
American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased
the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From
excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the
United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the
result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the
United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over
the top.

Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United
States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to
publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen.
The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible.
As the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications
printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in
which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in
EU offices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe.

From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans
an argument that the Bush administration has been making from the
beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a
response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be
triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what
private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they
are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not
under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the
United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune
to the threat than the Americans are.

This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally
deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the
dominant populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London,
threatening the city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive
nerves. It becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to
distinguish between their own relationship with the Islamic world and
the American relationship with the Islamic world. A sense of shared
fate emerges, driving the Americans and Europeans closer together. At
a time when pressing issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the
table, this increases Washington's freedom of action. Put another
way, the Muslim strategy of splitting the United States and Europe --
and using Europe to constrain the United States -- was heavily
damaged by the Muslim response to the cartoons.

The Intra-Ummah Divide

But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between
these two communities have always been substantial. Theological
differences aside, both international friction and internal friction
have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq,
tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the
obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of
one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the
corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as
collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in
the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree
about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and
still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each
community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or
another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic
credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and
Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and
Iran) -- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government
involvement. Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria --
aligned with Iran -- is home to a major Sunni community; there is
another in Lebanon. The cartoons provided what was essentially a
secular regime the opportunity to take the lead in a religious
matter, by permitting the attacks on the embassies. This helped
consolidate the regime's position, however temporarily.

Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with
each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian
bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been
quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of
authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to
tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as
being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are
forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are
uneasy with the passions of the moment.

Beneficiaries on Both Sides

The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are
naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against
lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the
Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western
governments to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is
taken as a sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is
constantly compressing each community, even as they are divided.

One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other
response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd
part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and
-- though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level --
didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The
objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication
by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith
Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December,
purposely "to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in
response to the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly
been stirred.

There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact
that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was
responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have
noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright
bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the
beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.)

Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States:
The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the
Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many
Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously
motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark"
campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is
Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States
over nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its
side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis
who have raised questions about its flirtations with the United
States in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against
Europe.

The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the
Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will
not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad
feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between
moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States.
They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the
current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult.

It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant,
but these are.”

“Mutt, if you think the cartoons have that much to do with it....(LOL). It is like the Scum who rioted after the Rodney King trial. The trial was no more the impetus for the riot than a girl wearing a short skirt is an impetus for rape.
I spent some time around some of these clowns, I have also spent time around "third world mindset" people across the United States. Their reactions are not "caused" by the wrong (either real or imagined) but rather they use it as an excuse for uncivil behavior.
Animals will be animals. I have seen the same behavior with addicts. "I drank becuase my boss got on my ass."
Hell there are ten thousand reasons to behave like a beast. You want to stop it, up the ante. If the Little Sheet heads want to make a competition of "anti Jewish" drawings...we have one for Anti Mohammed drawings....BET WE WILL WIN.”

“Their reactions are not "caused" by the wrong (either real or imagined) but rather they use it as an excuse for uncivil behavior.

Clearly there are political dimensions to the Muslime's outrage, as the article pointed out. After skimming through several Muslime web-forums last night, it became apparent there is real religious outrage as well.

ETA: and I think you're right, for many it's just a chance to have some fun being "bad". I.e. - it's multidimensional.
last edited: 2/08/06 8:48:58 AM”

“Muhammad”

“Dang Jimmy, you are now doomed for posting "that guy's" name.

May Dog have mercy on your Seoul.”

“It's spelled either way, jimmy san/sarge.”

“The sad thing is that I have many moslem friends...and it drives me nuts (YES IT DRIVES ME NUTS) when I hear the right wing talk show hosts #&%!$ about "Well you don't hear the mainstream Muslims condemn these twits."

Sadly, when Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert do their silly stunts....where is the PUBLIC outrage from other Christian leaders?

I am a Christian (Lutheran) and I have noticed the abusing the name of God for your own purposes has no boundries. Or as my younger brother used to joke..

" GOD WANTS YOU TO GIVE YOUR MONEY TO ME SO I CAN DO GOOD WORKS."

I see the same attitude among most of the scum I have locked up. "Ain't my fault that "[i]insert cause here[i]" made it to where I had to [i]insert crime[i].

I was at a funeral for an associate who was an athiest (Swear to God) we were talking afterward and someone asked,"SO he didn't believe in God?" To which I answered, Not anymore.

But I wonder will the athiest who refused God get it any different than one who used the name of God to cause pain and suffering?”

“ I have also spent time around "third world mindset"

What's that?”

“Camden, New Jersey??

East Saint Louis??”

“Sarge --

If you didn't think my note applied to anything you had said, and you found it boring . .. .

I can't imagine why you spent so much of your valuable time cutting, pasting and replying. To each his own.

And yes. I have looked over the fence, and spent some time on the "other side" of the fence as I explored my own spirituality. I came to the conclusions that i have expressed time and time again here and won't repeat. So what?

I am very open minded. I embrace every individual's right to practice any religion they want (that doesn't run contrary to conventional laws, e.g. human sacrifice). I view ALL religions equally. With an absolutely open mind. I see each religion, and each worshipper and each path to god as having equal merit and equal value. I have come to NO conclusion as to one religion having the lock on the "right" path to God.

In that way I am clearly much more open minded than you, who have concluded that there is one path to god.

Pttthhththhpth!



Mutt --

I know you fancy yourself a superior logician. And perhaps you are. But, using logic, you could also conclude that the guy in the cube next to you didn't exist.

At some point you need to view your logical conclusions through a prism of common sense.


a) many people across the world believe/have faith in a higher power.

b) there has never been any proof to confirm the existence of such a higher power. Notwithstanding the whole jesus loaves and fishes thing.

c) I do not believe in a higher power.

d) There is no burden on me to lift a finger to prove that a higher power doesn't exist. The burden is on those who do believe to prove that one does exist.


You can blow show tunes about Old Abe's dog out your butt until the cows come home. You can set up any 'if/then" logical proof you want.

I am going to simply sit here, belch in your face, and say the same thing over and over. "prove it".

And if you say to me "nyaynanaah prove a higher power doesn't exist" I am just going to laugh at you.

"prove one doesn't exist" is not an argument . .its a childish cop-out.

And you know that. And you don't believe. You are just trying to be a logical pain in the butt.
last edited: 2/08/06 10:36:03 AM”

“I thought this was all about Muhammad Ali! Silly me. I was like, "Damn, what are people getting so worked up about?"”

“OK Jim, in that case you get a reprieve.”

“I know you fancy yourself a superior logician

"I'm not a logician, but I play one on the Internet."

You are just trying to be a logical pain in the butt.

Busted!”

“

New York City - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf announced today that Monica Lewinski has agreed to be his sixth wife. "She thinks I look a lot like Sean Penn only much younger," said Mohammed.
last edited: 2/08/06 12:42:10 PM”

“lee - anything else you want to talk about besides me? Maybe you could argue a point instead of criticizing the people you are debating with for once. Maybe ... *nodding off*”

“anything else you want to talk about besides me?

Uh oh, that's sarge-code for "I've run out of material for the debate."

Lee, good luck getting anything of substance out of him. I flat out asked him to put forth a concise description of his viewpoint on some subject, and he couldn't do it. In fact, I believe that's when he put me on ignore. LOL!”

“I thought I had posted this already, but they think it's okay to burn our flag and burn stuffed dummies that look like Bush or are labeled President Bush?

They can go take a long hike off a short pier.”

“That's one thing I don't get LH. On the news you see them burning the Danish flag...and the US flag...and the Israeli flag. WTF? It is obviouse they are playing for the media in a lot of those shots.”

“Mohammed isn't on those flags and Bush isn't Mohammed. To most Americans anyway.”