The Muhammad Movie

Never ceases to amaze me, this attitude of:

Someone has made a film. It's a film which I never have seen and most likely never will.
However, I am led to believe that it is in some way disrespectful to my religion.
Therefore, I am sure you and every other right-minded person in the world would agree that it is only right and proper that I, along with a group of equally crazy, misguided and angry bampots, go on a hate-driven rampage of outrage, vandalism, arson and violence, culminating in the death of anyone we happen upon who might be either foreign or of a different opinion regarding made-up bogey men.
Click to expand...

Absolutely mental.

This type of over-reaction actually makes me want to applaud the film makers for shining a light on this kind of "belief", which is a shame because the film makers are clearly a bunch of provocative arseholes themselves.

Actually, now that I think about it:
one bunch of arseholes upsets another bunch of arseholes?
If it wasn't for the fact that the upset bunch of arseholes have actually killed people, I'd give the whole, sorry fiasco a resounding bravo.
 
cecilia said:
On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
by Sam harris
Click to expand...

Good article and he makes a lot of good points.
This snippet from the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely, I feel:
The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that Coptics, some of which see muslims as enemies, might be close to Israelis shouldn't be surprising.
 
Robert said:
Actually, now that I think about it:
one bunch of arseholes upsets another bunch of arseholes?
If it wasn't for the fact that the upset bunch of arseholes have actually killed people, I'd give the whole, sorry fiasco a resounding bravo.
Click to expand...
Well, I've always said that these types of conflicts tend to be conservative vs conservative. Liberals know how to get along.

Having said that, liberalism and conservatism isn't just a personal thing, entire societies can be liberal or conservative. And you're right, this film does show us that a great number of Islamic societies are highly conservative, but really, who didn't already know that?

Overall I'm not too concerned with what goes on in those nations. I'm much more interested in what goes on in our Western nations. A liberal society isn't liberal if it lives in fear of attack if it were to express the wrong opinion and offend the wrong group. Conservative societies don't get that, and people from those societies still don't get that even when in a liberal land. That's a problem.
 
Robert said:
Good article and he makes a lot of good points.
This snippet from the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely, I feel:
Click to expand...
Like the kind of strong secular governments we've been other-throwing in the Middle East, and not like the theocracies we prop up.
 
Glaucus said:
Overall I'm not too concerned with what goes on in those nations. I'm much more interested in what goes on in our Western nations. A liberal society isn't liberal if it lives in fear of attack if it were to express the wrong opinion and offend the wrong group. Conservative societies don't get that, and people from those societies still don't get that even when in a liberal land. That's a problem.
Click to expand...

Then worry because this is all part of building enemies abroad. A few Muslims get bent out of shape and protest while an even smaller number take out a legitimate political target in a war that we have been waging on the region for decades and we use that to frighten our own populations to push them toward conservative elites. Hitler had the Jews. We have the Muslims.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Like the kind of strong secular governments we've been other-throwing in the Middle East, and not like the theocracies we prop up.
Click to expand...
Statements like this only damage the secular movement itself, I'd rather not associated secularism with any of the brutal Middle Eastern dictators - which really weren't all that secular anyway. This only goes once again to show how clouded you are with your obsession with Israel. Fact is these "secular governments" were oppressors and needed to be toppled. Theocracies have been on the rise even in more Western and democratic nations like Turkey. Part of that is definitely because of US involvement in the region and the war on terror as a whole. However, I see the recent developments moving in the opposite direction. Let them have their theocracies free of US interference and we'll see how long they last. Perhaps the theocracies really are the best for the people there. Or perhaps the theocracies will eventually be thrown out once they decide they value liberty more. But what they do doesn't matter so long as they at least believe they have control over their own destiny.
 
Robert said:
This type of over-reaction actually makes me want to applaud the film makers for shining a light on this kind of "belief", which is a shame because the film makers are clearly a bunch of provocative arseholes themselves.
Click to expand...

OK, here's what happens.
We have been busting up their governments and societies for at least a century. Every time they take back control of their oil industries and start spending the money on coming into the current century we go in and bust the place up to make sure that they can't organize enough to stop us from taking control. Generally we install a brutal dictator like a king or some such. If that guy starts thinking that maybe he can build his country into something other than a vassal state then he gets kicked out too.

Meanwhile the people are bombed, killed, struggle in adversity with a degraded education system and in poverty - all the stressors that allow radical conservative ask no questions religions to thrive. Why do they thrive? Because in those circumstances they are adaptive. Tough times calls for tough social controls to weed out disloyalty and make sure you have good social cohesion - even if some people get hurt, it's good for the group. Check out where religion is strongest in the world and it is usually the poorest who are the most conservative in their beliefs.

Now, while we have abused them for decades we also tell them that their religion sucks - that's an affront to pretty much the only thing that they have that we can't take from them. It's like taking a kids lunch money, putting his head in the toilet, pantsing (de-bagging) him on the playground daily and finally telling him his mother's a whore. When he gets upset at that then make fun of him for being so unreasonably grumpy.

But it's deeper than that. In a world of adversity a strong and abiding unreasonable belief that there is a supernatural being looking out for you that you can appeal to can be the only way to get through the day without constant debilitating fear. Try and undermine that without giving them security in another form and you can no more expect rational debate than you can expect rational debate with someone who is drowning.

And yet, and yet, it is still a minority who are protesting - and the people who are actually attacking western targets aren't just people reacting emotionally, they are groups acting militarily to weaken the occupiers - and to try to mask that fact by pretending that attacks are all about some youtube video is an unreasonable act of faith itself.
 
Glaucus said:
Statements like this only damage the secular movement itself, I'd rather not associated secularism with any of the brutal Middle Eastern dictators - which really weren't all that secular anyway.
Click to expand...
Iraq under Saddam was more secular than it is now, and before the first gulf war had modern health care and more women in university and positions of power than its neighbours. Given six or seven decades of stability that country could easily have transitioned into a western style democracy but that's not what we want. We want a puppet. Unfortunately we totally arsed that up - but we did get a few things we wanted temporarily like the fact that Iraqi farmers are not prohibited by law from saving seed and have to buy new seed each year from western seed companies, etc.
This only goes once again to show how clouded you are with your obsession with Israel.
Click to expand...
And this shows your obsession with Israel - because you are the one who brought it up. Don't you play that stupid game with me. Why not call me an anti-semite while you're at it. I know, you're with Harper on this subject.

Fact is these "secular governments" were oppressors and needed to be toppled.
Click to expand...
Oppressive governments get toppled by the people that live there once the people attain a level of affluence. It's how the west did it. You don't create democratic societies by destabilizing them by terrorism (war being merely one form of terrorism).

Theocracies have been on the rise even in more Western and democratic nations like Turkey.
Click to expand...
And the US - and theocracies need a foil to maintain them. The rise of Christianity in the west needs a Muslim enemy and the rise of Islam in the Middle East thrives on Christian aggression.

Or perhaps the theocracies will eventually be thrown out once they decide they value liberty more. But what they do doesn't matter so long as they at least believe they have control over their own destiny.
Click to expand...
Liberty as we know it comes about through being the top dog. We have the freedom to do as we wish in the world because we own it. We have the liberty of the slave master. The slave might aspire to the ideal but they have work to do - but we encourage them to attend church regularly. We have control over their destiny and they know it - though they'd like to change that but they'll have to do that through the only language we know - violence.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Iraq under Saddam was more secular than it is now, and before the first gulf war had modern health care and more women in university and positions of power than its neighbours.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But only for SOME Iraqis. Remember what I said about tribalism in that other thread? The closer you were to Saddam the better your life was. Born on the wrong side of the river and life was much tougher. Young Shia males were used as cannon fodder against Iran and good luck to you if you were Kurdish. You make it sound like Iraq under Saddam was another Switzerland. I opposed the Iraq invasion, but I didn't delude myself into thinking Saddam was a nice guy. And you really have no idea how Iraq would have turned out in 70 years, especially if his psychotic sons took power after him. I never would have advocated the Iraq invasion strictly to topple Saddam, but if the Shia majority rose up against him I'd support their cause - even if it lead to theocracy. It's easier to transition to a democracy from a theocracy of the majority than from a dictatorship of the minority.

And this shows your obsession with Israel - because you are the one who brought it up. Don't you play that stupid game with me. Why not call me an anti-semite while you're at it. I know, you're with Harper on this subject.
Click to expand...
I'd call you an anti-semite if I thought you were one. However, I see you take positions that make no sense except when you realize your staunch anti-Israel stance. And I say that while also agreeing with much of your views on Israel (for instance, I oppose the settlements and believe that Israel needs to honor the UN resolutions that it ignores, etc). You support oppressive dictators that also happened to oppose Israel. It seems like you believe that if Syria and Iran are toppled (or even just defanged) Israel would somehow get free reign. You miss the fact that despite the fact that Saddam is now gone Israel seems to have a harder time gaining US support then it ever did in the past. Perhaps you should consider that as Israel's enemies grow weaker - which are also enemies of the US, the US's support of Israel also grows weaker. Personally I think this is exactly what is required to happen for any meaningful change in the region. Yes, blood will be spilled and I believe blood NEEDS to be spilled. However, I also believe that blood should not be spilled by an American or Russian or Canadian or English hand. This is something the people who live there need to sort out on their own.

Oppressive governments get toppled by the people that live there once the people attain a level of affluence. It's how the west did it. You don't create democratic societies by destabilizing them by terrorism (war being merely one form of terrorism).
Click to expand...
Democracy was first conceived way before the myth of Christ was ever dreamed up, and it didn't fully take root until a few hundred years ago, and a liberal democracy can be counted in decades. Between that time and now much blood was spilled on European soil. You also forget things like the French Revolution or the American revolution. How can anyone take you seriously on this?

And the US - and theocracies need a foil to maintain them. The rise of Christianity in the west needs a Muslim enemy and the rise of Islam in the Middle East thrives on Christian aggression.
Click to expand...
The Middle East thrives on aggression. They don't need Western Christians for that. The vast majority of terror attacks are muslim vs muslim, or Arab vs Arab. Overall, Israel is a minor issue for non-Palestinian Arabs.
 
I'm going to include this article here because it shows how the loonie religious in America are almost as insane as the loonie religious in the middle east

Rick Perry Blames Separation Of Church And State On Satan



“Somehow or another there’s this, ya know, steel wall, this iron curtain or whatever you want to call it between the church and people of faith and this separation of church and state is just false on its face,” the governor said. “We have a biblical responsibility to be involved in the public arena proclaiming God’s truth.”
Click to expand...
this guy is an uneducated bully.
the normal religious people in the US better wake up to this crap or they will find themselves being stoned by the wacka-doodle evangelicals who are no better than the morons who killed people just because they heard about some youtube video.
 
faethor said:
@Metalman,
Interesting Coptic Christians take their faith from Saint Mark, who met Jesus. By your previous definition they aren't True Christians. True Christians, as you defined them, only take their faith from Paul who actually never meet Jesus.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

700px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png
 
Glaucus said:
I could be wrong, but 9000 protesters should be far fewer than 0.01%. More like 0.0007%. It seems that the "total" % at the bottom is just a summation of all the % rows, but that's not right.
Click to expand...

there's a link within this article:
Sophia Azeb Responds to Ayaan Hirsi Ali




which seems to explain in greater detail some of the 'protests' of the video.

sorry if I haven't examined this in detail but dealing with my mother is really very distracting. Anyway, it's an interesting article
 
cecilia said:
there's a link within this article:
Sophia Azeb Responds to Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Click to expand...
Interesting article. However, that too links to another chart with questionable math - although this one swings things the other way. If there are 80,000,000 muslims in Egypt and 2,500 of them protested, the percentage would be: 2,500 / 80,000,000 * 100 = 0.003125%. Under the heading % Mus Pop Anti-film protest crowd they have a value of 0.000031. It seems that they forgot to multiply by 100 to make that value a percentage value. Not a big deal as 0.003% is still rather minute, and when you consider that Egypt had one of the bigger crowds the overall picture is quite clear: the protesters are a minor fringe of the muslim population. What is somewhat re-assuring is that they did the same thing when calculating the % of pro-democracy protesters so it seems to be consistent with itself.

Sorry to nitpick, but it's just kinda funny.
 
In posted that link specifically so you Could pick those nits :D
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
OK, here's what happens.
We have been busting up their governments and societies for at least a century. Every time they take back control of their oil industries and start spending the money on coming into the current century we go in and bust the place up to make sure that they can't organize enough to stop us from taking control. Generally we install a brutal dictator like a king or some such. If that guy starts thinking that maybe he can build his country into something other than a vassal state then he gets kicked out too.

Meanwhile the people are bombed, killed, struggle in adversity with a degraded education system and in poverty - all the stressors that allow radical conservative ask no questions religions to thrive. Why do they thrive? Because in those circumstances they are adaptive. Tough times calls for tough social controls to weed out disloyalty and make sure you have good social cohesion - even if some people get hurt, it's good for the group. Check out where religion is strongest in the world and it is usually the poorest who are the most conservative in their beliefs.

Now, while we have abused them for decades we also tell them that their religion sucks - that's an affront to pretty much the only thing that they have that we can't take from them. It's like taking a kids lunch money, putting his head in the toilet, pantsing (de-bagging) him on the playground daily and finally telling him his mother's a whore. When he gets upset at that then make fun of him for being so unreasonably grumpy.

But it's deeper than that. In a world of adversity a strong and abiding unreasonable belief that there is a supernatural being looking out for you that you can appeal to can be the only way to get through the day without constant debilitating fear. Try and undermine that without giving them security in another form and you can no more expect rational debate than you can expect rational debate with someone who is drowning.

And yet, and yet, it is still a minority who are protesting - and the people who are actually attacking western targets aren't just people reacting emotionally, they are groups acting militarily to weaken the occupiers -
Click to expand...

All of which I'm aware of and none of which changes my point.

and to try to mask that fact by pretending that attacks are all about some youtube video is an unreasonable act of faith itself.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending that any more than you are pretending it has nothing at all to do with some youtube video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top