"Why I care about Religion"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/51635/

 

Awesome movie:). Maybe except from the fact that I'm supposedly read his written titles and listen to him at the same time, which gets a little difficult:p.

 

PS: You think you have it hard? In Norway, nearly all stores, malls, and so on - even doctors' offices (sans emergency facilities, of course) - are closed on Sundays. Ridiculous.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll say it for...how many times have I said it? I'll say it for the fourth time: you should be entitled to believe and care about anything you wish without fear of reprisal. Anyone who thinks you should be set upon because of your beliefs fall under the one exception to this rule, that if you harm others then you have to be dealt with.

[Ray Jones]

"Harm others." - And that would be what, exactly?

[Nancy Allen``]

Where your actions harm others. For example the Mohammed cartoons ended up upsetting a lot of people, and they set out to hurt a lot of people. That's not to say they shouldn't have been published but that is an example of someone's actions unknowingly harming others. The question however is how far accountability should go.

 

Of course should you set out to harm someone you deserve to be mutilated. I could care less about the sensitivities of someone who does this, anyone who seeks to harm others should cop it ten times as bad.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The Mohammad cartoons did not "unknowingly" harm others. They were distributed in the Middle East with the sole intention of infuriating Muslims. The original cartoon in Jyllandsposten was not what set off the Islamic rioting.

[Ray Jones]

I don't think that "upset others" equals "harm others". In case of the cartoons, I think the cartoons themselves did not do any harm to anyone. Even the people who felt "offended" were not harmed. But those, who were "offended" and felt free to start using violence against people who had nothing to do with those cartoons, just to express their "opinions", were harming others. Noone else. There is just no need to use violence because there is something drawn on a sheet of paper.

 

As I see it, "harming others" starts where human rights of others are violated and when property is destroyed or taken. I just fail to see how a drawing, written or spoken words would be able to do that.

[Nancy Allen``]

But they do, and people are more than willing to retalliate forcibly because of them. Is it wrong? Yeah I'd say it's wrong, but by the same token people shouldn't try and harm others this way in the first place.

 

Is there a source for the Mohammed cartoons being a deliberate act to upset Muslims? I always understood that they were published in the Denmark papers and Islamic extremists used it as a reason for violence.

[Ray Jones]

But they do, and people are more than willing to retalliate forcibly because of them. Is it wrong? Yeah I'd say it's wrong

It is wrong, unnecessary, and totally not giving anything to those who feel "offended".

but by the same token people shouldn't try and harm others this way in the first place.

This is like saying "black" men shouldn't always try and hurt others with their colour of skin. So, no. The otherwise around. People shouldn't always assume it's always against them and their person, and getting physical because of some words, and that against someone totally else, who is not connected to the issue at all, shows how mentally weak and simply dumb the offended person is. This is like beating the **** out of black man A because black man B killed your dog.

 

Again, words cannot "physically" violate human rights or property, period.

[Nancy Allen``]

Tolerance and understanding are importamt to understand that, for example, calling someone who is black 'boy', or even calling someone who is black 'black' is not directed as a racial slur or insult. For people who do go around trying to upset others this way however, well, that's why there are racism laws and a little something called provocation: if you said 'du-ma niou' to someone who's Vietnamese you can expect a smack in the mouth. Wrong? Yup, but that's what you can expect if you do that.

[Ray Jones]

Hm. I can expect a punch in my face if I just sing along some words like "do my new"?

[Nancy Allen``]

Ever played Sith Lords? There's a conversation with HK about his protocol programming where he says 'for example, on Praven Prime, the simple transferring of L'Xing syntax for friendship changes it's meaning - and implies that one's brood mate was actually impregnated by their own host.' Of course in your example one would hope any Vietnamese who heard you saying this would have the understanding the words weren't directed at them, if they even understood what ypu said: I take it the pronounciation is the same but...ah, you get the picture. I hope.

[Ray Jones]

No. I haven't played one single SW title. Does that offend you?? :PP

 

However, this all wouldn't justify violence, not at all. The black man just isn't allowed to throw a punch at some racist's face for being called whatever it may be.

[Nancy Allen``]

People should be allowed to say whatever they like, I believe it is the attitude of people that matters more than mere words. Franklin Roosevelt said it another way, that we have "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear." Like all things how we choose to use that freedom can be harmful. Words can incite others to war: Osama Bin Laden did this when he rallied the Islamic world to Jihad, using the presence of American military bases on sovereign soil as one of the reasons. To have the attitude of waging war on the world, which is Bin Laden's intent, is wrong. For something you're probably familiar with drivers on the roads may do something stupid, say swerve in and out of traffic. Are they doing it because of inexperiance or doing it just to be an ass? Same with speech: one good example I can think of is suggesting the idea of donating blood to someone who is gay. If you didn't know then fair enough, but if you do know and say it because you know they are gay, that's hardly right either is it?

[jon_hill987]

I think people should have the right to say what they want, Including saying things about religions. but that does not mean we have a duty to do so, we still have to decide for ourselves if it is right to say it.

 

Also, everyone else has the right not to listen. If you don't like what someone is saying about your God. Don't listen!

[Nancy Allen``]

Agreed. Who has the right to force their opinions onto others? I really don't think there's anyone alive who has that right.

[Ray Jones]

There's a difference between telling and forcing down throats an opinion.

 

Bin Laden might say whatever he feels like being expressive to his views. As long as he doesn't take action I'm totally fine with the fact that he talks.

 

 

 

[edit]

 

For something you're probably familiar with drivers on the roads may do something stupid, say swerve in and out of traffic. Are they doing it because of inexperiance or doing it just to be an ass?

Where's the difference in the result that he swerves in and out of traffic?

Same with speech: one good example I can think of is suggesting the idea of donating blood to someone who is gay. If you didn't know then fair enough, but if you do know and say it because you know they are gay, that's hardly right either is it?

What?

[Nancy Allen``]

Ah, but he has. Rallied the Muslim world against the West, involved in September 11 and skiting about it. As I said there's nothing wrong with speech, it's how you use it.

[Ray Jones]

Yes, but did his speech physically cause the sufferings of Sept. 11 or the act of flying planes into the WTC?

[Nancy Allen``]

Where's the difference in the result that he swerves in and out of traffic?

 

Intent. Is he deliberately trying to make things harder for other road users?

 

What?

 

Gay people are not allowed to donate blood. Suggesting the idea to someone without knowing their sexual preference is one thing, but doing it with the knowledge that they are gay and making the comment because it would hopefully upset them is quite another.

 

Yes, but did his speech physically cause the sufferings of Sept. 11 or the act of flying planes into the WTC?

 

If you mean him taunting the families of the victims of September 11 then yes I think the videos he sends in are intended to cause fear, grief and anger. Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, one of the terrorists behind the Bali bombings, sought to upset everyone he possinly could as much as he possibly could. I won't repeat the things he's done, suffice to say he deliberately set out to cause distress and anger to everyone he could, far more so than Bin Laden.

[Ray Jones]

Intent. Is he deliberately trying to make things harder for other road users?

And yet, I have in both cases a problem with a car "tingeling along", even more, the intentional wrong-driver is expected to do crap, which might be advantageous in avoiding a crash.

 

Gay people are not allowed to donate blood. Suggesting the idea to someone without knowing their sexual preference is one thing, but doing it with the knowledge that they are gay and making the comment because it would hopefully upset them is quite another.

If this is the rule, where is the problem? We provide a hotline for our customers, every customer of us can get help there. Our customers can, if they want, make a contract with us, so they will pay a monthly amount instead of paying per call. They also get preferred help when they have contracts. Now everytime one of the customers without a contract calls, I'll have to tell him that this call will cost money and he will get an invoice if I will help him. Do you suggest I should not tell him that he's treated different to avoid that the customer gets upset (what actually happens on a pretty regular base)?

[Nancy Allen``]

The problem isn't in not allowing homosexuals to donate blood, that I can understand. What I'm saying is suggesting to someone who is to donate blood, knowing full well thet are gay and making the comment because they are gay, and hoping they will get upset about it. It's a bit like Dagobah's comments on the Mohammed cartoons being used to outrage the Islamic people.

[Ray Jones]

Ah. You stress the hoping part of it? (I mean there should be not problem in saying "Sorry, gays are not allowed to donate blood.") Where's the problem, except it being highly amoral?

 

Imagine someone hopes to upset/scare/annoy someone else by saying something, but someone doesn't get upset/scared/annoyed, and that in return offends the offender, who will now punch the other for not getting all upset about it.

[Windu Chi]

No. I haven't played one single SW title. Does that offend you?? :PP

 

However, this all wouldn't justify violence, not at all. The black man just isn't allowed to throw a punch at some racist's face for being called whatever it may be.

Well, Ray I am a African-American if someone called me a racist name, I'm going to kick some ass and take some names.

I really hate racist.

It is time for that crap to end now.

And for our society to get over this racist bulls**t, NOW.

Racism cause the evil of Holocaust to happen. Our society must get over this prejudice now for another race fueled Holocaust might happen.

[Ray Jones]

Yes, but that was not my point. The point is, you are not allowed to react like this towards verbal "offense". And by attacking the racist you put him in a position where he can say "Look what this guy has done to me!", and you will most probably cause other racist not only to attack verbally but physically, maybe your friend's daughter is being raped because you took too much offense from a stupid word.

[Windu Chi]

Yes, but that was not my point. The point is, you are not allowed to react like this towards verbal "offense". And by attacking the racist you put him in a position where he can say "Look what this guy has done to me!", and you will most probably cause other racist not only to attack verbally but physically, maybe your friend's daughter is being raped because you took too much offense from a stupid word.

First of all don't think I'm trying to bait you into an argument, as Spider AL think I'm always doing when I post.

 

As for your point: I was brought up to reply to racist names like that with anger and violence.

So, I became very aggressive toward racist fools like those.

Being a pacifist just don't work with people with that much hate in them and flawed beliefs.

If I let them get away with it, by not putting them into their place.

Physical violence will be their next course of action.

That might get my ass killed in the next encounter with assholes like those type of people.