--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > The insult of the cartoons is to all muslims. > > > Oh, really? > > > > You speak for all Muslims, do you? > > The insult is directed to all muslims as it has Mohammed as its > object. If somebody feels insulted is another thing
Well, this comment of yours pretty much sums it all up...and I agree with it wholeheartedly: no one is insulted unless they let it insult them. > > > Cardmeister -- I think it was -- posted a cartoon about MMY and > > piles 'o money. I'm not offended even though I do TM. > > But TM is not a religion. Oh? So one can only be insulted if it's a religion being lambasted? Com'n, you get my point. > Doing TM doesn't mean that you regard MMY as > messenger of God. And judging from your output here you don't. So, you > can't compare. Right...there is no comparison....I regard MMY -- with all his faults -- to be head and shoulders above all religions and all religious leaders in the world... > > > I suggest to you that a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb as a turban > > may insult some Muslims...perhaps those that don't have a sense of > > humour, are very sensitive, > > The comic is dericted to muslims in general and is certainly > potentially insulting. ...now you've gone from "insulting" to "potentially insulting"...make up your mind... > Barrys point about identification here is > interesting, but as islam forbids depicting its founder in images, There is actually some question as to whether that is true. I have seen an article that claims that it is forbidden only to depict God as an image...and nothing is said about anything or anyone else...and that Muhammed is God's messenger, not God... it > is actually a transgression of islamic law, and on top of that > insulting to its founder. I detect from that, that insults of its > founder a good muslim is certainly forbidden to engage in. So its > quite certain that this is an obvious provocation of muslim values. > You seem to imply, that the ability to laugh about oneself, is a good > value (maybe as one is able to acknowledge ones own faults), and that > muslims should apply this to there religious ideal as well. But I > regard this as cultural arrogance. If I implied that I didn't mean to...indeed, I agree with your last sentence above that it is cultural arrogance. It is just that freedom of expression AND freedom of religion allows one to express oneself in the manner of the cartoon...it is NOT the way I myself would express myself but, hey, there will ALWAYS be a few on a planet of 6 billion who will choose to do so and that is their right. > > > or are conflicted about whether or not > > terrorism is justified. > > Here you go again: what has depicting Mohammed as a terrorist to do > with justifying terrorism. Lets say, I publish a picture showing you > as murderer, do you justify murder if you feel insulted by it? Strange > logic. It is because the issue of the day was that people were being murdered as a result of the protests and it is THAT which needed to be addressed before all other issues...and that is why Amma was out of line addressing anything but that at the time she did. > > > Those that are well-grounded in their faith are probably not > > bothered at all. > > Maybe, but thats no reason to insult them Perhaps those that insulted them -- if that is, indeed, what they did, had their own reasons to insult them. I will protect and defend their right to do so. > > > > Ammachi speaks about the > > > impact of these on the muslims in general. > > > > > I believe that she was addressing those that were doing the killing > > and the destruction of property. > > In what way do you thing her words imply these killings and > destructions? Could you point these words out to us? I think you got > it terribly wrong. Something is twisted in your brain. If something is twisted in my brain then why are you wasting your precious time dialoging with me? By the way: are you a follower or a devotee of Amma? What is your connection -- spiritual or otherwise -- to her, if I may ask? > > > > What's the reason that you > > > equate them with murderers? > > > I don't and I didn't equat ALL Muslims with murderes. > > You do, when you say that she was addressing those doing the killing. Whether she was specifically referring to those that were doing the killing or not is secondary; what is primary is that the killing was taking place and that was, by default, the focus of her words: the killers. Again, it's a question of timing and leadership. When she made the statements THAT was the time to address the killing and the killers and NOT to put her attention on giving what could be construed as justification for the actions of killers. How many times do I have to say this? > > > I do equate those that DID murder with murder. > > But how do they even come into the picture in Ammachis quote? > > > > Why do you bring those cases up, who react > > > in the wrong way, to justify the cartoons, > > > When did I justify the cartoons? > > So, you don't justify the cartoons? The only justification I could possibly give to the cartoons is that the person writing/drawing them has the right to do so AND disseminate them. Other than that I think it is a horrendous thing, not a point of view I subscribe to, nor something I would do myself. > You think they are harmful? Not to me they aren't. And I don't think they are harmful to anyone except the author of them. > Then > whats the point? Bad timing and bad leadership on the part of Amma. > > > > who insult all muslims, by > > > mocking at their idol as a terrorist? > > > You've got it all wrong, bub. Muslims aren't allowed to have > > Muhammed displayed as an idol. > > Sure, but the transgression of one law doesn't justify the > transgression of a second. There were many cases where Mohammed was > depicted in our press, which didn't cause Muslim protests, as there > was no bad intention in them. so what if there WAS a depiction in "our" press in which there WAS bd intention in them? That would be a reflection on one man's opinion...no more, no less... > > > > There is no reason to insult anybodies religion - be it a majority > > or > > > a minority. > > > I disagree. > > That explains a lot, thank you. You're welcome. > > > There is VERY OFTEN reasons to insult religions. I can think of a > > dozen reasons right off the top of my head. > > The top of your head? Where is that? > > > >(I don't know why this even needs to be discussed) There is > > > even no reason to insult someones religion, even though he may be > > one > > > of these misguided persons, who are terrorists. You may insult > > their > > > actions, but not their religion. > > > Are you suggesting that laws should be passed to prevent anyone > > from "insulting" religions? > > Didn't speak about laws. I think it should be part of the ethic code > of journalists. Oh, okay. And so you are NOT for codifying into law those ethics, right? > > > > If Ammachi asks to respect religious feelings of the muslims, she > > is > > > indeed NOT putting gasoline into the fire. To ask for a reconcilary > > > attitude is very appropriate action. So, she is right on, and I > > think > > > it would be good if all religious leaders react in a similar way. > > > AFAIK the pope said something similar. > > > > > > > Show me what he said...if it's like what Amma said, then I'll be > > happy to disagree with him as well (I disagree with him on alot of > > things!) > > I remember seeing in TV, that he said that we should not show > disrespect towards other religions. What he said was very apt for a > religious leader. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734454.stm > > Speaking to the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican, Pope Benedict > said religious symbols must be respected to promote peace and > understanding between different peoples. > > "It is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols are > respected, and that believers are not the object of provocations that > harm their progress and their religious feelings," he said. > > > "However, intolerance and violence can never be justified as responses > to offences," he warned. > > Very right I think, and completely in line of what Ammachi said. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
