Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist who drew the Mohammed-as-a-dog cartoons last year, is planning to produce a musical about the drawings and the reaction to them. Mohammed will appear as a character in the play, as will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here is a trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBStVgCVgkU) on youtube (considerately subtitled in Arabic *cough*)

Apparently the musical will be released in Denmark.

In case you've forgotten Vilks is the creator of what is known as the Modog cartoons

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/muh-hund-apport-bomblit-lars-vilks.JPG

What do you think about it ?

Hmm it should be very interesting, I think.

What about you?

I wouldn't sit through that movie if someone paid me. The trailer was painful enough.

I wouldn't sit through that movie if someone paid me. The trailer was painful enough.

Ah I need to correct that. Its a musical with characters. :p

I wonder what dialogue Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will have, let alone Mohammed.

In fact, I wonder who is going to play Mohammed. :D

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/muh-hund-apport-bomblit-lars-vilks.JPG


what the fuck is that supposed to be?

Its the Prophet Mohammed as a doggie carrying a stick of dynamite in his mouth.

Hmm it should be very interesting, I think.

What about you?

To be honest I don't care. It's just a musical.
So you don't have any problem with it ?

I wouldn't sit through that movie if someone paid me. The trailer was painful enough.

I agree :D

Its the Prophet Mohammed as a doggie carrying a stick of dynamite in his mouth.

They should have turned him into a dancing dog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZY9QCf71Wo&feature=related

It would have made the "musical" alot more broadway.

Its the Prophet Mohammed as a doggie carrying a stick of dynamite in his mouth.

It could be me, but that looks more like an ammunition belt..

To be honest I don't care. It's just a musical.
So you don't have any problem with it ?

I'm going to wait until I see it.

Not that it matters what any Muslim thinks about it, does it?

The idea after all, is that we're wrong to be offended at symbolic desecration of the religion. Only non Muslims are allowed to be offended by symbols. :p

Details:
Taking his inspiration from Andrew Lloyd Weber, Vilks is creating a musical in the mold of "Jesus Christ, Superstar" to tell the story of the cartoon controversy. The stage production is tentatively titled "Dogs."

"Muhammad is also a superstar in the modern sense of the term," Vilks told the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter.

While casting is not yet complete, Vilks is considering roles for Sweden's prime minister, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al-Qaida. A "choir of the offended" will give voice to those protesting his work.

Vilks said he was not worried about new protests and threats over the musical.

"People will understand that this is a positive debate," he said. "A sense of humor about this has been missing so far."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58600

I'm going to wait until I see it.

Details:


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58600

Ah lessons learned eh? lol

Ah lessons learned eh? lol

Yes, lesson learned indeed. No one cares what Muslims think about desecration of their religious symbols. ;)

Yes, lesson learned indeed. No one cares what Muslims think about desecration of their religious symbols. ;)

You know what I mean.

You know what I mean.

Its okay; I use peaceful means of protests. I just print out Dutch/Danish/Swedish flags and stick them in dog/cow poo. :D

Its okay; I use peaceful means of protests. I just print out Dutch/Danish/Swedish flags and stick them in dog/cow poo. :D

Hum, I'm going to pretend you don't know what I mean.
Remember you getting all upset about the prospect of Wilders' film coming out ?

Sell 'em on Ebay.

Hum, I'm going to pretend you don't know what I mean.
Remember you getting all upset about the prospect of Wilders' film coming out ?

What did you think of the film?

Sell 'em on Ebay.

Nah that would be unIslamic.

Hmm but I could make free pdfs for download from my blog. :cool:

What did you think of the film?

Not much.

Nah that would be unIslamic.

Hmm but I could make free pdfs for download from my blog. :cool:

Desktop wallpaper works well too!

Desktop wallpaper works well too!

Nah that would mean I'd have to find a really good poo and take pictures. :eek:

Here you go:
http://kakbak.student.utwente.nl/drol_enkel.jpg

Theres no flag in it. :(

Maybe I should invest in Swedish and Danish flags instead.

I'm sure many will be bought when the movie is made.

http://www.coletravel.com/images/sweden-flag.jpg

http://gaybar.com/files/holland_flag.jpg

Be creative ;)

Be creative )

Toilet paper rolls?

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/image2/sub1/koranpaper.jpg

Flushing in the loo?

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/image2/sub1/good-koran.jpg

Door mats? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article3530501.ece) ;)

maybe I didn't get it - seemed boring. Highlight was at the beginning:

"Arabic Translation by Mr X"

Yes, lesson learned indeed. No one cares what Muslims think about desecration of their religious symbols. ;)

Why should anyone care? Grow a thicker skin. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Why should anyone care? Grow a thicker skin. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Its okay, its becoming obvious that its not sufficient for atheists to not believe. Apparently they feel the need to mock those who believe to feel better about themselves.:shrug:

Seems silly to me. I could barely get through the trailer!

Its okay, its becoming obvious that its not sufficient for atheists to not believe. Apparently they feel the need to mock those who believe to feel better about themselves.:shrug:

If that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

Whiner.

If that makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

Whiner.

No it doesn't. But it helps me to understand.

Though in my opinion, he's probably making the movie because he's wondering why he did not get as much mileage out of it as the other cartoons. Thats probably why he put a trailer on you tube too. ;)

I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. Only they can be that insensitive.

edit:

Yup

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he's an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

No it doesn't. But it helps me to understand.

Highly doubtful.

Though in my opinion, he's probably making the movie because he's wondering why he did not get as much mileage out of it as the other cartoons. Thats probably why he put a trailer on you tube too.

Wow! How soon they forget. Or, how soon they change their stories.

Not long ago, you said he was "desecrating religious symbols," now he's kowtowing to the critics.

Make up your mind.

Highly doubtful.



Wow! How soon they forget. Or, how soon they change their stories.

Not long ago, you said he was "desecrating religious symbols," now he's kowtowing to the critics.

Make up your mind.

Hmm what do you know?

Mohammed cartoons:

Reuters carries an interview with the Turbomb cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. The 72-year-old atheist has no regrets. Indeed, he believes that the publication of the Motoons was, all things considered, a positive thing.

Apparently all the furore is by atheists.

I wonder if Wilders is an atheist as well.

Hmm what do you know?

I know you are a liar. That's all I need to know. :)

I know you are a liar. That's all I need to know. :)



Yup, he is an atheist too. How Jolly. I'm gonna start keeping track.


Wilders, raised Catholic but long an atheist, said he's working with professors who are experts on the Koran and Islamic culture

And they've all enabled anti-immigration right wing political parties in their respective countries.

And both the Dutch and the Danes, oops and the Swedes (http://www.thelocal.se/10494/20080315/), have troops or had troops bombing Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Teaching other people in their own countries the "right" way to live.

Which in itself is a lesson in tolerance, I suppose.

Its okay, its becoming obvious that its not sufficient for atheists to not believe. Apparently they feel the need to mock those who believe to feel better about themselves.:shrug:Mocking ANYONE in authority or ANY IDEA taken at face value have been a valid means of communicating a point for centuries. It's been a great means of moving past the stone age :)

Mocking ANYONE in authority or ANY IDEA taken at face value have been a valid means of communicating a point for centuries. It's been a great means of moving past the stone age :)

So what you're saying is...

...making fun of other people's beliefs moved us past the Stone Age?

Go figure.

Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist who drew the Mohammed-as-a-dog cartoons last year

In case you've forgotten Vilks is the creator of what is known as the Modog cartoons

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/muh-hund-apport-bomblit-lars-vilks.JPG
That cartoon sucks. The guy can't even draw worth a damn. Muslims were all upset over that?!? Is that the same guy who did this one:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~garand/rants/mohammed-bomb.jpg
Because it's a much better drawing, and is even a little funny. But I've never have thought it would inspire more than a slight chuckle, let alone a riot.

The really funny thing is that Muslims all over the world were rioting over that stupid cartoon when we have this:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/dantes_inferno/gustave_dore.jpg
picture of Mohamed in hell tearing out his entrails hanging in Paris with nary a peep out of anyone.

As far as the film goes, I'll probably wait for it to be on cable.

Mocking ANYONE in authority or ANY IDEA taken at face value have been a valid means of communicating a point for centuries. It's been a great means of moving past the stone age :)

Hmm so you think mocking people and making fun of their ideas is how people appreciate each other?

How strange. I could have sworn that mockery brought out the worse in you.

And no one appears to see the funny side of my mockery of the US on this forum.

Do you see the growth in right wing political groups from all the militant atheism a good sign for the future?

That cartoon sucks. The guy can't even draw worth a damn. Muslims were all upset over that?!? Is that the same guy who did this one:
Because it's a much better drawing, and is even a little funny. But I've never have thought it would inspire more than a slight chuckle, let alone a riot.

The really funny thing is that Muslims all over the world were rioting over that stupid cartoon when we have this:
picture of Mohamed in hell tearing out his entrails hanging in Paris with nary a peep out of anyone.

As far as the film goes, I'll probably wait for it to be on cable.

No doubt. It seems that Europeans are worried because following the example of Muslims, now Christians protest against depictions of Jesus that are not so complimentary as a pedophile or in diapers for instance.

So of course, now they are founding a new religion: militant atheism

With 40 minutes to go before show time, the 500-seat Alexis de Tocqueville auditorium was already packed. A fan set up a video camera in the front row. A sound engineer checked the microphones.

The star: Michel Onfray, celebrity philosopher and France’s high priest of militant atheism. Dressed entirely in black, he strode onto the stage and looked out at the reverential audience for his weekly two-hour lecture series, “Hedonist Philosophy,” which is broadcast on a state radio station. “I could found a religion,” he said.

Mr. Onfray, 48 years old and author of 32 books, stands in the vanguard of a curious and increasingly potent phenomenon in Europe: zealous disbelief in God.

http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/nation_and_world/doc461f5d01d7acb042697268.txt

And no one appears to see the funny side of my mockery of the US on this forum.

I knew it. I just knew you couldn't actually be serious. I'm glad you finally admitted it.:D

So what you're saying is...

...making fun of other people's beliefs moved us past the Stone Age?

Go figure.Questioning what the main stream accepts ultimately moves us forward and mockery plays it part in that.

As a matter of fact, if you have ever seen some Kid Rock stand up you'll soon realize he is make a pretty good point in a funny way.

I happen to think the idea of a sky-daddy or a Prophet to said sky-daddy to be grand material for mockery. Feel free to mock atheism any time :)

Yup, he is an atheist too. How Jolly. I'm gonna start keeping track.
- - -

And both the Dutch and the Danes, oops and the Swedes, have troops or had troops bombing Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Teaching other people in their own countries the "right" way to live. Those guys - the ones with the guns and bombs, rather than the cartoons - are mostly theists.

As long as you're keeping track.

I've noticed that it gets really disturbing to many people when a bunch of self-identified atheists - even, say, an auditorium-full the size of a small church in a little town - gets together and acts even remotely like a religion. Kind of scary, no?

I agree. Best keep an eye on anyone acting like a religious revival crowd.

Hmm so you think mocking people and making fun of their ideas is how people appreciate each other? Yup :)

Mockery plays a role in promoting civilization. Whether you want to beleive it or not.

Think of how people used to view the King of England. He was almost a God. But, in America the English settlers mocked him - because, like anyone, the guy was just a guy and had faults. You probably don't think anything of it now. BUT back them people lost their heads.

Here's a rather good one from 1789
http://www.poplarforest.org/Democracy-Election1804/1789cartoon.jpg

Hooo Hooo Hoooo .... jolly O now chaps.

Gee makes that mohammad cartoon look like child's play! I mean THIS was something!


How about this one from the late 1800s:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/88.4/images/kramer_f5.jpg


Probably some colonists and white southerns didn't think that was funny at all. No - not at all.





One day in the future when most people don't take Islam seriously - they'll get the joke and think of it as you thought of those above.

Michael

Those guys - the ones with the guns and bombs, rather than the cartoons - are mostly theists.

As long as you're keeping track.

I've noticed that it gets really disturbing to many people when a bunch of self-identified atheists - even, say, an auditorium-full the size of a small church in a little town - gets together and acts even remotely like a religion. Kind of scary, no?

I agree. Best keep an eye on anyone acting like a religious revival crowd.That's a good point!

Yup :)

Mockery plays a role in promoting civilization. Whether you want to beleive it or not.

Think of how people used to view the King of England. He was almost a God. But, in America the English settlers mocked him - because, like anyone, the guy was just a guy and had faults. You probably don't think anything of it now. BUT back them people lost their heads.

Here's a rather good one from 1789
Hooo Hooo Hoooo .... jolly O now chaps.

Gee makes that mohammad cartoon look like child's play! I mean THIS was something!


How about this one from the late 1800s:

Probably some colonists and white southerns didn't think that was funny at all. No - not at all.


One day in the future when most people don't take Islam seriously - they'll get the joke and think of it as you thought of those above.

Michael

I doubt the Jews are laughing at the Nazi caricatures of them today.

And when I see what is happening in Europe and the deep schisms being cut into society by those professing to defend freedom, it really surprises me that anyone would consider it a good thing.

Hmm so you think mocking people and making fun of their ideas is how people appreciate each other?

How strange. I could have sworn that mockery brought out the worse in you.

And no one appears to see the funny side of my mockery of the US on this forum.

So, you've been caterwauling about mocking while you've been doing it yourself.

Do you think others appreciate that?

Did it bring out the worst in you?

Why haven't you seen the funny side of mocking?

So, you've been caterwauling about mocking while you've been doing it yourself.

Do you think others appreciate that?

Did it bring out the worst in you?

Why haven't you seen the funny side of mocking?

Why haven't you?:rolleyes:

Remember in elementary school. there were always these kids - I remember boys mostly, but perhaps girls did this too - who got off on creating trouble. they would instigate. 'do you know what Jimmy said about your sister.' and so on. sometimes these boys would get their asses kicked. but here's the thing: they did not have great self-care. in other words they were willing to put themselves at risk, I think, because they did not really give a shit about themselves. one pleasure was to see other people fight. perhaps they resented the ways they saw others cared about themselves.

This Swedish guy is like that. he is putting himself at risk. he is not exhibiting self-care. he is also setting it up so that tension between other people will increase.

I'll bet at root there is an almost sexual get off for him, like with serial killers.

Remember in elementary school. there were always these kids - I remember boys mostly, but perhaps girls did this too - who got off on creating trouble. they would instigate. 'do you know what Jimmy said about your sister.' and so on. sometimes these boys would get their asses kicked. but here's the thing: they did not have great self-care. in other words they were willing to put themselves at risk, I think, because they did not really give a shit about themselves. one pleasure was to see other people fight. perhaps they resented the ways they saw others cared about themselves.

This Swedish guy is like that. he is putting himself at risk. he is not exhibiting self-care. he is also setting it up so that tension between other people will increase.

I'll bet at root there is an almost sexual get off for him, like with serial killers.

Thats an interesting viewpoint.

Is there an element of attention seeking in it?

Thats an interesting viewpoint.

Is there an element of attention seeking in it?
Sure. Or let's say, there can be. he is no stranger to controversy - google under sculpture.

I think there were people geniunely interested in having WW3 break out between Russia and the US during the cold war. This would have been in no one's interests except may cockroaches who are doing rather well anyway. But there they were, hepped up and encouraging confrontational strategies.
don't want to get too 'out there in let field' on what is a political discussion, but I think some creatures are born feeling deeply that they were abandoned by God (or the Universe or society) and their rage at everything includes a high degree of lack of self care. This gives them a certain freedom.

I mean you see this in bullies. I mean an active bully is vasly more likely in the long run to get his ass kicked and potentially get himself killed than your average guy - gender specific language accepted - who even occasionally gets bullied.

I think on some level they know that 'not giving a shit about their own health and well being' gives them short term advantages in a confrontation.

The members of the 'why don't you all fight each other' group are a subset of this lack of self care group. consciously they are often defending freedom. And they exists in most camps: both Russia and the US had them. They exist in 'the west' and in 'Islam'. You can feel them itching to get the final confrontation started.

I think that is another part of it. Impatience. Each day that final confrontation does not take place is another day not knowing what the future will bring. That peaceful solutions are jeopardized by this impatience are, obviously, less important.

And I think we can all sympathize -to a degree if we are honest - in general, when we rush to resolve something, because waiting is painful, rather than taking all the small steps that might be healthier for all concerned.

Or, he genuinely believes Islam is a problem and that it is his obligation to do something about it. He, being a cartoonist, tries to make people aware of the problem by making cartoons about it.

Or, he genuinely believes Islam is a problem and that it is his obligation to do something about it. He, being a cartoonist, tries to make people aware of the problem by making cartoons about it.

1) I've seen him speak on the telly and I stand by my analysis.
2) His mohammed 'art' is aimed at stirring anger in Muslims. He connected M to dogs, which is a grave insult
and
does nothing to increase our understanding of Islam or the problems of it.
It was a clear: let me piss them off, stand back and watch action.

1) I've seen him speak on the telly and I stand by my analysis.
2) His mohammed 'art' is aimed at stirring anger in Muslims. He connected M to dogs, which is a grave insult
and
does nothing to increase our understanding of Islam or the problems of it.
It was a clear: let me piss them off, stand back and watch action.

Hmm I didn't see that so I'll take your word for it.
I just thought it was a possibility.

Those guys - the ones with the guns and bombs, rather than the cartoons - are mostly theists.
.

Strange I could have sworn that most of the Danish, Dutch and Swedish troops "reeducating" people in Iraq and Afghanistan were atheists.

Atheists have a bad habit of devolving into totalitarian regimes that beat anything theists do, hollow. Thats why when they appear to be getting organised it truly bears keeping track.

Sure. Or let's say, there can be. he is no stranger to controversy - google under sculpture.

This? (http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/03/lars-vilks-latest-bar-gay-cruising.html)

Where the Swedish gay culture meets Swedish multicultural taboos. The Tundra Tabloids must give Lars Vilks a very high five, for his very meticulous choice in framing his argument. The picture of Mohamed cruising in a gay bar (left) was recently posted on Lars Vilks blog.


don't want to get too 'out there in let field' on what is a political discussion, but I think some creatures are born feeling deeply that they were abandoned by God (or the Universe or society) and their rage at everything includes a high degree of lack of self care. This gives them a certain freedom.


hmm atheism and attention seeking behaviour?:p

I think on some level they know that 'not giving a shit about their own health and well being' gives them short term advantages in a confrontation.

The members of the 'why don't you all fight each other' group are a subset of this lack of self care group. consciously they are often defending freedom. And they exists in most camps: both Russia and the US had them. They exist in 'the west' and in 'Islam'. You can feel them itching to get the final confrontation started.

The social outcasts, the ones who don't fit in?

I think that is another part of it. Impatience. Each day that final confrontation does not take place is another day not knowing what the future will bring. That peaceful solutions are jeopardized by this impatience are, obviously, less important.

And I think we can all sympathize -to a degree if we are honest - in general, when we rush to resolve something, because waiting is painful, rather than taking all the small steps that might be healthier for all concerned.



Interesting viewpoints. What do you see as the basis for this impatience, this risk prone behaviour, this desire to provoke and instigate?

1)
2) His mohammed 'art' is aimed at stirring anger in Muslims. He connected M to dogs, which is a grave insult
and
does nothing to increase our understanding of Islam or the problems of it.
It was a clear: let me piss them off, stand back and watch action.

Thats what we Muslims call fitna; those who want to spread social discord without any gain to society, for frivolous reasons.

Or, he genuinely believes Islam is a problem and that it is his obligation to do something about it. He, being a cartoonist, tries to make people aware of the problem by making cartoons about it.


Since you've given this excuse for all of them, I'm going to take it as projection.

Hmm I didn't see that so I'll take your word for it.
I just thought it was a possibility.
No. I understand your point. And it's a good one to make if we are discussing the issue in general. When one creates are or satire or political images that offend. I am referring to this specific person and that might not have been clear on my part.

I am also angry that some people decide to kill or get violent over images or texts and that this violence might include me or other civilians. And then this makes me think that I am also angry that we tend to notice angry violence perpetrated by volatile individuals much more than we do violence perpetrated by policy makers who seem dispassionate, claim to have noble goals and are 'deeply saddened' by all the deaths and violence their policies create. And I have reactions to myself when I think of that.

Interesting viewpoints. What do you see as the basis for this impatience, this risk prone behaviour, this desire to provoke and instigate? I want to emphasize that I believe most of us have this pattern to varying degrees and to varying degrees of influence on the lives of others.

I think we cannot tolerate disequilibrium and unresolved states. Sort of like the people who have to read the last page of a mystery novel so they can relax and read the details.
1) the unpleasance of not knowing outcomes
2) the urge to avoid noticing our part in the problem
3) the fear that a slower process might be nuanced and include changes in me
4) the feat that if I admit I had a part in the problem that my anger and fear before was not justified.
5) to shorten the period of time where one must be afraid of the bad outcome.
6) to force the hand of fence sitters - who might, if given the chance be peace negotiaters and translators, unfortunately
7) to eliminate time where any inconsistancies in our own outlooks may be noticed. In other words any energy that is felt going into denial and other self-aimed head games is, to some degree, consciously felt and it feels menacing.

I think there are people who in a struggle with another party and are 99% right - this is not related to the ISlam/'west' issue - are often terrified of that one %, to a degree that they will not look at it, admit it and will even rush into conflict to avoid facing it. Even though admitting this 1% would be easy and would not mean the other side was suddenly no longer responsible for what they have done. This is in part because in reality it is very hard to put numbers to things. In part because we imagine worst scenarios. And so on.

If I jump back to the whole 'west'/Islam issue, I think one factor that drives members of both sides to conflict is that on some level we know that the more time we spend on the planet the more we will influence each other. And we cannot see what the future looks like and we do not want to be influenced, even though we might, in a slow step by step, peaceful interaction, embrace the intermediate stages one by one.

Better, it feels, to rush into violence. To some at least.

I think this actually relates to some of Wes Morris' threads, but that would pull this even farther from politics.

I did a search on Lars Vilks with Jesus and found references to a figure he had done called "Jesus gets a blowjob" But this figure is nowhere online.

Is it because Christians do not get offended? Or because they do?

edit:

I found an interesting link on this (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/outing-lars-vilks.html) site here:

http://images.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazo3NV9GLmpwZ3x sb2FkPUwxMixodHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLmNhZmVwcmVzcy5jb20va W1hZ2UvMjI4MjAzNDVfNDAweDQwMC5qcGd8fHNjYWxlPUwxMiw 0MzcsMzQyLFdoaXRlfGNvbXBvc2U9YmxhbmssTDEyLEFkZCwyM iw2OXxsb2FkPW1hc2ssYmxhbms6NzVfRl9tYXNrLmpwZ3xjb21 wb3NlPWJsYW5rLG1hc2ssTWFzaywwLDB8Y3A9cmVzdWx0LGJsY W5rfHNjYWxlPXJlc3VsdCwwLDQ4MCxXaGl0ZXxjb21wcmVzc2l vbj05NXw=

:crazy:

Since you've given this excuse for all of them, I'm going to take it as projection.

Generally people here view me as the people hater, but I guess I still sooner give someone the benefit of the doubt than you would.. :shrug:

Generally people here view me as the people hater, but I guess I still sooner give someone the benefit of the doubt than you would.. :shrug:

Uh please I am the jew hating hitler loving Muslim remember?:rolleyes:

Uh please I am the jew hating hitler loving Muslim remember?:rolleyes:

If you say so.

If you say so.

You certainly said so. :rolleyes:

So much for benefit of the doubt. I think you probably hate Muslims too and make excuses for those who make anti-Muslim propaganda.

Your ideas about freedom of speech and expression have been very one sided so far.

You certainly said so. :rolleyes:

So much for benefit of the doubt. I think you probably hate Muslims too and make excuses for those who make anti-Muslim propaganda.

Your ideas about freedom of speech and expression have been very one sided so far.

I think you are very selective as to which posts of mine you read.

I think you are very selective as to which posts of mine you read.

Yeah, the ones in response to mine.:p

Yeah, the ones in response to mine.:p

First off all, I apologized for saying that. And I only said you were anti-Jewish.

Second of all:
Hmm I didn't see that so I'll take your word for it.
I just thought it was a possibility.

And lastly, can you elaborate on my one sidedness where freedom of speech is concerned ? Quotes maybe ?

First off all, I apologized for saying that.

I must have missed that. :D


And lastly, can you elaborate on my one sidedness where freedom of speech is concerned ? Quotes maybe ?

Sure, you always support the anti-Islam propagandists with the same excuse.

ie they see a problem with Islam.

I never once heard you speak of the problems that Muslims face, for instance or negative impact of such propaganda on them in Dutch society.

As for one sided freedom of expression, you trolled (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795700&postcount=190) me (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795705&postcount=193) for (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795717&postcount=197) 3 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795730&postcount=202) or (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795736&postcount=204) 4 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795744&postcount=206) pages (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1796537&postcount=274) insisting (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1796568&postcount=276) I take down an avatar because someone might consider it offensive. Far from making excuses, you were ready to call me a Jew hater and Nazi lover!!!!

edit: found teh apology;)

You jew hater and nazi lover! Ahhhhhh, got that out of my system. All clear, carry on :).

You jew hater and nazi lover! Ahhhhhh, got that out of my system. All clear, carry on :).

What do you think of this?

The Hitler salute is good for jail time over here, it's illegal.

I must have missed that. :D
Thus proving my earlier point that you are selective in reading my posts or have a selective memory regarding my posts.

Sure, you always support the anti-Islam propagandists with the same excuse.

ie they see a problem with Islam.
Well, are you suggesting that they don't ?
I never ever supported anti-Islam propagandists.
Quotes ? Not that you will find them..

I never once heard you speak of the problems that Muslims face, for instance or negative impact of such propaganda on them in Dutch society.
Again, proving my earlier point.
Quotes ?

As for one sided freedom of expression, you trolled me for 3 or 4 pages insisting I take down an avatar because someone might consider it offensive. Far from making excuses, you were ready to call me a Jew hater and Nazi lover!!!!
No, I politely asked you to take it down. I trolled you because of your childish reaction.
I never ever called you a Jew-hater or a Nazi-lover.
Quotes ?

What do you think of this?

Yea, and ? It's true.

What do you think of this?

I think he was calling you a childish brat.

I was.

Thus proving my earlier point that you are selective in reading my posts or have a selective memory regarding my posts.

you went back and edited a post!:mad:


Well, are you suggesting that they don't ?
I never ever supported anti-Islam propagandists.
Quotes ? Not that you will find them..

No you merely provide excuses for all of them.


Again, proving my earlier point.
Quotes ?

You clearly have a problem with Muslims. :shrug:


No, I politely asked you to take it down. I trolled you because of your childish reaction.
I never ever called you a Jew-hater or a Nazi-lover.
Quotes ?

You called me names throughout the exchange while I provided valid reasons for having the avatar. And you call me childish?:rolleyes:

You did take back the ones about Jews, so I'll let it pass, but you definitely trolled me to take it down as offensive.

I think he was calling you a childish brat.

Why? Because in repsonse to a thread about my intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation I put up a bobblehead Hitler avatar? And the great bastion of freedom of expression wanted me to take it down because its offensive?:p

Duh! talk about hypocrisy.

Yea, and ? It's true.

More hypocrisy.

I am just curious, what does Muslim a head mean?

I am just curious, what does Muslim a head mean?

Okay I changed it.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0407/Muslims_near.jpg

you went back and edited a post!
Yes, after I posted that I would take it back :rolleyes:

No you merely provide excuses for all of them.
I am merely providing alternate explanations to your paranoid ramblings.

You clearly have a problem with Muslims.
Aren't you the little victim.. :rolleyes:
I have no problem with Muslims whatsoever, I might have a problem with you though.

You called me names throughout the exchange while I provided valid reasons for having the avatar. And you call me childish?
I called you names ? Like what ?

You did take back the ones about Jews, so I'll let it pass, but you definitely trolled me to take it down as offensive.
You let it pass ?? LOL :D
Yes, a lot of people might find that offensive, that's why I politely asked you to take it down. It was your reaction that instigated my 'trolling'.

Why? Because in repsonse to a thread about my intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation I put up a bobblehead Hitler avatar? And the great bastion of freedom of expression wanted me to take it down because its offensive?:p

Duh! talk about hypocrisy.

He could better answer the 'why' than me.

Why? Because in repsonse to a thread about my intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation I put up a bobblehead Hitler avatar? And the great bastion of freedom of expression wanted me to take it down because its offensive?:p

Duh! talk about hypocrisy.

I asked on behalf of people that might take offense at it. I also said I personally didn't care you had that avatar.

Okay I changed it.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0407/Muslims_near.jpg

Oooh ohhh, I want one of those to protect my parking spot at work!

Okay I changed it.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0407/Muslims_near.jpg

:rolleyes:

He could better answer the 'why' than me.
I think Enmos should set an example of the kind of society he thinks Muslims should get accustomed to living in.

‘Apologies, but no regrets, (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=82399)’ says Flemming Rose revisiting the ‘Mohammad cartoons’ crisis

Okay I changed it.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0407/Muslims_near.jpg

Just pointing out a mistake. No need to get hostile.:(

I think Enmos should set an example of the kind of society he thinks Muslims should get accustomed to living in.

And what is that oh wise one ?

You could simply have changed it to: Muslim ahead.

I am still waiting for those quotes SAM.

Why? Because in repsonse to a thread about my intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation I put up a bobblehead Hitler avatar? And the great bastion of freedom of expression wanted me to take it down because its offensive?:p

Duh! talk about hypocrisy.


awesome
enmos?

/snicker


I am still waiting for those quotes SAM.

i'll get that red herring outta the way by deep frying and wolfing it down
there
all gone

now, you were saying....?

awesome
enmos?

/snicker




i'll get that red herring outta the way by deep frying and wolfing it down
there
all gone

now, you were saying....?

lol as if you didn't know.

Just pointing out a mistake. No need to get hostile.:(

Not hostile, I know my Johnny.;)

Just thought of a better one. :)

I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed. (bin laden) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm)

excellent. lets pile on the ridicule and derision. expose the delusions and reveal the lunacy of mohammed.
ja. humor. more potent than a goddamn atom bomb

Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War - Michael Waller (http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/files/War_of_Ideas_Waller.pdf)

sam darling
do renounce your faith

/waiting

I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed. (bin laden) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm)

excellent. lets pile on the ridicule and derision. expose the delusions and reveal the lunacy of mohammed.
ja. humor. more potent than a goddamn atom bomb

Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War - Michael Waller (http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/files/War_of_Ideas_Waller.pdf)

The pan-Arab TV station al-Jazeera has broadcast an audio tape purporting to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, in which the speaker says al-Qaeda is preparing new attacks on the US.

1+1=4:rolleyes:

ah, you probably think this is amateur night at the local comedy club
what is a hadith? define it and please include your "word of the day" (purporting) within that definition
just for kicks and whatnot

ah, you probably think this is amateur night at the local comedy club
what is a hadith? define it and please include your "word of the day" (purporting) within that definition
just for kicks and whatnot

A hadith is a record of what some guy remembers [some other guy]n said the Prophet purportedly;) said/did.

It was forbidden to record anything about the Prophet during the first century, on his express instructions, so all of them are dated 100-400 years after his death.

I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed. (bin laden) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm)

excellent. lets pile on the ridicule and derision. expose the delusions and reveal the lunacy of mohammed.
ja. humor. more potent than a goddamn atom bomb

Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War - Michael Waller (http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/files/War_of_Ideas_Waller.pdf)

Good document Gustav.

Typical Hadith collections


on the Prophets appearance (for example)


The following are found mostly in the Book of Merits (manaqib) in Imam at-Tirmidhi's Sunan:



1- Sayyidina `Ali said: "The Prophet was neither tall nor short. He has thick-set fingers and toes. He had a large head and joints. He had a long line of thin chest-to-lower-navel hair. When he walked he would literally lean forward, as if descending from a higher place to a lower one. I never saw anyone like him before of after him." Tirmidhi said: This hadith is hasan sahih. Imam Ahmad in his narration states: "He was large of head and beard."



2- Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, one of Sayyidina `Ali's grandchildren, said: `Ali would say upon describing the Prophet: "He was neither immoderately tall nor particularly short. He was well-proportioned among people. His hair was neither extremely curly nor straight, but slightly waved. He was neither stocky nor plump. There was roundness in his face. He was fair with redness in his complexion.
His eyes were very black and his eyelashes very long. He had a large back and shoulder-joints. His body was not hairy but he had a line of hair extending from the chest to below the navel. He had thick-set fingers and toes. When he walked he would lift his feet with vigor, as if walking down a slope.
When he turned towards a person he would turn with his entire body. Between his shoulder- blades was the seal of prophethood, and he himself is the Seal of Prophets. He was the most generous of people without exception, the most accepting and gracious of manners, the most truthful in speech, the softest of voice, and the noblest of company. Whoever saw him from a distance stood awed by him, and whoever shared familiarity with him loved him. Whoever described him said: I never saw anyone like him before or after him." Tirmidhi said: This hadith is hasan gharib and its chain is not linked back (to `Ali).



3- Hasan ibn `Ali said: I queried my maternal uncle Hind ibn Abi Hala, who was skilled at describing the Prophet's appearance, and told him that I longed to hear him describe me something of it to which I could hold on. He said: "The Prophet was magnificent and he was considered magnificent. His face shone pearl-like, similar to the full moon. He was taller than average, but smaller than a tall man. He had a large head. His hair was wavy. If it parted naturally he parted it, otherwise not. It reached past his ear- lobes when he wore it long.
He had a rosy complexion, a wide forehead, beautifully arched, dense eyebrows that did not meet in the middle. Between them there was a vein which thickened when he was angry. He had an aquiline nose touched with a light that raised it so that at first sight it seemed higher than it was. He had a thick, dense beard, expanded, not elevated cheeks, a strong mouth with a gap between his front teeth. There was sparse hair on his chest. His neck seemed (smooth and shiny) like that of a statue moulded in silver. His body was well-proportioned, stout and muscular, of equal belly and chest. He was wide-shouldered, big- jointed. When he disrobed his limbs emanated light.
There was a thread-like line of hair between his chest and his navel, but none on his breasts and belly other than that. There was hair on his arms, shoulders, and upper torso. His forearms were long, his palms wide, his fingers and toes thick-set and extended. The middle of his soles rose moderately from the ground. His feet were so smooth that water rolled off them.
When he walked he lifted his feet with vigor, leaned slightly forward, and tread gently on the ground. When he turned (to look), he turned his whole body. His gaze was lowered and he looked at the ground more often than he looked at the sky. He glanced at things rather than stared. He would ask his Companions to walk in front of him. He would always be the first to greet those he met with salam." Tirmidhi narrated it in his Shama'il but not in the Sunan.



4- Sammak ibn Harb narrated to Shu`ba a hadith he had heard from Jabir ibn Samura and he explained that the Prophet had a wide mouth and wide eyes, and that he had not fleshy heels. Tirmidhi said it is hasan sahih.



5- Jabir ibn Samura also narrated that he once saw the Prophet on a night of full moon wearing a red mantle. He said: "I began to look at him then at the moon. Verily he seemed to me more beautiful than the moon itself." Tirmidhi said: This hadith is hasan gharib. Its chain contains al-Ash`ath, whom some declared weak, however, al- Dhahabi declared him "fair and truthful in his hadith" (hasan sadiq al-hadith).



6- al-Bara' ibn `Azib confirmed the above by relating: "I have never seen someone whose hair reached to his ear-lobes and wearing red clothing, more handsome than Allah's Messenger . His hair reached his shoulders. He was very broad-shouldered, neither short nor tall." Tirmidhi said: hasan sahih.



7- al-Bara' ibn `Azib was once asked: "Was the Prophet's face like a sword (i.e. glistening like steel, or elongated)?" He replied: "No; it was like the moon (i.e. shining with light, and round)." Tirmidhi said: hasan sahih.



8- `Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Hazm said: "I never saw anyone that smiled more than Allah's Messenger." Tirmidhi said: This hadith is hasan gharib. The same narrator also related: "The Prophet's laughter consisted entirely in smiling." Tirmidhi said: sahih gharib.



9- Ibn `Abbas said: "The Prophet's two front teeth were slightly spaced in between. Whenever he spoke, something like light would be seen issuing from between them." Tirmidhi narrated it in his Shama'il but not in the Sunan.



10- Anas ibn Malik said: "Allah's Messenger was well-proportioned, neither tall nor short, handsome of body, and his hair was neither curly nor straight. He was of tawny complexion. When he walked, he leaned forward slightly." Tirmidhi related it in the Book of Clothing (al-libas) and said it is hasan sahih.



11- Abu Hurayra said: "The Prophet was fair-skinned, as if he had been moulded in silver (i.e. completely unblemished, shining), and he had wavy hair." Tirmidhi narrated it in al-Shama'il but not in the Sunan.



12- Abu al-Tufayl, the last of the Companions to die, said: "I saw the Prophet and there is no one left on earth who saw him other than myself." Sa`id al-Jurayri said: "Describe him." He replied: "He was fair-skinned, handsome and engaging, and neither corpulent nor thin." Tirmidhi narrates it in his Shama'il but not in the Sunan.

It was forbidden to record anything about the Prophet during the first century, on his express instructions, so all of them are dated 100-400 years after his death.

you know this how? another hadith?
yet, what is your point?

Good document Gustav.

ja
chapter 7 kicks ass

Typical Hadith collections.....

bah
what was that? an attempt to establish actual existence?. no worries. i acknowledge there was a mohammed type way back when

ja
chapter 7 kicks ass

Chapter 7? The conclusion?

pardon
the reference was to another format
chapter 5 in the linked pdf

poor sam

meandering around in circles
utterly and forlornly lost in hadiths
so distant from the truth of the wahy

thou
thou art infidel
i shall have your head

bah
what was that? an attempt to establish actual existence?. no worries. i acknowledge there was a mohammed type way back when

No, an example of a collection.

Most people have no idea what hadith means.

poor sam

meandering around in circles
utterly and forlornly lost in hadiths
so distant from the truth of the wahy

thou
thou art infidel
i shall have your head

Thats actually the first time I've read those, who has time to read hadiths?

Bukhari spent a lifetime collecting his bunch and figuring out the accuracy of chain of narration (with independent corroboration from a second unrelated narration, then hasan sahih, with single unconfirmed narration, gharib) After all that work he said about 4000 of his 600,000 hadiths may be accurate.

A Hadith can be 'sahih'(sound/authentic), 'hasan sahih' (higher level than sahih but lower than sahih),'hasan'(approved), 'hasan sahih gharib' (hasan in regard to soundness but gharib in regard to chain of transmitters), 'gharib' (uncommon, number of narrators is reduced to one at any stage), 'mutawatir' (continuous), 'mashhur' (well known), 'da'if'(weak), 'mawdu' (forged), 'marsal' (forwarded), 'marfu' (traced directly), 'mudallas' (deceptive), 'shadh' (isolated), 'munkar' (disapproved), 'munqati' (disjoined), 'muttasil' (joined), 'maqtu' (broken), 'mawquf' (suspended), 'matruk' (abandoned), 'mu'aalaq' (one or more consecutive transmitters are omitted), 'mahfudh' (contradictory), 'hadith qudsi' (holy narration).

Thats way too much effort with too little returns. :bugeye:

Most people have no idea what hadith means.

you do

A hadith is a record of what some guy remembers [some other guy]n said the Prophet purportedly;) said/did.

1+1=4:rolleyes:


as do i

you do

as do i

My favorite Hadith


"Do not write down anything of me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed, Vol. 1, page 171.....also Sahih Muslim)

you know this how? another hadith?
yet, what is your point?

Yup, a sahih hadith, it explained why no one wrote down anything at the time.

Point being, they are interesting to read but should not be considered infallible.

as an indian, you should be ashamed of adopting a white man religion.
renounce your citizenship and move in with the bedouins
i noticed you professed an affinity towards the m.e
towards arabs who assert a cultural and ideological superiority over you due to your voluntary enslavement to their language and religion

get out of india
leave!

/eek

as an indian, you should be ashamed of adopting a white man religion.
renounce your citizenship and move in with the bedouins
i noticed you professed an affinity towards the m.e
towards arabs who assert a cultural and ideological superiority over you due to your voluntary enslavement to their language and religion

get out of india
leave!

Ay, kya bolta tu?

how dare you get chummy with me

i am fluent in many languages
german is mother tongue
english is lingua franca
hindi is on a need to basis

/cackle

lemme reword......voluntary enslavement to their religion and as a consequence, their language

lemme reword......voluntary enslavement to their religion and as a consequence, their language

tapori bol :shrug:

bah
i will bill you for my goddamn time!

India Market Inc.
8415, Reseda Boulevard
North Ridge,
Los Angeles 91324
Phone: (818) 701-9054

India Sweets & Snacks
23371, East Golden Springs
Diamond Bar,
Los Angeles 91765
Phone: (909) 396-9039

India Spiceland
23906, S Crenshaw Boulevard
Torrance,
Los Angeles 90505
Phone: (310) 530-8960

none of the goddamn retards staffing the shit had a clue what "tapori bol" meant. is that even goddamn hindi? translate before i rip my hair out

/rotfl

The Mumbai underworld slang known as Tapori is Bambaiya lingo with special coding for certain words.

I'm guessing that 'bol' means something like 'talk' or 'language'.

wtf?
is she asking me if i am speaking ebonics in the reword?

/rotfl

saunsaar saunsaar, jasa tava chulyawara, adhii hataala chatake, tavan milate bhaakar!!!:D

Thats what we Muslims call fitna; those who want to spread social discord without any gain to society, for frivolous reasons.Maybe this particular cartoonist is an arse hole OR maybe he thinks Islamic beleif is superstitious gibberish that is bad for the his culture. So what? Lots of people think Islam is bad for society. My Iranian buddy Reza said exactly as much. If Iran wasn't Muslim and was Xian or Hindu or something else the place would probably be just exactly like Europe. But because of Islam they are f*cked.

Maybe that's true, maybe not true. But if he were to make a cartoon saying as much then that's fine. It's his life and his cartoon - you want to read it read it if you don't then don't.


Some funny Cartoons about the "Last" Prophet

http://www.xs4all.nl/~waa/images/zenons_cornflakes_big.jpg

http://www.xs4all.nl/~waa/images/honey.jpg

http://www.xs4all.nl/~waa/images/schizo_ron_big.jpg

The guy also made cartoons of Jesus as a pedophile and getting a blow job.

I'd say his issues extend way beyond social concern.

I wonder why Scientologists haven't run amuck killing themselves and anyone in the vicinity? I know - it's really amazing.


Didn't Germany make Scientology illegal? Geee I suprized SAM isn't in the courts now fighting for their freedom to believe in the True Last Prophet Ron Hibbard ... Oh yea, SAM doesn't believe in such stupid fairy tales... now invisible voices in the head of some Arab having an epileptic seizer - why thems real because we have us this-ee here "perfect" book that says he is.

The guy also made cartoons of Jesus as a pedophile and getting a blow job.

I'd say his issues extend way beyond social concern.So what - maybe he's a jackarse or maybe he was molested by his Priest for 25 years and decided the cartoon was a Cathartic experience?

I wonder why Scientologists haven't run amuck killing themselves and anyone in the vicinity? I know - it's really amazing.


Didn't Germany make Scientology illegal? Geee I suprized SAM isn't in the courts now fighting for their freedom to believe in the True Last Prophet Ron Hibbard ... Oh yea, SAM doesn't believe in such stupid fairy tales... now invisible voices in the head of some Arab having an epileptic seizer - why thems real because we have us this-ee here "perfect" book that says he is.

Yeah, then you can get areligion like the communists and start chopping off heads of believers. Intolerance is a fine thing to cultivate

So what - maybe he's a jackarse or maybe he was molested by his Priest for 25 years and decided the cartoon was a Cathartic experience?

Like I said he has issues way beyond any social concern.

Yeah, then you can get areligion like the communists and start chopping off heads of believers. Intolerance is a fine thing to cultivate.Communism was as much a religion as Islam. Only instead of the Perfect Qur'an they had the Perfect Communist Manifesto. Instead of Mohammad they had Mao.

Picture that good Muslim family, revering The "Prophet" Mohammad (PBUH) reading a verse from the divine Qur'an and giving a blessing to Allah before dinner.

Now picture a good Communist family, revering The "Dear Leader" Mao (PBUH) reading a verse from the divine Communist Manefesto and giving a blessing to The State before dinner.

because I know Chinese who told me they did EXACTLY THAT. They prayed to Mao every single day and always before dinner.


Monotheism and Communism are intolerant SAM. Why else would monotheists and Communists teach that all other beleif systems are inherently wrong? Only their's are correct. It doesn't strike you as intolerant to teach that only Their Last Prophet or Dear Leader was true and only their religious-book/manifesto book is Perfect?

Why do you suppose people come to the notion that Arabic is the Perfect language? Some even say "God's" language? Why do you suppose people like Cassius Clay change their name to Mohammad Ali after they convert*?

Why do some Chinese think they are the only reason Japan is civilized. Their civilization is the better. Their language superior.





Cartoons that mock the established bullshit serve a purpose.
Michael


* note: name change is very common strategy employed by many different cults to make a break with the past identity as part of the brainwashing process. Even you would agree with that SAM. It's scientifically proven to be true.

Communism was as much a religion as Islam.
Cartoons that mock the established bullshit serve a purpose.
Michael

Take a gander at the contents of "Godless at the workbench (http://www.smith.edu/museum/exhibitions/godlesscommunists/antireligious_periodicals.htm)"

And video responses to the above
http://www.smith.edu/museum/exhibitions/godlesscommunists/video_responses.htm

Like I said, it's the exact same thing as a Religion.

have you ever even read the Qur'an SAM? It's bloody propaganda if I've ever seen it.

PLEASE!
Michael

SAM, do you agree that name change is a very common strategy employed by many different cults to make a break with the past identity as part of the brainwashing process?

Would you consider identity change an effect method in reaching the goals of a particular propaganda campaign?

Michael

Like I said, it's the exact same thing as a Religion.

have you ever even read the Qur'an SAM? It's bloody propaganda if I've ever seen it.

PLEASE!
Michael

Propaganda
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience

I would expect it is inherently so.

On a side note, S.A.M. should put her religious beliefs in the Encyclopedia, perhaps ;)

Also note: I'm not one for promoting an atheistic society.

When we were evolving from Ape-like creatures into homosapians we needed to believe in magic and moon gods and mother earth etc... That's a fact. All socialities acted as such - even those on Easter Island had Water Gods who adjusted the stones along the shore from smallest to biggest (during the night when no one was looking).

I understand at many people today need to believe in a Earth-Mommy or Alien Overlord. creature.

Well, when Earth-Mommy worship or Alien Overlord veneration disrupts society - expect at the very least to be mocked! And in some cases outright banned (Scientology in Germany).

M

Like I said, it's the exact same thing as a Religion.

have you ever even read the Qur'an SAM? It's bloody propaganda if I've ever seen it.

PLEASE!
Michael

Yup, The Godless, right about describes it. A very familiar "religion".


Bezbozhnik (The Godless) was published as a weekly newspaper between 1922 and 1934 and from 1938 to 1941, and as an illustrated journal from 1925 to 1941. Bezbozhnik was produced and distributed by the Society of the Friends of the Godless, founded in 1923, which became the Godless League in 1925 and the League of the Militant Godless in 1929. The League had three major goals: to demonstrate that religion in all its forms had always been an enemy of the workers; to prove that natural science explains everything, leaving no room for religion; and to convince people that socialism and religion are ethically incompatible, so religious observance was disloyal to the state.

The goal of Bezbozhnik u Stanka was to “expose the clergy as corrupted, religious ritual as unwarrantedly costly, and sacred arts as propagandistic.” Accordingly, it featured heavy use of caricature and stereotypes to create negative views of religion and religious figures.

Dmitri Moor, the leading Soviet caricaturist, was the artistic director of Bezbozhnik u Stanka. Moor recommended that artists study religious icons in order to emulate their forms to subvert as well as co-opt their visual power

Persecution of all religions (http://www.smith.edu/museum/exhibitions/godlesscommunists/persecuted_religions.htm)

Exhumed,

to continue your quote:

The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful...

On a side note, S.A.M. should put her religious beliefs in the Encyclopedia, perhaps ;)
S.A.M.

Exhumed,

to continue your quote:

20 million killed following the truthful propaganda of the Godless

Yup, The Godless, right about describes it. A very familiar "religion".I'm certainly not for banning religion so long as the beleif doesn't teach intolerance towards other people's beliefs - including militant atheism.


Like I said, teaching white supremacy only teaches that white people are a superior race. BUT are we at all surprised when some skin head stabs an African? NO. Because the beleif of white supremacy is flawed.

OK SAM, you tell me?

Why do some Muslims think Arabic is the Perfect Language?

Do you think teaching that white skin is the perfect race is intolerant to non-whites?

Do you think teaching that Islam is the perfect religion is intolerant to non-Muslims?

Also, you missed the question regarding brainwashing and identity change.

I'm certainly not for banning religion so long as the beleif doesn't teach intolerance towards other people's beliefs - including militant atheism.


Like I said, teaching white supremacy only teaches that white people are a superior race. BUT are we at all surprised when some skin head stabs an African? NO. Because the beleif of white supremacy is flawed.

OK SAM, you tell me?

Why do some Muslims think Arabic is the Perfect Language?

Do you think teaching that white skin is the perfect race is intolerant to non-whites?

Do you think teaching that Islam is the perfect religion is intolerant to non-Muslims?

Also, you missed the question regarding brainwashing and identity change.

I smell a militant atheist.

I'm asking for your opinion. As this is a debate forum please answer the questions stated.

Oh, and did you find the Scientology cartoons offensive? If so how so? If not why not?

OK I have work to do - take your time.

Oh, and did you find the Scientology cartoons offensive? If so how so? If not why not?
I found it distasteful. Like I found the Krishna bathroom seat distasteful, the Quran verses toilet paper distasteful or the idea of a Jesus getting a blow job distasteful.

OK I have work to do - take your time.

I remember having a conversation on tolerance with you a very long time ago, when you clearly said to me you accepted all beliefs equally.

I told you then what a brainless idea that was.

And you continue to prove the shallow foundation of your spurious claims.

Believe me, as an Indian, I know exactly what tolerance means

I'm not gonna learn anything from a bigot who screeches at the faintest hint of anything different from what he believes in.

I found it distasteful. Like I found the Krishna bathroom seat distasteful, the Quran verses toilet paper distasteful or the idea of a Jesus getting a blow job distasteful.

Exactly, and to make a point, it is that which it mocks.

Exactly, and to make a point, it is that which it mocks.

The amputee attempting to scratch the phantom limb?

SAM, tell me this. IF I were to RANT and RAVE and screetch to the High Heaven that White Supremacy is F*CKING the most retarded backwards intolerant bullshit ever taught - would you still think me a bigot for saying as much? Because I think White Supremacy IS inherently wrong and I do not think it should be taught to CHILDREN. And when I see some jackarse white red neck tell me Asians are *insert bullshit* yeah, I get pretty pissed off. I will rally against it. They can tell me all day long their beleif is "peaceful" and they are just trying to protect the "white race" and they don't want to harm anyone and when some skin head does murder a black child they do it for some other reason that has absolutely nothing to do with their "white supremacy" ideology - which is purely peaceful. All they want is America to go back to the good old days of being "all white" (as if it ever was - dumb arses)

I am about 100% sure you would agree with me that white supremacy, the beleif that the white race is the superior race, IS inherently intolerant.

Secondly, as for distasteful, so what? Don't read the comic. Some people think a women showing her face is distasteful - well tough. We have decided that mocking religious icons is acceptable. Not to mention can be a means of making a valid point.


Lastly, I stated that I accepted the possibility of all religous beliefs being equally possible. I certainly do not believe all beliefs! Let me put it another way. The chances of Allah existing is equally as possible as Xenu existing. As there is not evidence for either their existence is equally possible. I also said that even though I am athiest for allah and we are both atheist for Xenu - I still accept either may in fact really exist.




I still had a couple of questions I wanted your honest opinion on.

1) Why do you suppose some people believe the white race is the "master race"*

2) Why do some Muslims think Arabic is the Perfect Language?

3) Do you think teaching that white skin is the perfect race is intolerant to non-whites?

4) Do you think teaching that Islam is the perfect religion is intolerant to non-Muslims?


Michael

*note: The notion of a "Master Race" is as logical as the notion of a "Perfect Book", which is to say little to no logic. I'll leave it to you to still answer the question as the intended meaning is obvious.

I see you're back on your stuck record, which ironically, any mockery of your beliefs is always sure to produce.

Just a thought.

SAM I can not know what you think unless you answer my questions in a meaningful way. It's easy to say I'm a blah blah blah but lets hear what you have to say so we know your thoughts.

I'll go first.
1) Why do you suppose some people believe the white race is the "master race".
People tend to like to think they are better than other people. For what ever reasons. They also like to scapegoat. What could be easier than thinking you are inherently better simply because you happen to have white skin and the wrongs of society are blamed on non-whites. The truth is they are not better than anyone. There is no such thing as race let alone a master race.

2) Why do some Muslims think Arabic is the Perfect Language?
They think their religion is the only absolutely correct religion. The bases of their religion is a book they are taught to beleif is the only Perfect religous book. All other religions and religious books contain faults. Not theirs. It's Perfect. It is also written in Arabic. Ergo they continue the fallacy into thinking that Arabic is Perfect. The truth is their religion is not the only true belief and their book is not Perfect. There is not such thing as a perfect book.

3) Do you think teaching that white skin is the perfect race is intolerant to non-whites?
Yes of course. Not only does it teach a fallacy, that of race, but it also is intolerant of people who don't happen to have that phenotype.

4) Do you think teaching that Islam is the perfect religion is intolerant to non-Muslims?
Yes of course. Not only is it a fallacy, that of perfect religion, but it is also intolerant to people who don't happen to share their beleif.


See SAM it's really not all that hard,
Michael

I'm beginning to think atheism is a short cut to cuckooland.

Note: The Notion of a God Delusion is equal to the notion of a Master Race.

The notion of a belief in any ideology is intolerant of all other ideologies.

Hence Michael believes in nothing.

I'm beginning to think atheism is a short cut to cuckooland.

Note: The Notion of a God Delusion is equal to the notion of a Master Race.

The notion of a belief in any ideology is intolerant of all other ideologies.

Hence Michael believes in nothing.Are you going to answer thoese questions?

Of course I believe in things SAM. I believe the sun will "rise"in the morning and set in the evening. I believe my research will be published - or I wouldn't do it. I enjoy visiting Temples, I like to offer incense, gong the bell, say a prayer - but alas I don't say a prayer to anyone other than me :) There may be a Goddess "looking down" but I'm not speaking to "Her" - just to myself.

Anyway, as some Muslims here "believe" Arabic is the Perfect language it's a valid question to ask - WHY?

Some people think Whites are the Perfect race. It's a valid question to ask: WHY?

I'm sure sociologist make careers out of such questions.

Are you going to answer thoese questions?

Of course I believe in things SAM. I believe the sun will "rise"in the morning and set in the evening. I believe my research will be published - or I wouldn't do it. I enjoy visiting Temples, I like to offer incense, gong the bell, say a prayer - but alas I don't say a prayer to anyone other than me :) There may be a Goddess "looking down" but I'm not speaking to "Her" - just to myself.

Michael, you are most intolerant of anyone who does not think like you do.

So much so that you will compare them to racists, pedophiles and post derisive comments about their beliefs and lifestyles.

You are too busy judging people who don't share your values to even recognise how intolerant you are.

And there was no need for me to answer your questions. From previous experience with you, I know you already have the answers decided.

And you proved it. ;)

And I'd say you pretty much have nothing that you do believe in. You remind me of those Americans I used to see in Pune who joined the Rajneesh ashram. They were pretending to be religious, but mostly they were just there because their own lives were empty and wearing a saffron robe and chanting some fancy sounding slogans made them feel part of something. The sex and drugs helped too, of course, but after some time, it was no longer enough.

saunsaar saunsaar, jasa tava chulyawara, adhii hataala chatake, tavan milate bhaakar!!!:D


please, sam? my princess?:bawl:

/gnashing/wailing/ripping

Why Hello SAM - avoiding questions again I see.


There are similarities with thinking one's communist manifesto-book is Perfect and thinking ones religious-book is perfect.
There is similarities in thinking one's culture is supreme and thinking one's language is God's language.
There are similarities between thinking one's race is perfect and thinking ones religion is perfect.

Maybe you can't see the similarities but I guarantee they do exist. There may even be a common denominator.

As this is a science forum it really shouldn't matter who or what I am.
The questions are there for you to participate in the debate and answer.

According to you I don't believe in anything. But, according to me I do. I believe in friendship. Friendship with another person is much more important to me than a "relationship" with an Alien named Xenu. I'd actually go so far as to say that the "friendship" with a real live person is much more "real" then "relationship" with the Alien named Xenu or Athena or Allah or whom ever. While it may seem odd, a "relationship with Xenu" in my opinion is sort of a sign of an empty life - to me anyway. Xenu is a magical being filling a need so that the person feels better.

I don't need a Xenu.

I also believe in teaching. I have personally spent my holiday tutoring med students through the medical program. Not everyday, but enough so they get the idea and get on it and that was enough for them to get back into it and through to the next level. I didn't need a magical Alien to spout words of wisdom to motive them to get to it. Just common sense and more importantly friendship and support.

So, maybe I don't believe in the same sorts of things, but I do believe in things. They're just a little more mundane, no pixie dust, no magical winged horses, just the everyday to day reality we call life.

As for sex - yea I like it when it's good :)
As for drugs - minus beer, nope, watched crack-head family member self destruct and so learned never to do them. I never once in my life had any sort of curiosity of what a high off a drug felt like.


Now about those questions?
Michael

The guy also made cartoons of Jesus as a pedophile and getting a blow job.

I'd say his issues extend way beyond social concern.

Where are the Christians complaining about that ? :shrug:

Where are the Christians complaining about that ? :shrug:

Did the Jews complain about the nazi caricatures?

Why Hello SAM - avoiding questions again I see.

Now about those questions?
Michael

Didn't you already answer them to your satisfaction?:shrug:

Write in whatever answer you like that you think accurately reflects Muslims.

In your "all beliefs are equal" tolerant opinion.

Did the Jews complain about the nazi caricatures?

:confused: Wtf !?

Answer the question.. ?

I did. :)

I don't see how that is an answer..
I imagine they did. However, those caricatures were insulting to a people directly and personally. The intend was vicious and directed at a people, not a religion.

Mocking a religion is not a direct insult to the people that believe in it, and does certain not have to be intended as such.

Lots of Muslims take mockery of their religion as a direct and intended viscous insult. You, seemingly, do as well.
My question to you was: where are the Christians that react in a similar way to those Jesus mockeries ?
I never heard any of them about it, and certainly not in the hysterical way Muslims react to mockery of the religion.

Or, did the MuslimsChrisitians protest the caricature of their religious symbols under European democracy communism?

I wouldn't know.. I never heard them about it.

Do you see them complaining about it here at sciforums ?

I don't see how that is an answer..
I imagine they did. However, those caricatures were insulting to a people directly and personally. The intend was vicious and directed at a people, not a religion.

Mocking a religion is not a direct insult to the people that believe in it, and does certain not have to be intended as such.

Lots of Muslims take mockery of their religion as a direct and intended viscous insult. You, seemingly, do as well.
My question to you was: where are the Christians that react in a similar way to those Jesus mockeries ?
I never heard any of them about it, and certainly not in the hysterical way Muslims react to mockery of the religion.

Lets see



Or, did the MuslimsChrisitians protest the caricature of their religious symbols under European democracy communism?

European freedom of expression ----->http://www.mikesilverman.com/muhammed_cartoon.jpg


Europeans restricting freedom of expression (Dutch troops in Afghanistan)---->http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41340000/jpg/_41340004_tank_ap416.jpg



Probably we see it for what it is.

Lets see



Or, did the MuslimsChrisitians protest the caricature of their religious symbols under European democracy communism?

European freedom of expression ----->http://www.mikesilverman.com/muhammed_cartoon.jpg


Europeans restricting freedom of expression ---->http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41340000/jpg/_41340004_tank_ap416.jpg



Probably we see it for what it is.

:confused: Can you stick to answering my question please ?

Its clear that Europeans are getting anti-Muslim

Otherwise why is it that the same societies mocking Muslims (Dutch, Danish, Swe dish) the so-called pacifist nations are fighting with and killing them in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Its clear that Europeans are getting anti-Muslim

Otherwise why is it that the same societies mocking Muslims (Dutch, Danish, Swe dish) the so-called pacifist nations are fighting with and killing them in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer my fucking question ! :mad:

Answer my fucking question ! :mad:

Are the people mocking Jesus also calling for a ban on Christian immigration? Calling for a ban on the Bible? Killing Christians in their own countries? Discriminating against them in employment?

Its not just mocking Muslims, its also treating them like second class and inferior citizens.

Are the people mocking Jesus also calling for a ban on Christian immigration? Calling for a ban on the Bible? Killing Christians in their own countries?

Its not just mocking Muslims, its also treating them like second class and inferior citizens.

That cartoonist does all that ?
Now, for the last time, can you PLEASE answer my question ? :bugeye:

That cartoonist does all that ?
Now, for the last time, can PLEASE answer my question ? :bugeye:

The society they live in does that.

Why else are all European societies becoming anti-Muslim?

The caricatures are meant to be offensive because the people in that society know that it will hurt the sentiments of Muslims. The idea is less the freedom of expression, (which as I have previously shown where the guy who published the Mohammed cartoons rejected Jesus cartoons as hurtful to Christian sentiments) more a bucket of crap.

The little Indian woman with the big mouth can't back up her claims!!...haha typical!

The little Indian woman with the big mouth can't back up her claims!!...haha typical!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The society they live in does that.

Why else are all European societies becoming anti-Muslim?

The caricatures are meant to be offensive because the people in that society know that it will hurt the sentiments of Muslims. The idea is less the freedom of expression, (which as I have previously shown where the guy who published the Mohammed cartoons rejected Jesus cartoons as hurtful to Christian sentiments) more a bucket of crap.

Sigh.. :rolleyes:
Well done SAM..

Sigh.. :rolleyes:
Well done SAM..

I'm waiting for the European papers to publish Lars Vilks cartoons of Jesus getting a blowjob and as a pedophile.

I'm waiting for the European papers to publish Lars Vilks cartoons of Jesus getting a blowjob and as a pedophile.

And I can assure you that you won't be seeing an equivalent of the hysterical scenes coming form Muslims right now.

I'm waiting for the European papers to publish Lars Vilks cartoons of Jesus getting a blowjob and as a pedophile.
yeah me too!!!:D

Wait.. you have that cartoon ?

Post it.. see what happens.

I like to see allah doin a donkey!!

And I can assure you that you won't be seeing an equivalent of the hysterical scenes coming form Muslims right now.

You won't see them from Muslims either if they weren't being treated like crap in the first place.

http://www.nordish.net/mohammed_image_archive/extreme_mohammed/mohammad1.jpg

You won't see them from Muslims either if they weren't being treated like crap in the first place.

http://www.nordish.net/mohammed_image_archive/extreme_mohammed/mohammad1.jpg

Post the Jesus one.

Wait.. you have that cartoon ?

Post it.. see what happens.

No it hasn't been published anywhere. :rolleyes:

No it hasn't been published anywhere. :rolleyes:

How do you know about it ? You must have seen it somewhere..

By the way, there may be a reason it was never published.
If, as you say, the Muhammed cartoons were meant to instigate a violent reaction from Muslims you can see why the ones about Jesus would be useless. They wouldn't work.
And that's not because Christians are better people or anything.. it has to do with the differences between our societies.

How do you know about it ? You must have seen it somewhere..

By the way, there may be a reason it was never published.
If, as you say, the Muhammed cartoons were meant to instigate a violent reaction from Muslims you can see why the ones about Jesus would be useless. They wouldn't work.

You go out of your way to offend people, why should you be surprised if they are offended?

Even the people who posted the Mapplethorpe photos received death threats.

You go out of your way to offend people, why should you be surprised if they are offended?

Even the people who posted the Mapplethorpe photos received death threats.

I go out of my way to offend people ?? Sure.. :bugeye:

Even the people who posted the Mapplethorpe photos received death threats.

Enlighten me ?

And that's not because Christians are better people or anything.. it has to do with the differences between our societies.

:rolleyes:

Would an European newspaper publish an anti-Semite cartoon?

http://www.publiceye.org/theocrat/Mapplethorpe_Chrono.html

:rolleyes:

Would an European newspaper publish an anti-Semite cartoon?

http://www.publiceye.org/theocrat/Mapplethorpe_Chrono.html

They have.. and do still. Isn't that what you're pisses off about ?

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, insulting people directly for who they are is different from mocking their religion.

Mapplethorpe:
For God's sake, that was in the 80's ! :bugeye:
And did we even then see the riots we see today with Muslims ?

They have.. and do still. Isn't that what you're pisses off about ?

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, insulting people directly for who they are is different from mocking their religion.

Mapplethorpe:
For God's sake, that was in the 80's ! :bugeye:
And did we even then see the riots we see today with Muslims ?

You haven't even heard of the Mapplethorpe controversy. That should tell you how much it was splashed across the press.

No, I just do not see the purpose of a newspaper that refuses to publish Jesus cartoons as offensive who publishes anti-Muslim cartoons and then hides behind freedom of speech.

I also do not see the purpose in societies that are occupying and killing Muslims daily using their power to incite Islamophobia under the guise of freedom of the press.

The warning is clear – the terrorist, gay-bashing, women-oppressing Muslims will take over the world if they're not stopped by brave Western politicians like Wilders.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14596

You haven't even heard of the Mapplethorpe controversy. That should tell you how much it was splashed across the press.
I was hardly born then.

No, I just do not see the purpose of a newspaper that refuses to publish Jesus cartoons as offensive who publishes anti-Muslim cartoons and then hides behind freedom of speech.
Is that a fact ?
I don't believe any Dutch paper published those Mohammed cartoons.

I also do not see the purpose in societies that are occupying and killing Muslims daily using their power to incite Islamophobia under the guise of freedom of the press.
Uh.. why do you think people are afraid of non-venomous snakes ?
People can't know what Muslim is going to bomb them and what Muslim is just a regular guy.
You can blame western civilization, but really, the ones to blame are in your own back garden.

People can't know what Muslim is going to bomb them and what Muslim is just a regular guy.
You can blame western civilization, but really, the ones to blame are in your own back garden.

My back garden in Afghanistan contaminated by Dutch pests with guns?

My back garden in Afghanistan contaminated by Dutch pests with guns?

Your back garden = Islam.
The ones to blame = radical Muslims.

Maybe that helped :)

Your back garden = Islam.
The ones to blame = radical Muslims.

Maybe that helped :)

European racism killing men defending their homes and families = war on terrorz

European racism killing men defending their homes and families = war on terrorz

You are drifting again..

You are drifting again..

I'm pretty sure if a group of countries were strafing Dutch women, children and homes with missiles, you'd see a lot of violent Dutchmen.

I'm pretty sure if a group of countries were strafing Dutch women, children and homes with missiles, you'd see a lot of violent Dutchmen.

And drifting even further.. :rolleyes:

And drifting even further.. :rolleyes:

Only because you are too blind to see where your society is heading.:shrug:

Only because you are too blind to see where your society is heading.:shrug:

I wish..

Only because you are too blind to see where your society is heading.:shrug:

Left-wing radicals will end up shooting themselves in the foot.
They've taken the position "My enemies (freedom and democracy) enemy (terrorists and radical muslims) is my friend".
If radical muslims take over and democracy fades from Europe, (athiest) left-wing radicals might find their "friends" aren't so friendly anymore.....

Left-wing radicals will end up shooting themselves in the foot.
They've taken the position "My enemies (freedom and democracy) enemy (terrorists and radical muslims) is my friend".
If radical muslims take over and democracy fades from Europe, (athiest) left-wing radicals might find their "friends" aren't so friendly anymore.....

Huh ? What do you mean ?

Left-wing radicals will end up shooting themselves in the foot.
They've taken the position "My enemies (freedom and democracy) enemy (terrorists and radical muslims) is my friend".
If radical muslims take over and democracy fades from Europe, (athiest) left-wing radicals might find their "friends" aren't so friendly anymore.....

Read this (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm)

Read this (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm)

Wow, I didn't see ANY bias in that link you provide ;)
Yes, that "evil" America....... :rolleyes:

Wow, I didn't see ANY bias in that link you provide ;)
Yes, that "evil" America....... :rolleyes:



All the information in that book? 100% factual.

If you don't believe me, look it up. :p

My back garden in Afghanistan contaminated by Dutch pests with guns?

Dutch pests with guns have been in Afghanistan for 800 years??

This is indeed an unusual history you've located. Do you have a link or something?

It could be me, but that looks more like an ammunition belt..