"The Master" and "Innocence of Muslims", is it the same thing?

[innonimatu]

Look at you, law-and-order innonimatu.
But it is news to me that we go from arrest to understanding back-padding when someone is not only violent but also a Muslim.

There are ways to call for violent retaliation against anyone drawing offensive cartoons, movies or whatever, without formally breaking laws. The mere perpetuation of the concept of "blasphemy" as an offense punishable by death, as part of religious teachings, does it. Why are such religious "teachings" tolerated at all?

How can preachers (or any religion) who stand by such teachings be allowed to preach just by adding some disclaim to the effect that "but the current law forbids it so you shouldn't do it" ? I meant, they obviously imply that the law should be changed so that they can kill "blasphemers": their "teachings" are a campaign for such a change!
They are self-declared enemies of a society where individuals are free to live without fear of religious fanatics, on a crusade to destroy it. They are not technically an immediate threat, they are unlikely to ever amount to much, but tolerating the intolerant in the name of... tolerance is kind of silly. Tolerance, I feel, is one of those things that should require reciprocity. Religious tolerance should only extend to religions and religious leaders who are themselves tolerant.

I used to think that ridicule against such fringe groups would be enough. No need for policing them, for breaking them. It mostly does work. But it's not a guaranteed thing. We've become complacent from decades of progress away from such crazy ideas. But they were dominant once and, we all being human beings like our ancestors were, they can become dominant again if they are given free rein.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It says not to worship idols, which the bible basically is. At least that's my understanding of it.

Ok, but the Bible doesn't 'say' specifically, anywhere, that it itself is not sacred then, it sounds like.


I pretty much agree with Innonimatu on this one. This is a larger issue to the world and many societies than the lefties are willing to admit.


edit: Both films should be made. The reason why this crappy film had to be done was because no one with a larger budget dared to make one.

 

[wabatt]

The difference is that one of them caused innocent people to die. Free speech is great and all but there is limits to it. Think of the fire in the theater example. The movie has created danger and the creator should be put on trial to determine if he is responsible for lives lost.

 

[holy king]

we cant let angry mobs decide the limits of free speech.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The difference is that one of them caused innocent people to die. Free speech is great and all but there is limits to it. Think of the fire in the theater example. The movie has created danger and the creator should be put on trial to determine if he is responsible for lives lost.

The thing is that neither film did cause innocent people to die.

How could the creator of a film be put on trial for what terrorists do? I don't believe that game developers should be put on trial if some lunatic kid starts shooting people either.

 

[wabatt]

How could the creator of a film be put on trial for what terrorists do? I don't believe that game developers should be put on trial if some lunatic kid starts shooting people either.

Muslims rioting over this movie is a predictable outcome. No one seems surprised by it. This is in contrast to the Aurora shooting which no one could of predicted.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Much like Terry Jones wasn't at all to blame when he burned Korans that eventually led to numerous people being murdered, Bill O'Reilly wasn't at all to blame by calling Tiller a "baby killer" before he was murdered, or various far-right pundits weren't at all to blame for vilifying Gabrielle Giffords before she was shot and six others were killed. They are all just coincidences.

Pentagon asks pastor to pull support of anti-Islam film

 

[Save_Ferris]

Ok, but the Bible doesn't 'say' specifically, anywhere, that it itself is not sacred then, it sounds like.

My church always talked about it that way, and since the Bible wasn't even written when its events happened, I don't know how it could say it was sacred.

 

[bugwar]

The difference is that one of them caused innocent people to die. Free speech is great and all but there is limits to it. Think of the fire in the theater example. The movie has created danger and the creator should be put on trial to determine if he is responsible for lives lost.

Interesting.

A guy makes a film in America.

Half a planet away, people want the film banned or they will start killing foreigners in their country.

Got it.

So American fundamentalists in the U.S. should tell the mullahs in the Middle East to stop proclaiming that Jesus was only a prophet or they will go on a rampage here?
And that makes the Middle Easterner's the bad guys in this instance for proclaiming their truth and therefore are responsible for the deaths overseas?

I don't think it works that way.
(Sure hope it doesn't, anyway)

 

[jtb1127]

. Note that it is not only US embassies which are being targeted.

That's not entirely accurate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/attacks-embassies-anti-islam-film

 

[Formaldehyde]

You are showing my statement is not entirely accurate by proving it is correct?

A wave of anger that saw British, German and American embassies in Khartoum attacked by rioters swept across the Muslim world with violent scenes playing out on streets from north Africa to south-east Asia.

 

[caketastydelish]

It's free speech. He has the right to make an anti-muslim movie if he wants.

I personally thought the whole thing was very stupid, so much so that I quit watching it in the middle.

There are plenty of people that bash Christianity, so I don't see why there can't be people that bash Islam.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There obviously can, just as people can continue to "bash" abortion doctors by calling them murderers, "bash" congressmen for merely representing the interest of their constituents and their party, and "bash" presidents for being Kenyan socialists regardless of what they actually are. It also means that it is going to provoke the occasional nut to murder a few people for really silly reasons.

 

[caketastydelish]

There obviously can, just as people can continue to "bash" abortion doctors by calling them murderers,

I disagree with them (I'm pro-choice) but they have the right to say that if that's what they think.

"bash" congressmen for merely representing the interest of their constituents and their party,

No one does this more than you.

and "bash" presidents for being Kenyan socialists regardless of what they actually are.

It took me a while to recognize the pattern, but see it now. What you are saying is only the right wing manipulates people. I'm leftist myself, but please stop kidding yourself.

It also means that it is going to provoke the occasional nut to murder a few people for really silly reasons.

Actually this isn't always the case. I've seen plenty of people say terrible things about Christianity, for example, but I haven't seen such uproar from western countries. So there ya go.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No one does this more than you.

I hardly think I provoke nutjobs to murder innocent people as a direct result. Do you? Can you understand the difference?

It took me a while to recognize the pattern, but see it now. What you are saying is only the right wing manipulates people. I'm leftist myself, but please stop kidding yourself.

Perhaps not.

 

[caketastydelish]

I hardly think I provoke nutjobs to murder innocent people as a direct result. Do you? Can you understand the difference?

That's because Republicans (the main people who you bash) are not necessarily dangerous, so much as simply stupid.

This isn't the case with fundamentalist Islam.

edit: What do you mean by perhaps not?

 

[Formaldehyde]

People do die as a direct result of these actions. It is that simple. Freedom of speech does not come cheaply. Many people continue to pay the price with their own lives, including diplomats, doctors, judges, and servicemen. Is that "necessarily dangerous", or just "simply stupid"?

 

[caketastydelish]

edit: nevermind

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why do you feel the need to continue to concoct such absurd notions of my opinions when I feel I have expressed them quite clearly? If you wish to discuss my actual opinions based on what I have posted, go right ahead.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Muslims rioting over this movie is a predictable outcome. No one seems surprised by it. This is in contrast to the Aurora shooting which no one could of predicted.

So Muslims should be feared for their temperament and affinity for violence, and the rest of the world should censor anything, in their own nations, that may upset them?!
Would this be a permanent solution? If so - is it because there's some aspect within Islam that prohibits change?
Or is this only a temporary concession to a set back people?