| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Not in my name. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 11 2015, 05:00 PM (670 Views) | |
| Tytoalba | Jan 11 2015, 05:00 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I watched the BBC! programme today called 'The big question' basically a multi racial, multi cultural, multi religion, programme on matters of today, and the discussion n was about freedoms of expression events in France. One white journalist was coldly angry at the views being presented by another of the panel, who was opposing the printing of pictures of the Prophet Mohamed He said he had a journalist colleague who wanted to print a picture of Mohamed dressed in a T shirt with the words printed across it 'NOT IN MY NAME' but was afraid to do so in fear of repercussions. Hardly offensive, derogatory or provocative was it ? Now had a depiction of Christ , the Virgin Mary, a Hindu god, a Buda, Sikh Holy man. or of any other religion, all wearing T shits or bannerd with the words NOT IN MY NAME in response to the killings and shootings in in France they would have been viewed with tolerance and sympathy , with in most cases an understanding of the purpose and intent with no resentments. If no more cartoons or depictions are printed or displayed of the Prophet Mohammad due to fear, and to strengthen the power and enforcement of their religion, then the terrorists have achieved their purpose ,and their actions will be seen as justified by the more radical followers of the peaceful religion. JE SUIS CHARLEE |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 05:59 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
It would appear that most if not all muslims are offended by any picture of Mohammed let alone one with a logo that is used to make a point. So what do you think will be achieved by offending every muslim to make a point about muslim extremists? |
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 11 2015, 06:16 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A quick check of the European press reveals a lot of mainstream continental newspapers running the apparently offensive cartoons featured in CH, the only national press not doing so as far as I can see is the British version! And anyone "concerned" about the Islamification of Western Europe should take heart from the mass demonstrations in support of democracy and freedom of expression currently in progress. Frankly Islam has not got a hope in hell in undoing this. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 06:25 PM Post #4 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quite. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was appalling but that does not make us all Charlie. I support their and other magazines' right to post cartoons that would have offended so many but I don't like it that they did it knowing so many would be offended. Sorry Tyto but je ne suis pas Charlie just like I wasn't an American after 9/11 either. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 06:41 PM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
I wish I could agree. Please dont take this wrong but it would take only one fragmentation bomb to put a stop to a mass demonstration and even millions of people marching and singing will not cowl these radical muslims. The point is that they sincerely believe that they have a real grievance and a few thousand people telling everyone that they are charlie will not stop them. |
|
|
| Rich | Jan 11 2015, 06:46 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Persuade them to go and live in a country that shares their views...........and I MEAN persuade. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 06:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Why?Are you saying that all homosexuals should go back to..eh..gayland if they dont like being ridiculed or that we should be able to laugh at Arabs and call them sand niggers ( and if they dont jolly well like it they can go back home?) You simply dont get it do you? |
|
|
| krugerman | Jan 11 2015, 07:15 PM Post #8 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This issue is not straight forward I watched a Muslim lady been interviewed in France on France24 TV, she said that whilst she unreservedly condemns the terrorists and what they did, she also said that she did not think it was right for Charlie Hebdo to insult Muslims by depicting Mohamed, and by ridiculing God (Mohamed) in picture form - something which is strictly forbidden and regarded as blasphemous. Are we saying that because Europe is a mostly or mainly Christian and atheist, and that because we do not regard depicting God as insulting, therefore it dosent matter about the feelings of those from minority faiths. What if newspapers depicted a Rabbi as a pig, or joked about Hindu recipes for steak pie, or how about an advert for nails showing someone hammering nails into someone on a cross. Is there not such a thing as respect for other people s beliefs, and is it really necessary to push the limits by upsetting sections of society. ? The other day a Labour councillor had to apologise for showing a picture of Cameron s road to recovery leading to Auschwitz, but wait a minute, I thought we had freedom of press and freedom of expression / speech. For the record I am somewhat undecided on this one, except to say that as an atheist I would not go out of my way to offend or insult YOUR deeply held religious beliefs. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 07:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well said. |
|
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 11 2015, 07:57 PM Post #10 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The interesting thing about the twelfth of september was the number of people getting the hell out of afghanistan before the bombers came ... Which is probably why if you look hard enough you can find a picture of a bunch of islamics allegedly from tge place those thugs came from holding up a poster saying "not in my name" in french. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 08:27 PM Post #11 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
seconded |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 08:35 PM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
Sorry to be thick but are you referring to the US pulling out of Afghanistan. |
|
|
| nute | Jan 11 2015, 09:06 PM Post #13 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A basic right of the society we live in is freedom of speech. It is not something which should be open to modification just because the exercising of this right offends a particular segment of society. If those that are offended feel strongly enough they are free to use the democratic process to try to have this freedom modified. To try to do so by intimidation is unacceptable. Whats next, bacon for sale in Tesco's to be kept out of sight with the cigarettes just in case it offends vegetarians... or muslims? There have historically been pictures of Mohamed, the world has not ended. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 11 2015, 09:15 PM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
Maybe we shouldnt keep the bacon out of sight but should we have cartoons in the papers depicting Jews gorging bacon and calling them hypocritical Christ killers? Where does freedom of expression end and outright insulting start. A football manager was reprimanded just the other week for saying that Jews follow money and he used to call Chinese people chinks. So why tolerate ( or even encourage)insulting muslim core beliefs? |
|
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 11 2015, 09:37 PM Post #15 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No I was thinking more of the weay afghan's were trying to get the hell out of it after the attack on the twin towers and BEFORE the americans started the carpet bombing ... |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 11 2015, 10:01 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But their religious beliefs are verifiable stupid. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 11 2015, 10:08 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are, but you cannot reason with those who have "faith". It scares them. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Jan 11 2015, 11:49 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The phrase means, basically, a belief in free expression and actions within the law, be it with words or in print or by gestures, That freedom is for all races, all cultures and all religions to practice, Obviously we should consider the feelings and sensibilities of everyone, but that should not be by suppression of fear. Incidentally .there are no original accurate pictures or paintings of any God, , Jesus Christ or the prophet Mohammed, so any can only be in the imagination. Many people have no beliefs at all, and to them it is all nonsenses and meaningless. No religion should be seen as superior to all others, or try to dominate that of another or to impose its religious doctrines on others by any means other than by reason or persuasion certainly not by imposition of will or by force. We must not be intimidated by others political or religious beliefs .from doing or saying what we believe to be right. and in our best interests as a people even if it causes offence. Je suis Charlie the principle involved, and you have the right to disagree . BTW, so much for the rich tapestry of multiculture, for the undertones in France, with its stories of anti-Semitism, and the divisions that exist with the rise of the right wing party and our own needs to be vigilant against terrorist attacks, does not bode well for peace in the immediate future. IMO |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Jan 11 2015, 11:59 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do not assume that other posters have any deep religious beliefs, and it seems that those worshiping a Christian God is declining by the day. Over sensitivity on any issue is creating r more and more, restrictions, and is in effect curtailing free speech and expression at every turn. Good manners and courtesy to others should be sufficient for the need, but we all need to be tolerant of others bad manners or errors of judgement, ,and have the emotional strength and self confidence to disregard them |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 12 2015, 12:12 AM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sticks and stones etc......it's time certain sectors of society grew up. |
![]() |
|
| nute | Jan 12 2015, 07:39 AM Post #21 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
People should be able to say what they want, period. As long as it is not encouraging violence and hatred as far as im concerned its part of the society we live in. Is it going to now be unacceptable to call fat people fat because it offends them? Pretty much any action will offend some one somewhere. The cartoons which apparently offend are just cartoons, if you object to them don't read them. If enough people object to them then there will be no market for the papers which carry them. If people are that offended by a basic freedom of our society they are free to move elsewhere. The magazine in question was pretty insulting to Christ as well, as someone who views himself as deeply christian to me its just a cartoon, i don't look at it. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 12 2015, 08:17 AM Post #22 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"People should be able to say what they want" This simplistic answer, if implemented, would cause havoc and mayhem, what about defamation and slander, sub judicae, treason, risk to national interest, perjury, false testimony, incitement to riot, incitement to religious or racial hatred. Free speech is very precious, so much so that it must have rules and guidelines as to its use, or misuse, it cannot be used as a tool to hide behind in order to compromise either the law, common decency or morality, it has to have limitations. A free society does not mean anyone can go around doing what they want, and the same applies to free speech, people should not be allowed to say whatever they want. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 12 2015, 11:44 AM Post #23 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Jan 12 2015, 01:14 PM Post #24 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The point surely is that if one lives in a country where freedom of expression is curtailed according to that nations religious or political persuasions, then trying to freely express criticism of either is foolhardy, and not to be recommended. If, on the other hand, one voluntarily chooses to live in a nation which does not hold such scruples, and in which freedom to criticise, and to lampoon is the norm, then one should either accept that nations way of life, or move to one more in step with ones prejudices. A minority should never be allowed to stifle debate and free speech on threat of a violent reaction. |
![]() |
|
| pladecalvo | Jan 12 2015, 03:41 PM Post #25 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, but nor should we tolerate them simply because they are 'deeply held religious beliefs.' I don't think we should make any special category for the class of ideas called "religion". They should be treated like any other idea. If a theory or philosophy makes sense, then it should be applauded. If it is silly, it should be ridiculed. Stupid theories about science, history, or philosophy should not be able to hide behind the skirt of religion to avoid criticism. If a person advocates a theory that the earth is flat, it shouldn't matter to me whether he got that from religion, bad parenting, or his own silly logic. It is a wrong idea, and it should be labelled as such. Similarly, if a person tells me they think the earth popped into existence in 7 days, it shouldn't matter to me if that came from a religious training, his own personal theory, etc. A stupid idea should rightfully be called stupid, and immediately discarded. Religion shouldn't be a shield used to protect and legitimate stupid ideas. I side with Mencken. "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge... ." — H L Mencken |
![]() |
|
| nute | Jan 12 2015, 04:25 PM Post #26 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Im sure you know very well what i meant, i.e. what we have now, unfettered by the threat of intimidation or violence. I fully accept that the limits placed by law are there for good reasons, but simply that you risk offending someone is not adequate reason for limiting free speech ... as then it isn't free speech is it. |
![]() |
|
| nute | Jan 12 2015, 04:45 PM Post #27 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Insult away, fill your boots, crack on... My beliefs are my beliefs, I am entitled to them as your are entitled to yours. You can voice your opinions on mine or anyone else's* as you please ... its one of the defining freedoms of our society. *Just to avoid pedantic misinterpretation these are subject to current UK law and must not incite racial hatred, incite or glorify terrorism, outraging public decency, dissemination of terrorist publications, incitement to breach of the peace, treason, perjury, threatening behaviour, corruption of public morals , meh - look the rest up yourself Edited by nute, Jan 12 2015, 04:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 12 2015, 05:12 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know of a case where a teenage lad went onto facebook angry after being bullied and puched by another bigger lad - he wrote 'I'll stab him next time I see him". The next day he was visited by the police and cautioned - after his comment had been copied and delivered to the police as a complaint. How many of us have never made violent threats to others at some time, either to their face or in conversation with others? Edited by Affa, Jan 12 2015, 05:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 12 2015, 06:01 PM Post #29 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lets be clear about this, how can one 'insult' something that does not exist, or, is the product of one's imagination? You simply cannot insult that which does not exist, which is why having the law involved in such situations is ridiculous. For heavens sake, 'religion' is filled with 'iconography', it is an 'art-form', as is the embodiment of an 'image' of the Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, or anything else, it is nothing to be offended about, it has, like everything else, to be 'questioned'. Likewise, one can 'question', criticise Charlie Hebdo's cartoon characterisation of any of the above without causing offence to them. There is no 'right' to be 'offended' or 'insulted' when people offend 'your own' acceptance of the depiction of some FICTIONAL character. 'Muslims', like many others, need to get 'real'. What happened in France is like two people having an argument, one cannot win by 'reason' so resorts to violence to 'win' the argument. In order to win without further challenge, the person kills the other. TWO points arise from that, one, if you use 'violence' to 'win' an argument, 'reason' says that you have 'lost' the argument. Secondly, by resorting to violence, you are essentially saying that, not only have you lost the argument through 'reason'(logic), you are also a 'LOSER', as was proved in France. These terrorist were 'LOSER'S', because they 'lost' the argument & their reasoning. They could NOT even 'win' by becoming 'martyrs', because their 'cause' was 'unjust' & absolutely lacking in 'logic'. These people acted as terrorist over NOTHING, that's 'illogical'. 'Religion' is a BIG 'FAIL'. Case CLOSED. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 12 2015, 06:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 12 2015, 08:25 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Surely as a matter of fairness and equality in ANY society, if a person has the right to defend his/hers beliefs, then another person has the right to challenge them, I do not see non believers killing believers but I do see believers killing non believers and not in their own non secular homelands either but in the heartlands of Christian countries. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 12 2015, 09:13 PM Post #31 |
|
Deleted User
|
Facepalm.....
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 12 2015, 09:16 PM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
Is it unacceptable to mock homosexual people because it offends them? How about black people? Maybe you would like people to mock them? |
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 12 2015, 09:21 PM Post #33 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not unacceptable to mock people's beliefs, it's not applaudable though Edited by Steve K, Jan 12 2015, 09:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 12 2015, 09:33 PM Post #34 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, but nor should we tolerate them simply because they are 'deeply held religious beliefs.' I don't think we should make any special category for the class of ideas called "religion". They should be treated like any other idea. [/quote] This. Your beliefs, because that is what they are cannot override my right to criticise them, it's essentially illogical. Those with thin skins can be invited to F O. Edited by Tigger, Jan 12 2015, 09:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 12 2015, 09:51 PM Post #35 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For what it's worth; A comment on The Big Question on TV was that religion in the West "has to thank secularism for giving us freedom of speech". Secularism may not have the same effect on all religions. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 12 2015, 09:57 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tough, if you choose to live in a free and secular country you need to modify your outlook or sod off. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 12 2015, 09:58 PM Post #37 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think we should tolerate people poking wasps nests too. What I wouldnt tolerate is them whining if they are stung. All of those people holding cards up saying' Je suis Charlie hebdo' should cross this out and write I am fecking glad I am not Charlie hebdo because they have been slaughtered by fanatics who they offended. I am pretending to be Charlie hebdo and will keep pretending until it becomes dangerous for me....in French of course. As long as other people suffer the consequences , I, like you will support the the right of some people to insult ideas other people hold dear. That OK? |
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 12 2015, 10:07 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not about others suffering the consequences, I'd imagine that the vast majority of those on than rally in Paris yesterday were sincere in their belief that you must make a stand against a nihilistic sub culture that would tear down most of what you hold dear. if you took every single person to one side and held a gun to their head and asked them to reconsider you'd doubtless get large numbers cowering before the caliphate. But that is not going to happen. Ever. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 12 2015, 11:15 PM Post #39 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you dont give much weight to nick cleggs lbc outburst on the matter tgen. The issue is, for me, VERY straightforward. I don't live in an islamic caliphate and only in such a place is the sort of reaction to those cartoons that we have seen "lawful". A chap in Saudi is currently finding out the hard way that what can be said in london may not always be said in jeddah, islamabad, damascus, or berlin. I am still allowed to call a spade a spade. Jezza Clarkson however may have problems in so doing if his next top gear special ends in a ghanain mudbath. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 12 2015, 11:27 PM Post #40 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The cover of this weeks upcoming Charlie Hebdo has been released
Edited by Steve K, Jan 12 2015, 11:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:33 PM Jul 11