Two gunmen killed at cartoon contest

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think it's just a spectrum of willingness to follow through on doctrine... Some people are Christian only in so far as they self-identify as Christian. Some people are Christian to the point where they go to Church a few times a year. Some go every Sunday. Some go every Sunday, pray every night, participate in Church activities, and vote according to the religiosity of a particular political candidate. And some kill abortion doctors.

If you are religious, there are degrees to which your belief system affects how you live your life and how far you're willing to go.

With respect to doctrine, icons of the prophet are forbidden by the Qu'ran, but not specific punishment is provided. However, the Hadith, which forms the basis of much of Sharia and is also considered sacred, provide for a number of punishments and these vary based on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or not. If it is a non-Muslim, the majority view (among religious prescriptions, not among actual Muslims themselves) seems to be that your options are either to convert to Islam or be killed. Oddly, the Hadith seems to suggest that all pictures are bad (Angels don't seem to like pictures). I should note that this is just my understanding as I am not a Muslim.

Christianity isn't really a religion though. People don't go to Christian churches they go to Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc. The Catholics aren't really Christian IMO, their history is paradoxical in accordance to the so called Christian teachings e.g. Golden Rule contradicts crusades/inquisitions.

Not trying to offend but I just find religion a fascinating topic of research and when someone boils it down to they are just religious nutjobs it's so dismissive and narrow minded because they aren't just nutjobs, there's more to it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is it in any way racist?

They're not drawing pictures of all Muslims having sex with children, or anything like that, they're drawing a caricature of one person who is the prophet of the religion.

Even if it were, Islam is not a race. Islam is made up of so many different races, just characterizing criticisms of its doctrines as racist is in itself racist because it equates Muslims with Arabs.

The real criticism here is religious bigotry which depending on the content of the cartoons may be a valid criticism. However, criticism is really as far as you can take it.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Would this be more of a hate crime then a freedom of speech thing? It seems like there intent was to be racist is the disguise of freedom of speech.

It is funny to see how people in general respond to this or topic such as these cartoons and say it is freedom of speech. But when it comes to topics like sexism, there is a lot more angst and no freedom of speech talk.

Can you give me an example? I would like to think if someone shot up a feminist rally there would be a lot of people denouncing it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In order for there to have been a "hate crime", there must first be a "crime". For example, assaulting someone for being black has the "crime" element in the assault, and the "hate" element in the motivation.

Where was the crime here?


.

Corsi,

I don't think that there needs to be a physical component. Statements in a public place can be a hate crime in Canada, as can pictures or signs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Even if it were, Islam is not a race. Islam is made up of so many different races, just characterizing criticisms of its doctrines as racist is in itself racist because it equates Muslims with Arabs.

The real criticism here is religious bigotry which depending on the content of the cartoons may be a valid criticism. However, criticism is really as far as you can take it.

Yeah, I get that, my bad I really used an incorrect context.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is it in any way racist?

They're not drawing pictures of all Muslims having sex with children, or anything like that, they're drawing a caricature of one person who is the prophet of the religion.

Unless I missed something, this wasn't a convention where they described all people who aspire to that religion as terrorists or monsters or worse.

You're getting things confused here.

Its becoming way to easy to label things as racism or symptomatic racism.

Making fun of the prophet isn't racist, making fun of Christ or Ghandi or any religious diety isn't racist.

Saying that all Muslims for example are of low intelligence and predisposed to random acts of violence is, and I don't believe that was the message there.

you are purposely offending a large group of people, not all muslims but certain groups of muslims. You are specifically targeting a group of people to offend. Not specifically race but because of there religion.

I really think it is a group that is specifically trying to offend, not fight for freedom of speech. is not drawing cartoons affecting their freedoms, is it a slipper slope? No it is really basically one step away from a KKK style rally

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Christianity isn't really a religion though. People don't go to Christian churches they go to Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc. The Catholics aren't really Christian IMO, their history is paradoxical in accordance to the so called Christian teachings e.g. Golden Rule contradicts crusades/inquisitions.

This doesn't make sense to me either. Christianity has core tenets and then you have sects that believe different things. The same goes for Islam - the most well known sects being Sunni and Shia. Similarly, Islam is frequently cited for the doctrine "no compulsion in religion", yet there are other doctrines that lead Muslims to insist upon compelled conversion to Islam. These are similarities more than differences.

Not trying to offend but I just find religion a fascinating topic of research and when someone boils it down to they are just religious nutjobs it's so dismissive and narrow minded because they aren't just nutjobs, there's more to it.

Not sure where I "boiled it down" to "they are just religious nutjobs". However, the point remains that you cannot discount religious motivations. When someone says he's blowing himself up in a theatre for the glory of Allah, you have to at least concede that religious motivations exist for this behaviour.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Christianity isn't really a religion though. People don't go to Christian churches they go to Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc. The Catholics aren't really Christian IMO, their history is paradoxical in accordance to the so called Christian teachings e.g. Golden Rule contradicts crusades/inquisitions.

Not trying to offend but I just find religion a fascinating topic of research and when someone boils it down to they are just religious nutjobs it's so dismissive and narrow minded because they aren't just nutjobs, there's more to it.

Mental illness

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is it in any way racist?

They're not drawing pictures of all Muslims having sex with children, or anything like that, they're drawing a caricature of one person who is the prophet of the religion.

Unless I missed something, this wasn't a convention where they described all people who aspire to that religion as terrorists or monsters or worse.

You're getting things confused here.

Its becoming way to easy to label things as racism or symptomatic racism.

Making fun of the prophet isn't racist, making fun of Christ or Ghandi or any religious diety isn't racist.

Saying that all Muslims for example are of low intelligence and predisposed to random acts of violence is, and I don't believe that was the message there.

It's hard to tell without seeing the cartoons, but if they are anything like the Charlie Hebdo ones, then they are racist.

It's like the satirical cartoons from the 1930s that portrayed black people or Jews in Germany. Drawing a cartoon of a Jewish person or black person isn't necessarily racist, but there are lot of cartoons out there of Jews and black people that certainly are racist. Just like the Mohammed cartoons. Most of them use exaggerated racial features to make him look ugly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Corsi,

I don't think that there needs to be a physical component. Statements in a public place can be a hate crime in Canada, as can pictures or signs.

That's s.319 of the Criminal Code, which I distinguish from a "hate crime". A "hate crime" is an action that would otherwise be a crime that is motivated by hate. It's a thing in other jurisdictions, too, i.e. the USA, where s.319 would be unconstitutional.

Section 319 relates to incitement of hatred against a group like Muslims, which I would analogize to a neo-nazi rally where the extermination of Jews is promoted. The reason that's not okay is that it can in fact promote violence or quantifiable harm to such groups. However, if you were to draw an obviously anti-semitic cartoon, you would not be prosecuted under s.319, according to my understanding. In any event, this particular cartoon contest would fall under the exception in 319(3)(c).

319 is controversial, anyway. I think I'm still on board, but it's tough to know where to draw the line with something like that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This doesn't make sense to me either. Christianity has core tenets and then you have sects that believe different things. The same goes for Islam - the most well known sects being Sunni and Shia. Similarly, Islam is frequently cited for the doctrine "no compulsion in religion", yet there are other doctrines that lead Muslims to insist upon compelled conversion to Islam. These are similarities more than differences.

.

Corsi, All those "organizations" list be AcGold are Christian Churches.

Catholics = Christians
Protestant = Christians
Salvation Army = Christian
United = Christian


They are all Christian Churches.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I know. He seemed to be suggesting that Christianity wasn't really a religion but a bunch of religions with varying beliefs under one "Christian" umbrella. My point was that the same is true of Islam.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I know. He seemed to be suggesting that Christianity wasn't really a religion but a bunch of religions with varying beliefs under one "Christian" umbrella. My point was that the same is true of Islam.

Yeah well I think he is incorrect.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I guess it depends how you define a "religion". In the case of Islam, some Muslims consider certain portions of the Hadith to be sacred law that must be followed absolutely while other Muslims reject those portions entirely. Therefore, you have two groups of people who are "Muslims" but follow different sets of religious rules. Are they still part of the same religion?

It's probably just semantics. The more useful discussion is a) what do people believe, b) how many people believe that, and c) is that a good doctrine for people to follow.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I tend to disagree. Mohammed is sort of the problem. This isn't a Jesus figure; the guy was a warlord. And when you set such a person up as the epitome of human behaviour, problems will result.

Right, of course there's going to be problems. There's problems following something that anyone (including Jesus or Superman) says religiously. And is really a problem with humanity overall. But Mohammed's not here, bombing and killing people. People are doing it in his name, or Allah's name or God's name. People with extremist views, that their way is the only way and everyone else should change or be eradicated. Showing the absurdity of Mohammed or Islam doesn't help this issue. Showing the absurdities of the extremism is what's important. Which is why these cartoons should be targeting ISIS and other terrorist groups. Not Islam as a whole.

Not saying you can't do obscene caricatures of him or other religious figures, just that's it's kind of missing the mark.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tiger

you are purposely offending a large group of people, not all muslims but certain groups of muslims. You are specifically targeting a group of people to offend. Not specifically race but because of there religion.

I really think it is a group that is specifically trying to offend, not fight for freedom of speech. is not drawing cartoons affecting their freedoms, is it a slipper slope? No it is really basically one step away from a KKK style rally

Well considering that the average KKK rally was about whipping up violence against Blacks I don't think you're comparison is valid.

I still don't see how drawing a cartoon is an attack on their freedom to worship and follow their religion and their lives. In fact what's being advocated by the extremists is you don't have the right to do anything that makes us feel butt hurt.


If we take away the right to "offend" or we become over sensitive to the feelings of others, society doesn't change, as long as we aren't advocating violence against, or the dimishment of rights for.

A cartoon contest has nothing to do with the above.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I guess it depends how you define a "religion". In the case of Islam, some Muslims consider certain portions of the Hadith to be sacred law that must be followed absolutely while other Muslims reject those portions entirely. Therefore, you have two groups of people who are "Muslims" but follow different sets of religious rules. Are they still part of the same religion?

It's probably just semantics. The more useful discussion is a) what do people believe, b) how many people believe that, and c) is that a good doctrine for people to follow.

In my opinion yes. Look at the Christian religions, they all believe that a man (who was the son of god) magically appeared out of a virgins vagina. After many years of carpentry he decides to announce his real identity, is killed, then come back to life a few days later only to float up to heaven on a cloud.

That belief is Key.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

MattyC, I agree with your overall point, but I'm not sure I agree with this:

Showing the absurdities of the extremism is what's important. Which is why these cartoons should be targeting ISIS and other terrorist groups. Not Islam as a whole.

The cartoons target one particular doctrine of Islam - anti-iconography and the prescribed consequences thereof. They don't target Islam as a whole (at least not without knowing their contents). This contest would not exist if there were not people willing to kill you (or do other bad things to you beyond denouncing you) simply for creating an icon of the prophet. That's a particular doctrine that is a bad thing for people to believe, and is in itself "extreme" at least by my definition.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a religion - a set of religious principles - and look at individual principles and say, "this is a bad thing to believe".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

In my opinion yes. Look at the Christian religions, they all believe that a man (who was the son of god) magically appeared out of a virgins vagina. After many years of carpentry he decides to announce his real identity, is killed, then come back to life a few days later only to float up to heaven on a cloud.

That belief is Key.

Are Mormons Christian? They believe all of this, but a lot of Christians would say, no, Mormons aren't Christian.

Anyway, I don't think it's a useful argument. I don't really care what label you put on a set of beliefs so much as the beliefs themselves.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Corsi, All those "organizations" list be AcGold are Christian Churches.

Catholics = Christians
Protestant = Christians
Salvation Army = Christian
United = Christian


They are all Christian Churches.

Disagree, there is an inherent paradox. I can't call myself a guitar player if I never play guitar, it means nothing. A church is not Christian if there is a core contradiction or paradox. They do not follow supposed christian ideals so how are they Christian? I can call myself whatever I want, if there's an inherent logical paradox it's unlikely to be true.

The Bible says no idolatry but in the middle of so-called Christian churches there are idols. Paradox nullifies etymology of name attributed.