If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
If there was a cartoon of Muhammad with an erection...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49925
(Image censored by the above source).
There would have been riots. Just a good thing it's not Muhammad really or the university might have been burnt down.
(Image censored by the above source).
There would have been riots. Just a good thing it's not Muhammad really or the university might have been burnt down.
0
Comments
Another intelligent point. :thumb:
Are you offended by the image or something? I didn't know you were religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection
I think there's also the difference between Christian and Moslem attitudes to representation of Mohammed and Jesus. My understanding that all representations of Mohammed are considered sacrilegous, whether they are meant to be satirical or praise him. Within Christianity there is no religous rule on pictures of Christ - it may be tasteless, but there is nothing in Christian thought which actively prohibits it.
We all know that the immense, overwhelming majority of Muslims don't run riot or burn buildings.
Just as the immense, overwhelming majority of Christians don't plant bombs on abortion clinics or shoot doctors.
Are you trying to suggest any different? Or just stir a bit of shit?
You're (very) thinly veiled bigotry gets wearing after a while.
You've asked "most Muslims" have you?
The latter minority that you describe is tiny whereas the former minority (as the cartoons controversy, Salmon Rushdie and other events have shown) is enormous.
There are many people who frequently equate Islamism with forms of Christianity that they dislike and imply that the extremism in Islam is equivalent to the extremism within Christianity. When generalising by contrasting the behaviour of many Christians to the behaviour of many Muslims that is clearly not the case.
Before when?
Hmmmmm. We're currently slaughtering people in Iraq in the name of Christianity.
Are we? Despite what Ann Coulter says I'm pretty sure that's not our war aim.
Bush and Blair aren't Christian's? Right wing Christian theology doesn't influence Bush's agenda at all? You sure about that?
That had "most Muslims" rioting did it? Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world?
Perhaps you should campaign for bigger and more violent Christian extremists- that way everyone would be happy and Christians wouldn't be left out.
Because every time a Christian takes offence at something and says ''I bet they wouldn't do that to the Muslims'' you can feel they're just wishing that Christians had a far more violent and proactive extremist division so people would not dare to speak ill of their faith.
What's the point of this thread
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=106406
or this
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=106381
or this
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=106589
or this
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=102807
I could go. But Dis isn't the only person who starts a thread to make a political point is he?
Irrelevant if they're Christians or not. Just because the majority on one side our Christians and the others are Moslems doesn't make mean that the war is in the name of Christianity.
I suspect Bush's agenda is more influenced by geostrategic considerations and also a wish to finish a job that his Dad didn't finish (and almost certainly influenced by Saddam's attempt to assissnate Bush Snr).
Blair's may be slightly more influenced by 'muscular Christianity'. Even before Iraq he had shown an inclination to send in troops to sort out despots and for a 'civilising' mission (re Kosovo and Sierra Leone). That said I suspect his main influence is the 'Special Relationship'.
Certainly I don't think either man feels that God would disapprove of their actions, but its a big jump to assume its motivated by Christianity (especially given many in Blair's Cabinet who supported the war are agnostic or atheist).
What on earth have threds talking about current events got to do with a thread that name- drops a group that has fuck all to do with a story, for the sole purpose of smearing the said group?
Can't you really see the difference?
I'm wondering why you think its irrelevant.
No. I think Dis brings up a valid point. That's it seems alright to smear one religion, but when you smear another a bunch of reactionary zealots start screaming from the high heavens.
Admittedly I think Dis gets it wrong, because most of these zealots aren't in fact Moslems, but a rather so called left-wingers.
I'm wondering why you think they're being slaughtered in the name of Christianity.
That's not the same thing as war in the name of Christianity.
Er, no. Nobody has complained to my knowledge of anyone smearing, insulting or scorning the fanatics who burn embassies and wish death upon others.
People however tend to complain when there are attempts, subtle or otherwise, to tar all members of a religion with the same brush and pretend everyone (or even large numbers) from a certain faith are dangerous fundamentalists.
So what if a few deluded idiots would have tried to burn a building if someone had drawn Muhammad with a hard on? The immense majority of Muslims wouldn't. So the only logical explanation for the creation of this thread in my view is that Disillusioned is trying to tell us that fundie Muslims are more violent than Christian fundies. No argument there, and not exactly breaking news to anyone either.
Unless of course the purpose of the thread was completely different...
Yawn.
What on earth are you on about?
No comment
*yawn*
Quite the opposite actually. Neo-cons essentially believe in a secular economic liberal world which is all part of the great globalisation scheme. Contrary to what people might think, it's an idealist philosophy, what's good for them is good for us. They thought that they could overthrow Sadam, install a democracy and that would help freer trade between the two countries (so the whole issue of oil must not be discounted.) Unfortunately, it all went belly up because it's these are the sort of ideals that really the Middle East don't want, their ideas of sovereignty are much stronger than ours, hence the hell hole Iraq is today.
Right wing Christain philosophy doesn't really play a part here.
As not to derail the thread, I think these pictures are stupid but I've seen them all before, I've heard all the jokes about Jesus. Dis put this in as a cheap shot on how Muslims tend to react much more vehemently to the desecration of their religion than Christains do. Whoop de doo, who cares?