So’s Maoman and he does. So’s my little sister and she CERTAINLY does. And I’ve seen you use that pic of the thumbs-up Jeesus figurine from Dogma, so you do, too.[/quote]
Busted. I guess I saw that “good” satire. off to write 100x “I will watch what I say” on the blackboard 
[/quote]
Use a whiteboard. They’re cleaner.[/quote]
how do you know? Did you do a test?
[quote=“Maoman”]What’s interesting is that the reason Muslims don’t allow images of Mohammed is because they’re afraid it might lead to idolatry. I don’t see much danger of that in the current “Draw Mohammed” Day. The spirit of the law seems to me to remain intact.
With regards to the mainstream discussion, I’m going to go in favour of free speech. There are so many controversial/offensive topics and practices in the world that to avoid them all is practically impossible. Just think of how we’d have to act if we decided to bend the world to the Old and New Testaments and the edicts within? Does Islam get a special pass on tolerance and forebearance? Is it that weak? I don’t think so.[/quote]
Sorry to call BS on your big day, boss, but, first off, yeah, imagine if everyone followed the Commandments.
Are you arguing that the world wouldn’t be a better place if everyone just followed those (roughly) 10 simple directives?
I can’t really imagine how it could be anything but a good thing.
Second, and more to the point here, I’m sure you’re going to reference the dictates to the Jews as contained in Leviticus, the laborious and fanatically detailed list of rules and regulations for, first, Temple operations, and then daily practices for the Israelites.
The fact is, and this is kind of the point, these rules & regs, along with thousands more contained elsewhere in the Tanach and the Talmud, are followed religiously (if you will) by millions worldwide every day.
And simple human decency would seem to suggest that flaunting a disregard for those edicts, and, commensurately, ridiculing those who follow them, is heinously disrespectful.
I get mental images of Sturmabteilung thugs gleefully lopping peyos locks off of old Hasidim in 1930’s Germany.
Nobody gets hurt, it’s all in good fun, nothing is, after all, sacred.
Nobody’s suggesting that Islam get a pass, quite the contrary.
the chief, Could Monty Python possibly do an Islamic version of “Life of Brian”? Why not? The original was very funny. Are Muslims more fragile? The Old and New Testaments aren’t THAT different from the Koran, are they? Are some ancient middle eastern religions to be regarded with more delicacy than others?
With regards to offending people, I understand. I don’t make Jesus jokes at the dinner table when I’m having dinner with my fundamentalist uncle (he’s the black sheep of the clan). But if he started a group wanting to ban depictions and/or satire of Jesus I’d tell him to stick it. Who wants to live with the threat of a Fatwah hanging over your head?
[quote=“Maoman”]the chief, Could Monty Python possibly do an Islamic version of “Life of Brian”? Why not? The original was very funny. Are Muslims more fragile? The Old and New Testaments aren’t THAT different from the Koran, are they? Are some ancient middle eastern religions to be regarded with more delicacy than others?
With regards to offending people, I understand. I don’t make Jesus jokes at the dinner table when I’m having dinner with my fundamentalist uncle (he’s the black sheep of the clan). But if he started a group wanting to ban depictions and/or satire of Jesus I’d tell him to stick it. Who wants to live with the threat of a Fatwah hanging over your head?[/quote]
There’s a big difference between LOB, which, as anyone who’s seen it knows (and granted, like most of these things, the biggest stink was made by people who HADN’T seen it and didn’t care to know what it was really about), had virtually nothing to do with Jesus at all, rather it sought to satirise the wide variety of stupidities exercised by humans in the name of religious belief. At which, I would say, it was enormously successful, and quite hilariously so.
Bad example.
Here’s a better one for you.
How’s about I start a thread collecting stills from, and discussing the hardcore porno “Jesus and Mary: The Naughty Nativity” (I’m not making this up), or the gay pornie from the 70’s where Jesus and the Apostles have a Last Orgy (Again, I’m not making this up)?
Followers of Islam take the non-representation of The Prophet (peace be upon him) very, very seriously.
Just like our Catholic brothers and sisters take the way Mary is presented very seriously.
Fact is, Christian folk don’t get all that excited, usually, at pictures or other graphic representations of Jesus, it ain’t the same.
Islam, however, does, which is why this whole deal is especially offensive.
Imagine the hilarity that would ensue if I were to announce that it was Tell A Dirty Joke About Mary Day.
Or this knee-slapper: International Say The Creator’s Name Out Loud Day.
Priceless.
[quote=“drifter”][quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“drifter”]Guess what…we don’t live in a Muslim world. non-Muslims can draw cartoons of Mohammad all day long if they want to. If someone doesn’t like it, it’s their problem.
.[/quote]
Practice the golden rule on this one, but don’t cry when you get slapped back.[/quote]
You really think it all about something so childish as slapping and making fun? What rights we don’t exercise we lose. Muslims have no right to enforce their rules on the rest of the world yet they do.
[/quote]
[quote]Huh? Evidently it is about making fun. Have a Draw Muhammad day. What’s that? Religious Satire. Satire=making fun of something. Sure we can exercise all the rights we have in the world, but that still doesn’t excuse the responsibility we must take for exercising those rights. If it’s in my right to carry a concealed weapon does that mean I have the right to use it when I see fit?
Truth be told, I think it’s a form of racism/bigotry and/or imperialism thinking that is giving certain people the idea that they mock this Islamic rule. This isn’t about idealism but rather working from a premise of : If I don’t want shit, don’t start shit. [/quote]
After the Muslim cartoons the entirety of western civilization was targeted (more like re-targeted) for utter annihilation by Muslim extremists the world over. We are going to let these people tell us what we can and can’t publish in our own free presses? We are going to cower and cave to every errant threat like we are already subservient to their rules? Do I need to explain more? are you simply blind?
You are equating the rules of a country with the rules of a religion/philosophy…there is a huge difference between the two and if you can’t recognize that you might want to stop and think. :loco:
If the world was a nice place where we all share we wouldn’t need to discuss this, there wouldn’t be any disagreement, there wouldn’t be any Muslim cartoons or Muslims that want to kill us and totally destroy western civilization, all the wars in the world never would have happened, the atomic bombs / nukes wouldn’t exist, the US wouldn’t be in Iraq stealing oil, China wouldn’t have missiles pointed at Taiwan, ad infinitum…
And to the people who wear their religions on their sleeve and get worked up about cartoons of any sort: Shoulden’t your religion be the source of your peace and confidence? Shouldn’t the transcendent values of your religion teach you that a damn cartoon doesn’t make and bit of difference? If all it takes is a cartoon to freak you out you might want to think what your religion does for you or if you are even following it to the fullest. And no religion has the right to claim the rest of civilization by blood and sword, cartoons or not, the very concept is completely anti-religious.
[quote=“the chief”]Imagine the hilarity that would ensue if I were to announce that it was Tell A Dirty Joke About Mary Day.
Or this knee-slapper: International Say The Creator’s Name Out Loud Day.[/quote]
I can’t imagine much of a response; what do you think would happen? Death threats, rioting? Six million versions of “meh” on the Internet?
Some things are incredibly offensive to certain people for reasons we may not always understand. Some mainland Chinese get all bent out of shape if you suggest that Taiwan is independent for some reason. I almost got into a fight with a Canadian when I suggested there might be many similarities between his country and the US. People who use one brand of computer or camera that will stoop to the lowest of lows in insulting the users of a competing brand.
Well played Poagao.
There’s a big difference between LOB, which, as anyone who’s seen it knows (and granted, like most of these things, the biggest stink was made by people who HADN’T seen it and didn’t care to know what it was really about), had virtually nothing to do with Jesus at all, rather it sought to satirise the wide variety of stupidities exercised by humans in the name of religious belief. At which, I would say, it was enormously successful, and quite hilariously so.
Bad example.[/quote]
So you think then that even a milder parody of Islam would be met with no more objection that LOB was? I don’t think so. I think Life of Brian is a good analogy.
[quote=“the chief”]How’s about I start a thread collecting stills from, and discussing the hardcore porno “Jesus and Mary: The Naughty Nativity” (I’m not making this up), or the gay pornie from the 70’s where Jesus and the Apostles have a Last Orgy (Again, I’m not making this up)?
Followers of Islam take the non-representation of The Prophet (peace be upon him) very, very seriously.
Just like our Catholic brothers and sisters take the way Mary is presented very seriously.
Well, we don’t do ANY porno on Forumosa, more’s the pity, so no,that wouldn’t work. But I support your right to buy or view pretty much any kind of porn that floats your boat, as long as there aren’t minors involved and all the participants are consensual. Here’s something that I could tolerate, if not exactly support - a discussion and a depiction of the controversial and offensive [wikipedia]Piss Christ[/wikipedia]. I don’t like it, but that’s ok. Not everybody agrees with me that the executed son of a middle east carpenter should be given special consideration, and I don’t think I should impose my sensitivities on other people. I would certainly lose respect for someone who, knowing my religion, went out of their way to personally offend me. Putting a picture of it on my desk would qualify. Putting it up in an art gallery would not.
What is the accepted price to pay for being a boor? A Fatwah? Or just being ignored? What is the superior response in a multi-cultural, diverse global village? Sure, it’s easy to toe the line when you’re living in a Taliban village in Afghanistan. Do we bring the same rules over to Toronto or Taipei, though? I believe that tolerance should be held in higher esteem than intolerance. Yes, this exposes us to the possibility of being offended. That’s something that mature people and mature societies just have to deal with.
[quote=“the chief”]
Second, and more to the point here, I’m sure you’re going to reference the dictates to the Jews as contained in Leviticus, the laborious and fanatically detailed list of rules and regulations…
Nobody gets hurt, it’s all in good fun, nothing is, after all, sacred.[/quote]
Leviticus is very violent, with strict rules about how to handle slaves and wayward daughters and blasphemers. plenty of stonings and authorized killings.
[quote=“igorveni”]I am utterly amazed at the fact that so many people are completely unaware of the principal of respecting other people. I am actually flabbergasted by that.
With all the hatred in our world today, your little mocking and nagging doesn’t help peace. But hey, it’s your freedom of speech right? So, go ahead, mock others and draw cartoons if it makes you more human. Good for you all.[/quote]
If one knows they don’t like, why do it? That’s not free speech. It’s being a dickhead.
Reminds me of the guy who writes “GOD HATES FAGS” on placards and exercises his free speech at dead soldiers’ funerals.
MOCK THE MOCKERS!!
To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerance. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone a renaissance or have modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. 
And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.
[quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerace. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone and renaissance or modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
Dude, 1,000 years ago, people lived to what age? 35?
I won’t argue your last point, but I will ask, why not simply mock Muslim people/communities that still practice this behavior? Why go for the dead guy?
[quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerace. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone and renaissance or modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
Dude, 1,000 years ago, people lived to what age? 35?
I won’t argue your last point, but I will ask, why not simply mock Muslim people/communities that still practice this behavior? Why go for the dead guy?[/quote]
Look, people may have lived shorter lives in the 700s, but people certainly didn’t mature or go through puberty all that earlier, if earlier at all. To me, societies practicing that religion haven’t evolved all that much since the 700s, especially in their treatment of women. It was bad then and it’s bad now. And when you have the founder of such a religion adhering to such filthy habits, it doesn’t bode well for modernizing.
[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerace. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone and renaissance or modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
Dude, 1,000 years ago, people lived to what age? 35?
I won’t argue your last point, but I will ask, why not simply mock Muslim people/communities that still practice this behavior? Why go for the dead guy?[/quote]
Look, people may have lived shorter lives in the 700s, but people certainly didn’t mature or go through puberty all that earlier, if at all. To me, societies practicing that religion haven’t evolved all that much since the 700s, especially in their treatment of women. It was bad then and it’s bad now. And when you have the founder of such a religion adhering to such filthy habits, it doesn’t bode well for modernizing.[/quote]
Jesus was quite the drinker, from what I read.
[quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerance. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone a renaissance or have modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
You know free speech is a Western practice like female circumcision is an African practice. I would have no problem arguing for the right of Afghan and other Middle Eastern artists desiring to draw satires of Muhammad. The best jokes are the ones made at one’s expense.
But instead, it’s non-Muslims arguing a right to satire a religion they don’t practice. Which occurs to me, like men making jokes about women. If you’ve never been one how can you really not say it’s not offensive? There’s some underlying intent there to do some sort of harm at someone’s expense.
How about this-- At Western entry points we have fatwa free zones. And in the Middle East we continue to have non free speech zones. Stay in your corner of the sandbox until you learn how to play. 
[quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerace. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone and renaissance or modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
Dude, 1,000 years ago, people lived to what age? 35?
I won’t argue your last point, but I will ask, why not simply mock Muslim people/communities that still practice this behavior? Why go for the dead guy?[/quote]
Look, people may have lived shorter lives in the 700s, but people certainly didn’t mature or go through puberty all that earlier, if at all. To me, societies practicing that religion haven’t evolved all that much since the 700s, especially in their treatment of women. It was bad then and it’s bad now. And when you have the founder of such a religion adhering to such filthy habits, it doesn’t bode well for modernizing.[/quote]
Jesus was quite the drinker, from what I read.[/quote]
Where is that scripture? That I would love to see, so I can justify my alcohol intake to my pastor.
[quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“hardball”][quote=“Chewycorns”]To me, while not finding the cartoons all that funny, it is a matter of free speech and the broader question of permitting society to question religion without the threat of sanctions or intimidation. As was demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, many states in the world do not allow such freedom or tolerace. To me, that is evident in societies that have not undergone and renaissance or modernized.
What I find more objectionable is actually how Mohammed lived his life. Life of violence combined with marrying underage girls in the single digits. And not a lot has changed when it comes to the rights of women in most societies ruled by Islamic law.[/quote]
Dude, 1,000 years ago, people lived to what age? 35?
I won’t argue your last point, but I will ask, why not simply mock Muslim people/communities that still practice this behavior? Why go for the dead guy?[/quote]
Look, people may have lived shorter lives in the 700s, but people certainly didn’t mature or go through puberty all that earlier, if at all. To me, societies practicing that religion haven’t evolved all that much since the 700s, especially in their treatment of women. It was bad then and it’s bad now. And when you have the founder of such a religion adhering to such filthy habits, it doesn’t bode well for modernizing.[/quote]
Jesus was quite the drinker, from what I read.[/quote]
Not really. Wine in the ancient world was watered down big time. I remember a historian in uni saying it was comparible to modern day Sangria. I’m sure he drank at meals but was there liver damage? Probably not.
And if there’s no liver damage, there’s no problem! :bravo: 
btw, wtf happened to the good emoticons? Homer…the beer mug…?
edit: and do you think the big J would turn water into sangria?? BLASPHEMER!
[quote=“Namahottie”]
Where is that scripture? That I would love to see, so I can justify my alcohol intake to my pastor.[/quote]
[quote]One of the greatest Biblical proofs that drinking alcohol is not a sin in God’s eyes is the fact that Christians drink wine showing Christ died for our sins. Some believe that “oinos” (Greek: οινος , Strong’s Concordance #3631) was grape juice, but it couldn’t be because it represented His blood which pictures life. God said that what gives us life is our blood. Wine is fermented grape juice which is active or “living” just as our blood.
The Apostle Paul did not think drinking wine was a sin. He tells Timothy, who was having stomach trouble, that he should drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake.
"No longer drink only water, but use a little WINE for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities." (1Timothy 5:23)
Based on the Bible, drinking alcohol is of itself not a sin or harmful. As stated previously, Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine to benefit his health. The latest scientific findings show drinking moderately is helpful for our heart and lowers cholesterol and high blood pressure.
Of course, the Bible does condemn drunkenness. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, got drunk after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and had sex with his daughters (see this site’s article on the subject). Titus 1:7 states that a minister of God should not be given to wine or an alcoholic. Drunkenness is clearly a sin (1Timothy 3:8).
The Apostle Paul warns us that we should not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess (Ephesians 5:18).
As long as we drink moderately, the Bible states it is good for us, but drunkenness or alcoholism is definitely a sin and not to be a part of a Christian’s life. [/quote]
So drink it, just don’t let it show!
[quote=“Namahottie”] Which occurs to me, like men making jokes about women. If you’ve never been one how can you really not say it’s not offensive? There’s some underlying intent there to do some sort of harm at someone’s expense.
[/quote]
Aren’t you advocating just another form of cultural relativism? I mean, we often hear the “Asian values” argument put forth by second rate state-sponsored academics such as Kishore Mahbubani, but yet we should adhere to women’s values or Muslim values that only people within those societies, religion or genders can understand? Isn’t this just another form of tribalism?
There are right values and there are wrong values and sleeping with an underage person in single digits is wrong in any society at any time in history!
To me a good joke is one that is funny regardless of who delivers it. Political correctness is modern day McCarthyism practiced by people who would rather stifle creativity, the free exchange of ideas, and progress. In many respects, quite similar to the religion we’re describing.