I think you guys just don’t have a sense of humour, that’s all. What’s not to like about such a religion or culture?
Could I ask you politely to self-censor your comment? I don’t believe it’s going to advance the discussion, and I do believe it’s going to inflame tempers. Given the deeply tragic case Mother Theresa cited, some sensitivity all round would be appropriate right now.
Fortigurn: You do realise I was being highly sarcastic, of course? One way of dealing with arseclowns like these is to get really upset by them. In a sense, that’s what such fundamentalists desire. From day one, Islam has been confrontational and there’s nothing these guys like more than that. What it and they really can’t deal with though, is humour. It and they can’t deal with any sort of mockery, sarcasm or the like. The law should stand firm on its principles and then, rather than humour these imams and their mouthbreathing followers, simply take the piss out of them after judgement has already been passed.
Would that advance the discussion? What is the discussion here? Isn’t everyone here at Forumosa actually on the same page in thinking that what happened was atrocious? Does anyone think that I’m not (especially given my previous posting about Islam)? Advancing the discussion in broader society means exposing these tools for what they are, and probably the best way to do that is to expose how ridiculous their world view is. Everyone wants to pussy foot around this, but why? There’s a longstanding tradition of mockery in the West that has helped to cull the more insane/inane ideas. For instance, we can be horrified by the Holocaust and at the same time mock Hitler for the way he looked, the way he sounded, the way he thought and the way he acted.
Few, if any, of the moderators here have a problem with the virtiol that regularly gets hurled at the religious right (and Christians more broadly) in America or at Republicans on this site. Why get all worried in this case then?
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Fortigurn: You do realise I was being highly sarcastic, of course? One way of dealing with arseclowns like these is to get really upset by them. In a sense, that’s what such fundamentalists desire. From day one, Islam has been confrontational and there’s nothing these guys like more than that. What it and they really can’t deal with though, is humour. It and they can’t deal with any sort of mockery, sarcasm or the like. The law should stand firm on its principles and then, rather than humour these imams and their mouthbreathing followers, simply take the piss out of them after judgement has already been passed.
Would that advance the discussion? What is the discussion here? Isn’t everyone here at Forumosa actually on the same page in thinking that what happened was atrocious? Does anyone think that I’m not (especially given my previous posting about Islam)? Advancing the discussion in broader society means exposing these tools for what they are, and probably the best way to do that is to expose how ridiculous their world view is. Everyone wants to pussy foot around this, but why? There’s a longstanding tradition of mockery in the West that has helped to cull the more insane/inane ideas. For instance, we can be horrified by the Holocaust and at the same time mock Hitler for the way he looked, the way he sounded, the way he thought and the way he acted.
Few, if any, of the moderators here have a problem with the virtiol that regularly gets hurled at the religious right (and Christians more broadly) in America or at Republicans on this site. Why get all worried in this case then?[/quote]
An interesting post and worthy of its own thread. I agree that sarcasm is a very good way to combat extremism. My subjective impression of Islam is not a good one going on my personal experience. What is a “moderate” moslim anyway ? Is it one who picks and chooses which parts of the Quaran is suitable for him/her to follow and which parts are not? Is it also possible to be a moderate Nazi by picking small parts of Mein Kamph and following those or a moderate communist by picking small parts of the little red book ? What does it mean “moderate” muslim? It’s a genuine question and not meant to offend although temp it if you wish. 
It’s worth noting that this case has sparked national outrage in Bangladesh, a nation that is 89.5% Muslim. As stated in the article that MT posted, sharia is illegal in Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Supreme Court ruled fatwas illegal a decade ago. The national government has had a tough time implementing the law in rural areas. The doctors in the community where the girl was murdered issued a false autopsy report, which was the flash point for the national outrage. The Supreme Court ordered a second autopsy by the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, revealing that the girl was indeed killed by the lashings. Sharia was a cornerstone of Islamic society for a thousand years, so I don’t think it’s surprising that it persists in various places. Still, cases like these are infuriating. From the article:
How sad.
Yes I do, but there are no fundamentalists here at which to aim your sarcasm, and I would prefer a post which actually advanced the discussion instead of one which didn’t and could easily be misconstrued as insensitivity.
Certainly. We’re preaching to the choir here. I’m not even sure what the value is in posting news of atrocities just so we can be sickened and outraged.
If we had a resident militant Muslim community in Taiwan, or frequenting this forum, then we would be in a position to do so. Even if they were, I don’t believe your snappy one liner would have any effect on them, not least because it clearly wasn’t intended for Muslims anyway.
I don’t believe anyone here pussy foots around any opportunity to ridicule any religion at all. 
Having said that, I honestly fail to see how a witty comeback is going to help the girl in the article cited by MT, or how a naughty jibe at Islam would have helped her before she was brutalized. The Bangladeshi government’s key problem at present appears to be inadequate law enforcement, not a paucity of Mohammad jokes.
I don’t think anyone here is concerned about how much ridicule Islam receives on this site.
Yes I do, but there are no fundamentalists here at which to aim your sarcasm, and I would prefer a post which actually advanced the discussion instead of one which didn’t and could easily be misconstrued as insensitivity.
[.[/quote]
You mean that insensitivity to a certain religion should be self censored but riddicule is okay ?
[quote=“fenlander”]You mean that insensitivity to a certain religion should be self censored but riddicule is okay ?
[/quote]
No. I am not talking about being insensitive to religion, I’m talking about being insensitive to the girl who was brutalized, and who has now been carelessly shunted to one side while people have a laugh. I don’t believe her situation merited humorous comment. I didn’t see anything funny about it.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“fenlander”]You mean that insensitivity to a certain religion should be self censored but riddicule is okay ?
[/quote]
No. I am not talking about being insensitive to religion, I’m talking about being insensitive to the girl who was brutalized, and who has now been carelessly shunted to one side while people have a laugh. I don’t believe her situation merited humorous comment. I didn’t see anything funny about it.[/quote]
Okay got it.
It’s a really weak argument when you simplify all religions into the same category. I don’t have a problem with the criticism of each religion as they should rightly be questioned like anything else. But to say all religions mixed with politics is a rather weak blanket statement. These freedoms that most people think they have the right to would have been strongly influenced by humanism under theism. You think a fundamental Hindu believes in the concept of human rights like a fundamental theist? Remind again why a bunch of men believed all men are created equal again? Who did they say gave them this unalienable rights?