Regarding The Locked Thread On Religious Practices [Archive]

Fat_Sunny

02-08-2007, 06:41 PM

Fat Was Reading Through That Thread And Went To Make A Post And It Said It Was Locked.  Fat's Opinion Is That Other People's Opinions Should Not Be Censored, Unless They Are Radically Offensive, Or Legally Libelous.  That Thread Did Not Appear To Fat To Be Either.  But Fat Does Not Run This Board, And He Agrees To Abide By The Management's Rules; It Is Their Site, After All, And Not His.  IF He Doesn't Like Their Rules, He Is Free To Leave At Any Time.But Fat Thought The Topic Was Provocative, And Does Not Agree That Things Like Religion Are Taboo.  Come On, Now, If You See A Practice You Think Is Wrong Or Offensive, You Can't Say So Because You Might Offend Someone?  WTF Is Up With That?  If You See Your Neighbor's Kid Beating Himself On The Head With A Sword Until It Is Bloody, You're Not Going To Try To Stop It?  One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion.In NJ There Are A Bunch Of Those Santa-Rini's Or Whatever They Are, That Slaughter Animals In Parks As Part Of Their "Religion".  You Think If Fat Sees Someone Kill A Dog, That He Ain't Going To Beat The Crap Out Of Them And Then Call The Police, Just Because To Them It Is A Part Of A "Religious" Ceremony?  Why Is Any Belief Or Practice Of Any Religion Off-Limits In A Politics And Current Events Forum?  What Are You Afraid Of?

Don Stugots

02-08-2007, 06:46 PM

people who believe in Santa kill animals? 

mikeyboy

02-08-2007, 06:49 PM

It wasn't the subject matter, it was the heated animosity and attacks that started occcuring in that thread.  I'm all for anyone discussing any subject civilly on this board.  When it devolves as that thread did, we'll sometimes step in.

Gvac

02-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote:  One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion.Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them.  And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them.  Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking.

PapaBear

02-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Was this a FunWithCorpses thread? If so, 'nuff said.

Don Stugots

02-08-2007, 06:52 PM

mike, you guys keep doing what you are doing.  i dont know anything about this thread in particular but people have to trust your judgement alittle bit and relax some too. 

johnniewalker

02-08-2007, 07:00 PM

I'm going to cut Mikeyboy some slack Mr. Fat.  I was listening to the replay and DjEveled is a fucking psycho.  That is a personal attack but is it really, if its true.  Why the fuck are you waiting at the studio with that bullshit?  Your posts make no fucking sense, and you are repetitive as shit.  Honestly, if mikeyboy had any animosity he would have kicked you off of this site.  I would have a long time ago.  

mikeyboy

02-08-2007, 07:02 PM

johnniewalker wrote: I'm going to cut Mikeyboy some slack Mr. Fat.  I was listening to the replay and DjEveled is a fucking psycho.  That is a personal attack but is it really, if its true.  Why the fuck are you waiting at the studio with that bullshit?  Your posts make no fucking sense, and you are repetitive as shit.  Honestly, if mikeyboy had any animosity he would have kicked you off of this site.  I would have a long time ago.   Thanks for the support, but he's actually talking about a newer thread. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Don Stugots

02-08-2007, 07:07 PM

HBox

02-08-2007, 07:11 PM

Don Stugots wrote: Gvac wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion.Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them. And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them. Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking. Hitler also thought he was doing "God's work" and it was the "right" thing to do. So did Jesus                                          Oh wait.

Fat_Sunny

02-08-2007, 07:14 PM

Gvac wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote:  One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion. Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them.  And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them.  Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking.  Whether It Is Related To Religious Or Secular Beliefs, One Should Not Opt For Silence When One Thinks Something Is Wrong!   Take A Secular Situation, Like Germany Under Hitler, Where He Was The "Cult Of State"?  People Always Ask "Why Did The Germans Follow Like Sheep?  Why Didn't They Say Anything Or Do Anything?"  They Should Have Spoken Up, Shouldn't They?  They Should Have Resisted, Shouldn't They?  But They Kept Their Mouths Shut, Out Of Fear.  And That Was Not Good, Was It?Take A Religious Situation, Like The Muslim Cartoons Last February.  People In Denmark Published Cartoons That Muslims Considered Demeaning To Their Religion.  In This Country And In Europe, Christianity Is Made Fun Of All The Time.  Christians May Not Like It, But In Countries Where You Have Freedom Of Speech, That Is What Happens.  Nothing Is, Or Should Be, Taboo.  Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.As A Secular American, If Fat Doesn't Like Something (Like A Religious Group Trying To Squelch Free Speech), Then You Bet Your Sweet Ass He's Going To Say Something!

Midkiff

02-08-2007, 07:17 PM

Would it be offensive if I said all religions are equally stupid? Because they are.We're just a country full of wackos and hayseeds anymore.

mikeyboy

02-08-2007, 07:18 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Gvac wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote:  One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion. Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them.  And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them.  Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking.  Whether It Is Related To Religious Or Secular Beliefs, One Should Not Opt For Silence When One Thinks Something Is Wrong!   Take A Secular Situation, Like Germany Under Hitler, Where He Was The "Cult Of State"?  People Always Ask "Why Did The Germans Follow Like Sheep?  Why Didn't They Say Anything Or Do Anything?"  They Should Have Spoken Up, Shouldn't They?  They Should Have Resisted, Shouldn't They?  But They Kept Their Mouths Shut, Out Of Fear.  And That Was Not Good, Was It?Take A Religious Situation, Like The Muslim Cartoons Last February.  People In Denmark Published Cartoons That Muslims Considered Demeaning To Their Religion.  In This Country And In Europe, Christianity Is Made Fun Of All The Time.  Christians May Not Like It, But In Countries Where You Have Freedom Of Speech, That Is What Happens.  Nothing Is, Or Should Be, Taboo.  Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.As A Secular American, If Fat Doesn't Like Something (Like A Religious Group Trying To Squelch Free Speech), Then You Bet Your Sweet Ass He's Going To Say Something!So you're equating an internet fight that got personal with Hitler and the Muslim cartoons in Denmark?  That fits.

johnniewalker

02-08-2007, 07:19 PM

mikeyboy wrote: johnniewalker wrote: I'm going to cut Mikeyboy some slack Mr. Fat. I was listening to the replay and DjEveled is a fucking psycho. That is a personal attack but is it really, if its true. Why the fuck are you waiting at the studio with that bullshit? Your posts make no fucking sense, and you are repetitive as shit. Honestly, if mikeyboy had any animosity he would have kicked you off of this site. I would have a long time ago. Thanks for the support, but he's actually talking about a newer thread. Oh what a tangled web we weave... I know, i was going to say that i disagree with locking it because Fmjeff's point is the rallying cry of many people today, and i couldn't disagree with it more. I thought kevin was doing a fine job describing why custom sometimes seems strange, but its doesn't discount its value. Often on the show Ron describes how our customs are extremely strange, so i thought it was relevant.  But i was also trying to find a place to post about Djeveled, too.   Its your judgement call and you often explain yourself more than you should so i think its fine if you thought it was getting to more of an attack rather than a discussion.

Gvac

02-08-2007, 07:20 PM

All I'm saying is that in order to properly assess any situation, one must first gain perspective.  One must also try to view the situation from all sides...change the perspective, if you will. 

FUNKMAN

02-08-2007, 07:21 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: Would it be offensive if I said all religions are equally stupid? Because they are.We're just a country full of wackos and hayseeds anymore.i like to use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people"  analogyreligion is not stupid, it is some of the religious people that are stupid. it's how they choose to use religion as a tool for their hatred, bigotry, or personal gain

Kevin

02-08-2007, 07:24 PM

FUNKMAN wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Would it be offensive if I said all religions are equally stupid? Because they are.We're just a country full of wackos and hayseeds anymore.i like to use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" analogyreligion is not stupid, it is some of the religious people that are stupid. it's how they choose to use religion as a tool for their hatred, bigotry, or personal gain Wow! Funk shows he is as smart as he is funny.. Good work.

Midkiff

02-08-2007, 07:27 PM

The opiate of dumb asses.

FUNKMAN

02-08-2007, 07:27 PM

Kevin wrote: FUNKMAN wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Would it be offensive if I said all religions are equally stupid? Because they are.We're just a country full of wackos and hayseeds anymore.i like to use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" analogyreligion is not stupid, it is some of the religious people that are stupid. it's how they choose to use religion as a tool for their hatred, bigotry, or personal gain Wow! Funk shows he is as smart as he is funny.. Good work. thank you Kevin...

mikeyboy

02-08-2007, 07:27 PM

Fat_Sunny

02-08-2007, 07:28 PM

mikeyboy wrote: So you're equating an internet fight that got personal with Hitler and the Muslim cartoons in Denmark?  That fits.No, You Misunderstand.  The Original Post Was By A Guy Pointing Out The Barbarity Of The Muslim Practice Of Self-Mutilation, Especially As It Pertains To Children.  Fat Was Simply Defending His Right To Question That Practice, As He Believes Any American Should Be Able To Question Any Aspect Of Any Religion, Without Fear Of Retribution.Fat Apologizes For Not Explaining His Ideas In A Manner MB Could Understand.

FUNKMAN

02-08-2007, 07:29 PM

mikeyboy wrote: Kevin wrote: FUNKMAN wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Would it be offensive if I said all religions are equally stupid? Because they are.We're just a country full of wackos and hayseeds anymore.i like to use the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" analogyreligion is not stupid, it is some of the religious people that are stupid. it's how they choose to use religion as a tool for their hatred, bigotry, or personal gain Wow! Funk shows he is as smart as he is funny.. Good work. Pssst.  It's only a compliment if you say he's smarter than he is funny.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" />  Love ya, Funk.can i be machoist too?luv u 2 Mikeyboyand i'm not even gonna put a no homo, so there

Kevin

02-08-2007, 07:30 PM

Ron and Fez have done a lot of Muslim jokes and topics latley. I take those in good humor becuase they do it tastful and do not mean it. In fact they prob screen callers that prob wan't to take it as over board as that thread went . There is a way to discuss a religon and your views on it. You do it respectfuly.

This message was edited by Kevin on 2-8-07 @ 11:42 PM

Midkiff

02-08-2007, 07:36 PM

It is true that a large percentage of our nation is ignorant and therefore disrespectful towards other religions, cultures, and languages. For a culturally aware polyglot who has studied all the major religions, like myself, it gets very old. It is even more infuriating, however, to be lumped in with the hayseeds. Unlike them, I can say religions are stupid and actually have some idea of what those religions are. I will never single out a religion though - the entire concept of religion is what I have come to reject.

Snacks

02-08-2007, 07:41 PM

johnniewalker wrote: I'm going to cut Mikeyboy some slack Mr. Fat.  I was listening to the replay and DjEveled is a fucking psycho.  That is a personal attack but is it really, if its true.  Why the fuck are you waiting at the studio with that bullshit?  Your posts make no fucking sense, and you are repetitive as shit.  Honestly, if mikeyboy had any animosity he would have kicked you off of this site.  I would have a long time ago.   What did he say on the show today? I missed it and I cant wait to find out what was crazy out of line things were discussed?

FezPaul

02-08-2007, 08:14 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: mikeyboy wrote: So you're equating an internet fight that got personal with Hitler and the Muslim cartoons in Denmark?  That fits.Fat Apologizes For Not Explaining His Ideas In A Manner MB Could Understand. Next time Fat should use crayons.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" width="18" height="22" />

mikeyboy

02-08-2007, 08:16 PM

FezPaul wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: mikeyboy wrote: So you're equating an internet fight that got personal with Hitler and the Muslim cartoons in Denmark?  That fits.Fat Apologizes For Not Explaining His Ideas In A Manner MB Could Understand. Next time Fat should use crayons.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" width="18" height="22" />Dirty Amphibian.

FezPaul

02-08-2007, 08:19 PM

mikeyboy wrote: FezPaul wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: mikeyboy wrote: So you're equating an internet fight that got personal with Hitler and the Muslim cartoons in Denmark?  That fits.Fat Apologizes For Not Explaining His Ideas In A Manner MB Could Understand. Next time Fat should use crayons.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" width="18" height="22" />Dirty Amphibian.<img src="http://warcraft.czechgamer.com/obrazky/amphibian.jpg" border="0" width="150" height="163" />

Fat_Sunny

02-08-2007, 08:27 PM

FezPaul wrote:Next time Fat should use crayons.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" width="18" height="22" />__________________________________________________ ______________________Hee Hee. Line Of The Day.....Line Of The Day!

Midkiff

02-08-2007, 08:41 PM

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/1960sc_Postcard-Cannibals.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/56876848_291fbaa29e_m.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/religion_of_peace.gifhttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/crazyrabbi.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/horticult.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/apr_06_voo_1.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/crazy-starwars.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/geuu_01_img0158.jpghttp://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/godhatesfags.jpgALL THE SAME CRAP. RUBES.

Yerdaddy

02-08-2007, 09:06 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Gvac wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote:  One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion. Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them.  And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them.  Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking.  Whether It Is Related To Religious Or Secular Beliefs, One Should Not Opt For Silence When One Thinks Something Is Wrong!   Take A Secular Situation, Like Germany Under Hitler, Where He Was The "Cult Of State"?  People Always Ask "Why Did The Germans Follow Like Sheep?  Why Didn't They Say Anything Or Do Anything?"  They Should Have Spoken Up, Shouldn't They?  They Should Have Resisted, Shouldn't They?  But They Kept Their Mouths Shut, Out Of Fear.  And That Was Not Good, Was It?Take A Religious Situation, Like The Muslim Cartoons Last February.  People In Denmark Published Cartoons That Muslims Considered Demeaning To Their Religion.  In This Country And In Europe, Christianity Is Made Fun Of All The Time.  Christians May Not Like It, But In Countries Where You Have Freedom Of Speech, That Is What Happens.  Nothing Is, Or Should Be, Taboo.  Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.As A Secular American, If Fat Doesn't Like Something (Like A Religious Group Trying To Squelch Free Speech), Then You Bet Your Sweet Ass He's Going To Say Something!No it wasn't. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers all over Europe in solidarity with the shitty little newspapers that published them in the first place. The only place where this led to more press censorship was the Middle East where journalists and editors were arrested and charged and threatened with the death penalty. (Keep in mind they were ultimately acts of political opportunism and Yemen - where my old boss was facing the death penalty - had his charges quietly dropped after the presidential election.) But the point of trying to demonstrate the virtues of free speech to the Muslim world was lost because the press never actually explained the principles while they were repeating the original insulting. But yeah, the press was not silenced.

TheMojoPin

02-08-2007, 09:37 PM

The thread wasn't locked out of fear of "offending muslims."It was locked because it very quickly dissolved into board members picking fights and attacking each other.It's really not that complicated.

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 05:31 AM

Jeff's best friend is a big, sweaty brown Muslim.That is all I have to say.

A.J.

02-09-2007, 05:53 AM

angrymissy wrote: Jeff's best friend is a big, sweaty brown Muslim. Farrakhan?<img src="http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/images/NW1030606b.gif" border="0" width="268" height="192" />

sailor

02-09-2007, 05:57 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: Gvac wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: One Does Not Have To Relinquish One's Sense Of Right And Wrong Because Of Someone Else's Religion. Is Fat so sure of what is "right" and what is "wrong"?The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 did so because of an overwhelming sense of what was "right" and what was "wrong" to them. And they certainly didn't let anyone else's religion sway them. Sorry, Fat, but I can't ever agree with that way of thinking. Whether It Is Related To Religious Or Secular Beliefs, One Should Not Opt For Silence When One Thinks Something Is Wrong! Take A Secular Situation, Like Germany Under Hitler, Where He Was The "Cult Of State"? People Always Ask "Why Did The Germans Follow Like Sheep? Why Didn't They Say Anything Or Do Anything?" They Should Have Spoken Up, Shouldn't They? They Should Have Resisted, Shouldn't They? But They Kept Their Mouths Shut, Out Of Fear. And That Was Not Good, Was It?Take A Religious Situation, Like The Muslim Cartoons Last February. People In Denmark Published Cartoons That Muslims Considered Demeaning To Their Religion. In This Country And In Europe, Christianity Is Made Fun Of All The Time. Christians May Not Like It, But In Countries Where You Have Freedom Of Speech, That Is What Happens. Nothing Is, Or Should Be, Taboo. Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street. Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech? Fat Isn't.As A Secular American, If Fat Doesn't Like Something (Like A Religious Group Trying To Squelch Free Speech), Then You Bet Your Sweet Ass He's Going To Say Something!No it wasn't. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers all over Europe in solidarity with the shitty little newspapers that published them in the first place. The only place where this led to more press censorship was the Middle East where journalists and editors were arrested and charged and threatened with the death penalty. (Keep in mind they were ultimately acts of political opportunism and Yemen - where my old boss was facing the death penalty - had his charges quietly dropped after the presidential election.) But the point of trying to demonstrate the virtues of free speech to the Muslim world was lost because the press never actually explained the principles while they were repeating the original insulting. But yeah, the press was not silenced.  some reprinted them, but didn't many more NOT reprint them out of fear?

Fat_Sunny

02-09-2007, 05:58 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.__________________________________________________ __No it wasn't. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers all over Europe in solidarity with the shitty little newspapers that published them in the first place. The only place where this led to more press censorship was the Middle East where journalists and editors were arrested and charged and threatened with the death penalty. (Keep in mind they were ultimately acts of political opportunism and Yemen - where my old boss was facing the death penalty - had his charges quietly dropped after the presidential election.) But the point of trying to demonstrate the virtues of free speech to the Muslim world was lost because the press never actually explained the principles while they were repeating the original insulting. But yeah, the press was not silenced. Yes It Was!  What American Newspaper Printed The Cartoons, So Americans Could See What All The Hub-Ub Was About?  What Network Or Cable News Show Showed The Cartoons?  Even The Producers Of South Park Had To Pull Their Episode Dealing With This Because People Were AFRAID Of What The Reaction Of Muslims Would Be.  It WAS Censorship, No Matter How You Cut It.Back A Few Years Ago Their Was A Maplethorpe(?) Exhibit In New York That Showed A Crucifix In Urine.  We Saw That Picture All Over The News For Weeks And Weeks.  Fat Found It Very Offensive, But He Never Thought They Shouldn't Show The Picture.  It Was An Integral Part Of The News Story.

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 06:18 AM

Wait.. there was a religious thread I missed out on?!!!? Ah well, all the better.  The stress doesn't help me anyway.

Yerdaddy

02-09-2007, 08:26 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.__________________________________________________ __No it wasn't. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers all over Europe in solidarity with the shitty little newspapers that published them in the first place. The only place where this led to more press censorship was the Middle East where journalists and editors were arrested and charged and threatened with the death penalty. (Keep in mind they were ultimately acts of political opportunism and Yemen - where my old boss was facing the death penalty - had his charges quietly dropped after the presidential election.) But the point of trying to demonstrate the virtues of free speech to the Muslim world was lost because the press never actually explained the principles while they were repeating the original insulting. But yeah, the press was not silenced. Yes It Was!  What American Newspaper Printed The Cartoons, So Americans Could See What All The Hub-Ub Was About?  What Network Or Cable News Show Showed The Cartoons?  Even The Producers Of South Park Had To Pull Their Episode Dealing With This Because People Were AFRAID Of What The Reaction Of Muslims Would Be.  It WAS Censorship, No Matter How You Cut It.Back A Few Years Ago Their Was A Maplethorpe(?) Exhibit In New York That Showed A Crucifix In Urine.  We Saw That Picture All Over The News For Weeks And Weeks.  Fat Found It Very Offensive, But He Never Thought They Shouldn't Show The Picture.  It Was An Integral Part Of The News Story.  American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) and mostly the reasons had to do with the fact that the cartoons were patently offensive to an entire religion and they have policies against that. Nobody said it was out of fear. It's not <a href="http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship">censorship</a>. <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/13788640.htm" target="_blank">Muslim anger at cartoons depicting Muhammad has been reported, but few U.S. outlets are showing the images.</a><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0206/dailyUpdate.html" target="_blank">US, British media tread carefully in cartoon furor</a>

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 08:32 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules.  We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims.

Kevin

02-09-2007, 08:40 AM

Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims. Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. 

This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PM

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 11:12 AM

Kevin wrote: Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims. Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PMHe started the thread because he thought that practice was barbaric, not to shit on the religion. You're being really oversensitive and reading into things too much.  If you are going to take things so personally, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum.

johnniewalker

02-09-2007, 11:25 AM

angrymissy wrote: Kevin wrote: Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims. Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PMHe started the thread because he thought that practice was barbaric, not to shit on the religion. You're being really oversensitive and reading into things too much. If you are going to take things so personally, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum. That's crap. It was started without any explanation or real context.  His whole argument was to show a picture and say look at this, this is ridiculous.  Then continue being inflammatory by posting more pictures and cute one liners.  It was garbage.  At least Kevin was trying to have a decent conversation.

Kevin

02-09-2007, 11:28 AM

angrymissy wrote: Kevin wrote: Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims.Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PM He started the thread because he thought that practice was barbaric, not to shit on the religion. You're being really oversensitive and reading into things too much.  If you are going to take things so personally, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum.I guess saying double fuck your religion after i nicely said i don't apprciate it being labled for what a few people do was the way to go.. I don't know Jeff and most of the guys that talked to me about the issue told me he is not a bad guy.. I just had a prob the way he said it that's all.

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 11:32 AM

johnniewalker wrote: angrymissy wrote: Kevin wrote: Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims. Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PMHe started the thread because he thought that practice was barbaric, not to shit on the religion. You're being really oversensitive and reading into things too much. If you are going to take things so personally, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum. That's crap. It was started without any explanation or real context. His whole argument was to show a picture and say look at this, this is ridiculous. Then continue being inflammatory by posting more pictures and cute one liners. It was garbage. At least Kevin was trying to have a decent conversation. Well, it was a picture of people slicing their own heads open.  I think a lot of people's first reaction would be to think it's a little ridiculous and be a little shocked.

EliSnow

02-09-2007, 11:32 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Yet, For The First Time In Fat's Memory, The Press Was Silenced, Because Religious Mobs Took To The Street.  Because People Start To Riot, You Are Willing To Shut Down Free Speech?  Fat Isn't.__________________________________________________ __No it wasn't. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers all over Europe in solidarity with the shitty little newspapers that published them in the first place. The only place where this led to more press censorship was the Middle East where journalists and editors were arrested and charged and threatened with the death penalty. (Keep in mind they were ultimately acts of political opportunism and Yemen - where my old boss was facing the death penalty - had his charges quietly dropped after the presidential election.) But the point of trying to demonstrate the virtues of free speech to the Muslim world was lost because the press never actually explained the principles while they were repeating the original insulting. But yeah, the press was not silenced. Yes It Was!  What American Newspaper Printed The Cartoons, So Americans Could See What All The Hub-Ub Was About?  What Network Or Cable News Show Showed The Cartoons?  Even The Producers Of South Park Had To Pull Their Episode Dealing With This Because People Were AFRAID Of What The Reaction Of Muslims Would Be.  It WAS Censorship, No Matter How You Cut It.Back A Few Years Ago Their Was A Maplethorpe(?) Exhibit In New York That Showed A Crucifix In Urine.  We Saw That Picture All Over The News For Weeks And Weeks.  Fat Found It Very Offensive, But He Never Thought They Shouldn't Show The Picture.  It Was An Integral Part Of The News Story.  It's not censorship if they chose not to print the cartoons.   No one stopped them from doing so - they just chose not to.

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 11:33 AM

Kevin wrote: angrymissy wrote: Kevin wrote: Furtherman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: American newspapers said why they didn't republish the cartoons (a Philly paper did) Philly rules. We'd just drop a bomb on those uppity muslims.Ohhh riggggh. Like the cath league never go after people who try to do those types of things against catholicism... Yea... they are pretty quiet.... Well just when kid touching priests are involved... Or the Jewish media stays quiet also.... Mel Believes that to be so so true.... Like i have stated. My prob with him was not because he thought it was barbaric... I do also.. But he CLEARLY started the thread just to shit on the religion, not knowing shit about it other than what he See's on, TV. I have plenty of amo to do it to his religion but i have too much respect for my Jewish friends and the board to stoop to that level. This message was edited by Kevin on 2-9-07 @ 12:47 PM He started the thread because he thought that practice was barbaric, not to shit on the religion. You're being really oversensitive and reading into things too much. If you are going to take things so personally, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum.I guess saying double fuck your religion after i nicely said i don't apprciate it being labled for what a few people do was the way to go.. I don't know Jeff and most of the guys that talked to me about the issue told me he is not a bad guy.. I just had a prob the way he said it that's all.All I'm saying is be prepared to not get overly emotional or read into things too much in a politics forum.  It will just drive you crazy.

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 11:37 AM

I also find it funny that people insinuated that Jeff hates Muslims because of 9/11 and brimming patriotism or some crap, considering he is usually being called a bed-wetting liberal on this board.

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 11:40 AM

angrymissy wrote: bed-wetting liberal He really takes that baby role-playing seriously!

angrymissy

02-09-2007, 11:40 AM

And now, puppies and kittens:<img src="http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/images/knitted_kitteh.jpg" border="0" width="500" height="431" /> <img src="http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/images/chubfan.jpg" border="0" width="402" height="600" />

Earlshog

02-09-2007, 11:41 AM

booster11373

02-09-2007, 11:54 AM

Just Imagine for a sec............

FMJeff

02-09-2007, 12:23 PM

I made my point about that particular custom. I understand the mod's decision to close it. I was trying to provoke a fight. Every religion at one point has had its shares of bloody rituals that shocked outsiders. While the act of circumcision may be considered barbaric by some, it is accepted by modern society for its hygiene merits and is usually performed on a child too young to understand the nature of what is going on by a skilled moyel. It is a civilized custom.The idea a parent can go up to a child of any age, regardless of emotional development, and carve into into thier heads with swords that I'm sure are not sterilized and dull is not only barbaric, it is a major health risk. Think of all the potential issues that can arise from hundreds of people covered in blood gushing from open wounds within close proximity. What's bacteria is on the swords? I can think of a hundred reasons why this is barbarism akin to African men excising a woman's clitoris. My apologies for attacking Islam. I am sure american muslims do not practice this, because this is country couldn't bear the idea of children treated in such a way. The practioners of this ritual, apparently, have no qualms about it. What really sparked my anger was the recounting of a child begging not to be involved, only to be mocked by his own father as a wimp and weakling and having his head sliced never the less.

Snacks

02-09-2007, 01:10 PM

FMJeff wrote: What really sparked my anger was the recounting of a child begging not to be involved, only to be mocked by his own father as a wimp and weakling and having his head sliced never the less.  This happens in more then  just religious practices it happens with a lot of things a child doesnt want to do in life. Sports, how many times does a kid not want to play a sport and goes kicking and screaming, only to be forced to do so and then likes it. Do you feel this way about all things parents force their children to do?

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 01:11 PM

There's a big difference between playing sports and putting a knife into your head!!

lleeder

02-09-2007, 01:20 PM

I like how a thread gets locked and a new thread discussing that thread turns back into that original thread. It really is an endless cycle.

Snacks

02-09-2007, 01:30 PM

Furtherman wrote: There's a big difference between playing sports and putting a knife into your head!! I would agree with you, but thats b/c it our culture that tells you its different. Their culture tells you its not a bad thing, so who are we to tell them it is or isnt. You can have your own opinnion like I do. I think all religion is nuts and is the reason for most bad shit that happens. I will not practice a religion but I will not tell anyone not to follow what they believe.Its similar to the gay marriage argument or abortion argument. If you dont want men to marry men, then you shouldnt marry a man if your a man, but dont stop somone else if thats what they choose to do. If you dont believe in abortion, dont have one, but dont stop someone else who chooses to.

This message was edited by Snacks on 2-9-07 @ 5:31 PM

mikeyboy

02-09-2007, 01:35 PM

lleeder wrote: I like how a thread gets locked and a new thread discussing that thread turns back into that original thread. It really is an endless cycle. The difference is that the discourse is a lot more civil this time through.

TheMojoPin

02-09-2007, 04:43 PM

FMJeff wrote: Every religion at one point has had its shares of bloody rituals that shocked outsiders. While the act of circumcision may be considered barbaric by some, it is accepted by modern society for its hygiene merits and is usually performed on a child too young to understand the nature of what is going on by a skilled moyel. It is a civilized custom.There are a LOT of people that disagree with that.  It makes keeping the ol' boy clean easier, but is it really signifcant enough to justify that willful mutilation of a child?  It's popularity in this country stems from the thought that it reduced the urge to masturbate/have sex and would keep boys good and "pure" until they got married.  The medical benefits are by no means conclusive and still very controversial, if there are even any at all.  I agree that it's less dramatic in practice, but it's still arguably a very unecessary physical mutilation based on religious ideas and attitudes.And not to harp on you, Jeff (I get what you're saying), I just wanted to point out that there many christian sects that believe that they can only find God and redemption through purifying pain, often by flogging themselves or letting others do it, or to even have themselves pelted with stones.  Some groups even recreate the crucifiction, complete with wannbe Jesus' getting whipped, mocked and attacked by crowds as they carry the cross that they are then nailed onto.  Typically the participants are taken down before they can expire (how nice), but it's it pretty ridiculous.I remember there was a town in Thailand where the people there would spend one day piercing their actual faces with bizarre objects.  I believe it was supposedly a buddhist holiday, but I could be wrong.Bottom line?  Extreme religion makes people do some scary things.

reeshy

02-09-2007, 05:18 PM

Like worshipping the Cubs??????

Snacks

02-09-2007, 05:55 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: FMJeff wrote: Every religion at one point has had its shares of bloody rituals that shocked outsiders. While the act of circumcision may be considered barbaric by some, it is accepted by modern society for its hygiene merits and is usually performed on a child too young to understand the nature of what is going on by a skilled moyel. It is a civilized custom.There are a LOT of people that disagree with that.  It makes keeping the ol' boy clean easier, but is it really signifcant enough to justify that willful mutilation of a child?  It's popularity in this country stems from the thought that it reduced the urge to masturbate/have sex and would keep boys good and "pure" until they got married.  The medical benefits are by no means conclusive and still very controversial, if there are even any at all.  I agree that it's less dramatic in practice, but it's still arguably a very unecessary physical mutilation based on religious ideas and attitudes.And not to harp on you, Jeff (I get what you're saying), I just wanted to point out that there many christian sects that believe that they can only find God and redemption through purifying pain, often by flogging themselves or letting others do it, or to even have themselves pelted with stones.  Some groups even recreate the crucifiction, complete with wannbe Jesus' getting whipped, mocked and attacked by crowds as they carry the cross that they are then nailed onto.  Typically the participants are taken down before they can expire (how nice), but it's it pretty ridiculous.I remember there was a town in Thailand where the people there would spend one day piercing their actual faces with bizarre objects.  I believe it was supposedly a buddhist holiday, but I could be wrong.Bottom line?  Extreme religion makes people do some scary things.This sounds like the davinci code!Back to circumcision, it has also been said that men with the extra skin not cut off have greater sexual pleasure.

Gvac

02-09-2007, 06:15 PM

Snacks wrote: Back to circumcision, it has also been said that men with the extra skin not cut off have greater sexual pleasure.If it felt any better, I wouldn't last 10 seconds.

booster11373

02-09-2007, 06:24 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: FMJeff wrote: Bottom line?  <strike>Extreme</strike> religion makes people do some scary things.fixed that for you

Yerdaddy

02-09-2007, 10:55 PM

angrymissy wrote: I also find it funny that people insinuated that Jeff hates Muslims because of 9/11 and brimming patriotism or some crap, considering he is usually being called a bed-wetting liberal on this board. That's what I love about Jeff. Every opinion he has is strong like bull, but his opinions are all over the fucking map. You can't pidgeon-hole that dude as a crazy liberal, crazy conservative, crazy jew... he's just crazy. I like that though because it tells me that at least he thinks for himself. Nobody's in more fights in that fucking forum than me and nobody's more defensive about Muslims than me (at least about getting your facts right about them) given where I lived for the last two years. But I read that thread and I prepared my criticism of Jeff's original post, and what I didn't do is get pissed off at Jeff himself. Because I've been reading his political posts for years now I know he comes on like a fundamentalist on that issue and must be carrying the opposite side's water like a million other pricks, but wait a week and he'll start a thread ripping Israeli policies to shit. And that's the thing - if you know that Jeff's not pushing anyone else's agenda except that little crazy angry guy in his head you've got to ask yourself before you get pissed off at his statements "does he really hate the people he's talking about, or does he just hate everybody?" Because that's a big difference. Basically, I can't remember the last time I actually got pissed off at Jeff because he truly is an equal opportunity hater. Instead I just do a little research and post the grey area of his absolute threads. Then you get people both thinking and feeling strongly about his issues and, I think, they usually end up pretty informative once they've run their 15-page coarse.So that's my opinion about that thread (separate from the issues): if you haven't been around for awhile, don't be quick to assume you've got Jeff figured out. Just take a deep breath and say to yourself "That nigger's crazy!" Then go after his arguments without assuming you know the man.That's all I'm saying.

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 12:01 AM

As for the original story I have to say it was a bad piece of journalism. While it does state that the governments of the countries where it's practiced have banned the practice the journalist did not include any information to indicate how widespread this practice is. Instead the bulk of the article is simply sensational details about the practicioners the journalist could find. But how many people are we talking about here? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? All we know is it's some fraction of the Shiia subsect of Islam. Well that could be anywhere between 1 and about 200 million people. I would speculate that the fact that the governments of Iran, Lebanon and other countries mentioned have banned the practice this is a small, fringe element of Shiism, and that they must be unpopular amongst Shiia as a whole or the governments would not be able to ban their religious practice without pissing alot of people off. But who knows? Egypt has outlawed female genital mutilation and yet it still happens to over 90% of Egyptian girls. I can think of three Islamic experts that I could call right now if I was writing this article in Yemen who could answer that question (how widespread is this?). Juan Cole probably already has the answer on his blog somewhere. I'd say it's likely the journalist (or his editor) decided not to bother with that little detail because sensationalism will make us read the article and argue about it like morons while leaving us dumber for having read it in the first place. He also knows he's going to get more traction on the article when Fox News picks it up and runs with it (and pays for it) because it serves their practice of using everything that makes Muslims look like savages. There's your profit-driven journalism for you. So what the journalist has failed to do is give his/her audience context. The overall message of that article was "Look at the blood!!!!" Thanks for nothing Multiple Miggs! I have no idea whether most Muslims love this practice or hate this practice and so I have the option of using your article to say "Muslims are scum!" or I can use it to say "Muslims are embarassed by the scum among them." How versitile your article is you worthless piece of shit. You should go to Iran now and train their journalists to write headlines like "Americans murder Ahmish schoolgirls but their government has banned the practice." That's what I got from that thread anyway. A lesson on how not to write articles.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 2-10-07 @ 4:11 AM

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 12:03 AM

practice

TheMojoPin

02-10-2007, 06:04 AM

reeshy wrote: Like worshipping the Cubs?????? Sir, that's just cruel.

Midkiff

02-10-2007, 06:45 AM

I worship vaginal intercourse. Oh, Ron Bennington, too.

Don Stugots

02-10-2007, 12:10 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: I worship vaginal intercourse. Oh, Ron Bennington, too. and boobs too, and money, and  steak, and beer

Wallower

02-10-2007, 12:12 PM

Don Stugots wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: I worship vaginal intercourse. Oh, Ron Bennington, too. and boobs too, and money, and steak, and beer  Earl I'm starvin'. We got any vagina back there?

sailor

02-10-2007, 12:31 PM

Gvac wrote: Snacks wrote: Back to circumcision, it has also been said that men with the extra skin not cut off have greater sexual pleasure.If it felt any better, I wouldn't last 10 seconds.  wait, you last that long now?  stugots, i guess i owe you ten bucks.

Kevin

02-10-2007, 12:34 PM

sailor wrote: Gvac wrote: Snacks wrote: Back to circumcision, it has also been said that men with the extra skin not cut off have greater sexual pleasure.If it felt any better, I wouldn't last 10 seconds. wait, you last that long now? stugots, i guess i owe you ten bucks.  only after he pays me.

Don Stugots

02-10-2007, 12:37 PM

i broke even!

lleeder

02-10-2007, 01:22 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: In NJ There Are A Bunch Of Those Santa-Rini's Or Whatever They Are, I dont practice santeria I aint got no crystal ball. I had a million dollars but id, Id spend it all. If I could find that heina and that sancho that shes found, Well Id pop a cap in sancho and Id slap her down.

BLZBUBBA

02-10-2007, 01:39 PM

Freedom is all about having as many freedoms as possible up to the point where it interferes with other's freedoms.  The thread started with animal sacrifices of some sort?  Anyone decrying the sacrificing of dogs or whatever better be a vegetarian.  On the other hand if I find some goofball in my backyard standing over my dog Django with a stone dagger they're meeting my Louisville Slugger...if they're lucky.

FMJeff

02-12-2007, 06:40 AM

Furtherman wrote: There's a big difference between playing sports and putting a knife into your head!! Yeah really Snacks...that was a pretty stupid analogy. I didn't want to play t-ball but I don't remember my dad cleaving my skull for it.

FMJeff

02-12-2007, 07:06 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: angrymissy wrote: I also find it funny that people insinuated that Jeff hates Muslims because of 9/11 and brimming patriotism or some crap, considering he is usually being called a bed-wetting liberal on this board. That's what I love about Jeff. Every opinion he has is strong like bull, but his opinions are all over the fucking map. You can't pidgeon-hole that dude as a crazy liberal, crazy conservative, crazy jew... he's just crazy. I like that though because it tells me that at least he thinks for himself. Nobody's in more fights in that fucking forum than me and nobody's more defensive about Muslims than me (at least about getting your facts right about them) given where I lived for the last two years. But I read that thread and I prepared my criticism of Jeff's original post, and what I didn't do is get pissed off at Jeff himself. Because I've been reading his political posts for years now I know he comes on like a fundamentalist on that issue and must be carrying the opposite side's water like a million other pricks, but wait a week and he'll start a thread ripping Israeli policies to shit. And that's the thing - if you know that Jeff's not pushing anyone else's agenda except that little crazy angry guy in his head you've got to ask yourself before you get pissed off at his statements "does he really hate the people he's talking about, or does he just hate everybody?" Because that's a big difference. Basically, I can't remember the last time I actually got pissed off at Jeff because he truly is an equal opportunity hater. Instead I just do a little research and post the grey area of his absolute threads. Then you get people both thinking and feeling strongly about his issues and, I think, they usually end up pretty informative once they've run their 15-page coarse.So that's my opinion about that thread (separate from the issues): if you haven't been around for awhile, don't be quick to assume you've got Jeff figured out. Just take a deep breath and say to yourself "That nigger's crazy!" Then go after his arguments without assuming you know the man.That's all I'm saying.They're not all over the map. There's a method to my madness. I side with what's right and I'm against what's wrong. If Jews were cutting thier kid's heads open, I'd be the first to say it. I'm ashamed of everybody at one point or another. For example, I read an article the other day about orthodox jews in Israel beating up a gay jew for no other reason than the orthodoxy believe homosexuality is an abomination. It blew my mind. Of all the things for an Israeli Jew to worry about, he still has time to stick it to gays just like the Christians. It was an embarassment. I believe right and wrong is not as gray as people think it is. I believe there's a time in any person's life where a conscious decision is made to stray from the path of righteousness. I hate Republicans, but I like the idea of small government. I hate Democrats, but i like the idea of using government as a tool to help its people. I believe everyone wants peace, but would rather hear his enemy say "you're right, i'm wrong" than be peaceful. What is this war in the middle east if not an extremely violent ideological difference of opinion? A generalization, maybe, but that's all how all wars begin...ideas. My idea of a perfect religion would be one that recognizes the evolution of society and adapts to the needs of the people. The idea that doctrine from thousands of years ago is spoken today verbatum as sacrosant law blows my mind. In a country where everyone races to see the new toy, the latest technology, we are still fascinated by obsolete idiology....that in the age of cell phones and Nintendo Wii's and space tr

FMJeff

02-12-2007, 07:20 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: As for the original story I have to say it was a bad piece of journalism. While it does state that the governments of the countries where it's practiced have banned the practice the journalist did not include any information to indicate how widespread this practice is. Instead the bulk of the article is simply sensational details about the practicioners the journalist could find. But how many people are we talking about here? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? All we know is it's some fraction of the Shiia subsect of Islam. Well that could be anywhere between 1 and about 200 million people. I would speculate that the fact that the governments of Iran, Lebanon and other countries mentioned have banned the practice this is a small, fringe element of Shiism, and that they must be unpopular amongst Shiia as a whole or the governments would not be able to ban their religious practice without pissing alot of people off. But who knows? Egypt has outlawed female genital mutilation and yet it still happens to over 90% of Egyptian girls. I can think of three Islamic experts that I could call right now if I was writing this article in Yemen who could answer that question (how widespread is this?). Juan Cole probably already has the answer on his blog somewhere. I'd say it's likely the journalist (or his editor) decided not to bother with that little detail because sensationalism will make us read the article and argue about it like morons while leaving us dumber for having read it in the first place. He also knows he's going to get more traction on the article when Fox News picks it up and runs with it (and pays for it) because it serves their practice of using everything that makes Muslims look like savages. There's your profit-driven journalism for you. So what the journalist has failed to do is give his/her audience context. The overall message of that article was "Look at the blood!!!!" Thanks for nothing Multiple Miggs! I have no idea whether most Muslims love this practice or hate this practice and so I have the option of using your article to say "Muslims are scum!" or I can use it to say "Muslims are embarassed by the scum among them." How versitile your article is you worthless piece of shit. You should go to Iran now and train their journalists to write headlines like "Americans murder Ahmish schoolgirls but their government has banned the practice." That's what I got from that thread anyway. A lesson on how not to write articles.This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 2-10-07 @ 4:11 AM Why do you need context? It happened the way he described it. I don't think you can dispute that, considering the photographic evidence. No, I think you need context because you demand journalistic responsibility...that in these times, we don't need a story like this, and some context might provide some damage control, take the edge off the explosive nature of the subject matter. Again, that's unfair. He's a journalist, not an editorialist. His job is to report what he sees. I can understand if he never saw the ritual and was reporting secondhand accountings...perhaps maybe then a more expansive view would be warranted, but this was a guy in the field taking photos and jotting down obersvations. The truth is it is ugly to read about, ugly to see, and doesn't help the international Muslim public perception issue. That being said, there are certainly other examples that do not help either.