Middle East protests and 'that' film

EKE_38BPM

I've just watched the trailer for 'that' film and it is truly awful.
I've seen better acting by primary school kids. The script is deliberately inflammatory and insulting. The dialogue is awful, as is the lighting and especially, the sound. There is nothing to redeem it.

However, why do some (definitely not all) Muslims get wound up so much by things such as The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons and this film?
To me it seems like they are ready to kill over the religious equivalent of the 'your mum' jokes/insults that used to get bandied around at school.
If I said to DDD, "Why are you so fat?" and he replied "Because every time I make sweet love to your mum, she gives me a biscuit", I would only get wound up if he actually was getting busy with my mum and what he said may be true.

I've never read the Qu'ran. I doubt I ever will, but the Muslims who riot and burn the American flag (which causes Yanks to react in just as stupid a manner) probably will have read the Qu'ran, and if they believe it all to be true, they should know the truth about their prophet and the crass insults in the film should be like water off a duck's back, just like DDD's hypothetical mum cuss.













Unless there is some truth in what the film says?

cyclingprop

Holy war is like two kids fighting each other to the death about whose imaginary friend is best.

phy2sll2

I think I can sympathise to some degree, though of course I don't condone the actions of the people who attacked the embassy in Libya.

It goes further than the 'ridicule' aspect.

Films (and the cartoons, to some extent?) like this one act to perpetuate scorn for / hatred towards Muslims amongst "Westerners". (A bit like Petronella Wyatt and cycling?!)

The more prevalent this attitude is amongst Westerners, the fewer obstacles a Western government needs to overcome before imposing sanctions / sending their military into a Muslim state. (I suppose equivalent parallel for us would be mandating helmet use / licensing bikes?)

People in the middle east live in real fear that one day B52s will be dropping cluster bombs on their children. If they can do anything to discourage what they see as the root cause of the hatred towards them, then they'll do it, for fear of regretting doing nothing when the time comes.

I wouldn't like to speculate why the actions they sometimes take (terrorism, burning of flags etc.) are those which are least helpful to their cause but, in any case, they're not able to do a flash ride or write to the PCC.

estampida

its broken down into 2 groups

1 - the easily led and in our terms they read a version of the daily mail..........

2 - people with hidden agenda's (they want power or to distract from their real intention's)

people 2 use people 1 as grunt, people 2 also might look for or even make films, then raise awareness to people 1 and blame some other faction they want a fight with........

the sad part is then people 1 are tried for the murder (an eye for an eye) and people 2 get away with it.....

education and free thinking is the only weapon...

SimonAH

Anyway, they are all blasphemers and should be stoned, burnt and their children should be hoisted on pikes. My God is the only true God and I can prove it because it says so on an old bit of paper in my desk drawer. To deny this is heresy and mortally insulting to my faith.

Prostrate yourselves to Marvin or burn in hell forever.

clarkey cat

I've never read the Qu'ran. I doubt I ever will

I've read it. I used to date a muslim girl and read it to impress her (and I was a bit interested anyway). Obviously I read an English translation - I forget which one. Anyway, I can't really comment on my thoughts as I'm worried someone will come and firebomb my house but its no John Grisham.

CiB

You know how when the DM prints an anti-cycling piece and the trolls wade in to tell the world how all cyclists are moronic law-breaking baby-murderers and then some of the more enthusiastic cyclists who've been made aware of what's been said go marching in all guns blazing and shout the trolls down? Religious extremism is that on stilts. With brass knobs thrown in.

phy2sll2

CiB wrote:

You know how when the DM prints an anti-cycling piece and the trolls wade in to tell the world how all cyclists are moronic law-breaking baby-murderers and then some of the more enthusiastic cyclists who've been made aware of what's been said go marching in all guns blazing and shout the trolls down? Religious extremism is that on stilts. With brass knobs thrown in.

Couldn't agree more.

davmaggs

phy2sll2 wrote:

I think I can sympathise to some degree, though of course I don't condone the actions of the people who attacked the embassy in Libya.

It goes further than the 'ridicule' aspect.

Films (and the cartoons, to some extent?) like this one act to perpetuate scorn for / hatred towards Muslims amongst "Westerners". (A bit like Petronella Wyatt and cycling?!)

The more prevalent this attitude is amongst Westerners, the fewer obstacles a Western government needs to overcome before imposing sanctions / sending their military into a Muslim state. (I suppose equivalent parallel for us would be mandating helmet use / licensing bikes?)

People in the middle east live in real fear that one day B52s will be dropping cluster bombs on their children. If they can do anything to discourage what they see as the root cause of the hatred towards them, then they'll do it, for fear of regretting doing nothing when the time comes.

I wouldn't like to speculate why the actions they sometimes take (terrorism, burning of flags etc.) are those which are least helpful to their cause but, in any case, they're not able to do a flash ride or write to the PCC.

Does that explain a mob attacking the home of a disabled 11 year old, falsely accused of burning a book?

Or perhaps it explains women have bits chopped off in Afghanistan.

Seems like a lot of clap trap theorising mixed in with political bias.

Daz555

The ability of some religious folk to seek out offence is staggering.

"oh no the nasty man hurty my feelings by saying naughty things about my god"

Grow up.

Even worse though is the response from the leaders of the free world. United States a supposed champion of democracy and freedom of expression. The US Embassy official statement following the attack?

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Pathetic.

bails87

To some extent, I agree with Daz here, if you're right and your imaginary friend is the 'right' one, and the other people have said something offensive to him/her then those people will get what they deserve from the all powerful cloud man. you don't need to do it for him.

This applies to this case and to the Westboro Baptist Church fruitloops, and to the Christians who opposed the Jerry Springer opera thing, and to the US Christians who murder doctors for performing procedures that their magic book apparently opposes. Fruitbattery is not limited to one religion, or to religion itself.

Gussio

bails87 wrote:

This applies to this case and to the Westboro Baptist Church fruitloops, and to the Christians who opposed the Jerry Springer opera thing, and to the US Christians who murder doctors for performing procedures that their magic book apparently opposes. Fruitbattery is not limited to one religion, or to religion itself.

This.

cyclingprop

bails87 wrote:

the Christians who opposed the Jerry Springer opera thing

In fairness, JC was a little bit gay </sic>

SimonAH

You are dangerously close to offending Marvin there mate.

cyclingprop

SimonAH wrote:

You are dangerously close to offending Marvin there mate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/pdf/apps_springer.pdf
Edit: specifically, page 2, line 11.

bompington

bails87 wrote:

This applies to this case and to the Westboro Baptist Church fruitloops, and to the Christians who opposed the Jerry Springer opera thing, and to the US Christians who murder doctors for performing procedures that their magic book apparently opposes. Fruitbattery is not limited to one religion, or to religion itself.

This is true to some extent, but ignores the vast difference between protesting about something you find deeply offensive - i.e. declaring loudly that you find it offensive - and throwing a murderous tantrum about it.

Given that, for example, posters on this forum manage to generate quite a lot of indignance about ultimately very trivial things, you you may wish to take issue with what people believe, but you can't come over all surprised when they react strongly due to those beliefs.
FWIW, Christianity gives no mandate whatsoever to either the Westboro boys (as a Christian myself, I really cannot find any common ground with them at all) or storming embassies and murdering people: while you could argue pretty persuasively that Islam does.

veronese68

phy2sll2 wrote:

Films (and the cartoons, to some extent?) like this one act to perpetuate scorn for / hatred towards Muslims amongst "Westerners". (A bit like Petronella Wyatt and cycling?!)

So, we should burn the offices of the Daily Fail? Sounds like a plan.

EKE_38BPM

As I said, I've never read the Qu'ran or any 'holy' book, so I don't know what it says about murdering innocent (in our eyes) people but if Allah (or God or Jehovah or Marvin) is powerful enough to write his name on a fruit, then surely he/she/it is powerful enough to seek their own revenge on whoever insults him/her/it.

The story about the Christian 11 year old mentally disabled Pakistani girl who was framed by a Muslim cleric for burning pages of the Qu'ran really winds me up. It seems to me that the cleric must have burned the pages himself (which, apparently is a big no-no) just to get her in big trouble. Isn't that a bit like killing your child so that you can frame your wife for murder. If you are a believer, you'd be hurting yourself just to hurt someone else.

Strange behaviour, but then, all religion seems strange to me.

Person 1: "There is only one God"
Person 2: "Agreed, there is only one God"
Person 1: "My God is better than your God, though"
Person 2: "No, MY God is better than your God"
Person 1: "Blasphemer!"
Person 2: "Thems fighting words!"
Person 1: "Lets fight to see who's God is more powerful"
Person 3: "Didn't you both just say there was only one God? I don't understand your fight."

Some people prefer listening to music on vinyl. Some people prefer listening to music on CD. As long as the music is good, does it matter how you prefer to listen to it?

Wallace1492

What I find extremely hard to believe is that any religion still is in existance, never mind being fiercly practiced.

Christianity for example has never been a particularly forward thinking institution, what with leading crusades, killing "witch's" heretic's and all sorts of other disgraceful practices to the modern times of covering up child abuse.

Living by a moral code is one thing, but how can people in this day and age believe in a "supreme being", with absolutely no proof whatsoever, and to worship some sort of book that was written by hundreds of people with nowt better to do that make up fanciful stories of some forgotten world, really get a grip! Or better still, worship a book that at least makes a better film..... LOTR.

Seriously, does anyone out there actually unconditionally revere the Bible? (or whatever your chosen acient religious book is called)

EKE_38BPM

Ah, but if you require proof then you have no faith.

The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy wrote:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

pangolin

Wallace1492 wrote:

Seriously, does anyone out there actually unconditionally revere the Bible? (or whatever your chosen acient religious book is called)

Yup Don't know that I've ever thought of myself as 'unconditionally revering' it, but I believe the bible.

Please don't confuse things like

Wallace1492 wrote:

leading crusades, killing "witch's" heretic's and all sorts of other disgraceful practices to the modern times of covering up child abuse.

with what's actually in the bible though. I could declare myself a Tory, then go out killing children. Doesn't make that the fault of the Tory party though. Just makes me a nutter.

Wallace1492

But the bible is mostly a work of fiction..... written by a host of what appears to be pretty well educated scholars. Written hundreds of years ago.

Modern equivalents are still written, but they are then filmed and are blockbusters.

How can one actually have the "blind belief" in the text of this ancient book?

Note : Was born and brought up as a Catholic, but never actally beleived in any devine being, and now am utter bemused that people still have blind faith in any religion.

DrLex

Now, would Mohammed wear a helmet? Peaked or not?


{I'll get my burning flag on the way out, thanks}

Wrath Rob

We need someone with better understanding of the Muslim faith on here. I understand that its not the Koran as such, but the various interpretations by other prophets that instruct the common man how to interpret the Koran that leads to the outbursts.

In other words, its not the Park Tools themselves that broke your bike, its the Park Tools Website that told you to how to use the tools, that broke your bike.

bompington

Wallace1492 wrote:

But the bible is mostly a work of fiction..... written by a host of what appears to be pretty well educated scholars. Written hundreds of years ago.

Except that you don't have any more evidence of that than I do of the assertion that it's true.

Essentially people disbelieve the bible (the same could be said for other religions' books) for two reasons: it doesn't chime with our culture, and there is a pre-conceived belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural - a notion that is actually exactly as unprovable as the belief that there is.

bails87

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The story about the Christian 11 year old mentally disabled Pakistani girl who was framed by a Muslim cleric for burning pages of the Qu'ran really winds me up. It seems to me that the cleric must have burned the pages himself (which, apparently is a big no-no) just to get her in big trouble. Isn't that a bit like killing your child so that you can frame your wife for murder. If you are a believer, you'd be hurting yourself just to hurt someone else.

Hahaha, you don't think the people in charge actually believe it do you?

It's bollo...nonsense and they know it, but it's an easy job with the chance to lord it (excuse the pun) over a load of fearful peasants who'll happily give you money to keep them on the right side of whoever they're worshipping.

cyclingprop

bompington wrote:

Essentially people disbelieve the bible (the same could be said for other religions' books) for two reasons: it doesn't chime with our culture, and there is a pre-conceived belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural - a notion that is actually exactly as unprovable as the belief that there is.

Actually there is quite a large third group of disbelievers of the bible: those who require proof or substantive evidence.

davmaggs

bompington wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But the bible is mostly a work of fiction..... written by a host of what appears to be pretty well educated scholars. Written hundreds of years ago.

Except that you don't have any more evidence of that than I do of the assertion that it's true.

Essentially people disbelieve the bible (the same could be said for other religions' books) for two reasons: it doesn't chime with our culture, and there is a pre-conceived belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural - a notion that is actually exactly as unprovable as the belief that there is.

I don't want to send the post off down a cul-de-sac, but your last statement is not logical. It's been done to death by those that can write far sensibly about logic than I can, but to make my point I quote wikipedia:

"Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted."

or Google flying spaghetti monster or Pastafarianiasm

Wallace1492

bompington wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But the bible is mostly a work of fiction..... written by a host of what appears to be pretty well educated scholars. Written hundreds of years ago.

Except that you don't have any more evidence of that than I do of the assertion that it's true.

Essentially people disbelieve the bible (the same could be said for other religions' books) for two reasons: it doesn't chime with our culture, and there is a pre-conceived belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural - a notion that is actually exactly as unprovable as the belief that there is.

Bit of a double negative there. I say there is no Superior Being and the Bible is a man made pile of hocus pocus. I substantiate this by asking you to prove it, if it is in fact "real" You cannot show evidence of this Superior Being, but insist I have no evidence that there is not!! So, I cannot prove that something does not exist that there is absolutely no evidence of, so therefore I may be wrong.

Thankfully I have little regard for any organised religions, be they Western, Eastern or whatever.

walkingbootweather

Having spent three years living and working in the Middle East, I would say that my impression of Islam is somewhat different to that promoted in the Western World.

Some of the kindest, most thoughtful and humane people I have met were devout Muslims. Others who might consider themselves as devout, such as the Mutawwa, are less tolerant and insist upon imposing their values on others.

In many muslim countries, westerners are often portrayed as lacking in virtue and whilst we know we aren't all like that, trashy films or cartoons of this type can only serve to show us in a bad light.

Just with any group of people that are classed together there are huge variations. We might all be considered cyclists whether we ride road bikes, MTB, hybrids or folders? Some are devoted to Shimarno, others to campag, SRAM or hub gears. Some choose to wear helmets and hi-viz, others don't. Yet to the Dail Mail we are universally figures to be despised. A bit like muslims or foreigners really.

bompington

davmaggs wrote:

Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted.

Not quite sure what this means, but consider this: Christianity basically stands or falls on the contention that Jesus rose from the dead. While this can never be proved or disproved to the satisfaction off all, it is a historical assertion for which the evidence can be examined.

davmaggs wrote:

or Google flying spaghetti monster or Pastafarianiasm

Yawn. Entertaining parodies but add nothing to the argument.