First Annual Draw Muhammed Day

[tay120n64]

While I agree with Jason, I also think that it is important that we show them why they can't get away with imposing their beliefs on people outside of their religion.

That having been said, antagonizing them is not the way to do it.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason, you fell into the trap of arguing from a persecution complex again, and really, it is an appeal to emotion. This isn't a very good way of addressing the problem. Let me put it this way, people mock and criticize each other all the time for various reasons with varying degrees of justification, there is no reason to give exception to Muslims. Let me quote what I said earlier in a post.

"All the protest popping up in journals against this day based on how it could potentially offend a group consisting of 1.5 billion people are disingenuous at best. What this is really saying is that Muslims are too weak-willed to deserve the privilege of being offended like the rest of the world enjoys, and thus needs to be protected delicately against the hate speech and offensive derogatory imagery. While I do not condone such hateful vitriol against a group of people, and I spit bitterly upon those who would use this occasion as a carte blanche to be an islamophobic racist bigot, I find the need to protect a whole group of people from the horrible things people say and draw to be far more racist and far more derogatory...Free expression should not only be about protecting the free speech that you like, it should extend to things you find offensive, things that could get you into deep trouble and things that you hate with every fiber of your being."

As you can see, as I am the very first one who would speak out passionately against the actions of extremists with no effort to rosy up my speeches, I draw a very strong distinction between being offending/offended and dehumanizing a large group of people for the actions of a few extremists. That is being a bigot, not mocking the idea and criticizing it for what it actually teaches. I would just as easily turn my sharp tongue against anyone who would leave their humanity behind to denigrate groups of people based on their cultural heritage, as I have against atheists on youtube recently who partook in harassing, dropping dox on and sending death threats to any muslims or anyone else who dared to speak out against the disturbingly racist sentiments being brewed up over the whole debacle.

I still stand by what I said about there being a pretty large proportion of muslims who practice the teaching of the Qu'ran to the point of it being a very big detriment to the people it's being practiced on. What I failed to mention, is that the biggest victims of this theocratic poison are the muslims, especially their women. The point of my criticism is to illustrate how it is a damn shame that the muslims who live amongst us, who learned to enjoy and appreciate the freedom of expression granted to them by a secular society, are still sleeping on the matter for the most part, or even promoting the import of poison like the Sharia Law into secular society. So far, I have talked with all of two muslims (Both of whom had seen my Muhammad drawing.) who are also against the inhumane treatment the extremists and the theocrats have been imposing on their own people and others. I really appreciate that they have the stones to speak out against it, and they have my deep respect. This is a big part of what I value in human decency, being honest about what goes on in your own group and being able to speak out against the injustices even if it comes from your own. This being afraid to offend crap is the least of my concern, what matters here is the principles, motives and actions.

Try reading my post again about the possible consequences of not speaking out against the recent affront against free speech, you'll see that what the end which I wanted to work towards is avoiding the needless slaughter and suffering of people, including muslims. After knowing this, can you still insinuate in an underhanded manner that I, as an atheist, lack any sense of common decency?

Also, besides the first example, (Which, assuming it is true, is a bit of a knee-jerk, but not completely unjustified. You do not get to promote religion in a government-mandated institute for education.) the rest are examples of religion infringing on the territory of the government when it shouldn't. You are perfectly entitled to have your stone tablets and nativity scenes elsewhere.

PS : If you want me to show examples of atheists being downtrodden in the US more so than any other minorities, one needs to look no further than how you would often insinuate that people without religion are somehow morally inferior. In case that is not enough, I distinctly remember George W Bush Jr, the guy who represented the entire nation for 8 shameful years, saying that atheists shouldn't be counted as citizens. Oh and the countless times atheists have been censored in various ways, like false DMCA notices and the false flagging campaigns for speaking out against religion in general, and for exposing religious charlatans like Casey Luskin and Peter Poppoff for the dishonest, disingenuous scammers that they are.

If you REALLY wanna know what it's like, why don't you tell your pastors that you've deconverted to atheism and is now going to speak out in criticism of Mormonism? Let me know how it works out.

[Jason Tandro]

How is a person expressing their own religion a "promotion of that religion"? Nobody has ever told me how these examples harm anybody.

Also, when have I insinuated that atheists are morally inferior? I think you're a little extreme but I know a lot of atheists are people who are just don't care to get caught up in the drama and decide to live and let live.

And also, I must once again point out your hypocrisy. You claim that all my arguments are "from a persecution complex" and "appeal to emotion" and yet here you start throwing outlandish claims of yours being the most untolerated minority. You should practice what you preach, no pun intended. I have suffered ACTUAL discrimination.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

How is a person expressing their own religion a "promotion of that religion"? Nobody has ever told me how these examples harm anybody.

Sharia law is more than an expression of religion, it is what happens when the church and state does not stay separate. This is what I mean by promoting the poison, they are getting new laws instated based on religious beliefs. That is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to practice the religion, this is saying that they should not get a free ride legally. They are perfectly entitled to practice whatever the hell they want, just so long as it doesn't violate any pre-existing laws.

Let me put this in gaming terms, you do not get to change the rules of the game in order to give your particular style of play an unfair advantage over others.

Quote:

Also, when have I insinuated that atheists are morally inferior? I think you're a little extreme but I know a lot of atheists are people who are just don't care to get caught up in the drama and decide to live and let live.

Allow me to quote : How about common decency? I know this is a foreign concept to many people who don't believe in religion

Quote:

And also, I must once again point out your hypocrisy. You claim that all my arguments are "from a persecution complex" and "appeal to emotion" and yet here you start throwing outlandish claims of yours being the most untolerated minority. You should practice what you preach, no pun intended. I have suffered ACTUAL discrimination.

First off, they are, especially when you look at it from a grander scale. You asked for examples, and I gave you plenty. Guess what, even in this melting pot of culture, I have suffered discrimination from many angles, people have tried to silence me, threaten me, and even caused physical harm to me just for look different, thinking differently and for liking different things, so please do not try to turn this into a pissing contest of who suffered discrimination the most, because we ALL have our fair share to deal with, some more than others.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: How is a person expressing their own religion a "promotion of that religion"? Nobody has ever told me how these examples harm anybody. Sharia law is more than an expression of religion, it is what happens when the church and state does not stay separate. This is what I mean by promoting the poison, they are getting new laws instated based on religious beliefs. That is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to practice the religion, this is saying that they should not get a free ride legally. They are perfectly entitled to practice whatever the hell they want, just so long as it doesn't violate any pre-existing laws. Let me put this in gaming terms, you do not get to change the rules of the game in order to give your particular style of play an unfair advantage over others.

A "slippery slope" argument?

So far the only two real legal debates (at least in this country) that concern religion directly are abortion and gay marriage. Neither involve the atheistic community in any way.

Being forced to see something that annoys is just a "tough shit" of life, Val.

Quote:

Quote: Also, when have I insinuated that atheists are morally inferior? I think you're a little extreme but I know a lot of atheists are people who are just don't care to get caught up in the drama and decide to live and let live. Allow me to quote : How about common decency? I know this is a foreign concept to many people who don't believe in religion

In the immortal words of Laertes from Hamlet (Act 5, Scene 2): "A touch, a touch I do confess."

That was absolutely a cheap shot and I withdraw it.

Quote:

Quote: And also, I must once again point out your hypocrisy. You claim that all my arguments are "from a persecution complex" and "appeal to emotion" and yet here you start throwing outlandish claims of yours being the most untolerated minority. You should practice what you preach, no pun intended. I have suffered ACTUAL discrimination. First off, they are, especially when you look at it from a grander scale. You asked for examples, and I gave you plenty. Guess what, even in this melting pot of culture, I have suffered discrimination from many angles, people have tried to silence me, threaten me, and even caused physical harm to me just for look different, thinking differently and for liking different things, so please do not try to turn this into a pissing contest of who suffered discrimination the most, because we ALL have our fair share to deal with, some more than others.

Okay, now it's YOUR turn to read MY post more carefully. Either don't shoot down my anecdotal "persecution complex" evidence or stop trying to sell me on your own. That was the whole point of that.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

A "slippery slope" argument? So far the only two real legal debates (at least in this country) that concern religion directly are abortion and gay marriage. Neither involve the atheistic community in any way. Being forced to see something that annoys is just a "tough shit" of life, Val.

Abortion affects women, and gay marriage affects gay people, these groups of people includes atheists, and so in a way, atheists are involved in this. Even if it doesn't directly affect atheists, that does not make the current rulings, especially that recent one in Oklahoma.

Just because it is outside of the US, doesn't mean that the issue is not worth bringing up. Also, the constitution, as well as the principle of the separation between church and state must never be allowed to erode.

Quote:

Okay, now it's YOUR turn to read MY post more carefully. Either don't shoot down my anecdotal "persecution complex" evidence or stop trying to sell me on your own. That was the whole point of that.

The thing is, it's not just black and white, and while I do not approve of whatever you had to go through, I can, and have given examples of atheists having to go through more of it and the worst of it. The root of my argument is based on how you seen to try to make it seem as if christians are persecuted far more than any minority groups, which is just not true.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Just because it is outside of the US, doesn't mean that the issue is not worth bringing up. Also, the constitution, as well as the principle of the separation between church and state must never be allowed to erode.

I was wondering when you were going to bring this up.

Separation of Church and State means that the government cannot show favoritism towards any one religion and that they cannot mandate what religions are practiced by whom. That's the entire article.

So again, my two oft quoted examples "teacher wearing cross" and "courthouse with the ten commandments" do not violate church and state, in that neither have directly resulted in laws that violate the rights of anybody.

I will grant you that there is a slippery slope and that these activities may lead to greater persecution. But if the alternative is violating the rights of the majority than I am against it. Why should we trade one set of freedoms for another?

[Manibrandr System]

The 10 commandments in the court is a show of favouritism towards christianity.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

The 10 commandments in the court is a show of favouritism towards christianity.

Well first, Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the ten commandments. (well i'm not sure about muslims actually, but I believe that it was part of their doctine).

Secondly as long those laws are not enacted and enforced, this is no more a show of favoritism than it is a demonstration of one of the earliest recorded examples of a codified law.

And again, simply displaying something that belongs to a certain religion does not violate the Separation of Church and State. This only applies to the laws that we enact.

[Manibrandr System]

...but states HAVE been passing bills and making laws based on religious ideals, making its presence all the more suspect.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

...but states HAVE been passing bills and making laws based on religious ideals, making its presence all the more suspect.

But the act in and of itself hurts nobody. I've never argued that bills that are being passed which limit the rights of others should be stopped. But that's the thing. Abortion laws do limit a "right". The right to murder a child.

Gay marriage laws, on the other hand is violating the rights of people to have the same legal rights as a married couple and I am against it.

So basically your argument is that regardless of whether a law has a good idea or not, if it stems from a religious viewpoint it should be abolished.

[Manibrandr System]

Well you did say that the presence of the 10 commandments might lead to laws being passed that limit the rights of others. Well, laws have been passed and that bridge had been crossed.

On abortion, it is not a child. It is a fetus and it is technically a parasite living inside the body of a woman. It is not truely alive, it has no hopes, dreams and aspirations that us humans have. While I do think that abortions are an ugly thing to have to go through, (Life isn't pretty) the right of a woman to her own body supercedes that of the fetus, especially when it is a rape pregnancy or when it could potentially kill or seriously harm the woman. I sincerely doubt that abortion is a decision that women come to lightly.

Also you got it backwards. I am saying that these laws should be abolished because they infringe on the rights of people and that these laws which I mentioned were the work of religious viewpoints being imposed on society.

[inferiare]

Valerie Valens wrote:

I sincerely doubt that abortion is a decision that women come to lightly.

You're forgetting the girls and women who have abortions as a means of birth control. They have no problem putting $300 or more in order to get that "parasite" out of their bodies.

Also, partial birth abortion, which to my knowledge is still outlawed everywhere in the US, does kill a living, breathing child in the final trimester of a pregnancy by shoving a pair of scissors into the base of the skull and spine and opening said pair of scissors. How that isn't murder to some, I'll never understand. Someone sane wouldn't do that to a child that has already been born, nor would someone do that to an adult.

Fact is, abortion has a lot of negative effects on a woman. It might be their body, but it can do some serious damage to their body, mind, and psychology. Why is protecting someone from basic self-harm (in some cases) a bad thing?

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

On abortion, it is not a child. It is a fetus

It's a life. It's human. That's the end of that discussion.

Quote:

Also you got it backwards. I am saying that these laws should be abolished because they infringe on the rights of people and that these laws which I mentioned were the work of religious viewpoints being imposed on society.

Fair enough, but as I've said all we're doing in many cases is infringing upon the rights of the religious MAJORITY to express themselves because of the extreme possibility that it might violate the rights of the MINORITY. Again, how is trading one set of rights for another a valid counter?

[Manibrandr System]

rainichan wrote:

Valerie Valens wrote: I sincerely doubt that abortion is a decision that women come to lightly. You're forgetting the girls and women who have abortions as a means of birth control. They have no problem putting $300 or more in order to get that "parasite" out of their bodies. Also, partial birth abortion, which to my knowledge is still outlawed everywhere in the US, does kill a living, breathing child in the final trimester of a pregnancy by shoving a pair of scissors into the base of the skull and spine and opening said pair of scissors. How that isn't murder to some, I'll never understand. Someone sane wouldn't do that to a child that has already been born, nor would someone do that to an adult. Fact is, abortion has a lot of negative effects on a woman. It might be their body, but it can do some serious damage to their body, mind, and psychology. Why is protecting someone from basic self-harm (in some cases) a bad thing?

I wouldn't consider it abortion because in the final trimester of gestation, the fetus is mostly viable outside the mother's womb. Thus killing the unborn baby at this stage would be a tragic waste of life.

It isn't a bad thing to protect others from self harm, but there are better, more practical ways of doing it than outlawing it or forcing a law that could cause even more psychological pain in the women who have to abort. Informing people of the possible side effects of abortion should be enough, if they still go through it foolishly, then there really is no saving them.

Jason : There is no reason that they couldn't express themselves without having to force legally mandated ruling or to have a display/symbol that favours their religion over others. Also, you do not get to end a discussion on abortion, especially not when you do not own a uterus. The issue on this isn't cut and dry, and to end the discussion at "it's a human life" would be intellectually lazy and it ignores the fact that the woman's life is also a life. Are you so willing to let a womans life be possibly destroyed in order to possibly preserve the life of a fetus who would most likely, given the circumstances, be shoved into a cold harsh and unloving world devoid of nurture? Can you not see the possible psychological problems this kid could be facing when growing up?