South Park Creators Threatened by Radical Muslims

[bush_cheney2004]

Some Christians do advocate killing. The fringe nut jobs. Like Pat Robertson... there's a few guys like that, christian leaders with large followings. Some of them are based in the US too.

A lot of "Christians" advocate killing completely unrelated to religion.

Then there's christian cult groups, some whom disagree with the mainstream western lifestyle and choose to live in isolation. These cults have been known to abuse their followers, even kill them. So the notion that Christianity has moved beyond that is "patently false", as some of yous guys always like to say.

It's not patently false until you patently prove it. Christianity has many sects, the majority of which have moderated with political institutions.

That doesn't mean we should justify what the radical Islamists are saying, with their death threats against westerners. It just means, the notion that we as a whole group are better than Muslims is full of crap. There are radical elements in our own society as well. And that's who the enemy of freedom is, extremists. They can be Muslim, or they can be Christian.

And they will be equally met with derision. Christianity and Judaism seem to get far more than Islam....how come?

[Sir Bandelot]

An excellent post with good points. What bothers me is the complete hypocrisy from the left. IF Christians protest something they get the 'tolerance' speech. If Muslims protest(or make threats) then they get the tolerance speech. Oh wait, they don't get the tolerance speech after all. Their beliefs are held up as reasonable and the world is told to quit "provoking". And the left can't see the hypocrisy.

And they wonder why the right in the US is gaining ground!

It think Sharkman says that the right is gaining power, and I tend to agree. This is happening in other countries too, not just Canada or the US. If by "the right" you mean conservatism, then yes, the world is moving toward a more conservative ideology, less liberal, less accepting of people with differences, more intolerant. Which is interesting, considering you might expect things like the internet and globalization would bring people closer together in understanding each other, and learning to calm down. But globalization represents a threat to unique cultures, in that it tends to promote more of a mono-culture. A global multi-cultural melting pot. And the internet can also be used to fight against this, by promoting intolerance, distrust and hatred for other alien cultures.

No one wants to lose their culture, people want to continue the traditions of their elders. When some outside foreign influence comes along and attempts to dismantle our long held beliefs, we lash out. It threatens everything we believe in, it threatens our families and our homes. So there is this backlash against cultural erosion due to foreign mixing. I think that's what leads to radicalization. It's a culture war.

We've seen how the war in the middle east actually increased radicalization, as the backlash against attacks by foreigners. If it is our intention to try and democratize or "liberate" (as in liberal) Islamic countries, if that is what we really want to do we need to think carefully about how best to do it. Kind of like when dealing with a temperamental teenager... there's a time to confront them, and a time to be more persuasive. It takes maturity to know when to use each approach... let cool heads prevail.

[Sir Bandelot]

Christianity has many sects

As does Islam

[Sir Bandelot]

A lot of "Christians" advocate killing completely unrelated to religion.

No I'm talking about a religious leader here. Don't try to obfuscate

[bush_cheney2004]

No I'm talking about a religious leader here. Don't try to obfuscate

What is a religious leader? George Bush?

[Michael Hardner]

If you look Michael, I cite the example of revolution muslim directly below the statement. All you have to do is read it.

The ravings of an extremist are no more relevant to the group than your posts here are to sensible conservatives.

I suppose you`re right, Michael. Every second day when a new incident of Muslim violence or intimidation is reported and it`s put forth on this page, you indeed repeatedly reach for your age old platitudes `nothing to see here`, `most muslims are moderates etc. etc. etc., and tomorrow when we get yet another example you`ll reach for them again...and the next day, and the day after that....

As I have said, your pluckings of random misdeeds done by Muslims all over the world don't amount to evidence any more than Christians committing violence in the Congo reflect on Jerry Falwell.

You don't like Muslims as far as I can see, and that's pretty much your entire argument.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't care if you retract or not...are we that full of ourself today (and everyday)?

Well, I for one don't want to be wrong. I self-correct, you see, when I make an error. If you want to show me where I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it and prove you right. If not, I'm not going to look for evidence for your assertion that I told you how to live.

My assertion is that insulting religions is generally rude. I don't think rudeness is productive, and in fact it's often quite pointless. Of course, rudeness is personal expression and should be allowed.

Apart from that, you did your little circle dance explaining why all Muslims wanted Daniel Pearl dead and that was pretty much the discussion in a nutshell.

[Michael Hardner]

What is a religious leader? George Bush?

It's a moved goalpost, is what it is. Go out and find a counter example for them and see if they change their minds. I, on the other hand, have offered to retract and correct myself and B_C seems mystified as to why anyone would do that.

The answer is because in looking for truth, sometimes we make mistakes and the only option of the fair debater is to acknowledge that and move on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I for one don't want to be wrong. I self-correct, you see, when I make an error. If you want to show me where I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it and prove you right. If not, I'm not going to look for evidence for your assertion that I told you how to live.

It's not important...except to you. Either your ideas have merit or they don't.

My assertion is that insulting religions is generally rude. I don't think rudeness is productive, and in fact it's often quite pointless. Of course, rudeness is personal expression and should be allowed.

And my assertion is that you are being rude (and smug) by assuming such a "superior" position vis-a-vis the interactions of others. You wouldn't like New York City.

Apart from that, you did your little circle dance explaining why all Muslims wanted Daniel Pearl dead and that was pretty much the discussion in a nutshell.

It was never my intention to associate the murder of Mr. Pearl with all Muslims, just the ones hell bent on killing the infidel (for whatever reason....from exposed tits to eating non Halal food). You jumped to a self-serving conclusion.

[Sir Bandelot]

What is a religious leader? George Bush?

I already told you. But George is not a bad second guess. Not sure but I think the POTUS often leads in christian prayers at the white house, and perhaps at the opening of some political procedures as well. Well maybe you can enlighten me on that.

The week of September 11th, 2001, Robertson discussed the terror attacks with Jerry Falwell, who said that "the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Robertson replied, "I totally concur."

Less than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina killed 1,836 people, Pat Robertson implied on the September 12th broadcast of The 700 Club that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment in response to America's abortion policy. He suggested that September 11 and the disaster in New Orleans "could... be connected in some way".[47]

That could be an ayatollah talking right there. And I believe these boys have millions of followers, US followers. Is that so?

Of course we know that he called for the assassination of some people over the years. He did this on his show, "700 club", which is a christian TV show. Does that make him a religious leader in this context?

Shall I go on because I'm sure I can dig up crap like this on others too. Christian fundamentalism is a rising power in US society. So your premise that Christianity has moved on from these forms of violence, ie. death threats IS INDEED patently false.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

I already told you. But George is not a bad second guess. Not sure but I think the POTUS often leads in christian prayers at the white house, and perhaps at the opening of some political procedures as well. Well maybe you can enlighten me on that.

How would it be relevant to crucifying somebody for cartoons?

The week of September 11th, 2001, Robertson discussed the terror attacks with Jerry Falwell, who said that "the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Robertson replied, "I totally concur." Both evangelists later issued apologies for their statements.

The above is protected speech in the USA....swing and a miss!

Less than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina killed 1,836 people, Pat Robertson implied on the September 12th broadcast of The 700 Club that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment in response to America's abortion policy. He suggested that September 11 and the disaster in New Orleans "could... be connected in some way".[47]

Also protected speech.

That could be an ayatollah talking right there. And I believe these boys have millions of followers, US followers. Is that so? Of course we know that he called for the assassination of various people too over the years. He did this on his show, "700 club", which is a christian TV show. Does that make him a religious leader in this context?

Not unless he was also the head of state and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.

Shall I go on because I'm sure I can dig up crap like this on others too. Christian fundamentalism is a rising power in US society. So your premise that Christianity has moved on from these forms of violence, ie. death threats IS INDEED patently false.

You have only made my point for me....it is the secular forces that have killed the most, not Christian leaders.

Edited April 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

It's not important...except to you. Either your ideas have merit or they don't.

Right. They do. So why have a conversation if you will say that I'm telling you how to live, and then just walk away from that statement ?

To my mind, these discussions - if they're well done - should either lead to 'agree to disagree' (in the case where the facts are complex enough to warrant different conclusions, or the facts lead to an analysis that is necessarily values-based) or one of us changes their mind.

And my assertion is that you are being rude (and smug) by assuming such a "superior" position vis-a-vis the interactions of others. You wouldn't like New York City.

New York City is actually very polite. So is Toronto. Most cities are. The idea that small towns are more polite is a myth, IMO. Cities are filled with strangers, so people are used to it. Pulling up to a gas station in West Virginia last year got me all kinds of looks - as an 'outsider' I expect.

It was never my intention to associate the murder of Mr. Pearl with all Muslims, just the ones hell bent on killing the infidel (for whatever reason....from exposed tits to eating non Halal food). You jumped to a self-serving conclusion.

If you follow the thread, it's pretty clear that I began asking for this...

True, but yet this argument continues. I guess we established that you like to be rude, and I'm waiting to get proof that mainstream Islam demands death for blasphemy.

Looking at it, I guess the confusion is around what constitutes "mainstream Islam". I was thinking of the people, rather than the religion. The assertion that the religion demands death for blasphemy is correct, but do most Muslims ? I would say not.

This is where we stepped off the path then.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. They do. So why have a conversation if you will say that I'm telling you how to live, and then just walk away from that statement ?

Because you did not limit your judgement about rudeness to youself. You are guilty of the same thing. For instance, I am not a Christian, but you insisted on implying as much.

To my mind, these discussions - if they're well done - should either lead to 'agree to disagree' (in the case where the facts are complex enough to warrant different conclusions, or the facts lead to an analysis that is necessarily values-based) or one of us changes their mind.

There are many other possible endings....including complete indifference. There are no prizes to be awarded.

New York City is actually very polite. So is Toronto. Most cities are. The idea that small towns are more polite is a myth, IMO. Cities are filled with strangers, so people are used to it. Pulling up to a gas station in West Virginia last year got me all kinds of looks - as an 'outsider' I expect.

You probably deserved it.

If you follow the thread, it's pretty clear that I began asking for...

Again, it's not all about you. Your posts are often just a vehicle for the entertainment of others.

Looking at it, I guess the confusion is around what constitutes "mainstream Islam". I was thinking of the people, rather than the religion. The assertion that the religion demands death for blasphemy is correct, but do most Muslims ? I would say not.

It matters not to me....Islam just happens to be in the barrel this time around. Trey and Matt have the constitutional right to offend anybody they please, and I am willing to die for that right.

[Sir Bandelot]

How would it relevant to crucifying somebody for cartoons?

The above is protected speech in the USA....swing and a miss!

They are saying that the people who died, especially as in Katrina and Haiti deserved it for their sins. Specifically, that they deserved to die because they sinned against god for a number of whatever religious sacrileges.

Not unless he was also the head of state and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.

Nor is the website calling for death for Parker and Stone coming from a commander in chief of any nation. They are just some nutjobs, nowhere near as influential as leaders of millions like Robertson or Falwell.

it is the secular forces that have killed the most, not Christian leaders.

These christian leaders called for and approved the death of certain people, for committing what are perceived to be sins. And they are American Christian leaders. That is the point I have proved.

[bush_cheney2004]

They are saying that the people who died, especially as in Katrina and Haiti deserved it for their sins. Specifically, that they deserved to die because they sinned against god for a number of whatever religious sacrileges.

So what....a lot of America's detractors (including some in Canada and USA) said the exact same thing because of American foreign policies.

Nor is the website calling for death for Parker and Stone coming from a commander in chief of any nation. They are just some nutjobs, nowhere near as influential as leaders of millions like Robertson or Falwell.

Falwell is quite dead last time I checked, and Robertson is quite near death from old age. They haven't killed anybody to date like our "secular" political leadership.

These christian leaders called for and approved the death of certain people, for committing what are perceived to be sins. And they are American Christian leaders. That is the point I have proved.

You have proven that First Amendment rights are alive and well....thank you.

Edited April 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Because you did not limit your judgement about rudeness to youself. You are guilty of the same thing. For instance, I am not a Christian, but you insisted on implying as much.

Being rude or being Christian, or not being either are just choices. If you identify as a rude non-Christian, then you are consistent in your behavior and I have nothing more to add.

There are many other possible endings....including complete indifference. There are no prizes to be awarded.

Why start a conversation if you're indifferent to what is said ? Why even be here ?

Again, it's not all about you. Your posts are often just a vehicle for the entertainment of others.

But I post for my own purposes, not for the purposes of others. Again, if you're just going to say 'who cares' then you're not being honest with yourself about your motivations for being here, I think.

It matters not to me....Islam just happens to be in the barrel this time around. Trey and Matt have the constitutional right to offend anybody they please, and I am willing to die for that right.

Unless you become 'indifferent' halfway through the right.

[GostHacked]

I really can't believe how many of you are getting your panties bunched up because of this South Park epp. Where was the outrage when South Park did the Family Guy bit with the Mohamed a couple years back? This will add fuel the fire for Trey and Parker and I hope they continue with it.

It's a cartoon, get over it. Comedy people. Comedy.

Edited April 25, 2010 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Being rude or being Christian, or not being either are just choices. If you identify as a rude non-Christian, then you are consistent in your behavior and I have nothing more to add.

Excellent....then please leave the "rude" to their own devices and mind your own knitting as it is said in Canada.

Why start a conversation if you're indifferent to what is said ? Why even be here ?

Conversation is your personal investment.....not mine. This is a marketplace for ideas, not egos.

But I post for my own purposes, not for the purposes of others. Again, if you're just going to say 'who cares' then you're not being honest with yourself about your motivations for being here, I think.

See...you're still doing it. Play the game for yourself....do not second guess the motivations of others.

Unless you become 'indifferent' halfway through the right.

Not likely...it is a sworn oath and America has ricky ticky killed lots of mofos protecting same.

[Sir Bandelot]

I really can't believe how many of you are getting your panties bunched up because of this South Park epp. Where was the outrage when South Park did the Family Guy bit with the Mohamed a couple years back? This will add fuel the fire for Trey and Parker and I hope they continue with it.

It's a cartoon, get over it. Comedy people. Comedy.

The conversation went beyond that particular aspect a while ago, to encompass this, that and the other thing...

And no one wants to admit that the other persons POV has any validity, as usual!

Edited April 25, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

The conversation went beyond that particular aspect a while ago, to encompass this, that and the other thing...

Indeed...it even raised Jerry Falwell from the dead.....praise Jesus!

[Sir Bandelot]

In a sense the conversation has become a kind of self-referencing thing. My point of view is superior to yours, you people are trying to suppress me, I will tell you whenever you are wrong, I will silence you from expressing your views...

You people are funny!

[Handsome Rob]

For clarity - quoting an extreme punishment from a holy book doesn't constitute proof that the religion as a whole believes that the punishment is appropriate. If it did, then the big 3 religions would all be in favour of death penalties for relatively minor infractions.

By the same token, said cartoon shouldn't offend the entire group. I really don't think we should be worrying about offending people calling for our collective death, so not much of an issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

By the same token, said cartoon shouldn't offend the entire group. I really don't think we should be worrying about offending people calling for our collective death, so not much of an issue.

I agree...since we have gone far beyond merely offending Muslims, to the point of slaying them by the thousands with secular policies. Now if you are a radicalized Muslim hell bent on preserving the honor of the great prophet, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? ...

[Sir Bandelot]

By the same token, said cartoon shouldn't offend the entire group. I really don't think we should be worrying about offending people calling for our collective death, so not much of an issue.

Except for Parker and Stone. In retrospect a well calculated publicity stunt. They can only benefit from the attention in the long run.

Unless of course, they eat a bullet

[bush_cheney2004]

....Unless of course, they eat a bullet

Too western....

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

—Quran 5:33