TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 »

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic @Shaolin: I have the feeling that you're more well-versed in the Quran than most Muslims. Could you tell me if the concept of "dhimmitude" is of Quranic origin, or just some imperialistic/political notion?

Well, let me start of by repeating something I've said before about the Quran, that it's a collection of Surah (chapters) all revealed in different circumstances and hence require context in order to be interpreted. And the Surah containing the relevant verse was revealed at a time when non-Muslims had broken their treaties with Muslims (i.e. at a time of war). Apraently the concept of dhimmitude originated and was popularized by this medieval scholar Ibn Kathir. He used verse 9:29 to justify his stance. Now the way this idea is presented most of the time seems very unfair towards non-muslims. And the way this is practiced today (or was in the later years of the "Islamic Empire" if you will) to the best of my knowledge is pretty unfair. Now, there's this guy Muhammad Asad, a Jewish convert to Islam (I think he was Israeli?), does a much better job of explaining "jaziya" or "exemption tax" in context. This guys (who passed away a few years back) had really done his homework (i.e. done thorough research on the historical context of Surah and studied early Islamic history in great detail). He also wrote one of the better English translations of the Quran. Having established his credentials to some degree, let me quote his explination:

quote:

The term jizyah, rendered by me as "exemption tax", occurs in the Qur`an only once, but its meaning and purpose have been fully explained in many authentic Traditions. It is intimately bound up with the concept of the Islamic state as an ideological organization: and this is a point which must always be borne in mind if the real purport of this tax is to be understood. In the Islamic state, every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God's cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperilled: in other words, every able-bodied Muslim is liable to compulsory military service. Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden. On the other hand, they must be accorded full protection of all their civic rights and of their religious freedom: and it is in order to compensate the Muslim community for this unequal distribution of civic burdens that a special tax is levied on non-Muslim citizens (ahl adh-dhimmah, lit., "covenanted" [or "protected"] people", i.e., non-Muslims whose safety is statutorily assured by the Muslim community). Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the "covenant of protection" (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state. (The term itself is derived from the verb jazd, "he rendered [something] as a satisfaction", or "as a compensation [in lieu of something else]" - cf. Lane II, 422.) No fixed rate has been set either by the Qur'an or by the Prophet for this tax; but from all available Traditions it is evident that it is to be considerably lower than the tax called zakdh ("the purifying dues") to which Muslims are liable and which - because it is a specifically Islamic religious duty-is naturally not to be levied on non-Muslims. Only such of the non-Muslim citizens who, if they were Muslims, would be expected to serve in the armed forces of the state are liable to the payment of jizyah, provided that they can easily afford it. Accordingly, all non-Muslim citizens whose personal status or condition would automatically free them from the obligation to render military service are statutorily - that is, on the basis of clear-cut ordinances promulgated by the Prophet-exempted from the payment of jizyah: (a) all women, (b) males who have not yet reached full maturity, (c) old men, (d) all sick or crippled men, (e) priests and monks. All non-Muslim citizens who volunteer for military service are obviously exempted from the payment of jizyah.

Most of the time this idea is presented as a tax only on non-Muslims and is cosidered to be much higher than the obligatory tax Muslims pay. That is not true. Jazya is usually just as high if not lower than taxes Muslims would pay in an Islamic state. Muslims are also obligated to pay "zakat" which a pretty small tax (usually like less than 3% of your income) used to eliminate poverty. This money is exclusively for the poor. So bascially this difference in taxation exists to balance out the imbalance in civic responsibility.

Anyone governing body or person who would charge an unfair and high tax rate on non-Muslims who be unjust and abusing it as a means of securing more capital, which ofcrouse is unislamic.

So I hope that gave you a better understanding of this concept and clarified any misconceptions.

EDIT: One thing I guess I should add is that when the implementation jazya is unjust and the concept is abused, then yes, it does become a politicized imperilistic opression/coersion technique.

so 2 days ago I watched a reporter interview a cleric or someone important who was muslim. He was saying most of the right things and semi claimed that he would call on anything no pollitically correct etc

so the reporter than asked him "can we count on you to call on those who have cartoons depicting jesus and jews in a bad light" which many arab papers already do especially anti-semetic ones.

He then became obviouslly uncomfortable and wouldnt agree saying it wasnt the same issue??

quote:

Originally posted by djdarren

The cartoon is hypocritical.
It's already been established that drawings of Mohammed are NOT prohibited by Islam when past drawings exist by former Muslim rulers...

The artist is trying to compare bigotry and the holocaust with something that is clearly a religious satire. A few arists chose to make a political statement. wow. Like political satire doesn't happen EVERY DAY IN EVERY NEWSPAPER. But you don't see us marching around like idiots, burning buildings and flags do you?
Welcome to freedom of speech...

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd In response to the above two posters: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ion-cover_x.htm "In the USA, only 16% say they rarely go to church." Translation: 84% OFTEN attend church. "Often" does not mean "just during holidays."

What percentage NEVER attend church? I think you forgot those people.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy What percentage NEVER attend church? I think you forgot those people.

1 of them right here

crazy iranians

quote:

Iran's hard-line president on Saturday accused the United States and Europe of being "hostages of Zionism" and said they should pay a heavy price for the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have triggered worldwide protests. Denmark � where the drawings were first published four months ago � warned Danes to leave Indonesia, saying they faced a "significant and imminent danger" from an extremist group and announced it had withdrawn embassy staff from Jakarta, Iran and Syria. Yemen announced that three chief editors of privately owned Yemeni papers will stand trial for printing the Danish cartoons and their publishing licenses suspended. They Information Ministry officials said the editors are charged with offending the prophet of Islam and violating religions. Earlier this month, two Jordanian editors were put on trial for reprinting the Danish caricatures of Muhammad. Saudi Arabia's top cleric said in a Friday sermon that those responsible for the drawings should be put on trial and punished. Muslims in several European and Asian countries, meanwhile, kept up their protests, with thousands taking to the streets in London's biggest demonstration over the issue so far. Last week, demonstrators in tightly controlled Iran attacked the Danish, French and Austrian embassies with stones and firebombs and hit the British mission with rocks. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is at odds with much of the international community over Iran's disputed nuclear program, launched an anti-Israeli campaign last fall when he said the Holocaust was a "myth" and that Israeli should be "wiped off the map." In a speech marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution Saturday, Ahmadinejad linked his public rage with Israel and the cartoons satirizing Islam's most revered figure. "Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said. "We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists." The drawings � including one that depicts the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse � were first published in September and recently reprinted in other European publications that said it was an issue of freedom of speech. Islam widely holds that representations of the prophet are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry. Iran, a predominantly Shiite Muslim country, has seized on the caricatures as a means of rallying its people behind a government that is increasingly under fire from the West over its nuclear program. Shiite Muslims do not ban representations of the prophet and some in Iran's provincial towns and villages even carry drawings said to be of Muhammad. But Tehran said the newspaper caricatures were insulting to all Muslims. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said on behalf of the European Union that Ahmadinejad's remarks should not be silently accepted. "These remarks stand in complete contradiction to the efforts of numerous political and religious leaders who after the events of the past few days are campaigning for a dialogue between cultures that is marked by mutual respect," Plassnik said. Plassnik was referring to appeals for calm made in recent days by Arab governments, Muslim clerics and newspaper columnists who fear the sometimes deadly violence has only increased anti-Islamic sentiment in the West. Norway's ambassador to Saudi Arabia apologized on Saturday for the "offense" caused when a Norwegian newspaper published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Denmark, which has been stunned by the wave of protests over the caricatures that first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September, urged its citizens on Saturday to leave Indonesia as soon as possible, saying they were facing "a significant and imminent danger" from an unnamed extremist group. The warning came hours after the ministry said it withdrew Danish staff from Indonesia, Iran and Syria. The Danish ambassador to Lebanon left last week after the embassy building in Beirut was burned by protesters. Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims but stood by its decision to print the drawings, citing freedom of speech. The newspaper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, who was in charge of the drawings, went on indefinite leave Thursday, but many Muslims said that would do little to quell the uproar. The paper has denied that Rose was ordered to go. "He was not forced out," the paper's spokesman Tage Clausen told The Associated Press in Copenhagen. "He's on vacation, that's all." Saudi Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, called on Muslims to reject apologies for the "slanderous" caricatures. "Is there only freedom of expression when it involves insults to Muslims? he said in his sermon, which was published Saturday in the Al Riyad daily. Noisy but peaceful rallies also were held in Turkey, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland and elsewhere, although the Middle East was largely calm. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the caricatures were damaging attempts to blend the Muslim faith with democracy. "It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam," the U.S.-educated leader wrote in a commentary that appeared Saturday in the International Herald Tribune.

from yahoo/ap

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So I hope that gave you a better understanding of this concept and clarified any misconceptions.

Yes, it was very enlightening, thank you. One thing I didn't get, though, was the issue of rights/duties on behalf of the dhimmi. Do the Quran lay down any of those (apart from the military service thing)?

quote:

Originally posted in article quoted by InterMilan31 "It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam," the U.S.-educated leader wrote in a commentary that appeared Saturday in the International Herald Tribune.

Where's the conflict?

I think it's interesting/sad how spineless western leaders and media have turned out to be. Although they try to excuse their actions by being sensitive, stories such as this makes it absolutely clear that the only guiding principles are fear and greed. This, I think, has turned out to be more troubling than the actual outrage.
Also check out the CNN clip here . I think Reynolds mentions two important questions:
- Why are the left only up in arms about civic liberties when these are being denied non-conservatives?
- Why is it more important to respect the sensitivities of violent radicals than regular law-abiding citizens?

The lack of effort from the left to engage these questions confirm to me that even if I'm a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, Bush hating, godless environmentalist, I'm definitely not a left-winger.


Btw. I stumbled upon this article from the Asia Times. It addresses the reasons why the Muslim community in the Middle East really didn't have any other options than reacting as they do, and also why it makes perfect sense for Iran to engage the West in a confrontation. I thought it was quite interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by djdarren

This particular cartoon is a little misleading, as Jyllands-posten printed cartoons originally appearing in Arab newspapers some time ago. Furthermore, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has mainly been portrayed in Danish cartoons as evil Israelis in tanks suppressing poor innocent Palestinians. As to making fun of races, I have a Danish cartoon book which contains nothing but jokes relating to race and stereotypes associated with them.

However, if you like cartoons, you'll dig this site. Some of my favourites:






And while we're on the topic of cartoons, this one apparently resulted in outrage from Muslim groups:

Come on - it's obvious that it's CNN's policies that's being made fun of.

hahahaa LOL @ the last one

im really suprised the cartoonist isnt dead yet...

A sad case of an island of reason in a sea of stupidity:

quote:

The Illusionary Victory There is a kind of euphoria spirit going on here. A spirit of victory which is something rare in this nation and this region. The victory is not over some disease we managed to cure or an economic indicator we managed to increase, the victory is over a small Scandinavian European country that makes butter and toys. The victory is over a western country that in our minds represents the entire west. In other words, the victory many of us are feeling today is over the west as a whole. From my conversations with my friends and the articles I read in our papers, I felt that there is a sense of victory after the apology of both the Danish government and J-Posten (neither apologized for publishing the cartoons however). A feeling that we finally managed to defeat Lurpak and Legos after we dreadfully failed to defeat Boeing and Coca Cola. As someone who longs for my region to experience a triumph after another, I cannot partake in this illusionary �victory� because, just like many of what we consider as victories, it is fake and has done more negatives than positives. We are a defeated nation. Defeated in almost all areas of life. This is the reason why we search, in fact we sniff, for any victory, no matter how fake it turns out to be. Our inability to achieve real and beneficial triumphs forces us to accept illusionary victories that we accept without any rational thinking. In addition, we have the horrible habit of blaming others for our defeats, and since these days we look at everything through the prism of religion, we direct our blame at the Western world. We are the complete opposite of the Japanese who lost their empire yet made a U-turn and became a world economic superpower once again. They made their U-turn by asking themselves the crucial questions of �what went wrong?� and �how can we fix it?�. They didn�t blame the west but rather copied the west and excelled over it in many areas. The Germans have done the same thing. They have looked in the mirror and accepted defeat and worked on finding a solution out of it. Our problem is that we don�t have a mirror to look at. We think we, such poor wretched souls, are being attacked from all directions and the whole world wants to suck our oil and terminate our religion. We are consumed by these thoughts, we definitely have no time to look at the mirror. Now, why do I think the �Battle of Denmark� was a total defeat for the Arab/Muslim world? The Danish government and the paper issued an apology. The Arab/Muslim world were united against Lurpak and Legos, they don�t unite themselves behind a common cause that often. The entire world knew that Arab/Muslim anger is something to be reckoned with, and papers around the world will think twice before offending Muslims because what happened to Lurpak gave them a lesson. Aren�t all the above facts victories? The answer is no. First this cartoon issue was another misstep in which Arabs/Muslims tarnished their image even more. The idea to boycott an entire nation and vilify an entire people just because of what a single independent paper there did was childish and stupid. This boycott of all Denmark and not just the companies that advertise in J-Posten showed that up till now the Muslim world is foreign to the concept of free speech and freedom of expression. This leads to the assumption that we have a long way to go before accepting the values of liberal democracy that will give our �Voltairs� the right to lambaste our religions and walk down the street without fearing for their lives. Second, we failed to understand how things are in Denmark and we ended up vilifying a country that was once supportive of our causes. The vast majority of Danes are tolerant people and Denmark itself is one of the most open societies in the world, much more open and liberal than the UK and the US. This majority believe the cartoons were insulting yet they also believe J-Posten had the right to publish them. Our failure to understand this simple logic led us to demonize the same people who once supported our causes and opened up their country for millions of Muslims. And once again the Arab/Muslim image was tarnished by the same hands that tarnish it every time: the Arab/Muslim hands. My fellow Arabs and Muslims. You managed to bring Denmark to its knees? Bravo! You managed to bring a western country to its knees by boycotting butter and milk? Bravo! Yet, your knee jerk reaction, coming 4 months late, created a fool out of you and showed how weak your faith is because as Andrew Sullivan said �a self-confident faith is not this defensive and touchy. It can and must brush off provocation, or be consumed by it.� And the illusion lives on.

Btw. just heard that Sweden has closed down the homepage of one of their right wing parties, because it carried the Satanic Cartoons. Jihad certainly seems to work.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Btw. just heard that Sweden has closed down the homepage of one of their right wing parties, because it carried the Satanic Cartoons. Jihad certainly seems to work.

It does. It was an independent web host that decided to take it down after the "Swedish FBI" (S�PO) showed them our national security report (or whatever you should call it). They claimed that they only informed the webhost about this and did not force them to shut it down, however some ppl in parliament decided to open an investigation on it and I guess we will see if that was really the case (I guess it was).

Anyway, it sucks that it's working. Its also ironic that all the middle eastern countries are going nuts over this (a very very minor paper that has a reader base of like a few thusands) while there are several major newspapers that already published them

here is another cartoon

quote:

Originally posted by ArcticBeach here is another cartoon

LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Yes, it was very enlightening, thank you. One thing I didn't get, though, was the issue of rights/duties on behalf of the dhimmi. Do the Quran lay down any of those (apart from the military service thing)?

I'm not sure what your question is. Could you rephrase that ?

quote:

Originally posted by ArcticBeach here is another cartoon

if anyone wants to argue that this isn't true, just take a bath with a toaster, it'll clear everything up.

i lol'd

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm not sure what your question is. Could you rephrase that ?

Yes, sure. I was wondering about the civil rights of a non-Muslim in a caliphate. That is, whether the non-Muslim are free to do whatever he likes and whether there are any requirements bestowed upon him (apart from paying the alternative tax). According to the Quran, and not tradition/Islamism, that is.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew It does. It was an independent web host that decided to take it down after the "Swedish FBI" (S�PO) showed them our national security report (or whatever you should call it). They claimed that they only informed the webhost about this and did not force them to shut it down, however some ppl in parliament decided to open an investigation on it and I guess we will see if that was really the case (I guess it was).

So, I guess Sverigesdemokraterne (the rightwingers, right?) can sue their ISP for breech of contract?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Anyway, it sucks that it's working. Its also ironic that all the middle eastern countries are going nuts over this (a very very minor paper that has a reader base of like a few thusands) while there are several major newspapers that already published them

Well, at this point it's quite clear that the decision makers in Middle Eastern countries are not constrained by reason or consistency.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Yes, sure. I was wondering about the civil rights of a non-Muslim in a caliphate. That is, whether the non-Muslim are free to do whatever he likes

Well, everyone one is bound by the law, wheather you like it or not. You're free to practice your religion or not practice any religion. "Do whatever he/she wants" is pretty vague. So I'm not sure how to answer that one. I seriously doubt beastiality or orgies or things of that nature would be tolerated, atleast in public view. I mean, there's never is absolute freedom to do whatever you want in any society, especially if the consequences are believed to impact society negatively. Yeah, I'm sure you could technically have your bars and stuff, since Muslims are not allowed to consume or sell alcohol but non-Muslims don't have such restrictions. So it would be a fairly private thing for non-Muslims and the "drinking sub-culture" would be quite different.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic and whether there are any requirements bestowed upon him (apart from paying the alternative tax). According to the Quran, and not tradition/Islamism, that is.

No, not really, they pretty much have the same rights as everyone else. Infact, they have the privelage of not participating and dying in case a war breaks out and would be garanteed protection from the state.

Another "good" thing about jazya is that since they're paying taxes and all, that is, are contributing to the state and not free loading, people tend to leave them alone and let them live how they want.

I'm not sure if that really helped but life in a secular state and an Islamic state (which do not exist today) are fairly different in many regards. The underlying political and economic ideology shape a society (and ofcourse whatever the cultural norm of morality is).

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic So, I guess Sverigesdemokraterne (the rightwingers, right?) can sue their ISP for breech of contract?

Probably not. Most ISPs/webhosts have a clause which basically says that "if we find something unappropriate we have the right to cancel and or suspend your account without any notice or explanation"

Woah is the day when the fury of the anti-West reaches Ronald...



...and no, that's not photoshopped...

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Woah is the day when the fury of the anti-West reaches Ronald... ...and no, that's not photoshopped... >>Source<<

i sit back and just breath all this shit in.
how dumb is it to get so upset about silly cartoons.
i think any descent religion teaches moderation.
and these ****** are just acting like monkeys.
i am becoming more scared of muslims across the ocean than black people by my house.

Some further news. Starting out with the bad ones, Norway has apparently inforced a law against blasphemy.:

quote:

"Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs," Norway's Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika told reporters after a meeting in Doha with Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

I guess "Life of Brian", several issues of MAD, the Simpsons, etc. will soon be banned in Norway. Incredible that these guys stood up to the Nazis in WW2. Maybe all the brave and principled Norwegians were wiped out back then, and only the cowards were left to reproduce.
Meanwhile the absolute hypocracy of the mass media continues to be exposed. The new photos from Abu-Ghraib have been plastered all over, and some pat themselves on the back for making sure that the world knows what horrors took place. This from the same media that thought it unnecessary to show their audience what the cartoon crisis was actually about. The NY Times takes a deep plounge into the pool of obvious hypocracy, publishing an editorial on "a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark", written by a left-wing reporter from Denmark. The piece is mostly based on the fact that

quote:

For 20 years, Muslims in Denmark have been denied a permit to build mosques in Copenhagen. What's more, there are no Muslim cemeteries in Denmark, which means that the bodies of Muslims who die here have to be flown back to their home countries for proper burial.

which, apart from not being a fact, is a straight out f*cking lie. In addition to this, the reporter conjectures ("to my mind") and reports of outrage "here" when TV-reports of the Danish flag burning during riots had been shown. Jyllands-posten has confronted the reporter, who admitted to not having lived in Denmark in many years, and that the part about Muslim rights in Denmark was false. However, don't expect the NY Times to stoop to the level of, you know, issuing a correction.
What's really agitating me about this piece, is that it starts out patronizing the reader about the necessity of understanding the Denmark of today if one wants to understand the cartoon crisis. This from a paper who didn't even show their readers the cartoons themselves. Arrgh!
Well, it's only an editorial in a paper, you might say. However, misinformation travels fast. A Professor Mahmood Mamdani at Columbia University participated in a debate on NPR on the cartoons along with a commentator from Germany. Mamdani uncritically repeated the false information in his condemnation of Denmark, and furthermore added (the correct fact) that a Muslim graveyard in southern Denmark had been vandalized about a week ago, not realizing the obvious contradiction between this and the supposed ban on Muslim graveyards in Denmark until the German pointed it out to him. The professor has since declined to comment on his comments on Denmark, only citing the NY Times piece as his main source of information. Very scientific I'm sure you'll agree.

On the positive side, we see the EU getting its act together. The parliament has begun drafting a resolution which clearly sanctifies freedom of expression. Furthermore, the Czech President has suggested that the EU should compensate Denmark for the losses it has suffered due to the boycott. The move should be seen as a clear message that the EU stands with Denmark in this case. Finally, the head of the EU commision, Barrosos, gave this talk yesterday:

quote:

The publication of cartoons in Danish and other European newspapers and the reactions to this have revealed sensitive and fundamental issues. The cartoons have aggrieved many Muslims all over the world. We must respect these sensitivities and the expression of them through peaceful protest - which is a fundamental right in any open society. I share the views expressed by Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, where he made clear that his government respects Islam as one of the world's major religions and that it has no intention to insult Muslims and does not support activities in this sense. I want, personally today, to emphasise my deep respect for Islamic civilisation and the contribution it has made and continues to make to Europe. The Commission's concern is not with the peaceful response of the majority to the cartoons. It is with the violent reactions of a minority. Reactions which have been disowned by many Muslims. Therefore the Commission condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the violence perpetrated against our office in Gaza, and against the missions of the Member States, in particular those of Denmark. It is ironic that the aim of these missions is to bring real benefits to the lives of the people of their host countries. Nor is a trade boycott an appropriate way of addressing the issue. It would hurt the economic interests of all parties and could damage the growing trading links between the EU and the countries concerned. Trade, and the greater interconnections it brings, is a means to promote mutual understanding. And let us be clear; a boycott of Danish goods is by definition a boycott of European goods. I have spoken with the Prime Minister of Denmark and expressed the solidarity of the Commission. I want here today to send my solidarity to the people of Denmark as well; a people who rightly enjoy the reputation as being amongst the most open and tolerant not just in Europe but in the world. I welcome here today their representatives, in the form of a delegation from the Danish Parliament. I have also spoken with Chancellor Schussel. The Commission will continue to work with the Austrian Presidency and all parties to resolve the problem peacefully and efficiently. This issue raises wider themes. Our European society is based on respect for the individual person's life and freedom, equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech, and a clear distinction between politics and religion. Our point of departure is that as human beings we are free, independent, equal and responsible. We must safeguard these principles. Freedom of speech is part of Europe's values and traditions. Let me be clear. Freedom of speech is not negotiable. Like all freedoms, its preservation depends on responsible use by individuals. Governments or other public authorities do not prescribe or authorize the opinions expressed by individuals. Conversely, the opinions expressed by individuals engage these individuals, and only them. They do not engage a country, a people, a religion. And we should not allow others to pretend that they do. Freedom of speech is the basis not only of the possibility to publish an opinion, but also to criticize it. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Freedom of speech has limits, as well. These must be respected. They are defined and enforced by the law and legal systems of the Member States of the European Union. It is self evidently unacceptable to go outside the law. Freedom of religion is not negotiable either. Just as Europe respects freedom of speech so it must, and does, respect freedom of religion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of individuals and communities, it entails respect for the integrity of all religious convictions and all ways in which they are exercised. Muslims must be able to practise their faith in the same way as the adherents of other religions and convictions practise theirs. The European Union and its Member States have for a long time promoted dialogue between different communities both within the EU and with neighbouring Muslim countries and Muslim countries in other parts of the world. It is through a vigorous but peaceful dialogue of opinions under the protection of the freedom of expression that mutual understanding can be deepened and mutual respect can be built. I am fostering and will continue to foster dialogue between cultures and with religions. This dialogue must be based on tolerance, not prejudice, and on freedom of expression and religion and the values connected with them. Violence is the enemy of dialogue. We must not allow the minority of extremists to win. Let the best of our values win against the worst of prejudices.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Some further news. Starting out with the bad ones, Norway has apparently inforced a law against blasphemy.: I guess "Life of Brian", several issues of MAD, the Simpsons, etc. will soon be banned in Norway. Incredible that these guys stood up to the Nazis in WW2. Maybe all the brave and principled Norwegians were wiped out back then, and only the cowards were left to reproduce.

That is fucking aweful.

Weird that no media here has reported it though

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy What percentage NEVER attend church? I think you forgot those people.

haha fucking owned.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Woah is the day when the fury of the anti-West reaches Ronald... ...and no, that's not photoshopped... >>Source<<

It looks Photoshopped to me for some reason.

And Groundhog Boy, USA Today is not some joke paper, if they published these stats then they are meaningful. I'm guessing the % of people who never ever attend church in the US is so miniscule that it doesn't figure in their results, otherwise they would've mentioned it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.