Comedy Central developing half-hour cartoon about Muhammad -- no, wait...

fscarn : This sets the course of behavior for others, and one by one the candles of freedom go out.

My hope is that for every person that wilts there is one who stands firm. This tide will be turned.

"Oh, the irony. Mohammad is dead, has been dead for over 1300 years and is, in all likelihood, in hell. Jesus Christ is risen and is still in charge," ...

Amen, Isa! ...He is Risen!, and muhammad is roasting in hell. So glad we serve a living God ...

"I certainly wouldn't want to be some cocky dude spitting in the Blessed Mother's face. Being God, her Son surely knows the Old Testament adage, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. I will repay."

And a double Amen to that!!! We love Mary, too :)

I apologize for bringing that comment here, Marisol ...

The main reason I brought that comment to this thread was because this is a thread about Jesus Christ; and even though that vile comment was made on another thread, it did pertain to Jesus' mother, Mary.

Take care :)

I wholly agree, Isa!! ...and we should defend Mary, too. The Bible calls her Blessed among women: "In a loud voice she exclaimed: 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!'"
Luke 1:42

Yes, they did find Noah's Ark! ...and right where the Bible said it would be, too. Oh, imagine that, lol ...

:)

Thanks for looking after Marisol, Awake! ...and all of us, too :)

Compliments and thanks for your comment, Desidude.

What meaning can satirizing Jesus now have, when satirizing Muhammad "ist verboten"? In my opinion their cowardice spoils everything.

Well Martin, I believe you are probably coming from a place of wanting to defend freedom of speech but honestly, if we are at a place in history where nothing is truly sacred anymore then I don't see how we can get upset with Muslim men for screwing little girls because, after all, it's a free will thing. I guess we have no right to complain about or defend anyone or anything because someone, somewhere, might want to participate in an activity that some of us find truly heinous.

What I think I'm hearing you say is that while you are a Christian, you are not willing to stand up for Christ if it will impinge upon your right to freedom of speech. Fair enough but remember that Christ said if you don't stick up for Him He won't stick up for you.

Martin, what Isabellathecrusader is trying to say is that it's ok to be a hypocrite when it comes to your faith.

/sarc

How on earth do you equate freedom of speech with moslem men raping little girls?

That's about as sick as anything I've ever read on here and you should be disgusted with yourself.

If your faith isn't strong enough to take a little blasphemy (a victimless crime) then it's probably not strong enough to stand up to critical examination.

All religions should be equal. Either treat them as above criticism or allow freedom of speech. We can't develop special rules for just one, like islam is currently trying to do, through violence and intimidation.

"What meaning can satirizing Jesus now have, when satirizing Muhammad "ist verboten"? In my opinion their cowardice spoils everything."

Oh yes, definitely. I tolerate the Jesus character on "SP," and am grateful he's not a regular character.

But an entire show satirizing and denigrating and making fun of the Savior? No, no no no no NO. Won't be watching. And, that the false prophet mass-murdering evil Warlord Mo can't be messed with? An even bigger NO!

Yes, it's "Cowardly Central."

"WHAM! he's in jail and BANG! he's on trial and BZZZZT! he's frying in the electric chair."

LOL!

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/09/17/Halloween2008-ElectricChair-Proto.jpg

muhammad is actually serving time in the lake of fire ...

http://thisfragiletent.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hell-lake-of-fire.jpg

Hey, Isa ...QE hates Christians, this is quite obvious. Stating that your comment is "as sick as anything I've ever read on here and you should be disgusted with yourself" is ridiculous and a lie, so don't even listen to this clown. And I'm not even sure why he's here -- accept to bash Christians whenever he can, and he clearly enjoys it. He even posted a comment completely unrelated to the topic on a different thread stating that atheists have higher IQ's, while people of faith, well they don't ...

Talk about off topic!

Well said.

Isabella, thank you for your comments. You are correct that I want to defend freedom of speech, as is it one of the most important values in a healthy society.

I take issue with two points you raised.

1. You criticize moral relativism, and rightfully so, but you seem to suggest that absolute standards rely on religious principles, or something being held sacred. That's not true. Essentially, the standard is this: It's not legitimate to harm people or their property. It wouldn't be ok for me to punch my neighbor in the face, no matter if it's part of my "culture" or personal beliefs.

Going back to your example, making fun of Jesus is legitimate because it doesn't harm anyone, whereas raping a young girl is not legitimate because it harms someone. I don't see how that simple, fundamental distinction could ever get blurred.

2. If by sticking up for Christ you mean threatening and assaulting those who bad-mouth him, then no, that's definitely not something I want to do or something Christ would want me to do (unlike another well-known religious figure). I didn't say I enjoy it of find it enlightening when people make fun of Jesus and God. But even the most childish, tasteless, offensive lampooning is legitimate speech and should be allowed.

And if I'm really offended, I have the option of not watching the show, boycotting the station, writing to express my discontent, writing letters to the editor, holding peaceful protests, etc. Censorship is not the answer, if only because no one can be trusted with that kind of power.

"Reminds me all in all of a joke I saw on this website - an atheist encounters a Catholic priest(or a clergyman of any Christian denomination) and says "your God doesn't exist!" He says the same to a rabbi, and a Hindu /Buddhist - but when he encounters an imam/mullah what does he say?- "Good day, sir!"

I believe that joke has got 'em pegged, Terry! Thanks for the laugh!

Kim, whenever QE insults unprovoked you and Champ, about your beliefs, my sympathy is definitely on your side, despite my fondness of Scientific explanations and being Darwinist.

You and I are "in it" for Democracy versus Islam I feel.

My family is roughly half Christian, half Atheist, both the older and younger generations, but in no way have our life-convictions altered our family-relations, which are very warm, and that I think is both well-done by the Christian and the Atheist part.

(There remains however the division of being aware/ awake of/ to the Islamic danger and PCMC in my family, and I am alone in that).

"Kim, whenever QE insults unprovoked you and Champ, about your beliefs, my sympathy is definitely on your side, despite my fondness of Scientific explanations and being Darwinist."

Much appreciated, and I know I can speak for Champ as well. It's not the disagreement with certain beliefs - it's his out-of-control rage, insults, and name-calling. He's got a real problem there. Plus, the subject here is ISLAM.

Anyway, thanks for your rational and reasonable assessment!

*

(There remains however the division of being aware/ awake / to the Islamic danger and PC MC in my family, and I am alone in that).

I believe we can ALL relate to that. My younger 'bro is PC MC as all-get-out. We don't even broach the subject matter of Muslims/Islam. Of course he considers Jihad Watch a "hate site" - so, ya see? Why I don't even deal with it. "PC Ignorant" is what I call it.

"Perhaps Comedy Central should be renamed "Cowardly Central"

No doubt about it.

I think the tit-for-tat "our religion is true and yours is not" is certainly a valid position for those who believe that is the case. But, I don't think it will be very helpful in the fight against Islam. I have always maintained that the thrust should be a movement for human rights, democracy and freedom. Those principles are irrefutable. Using religion and its resulting supernatural belief systems, something which can be, and always has been debatable, will not forward the cause except for the already religious. For those who are religious, and are fighting the good fight, great- everyone helps in their own way. But your points about coming to Christ won't be considered a convincing argument by most of the non-Christians amongst us. As well, I have seen a number comments here from those who consider themselves Christians which are crude,vicious and to my (not always an agnostic) mind not very Christian at all.

Sorry- The above post was not really meant as a reply to you. What I originally meant to write was to say that I thought your comment was very well put.

"f you don't think the insults to His mother are applicable let's talk about the insults to His Father..."

Actually, South Park has more than once figured satirical mockery of Mary into their show, as well as satirical mockery of God the Father (i.e., the white bearded God in the sky of the Old Testament as modern agnostics see Him), of Moses, of the Pope, of Christians, Christianity, and various Christian rituals and beliefs. In other words, they have with comedic cheek and brazen irreverence attacked the full theologoumena of Christianity as well as its socioculture at least dozens of times over the years.

The contrast between this and their gingerly cowardice in the face of Islamic themes is infuriating. As I've said before, I would begrudgingly accept their stance on Islamic themes on two conditions:

1. They accord Christian themes (and all other religious themes) equal respect as they accord Islamic themes

2. They communicate, however subtly they might wish to do it, to the public that they are avoiding Islamic themes because they are afraid they will be killed by Muslims.

"Kim, whenever QE insults unprovoked you and Champ, about your beliefs, my sympathy is definitely on your side, despite my fondness of Scientific explanations and being Darwinist."

Thank you, Demsci ...and there are several posters whom are atheist, most notably Hugh, and he never takes shots at Christians. Ever. He, like some of the other atheist posters here, know that the real enemy is islam -- not Christians. QE has tried to equate Christianity with islam over, and over again, but he isn't convincing ANYONE of this nonsense. Take care :)

"Much appreciated, and I know I can speak for Champ as well. It's not the disagreement with certain beliefs - it's his out-of-control rage, insults, and name-calling. He's got a real problem there. Plus, the subject here is ISLAM."

I wholly agree, Kim ...and this coming from 'one of us'. Hmm, is he? Methinks not, now.

"their gingerly cowardice"
aye, where's all their name calling and blaming now.
The sale of Charlie Brown and Peanuts last week might also be giving them fright. It's time they rise up from the construction paper and poptart crumbs and reach for the strings of -- TEAM AMERICA -- F*** Y**

I found the bravado of Team America to be as superficially pertinent as the bravado of Jim Belushi and Dan Akroyd in their skit on SNL in the immediate aftermath of 911: While their language was freshly brash and proudly jingoistic, they were not thumbing their nose at Islam -- at which the nose appropriately should be thumbed -- but only at the Tiny Minority of Extremists along with the Usual Suspects: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Maybe He'll help Tennessee...

Oh. Wait. The Lord helps them who help themselves. I see Tennesseeans helping themselves. So I guess we're good.

QE,

I didn't "have" to do anything, but I'll acknowledge from your statemnt that you have been properly notified of my future intentions.

Good luck and God bless.

Martin, you said:

"1. You criticize moral relativism, and rightfully so, but you seem to suggest that absolute standards rely on religious principles, or something being held sacred. That's not true. Essentially, the standard is this: It's not legitimate to harm people or their property. It wouldn't be ok for me to punch my neighbor in the face, no matter if it's part of my "culture" or personal beliefs."

Not sure what you are talking about here. I'm not talking about your idea of absolute standards, whatever those may be. I'm talking about not insulting things that are sacred. What makes you think that respecting my property and not harming me physically is of higher value to me than not insulting my God? So what I think is sacred is not sacred to you. Okay, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But if you want to get along with me you will respect my beliefs for me and not go around bragging about how open minded you are about letting people insult Christ while claiming to be a Christian. That's mighty big of you.

"Going back to your example, making fun of Jesus is legitimate because it doesn't harm anyone, whereas raping a young girl is not legitimate because it harms someone. I don't see how that simple, fundamental distinction could ever get blurred."

You're dead wrong. Making fun of God is a slap in the face to God, therefore, it does do harm.

You say you are a Christian. A Christian is someone who loves Christ and many Christians have died for that love. Where is your love? You say it's fine to insult Christ. Is it fine to insult your wife or your mother? Would you defend anyone's right to do so since by your belief system, it does them no harm?

"2. If by sticking up for Christ you mean threatening and assaulting those who bad-mouth him, then no, that's definitely not something I want to do or something Christ would want me to do (unlike another well-known religious figure). I didn't say I enjoy it of find it enlightening when people make fun of Jesus and God. But even the most childish, tasteless, offensive lampooning is legitimate speech and should be allowed."

Okay, fuck your wife and your mother. They are both whores.

Is that legitimate speech that should be allowed? Or do you find that offensive? Would you rather I didn't say that or do you defend my "right" to do so?

If by sticking up for Christ do I mean threatening and assaulting those who bad mouth Him, um, no. Not sure where you came up with that one. How about simply telling that person that Christ is your God and you don't appreciate that kind of talk. No need for violence. No need to even raise your voice. A simple but firm admonition not to do it in your presence would probably take care of the situation. The trick is to do the admonishing.

Miss Champ, thanks for the heads up girlfriend. Don't worry about me though. I don't engage with the QE for the simple reason that I find nothing he says of any value.

Hesperado, yeah, I know what you are saying.

It's not a "playful take on religion and society with a sprinkle of dumb." It's a total "FUCK YOU" to every Christian that walks on the planet. I understand that and I think these apologists for this nonsense do too.

If folks feel the need to tell me to fuck off they can do it to my face. Pretending that this is just comedy and it's good clean fun and we shouldn't take it so seriously makes them bigger liars (and cowards) than even the Muslims.

I have no idea what your intentions are, awake.

If you're threatening me then say so.

To all the foul-mouthed theists: You set a great example. I hope you're all very proud and impressed.

Dude, weak.

Isabel, please post where I said I was offended by the foul language?

If you can't do that then either retract this as yet another pointless attack on me or continue to add to the many examples of how your hatred has blinded you to what I post.

Now this should highlight to anyone keeping score why you are so quick to jump on my posts as not being part of the clique.

I will ask you again, politely, post where I said I was offended.

I never stated I was offended, did I? Yet again you're on the wrong side of a disagreement. Can you even see your repetitious theme of inventing an argument to beat because you can't fault the actual argument?

Wow........

Isabella, thank you for your comments.

"What makes you think that respecting my property and not harming me physically is of higher value to me than not insulting my God?"

I wouldn't assume that, but my point was more about the separation of temporal and spiritual powers. We're not here to impose our religious beliefs and enforce them through the State. Is insulting God a bad thing? Sure. But I don't want police officers going around arresting people for it. That's what I meant by "legitimate": from the temporal, legal point of view.

"But if you want to get along with me you will respect my beliefs for me"

You're right: I was only referring to what's legally acceptable, not what's nice at the personal level. As I said, I support people's right to insult Jesus, but I can still think they're jerks for doing it and let them know how I think. Likewise, I fully support the Danish cartoonists' right to lampoon Muhammad, but it doesn't mean I feel compelled to tell my Muslim colleagues I think their beliefs are utter rubbish -- even though it's true.

"Making fun of God is a slap in the face to God, therefore, it does do harm."

Again, temporal versus spiritual. God can deal with the latter, and the State should only deal with the former.

"Okay, fuck your wife and your mother. They are both whores. Is that legitimate speech that should be allowed? Or do you find that offensive?"

YES it is legitimate speech, and YES it is offensive! That was precisely my point: legitimate (from the legal point of view) is very different from good. The example you give is despicable, hateful speech that deserves a reaction, but doesn't deserve to be outlawed.

If instead the example were: "I'll beat up your wife and your mother", then that would be a threat, which is a grave crime and clearly not legitimate.

"How about simply telling that person that Christ is your God and you don't appreciate that kind of talk. No need for violence. No need to even raise your voice."

Absolutely, that's a perfectly reasonable reaction. I'm glad you're not advocating some form of blasphemy law against insulting your beliefs. I wasn't sure from your initial post, and as you can see, it was my main objection to start with.

Best regards

"Thread wrecker or not?" Answer: The first.

It's not that it disagrees with religious folks here, it's that it's a raging out-of-control insulting name-calling verbal abuser. THAT'S the problem. And, he's like a pit bull who has latched itself on to someone's clothing and won't let go - insults and vicious sarcasm a-plenty, an "attack dog."

"but I think the havoc provided by QE exceeds the value of posts made." Oh, definitely. You should go and check out Thomas h's insightful comment about Big Bad qe on the "Mosque Near Ground Zero" thread. I believe "intellectual adolescent" is one of the many descriptive phrases.

It's qe who is "foul-mouthed." But, apparently, he can't see himself.

Check out Thomas h's post on May 8, 5:45 AM, on the "Mosque at Ground Zero" thread, about qe.

BTW, I just went there and saw that he's engaging in his usual raging, insults, and calling people "morons." You know, the usual (near the end of the thread). How long do JW's get to be called "morons" and other ad hominem insults by the raging pit bull?

Alaskaninfidel : I asked on another thread that I lost track of if you believed that there was a supreme intelligence, so to speak, here on earth.

Sorry, never saw the question the first time.

Alaskaninfidel : A smartest person. The answer is of course yes.

The answer should be "No". We would first have to agree on what we based 'intelligence' on? Someone incredibly intelligent could have no common sense. For example: My IQ is 54 points higher than average but my grasp of mathematics is rudimentary because I lack interest in the subject.

Alaskaninfidel : So what is there to prevent the existence of a supreme being in all the galaxies and planes of existence?

Or conversely, what evidence do we have that such a thing exists?

Alaskaninfidel : Would that being be viewed by some as God or the supreme being? What limitations of intelligence can we place on such a being, who must surely exist?

The only thing I can say to that is 'it's' shown remarkable good sense in staying away from this planet.

"For example: My IQ is 54 points higher than average but my grasp of mathematics is rudimentary because I lack interest in the subject." -- QE

hahaha!!!

Are we suppose to care about his IQ? My gosh, I can't stop laughing ...

Rating his ability to get along well with others: ZERO

Champ, are you completely unable to follow a coherent argument? From your off-topic post I would say the evidence tells us all we need to know.

I posted an example, so at least deal with that example. Don't just side step it.

Please try to stay on topic.

So right! Brava Champ! QE's insults to you (and everyone else) are entirely undeserved. Gotta love that IQ, QE! lol

You ban the person responsible - QE. The person who calls everyone else "morons." Along with numerous other ad hominem insults.

And you sir...are clearly a moron.
I dated a Gal with an IQ of 185. Highest SAT ever in Florida. She lacked the sense to carry a spare tire in her car as if she had one...she might have to use it.
IQ means nothing in the real world and you prove it.

"For example: My IQ is 54 points higher than average"

HAHAHAHAHA! Anyone who posts that on the 'net is a total loser.

You are right, AlaskanInfidel. Can something be done, or what?

In all honesty, Marisol, I don't think you can.

Every time I have said I'm done I get attacked again by the pack.

They don't even try to address the points I make, just twist what i say. Please take the time to read any of the threads where this has happened and you will see that's the case.

Schoolyard bullying, pure and simple.

Kim, Alaskan and Champ,

Please stop laughing.

Poor sod confuses his IQ with his blood pressure reading.
It is definitely too high - not a laughing matter at all!

Martin, your statement here is telling:

"I'm a Christian, and to me it is of the utmost importance to defend everyone's right to make fun of Jesus, God, the Bible, or whatever religion they want."

I don't think you are a Christian. A true Christian, i.e., one who believes and values Christ is pro-Christ, not pro-man over Christ. That's a humanist argument, not a Christian one. Your posts are difficult to follow because they go all over the place but I think what you are saying is that you value freedom of speech and you think it is of the utmost importance to defend it against anything and everything even to the point of offending God to do that. But I think that says a lot about how much you value Christ and Christianity, which isn't much. By your own admission it isn't as much as you value free speech. I find that curious since God is the defender of the right to be free which would include the right to say what you like, but He also says to honor Him and to honor His name, which Comedy Central is clearly not doing and which you are defending. He's the one Who guarantees that right and yet you think it is acceptable to insult Him in order to keep it? Strange logic indeed.

While we may have certain rights or perceived rights we also have a duty to honor God as He commanded us to. If you believed that God does not exist then I would think that you were in error but it would be understandable that you would see no obligation to Him in that case. But to say you are a Christian, who by definition is someone who loves Christ and therefore strives to do His will which includes the commandment to honor Him and honor His name, and then promote the idea of the absolute right to free speech over the duty to honor God is simply illogical.

I appreciate your assessment, Kiphamilton, thanks!

"I should like to point out that I was called "Mr.Shitface" by AM for months."

That's because you hit him with Truth and it got under his skin, Alaskan :)

He sure as hell didn't like me...

He didn't like me either, so I can see that I'm in good company :)

Isabella, thank you for sharing your point of view.

Regarding my faith, let me just say this. I'm happy with my relationship to God, and I'm happy to follow my savior Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to earn the "Christian seal of approval" from anyone in particular, as God alone will be the judge.

Sorry if my posts tend to be long-winded, but there's really only one point I was trying to make: I don't want to live in a theocracy, even one that happens to be compatible with my own faith.

You've explained how insulting God or Jesus is a bad thing and how it's our personal duty to oppose it. Fine, we agree there. My point was that I do NOT want political institutions to get involved in such debates.

Here's an example. Let's say there were a referendum in your country proposing to make it ILLEGAL to publicly insult God or Jesus. Would you vote Yes or No? I would vote No, for all the reasons mentioned in my previous comments.

Best regards

Martin, I have been following with interest your discussion with Isabella about the relation between free speech and say, giving due respect to God, perceived prophets and religious people.

And I admired your standpoint and "soaked it up" and used the argument in a subsequent discussion with friends. Thus I not only agreed but used your explanation as well.

As a Darwinist the situation is much easier for me; As far as I am concerned Darwin and Richard Dawkins et al may be insulted as much as people want. Legally there should nothing be against that. But after this legal question is answered, I am all for showing respect and also abhor degrading people and their beliefs unnecessarily.

What troubled me about Isabella's response was really nothing except this:
"but I think what you are saying is that you value freedom of speech and you think it is of the utmost importance to defend it against anything and everything even to the point of offending God to do that. But I think that says a lot about how much you value Christ and Christianity, which isn't much. By your own admission it isn't as much as you value free speech."

Because it worries me if a person introduces a choice between freedom of speech and love/ respect for God or beloved, revered persons and then prefers the love/ respect over the freedom of speech. If that is what Isabella meant.

In my mind that seems to "open the door" for advocates of censorship, like the Muslims so clearly are. One of their really obnoxious, really appalling, characteristics is that many of them claim that it should be illegal to "insult" their revered prophet and that HE or HIS reputation MUST be respected and protected at all costs, including the killing of both the insulter and if necessary the defender.

To me persons may well have the utmost love/ respect/ reverence to: God, messengers of God, beloved mothers/ wives/ sisters/ daughters and their reputation (so them not being called sluts, whores etc). BUT at the same time still legally allow the most horrible opinions about them.

Demsci, thank you.

I think Isabella raised some good points about acting according to one's personal beliefs. To me however, that's completely distinct from what we enforce as a society. The distinction is especially important in light of the global push by Muslims for blasphemy laws, including in infidel countries.

It would be hard not to offend Muslim sensibilities, given how sensitive they are. We'd have to ban pretty much everything.

Stella

nice bit of 'split the camp' there.

Isabella chose her name because of Queen Isabella of Spain's victory over Muslims *in Spain*. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that.

It is surely possible to be pleased that the Spaniards and Portuguese defeated the occupying Muslim imperialists and oppressors, and booted them out, whilst at the same time deploring the fact that the Spaniards foolishly and cruelly attacked the Jews - who had suffered right alongside the Christians, as dhimmis, under the Muslim scimitar.

I understand that some Spaniards have in recent years, quite rightly, expressed sorrow and offered an apology to the Jews - but I do not think any sensible person would demand that a similar apology be issued to the Muslims, any more than one would expect the Greeks to apologise to the descendants of the Turkish Muslim imperialists and oppressors, for having booted their forefathers out of Greece.

As regards the various campaigns in the Holy Land, I do not approve of what the Crusaders did to the Jews (though if one looks at the history, one discovers that in actual fact - despite the appalling brutalities that you describe which took place during the initial warfare - once the Crusader kingdoms had been established, the ordinary Jewish, Christian and even Muslim peasants, merchants and artisans did *better* within those domains, than in the chaotic and violent Muslim despotisms all around) but I see nothing essentially wrong with what the Crusaders attempted to do **vis a vis the Muslims**.

It is worth remembering that Maimonides identified the Arab Muslims, **not the Christians**, as the very worst of all who had ever oppressed the Jewish people.

It is also worth remembering that at least one Jew of the Middle Ages, who had lived within the Latin Crusader kingdoms, and had also lived under Islam, wrote a poem in which he stated that the rabbis of his people begged God that if they could not live directly under His rule (i.e. as free people), then let it be under the yoke of Edom (i.e. the Christians) rather than under that of Ishmael (i.e. the Muslims).