Posted on 11/09/2007 1:38:54 AM PST by drzz
The French police is investigating a website (not mine), "Liberty Vox" (The Free Voice), which published this logo :
It is obviously not allowed anymore to freely criticize a religion in France.
The people who made this logo feared to go to trial.
Welcome to the new France.
bkmark for later.
A few visits to various websites should procure images and statements at least as (and probably more) insulting to Christianity. All that needs to be done is append them to the police. If you allow that, then why not this?
To insult christianity is not a problem for liberals.
Anything that could demean us is good. Anything that protects us has to be fought.
May father-inlaw happens to be a Turkish Muslim and he explained to me that the Koran (which is their Holy Book) is really two parts. The first part is where he finds his religion, Islam. But the second part with all the Jihad type stuff came about later when Muhammad went insane and is discounted.
Now make of that what you will, but the thing is not all Muslims see it like that. So there really is a danger.
“Islam” means “submission”.
Christianity means “love, tolerance and freedom”.
Which religion is a danger ? See their meanings.
No, one can critize a religion in France [to wit] Christianity.
One cannot critize islam in Froace. Nor anywhere in the World for that matter.
We should weaken this religion and her followers until it breaks down by itself.
You cannot deal with a totalitarian religion. You win, or she wins.
Thanks for the post.
But the second part with all the Jihad type stuff came about later when Muhammad went insane and is discounted.Please ask your father-in-law about this:
Many writers I've read on the subject say that Islamic scholars all over the world give greater weight to the later writings of Muhammad than to the earlier writings.
I wonder if he agrees with that.
If Voltaire were alive today he’d probably be arrested, since he’d certainly criticize Islam in our time just as he criticized Christianity in his own time.
But if Muhammad is considered to have gone “insane” then that changes the picture. In the case of my father-inlaw, he is Muslim but not devout Muslim. Just like I am Catholic but not a devout Catholic.
But if we considered that at one point the Pope encouraged Christians to kill Muslims as a way to ensure going to Heaven, then we can see that the religion can be altered, reread, redefined, what-have-you. Now I don’t want to go into a judgment against the Crusade. I happen to think they were a defensive Just War.
At the end of the day this is what i think: There is no way we are going to simply get rid or Islam, it’s HUGE. But by being on the path that we are now on thanks to the courage and resolve of President Bush and our fantastic Troops... we can change the landscape of the Middle East to freedom, equality and human rights. And that in turn will help foster the fundamental understanding of Islam to catch up to modern mans experience on earth and be more in touch with the intention of God. And THAT will be the true great legacy that will make President Bush remembered for all time.
Respectfully - I disagree. Voltaire was likely a liberal and if so his attitude would have supported anything but Christianity.
The problem is that I worry that even my moderate Muslim coworkers, once they're back in their own community, lend vocal and other support to the radicals. I worry that what they say to each other is much different than what they tell the rest of us.
And that's here, in the US.
In Europe the situation is much more extreme. In Europe the so-called "moderates" are much more openly supportive of their radical brothers.
A true liberal is not pro-Islam. A true liberal is not anti-Western Civilization. If Voltaire were suddenly revived today, with the exact same mindset he had at the time of his death (minus whatever dementia he may have suffered at the end, I don’t know about that), I think we would find a true liberal, one who really cares about the concepts of Reason and Enlightment.
Today’s liberals are no more liberal in the traditional sense than today’s gays are gay in the traditional sense. The two words have undergone an equal amount of meaning-shift.
Today, liberalism means: socialism, hatred of all things American, and hatred of all aspects of Western Civilization.
That’s not Voltaire’s liberalism. That’s the liberalism of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.
“The way Islam now stands there is most definitely a danger.”
It won’t be easy and it will take time that’s for sure. President Bush has spoken about the commitment of a whole generation. I think we need one more Just War against Iran and then we should rest and refit while we watch the dust settle and allow the final dominoes to fall into place. I think the last one to fall will be Saudi Arabia and when that happens 9/11 will finally be avenged.
Voltaire would never be a nasty liberal, liberals hate free speech. the liberals hate Rush Limbaugh because of free speech.
A liberal hates any speech that is contrary to his free speech.
Voltaire was surely not a lunatic liberal. Voltaire was far too complicated to be branded with Marxism.
François-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire, was a French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher known for his wit, philosophical sport, and defense of civil liberties, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform despite strict censorship laws and harsh penalties for those who broke them. A sat irical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize Christian Church dogma and the French institutions of his day.
“But if Muhammad is considered to have gone “insane” then that changes the picture.”
I’m no Islam expert, but I suspect in fundamentalist ‘stan countries if you voiced the opinion that Mo went “insane” you’d be handed your head.
Voltaire spoke against the Dogma of the Church,
He did not hate the Christian People. He wanted better treatment of the Christian People in France
France is a Republic,
Freedom of Speech is in the blood of the French people.
A revolution would occure in a heartbeat if someone tried to curtail free speech.
Years later the women in that picture are looking at it in a photo album, the conversation goes something like this: "That's you Imissa, the one on the left end". 'Are you sure Alia?, I thought I was standing in the middle', "mmmm, well I know I was on the end right and the big girls are Yamin's wives. If you're in the middle who is that girl on the end?"
>>Today’s liberals are no more liberal in the traditional sense than today’s gays are gay in the traditional sense. The two words have undergone an equal amount of meaning-shift.
Man, you’re not kidding, on all of that. I’m currently reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Hemingway has a couple lines early on, discussing the mindset of some of those fighting in the war, in which he uses the word “gay” several times. It really took some effort to read it in the way it was intended. The homosexuals have ruined a perfectly good word.
LOL!
I like it! Matter of fact I am going to make a bunch of copies and stick these on the sides of long haul trucks(I'm a diesel mechanic) where the warning placards are!
Several others have already pointed out that "Muslim scholars" give greater weight to the later verses. But additionally I believe that it is Muslim dogma that Muhammad did not author the Koran but merely took dictation from an angel, so as for the Koran it wouldn't matter if he were insane or not. His mental state could be an issue in the Hadith which relate(s?) the words and deeds of Muhammad. The Hadith are (is?) not the second part of the Koran; They are (It is?) separate. I would guess your father in-law is confused.
ML/NJ
That’s very interesting. I’d like to ask him if, feeling as he does, he reveres Mohammed as the last prophet of God, for considering how fiercely protective Muslims are of Mohammed’s unimpeachable divine appointment, does that at all jive with the notion that the man became insane later in life? I mean, would Allah really pick a lunatic for a prophet, or allow his number one guy to lose his mind?
And does he dare ever repeat such sentiments to his fellow Muslims?
Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.