THis is the post that I was recalling where it hinted at that the censorship might've been a deliberate joke http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5260303&postcount=149 There is a statement though from Trey Parker and Matt Stone that states that Comedy Central chose to censor it rather than them. So without further info I will withdraw my comment that the censorship might've been a joke. That said the original article states that the first episode in question, Episode 200, was aired a week before Revolution Muslim made their statement. It strikes me as very very unlikely that episode had been censored by Comedy Central at its original airing in response to criticism that was to come a week later.
What you are talking about isn't the original episode as it relates to this thread as the OP of this thread deals with Episode 200. That is the "original episode" I am referring too.
The Catholic Church's actions covering those abuses up though they (Catholic Hierarchy) have argued are done in the name of religion, protecting the sanctity of the confessional and etc...
You seem to keep on falling back to an us vs them way of viewing the issue where its them that are the ones who should be doing something about them. While you might not think they are obligated to do so you trhow the onus on them still to do so. The problem with this is taht the them really aren't a single unit and judging that Al Qaeda has probably killed more Shi'ites than they have Americans of any religious, of non-religious, persuasion shows that Islam is very far from unified. Again to me it would be like telling a Lutheran that as a Christian he will have better chance telling extremist Mormons from practicing polygamy than an Agnostic.
As for the Catholic sex scandal, I don't think it need ordinary Christians church goers to expose these people and for them to come out and come clean. They already under heavy pressure and embarrassment under heavy scrutiny around the world. As for the fanatics muslims. They will only listen to the high clergy Muslims or ordinary muslims have no power.
Well, in all honesty, he probably would. As a peaceful Muslim, if you want to disassociate from militant Muslims, that's fine. Although I'd think that the dogma would probably almost command you to do more than that. And bringing it back to your original point regarding this post. My desire to see moderate religious people work actively to end violence within religion does not equate to claiming Islam = terrorism or Muslim = terrorist. Or as FB put it... We've already gone over ad nauseum the interpretation thing. We know that each man can make of a religious text whatever he wants. Are you responsible for how someone else interprets religious text? No. The place he interprets it from is responsible.
What do you mean by "do more than that"? Both you and Around the World have essentially pooh poohed the several posts made by Muslims condeming terrorists. What more do you want them to do go and fight them hand in hand? And even there Muslims from Pakistan to the US are actively fighting against extremists. Yet you keep on coming back to us (non-Muslim / secular) versus them (Muslims). Its up to them speak out against the extremists, its up to them to stop terrorism. I'm seeing a lot of Muslims doing that already yet you are asking them to do more even when you recognize that Islam isn't unified and that individual Muslism or seperate groups aren't responsible for Islam as a whole. And I agree with you that there are those taking the interpretations of Islam to justify violence that said I don't see why then criticize other Muslims for pointing out that they think such interpretations are incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mufti --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojat_al_islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marja'_(Islamic_law)
Not exactly a religious scholar, but aren't people usually commanded in a peaceful religion to spread their ideas of peace, love, non-violence, etc? Especially to those who need it most? WTF. I can't speak for ATW, but I have *never* condemned anyone's condemnation of terrorism. I condemn excuses for it. I have no idea where you got that from, please explain. Like I said, a religious missionary seeking to spread the ideas of peace to the afflicted would do a hell of a lot more than a keyboard warrior more interested in saving face for the sake of his religion and looking to make excuses for violent behavior.
judoka, I just re-read every single post I've made in this thread and never once did I condemn anyone for condemning terrorism. I'd appreciate a retraction of that statement.
Actually read those articles, why don't you? It is not hierarchical like Catholicism. None of these positions hold any real power. None of these positions are superior to any of the other positions. They are titles invented through modern history. You would've had much more to go on had to linked to the Caliphate instead of empty titles. You do realize their are more than 1 Grand Mufti's? There is no more than 1 Pope, however.
Saying in that instance that there is no hierarchy, is like saying there is no hierarchy in the world, since United States President and the Russia Premier are different people. The truth of the matter is that there is structure. It doesn't go all the way to one unified president, but 195 individually ruled countries is closer to 1 world ruler than 6.8 billion individuals. It isn't hierarchical like Catholicism, but it is a whole hell of a lot more hierarchical than everybody does what they think is best for themselves. Somehow, in this world with 195 countries ruled through 195 individual governmental structures with no higher authority, we can all manage to get unified agreement on subjects of international law without having a king of the planet to tell us what to think.
From what I've studied about Islam (Sunni mainly), it is quite "everybody does what they think is best for themselves" based off the model of Muhd once people get older. There are these ideas like 'God knows best whether whatever you did was based on good intentions/God is the final judge' which justify this democratic interpretation since Muslims believe this life is just the 'dunya phase of existence' (hard to translate, transitional/impermanent/experiment). Islamic 'structure' is just you as a person having a vertical connection with an omnipotent entity using the Quran and your intelligence alone - the relationship is one of 'submission' or 'peace' (Nirvana-like, like once you realize how powerless it is to swim against a current). Then there's a horizontal relationship between you and other things/people/etc where you are a vice-regent of Islam. Finally, there's a diagonal line connecting the entity to those other things so the end structure is a triangle multiplied so many times it's like a Riemann zeta function. And, the UN is a terrible analogy. It is frustratingly bureaucratic and very rigid, and if you ever took any political science courses in college you might know not to compare the two especially given the development of how the UN came to be (and America's dominant role in it) and the disproportionate power of the UN Security Council vs member states.
Could you show me where the word "UN" or "United Nations" appeared once in what I wrote? I'm not sure where the idea that I was speaking of the UN came from. A good example of what I was talking about is prohibitions on piracy which have been in existance for several hundreds of years. No master dictator decreed that piracy was illegal. Rather, over time through mutual voluntary accession it became established international doctrine that countries should work to eliminate piracy in international waters. The soft and undeclared nature of most of international law that existed prior to the advent of the League of Nations or the UN is a perfect example of the way in which mutual unbinding voluntary acceptance of principals among several independent entities can achieve a lasting international de facto law. So your contention is that if your local Grand Mufti or Grand Ayatollah says something is haraam it will make no difference at all whatsoever - that everybody will just ignore him and do whatever it is they personally think is best? Especially if that is followed by agreement by all the other religious leaders? Personally, from everything I've seen these individuals have a tremendous amount of soft power by the very nature of the fact that being recognized with one of these titles means that the vast majority has come to the conclusion that you are one of the most knowledgeable and wise people around. As an example, my mother has no legal sway over me. She can not compel me to do anything. But as she is my mother, if she tells me to do something that I don't want to do, it is much more likely that I will blindly obey than it would be if some random lawmaker with "elected legal power" in Washington passed a law that I found superfluous and arbitrary.
Stop making stuff up. Just like DonnyMost, I have never said anything against Muslims condemning terrorists. You are trying very hard to endear yourself to what you perceive to be the majority of posters here in the D&D, that's fine, but don't make stuff up to further that goal. If this is a popularity contest for you, fine - not for me. When Mathloom says that he wants the Danish cartoonist to live in fear for the rest of his life because of the cartoons, that is not condemning anything - that is approval of and joining in the hysterical outrage that followed these cartoons. It's a shame because for stretches, his posts really seem to make sense.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Nations and states to a religion. They do not operate the same way and creating false analogies is only disingenuous. A Grand Mufti can issue a religious fatwa, but so can any judicial Islamic scholar. And you are wrong when saying each individual government has no higher authority than themselves. There's the UN Security Council. The UN General Assembly. The International Criminal Court of Justice. And the closest thing the world has to a king is the Secretary-General.
Well... the USA isn't a signatory of the ICC agreement, so it has no jurisdiction over the USA. And if you think the USA obeys the whims of the General Assembly and Secretary-General and not the other way around, I'm not sure what planet you are living on. But if it makes you happy, imagine the 19th century, prior to the League of Nations or the UN. So they are the same, huh? If a Grand Mufti issues a fatwa it will have exactly as much effect as one issued by some noob just graduated from the madrassa?
Well, that makes the whole thing worse. How many judicial Islamic scholars are out there? And how many of them are lunatics? With blind followers?
Hrm, you're right that's a good point about piracy. I hadn't thought about Muslims resolving the issue in the way you described. However, I seem to remember something misleading in the history of piracy. I'll get back to you on this. Well, I would say that those pertain to the Shi'ite sects only. They're not supposed to follow them like you see you the people who got riled up when one of them issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. In addition, I was only explaining the structure of "true" Islam rather than the man-made changes in societies where Islam is supposedly followed. The religion itself is actually very egalitarian in terms of anybody whether rich and poor, powerful and powerless having a direct relationship or access to God (Shiites disagree with this). Everyone has the same connection to the God as the Pope has in the Catholic Church -> no intermediaries between a Muslim and God.
