161–170 of 489 posts
[deleted]
If the person who went to the wrong side of the stadium was killed along with some police officers with automatic firearms, don't you think they'd close stadiums to the public for a pretty long while? So far nobody has asked for the stopping of all public practices of religion, so we're still pretty good I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?
if HN as a community cannot accept a simple, logical and apparently non-offending statement against christianity. Then it really needs to declare it as a policy, and endorse Islamic bashing officially!
[deleted]
I find it interesting that European stadiums feel the need to separate home vs. away fans.
The biggest difference to realise is that in European countries travel distance for fans is SO much smaller. Leagues/cups here have minimum %s that teams must sell to the other team's fans when playing at home, and big teams have big number of fans who regularly travel, as well as it being a much easier "let's go to one away game" choice for other fans who don't regularly travel.
I'm not sure which I prefer. I've loved chatting with Giants fans in Dodger Stadium, but the atmosphere you can get with two groups of fans which are in separate areas... obviously there is some extent of possible violence between fans in European stadiums (in some cases police may need to keep them separate outside the stadium before/after the game, in other cases after the game you'll hear some shouted jokes at the other team's expense but see opposition fans walking next to each other to get to/from the stadium). Personally, for sports like football in UK/Europe, even if there was exactly 0% risk of any problems between the fans, I'd still choose to keep them separated for the atmosphere. So actually yes I am sure which I prefer. It just isn't viable in a country the size of America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be app…
> You can choose your religion I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of: - Been brought up in the environment - External pressures from relatives/society - In some cases institutionalised to their religion - Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion - Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to th…
People living in a totalitarian state can not always pick their religion (as in "the official religion is mandatory") but that's not a reason to restrict freedom of speech, including freedom to criticise religions, in our democracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much." There are NO excuses for what happened. None. Just because a certain group of people (no matter who they are) believe something doesn't mean the rest of the world should not offend that belief because some people might not like it. It doesn't matter if that belief is Islam, Judaism, Scientology, or a belief in pigs that fly. I have the right to make…
The liberty to express yourself is not the only liberty in the world. I, You and All of Us have the liberty to be offended as well. The point is: -what to do if you are offended? To which I say simply ignore it happened. -why offend someone in the first place?
Why this insistence on feeling offended? The prophet is the one being mocked, not you.
First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
I am a national of a country with 90% muslim while being a minority and to have the freedom to express my opinion.
Islam has bought nothing but hate and insecurity to most people around me. I think its YOUR problem if you are offended if I do not have any respect for your YOUR prophet.
Most american in HN are disgusted by the "pledge of aligence". They would be shocked at the type of behaviour that Islam forces onto its followers.
And Please do not bring up your book and what It says. No ones cares what someone wrote in some book 1000s of year ago. Netwon's laws are not respectable because newton wrote a book but because what he wrote was ACTUALLY something that worked !. Islam's ideas has brought nothing but misery to billions of people now and throught time bought to its followers and the people who had the misfortune of being neighbours to them.
END RANT
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Race is an immutable characteristic. No one could possibly change their race. It's barely a valid concept. Holding someone responsible for an inseparable part of themselves is both ill-conceived and futile. Religion is software: adopt a baby from a family with a different religion and odds are that the baby will grow into an adult having your religion. It may feel like an inseparable part of oneself, but it is not: i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Are you saying that those Muslims who are driven into these violent deeds by literally interpreting their holy writings are in fact not Muslims? Logically they'd be the biggest Muslims of all. If you identify as a Muslim you identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts that these Terrorists support. It's hard to respect a religion that to all outsiders seems so completely insane.
I don't believe there are many modern christians that would say that the unchaste daughters of priests should be burnt alive [0], yet by your logic if someone "identifies" as a christian they "identify as a supporter of those same oppressive texts".
Modern Islam is no more "completely insane" than any other religion (or sect of people, religious or not) and it is incredibly prejudiced to claim that it is any different. While terrorism and oppression is carried out in it's name, the same has been true for many religions and ideologies over time, (take Female Genital Mutilation in parts of africa, where 55% of christian women have experienced it[1], more than their muslim counterparts. It should be noted that this does happen in some muslim communities as well). To categorize a faith as "completely insane" based on the actions of violent extremists is unfair.
> Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive. It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually where "trigger warning" applies. Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such wa…
> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it. Ho…
Good point. However people keep saying that it's all about extremists, not the general population of Islamists, therefore I would also think that (by definition) that population of extremists (who would be offended by such pictures) is not very large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?
Well, people get what they want to hear/read out of religion. Take the old testament, you have enough instances of God-sanctioned large-scale murder to justify most of anything. Some groups have taken inspiration from it, while others have had a completely pacifist outlook. No religion is exempt from that.
When religious folk say that the other religious folk are misinterpreting religious text x, I can't help but think they are in no position to make that judgement fairly unless they have their own sense of ethics that overrides the ethics fed to them by their religion. Their view is simply another interpretation of their texts on the broad scale of interpretations of their religious texts.
If their ethics are therefore not derived from their religion, seems like a large chunk of the utility of their religion is an illusion. They are not good or better people because of their religion, their ethical foundation is already formed inside them regardless of what religion they pledge membership to.