Political Correctness Gone Overboard!!!

[In AmericEar]

I thought you were older!

Lol! ... see thats what I meant, I'm... 20... yeah

And Hÿllyn, you didn't go and read all that arguement to find a one liner did you?

I recently saw though in the paper that there is another cartoonist who has done a cartoon of the cartoonist who released the one about Muhammad (sp?), its just how they oparate...

[Jim]

There's not a chance your 13 

[In AmericEar]

14 in October!!!

[smeagol1982]

I think that political correctness has gone too far this year!!

I mean bannin christmas, whats that all about??? they sed it were because it may offend other faiths, but when dey took a survey, no other faiths in this country were offended by it as it is a british institution and as were in britain, how can it be changed.

DOWN WITH THE PC BRIGADE!!!!!

[/size]

We have very similar issues here in OZ, theres also criticism over comments about Australia being invaded, rather then settled.  When will it all end?

[Vårn]

Correct this then 

CALVIN AND HOBBES — AND MUHAMMAD


As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims — for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.

The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.

The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.

Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey — maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.

Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates — that's disgusting.)

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER


 Can be found at... http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


 Ahh I found another one liner.
 

We know that, and accept that the child will not care. It is the fact that the people who had it changed thought the need urgent enough to have it done!

As you say, the child doesn't care what the character is called, so what was the point of changing it?

Political Correctness my eye.

No, as in it's something so useless that why are you worried that someone felt the need to change it?

h'mm, short reply, my opinion's aren't hugely complicated. Did the magazine in question have every right to publish those cartoon's? yes it did. do i, personally, think they were insensitive and heavy-handed in doing so? yes i do. Did those thousands of muslims have every right to protest (peacefully) yes they did. (although i'd be inclined to think they were grossly overreacting, but then i'm not the most sensitive) did they have a right to engage in acts of violence? nope.

free speech has to be absolute, or it isn't free. the minute you curtail it in any way, shape or form, it's lost. how's the quote go? can't even remember where it's from...

'i don't like what you have to say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it'

[Shadowfax]

 I realise that its unfair to persecute a whole religion because of a limited number of extremists.  I have to admit, a year ago, i'd had little to no contact with anyone muslim and i thought they were all just edgy extremists who'd refuse to talk to you because you werent of the same religion as them.  Thats before i started my new college whos main percentage of students are - you got it - muslim, and they're all lovely, completely normal people who dont really involve religious views into anything.  Id like to highlight what one of my friends wrote in a speech for english though, which pretty much describes how unfair religion can be. 

  She started off by saying - I have a box.  The box is a family heirloom, passed on to me by my mother, and from her mother to her, and so on.  I must look after the box, and clean it many times a day, and spend a lot of time paying attention to my box.  I must look after my box because it is a family heirloom, but i dont really see the point in spending all the time on it - after all, its just a box.  Now, say this isnt a box, but religion......you see where shes going with this.  I just thought it was a good analogy, and it was acutally how she felt about the whole issue.  No one should be pressured into taking a religion on, and yet all these kids are ostricised by their families if they dont, and thats not fair.

 I think Muslims disregard for freedom of speech is stupid, (not picking on muslims here actually, im yet to find a religion that isnt heavily flawed), and obviously terrorism and the behaviour of some middle eastern muslims is inexcusable.  Im not justifying anything Americans and British may or may not have done here, its just that were talking about muslims and freedom of speech so i wont mention them.  The cartoon issue can be greatly highlighted by a hilarious south park two parter, which i'm going to outline for you, so if you havent seen season 10 yet, dont read.

Bascially - Family Guy are going to show an episode featuring the prophet muhammed.  America is so scared of being bombed in retaliation they get loads of sand and bury their heads in it, to show they didnt have anything to do with it.  Nothing can convince them *not* to show the epsiode because the writers of Family Guy will stop working if they dont show it (for hilarious reasons Cartman discovers).  So the episode goes ahead fully (but with a censor over muhammed - comedy central).  In retaliation, Al Quadea produce a film to be shown afterwards showing Americans, Bush, and then Jesus crapping all over each other. 
The censor over muhammed was put in place by comedy central (the people who run south park), not as intended by the episode.  Straight after they show Jesus being crapped on.  How is it fair that one religious figure cannot even be shown but its okay to show one being deficated on straight after.  The irony of comedy central (the tool of fox, obviously) not showing it at all......ahh it just pissed me off.  I dont think its right for it to be okay to mock one religious but not another because people are afraid of one person, thats just the same as bullies in a  playground, islam is the big kid no one makes any jokes about because they'll get kicked the crap outa.

[Hyllyn]

 Christianity was just the same at the time of the Inquisition Shadowfax. Thing is we as people got fed up of it, muslims on the other hand haven't.

 If you wanted the analogy in politics you could talk of say... Cuba. Communism everyone knows has some excellent ideals, but in practice it doesn't work and religions to some people are the same, however it is not that the Cuban people love Communism but simply the State enforces its right with an iron fist and obviously you can try to emancipate yourself only so often... so in a way that bigotry some people put up with can either be sustained, or rejected. Invariably it depends on how effective the leaders of these systems are at "convincing" them that rejecting it, is not a good idea.

 

[Nightwing]

The failure of communism has always been with the leaders. The failures of religion today lie with those who represent the masses. And those who inspire them.

Comedy Central is probably doing the censoring for its own benefit. Sounds rather awful really, but free speech has always had its limits. Many are set by what is socially acceptable. And whatever fails to cause a large enough uproar is deemed fair.

There's probably some middle ground where you could stand, but it's a largely empty place.

[Hyllyn]

The failure of communism has always been with the leaders. The failures of religion today lie with those who represent the masses. And those who inspire them.

 And those who represent the masses aren't leaders?

 Allow me to disagree with the statement on communism. Usually the process is one of polarization where any opposition is seen with hatred and contempt (and anti patriotic of course). This makes every single person partaking in positions of responsibility within the government potentially corrupt even before they start to do anything, simply because all decisions are not made based on merit but on who is against them or with them.

 Truth of the matter is that as any man-made system (including religions, microsoft windows and the british lawmaking ) it is bound to sound pretty in theory but and absolute failure in practice.

[Nightwing]

It's not that difficult to represent a group so large you could not begin to comprehend its scope when you can bring yourself to the front utilising a variety of methods available in todays world. Perhaps it's just a matter of defining a leader. They are not MY leaders, yet they represent what an entire belief system means. That's the difference. The masses aren't a country after all, there is no true representative unless his position can not be challenged (dictator) or is obtained by the consent of the majority (that other more fun form of government).

Communism is a delightful concept. The reason it fails is that it forgets to take into account the nature of humans. But you've already stated that. Try petitioning for the installation of a dictatorship in a democracy and you shall meet the same hatred and contempt. Don't forget the persecution of Communist parties during the Cold War (please don't ask for specifics, it's somewhere out there to be read).

Equality is actually flawed from every angle.  Most people don't want to be equal. They just want everyone else to be equal. Or to paraphrase/quote from Animal Farm - "All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others."

It's very different from religion though. In religion, each religion has its own problems that have very little to do with the faith. Socio-economic conditions make the people need to lash out. The reason those conditions exist has nothing to do with religion but more to do with wars long past, won and lost. When they never recovered, they turned to religion to find solace in something above and beyond "petty mortal pursuits". But you can never isolate yourself, and a jealous rage must manifest itself in some form. The violent protesters, even in this country, live in very different conditions from the majority. Wherever the blame for that may lie, it is not a difficult thing to bring all that self-pity to the fore when one's sense of self is all that one has.

It's striking the balance that is so tricky. But the balance is in a quiet place. Those who can balance, rarely represent. Pity.

Microsoft Windows works just fine for me. It's only running something on Windows that causes the problems.

Call to undefined function tportal_version()