JoeBob Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Sentinel947 - I couldn't figure out the Private Message function on the site, so let this post serve as my response to your editorial rapier. I can sorta understand your deleting 'Raghead'. I meant it in an effort to mimic the tone of the murdered cartoonists. Removal accepted, but I might chide you for being thin-skinned. +++ A citation for my mocking of Mohamed as a 'Pedophile Prophet': "Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and the Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[28][45][46] Pandit Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad A Bing search of images for 'prophet Muhammad pedophile' returns 6 pages of cartoons. Some are admittedly in poor taste; but some are funny. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=prophet+muhammad+pedophile&qpvt=prophet+Mohamed+pedophile&FORM=IGRE#a 947: Was deleting the word 'pedophile' part of YPT that I missed? Or are you disputing the history? +++ The 'Issues' forum was created as a place to bandy about ideas. "In answer to many requests, we established a separate forum for these topics. Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content." If you were easily offended, you were not supposed to venture into 'Issues and Politics. So I have no idea why you would want to delete the idea that I posted: ___ I would like for all world leaders to adopt the policy of burying dead terrorists in a fresh pig skin. Presidents: "I know that burying a Muslim in pig-skin is offensive to your religion. I'm sorry about that. The easiest way for you to avoid being denied your 72 virgins is to NOT blow yourself up in our cities or commit 'suicide by cop' in Western towns." ​When you are fighting an enemy that wants to die and go to heaven, deny him heaven. ___ Is Scouter.com Forums afraid of Radical Islamic retaliation? Is discussing a way to discourage Islamic children from blowing themselves up offensive? I'm lost. Could you elaborate? Would you mind leaving this post online long enough for a few of the other older Scouters to weigh in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Mocking one of the prophets of Islam, others being Jesus and Moses, is likely to do more harm than good. The Muslim policeman murdered by the terrorists in Paris would almost certainly have been offended. He of course, having given his life for civilization, cannot be offended. The Muslim store clerk who hid over a dozen Jews from Terrorist No.3 in Paris at considerable risk would likely be offended, as would Muslim members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.,S.M.C. You seem to hate Muslims with no discrimination, millions of members of a group of related religions. Are you aware that the number of non-Muslims murdered by Muslim terrorists during your lifetime is a small fraction of the whole? The typical victim is, of course, a Muslim, often a women or child and almost always a non-combatant. Tim McVeigh identified himself as a Christian. He killed 168 and injured 680. Anders Breivik murdered 77 in the name of his version of Christianity. Should you then publish the statements that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene? Almost all Christian leaders denounced the murders of McVeigh and Breivik. Almost all leaders of Islam have denounced the Paris (and other) terrorists and said they will burn in Hell. A more narrowly focused loathing might be more just and useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Thanks for your input. The Muslim policeman murdered by the terrorists in Paris would almost certainly have been offended. He of course' date=' having given his life for civilization, cannot be offended.[/quote'] The innocents killed by Jihadists are frequently swept under the rug. You seem to hate Muslims with no discrimination' date=' millions of members of a group of related religions.[/quote'] Nope. Sorry if I gave that impression and I will try to be more vigilant in typing out : 'Radical Jihadist Muslim Terrorists'; but it's gonna slow me down. I've got an Iranian family to my right and a mixed family from Mauritius to my left in Atlanta Georgia. Good folks and good kids. Tim McVeigh identified himself as a Christian. McVeigh wasn't using a religion to justify his derangement, so I'm not following your point. A more narrowly focused loathing might be more just and useful. A valid criticism. The double standard is driving me berserk. NYT edits out a woman's quote about the shooter telling her to convert to Islam, read the Koran, and cover herself. Taxpayers build foot-baths for Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport, but we have to take down the ten commandments and stop saying 'Merry Christmas'. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_in_CA Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 A citation for my mocking of Mohamed as a 'Pedophile Prophet': "Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and the Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[28][45][46] Pandit Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad A Bing search of images for 'prophet Muhammad pedophile' returns 6 pages of cartoons. Some are admittedly in poor taste; but some are funny. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=prophet+muhammad+pedophile&qpvt=prophet+Mohamed+pedophile&FORM=IGRE#a 947: Was deleting the word 'pedophile' part of YPT that I missed? Or are you disputing the history? So your justification for mocking Mohamed as a "Pedophile Prophet" is that others have done so too??? What was the point other than to show your complete contempt for the central figure in Islam? Way to live the Scout Law. Taxpayers build foot-baths for Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport, but we have to take down the ten commandments and stop saying 'Merry Christmas'. Etc. Who says we have to stop saying Merry Christmas? The only thing I see is wingnuts going ballistic when people don't say "Merry Christmas". As for the rest - sigh, why am I bothering? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Having an Issues and Politics forum provided an open door. Let it stand for discussion. It seems human nature to speak disparagingly of your wartime enemy. Is it scout-like to do so? No. Is war scout-like? World Brotherhood, if so why the different set of rules? Perhaps at times, we need to think and fight like our enemy. What is a scout's responsibility during war - stateside and frontline? Duty to Country. What ideas do you have to better serve our country during this time of war? How does censoring this discussion help? Denying heaven, reminded me of John Ford's movie The Searchers [brad Jorgenson takes a small boulder and attempts to crush the skull of a dead Comanche warrior, the actor in grave is very obviously breathing] Reverend Clayton: Jorgenson! Ethan: Why don't you finish the job? [shoots out the eyes of the Comanche warrior] Reverend Clayton: What good did that do ya? Ethan: By what you preach, none. But what that Comanche believes, ain't got no eyes, he can't enter the spirit-land. Has to wander forever between the winds.You get it, Reverend. Ethan: [to Martin] Come on, blanket-head! My quick $0.01 for rambling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The innocents killed by Jihadists are frequently swept under the rug.[ Quite true. To many, like the victims in Nigeria, they simply do not count. That does change the reality that Muslims, who you would deeply offend, are far and away the primary victims of people who rationalize their murder by what are, according to Muslim leaders, impious references to Islam. McVeigh wasn't using a religion to justify his derangement, so I'm not following your point. True, but his reading and comments reek of :"Christian Identity." Say that's not really Christianity? Leaders of Islam say ISIS and AQ are not really Islam. The double standard is driving me berserk. NYT edits out a woman's quote about the shooter telling her to convert to Islam, read the Koran, and cover herself. Taxpayers build foot-baths for Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport, but we have to take down the ten commandments and stop saying 'Merry Christmas'. Etc. So we offend all Muslims? Even the families of the martyrs? Better to offend all politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 So we offend all Muslims? Even the families of the martyrs? Hold up a second. Are radical jihadist truly 'martyrs'? If the radical clerics are correctly interpreting the Koran and getting ones self killed for Allah earns one 72 virgins in heaven, then they are 'martyrs'; and we have ourselves an undeclared religious war. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and atheists had better start doing more than just offending Muslims. But if Islam is truly 'A religion of peace', then those radical clerics are twisting the Koran for their own agendas and misleading their followers. Those folks are disgracing Allah, who probably is not worried at all about offending them when he denies the 72 virgins,etc. Those dead jihadis are not martyrs, they're just thugs who deserve nothing more than worm food. ++++++ Which brings us back to my original question: Will threatening to bury dead Radical Islamic Terrorists in pigskin have a negative impact on their ability to recruit and motivate suicide attackers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I am not a Muslim. I deleted what I felt was derogatory to Islam as a whole. Things that mock Islamic beliefs or practices. ISIS deserves a good mocking, but the things I deleted I felt crossed a line. Unfortunately in this situation, I am the judge and the jury. I do believe in having as open and free as discussions as possible in I&P but that isn't a license to say anything we want. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 JoeBob, you can't seem to accept - or deal with - the reality that the vast, vast majority of the murdered are Muslim. Tens of thousands of women and children are among them. "Martyrs" seems a correct label for these victims to the lust for power of the terrorists. And those victims have families -- typically also Muslim -- whom you want to offend. I see no hint that intentionally giving such offense will reduce the violence or that you feel that it will. I gather it meets some other objective or need. I suspect ISIS and the like would rejoice over what you propose to say and threaten. And yes, they are thugs. Why not focus on their thuggishness and viciousness and not the religion that they pervert for their own purposes, as others have perverted other religions over the centuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 While I understand that this is theoretically a place to discuss political and religious issues, but I have always thought it was still a Scouting related board. If that is the case, then at least a modicum of adherance to tenets of Scouting would apply, The test would be whether or not you would wish to expose your scouts or other young people to what is said. If not, then it probably does not belong here. There are other places where crude, vitriolic, and hateful language can be aired. One would hope this is not one of them. Just my personal opiniion, but I would think that most regular readers and posters here would agree there ARE limits, even on this specific forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Having an Issues and Politics forum provided an open door. Let it stand for discussion. It seems human nature to speak disparagingly of your wartime enemy. Is it scout-like to do so? No. Is war scout-like? World Brotherhood, if so why the different set of rules? Perhaps at times, we need to think and fight like our enemy. What is a scout's responsibility during war - stateside and frontline? Duty to Country. What ideas do you have to better serve our country during this time of war? How does censoring this discussion help? Denying heaven, reminded me of John Ford's movie The Searchers [brad Jorgenson takes a small boulder and attempts to crush the skull of a dead Comanche warrior, the actor in grave is very obviously breathing] Reverend Clayton: Jorgenson! Ethan: Why don't you finish the job? [shoots out the eyes of the Comanche warrior] Reverend Clayton: What good did that do ya? Ethan: By what you preach, none. But what that Comanche believes, ain't got no eyes, he can't enter the spirit-land. Has to wander forever between the winds.You get it, Reverend. Ethan: [to Martin] Come on, blanket-head! My quick $0.01 for rambling When Lord Salisbury objected to the carpet bombing of German civilians, he was reminded that the Germans did "it" first. He replied that such was the case but, nevertheless, "We should not take the Devil as our example.." "Human nature" is not always something of which we should be proud - or take as out example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 When Lord Salisbury objected to the carpet bombing of German civilians, he was reminded that the Germans did "it" first. He replied that such was the case but, nevertheless, "We should not take the Devil as our example.." "Human nature" is not always something of which we should be proud - or take as out example. We are not proud as war quickly shows us we are not the "good guy" or scout we thought we were. Duty, the other guy did it first, better them than us, whatever ends this quickest are our justifications. And they may work for the winning side but still don't always comfort in hindsight. Baden Powell as an example here might cause us discomfort. As to JoeBob's point about denying martyrdom and reward to "negative impact on their ability to recruit and motivate suicide attackers" is well considered, however, I think his burial idea would only motivate new recruits to seek revenge. Maybe the "Issues and Politics" forum should be removed or locked, as the connection of scouting with "issues and politics" is often not discussed. My $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 JoeBob, the proposal is based on a skewed Western understanding of Islam. Even if there were a tradition of Allah being unwilling to honor the works of any body touching swine, it could simply be annulled by fatwa declaring that the lamb sacrificed for the Eid would be sufficient to overcome any infidels' defamation of your corpse. Pawns though they may be, jihadists are not deterred by feeble attempts at twisting their superstitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 RememberSchiff, just so you and others will know, the moderators are taking a very serious and hard look at this thread. Its future is uncertain just now. What say you all? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 <> Frankly, I find this kind of application of currently fashionable morality to a person living 1200 years ago to be ludicrous. It makes as much sense as attacking Christians as ritual cannibals for eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. But as long as the ideologues in the Paris demonstration yesterday are celebrating "freedom of expression," lets consider that the attackers were just exercising THEIR freedom of expression by attacking a publication with deliberately obnoxious and offensive views, They gas Charlie Hebdo a thumbs down, negative review. Let's keep in mind that liberal protesters of the Ferguson, Missouri incident have felt justified in engaging in murder, arson, looting, rioting assault and mayhem in general --- often described as "peaceful protest," which is anything BUT peaceful. Liberal activists these days are fond of shouting "no justice, no peace." And that means, "if you don;t give us what we want, we'll PUNISH society by any means we think appropriate to make you wish you had." With THAT and similar things as the standard for "free expression" these days how can you blame the Parid attackers for having their own views on the freedom of expression issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now