However: Religion is an outdated technology. It has failed to solve the most complicated problems of primitive and modern society, just think of the plague, medical care, sexual complexes or long-distance travel. Instead, modern societies use science. The essence of science is doubt, the main concept of religion is belief. If you rule out doubt, you lose all the benefits of science, especially it's perpetual expansion of knowledge.
This makes the assumption that a) religion predates science and b) science is capable of answering everything. First of all, religion doesn't predate science as in Ancient Egypt, art and science and religion were considered the same thing. Science and religion are not in conflict, except when people use science as a debunking of the sacred (granted, certain creation myths are disproven, but this wholly different to the refuting of divinity). Secondly, science is not capable of answering everything as it concerns itself with the physical world. As a result, it cannot discuss other aspects such as spirituality, art, or the sacred. For example, I could discuss DCM's Tetsuko purely on spelling and grammar, but this would give me no indication of whether or not this is a good story or well drawn. If you wish to discuss the sacred, the religious, you must discuss it on those terms, and not on other terms and claim other terms of discussion do not exist. Modern scientific thought is based after all, on Descartes who got the idea to measure nature while tripping on magic mushrooms and he had a vision in which an angel told him this. Science, like religion, is a tool (as you say) of thought. Like any tool of thought, or belief system, it has its beautiful sides - the joy of discovery, unearthing mysteries, curing disease, increasing quality of life - and it has it's darker sides - control through addiction, calcifying the human spirit, debunking imagination, weapons of war, pollution. This is also true of social doctrines such as communism, capitalism, and so forth. Generally most people understand the rules and strive to improve themselves against it. Others, a minority, will try to alter those rules so that apply not to themselves, and only others. But if cunts fuck it up, it's not the tool's fault. It does only as it is told.
PS: As many have said, it would be better if the news channels brought positive information about the area once in a while. Maybe something about the reduction of infant death or about a NGO success. Why not? It's still news.
Well, that ain't sexy. Seriously, this is why I don't watch the news anymore. You just don't learn anything important except how we might die in 20 years if I don't buy this commercial brand name product.
Just watch the movie "Three Kings" and any bias you might have developed against muslims will pretty much be washed away after watching that movie.
Yeah, but you end up with a real bias and desire to punch the writer of the film. :-P
If I remember correctly, in Islam, the prophet Mohammed is forbidden to be depicted in any way. This was because, in Islam (as in Christianity), idol worship is forbidden. Only Allah is to be worshipped (not Mohammed).
It's one of the 10 commandments - no graven images. In fact, Jesus is not allowed to be depicted at all. He was presented on a crucifix for the first time to the pope in 800ad from a monk. It's that depiction that is used today. The idea of Jesus being the Son of God but not actually God is a kind of 'loop hole' (for lack of a better term) into having a graven image of God, but one that isn't blasphemous or 'really' God. Now, it's not 'evil' or 'immoral' to have a Jesus statue, but you're not meant to. And perhaps one of the reasons is to specifically prevent the ridiculing of such a great man.
The Danish cartoonist either: a) was ignorant of the fact that depicting the prophet Mohammed is offensive to muslims or b) was quite aware that depicting the prophet Mohamed is offensive to muslims. I'm not sure which would be worse.
I'm pretty sure he just thought it was funny. I've not even seen the damn thing. I saw a French cartoon with God saying, "Don't worry Mohammed (points at Jesus and Buddha), we've all been caricatured" and I thought it was quite funny. I also found the depiction of Mohammed in South Park funny too.
It would be like a cartoonist depicting Jesus as a gun-toting mass-murderer & continuing to publish such cartoons even after outraged christians protest them.
Or say, depicting Jesus as a homosexual. I remember when that happened. I was disgusted at the condescending way people talked to the 'Bible bashers'.
If it's your right to say something, then it's another's to be offended. An apology should be all that's required from both sides. The fact that people go on about it, is shameful. Let it go. It's a cartoon. The only reason this is playing up is because there hasn't been a bomb go off that someone can blame on Al-Qaeda in months, and the media and government is worried we might be remembering that there was a bunch of social ills prior to 9/11 that didn't involve terrorism.
It's a circus. I suggest we get off our marble seats and leave the colliseum and tell those in charge, "We'll come back when you have something worthwhile for us to see."
