Welcome to the Travel Forums


Why join TravelBlog?

  • Membership is Free and Easy
  • Your travel questions answered in minutes!
  • Become part of the friendliest online travel community.
Join Now! Join TravelBlog* today and meet thousands of friendly travelers. Don't wait! Join today and make your adventures even more enjoyable.

* Blogging is not required to participate in the forums
Advertisement


Is religious critism rascism?

Advertisement
Originally part of Rascism
What is your opinion?
15 years ago, March 30th 2009 No: 1 Msg: #67546  

India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.


Quote from UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

Reply to this

15 years ago, March 30th 2009 No: 2 Msg: #67548  
I agree with the following comment, also from the above link.

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.

Reply to this

15 years ago, March 30th 2009 No: 3 Msg: #67611  
what if someone says " its religions that have rights and not individuals"...Like it was in the middle ages....would that be more acceptable to the world?.

Does the canadian diplomat terry cormier know that religions consist of individuals whose rights he is trying to defend?.

By saying that religions have no rights he is taking away all the rights of all the individuals who follow these religions....where by they have no rights to protest...no voice to raise....no pain to feel.....and finally cease to be individuals in a mordern society.By saying this are they not saying that religion has no existence in modern society?.

If that is the case then mordern society is not fully free ...is it?.



Reply to this

15 years ago, April 2nd 2009 No: 4 Msg: #67966  
I hope the following guy does not win anything in the elections.

Since early March, Varun Gandhi, 29, has been the scandal of India's political class after he called for, among many things, the hands of Muslims to be cut off if they are raised against Hindus, their throats to be slashed, their population to be culled by strict birth control. His words triggered India's stringent National Security Act, and for days the young Gandhi was a fugitive from the law.


India's Dynastic Feud: A Gandhi Who Hates Muslims Reply to this

15 years ago, April 2nd 2009 No: 5 Msg: #68046  
If he gets a chance there are many chances he may win.
But he is not being allowed to contest by the election commission because he is an extrimist and this bloke has gone to court saying its his right to stand in election.

All the courts including the high court upheld the stand of the election commission of India and now the case is in the supreme court of India.

Personally if you ask me he is a kid ....and went along with the crowd owing to mob psycology.Then he realised his mistake and began saying it wasnt his voice and tried to cover up his rants....He failed.

One thing that needs mention is that VARUN GANDHI is not a Gandhi in the first place.

If they have any shame they would continue using their grand father Nehrus name instead of Gandhis name.

They use Gandhi's name to get political mileage out of Indian Masses.So to name that article as "A Gandhi who hates muslims" is wrong.

He is a Nehru who hates muslims.



Sonia would be sonia nehru.....and varun would be varun nehru.


Even I hope he dosent win.
Reply to this

15 years ago, April 10th 2009 No: 6 Msg: #69084  
No religious criticism is not rascism at all but is religious freedom of speech. Although not all nations believe in that principle. Since the truth will make you free we need to hear the truth to be made free from sin and hell. It was The Lord Jesus Christ who first said the truth shall set you free. He came into the world to save sinners and to seek and to save sinners. He travelled from heaven itself to do this for us all no matter what our religious background. Since we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life,and died for all our sins against God our Creator on the cross 2000 years ago outside of Jerusulum, Israel. He was buried,and rose from the dead, was seen of men,and went back up to Heaven. He said to repent and believe the gospel which is what this is. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,and thy house.(Acts 16:31). Also read John and Romans on this in the Authorized King James Holy Bible,the preserved word of God. For furthur information , Thank You,very much, for my expression of religious freedom something every nation should be for to be made free.
Reply to this

15 years ago, April 10th 2009 No: 7 Msg: #69100  
I think freedom of speech has its limitations.That way hate speech of Hitler would be accepted as civilized today.So the question is where does the freedom of speech end and where does it begin.

Your freedom ends where someones nose begins.

Normally the western notion is ....what ever hurts us is blasphemy ....but what ever hurts other cultures should be allowed under the garb of freedom of speech.

I read this below passage in a blog in the net

" Guardian reports that Jyllands-Posten refused to run cartoons lampooning Jesus Christ three years ago. The Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, gave this rationale at the time: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.” The problem here is that by running only cartoons focused on Muhammad, the paper is making clear, however unintentionally, that the point of the satire is not religious but political — expressing an attitude toward the Muslim world, rather than laughing at fundamentalist religion in general. "

So now what do you say about these double standards.

My question is what is the point the danish were trying to make using those cartoons.That Islam is a terror religion?.

What about the terror the western nations commit by selling arms to all the third world countries rebels so that democratically elected governments are always at the verge of instability.

What about the war on IRAQ a country which has no know how of even making a bomb shell casing ] being accused of having weapons of mass destruction and now on the verge of a civil war?.
Is the united nations blind or deaf or really so much a puppet at the hands of USA and europe?.
So much for these nations which are leaders in human rights.
Now can we really construe that all these acts are acts of christianity or the followers of christ and moses.
Then how can those terror attacks be construed as direct commanments of Mohammed?.

These are questions more of race and hence religious criticism should be construed as racist in light of the above double standards that are followed by western nations.

Islam prohibits pictures of mohammed and that should be respected by all.You cannot go lienient on your mistakes and take a harsh view of other religions just because you dont understand their culture and their way of life.
Reply to this

15 years ago, April 10th 2009 No: 8 Msg: #69104  

I think freedom of speech has its limitations.That way hate speech of Hitler would be accepted as civilized today.So the question is where does the freedom of speech end and where does it begin.



I think what is meant by freedom of speech in countries which support it is not so much that it is acceptable to say anything at all, but that people dont get imprisoned, tortured etc for saying what they want. Fairness clauses also apply to put a limit on hate mongering.

For example, here on TravelBlog it is just about acceptable to say ''Normally the western notion is ....what ever hurts us is blasphemy ....but what ever hurts other cultures should be allowed under the garb of freedom of speech.'' whether others agree with it or not. At the same time fairness clauses apply to protect the members of this site in the situation where the line of decency is crossed.
Reply to this

15 years ago, April 10th 2009 No: 9 Msg: #69105  
(but that people dont get imprisoned, tortured etc for saying what they want. Fairness clauses also apply to put a limit on hate mongering.)

People can say what ever they want to say.But such a criticism should first come from among their own instead of some one alien to the culture that is being criticised.

The question is who decides what is hate mongering.The publising of cartoons against mohammed is freedom of speech to you and total disrespect for the followers of mohammed.For you its freedom of speech and for them its hate mongering.
Wont you get imprisoned in germany if you give speeches supporting Hitler?.What about that?.Is that not freedom of speech?.
Why are you being sent to prison for something as mild as that?.

(At the same time fairness clauses apply to protect the members of this site and would apply in the situation where the line of decency is crossed. )

I agree with you on this mel and I respect the fact that members should be protected.But every member should be allowed to question the views of other members especially if they present a contradiction or if the member feels that someone is exaggerating.





Reply to this

15 years ago, April 10th 2009 No: 10 Msg: #69108  
We can still be considerate of others but still have freedom of speech wether religious or political. But Jesus still said nontheless I am the way,the truth,and the life;no man cometh unto the Father,but by me.(John 14:6).Read John and Romans in the Holy Bible for yourself and you will see the truth of it all. Reply to this

15 years ago, April 11th 2009 No: 11 Msg: #69145  
2 posts moved to this new topic: Religion Reply to this

Tot: 0.096s; Tpl: 0.006s; cc: 5; qc: 18; dbt: 0.0145s; 1; m:domysql w:travelblog (10.17.0.13); sld: 1; ; mem: 989.1kb