Well people seem to get very upset with all sorts of rubbish. Just check out the great outraged on this site every day!

There are so many people today (quite a lot on here btw) who get offended over everything. Always harping on about racism or fascism or sexism or homophobia etc etc. People should be allowed to say what they want without some liberal pc-infatuated do gooder going off on one or threatening to call the guards! I have no problem using terms that some find offensive.. it’s my right and I don’t care if you get upset if you don’t like what I say…

Sean. I doubt very much that loads of ‘liberal pc- infatuated do gooders’ on this site threatened to call the police on you because of the bold words that you use. It sounds like more of an egotistical comment to me.

If it’s your right to make ignorant comments in public, it’s the right of others to challenge them, just like last week when you wondered if it was equivalent to compare the use of the word ‘ginger’ to that of ‘ni***r’, a vile hate-filled word. I challenged your comment but you did not respond.

I’m sure the vast majority of those offended never saw the trailer or movie.

well said Sean, its beyond ridiculous at this stage.

plus1

‘savages’- classy!

Thats what they are…..

Colm, if anything “savages” is a polite way of describing them.

@ jim etc. and Kevin: for me and many other people, the word ‘savage’ has colonial and racist connotations. It is a word used to project a sense of innate inferiority on entire ‘races’ of people. It recalls how Irish people were seen and dipicted in British and American magazines in the 19th century. When you speak in such terms you mirror such anti-Irish racism, as you are defining entire groups of people as a ‘mob’. They are no longer invidividuals with their own stories, hopes and aspirations; they are a herd of mindless, quasi-animalistic sub-humans.

I’m not saying that their reaction, or at least my simplistic understanding of their reaction through the lens of western media, wasn’t extreme, but that their reaction has a political, social and historic context.

Colm, you’re projecting your own assumptions there. The only people Joe called “savages” were the people who started murdering other human beings over a piece of film. The only “groups of people” he referred to as a mob were, in fact, a mob.

I’m not so sure Peter, Joe Sixtwo frequently uses the word in relation to Islam on this site. It doesn’t sound like solely critical comment, but I could be wrong…

Peter. If he had said that the behaviour was savage in character, that may have been more understandable, but to describe people as savage essentialises them.

I am half-Pakistani and I am not Muslim; the stereotype that if you’re from that region, your Muslim is ridiculous. Being Muslim is not racial; Khalid Kelly (Irish Muslim) is a savage. A large segment of Muslims behave like savages; the Arab Uprisings show exactly what kind of “freedom” they want. Arab Islamic Colonialism of Africa is savage; forcibly converting people to Islam is savage. If anything the Muslims are colonizers, don’t see any similarities between the Irish and those who colonize. There is no Islamic country that is an actual Democracy with the exemption of Turkey which is currently seeing a rise in political Islam. It is what it is.

Kevin. I’m not sure whose stereotype you’re referring to. What I objected to was the use of the word savage to describe people, as opposed to actions. I have no idea who the person you mentioned is.
As regards Africa- it’s a big place and yes there are fundamentalists but let’s name the specific places and the specific groups; I’ve met Muslims in Uganda, Morocco, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Mali who were the opposite of fundamentalists- more like lapsed Muslims!

@ Colm When I call people or mobs savages then it has a simple reason, it is because their behavior is barbaric and totally unacceptable. I have the greatest respect for human beings and total respect for human life. I am under no obligation to respect supernatural beliefs or imaginary beings or the barbarity committed in “their “name. I have nothing against any person peacefully practicing their religion.

Joe my point is that behaviour can easily be described as savage but to call people savages makes it sound like you think they are inferior.

Regarding religions, I think blanket statements are dangerous too but, that said I believe that they are irrational.

Stop the semantics Colm that’s a waste of time. I use the term savage with regards to people that behave and act like savages. I use that term regardless of race colour or creed…..reserved for savages.

Clearly I don’t think it’s semantics. We can agree to differ…

All true. However you need to be able to say or express what you want. People saying homophobic rascist or defaming remarks against a person should be brought before the courts. Christopher Hitchens said if you wont listen to all sides including the rediculous ?you? deprive yourself in the search for the truth. Anyone making negative or illegal comments should be free to do so & then challenged. Freedom of speech & expression should be paramount. We dont take it serious enough here. Its the best way to challenge all negative teachings.

Just one point about the defamation law. You have to be alive to be defamed. I may be wrong but I believe that Muhammad has been dead for 1600 years. I don’t think he was going to sue.

The Irish “deformation” laws…. What are they…laws to protect against the mispronunciation of “Oirish, I went to Gaelscoil names?

Cionnach – He didn’t defame anyone. He criticised a religious figure. That’s different than defaming a living person. Religious figures are not above criticism. And as for Irish law – it’s irrelevant with respect to this individual, as he lives in the US – which strongly supports freedom of speech and expression.

For the record – I’ve no doubt that this guy is a slimeball – But there’s no way in hell I’d ever support him doing time for the reactions of over-sensitive religious fanatics. If he does time for fraud – then so be it.

@Spinnach O’Riada Deformation!!!!!!!!

The Pakistani government clarified that he was not speaking in an official capacity, but they didn’t sack him.

Who cares what the Pakistani Government said. Their support for the blasphemy laws and their President calling for the arrest of the film-maker at the UN is insane.

Who was the individual he said anything about not based in fact, out of curiosity?

It’s a bit of a stretch to declare that since this example of Muslims behaving in an uncivilised manner exists, Islam is fundamentally evil and should be opposed in general. If we were to take that logic, we would have to conclude that Christianity is about raping children and Atheism is about persecuting theists and sending them to die in work camps. Most Christians aren’t paedophiles, most Atheists aren’t hardline communists and most Muslims aren’t terrorists.

Awful comparison/example.

How do you make that out? What makes Islam any more valid than Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism. Lets take Hinduism as an example. It has over a Billion followers and its over 5000 years old. And all of a sudden its wrong! Islam itself is derived from Judo-Christian beliefs. And to claim that they are no longer valid would in itself negate Islam. And if not mistaken did not Muhammad preach tolerance of all other religions?

All religions are completely dumb, why are you so insecure that you have to defend your religion so strongly? Maybe because deep down you know its all a fairy tale?

That kind of ad hominem can be applied to anything: “All Atheism is completely dumb, why are you so insecure that you have to defend your belief that there is no god so strongly? Perhaps because deep down you know it’s possible that god exists.”

Now where are we left?

Im not an atheist. Im a human that respects science and facts.

But if Islam accepts all! Then by definition you can not say that Islam is the only “True Faith” because to do so would be to say that their faith is based on a falsehood. And hence that would be intolerant of their belief system.