Sorry, apparently the second image code got truncated.  Just change the final "..." to ".jpg" in the URL text box.

Thank you, (((((chansen)))))

There are reasons why what happened from those Danish cartoons happened. And it wasn't because of the Danish cartoonists (blaming the Danish cartoonists is like blaming those Australians who died in Bali). Read on :3

Following is my original post:

Genties and ladlemen,

How does one deal with the evil done by those few Imams who took those certain Danish cartoons and, adding a few cartoons of their own (including one of Mohammed as a pig), spread those around knowing full well the chaos that would ensue? Why do they get to show pictures of Mohammed but we don't? How does one fight this evil? This campaign of hatred that resulted in death, property damage, intimidation, and refutations of fundamental rights?

Folks, I suggest you watch these following videos. Really watch them. Be sure to avoid going "Oh, one of the speakers is so-and-so so I don't have to listen what they have to say."

Really. Listen. Because this is important to your future well being. Especially Part III.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

Part VII

Part VIII

Part IX

Our sysops get to do pretty much anything they want to on this board. They are the G_desses and G_ds here. But I think it mealy-mouthed for any of them to give up their own authority as to what can be posted here or not and say "because someone else can be offended". What they are saying there is that they are determining what people are going to find offensive--Aaron writes "I wouldn't say we can make a similar decision relevant to Muslim beliefs or practices..." when asked why we allow Christian ridicule here, but he does decide when he takes down Chansen's pic -- (which brings up the same problems as pornography -- for a riff on this, look up George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words. But, as I said, they do have the right and power to do with this board what they want to.

So, I'd cast my vote in for letting Chansen's picture being put back up here.

Until next time, folks.

Thanks, Inanna.

Actually, if anyone else wants their post back, I saved a copy of the thread a couple of hours before they removed it from view.  I do that whenever I expect admins to make a bad call.  If you want your post, just message me and I'll send it to you.

Seriously, Chansen?  You have been threatened with a ban? 

I am not sure what to think about this.

Oh, boo freakin' hoo, chansen. You get to throw around your ridicule and intolerant tripe around wondercafe all you want. In fact, you wallow in it.  And then, when Admin removes a picture TWICE from the same thread because he felt it violated the guidelines of wondercafe, you throw a hissy. Your just pissed because, in this case, your intolerance and ridicule was not tolerated.

Much of what you say chansen, violates the guidlines of wondercafe but yet nary a word from Admin about it. Admin finally draws the line and you start whining. Your like a kid in a toy store who just got told "NO".

What passes here is part of the hypocrisy, CF4.1.  I appreciate that I can ridicule Christianity here, but I can't post so much as a smiling stick-figure Muhammad?

And if simply offending others was verboten around here, you would have been gone long before me.

Here's the Wondermail:

In defense of Admin 2, it is a very apologetic threat.  No mention was made about removing the thread entirely.  Perhaps that decision was made by an entirely different incompetent admin.

And it's not like "respect for other religions is a core guideline for WonderCafe".  I can freely call Scientology a scam, and Mormonism is completely loony.  I've given my reasons before, and I don't feel like re-hashing them now.  But this freedom to criticize is a good thing.  I've been told that my criticisms have strengthened the faith of some, who apparently find faith in the unknown reinforced by being reminded that there is no proof for it.  I don't terribly care if you believe in God, or Allah, or Zeus, or the FSM.  Not really.  Not unless you use that faith for cover while you threaten or belittle others on behalf of your God.  But if you haven't heard the criticisms, or you just can't take an attack on your faith by a relative hack like myself, how the hell can you say you believe?

Hi Chansen, 

Could you explain the "censored image"?  How did it come about? 

Hi, I removed the previous thread on this topic because the posts of another poster, not Chansen, were inappropiate.

Thanks for your understanding,

Aaron (Admin2)

I'm not going to change my avatar because I believe in the principle that people should see who I am - but as you know I'm with you on this chansen, and I think this has been handled ridiculously.

Again - check out Wikipedia's article on Muhammad for Islamic depictions of Muhammad (so it can't be too much of a rule.) It's extremists and fundamentalists who threaten to kill people for drawing pictures that don't defy any rules of the Islamic faith who are the problem, not a stick figure by chansen.

Frankly, if you ban chansen, ban me too. I'm seriously rethinking participation on WC over this anyway.

Then remove the damn post.  You obviously know where the "Delete" button is.

[quote=chansen]

What passes here is part of the hypocrisy, CF4.1.  I appreciate that I can ridicule Christianity here, but I can't post so much as a smiling stick-figure Muhammad?

And if simply offending others was verboten around here, you would have been gone long before me.

 [quote]

Quite right. However, when I was made aware of my behaviour, I at least had the balls to change. You on the other hand just ramp up your foot stomping. You run around here without abandon ridiculing and insulting people and their faith and justifiy your intolerance by the crap filled statement "but your beliefs are so batshit." You come here to a church sponsored cite and spread vile and venom toward people of faith and nobody says a damn thing. Admin slaps your wrist and you crap your pants.

Seriously. Get over yourself.

That's right. Your hypocrisy.

No matter how much you flatter me, I am not going to sleep with you.

Too bad we don't have the "hot topics" anymore.  This thread is showing signs of heating up quite a bit . . .

Personally, I enjoy my exchanges with chansen. It's when people who say they're Christians start insulting, ridiculing and abusing others that my back gets up.

That made absolutely no sense.  The hypocrisy is mockery of Christianity, Mormonism, and Scientology, for example, are allowed.  Mild mockery of Islam is not.  This is simply a double-standard, not on my part, but on the part of the admins at WC.

OH DAMN!!!!!!!!

Are you okay with his batshit comment?

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing here with a comic personality around here like hamson or (is that just what blackbelt calls you!)

On the one hand, consuming fire is right! I found the leggo toy caricatures from utube on another thread amusing at first, but tend to nail the critisism on christianity as openly hostile,  with evil intentions and we are all like murdering crusaders! 

But.... I am also a kind of free speech proponent! I think it builds on what needs to be questioned and understood in diverse opinions. I have even referred to muslims in my famous post on "christians getting bashed" as strapping on dynamite to kill themselves for a chunk of land or their religious erratical behaviour in some.

But I merely pointed out a negative in the religion which was subject to interrogation by other commentators. I was not personally attacking it much like blaming the crusades on all christians. It is for open discussion and atheists are actually helpful in my own dealings with the path of understanding. Much like what I learn from many others.

It all makes good conversation and chanson makes me laugh a bit, I don';t get my undies tied in a knot about whatever.

Although I do think and am aware that the sort of call it "fundamentalist type christians" are open hunting season around the site, whether outright blatant attacks in pure negative fashion or just with indifference. They are pounced on by the select few I can think of. It does not keep an open line for good communication with maturity, but more antagonistic quarreling that does not show true and meaningful dialogue on both and for each participant. The admins know whats best if they made the rules

Oh. But it's just fine for chansen to do.

To be fair, I added an "a" between the "i" and the "t".

Oh.  It wasn't a typo?

It appears that this previous thread and the image may violate Rules of Conduct #s 1,3,5 and possibly 4.  In the Guidelines, Administration "reserves the right" to remove anycomment, thread and poster that is in violation of the Rules.

Additionally, the other poster was seen as violating Rules as well.

I cannot see grounds for supporting a free speech defens of the deleted thread if the avatar picture, thread topic and posts by one or more posters violates Rules of Conduct that above all else, are based on a notion of social justice and common courtesy.

In general, it seems that a great deal of discourteous posting has been floating around here, in other threads and  Forums, of late.

Perhaps it would do many of us good to re-read the Rules to which we agree to adhere upon becoming a member.

Hi Redhead!

There has been lots of discussion recently over on R and F about courtesy . . .

I don't expect people who aren't Christians to be particularly respectful of Christianity. When I was an atheist I also said some pretty disrespectful things about Christianity. chansen may sometimes be - shall we say - crude, but he's willing to engage in a give and take, and I enjoy the give and take, the cut and thrust of debate. Enforced civility is also dishonesty, and on another thread there's someone thinking of withdrawing from WC because of people not being who they seem to be. At least I know who chansen is - in terms of his viewpoint, anyway. And - as I said in a post a long time ago - I'd sit down and have a beer with the guy. As I said I'm much more bothered by people who claim to be Christians who act in ways that strike me as being less than respectful to others, because doing that is less than respectful to Christ.

And, of course, as Jesus said, "Blessed are you when people insult you ..."

I appreciate that.  I really do.  I certainly try to keep the comments light and amusing.  Usually.  Like anyone, I can get my hackels up.

But, only "a bit"?

It's always interesting to see whose buttons are pushed by whom, isn't it?

There are different christians as your probably aware of Rev, and they have different lifestyles and their own interpretations of how they want to conduct themselves, some christians drink, some watch porn, some beat their spouse or gamble... others cheat on their spouses and talk behind others backs in church and go to nightclubs, and sporting events with drunks and swear, smoke  and so forth. I've personally witnessed or heard about all of them.

Other christians now accept homosexuality and polygamy.  Its because the wave of culture is sweeping through the double doors of mainstream churches and right down the aisles and hitting the pastor square between the eyes. We can't hide from it or keep using the same bible quotes necessarily within context without being offending.

If a christian is to walk around with a halo on his forehead, I sort of steered away from that thinking recently and might be lumped into the category of "Apostate" by the more conservative sunday to sunday christians who point fingers when you missed a service the sunday before. The same as one denomination denounces another based on whether you should be baptized or speak in tongues. 

Anyways.....    

I had a great deal of fun trying to guess which denominations you were thinking about with each item listed above.  I identified UCC, Southern Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, UU and BC Mormons, but I have four blanks.  Which ones watch porn, gamble, go to nightclubs and attend sporting events?

This is a reply to me, but I'm not really sure what you're saying in response to what I posted. Yes, there are many different "kinds" of Christians - but "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all." I'm just saying that Christians should act respectfully - toward one another and toward non-Christians. Sometimes all Christians (certainly including me) fail to do that. But I don't try to hold non-Christians to the same standards that I would expect of myself (or, frankly - on the respect issue anyway - other Christians.) 

A beautiful young Muslim man made this video aboot this new holiday. You can let life happen TO you, or you can get involved and PARTICIPATE :3

The Friendly Atheist blog has a compilation of what he thought were the best Draw Muhammad Day submissions.  There are some clever ones in there if you follow the link.  For anyone wondering what the fuss was about, here is mine from my new avatar, scrubbed of anything prophet-related:

Chanson, I watch porn, gamble and get drunk at sporting events! (kidding)   its not a generalization of all in church that would be far fetched and gratuitous to put it bluntly on all. There is good and lousy everywhere.

I don't want to paint the whole picture with the same brush but some of the biggest sinners are still sitting in church in some cases. But they redefine for themselves what is allowable and what is not. Much like the perceptions on christianitly I've been witnessing here, not in a negative way. In an open minded context forum.

I have the occasional drink, sometimes I get tipsy. I drink with my neighbor who goes to a anglican church. There are other christians who I know and very fundamental also who would frown at me for thinking of it.

Gossip is huge inside church and out. A huge no no with YAHWEH apparently but it is subtly done. I can even be guilty of it unintentionally.

Rev- its not directly at you, its just when you mention that you don't like the behavoiur in other so called christians, I just want to see your continued point on it. But you stated it previously.

I agree and christians are to maintain a certain conduct if they claim that as their faith, we shouldn't outrightly offend others in word and deed.  We are to exemplify the traits and marks of a believer and such but where is the line drawn for acceptable behaviour and etiquette? I don't always pass in this criteria though but salvation is by grace that ye are saved not by works.   

To put my point succinctly, I guess I would say that if an atheist makes an ass of him or herself, they're making an ass of him or herself. If a Christian makes an ass of him or herself, they're also making an ass of Christ. Thus, the responsibility, to me, is at a higher level.

Hi chansen,

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the mollycoddling.

A Christian site that tolerates folk taking potshots at Christians at the very least opens itself up for ridicule and mockery and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Christians have demonstrated, from time to time a very real need to be ridiculed and mocked.

A Christian site that tolerates folk taking potshots at other religions is, well, being a bit of a poor sport.  It is us laughing at the mote in the eye of the other and ignoring the plank lodged in our own eye.

I'm not even really keen that this Christian site has been a vehicle to take potshots at people who claim no faith for pretty much the same reason.

If folk want to laugh at me I'm usually big enough to take it and when the barbs get a little close I know how to say "ouch" and/or "knock it off or I'll knock it off for you."

Some might call that mollycoddling.  I don't.

I think that deleting the thread may have been over the top.  I didn't get a chance to pop into it and peruse.  Which is okay.  I have no desire to draw or not draw the prophet or someone who is not the prophet as the case may be.

I'm not opposed to bobblehead Jesus and again that is something that either mocks or critiques of elevates someone I believe in.  Which is me taking a lump for the sake of humour.  I'm not really wanting to be considered one who takes a lump out of others simply because they think differently than I do.

Offensive posts crossing the lines should have been deleted.  If they were heavily quoted then maybe the thread was pruned past its ability to look after itself?

I cannot comment on the threat to ban as I haven't seen anything from you that I have felt the need to flag as offensive or run to admin about.  I don't always agree with your perspective.  I don't see that as automatically being problematic.

I can empathize with having a post removed when one doesn't agree that such action is warranted.  It is like being told to shut up because your opinion doesn't matter or count."

Sorry that you have had this experience here.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I appreciate your point of view John, and I see the aspect that, as a Christian site, WC can be more patient with anti-Christian views that it can be with anti-Muslim views.

But I submit that the image was not anti-muslim.  Some muslims wouldn't like it, and others wouldn't care.  But the image was not criticizing Islam, or Allah, or Muhammad, or his 9-year-old wife.  It was not equating muslims with terrorists, or anything else that passes for commentary on Fox News.  It was showing solidarity with those who have or want to create images of Muhammad, being a central figure in a large religion, and therefore worthy of examination, portrayal, and yes, ridicule.  But my purpose was not to ridicule Mohammad, and I think my stick figure image demonstrates that.  I could have made a vulgar image, but I did not.  I'm simply demonstrating that the religious laws of others do not apply to me.

The "mollycoddling" of Islam is that it is increasingly difficult to say anything negative about the religion, as it seems the pendulum in society has swung from "criticize Islam" after the terrorist attacks last decade, to "nobody criticize Islam" today.  It has swung too far.  I don't want to tie Islam to terrorism, and I don't really care to spend much time criticizing it here.  I just think that anything Islamic should not be a taboo subject, as it seems to be.

John, you continue to make some of the best posts here at WC.  Thanks.  And you certainly don't have to apologize to me, but I think you're very Canadian for doing so.

Fact:  The United Church of Canada owns the website

Fact:  The United Church of Canada thus controls the website

Fact:  The United Church of Canada has final say in what does, or doesn't, get posted.

NOW, everyone who can't, or won't, accept this, you have the opportunity to set up your own website with your own rules at your own expense.  If the UC, for example, wanted to support cats marrying dogs and delete posts to the contrary, that's their business.  As for me, I'm just here for the beer.  Oh, that's right, I don't drink. I knew there was a flaw in my main plan.  Now, sit cross legged on the floor, close your eyes, hold your hands out in front of you, and go "Ommmmmmmmm" 

P.S. Let's have an 'EVERYONE DRAW CHANSEN DAY'

  Here's mine.

Be careful, southpaw - that weeping smiley could be considered a mockery of chansen, and therefore offensive, subjecting you to the possibility that either your post or yourself might be banned from WC!

(By the way, as a member and minister of the United Church of Canada I reserve the right to publicly and vocally disagree with the United Church of Canada or its representatives anytime I want!   )

Is chansen a religion? Or leader or founder of a religion?

 The "chansenians?' "The "chansenites?" Or - the "chansonians?"

I have a question, for anyone that knows anything about Islamic Law. 

Creating  images of Mohammad seems to be prohibited, under Islamic law.  It was my understanding that like Jewish law, traditionally and currently Islamic law applies differently to believers than to non-believers.

Without dealing with the fact that Islam is the most diverse religion, with hundreds of different branches, including some who do not prohibit images of Mohammad.  Is the the rule against images of Mohammad suppose to be applied to non-muslims, under any version of Islamic law?

 Interesting question. It seems to me that Islamic law could only apply to non-Moslems in countries ruled by Islamic law. Thus, being in Canada, non-Moslems are certainly not bound by Islamic law.

Note added post-edit:

After the Salman Rushdie fatwa was issued many years ago, I remember an Islamic scholar being interviewed on TV, saying that if Salman Rushdie had been a Christian there would have been no problem, because you can really only be a blasphemer against Allah if you're a Moslem. Sorry. I've tried to find info on that from the internet, but haven't come across the source. IT's just from memory.

 Even in countries that have adopted Islamic law, I believe, certain aspects are only applicable to muslims.

The same thing existed historically in Jewish communities that adopted Jewish Law. They were clearly some laws that only applied to Jewish people and religious minorities in the communities were exempt.

One thing I know for sure is that the Koran, itself does not explicitly prohibit Images of Mohammad. The Shia in general, and many Sunni's allow images that are respectful. (i.e. no pictures of Mohammed as a pig)

So I can not understand why it is consider disrespectful to all of Islam to have images.  I know to some in Islam it is, I just do not know how many Islamic scholars would agree.

I hear ya, Alex, but let me warn you - the now infamous deleted thread on which this very issue was being discussed got pretty heated. You're now officially walking where angels fear to tread!

Blessings, Steven

 I'm sorry the first discussion got removed.  I had read only a few of the posts and was planning on commenting when I had more time.

For the most part, I agreed with chasen.  Normally, out of respect, I would not draw a picture of Mohammad, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to do so.  I've heard some people threatening a 'holy war' due to these drawings is ridiculous and I would hope that anyone doing so in a country with hate laws would be charged.

I'm confused as to the issue though.  If idolatry is so wrong that drawing a picture of the prophet sparks such hate, why are so many Muslims named Mohammed (or variations of this spelling)?  If I draw a picture and label it as Mohammed, how does one know who I am referring to?  If I draw a picture of a friend Mohammed, with the name written, is that a problem?  If so, what about photos of people named Mohammed?

Oh, I wouldn't want to tick off the United Church or its many franchises, agents and distributors coast to coast or Chanson either one.  They both have powers.  ..STRANGE, WEIRD POWERS....(chill running down spine, and beads of sweat forming on forehead and Twilight Zone theme playing in background.)  Maybe they'll revive the Inquisition for political correctness and how much atheism is in your bloodstream.  There's nothing wrong with being in the lion's den as long as the lions are asleep and nobody awakens them.

Ah the slippery slope of free speech and its perpetual dissent into mud.

For what it is worth, my rule for welding broad poking planks is; am I comfortable applying this to all groups.

So the questions becomes, would I find it acceptable to have a poking stick figure depicting Blacks, Women, Gays, Atheists, Christians, Americans, Canadians, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

If the answer is no, if there is one group I would not apply that comment to because I feel it would be offensive, then I would not apply it to another, because, and again this is a personal definition, to do so would be an act of hypocrisy.

If I am going to be respectful of one group's request to not use certain images or phrases with respect to that group, then I will be respectful of all requests.

I blame the atheists for this personal conundrum.  Long time ago I accepted their request to not depict all of them as immoral hedonists and my path was forever set in stone.

LB

A minority group has "arrived" only when it has the right to produce some fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it.

     Carl T. Rowan

couldn't disagree with you more. 

i make an ass of myself all the time.  why that should mean that christ is an ass as well is simply mind boggling to me.

absolutely ridiculous, imho.

 God damn it I missed this!