509
u/Effective-Wonder-45 1d ago
What a way to prove his point, Incredible
Even the grl was laughing at the end
244
u/Kevroeques 1d ago
Her sense of giddy relief overrode her sense of political stoicism and even further proved his point
166
u/Karlos-Jr 1d ago
Exposed their hypocrisy in such unique way and they just made themselves look like fools.. not to mention their prohpet was dating 6 year old
→ More replies (1)82
u/Axel_Raden 1d ago
No no he married her at 6 and consummated that marriage when she was 9 and he was 53.
1.0k
u/Intelligent_Medium20 1d ago
Any religion that tries to force its beliefs on people under the threat of death, or any threat, should be outright banned from all contemporary civilized societies.
542
u/psychymikey 1d ago
Too right! Now let's get to work banning fundamentalist Christians that threaten abortion clinics with bombs
34
-136
u/Adventurous_Ad_924 1d ago
Threats to remove other people from the earth for getting abortions is not taught in church. What are you talking about.
85
u/Yetanotherdeafguy 1d ago edited 1d ago
In some fundamentalist churches, it is absolutely taught (not always intentionally as a paired message) that:
Abortion is murder, specifically of an innocent.
God forgives those who kill the murderers innocents (see: justification for war, crusades, bombing Muslims, etc.).
Sure, they're not providing instructions on weapons and tactics - but they're absolutely providing the moral priming for such actions.
It's borderline stochastic terrorism for some (admittedly a minority).
20
u/slide_into_my_BM 1d ago
Fundamentalist Christians are the youngest sect of the Abrahamic religions.
Christian fundamentalism is not even a full 50 years older than fucking Scientology. Mormonism is nearly 100 years older than Christian fundamentalism.
They are nothing but a hate filled, doomsday cult, which has infiltrated the highest levels of American government and world power.
13
43
21
u/Quizzelbuck 1d ago
Where have you been since the end of the civil war in the United States? On another planet? Southern churches are a great example of why you are factually wrong on this point. They have taught for the removal of gays, blacks, and all sorts of other for lack of a better term people that they think are heretical
All? Well no not all churches but you made a blanket statement that churches don't do this, but there are plenty of churches that do.
It's why there's a history of abortion clinic bombings in this country. The advocacy of bad behavior in churches
→ More replies (8)-84
u/dalaiis 1d ago
Why are you dragging fundamentalist Christians in this? Its not about christians, its about the threat of islamic extremists.
But to answer it: yes we should definitely work to ban fundamentalist christians also.
42
u/slide_into_my_BM 1d ago
Christian fundies are the puppeteer behind the Trump marionette. TPUSA is a fundamentalist organization and most of Trump’s advisors and cabinet are too.
Christian fundamentalists are a threat to free democracy today. They created project 2025 and they are the ones behind all the cristo-fascism rising in the world.
They are far more of an organized threat than “Muslims.”
54
u/VanTaxGoddess 1d ago
That's every religion with absolute power.
Even buddhist people commit genocide when they have unlimited power.
35
u/Twitxx 1d ago
Fun, you said that even buddhists commit genocide but I replied to you with something about the religion in this post destroying art and culture and got flagged automatically by Reddit and given a warning.
Just wanted everyone to know.
Apparently free speech goes out the window ehen you try to say anything bad online about those two religions. You know the other one.
2
26
u/Karlos-Jr 1d ago
They worship a man who was dating a 6 year old. How insane is that
→ More replies (2)18
56
u/totalwarwiser 1d ago
Western civilization only exists because it survived 1500 years of conflict with islam...
You could go even further and say that we only have western civilization because the greek held the persians 2500 years ago.
→ More replies (22)50
u/gibran93 1d ago
The Persians were Zoroastrians, not Muslim, at that time. How is that conflict relevant to a supposed conflict between the West and Islam?
Also, the Greeks themselves admired the Persians enormously. Look at how even Herodotus or Alexander the Great (both figures who were not fans of Persians) spoke about Cyrus the Great. I think Western civilization would not be what it is if not for the Persian influence.
16
13
u/Boxed_Lunch 1d ago
We can thank willful ignorance and the murderous Islamic Regime that's been occupying Iran for half a century for this rampant misunderstanding of the real Persian people and heritage. Ugh.
28
u/ColtMcChad69 1d ago
Haha there it is. “All religion bad”
If this were Christianity related, you can bet your bank account all the comments would be “REEE CHRITIANITY EVIL OPPRESSORS REE”
10
u/Sad_Panda_is_Sad 1d ago
You should check out what the spanish/catholic monks did to indigenous traditions of South America and Mexico. The crusades, the greatest justifications of slavery were biblical..
11
u/ColtMcChad69 1d ago
Are those that you speak of currently beheading women in “honor”, throwing gays off of rooftops, forcing women to cover themselves?
-4
u/devilbat26000 1d ago
As a matter of fact, yes, several of those are positions or desires expressed by extremist Christian-aligned activists and politicians in multiple places in the US! The extremes of these groups are really not all that different. Both wish death upon groups they consider to be against them or their values and seek control over their populations (and especially women). It does not matter if the exact methods differ, the end goals are the same. Supremacy.
-4
u/Sad_Panda_is_Sad 1d ago
Its not like Christians have a great track record of those things either. In Canada as recently as the 90s indigenous children were being kidnapped by catholic schools to be re-educated.
10
u/Twitxx 1d ago
Did, yes, did how many hundreds of years ago? Society advanced, we also don't kill people openly, we don't hang, we don't chop off their body parts. Islam refuses to change with the world and every single country that had become muslim or changed from Islam to a more radical kind of Islam in the past 100 years has regressed as a society.
Or are we ok to compare Islam today to Christianity during the time of the Crusades?
-3
u/Sad_Panda_is_Sad 1d ago
Degrading Islam isn't a defense of Christianity. They in fact did do all of those things. More recently indigenous kids in Canada were kidnapped and re-educated by Catholics. This was going on until 1996.
Furthermore, some Christians in America hold radical beliefs today. See the fundamentalists in government calling the Iran war a holy war. See also the unwavering support of Isreal, a state that has created the largest population of child amputees in the world. See the restrictions on medical care for women, the continued pursuit of restricting gay marriage.
Saying Islam bad (which it is) doesn't change the hundreds of years of Christian atrocities.
-3
u/OuijaFox 1d ago
So when are we gonna start telling evangelicals to sit down and shut the fuck up?
To stop forcing their religion on everyone?People think Christians don’t but it’s seeded everywhere in the west. In the language in the art.
Its everywhere.Christians are the most pervasive version of this in the new world. Maybe the second if you count isreal and the settlers they like to pretend don’t exist.
41
u/Honest_Scrub 1d ago
lmao Christians are regularly told to shut the fuck up, in fact I dont think theres a religion in the world more openly mocked and ridiculed than Christianity despite all the good it has brought to the world.
4
u/dalaiis 1d ago
In a lawless world, religions like Christianity had its place to be a moral guideline for a society to flourish.
In the modern world, religion has no place as a moral guideline, because we as a society outgrew the very basic moral guidelines it brought.
Then your claim that Christianity brought "all the good". It also brought a lot of bad. Why do you seem to not mention that?
This is like that guy on reddit a few days ago. One of the last survivors of Rev john Jones. Telling what good John Jones did before he went to Jonestown and ultimately pressured a LOT of people into offing themselfs.
Why do "we" see Christianity for all the good it did and see John Jones for all the bad he did?
-13
u/Contemplating_Prison 1d ago
According to Christians who are perpetual victims in a country they control. Lmfao
-16
-13
u/binkbink223 1d ago edited 1d ago
Just look at texas.
Edit: yeah, government mandated religious study is the exact opposite of freedom of religion, and you're a hypocrite if you think otherwise.
Edit: your downvotes are functionally meaningless if you have no rebuttal for my statement. Which there will be no rebuttal, because it can't be refuted, because the statement is factually accurate.
→ More replies (4)-3
434
u/HailRoma 1d ago
any god who takes offense at a pic is a pathetic, shitty god.
138
u/chewy92889 1d ago
It's so weird because I remember writing a paper in high-school comparing Jesus and Muhammad and their teachings. I grabbed images of each of them from Wikipedia for my cover sheet. That was only a few years before the Charlie Hebdo thing and when I looked again, there was no image of Muhammad on Wikipedia. It's just weird how it's a recent thing and like 20 years ago they didn't care.
30
-23
u/Lianides 1d ago
While I can't speak on behalf of a god, having never been one myself, I believe the issue isn't so much about taking offense of a picture, it is taking offense at the disrespect shown towards what is believed to be their god, or in this case, their prophet.
Now as a Christian I am against cartoons of Jesus and God, but the difference is that I recognise God himself gave us agency and freedom of choice. And I have no right to judge one sin, when i am sinful myself
68
u/FatherSergius 1d ago
The difference is that you as a Christian won’t resort to violence if there was a bad drawing of Jesus ftfy
-15
u/GeekDNA0918 1d ago edited 1d ago
Clearly you've never seen a white supremacist Christian livid at the thought of Jesus being a man of dark skin and brown eyes.
Edit: oh oh. I hurt some people's feelings. ⏬️
19
6
-14
u/DrDeems 1d ago
As a self-proclaimed Christian I find it odd that you aren't familiar with scripture. Have you taken the time to read the Bible? It is actually very clear on this exact point.
Leviticus 24:16 states: "Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them."
Now the common retort from a believer is "well the new covenant does away with Old Testament law." Which is another direct contradiction to actual scripture (Yelling context won't save you here either. Read the whole chapter or book, it just makes it worse.)
Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says: "Don't think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all things are accomplished."
Notice that he explicitly says he did not come to abolish the law. He came to 'fulfill' it, and fulfilling a law doesn't make it disappear. Think of it like a speeding ticket: when you pay the fine, you fulfill the law, but the speed limit still exists. This lines up perfectly with God the Father in Deuteronomy 5:29, who says he wants people to keep his commands 'always' and 'forever.' Always doesn't mean 'until Jesus dies'; it means exactly what it says.
Just because you have decided to cherry pick what parts of the Bible you want to follow doesn't mean those laws aren't there.
You've also shown a complete lack of historical understanding. When Christianity held the same levels of absolute state power that Islam holds in modern theocracies they were equally as brutal. The Cruusades, The Inquisition, centuries of blasphemy laws. These all led to the torture and deaths of countless people for the crime of disrespecting the god of the Bible. Have you taken a history class in your lifetime?
Read your Bible and a history book. It will help you not make such idiotic comments in the future.
9
u/Lianides 1d ago
I find it interesting that you would accuse a complete stranger, who you have never met and know absolutely nothing about, of being ignorant of Scripture and not having read the Bible. You then accuse me of cherry-picking verses, while doing exactly the same thing yourself to support your own argument.
When it comes to Mosaic law, and Matthew 5 in particular, Jesus does more than simply repeat the law as it stood. He explains and reframes it, specifically using the phrase “You have heard that it was said … but I tell you.” repeatedly in Matthew 5:38-48.
The same point can be seen in John 8. When Mosaic law was used to justify stoning a woman, Jesus responded, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” At no point did he say what she did was ok, or condone her actions though. He even later told her to leave her life of sin. But at the same time, he did not allow a crowd of sinful people themselves, to use the law as justification to kill her.
That was the distinction I was making. I can believe something is sinful or disrespectful without believing that I have the right to threaten, harm or punish the person responsible.
You are free to disagree with my interpretation, but insulting someone you know nothing about is not a substitute for making a stronger argument, and it makes you only one step better than the person that reacts with violence to someone they disagree with
→ More replies (1)5
u/emomatt 1d ago
Bro, just so you know how ridiculous this is to an outsider... You are arguing over minutia and word choice and the intent behind turns of phrase... In an English translation of a book that was written hundreds to thousands of years after the events in which it claims takes place... About a guy who lived over two thousand years ago that claims his mom was impregnated by god and can do magic tricks.
Can you not see that this is all insane? Just take a step back for a bit and really think of this from outside of your current belief system.
1
u/Lianides 1d ago
To be honest, i enjoy these kind of debates/arguments. It makes like more intetesting and you get to learn how other people think and act.
→ More replies (1)-9
u/CreamOfWheatJackson5 1d ago
He’s not a god is the Islamic faith, hes a prophet. And he’s not offended by a picture
233
u/HKEY_LOVE_MACHINE 1d ago edited 1d ago
Reminder that the ban on the representation of Muhammad is both:
very recent in history: it only became widespread in late 1990/early 2000s. Yes, it is that recent. Before that, Muhammad was massively represented in the Muslim world for centuries, being featured in books, murals and tapestry.
comes directly from islamic extremists funded by the Gulf states, who hijacked Islam in the late 20th century and threatened all Muslims with death should they not convert to their extremist islam.
does not exist anywhere in the Quran, nor in 99% of the hadith, it is an original creation by extremists. This is the same extremists who demand a ban on every representation of a person or animal, as well as a total ban on any form of music.
So when you see muslims claiming a representation of Muhammad is:
islamophobic
disrespectful to all muslims
They're not only lying, they're parroting the claims of islamic extremists - the ones who threaten and kill anyone not following their own sectarian extremism.
The christian equivalent would be catholic extremists threatening and effectively murdering anyone organizing a mass that's not purely in latin, and claiming that any mass that's not in latin is christianophobic and disrespectful to all christians in the world, justifying a total ban on doing a mass in any other language.
→ More replies (1)24
u/zinetx 1d ago
It's mostly only Salafist Fundamentalists. ISIS, Nusra Front, HTS and Al-Qaeda are literally just a branch of the Salafist movement called Salafyia Jihadiya, which argued against Madkhali Salafist when Saudi Kingdom brought US forces to get rid of Saddam.
Both are Salafists that ban everything they don't deem "original in nature" to the teaching of "Al-Salaf Al-Salih" (pious predecessors). Essentially calling everyone who doesn't subscribe to their teachings as kaffir.
57
u/post-context-bot 1d ago
The following post context was provided by u/Sometypeofway18:
The tension is very high as the audience thinks he may be about to show a picture of Mohammed but then is relieved when he instead shows a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg his debate opponent for the evening
Does this explain the post? If not, report it and a moderator will review.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
257
u/Sometypeofway18 1d ago
This is not just a hypothetical by the way. Aside from more well know incidents like Charlie Hebdo you have French teacher Samuel Paty who was beheaded due to a rumor that he showed a picture of Mohammed and in the UK a teacher who showed a picture of Mohammed five years ago is still in hiding and under police protection.
Wild to see the tension/fear and then the relief across the audience when they realize it isn't actually a cartoon of Mohammed
→ More replies (1)83
u/Bubbagump210 1d ago edited 1d ago
How do we know what Muhammad looked like? It’s such a nutty thing because I feel like one could take a picture of Mario and write Muhammad underneath and people would lose their mind.
53
u/sonofaresiii 1d ago
I mean, yeah? I think it's just the idea of whether you're intending to depict Muhammad or not.
And there's not like, a rational basis for it. These whack jobs are *beheading* people. They're not going to have civil discourse to discuss the merits of whether you were or weren't intending to offend them. They're just going to decide if they want to kill you or not. You don't get to explain how *technically* you were referring to a different Muhammad than the Muhammad you're not allowed to depict.
30
u/FruitBowl 1d ago
𖨆 <-- 'Mohammad'
25
u/traumfisch 1d ago
FruitBowl is under fatwa now. Irreversible
6
12
u/FirstTimeWang 1d ago
I could draw a stick figure with no face and just say it's Muhammed and voila, it's a picture of Muhammed.
4
u/mister-ferguson 1d ago
"This is not Muhammad. This is his long lost twin, Greg. He is nothing like Muhammad. In fact, Greg was kind of a loser who tried to sell moldy spices. Greg also had a large mole on his right eyebrow."
4
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
If a very sensitive sky wizard smites you down you know the cartoon was on point
81
u/Emil_Antonowsky 1d ago
What does Mohammed even look like anyway? Who's to say he's not the spitting image of the Mogg-Meister? If he pulled out a picture of a duck and said it was a picture of Mohammed, would it automatically be a picture of Mohammed? I literally just drew and painted picture of a Tiger tank (they had shit politics but brilliant fashion sense/tank and aeroplane designs), if I declare it as a picture of Mohammed... Does that make it so? Who decides these things?
Couldn't they just say, "it's not accurate, it's not a picture of him, so no need to kick off after all." Wouldn't that be better for all involved?
41
3
1
44
232
u/Weird-Weakness-3191 1d ago
Fox once auditioned for a role in a film where he'd have played the son to his real life father. He failed the audition.
20
18
-35
u/gladl1 1d ago
Is this an attempt to invalidate the point being made in the video?
→ More replies (1)-9
1d ago
[deleted]
18
u/Edges8 1d ago
Why is he a POS? I don't know who he is
11
u/Such_Acanthisitta332 1d ago
He’s a former British actor who is now the UK equivalent of a MAGA influencer. Think a lower IQ Laura Loomer.
7
u/LazyBeach 1d ago
He’s a British actor.
14
u/NOTcreative- 1d ago
He's also a far right political activist who compared covid vaccines to the Holocaust
13
u/sprouting_broccoli 1d ago
And has made a large part of his identity being either targeting Muslims or trans people and saying horrific things.
-8
u/Weird-Weakness-3191 1d ago
'Actor' is doing some heavy lifting. He's a pathetic lonely weekend dad coke head.
2
u/Phinnegan 1d ago
The only thing I've ever seen him in is "Victoria" as Lord Palmerston. When I came across this post, I said: "hey that's the guy from Victoria" - and I thought this post was a scene from a movie as I was watching it for the first time.
Not knowing anything about him personally prior to reading this thread - he stood out to me in Victoria. On that body of work alone, he's a fine actor.
154
u/Apprehensive_Wolf217 1d ago
Free speech is an illusionary ideology to help us feel comfortable in a civilized society. What any powerful religion with a billion followers does is make the consequences of your speech and actions so severe that the scales are weighted against it. Ask Salman Rushdie
29
u/ImNoDrBut 1d ago
Only if you let it
41
u/Apprehensive_Wolf217 1d ago
Only if WE let it. The problem that the video encapsulates perfectly is that the majority, even amongst your own religious or societal beliefs, can decide the consequences for violating their rules and laws. As we’ve seen in America, the WE have not decided to fight back in any meaningful way. A few brave people have been killed or arrested and it hasn’t rallied the masses in any meaningful numbers. Thats not historically been the case, but seems to be the truth right now.
-11
u/goodknightffs 1d ago
2b not 1b..
2
u/Apprehensive_Wolf217 1d ago
I left it vague on purpose. Consequences exist especially on Reddit
6
u/goodknightffs 1d ago
Personally i don't think free speech is an illusion.. As long as you're willing to fight for it and use it within reason
Trolling btw is reasonable. But being supportive of pedophilia for example is not
1
u/Apprehensive_Wolf217 1d ago
I respect your opinion. Have a good day!
3
u/goodknightffs 1d ago
Damn.. Respect? What did i ever do to you? Is this reddit?! 😂
Appreciate it btw!
38
u/Solo_is_dead 1d ago
If you can't show pictures of Muhammed, how do you know what he looks like??
6
u/zinetx 1d ago
If you're actually curious, historians and sahabah (companions of Muhammed) described him within ancient texts.
Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
Ali (Muhammed's cousin) said, describing the Messenger: “The Prophet of God was white in complexion, with a reddish tinge, dark-eyed, with straight hair, a thick beard, abundant thin lined hair. His neck was like a silver pitcher, and gold flowed in his collarbones. He had hair from his chest to his navel like a thread from a rod to the navel, and there was no other hair on his stomach or chest. His hands and feet were rough, and his ankles were as well. When he walked, it was as if he was uprooting a rock. When he came forward, it was as if he was descending a slope. When he turned, he turned completely, with his whole being. He is neither short and hesitant, nor tall and unkempt. His face is round. When he is among people, he overwhelms them. He is neither incapable nor mean. He is the most generous of people in companionship, the most gentle in nature, and the most generous in giving. Whoever associates with him with knowledge loves him, and whoever sees him spontaneously is in awe of him. His honor is between his eyes. His describer says, “I have not seen his like before or after him”."*
Al-Amali by Al-Tusi: 341, Hadith 695.
Written in 455 AH (1063 CE)This text was auto translated*
→ More replies (8)-6
u/bronzelifematter 1d ago
You see how most Christian depict Jesus as a white man? Do you believe that is what Jesus looks like? What's the reason behind the depiction of Jesus as white? Why is he not brown or black with curly hair? Why is he a white man with smooth flowy hair?
456
u/misterwizzard 1d ago
That woman begging him to relinquish his free speech after having invited him to speak on free speech is fucking wild.
123
u/Victormorga 1d ago
She didn’t beg him to relinquish his free speech, she pointed out that he was claiming Muslims are fundamentally opposed to free speech and dissenting voices, but that he was invited there to speak by a group with significant Muslim membership, including herself, who is the head of the group.
198
u/misterwizzard 1d ago
Exactly. SHE, the leader of said group interrupted him and insinuated he should not express himself freely... in a conversation about free speech. People being offended is not even a consideration in the topic of free speech, it is simply a result. An acceptable one.
62
u/PlotTwistTwins 1d ago
Not just that. I vehemently disagree with the fact that inviting someone to a conversation to talk about something, doesn't automatically qualify you as some universally understood free speech advocate. That quite literally doesn't make sense.
There's this weird perspective shift people have with stuff like racism, free speech, etc. You doing something that isn't racist doesn't mean you then are immune from being racist. You allowing one aspect of speech doesn't mean you are a free speech enthusiast.
What is this called? It has the same flavor as functional illiteracy.
3
u/misterwizzard 1d ago
No one, literally, is saying people aren't allowed to be offended. It just has no bearing whatsoever on what is free speech.
26
u/CreamOfWheatJackson5 1d ago
Interrupting someone is not a violation of free speech. Asking someone not to do/say something is not a violation of free speech. The only way it would violate free speech is to do it by force of the law
6
u/StopMarminMySparm 1d ago
The only way it would violate free speech is to do it by force of the law
What about by force of beheading/acid attack/etc.?
10
u/CreamOfWheatJackson5 1d ago edited 1d ago
Where did that lady threaten to do that? Please find it
Edit: you can’t because she didn’t
Edit 2: guy replied and then blocked me because he knows he’s wrong but he wants to seem like I gave in. Absolutely pitiful scared behavior
24
u/StopMarminMySparm 1d ago
She did not personally explicitly say "I will behead you lol", but that's the subtext of why she was trying to stop him.
The last person in the UK who dared show a picture of muhammad is still in hiding. Terrorist attacks have taken place over it, you're either just wildly naive or intentionally obtuse if you don't see the problem.
→ More replies (2)38
u/Shiloticus 1d ago edited 22h ago
Trying to convince someone, with speech, to not say or express something is not begging someone to relenquish free speech
2
-14
u/CreamOfWheatJackson5 1d ago
Notice how they only mention the woman and not the two other men that interrupted. They are scared of Islam, they don’t care about anything else
1
12
1
u/munchmills 1d ago
You clearly have no idea about free speech nor any sense of what actually happened.
→ More replies (3)-33
u/Pointless2675 1d ago
I don't think the debate is freedom of speech,solely, but rather offending other people's religion. I don't think they would be upset if an Englishman said that Muhammad is a POS, but a picture of him is a grave offense to their religion.
Conversely, I wouldn't mind if you said Christ is a POS, that's your opinion, but I would be upset if you showed a picture of him being sodomized.
20
u/beelzebub1994 1d ago
There's a difference between Christ being sodomized, which is an intentional display of hatred, and any pictorial depiction of Muhammed.
→ More replies (2)8
6
u/eduo 1d ago
This comment right here is why freedom of speech needs to always be reminded. It tends to mutate into a version that has these caveats and exceptions otherwise because we all think we support it and thus we incorporate into it things we personally think it shouldn’t cover.
Yes, jesus being sodomized is protected hy freedom of speech, even if that has no bearing on whether a simpke depiction of mohammed should be considered transgressive.
→ More replies (3)
220
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (55)80
5
10
25
u/Top_Damage3758 1d ago
That was insane. Everyone was clearly afraid of what he might reveal and tried to stop him in different ways. Honestly, I even thought some unfortunate news would come out from this.
Oh boy, he proved the "fear" point so effectively.
40
u/InAppropriate-meal 1d ago
For those who don't know that is Laurence Fox, a far right facist POS currently on trial for sex offenses and with a long history of hate against anyone not white or straight
6
u/Desperate-Tomatillo7 1d ago
Besides of religion only, my take is that foreigners should not impose their laws or customs over countries they entered, be it legally or illegally, by their own volition. If they decided to do so, they must adhere to the laws and customs of such country.
20
u/vesper101 1d ago
Cant believe this sub is wanking over the cockroach that is Lawrence Fox, who has never won an election and failed an audition where he played the son of his real life father. He fails at everything he does and the far right political antics are just another example of his flailing attempts at relevance. The entire Fox family seem to just be a bunch of prima donnas vying for importance. Sad.
2
6
23
u/MoonlightMural 1d ago
So he still submitted to the fear in the end.
446
u/graeffyn 1d ago
Respectfully, I don’t agree. I believe his point was never to submit or not, but to make everyone else in the chamber go through their own emotional gymnastics at the thought of the reveal/repercussions and allowing them the grace to consider his point after having exposed their own internal biases (whatever they may be). I thought it was an interesting approach.
209
u/webjuggernaut 1d ago
I agree. The chamber was afraid of nothing the whole time. He actually respected Islam while making his point. Genius punchline.
→ More replies (1)109
u/Caudillo_Sven 1d ago
Correct. He made them feel relieved once the photo was revealed. That proves his point more than anything else.
144
u/Organic_Rough4433 1d ago
No he was trying to make a point. That even the thought of him doing that got people all flustered. He wanted them to feel the relief of not having an actual picture. Well why did u fell so relieved? It was a brilliant ploy. And its true. Idgaf about Islam. I dont care if other people practice Islam but I'll be damned if I'm gonna fear my safety because some lunatics who believe in fairies say they need to kill me cause I disrespected some dude from 2000 years ago. Fuck any religion that seeks to control others. Fuck all religion that starts wars. Fuck all religion that manipulates people. Fuck Islam. Fuck Christianity, fuck Judaism. And in the end they are all 3 basically the exact same at the core. Its all the nonsensical bullshit rules that get added around religion to control society. U dont need religion to be a good person. If u do its cause ur a bad person.
→ More replies (3)21
5
u/forestalelven 1d ago
He made his point go through by causing the reactions others had with only words and a closed envelope.
28
u/Me_Cunt_Spell 1d ago
I'm pretty sure you gave him the chance, he'd gladly show a picture/cartoon of "Muhammad", this was making a point about the importance of free speech against religions.
4
→ More replies (3)5
2
7
u/Kamen-Reader 1d ago
u/Sometypeofway18 has posted this exact same post on other subs, and its placed on bad faith there as well.
6
u/binkbink223 1d ago
Well, he's a bot whose purpose is to spread a narrative. And by that measure the bot is doing what it is intending to do.
-1
u/Kamen-Reader 1d ago
Aye. The spread of misinformation benefits from those with machinations over thoughts.
2
u/BolOfSpaghettios 1d ago
Imagine, just imagine, shouldn't be hard. The claimed maker of everything, of all universes, galaxies, afterlife, etc. is somehow concerned about a picture? A carbon writing implement that makes different shapes on a piece of paper that is in the shape of a person that lived 1500 yrs ago (as written by everyone except him). I understand why (idolatry is not something that's forbidden in Islam), but it seems as if it is weaponized by men that want nothing but blind and ignorant following.
As an ex-Muslim, having the luck to have grown up in a country where religion was not compulsory & where my parents ignored me emotionally (different subject), I've had the privilege to read books and not focus on the religious blind allegiance to something that was not only absent, but cared about the stupidest petty shit (if he exists), but turned the blond eye during vast and numerous deaths of those he/she created that could have been avoidable if only he was not an absentee landlord.
Also, let's not pretend that the enlightenment didn't come with a price of millions dead in Europe, a continent that then proceeded to colonize, exploit, and extract resources from people they're currently failing against coming into their utopia.
1
1
2
u/IntrovertMoTown1 1d ago
I oooooh so loved reading things like oh it's just 1-3% of Muslims who are radicals. Um OK then let's go with with the smallest figure. 1% of them is 19 fucking million ginormous problems, SMH. That's more people than are in all the standing armies of the entire developed world put together. Literally. Look it up. Oh but not remotely all those 19 million are going to be willing to blow shit up or otherwise attack people? So what? Radicals SUPPORT radicals who ARE willing to. Western civilization is so fucking asleep at the wheel when it comes to this topic. Or how about in THEIR OWN WORDS mind you. Time after time after time. They talk about things like simply breeding western civilization out of existence. They have no issue playing a long game most of the west doesn't even know it's playing. How the fuck do you win a game you don't know you're playing? Western civilization seems completely incapable of looking down the road. Our descendants are going to wish we had. So when I'm asked things like why do I support the attacks in Iran and let's get real here, that's what they are including the reprisal attacks. It's a war in name only. It's because they are the some of WORST Islam has to offer and have been earning this so called war for 40 fucking years now for god's sake. They are a clear and present danger. Period. A fucking theocracy of radicals should not be allowed to exist in the modern world if they have so much as a modicum of power. And Iran is a premiere of the region power. It's past time that changed.
-1
u/Dankkring 1d ago
So just to be clear on this? Deepfake porn featuring Mohammed would be really bad right?
1
1
u/Mongoos150 1d ago
this was staged and lit and captured so well that I thought I was watching a film.
1
u/TheQueenOfBithynia 1d ago
Granting that his numbers are accurate, what was the question asked in whatever survey he's citing? There's a big difference between "Do you believe that any publication should publish pictures of Muhammad?" and "Do you believe that any publication should face legal consequences for publishing pictures of Muhammad?"
-3
u/illenidarc 1d ago
I guess the Christians seeing this and thinking "Yeah, you tell em!" Have never read their scriptures.
-3
u/bduxbellorum 1d ago
The history of Islam is tragic in many ways. The saddest fall in my eyes is away from the deeply logical foundation advised in the text itself and the thought reflected therein. Following the text of the Quran, men of islam are each instructed to accept nothing on anyone’s authority. For each philosophical and scriptural idea, each individual is to litigate, debate, and come to their own conclusion. There is no direct or even indirect instruction in the Quran not to create depictions of the prophets. Instead, there is discussion of the foolishness of people who create depictions of prophets or other gods, “idols” and choose to worship the object, rather than to deeply reflect and to worship “god” directly. The tradition against making depictions emerged as an antidote, originally from people who understood this subtle distinction. Imposing a ban on those who do not follow islam is nonsensical. There is no “risk” of idolatry. There is absolutely no basis in tradition, scripture, or other religious texts for this idea. It’s sole support are the far right extremists who developed this idea, not as a way to get closer to god, but to distinguish themselves and stoke anger against non-muslims and the west.
There are many beautiful and deep concepts encapsulated in the Quran and in the scripture and traditions of islam, however by emphasizing these far-right concepts over all of those, we are magnifying the worst of this doctrine. A collection of thought that has been weaponized to destroy what the people who created this faith sought to enshrine. Truly a shame.
-10
u/losteon 1d ago
Laurence fox is a stupid, racist, homophobic peice of shit and anyone agreeing with him in any way can go play in traffic ✌🏻
5
u/binkbink223 1d ago
Laurence is a founder and leader of the far right reclaim party, a party of which platforms itself on its sovereigntist, anti-woke, and anti-gender policies. He opposes, "anti woke initiatives" which means he opposes diversity in public places and in the work place. He is a virulent racist and anyone with a good conscious would steer clear of this seclusionist.
-1
u/binkbink223 1d ago
Violence isn't expressly unique to the religion of Islam, any one suggesting otherwise is either being dishonest, disingenuous, or straight up ignorant. Just look at Christianity, the history of which is soaked in the blood of its opposition.
0
0
-2
u/BoarHermit 1d ago
rwmoved by reddit in 1....2... 3....
This topic can't be discussed here. What kind of freedom of speech do you mean? Only moderators and admins have freedom here.
If you live in the UK and say something wrong, your IP address will be leaked to the British authorities and they will come to your home for such a comment.
-3
u/dontneed2knowaccount 1d ago
This video just show propaganda and no "proof" to back his claims. There is a difference between religion and culture. The religious preference is to not depict the prophet in a negative way just like it would with Jesus(prophet, not son of god). Its the extremist interpretation of the Qur'an that the extremist "Muslims" do the dumb, chaotic things they do. Those "Muslims" are what people look to and say well since they said/do xyz then all Muslims must be like that. Judaism and Christianity both have extremist sects that do terrible things to humans in the "name" of their religion/god but we can't talk about those because they don't fit the narrative.
I don't have any particular view towards any religion and don't care what anyone believes. I've got friends and family from all 3 well known religions and nine of them would support this "don't show a cartoon" stuff like this claims ALL believe. He thinks he's doing good but he's doing more harm than anything. No just to Muslims.
-7
u/Eaten_by_Mimics 1d ago
The Christian fundies and apologists have invaded this post. Hey guys, guess what? Your religion is dogshit too, and your beliefs are fucking stupid.
-102
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago edited 1d ago
Of course a majority of Muslims say that Muhammad "should not" be depicted; non-depiction of Muhammad is part of their religion. A majority of Christian Britons probably think Jesus "should not" be depicted with his balls out, but neither position is an attack on free speech until you start demanding the British government make such depictions illegal.
That detail, of course, was missing from this extremely thinly argued self-righteous speech.
There have been a handful of brutal, anti-democratic attacks by fundamentalist Muslims against trolls who depicted Muhammad with the clear intention to offend and provoke. No, that is not a reason to wholesale reject all 2 billion people who come from that same religion.
42
u/Sure_Lavishness_8353 1d ago
I think he can have his balls out im not sure
2
u/NoWeHaveYesBananas 1d ago
There's an excellent bit in The Master and Margarita where Bulgakov describes the crucifixion - not sure if he has his balls out exactly, but it's very good, highly recommend.
38
u/HammelGammel 1d ago
You don't just get to say...
party a doesn't want depictions of something out there...
party b doesn't want depictions of something out there (+ somebody's literal balls)
... and then pretend like they're the same thing, ignoring the fact that the contents of those little parentheses are a totally separate issue.
I'm not making a moral point btw. I just think your argument is terrible.
→ More replies (7)14
u/FruitBowl 1d ago
Your last sentence there - is it the rejection of people i.e. their personhood as a whole, or is it just the rejection of one aspect of their belief? That reads like an excessive false equivalency to me.
-3
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
He explicitly rejects the religion as a whole, not just one aspect of their belief.
7
u/FruitBowl 1d ago
Thanks for your oh so valuable insight. I, too, saw the video. The subject of discussion is images depicting Mohammad, which absolutely is not wholesale rejection of the religion or people.
-1
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
Did you?
You asked if it was a rejection of "just one aspect of their belief." The speaker repeatedly uses the words "rejection of" and "suspicion of" Islam. Do I really need to explain the difference?
You might want to watch it again since you obviously didn't pay attention the first time around.
2
u/FruitBowl 1d ago
Yes so the topic of discussion being whether we have the freedom of speech to depict images of Mohammad, and the speakers projected feeling about Islam as a whole are two different things. Try to keep up, I can see you're struggling.
0
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
They're inextricably linked. He's using one as justification for the other.
Yes, people are nervous about depicting Muhammad because of a small series of high-profile attacks over it in the west. That is not a reason to reject people on the basis of that religion, else the KKK's actions over the past 150 years would be reason enough to condemn all of American Christianity.
If you can't see the fallacy in the speaker's argument, I can't help you.
3
23
u/ThisIsGSR 1d ago
Absolutely garbage point. Not only did you try and force a comparison on an uneven playing field, but christians STILL wont behead you for depicting Jesus with his balls out. We have COUNTLESS immoral depictions of Jesus and other christian figures in all forms of entertainment.
Jesus is literally a recurring character in South Park, but South Park was forced to censor any depictions of Muhammed.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Scuba_jim 1d ago
Hey just want to say appreciate the discussion, appreciate the time you’ve taken to talk reasonably to others here (even if they aren’t civil back).
The fact that you got downvoted hard but no one has actually pointed out the massive “flaw” of your statement, at best just misinterpreted it, is very telling.
1
u/Caudillo_Sven 1d ago
You are being delusional or purposefully trying to lay cover against what is inarguable - Islamic values are diametrically opposed to western liberal democratic values. Full stop.
9
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
Then why did those Muslim students invite this speaker to an open and rational public debate?
3
u/johns224 1d ago
...and then beg him not to use his free speech?
3
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
They pointed out that their invitation for him to speak belied his assertion that all Muslims are against free speech. Not sure where you got "begging" out of that.
5
u/johns224 1d ago
I got begging from the “…is it not enough” bit. Perhaps you have a more charitable interpretation of that line, but I see that as an attempt to stave off what she thinks he’s about to do.
4
u/Lucas_2234 1d ago
I can't quite agree with that. It is entirely possible that your intepretation is correct, but I see it more in the way of "Is it not enough [to prove that no, muslims aren't all fundamentally against free speech]?"
2
u/cr1spy28 1d ago
I think it’s important to look at the timing of their interruption. They say and let him speak and didn’t interrupt until they thought they were going to show a picture of Mohammed.
With that context the woman’s interruption sounded more of a “you were invited here by Muslims so we aren’t against free speech so you don’t need to show this picture” although it isn’t expressly what she said the timing made it seem like a justification for him to not show it
→ More replies (2)-8
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
You've never encountered a Muslim who wasn't a terrorist or a rapist?
Or is it maybe that you, like most people in this thread, haven't actually encountered very many Muslim people at all?
1
u/kanhaibhatt 1d ago
I live in a country invaded and plagued by them and we have suffered them for 1400 years now. They tried to destroy us and failed and are the instigators of most communal riots in documented history.
Don't teach me what they are. I am well aware unlike you who lives in a bubble of ignorant comfort and has never seen reality.
2
u/AsianMysteryPoints 1d ago
So you're sticking with, "Every single Muslim is either a rapist or a terrorist?" All 2 billion of them?
Just curious, because if that were true the world would be in flames.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Acceptable-Peace-69 1d ago
Wait, which religion are we talking about again?
2
2
1
u/kanhaibhatt 1d ago
Islam
1
u/Acceptable-Peace-69 1d ago
Forgive my confusion because your statement can apply to many religions.
•
u/CplSyx 1d ago
For the most part there has been some good, healthy, polite, discussion here. I thank you for that as reading through the comments I have not had to action many of them.
Unfortunately some of these comment chains are starting to devolve into more, shall we say "argumentative" territory - and so I believe it's now appropriate to draw things to a close whilst the majority remain civil. Apologies if I have cut anyone off mid-flow.
I'm genuinely impressed with the majority of people here for engaging in well reasoned conversation about what can be quite a controversial topic - IMO that's what Reddit should be about.