i fully understand...

*shakes soccorro* do you? do you?! *reignites hair and runs in circles*

The conflict in Northern Ireland really isn't about religion at all.

Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Islamic terrorists aren't acting out of any sort of legitimate or illegitimate religious devotion. If they were, then why is it that most of the victims are fellow Muslims?

Religion is at best a rationalization or tool that they're using to justify the quest for power. They could just as easily have found some other reason to set themselves up for conquest.

You're probably right, but explain to me then why one party are all catholics and the other protestants?

past tense!

You are mistaken. There are large numbers of Catholic Loyalists and large numbers of Protestant Republicans. Nowhere near the majority, but it's really not split down those lines.

Lots of Republican dissidents would highly disagree.

EDIT: I'm pretty certain of future conflict, hopefully just at the margins until a vote can be held. (An island-wide vote, but I am biased.) Dissidents (and loyalists) are still armed - and in fact are still perpetrating violence to this day. You may be correct in that large-scale warfare is quite possibly over and won't return.

a current example

*faints dramatically*

The only real legit reason for aggression of any kind is if someone disagrees with you over which end of a soft boiled egg you should eat from.

*Applause*

So simple and yet so deep and full of meaning!

*Wipes tear*

Evidence shows otherwise, here's my first reply to you:

You wrote: " Let me get this straight, you think it is okay to ridicule/demonize an entire religion because it has rogue elements that abuse it?"

To which I replied: "Yes it's ok to ridicule an entire religion, without limits. Why on Earth would any sane person think religion should be exempt from ridicule? How big or small the rogue element is in any religion is irrelevant in that regard."

Note that I didn't call you insane and therefor didn't insult you in that post. It was a fair question, why indeed would any sane person think religion should be exempt from ridicule? If there is a viable reason, surely it can be debated.

As for you trying to be reasonable, another myth that can easily be debunked:
Your very first post in this thread was asking OP to put his address on the GOG wishlist he made for the game "so that assassins would know where to find him".

One of the most unsavory comments I've ever seen on these boards. If you think the game or the thread or the wishlist is stupid, you're welcome to share that opinion, fair enough. But instead, you decided to use freedom of speech to sabotage other people's freedom of speech and tried to do this via spreading fear from the very get-go. Fear is the path to the dark side, and you know what it leads to, even a fictional little green muppet knows it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIr1fjjjFQQ

You may not care about your own freedom of speech (which you never had to fight for because it was already there when you were born) but out of courtesy to future generations, don't throw out of the window what others after you might still want to have.



Common courtesy is listening to what the person and in this case Hitchens has to say and then giving a reason why it's bullshit before calling it bullshit. You haven't given any reasons.

I don't have to enumerate any specific points he makes in the video because I agree with him on everything he says in the video and clearly said so, not just any specific part. All I did was invite you to watch it as it directly relates to the topic here. You're under no obligation to watch it if 20 minutes is too long.

I agree with you that life is too short for what we are doing here but yet we -are- here ("we" including you, as well), arguing with perhaps nothing really constructive coming out of it for anyone involved. Not that I expected anything else to happen, however the thread had to be made imho and everyone who posted in here is responsible for the length the thread has, including the detractors.

The influence of Western military presence in the Middle East is a related topic but would deserve an entirely separate discussion, an interesting one to debate. I'm mainly interested in discussing the topic of how and why religion at large (including Islam in this particular case) should -not- be exempt from ridicule and why it shouldn't be used as a tool to cut back on freedom of speech because that's a very dangerous thing to do, an inexcusable step backwards.

Answering with violence is how the uncivilized human brain functions, yes, including that of the leader of one of the biggest fear factories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25ccOZSO1M

If you insult a linebacker's mother and he physically assaults you, then that's entirely his responsibility, he makes that choice. Insulting anyone's mother is an asshat move and something no one should never do because it's cowardly and a weak move to play but hitting someone as retaliation for verbal insult is never justifiable. In fact, what Pope Francis says in the video above is hate speech in my opinion, far more than anything said in this thread. Violence is a line that you don't cross for verbal insult, ever.
If someone insults your mom, insult them back with a more sophisticated insult that actually hits home. Anyone insulting your mom is likely a turd and it should be easy to immediately find something with which to verbally smite them down. Or you can laugh at them, or ignore them. Physical assault, not an option. Whoever resorts to it shall have no excuse and should in my opinion not be given less punishment by the law due to "temporary unsoundness of mind".

I think we have reached a dead end. :/

Well, there is that bit about not depicting the prophet Mohammed. And yes, they've made it clear that rule applies to everyone. BTW, I have a dictionary, you didn't need to waste your time with that. :)

If a mere cartoon or movie or game sets someone off, they are messed up to begin with. The ideological narrative and moral logic of terrorists is so bendable that it in no way depends on you actively going out of your way to insult their egos. Egos that are bolstered by false pride which is to a great part a result of their ideology. All humans have egos, so how come it's predominantly Muslims that react with violence after the publication of cartoons and movies that offend their religious sensibilities? The attackers come from different ethnic, geographical and economical backgrounds, the only common factor is their radical ideology so the radical ideology is what has to be challenged and dismantled. People like Majid Nawaz from the Quilliam Foundation do exactly that, and more people like that are needed. Majid Nawaz posted a Muhammad cartoon on his own Twitter account to show that yes, you can be a Muslim and yet not be offended by such things. Sadly, he does not yet get much support from the Muslim community at large but there's hope that Muslims with progressive counter-narratives are going to more effectively neutralize radicalism than military action that inevitably causes collateral damage. There is change happening within the Muslim community towards progressiveness and I agree that simply mocking religion is arguably less productive than offering counter-narratives to radicals, however every member of the Muslim community will have to decide for themselves which path they take. There's no excuse for taking the path of violence other than the capitulation before one's own ego.
Appeasing towards threatening behavior is a capitulation as well, not defending your boundaries will make people lose any respect they have for you. It's one thing how a Muslim country decides to set its boundaries within its borders but the Muslim community in Western countries has no justifiable cause to enforce their values and boundaries on the other communities they live with. Especially not when respect is seen as a one-way lane, and especially not with violence.
The game this thread is about is a reaction to reassert that some people aren't willing to compromise rights and values that are essential to the local way of life. Tasteless? Yes, absolutely. Necessary? Sadly, yes. Threats need to stop, and the violence needs to stop, even if the offense is as high as this game. Why does this game have to be so highly offensive? Because the point to make is that even if something is this offensive, death threats and violence can't be tolerated, not one bit.

Note carefully the term "innocent". This leaves massive room for interpretation and that room is absolutely utilized when terrorists like the Kouachi brothers went into the Charlie Hebdo offices and killed all those people who were in their eyes not innocent.
And what's your point about Christians going batshit insane over the war on Christmas? Any violent murders taking place and people running around shouting "Jesus is great, we avenged the Lord" ? Don't think so. There was a time when Christians did that but Christianity has gone through so much reform and faced so much criticism that a Christian equivalent to the current Islamic terror attacks can't be found, not in any even remotely comparable amount and quality.
Note that there was massive criticism towards the Christian religion and copious amounts of mockery, all being part of the reason why you're nowadays not likely to get murdered if you make fun of Jesus out on the street. Mocking religion isn't about bullying, it's about challenging its ideas and authority to the core.

I partially agree on that, and I think asshats like Anjem Choudary should not be paraded around and given a platform on Western TV as if he represents Muslims at large, he represents a small minority of extremely nasty radicals and every time he's on TV, this is hurting the reputation of the Muslim community at large. And yet it's important to know that people like him do exist and are in fact actively radicalizing young people, some of whom have gone out and killed people in cold blood, e.g. the murder of Lee Rigby in the UK, in broad daylight. Just because violent radicals are a small percentage doesn't mean it's not a problem, or that the religion is innocent and has nothing to do with it. If you get radicalized in a mosque by your imam and then yell "God is great!" while you commit murder, there unfortunately is a connection with religion. The fact that the majority of followers of any religion isn't a problem doesn't take the factor religion out of the discussion.

Alas, my flying blue elephant cult finally has one first member! I should stop complaining about religions and just make my own, the Church of Flying Blue Elephantism, the hip and trendy alternative to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is for old people). You can be my first cleric, now go and get me some followers to exploit please! The first command of the Church of the Flying Blue Elephant is that it's main prophet, humble awalterj, shall not be insulted. The Flying Blue Elephant has commanded this directly. Punishment for blasphemy is having to eat 10 big Tacos filled with hot chilli sauce, in under 5 minutes.

I reluctantly agree, but you are right. So I hereby declare that from now on I am done with this discussion and will not reply any further unless someone wants to join my religion (above replies in this post were written before I saw your comment, they are the last one I have for the topic). I've had it with those lame ass pre-made bigwig religions, and hereby declare that I'm starting my own. Not kidding, not the least bit. I still have to come up with some smartass scriptures but I'll be able to pull out of my ass, I mean receive via divine afflatus, all the necessary commands to give to my followers.