Seems that Muslims are in an uproar because some European newspapers reprinted a couple of cartoons that dared to depict Mohammed, some apparently linking him to terrorism.
I really don't understand the depth of their anger.
When fundamentalist Christians in the West encounter something that questions, disrespects or even mocks their beliefs, they may get a letter-writing campaign going, or a half-baked boycott. They generally don't riot in the streets, firing off automatic weapons, even murdering the offenders.
If, as it would appear, Muslims in general have little regard for freedom of speech, and if Islam is so great, why aren't they lining up to emigrate to some Islamic Republic? Why are they flocking to Europe?
What is the appeal of living in a Western country, where they are guaranteed to be exposed to ideas that they find repulsive?
Posts: 2007 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
When people from one culture move to a people of another culture they are somewhat issolated for a generation or so until the cultures merge. But in the meantime because of lack of understandfing of one another they can do as they please. ++++++++++++++++++++ 02-02-06, 09:51 PM juanruiz
quote: When people from one culture move to a people of another culture they are somewhat issolated for a generation or so until the cultures merge.
This may generally be true. It certainly was for the great migrations to the US in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. However, it doesn't appear to be happening in Europe with Moslem youth. Quite the contrary: while the parents appear to adapt, the youth are becoming more bellicose.
02-03-06, 04:10 AM babthrower There is a tremendous backlash in, for example, the Netherlands, to terrorist murders and attempted murders of members of the press and government who don't 'respect' the Muslim fundamentalist religion, and some of its social policies. Fundamentalist Muslims don't seem to understand the very great respect Western Europeans (including moderate Muslims who have lived there for a generation or so) have for civil liberties. Or if they understand this respect, they don't assign any value to it.
It's similar I think to the fanaticism that was seen among Christian peoples of Europe during the centuries of sectarian competition for 'souls'. In those times, no one gave a damn about freedom of choice; coersion was the name of the game, and they all practiced it.
It is hard to forsee anything but a violent outcome. As riots and terrorism increase, European governments will clamp down, for example limiting immigration. This will in turn increase rage and violence. Ironically the violence will lead to a loss of civil liberties.
02-03-06, 05:07 AM FredPuli Here in Europe there has not been rioting or violence over this. The fuss is abroad. So, for example, in Gaza the EU's office were closed when it was surrounded by a mob firing guns in the air. The general line taken is that our press is free to publish cartoons like this and shall continue to do so. So if a cartoonist draws a cartoon showing Mohammed with a lit bomb for a headdress, so be it. However, such publication, may, if it creates enough fuss, lead to politicians or the paper saying that they are sorry if it caused offence (and then letting the same thing happen again ). Wink The editor of France Soir was sacked by his senior editor apparently because he had defiantly published all the Danish cartoons; the twelve appeared originally in a Danish paper; under a headline saying that they would make fun of anyone's god. His boss thought that a bit too provocative and unnecessary.
The cartoon most likely to offend showed Mohammed wearing a bomb with a lit fuse in place of the normal headdress.
So far as I'm aware a cartoon showing a limbless soldier in hospital being visited by "Dr Rumsfeld" saying that he'll record the man as battle hardened would offend nobody here. Big Grin
02-03-06, 05:25 AM philalethist Violence If violence is the only answer one has to answer with when advercity comes, their faith is small.
02-03-06, 05:28 AM RoverRoad I want to see the cartoons. Smile
02-03-06, 05:33 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by RoverRoad: I want to see the cartoons. Smile
Cartoons
Hmm. Sorry.Testing that link I find it is 'page not found' Is it just me ? I got it from The Guardian's reports:
It should be possible to find them somewhere, surely.
02-03-06, 06:00 AM RoverRoad I just saw the cartoon on television. I can see how that would offend them, but not to the point of taking out their guns. There's just something wrong with that reaction... Roll Eyes
02-03-06, 07:23 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by RoverRoad: I just saw the cartoon on television. I can see how that would offend them, but not to the point of taking out their guns. There's just something wrong with that reaction... Roll Eyes
I was wondering when this topic is going to start. Getting out guns is just a matter of time in my opinion. I have always been against getting out guns, but contrary to the popular opinion over here, ---------------- And now you can all bash me over it.
As reported in BBC go to a mosque and unlike other relegious places (church) you would not have a single image. One thing to make an image of the holy prophet isnt allowed to make an insulting image altogather.... and then expect no repurcussions is ridiculous. You can have your liberty and freedom of speech. Bash Islam (as you have allready been doing). Bash our present policitcal or relegious leaders. Making derogative cartoons of the holy prophet just isnt gonna be accepted by any muslim. So like I said its just a matter of time before somethings really happens because of it.
People here talk about all the attrocities fundamentalist (both chrisains & muslims) have done all in the name of relegion. One thing is clear, give authority/freedom to anyone, they are going to abuse whether they belong to a relegion or not.
These are all a way to get cheap attention and tempt muslims to go to streets and then point fingers.
02-03-06, 07:46 AM RoverRoad I don't know bik, I don't care what group or religion that anybody is from. To get that upset over a cartoon just shows there's something badly wrong with Muslim society. I mean, it's just a cartoon... There are going to be more cartoons, so they really need to just get over it. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just the way it is.
I heard that there's a movie that's being shown in some Muslim country where American soldiers barge in on a wedding, kill everyone and harvest their organs. That's much more offensive than a cartoon but you don't see us firing guns and chanting "death to Easterners."
Don't get me wrong, I think that your society has been pushed to the breaking point by Westerners. But this reaction to a cartoon only has the rest of the world looking at your people in disgust. The only thing this behavior will do is make you some more enemies.
02-03-06, 08:08 AM bik74 Its ok to be blunt. But RR you are missng the point. Movies in the west always show muslims are as the evil negative character. No one has ever reacted to that.
Unlike some of the people in the west who have no relegion , judging what is tolerable from their level of understanding isnt right. We arent making more enemies but being staright you have allready made more enemies. Its just cartoon , I know that. But negative cartoon about a person whom we hold dear to, more than our lives and even our parents and then expecting no reaction is ignorance on your part. Say all you want to say about islam or other current muslims......yes you are right the breaking point for us has been crossed and doing all this in allready over sensitive times, isnt gonna help anyone.
02-03-06, 08:16 AM RoverRoad I guess it's just one of those culture things where one can't comprehend the other. It wouldn't be the first time major conflicts are started by cultural misunderstandings.
02-03-06, 08:18 AM bik74 To an extent you are right.
02-03-06, 08:54 AM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by bik74: One thing to make an image of the holy prophet isnt allowed to make an insulting image altogather.... and then expect no repurcussions is ridiculous.
Bik74, the vast majority of people in the world aren't Muslim. To expect non-Muslims to obey your religious laws, that's what is ridiculous!
quote: You can have your liberty and freedom of speech.
Millions of men and women from Western countries have paid the ultimate price to secure these things for us, we do not take them lightly or for granted. Your statement is offensive, but I probably won't go out into the street and fire off a few rounds.
quote: Bash Islam (as you have allready been doing).
Islam is, to me, no more or less ridiculous than Judaism or Christianity - those religions are sometimes 'bashed' here also!!
So far no one has addressed the question - If Islam is so great it's religious laws so wonderful, why, for the last couple of decades, have Muslims been leaving the Middle East in droves?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GarColga, 02-03-06 09:37 AM
02-03-06, 09:50 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by GarColga:
quote: Originally posted by bik74: One thing to make an image of the holy prophet isnt allowed to make an insulting image altogather.... and then expect no repurcussions is ridiculous.
Bik74, the vast majority of people in the world aren't Muslim. To expect non-Muslims to obey your religious laws, that's what is ridiculous!
I dont expect any non muslim to obey are laws but do have a little expectation of not to disrespect them.
Again respect disrespect of laws is another things insulting the one most dear to us in another.
this last expectation from a so called civilized society isnt ridiculous.
02-03-06, 09:59 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by GarColga: Islam is, to me, no more or less ridiculous than Judaism or Christianity - those religions are sometimes 'bashed' here also!!
So far no one has addressed the question - If Islam is so great it's religious laws so wonderful, why, for the last couple of decades, have Muslims been leaving the Middle East in droves?
Again bash all the laws you want to. I am talking about bashing peoples, rather just one person.
Going away from the main topic isnt helping. Its ok you have so much resentment agaisnt relegions, but muslims migrating to west isnt the issue.
You have so many britsh working in middle east. So what to conclude ? In the past every country, in one way or another went to India. what do we conclude from this? All this relates to ones personal desire for a better living. It has nothing to do with ones belief or your liberty.
02-03-06, 10:26 AM newnickname Isn't it a difference between societies that still have taboos (against drawing pictures of Mohammed, for example, let alone disrespectful ones) and societies that have pretty much rejected the notion of 'taboo' itself?
There are few things left which you can write or depict that would provoke a huge public reaction in Europe or North America. Child pornography, religous images made with urine and faeces, Holocaust denial - they are mostly met with a few headlines and a collective shrug, or maybe a hesitant slap on the wrist from the courts.
Garcolga says that 'millions of men and women from Western countries have paid the ultimate price to secure these things for us, we do not take them lightly or for granted', which implies that there is a taboo against stifling free speech, but is that really something that people in the West (except those who take an interest in politics) care about? In opinion polls, haven't most in the US agreed that the government should be able to censor newspapers as part of GWOT? (I think the latest name for GWOT is The Long War.) Google has censored itself in order to operate in China. We're not as keen on free speech as we like to think.
I think people in general in the West just don't take the written word, or the caricature, as seriously as they might. Even those offended by that other cartoon Fred mentions probably accept that it's a temporary concern, and will be buried under tomorrow's scandals and controversies. (Others would point out that Rumsfeld's attitude should be of much more concern than any commentary on it.) Maybe we're blase because we have so much information from so many media. We don't give each word or picture as much weight as we would if we had a limited supply, as in some less industrially developed countries.
Bik has a point about the portrayal of Muslims on TV and in the movies. Also, away from the world of writing and drawing, the West has done real, not symbolic harm, to the Middle East. For example, Hussein was supported into power by the West decade ago, and then Iraq bombed to pieces, removing him, but for no other good reason, some time later. Can we compare the unecessary killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis in air-strikes to firing guns in the air over a cartoon? Which society is more violent and irrational? What incomprehensible depth of anger did it take for Americans to re-elect Bush, the perpetrator, even after it had become clear that the invasion of Iraq had been, in the most charitable explanation, a ghastly mistake?
As for why Muslims are moving West, that's to do with the history of global economics, isn't it? And that's explained in Guns, Germs, and Steel. 02-03-06, 10:43 AM FredPuli The protest hardly worked, did it? As a result of the Muslim protests the story became news and the following, at least ,published or showed some or all of the cartoons. The protests proved something of an 'own goal' or'shooting oneself in the foot':
BBC World TV (worldwide ) BBC One O'Clock News (domestic TV) Channel 4 News (UK domestic; showed three and had a discussion about each, with a Muslim commentator involved ) Die Welt in Germany La Stampa and Corriere della Sera in Italy El Perodico and ABC in Spain De Volkskrant; de Telegraaf; NRC Handelsblad in the Netherlands as well as other French papers than France Soir . A paper in Jordan published them too , the editor saying it was a subject for discussion, but he was then promptly sacked .
The European countries above all have large populations of Muslims.
We have laws in Europe specifically creating offences of incitement to anti-religious or racial hatred. It is unfortunate if some Muslims do not think these sufficient Wink
02-03-06, 10:51 AM babthrower Canada was a colony of Britain until recently (in nation-years). And we made fun of many British institutions and became savagely angry at arrogant and overbearing British acts, both those occurring in Canada and those occurring elsewhere under British control.
I do not remember, ever, seeing retaliation by British force against any person simply because of an insult, or supposed insult, against the British or their beloved (if notoriously, umm, defective Royal Family. [If they didn't infuse some common blood into the line from time to time, e.g. Princess Di and the deceased Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, they would all have to be locked up.]) This is something that a fundamentalist simply cannot understand: that we might love the freedom but not necessarily consider as sacred the figurehead that represents it.
This is also something that is dearer and more passionately defended by many in the West than perhaps fundamentalists comprehend.
And when we see fundamentalist thinking in the West, we mock it. We have seen such mockery in these threads. Mockery is a deterrent. (Example: when the U.S. makes laws that protect the symbols of U.S. nationhood, e.g. making it a serious criminal offense to burn a U.S. flag, that behavior is mocked.)
One characteristic of fundamentalism is an obsessive concern with form: using phrases such as 'peace be with him' ritualistically when referring to dead religious leaders: why do this? Is there any doubt that Jesus and Mohammed are at peace? If not why not? It is a mantra, a phrase that wards off evil, and shows an underlying belief in magic and superstition.
Anti-Semitism (against Jews and Arabs both) is on the rise in Europe since the recent unpleasantness in the Middle East, and draws its strength from one cause only: terrorist attacks. If it were not for the ongoing terrorism, anti-Semitism would be restricted to the usual nutcase fringe groups. One need only google “anti-Muslim backlash Europe” to find examples from every nation in Europe, including Britain.
Muslims in Europe complain of the ‘racism’ that they see displayed in the anti-Muslim backlash. But they need to look inward, as well. I’m sure many most intelligent Muslims know this, and try their best - If Muslim terrorism is giving ammunition to anti-Muslim forces, then Muslims are the best ones to fix the problem.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1778 | Location: Kingsford, MI USA | Registered: 06-13-02
Originally posted by FredPuli: The protest hardly worked, did it? As a result of the Muslim protests the story became news and the following, at least ,published or showed some or all of the cartoons. The protests proved something of an 'own goal' or'shooting oneself in the foot':
I admit that protesting agaisnt such things is tricky. The ban on Danish products by some arab countries further lead to newspapers in other european countries to publish the same things with a heading 'we have a right to depict your god and prophet'.
Unfortunately it may become 'its us vs you' or 'its either us or you'. +++++++++++++++ 02-03-06, 11:10 AM bik74 Giving examples of what is being tolerated in such and such a country still and so these muslim fundamentalists should also tolerate such depictions of their prophet.....! To my knowledge if one country say Holland allows drugs or prostitution, does it mean others should also tolerate it ? A person who has died 1400 years ago & loved by 1.4 billion muslims hasnt done anything to anyone today. If the west doesnt love anyone that way, is it the muslim fault ?
02-03-06, 11:18 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by bik74: To my knowledge if one country say Holland allows drugs or prostitution, does it mean others should also tolerate it ?
If they want to ban, or be intolerant of, drug use or prostitution in their own communities or in their own countries, let them. Do not have them threaten those who have a different view.
02-03-06, 11:22 AM juanruiz There is much to justify establishing an analogy between medieval Europe under Christianity and the present situation in the Islamic countries. In both cases, there was no real division between sacred and secular institutions. With the Inquisition, the Church effectively had a policing system of society. What Islam has never undergone, which may explain the situation today, is a movement similar to the Reformation and the Enlightenment, which very much changed how Christianity operated in Europe and its power over citizens. Thus Islam pretty much operates the way it did some 1400 years ago. Ironically, there has almost been an inverse tendency to that of Christianity. If anything, Islam has grown less tolerant and flexible over the centuries.
02-03-06, 11:41 AM philalethist Neither Us or You
It does not have to be! For the powers of heaven will be shaken. Jesus Christ will fall and be taken out of the way. Mohamed will also fall and be taken out of the way.
Isaiah 22:22-25
02-03-06, 12:36 PM Sarai I agree that the cartoon is in bad taste, and don't like the fact that it was published. They have the right to say it, but I don't like what they said. However, I also agree that violent anger, insults and riots won't solve the problem in any way.
quote: A person who has died 1400 years ago & loved by 1.4 billion muslims hasnt done anything to anyone today.
That's true. On the other hand, nothing that is said about the Prophet today can hurt him, can it? The only ones it hurts are his believers, and only if they are unable to see that such cartoons are drawn out of ignorance. Why are Westerners ignorant of the truth about Prophet and your religion? Will scaring them and hurting them and returning the insult through violent riots make them suddenly understand? Or will it just confirm their ignorant stereotypes and make their ignorance deeper?
Wouldn't you agree that if a student keeps getting a math problem wrong, threatening him and pointing a gun at him won't cause him to get it right? The same is true with one who doesn't understand the Prophet or your love for him. That person must be taught. You must first diffuse the things that are making it hard for people to see the truth about Muslims. Those things are fear, anger, hurt, suspicion, distrust. Violent anger only causes those things to grow, which will cause the violence to come back to your people, and vice versa, until one side figures out that this isn't about good and evil, but about ignorance and understanding.
One cannot teach someone who is angry, defensive, or dead. Violent anger generally does not help anyone learn.
quote: If the west doesnt love anyone that way, is it the muslim fault ?
How does becoming violently angry over the insult show love for the Prophet? Personally, I think it would show more love to behave in a way that will bring respect to the religion that came to the world through the Prophet. Behaving in a way that will make others feel that the religion is violent, dangerous or irrational does nothing for the Prophet.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 02-03-06 01:08 PM
02-03-06, 01:27 PM Sarai
quote: One characteristic of fundamentalism is an obsessive concern with form: using phrases such as 'peace be with him' ritualistically when referring to dead religious leaders: why do this? Is there any doubt that Jesus and Mohammed are at peace? If not why not? It is a mantra, a phrase that wards off evil, and shows an underlying belief in magic and superstition.
I agree with what you're saying Babs, but I personally wouldn't laugh at someone who says "Peace be upon him." It is a way to identify to others that "I am Muslim," it is a way to keep one from talking about something important without stopping and thinking, and it is a cultural tradition. It hurts no one and even if it is "magical thinking," I see no harm in it. I can't say the same of the kind of thinking that says it's okay to laugh at someone if one thinks he knows more than another or understands the world better. I see some harm in that, personally.
I am very glad we have freedom of speech in the west and certainly wouldn't go on a violent protest against something that someone said. If someone wants to belittle another, they have a right to, but that doesn't mean it is okay to do. I'm glad we have free speech, but as I'm sure everyone would agree, free speech isn't always used wisely.
02-03-06, 01:56 PM newnickname Cartoonist, reaction of extremists both wrong, Canadian Muslims say.
Unfortunately, this is one of those 'sign up to read' articles. Basically the story is in the headline, however. A Canadian Muslim Council has criticised both the cartoons and the reaction by some Muslims - saying that the over-reaction is not representative of all Muslims, and has tended to confirm ignorant stereotypes.
02-03-06, 02:23 PM babthrower That's a great post, NNN. People of good will can overcome terrible obstacles. But first you need the good will.
It makes me sad that we seem to be moving backwards in some respects. It may well be that compromise is not possible when both sides are stubborn and disrespectful. Another serious obstacle is seen when there is one issue that is simply non-negotiable. One such would be human rights.
For example, let's say there exists a sect that interprets the slavery issue in terms of the 'sons of Ham' in the old testament (Gen. 9). Ham is cursed, and all his descendants (Canaan). They will be "the lowest of slaves".
They may believe in slavery, and that is their right. But while they are Canadian citizens, or living within Canadian territory, I will oppose that they own slaves. And I will work to have the United Nations impose anti-slavery sanctions. Because civil liberties trumps religious conviction within a nation. And humanists oppose slavery.
02-03-06, 02:41 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli:
If they want to ban, or be intolerant of, drug use or prostitution in their own communities or in their own countries, let them. Do not have them threaten those who have a different view.
Yeah right as far as this point is concerned.
lets take an an imaginary example: Muslims start killing in their own country other non muslims, would that be ok ?. I know its not the same.
Ok lets take a real example. Taliban destroyed Buddha idols in their own country. Was that ok ? answer to both no.
So the logic of doing anything in your own backyard does not apply to everything (i think).
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bik74, 02-03-06 04:36 PM
02-03-06, 02:50 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: If anything, Islam has grown less tolerant and flexible over the centuries.
Proberbly because this sort of attacks are new to us. I know muslim persecution (& vice versa) was common in old days. Tolerence about other people practising their beliefs... I would like to think that has always been mostly there. Tolerence towards accepting remarks... I would even say yes to personal insulting remarks (by normally ignoring or replying back in the same way) but no to relegious & especially remarks for the prophet.
Do remember JR the changes you talk about have to come from within and not from outside. Otherwise all you will have is resistance.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bik74, 02-03-06 03:40 PM
02-03-06, 04:35 PM bik74 oops
02-04-06, 11:09 AM newnickname 'A march in which protesters chanted violent anti-Western slogans such as "7/7 is on its way" should have been banned, a leading British Muslim said. Asghar Bukhari said the demonstration in London on Friday should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.
The chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims".
More protests over cartoons of Muhammad on Saturday passed off peacefully.
Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way.
"I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people."' news.bbc.co.uk
It's not just the cartoons that make people demonstrate. They must have felt threatened, angry, frustrated - or simply liked the idea of a demo - before the cartoons were ever published.
02-04-06, 12:41 PM juanruiz
quote: Proberbly because this sort of attacks are new to us.
I'm not referring to tolerance to others, I'm talking about intolerance within Islam, viz, the Taliban and other ultra-fundamentalist groups. The freedom of centuries ago which allowed Averroes and Avicenna to discuss Greek philosophy, and caused the great Talmudic scholar Maimonides to escape Spain for Cairo and its intellectual fresh air, does not exist now.
02-04-06, 01:43 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
It's not just the cartoons that make people demonstrate. They must have felt threatened, angry, frustrated - or simply liked the idea of a demo - before the cartoons were ever published.
Hmm. The demonstrators in Gaza burned Danish national flags. Now, what chance do you think there is of having Danish national flags available in the Gaza strip ? The cartoons first appeared in print in the Danish paper in October but the demonstrations are in February.
The fact is these affairs are orchestrated and organised.Someone sent out Danish flags for the purpose.Someone decided that the excuse for the protest would be that and its launch date would be now. The cartoons provide a convenient reason for a show of 'anti-Western' feelings, a show of strength by the Islamic leaders involved. The drivers of thse public demonstrations search the world for suitable excuses, suitable material, to use when they decide there is a need for an exhibition like this.
One Muslim leader here in Britain asked 'Which act is more damaging to Islam : publishing a cartoon or the sight of some Muslim slitting the throat of a hostage?'
He has a point.
02-04-06, 09:57 PM GarColga Turns out that Mohammed has been depicted many many times, even by Muslims themselves! He was even a character on a South Park episode.
02-04-06, 10:14 PM Momma Angel This sure seems to be the hot topic of the day. I know that when I was young and growing up these kinds of things were virtually unheard of. A person's religion is very sacred to them. That is pretty much a given. What is not a given is that there are many that don't believe it is any less sacred than anything else.
Though I do understand why the Muslims are offended by these cartoons, I certainly do not understand their reaction to them whatsoever. Perhaps they don't realize that this kind of thing is exactly why people shy away from some if not all religion? Christianity is still paying for the Crusades. The Muslims are paying for every act of terrorism. Unfortunately, the bad things about religion are what makes it to the forefront of the media. If the Muslims had not said a thing or maybe had just "written some letters" this probably would have just died a quick death. Now, it looks like a bit of intolerance has just bred more intolerance and the higher degree of intolerance is being perpetuated by the very ones offended in the first place! Go figure.
I know one thing, I don't want to be a Muslim. If I felt God advocated killing people for making jokes about Him, I'd probably have doubts about Him. I do think though a line needs to be drawn on just how far one can go in mocking someone's beliefs or their God. A joke is one thing, provocation is another.
02-05-06, 12:32 PM newnickname The Sunday Herald in Scotland decided not to re-print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish paper, and in support of free speech:
'This paper’s belief in freedom of speech is paramount. The decision not to reprint the cartoons, not to declare ourselves another Spartacus in support of our European colleagues, was taken, at least partly, out of consideration for the safety of the staff, and the safety of Scottish people here and abroad, and I fully support it. But the extremists, who created the fear that made that decision a foregone conclusion, must understand that if they think the UK press have done this out of respect, they are so very wrong. They have undoubtedly won this battle hands down. Well done. We are afraid. But do they think people neutered and silenced by fear are going to work at embracing their culture, their religion or their values? Clearly, they don’t care. The danger of this backlashing on to our innocent Muslim fellow citizens is a distinct possibility and the thought makes me sick to the stomach. It looks as though those of us aching for the misery of all this hatred to end are in for a long wait.'www.sundayherald.com
It's important to remember that it's not just Islamic extremists who over-react to percieved insults. answerpool.com
02-14-06, 07:10 AM RoverRoad Funny, we are in day 12 of rioting and protests over this cartoon and everybody that is not a Muslim appears to have lost interest in it. Yet, these morons are still rioting and getting them selves killed for nothing. Roll Eyes
It's incomprehensible that these people don't care enough about the war in Iraq to protest, but they riot for almost two weeks over a stupid cartoon. Has anybody figured out what's wrong with these people? Don’t they know that nobody is listening to them anymore, the entire world is laughing at them now and that they are accomplishing nothing but making them selves look stupid?
02-14-06, 07:21 AM bik74 Well you are right. The protest have gone for too long and unneccessary things have been done. Well said, if such protest are made against the Iraq war, definitely better results may be achieved. Peace
02-14-06, 09:03 AM philalethist Sensitive Muslims As i read the old testament I find that what came upon those of times of old were brought upon themselves through their own lack of righteousness. One bad apple spoils the whole barel. So what I am saying is maybe, just maybe the people of Islam who say peace should take action to clean up their own house and get rid of those who through their lack of righteousness have invited these problem upon themselves. For the Bombers are they not killing their own inocent people, recently 349 died by their own people, the ship that sank where 1,000 people died was abandoned by her capitan. Was he a Muslem? Something is drasticaly wrong here. True we all have our own problems but we should judge ourselves before we point the finger.
Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
02-14-06, 10:09 AM babthrower Phil, you have to understand the distinction between the sacred and the profane. The sacred is about doing good in god's terms. The profane has to do with earthly pursuits, such as seeking money.
The fundamentalist movement among the Islamic nations in the middle east and farther east was fueled by the disaffection of the young people. The young people were disillusioned with the limitations on their opportunity for personal and career growth. Just as in Africa in generations past, the young had become disillusioned with the 'benevolent dictatorship' of European colonial powers, so in the middle east the young became disillusioned with the economic imperialism of the west with regard to oil. This disillusionment made them easy converts to a 'back to the bible' religious message: turn away from Western materialism and hypocrisy; turn back to a purer, simpler time.
The distrust was fed by the actions of the U.N. in deciding that they had the right to simply carve out a nation in the middle east, regardless of the effect on surrounding people. Remember that the State of Israel was created to pay off a British debt to the Zionists who had helped the British during World War I. So the British, with American and French help, used Palestine to pay off Britain's debt. Justice? I don't think so.
Unfortunately many of the Muslim theocratic leaders were hypocrital, and became immensely wealthy while teaching simplicity and poverty. But that is a problem for them to see and to solve.
This is not said in any way to justify terrorism, but to show that our hands are not clean and bloodless. We in the west beleived our own propaganda.
We in the West have an unlimited appetite for hearing of our own virtues. We do not want to hear of our faults. We would rather project the notion of evil onto those we have oppressed.
If there is hope for peaceful resolution, it will need to be worked out by international cooperation. Invading one country to punish terrorist attacks in another will not yield a good outcome.
02-14-06, 11:50 AM philalethist All these thing I know
Do you think that I quoted Matthew 7:3 in vain. Truth is a two way street.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Holocaust denier British author David Irving was sentenced February 20 to three years in an Austrian jail for violating an Austrian law that says it is a crime if a person “denies, grossly trivializes, approves or seeks to justify the National Socialist genocide or other national socialist crimes against humanity.”
Among other patent falsehoods, Irving said, “More women died in the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.”
Writer Michael Shermer, himself Jewish (ethnically but not religiously - he's an atheist) who has written a book about Irving, says the conviction "is an assault on the civil liberties of us all."
After pleading guilty to the charge, Irving told the court, “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” and “The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.”
No doubt he said this in the hope of getting off with a warning.
But what is the difference between insulting the memory of Jews killed there, and insulting the prophet of the Muslims?
Posts: 6594 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
But what is the difference between insulting the memory of Jews killed there, and insulting the prophet of the Muslims?
I agree with the point made. One thing is protected by law (I have no problem with that) and other people are doing it openly saying its their right to provoke. Its amazing that this sentencing has happened at the same time cartoon issue came. More proof of hypocrisy. I was given another general example... where freedom of speech is not allowed. Work places.... man sees a woman comments how good looking she is (not in a very decent way). That most often is not freedom of speech but sexual harrassment.
I agree with both the above exceptions to freedom of speech.... and being a muslim would also like a third exception to the freedom of speech 'lets not insult' other peoples 'holy people'.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bik74,
