This has been going on to Christians for years. Why is it that when it happens to Muslims, people who wouldn't give a flip about what Christians think suddenly care so much not to offend? I think its time for secularists to go full boar against the Muslim religion like they do Christianity. Mohammad in a bottle of . . . you get the picture. Equal opportunity disrespect sounds nice, since there difinantly isn't equal opportunity respect.
"In (the West) it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," Mohammed al-Shaibani, a columnist, wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily Monday. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
Perhaps that is the argument Christians should start using. You insult Christianity than it is racism and a breach of human rights and not freedom of speach. I like that.
Another reason Christians need to create their own unabashidly theocratic Kingdom. Perhaps create a bit of respect out of fear that the Muslims use very effectively.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You know, Christians have their "hot buttons" too. It's not important in Christianity that NO images of Christ be created, but it is in Islam. Presumably someone making a cartoon about Mohammed might not know that, and it's possible they might need to apologize for it afterwards.
Good luck creating a Christian theocracy. It's been done, and it was about as bad as everything you probably hate about current Muslim theocracies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the Danish government should apologize. They have nothing to apologize for.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That's certainly true. Unless maybe they'd like to apologize for that stale bear claw I got that one time.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Anyone who aspires to use fear as a tool to control people, whether they use it for 'good' or 'evil', has issues and is a terrorist.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Good luck creating a Christian theocracy. It's been done, and it was about as bad as everything you probably hate about current Muslim theocracies."
You know, that is actually my point. Why then is there such little outrage against Muslims by atheists and secularists as there is against a rather minor force called Christianity? Perhaps its the proximity and familiarity issue.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Rather minor?"
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
A lot of Christian groups already do complain about things they find offensive or think are stereotyping them. Sometimes they get apologies, sometimes they don't.
If there's any double standard at all, it would be due to the fact that in the US Christians are the majority so people do sometimes act a bit more careful not to offend the minority groups.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Poor poor Christians...seriously, though what are you complaining about? Have you ever been denied employment or some other opportunity for being Christian? If the worst you can come up with is that the non-religious people are saying mean things about your religion, then start learning how to turn the other cheek.
And yes, fanatical Muslims should learn to do the same. And, more to the point, I've never had a Muslim attempt to censor me. So no outrage on that front. On the front of attacking my country and other civilians, I think you'll find a bit more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Free speech doesn't stop where it begins to annoy people. Democracy does not have to be nice. And the Norwegian foreign department's instructions to its ambassadors are the most mealy-mouthed, spineless thing this government has done yet. (OK, ok, they've only been in for five months. No doubt they'll come up with something worse given time.) I'm glad I didn't vote for them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why then is there such little outrage against Muslims by atheists and secularists as there is against a rather minor force called Christianity?
I'd imagine that most of the outrage against Muslims is confined to primarily Islamic regions, while people who are outraged against Christianity probably live next to a lot of Christians. Just a guess.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christians get a bad rap a lot of the time and I feel bad for them. On the other hand, their "Rather Minor" minority have managed to impact laws that have damaged the lives of millions of people like me.
I DO think that we bag on christians far more than they deserve and muslims far less than they deserve. It is because christians are frequently white and muslims usually aren't that we feel comfortable doing this.
No one wants to seem like a racist. Especially when he's not. But saving your venom for one group to the exclusion of another based on race is just as racist.
Pix
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wonder if the creators of South Park will come to see this as a challenge....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Another reason Christians need to create their own unabashidly theocratic Kingdom. Perhaps create a bit of respect out of fear that the Muslims use very effectively.
As a Christian, your insistence that Christianity should do such a thing for such a reason is deeply insulting. I demand that you tell me which of Christ's teachings, exactly, inform this philosophy of saving and motivating people through fear of physical reprisals.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yahoo News is cowardly for not showing the cartoons.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Nah, stormy, they're just being "culturally sensitive."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another reason Christians need to create their own unabashidly theocratic Kingdom. Perhaps create a bit of respect out of fear that the Muslims use very effectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Christian, your insistence that Christianity should do such a thing for such a reason is deeply insulting. I demand that you tell me which of Christ's teachings, exactly, inform this philosophy of saving and motivating people through fear of physical reprisals.
Yup. Siding with Rakeesh on this...so he must be right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rakeesh and kmb-
I think you're overstating Occasional's point here. He was not seriously advocating a Christian kingdom; he was bemoaning the fact that threats of physical reprisal appear to result in greater cultural respect from the international media.
Liberal commentators are quick to invoke freedom of expression to silence Christian activists who complain of artistic insensitivity, no apology necessary; for some reason they seem hesitant to make the same sort of statements towards Muslim activists, who are (at least on the face) more violent and vitrolic in their activism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the contrary, SenjoRetep, had Occasional not posted about Christianity and media and politics on many other occassions, I might've given him the benefit of the doubt.
I think there's a part of him that would like people saying hateful and untrue things about Christianity to be punished by the government. I don't give a damn about liberal commentators. I'm not a liberal commentator, and I don't let them impact my life to the point that I tout myself as a victimized Christian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Christianity is not about getting "greater cultural respect". It is about making an effort to be more kind and sensitive than society requires.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think you're overstating Occasional's point here. He was not seriously advocating a Christian kingdom
Actually, Occasional has posted in the past that he deeply wants this very thing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Xavier and Rakeesh-
Maybe I can chalk it up to beeing a noob, then, but I couldn't imagine such a statement being anything other than a rhetorical device.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I couldn't either, until I kept hearing it, Senoj Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, whether Occasional is serious or not . . . yes, Christians aren't nearly as touchy as Moslems about defamation (remember when Minn. governor Ventura called Christians "weak-minded"? Minneapolis churches responded by sending him flowers. Maybe that proved his point:)...). But, seriously, it serves us well. Look what Moslems get out of their touchiness: oppression and terrorism. We get freedom to worship, and occasional sneers. I prefer our way.
I often think how strange it is that bin Laden, if he really thinks Islam is worth promoting, doesn't give up killing civilians and instead send out missionaries on bicycles, or buy a television network, or finance a hospital in a non-Moslem country. It works well enough for Christians. But I suspect he's aware of how rarely people convert to Islam when they don't have to. I'm not an expert on Islam, but there must be some reason for that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, and the answer is
quote: Syria and Saudi Arabia have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark, while Libya said it was closing its embassy in Copenhagen and Iraq summoned the Danish envoy to condemn the cartoons.
apparently not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do not consider the governments of Syria and Saudi Arabia to be honest representatives of Islam.
It really blows that they're what Islam's got, though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, given that Syria and Libya are Baathist, I would definitely say they're not.
You do bring up an interesting point in an oblique way, though. I wonder if there are plenty of 'representatives' of Islam who are being more conciliatory in their tone but aren't being reported on by 'mass media'? If anyone sees any on the net, please link to them here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are Islamic organizations that routinely issue more coniliatory statements, right here in the USA.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, as I said, if it's on this cartoon issue, and you see them, it would be great if you could link them here or let me know where they are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm torn. On the one hand, I absolutely think a government should not penalize or prevent publication of such drawings, and official sanctions by Islamic governments in response to the private actions of a private newspaper are a demonstration of the lack of a truly internalized sense of freedom of speech in those governments. The bomb threats are the acts of thugs and would-be tyrants.
On the other hand, it's tacky to reprint something you know offends a lot of people just because to show you can.
On a third hand, this:
quote:It did so to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society, the paper said.
scares the crap out of me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So what do you think is the place for dogma in a secular society?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In his letter to the Danish ambassador, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad offered his group’s assistance “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark.” He proposed a meeting “to discuss areas of mutual cooperation in helping to remedy the situation.” Awad noted that CAIR representatives recently took part in a U.S.-sponsored conference in Belgium that brought together American, Belgian and European Muslim leaders in the wake of rioting by immigrant youth in France. He also cited recent meetings with the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, France and Spain dealing with other incidents relating to Europe’s Muslim community. “We all value freedom of expression and the right to critical thought,” said Awad. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions that will be perceived as intentionally insulting to others or that promote hatred.” He said proactive educational measures are the best response to such incidents.
To me, the reasonableness of the response turns on what they mean by "we should also use good judgment..."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what do you think is the place for dogma in a secular society?
The same place every other source of moral or philosophical thinking has in a secular society.
Remember, we're talking society, not government.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, though. There are places where dogma overlaps with other moral philosophies, certainly; in such cases it is redundant. Then there are places where it says something original; in those cases it is usually quite evil.
Then there is the specific case at hand. A law against making pictures of a historical person? Are you seriously going to argue that a secular society should observe such a thing? Before you reply, recall that you defended Åke Green on grounds of freedom of speech.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then there is the specific case at hand. A law against making pictures of a historical person? Are you seriously going to argue that a secular society should observe such a thing?
You're usually much better at reading what others say, KoM.
Please point out where you think I said we should create laws based on that dogma.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I spoke unclearly. There already exists such a law, to wit, Sharia. The question is whether a secular society is required to follow it.
EDIT : And again, following your lead, I am referring to society and not government.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hang on, though. There are places where dogma overlaps with other moral philosophies, certainly; in such cases it is redundant. Then there are places where it says something original; in those cases it is usually quite evil.
1) Evil according to whom? or, more accurately, which moral philosophy? 2) In the places where non-dogmatic moral philosophies say something original, they are equally "evil" 3) Overlaps need not be viewed as redundancy. They could (and should, IMO) be viewed as the basis for consensus.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I spoke unclearly. There already exists such a law, to wit, Sharia. The question is whether a secular society is required to follow it. EDIT : And again, following your lead, I am referring to society and not government.
No, society is not. I think each person should take into accounts things that other groups find offensive and weigh whether the goal of what's being said is worth the offense. But that is an individual decision.
Such decisions are not immune from backlash from private individuals, as long as such backlash is within the bounds of legal behavior. For example, a boycott of companies that advertise in that paper seems like a perfectly reasonable response for people who feel this strongly about depictions of Mohammad.
Even demands on the government to censor it should be legal. The government should tell them to go to hell (in a nicer way than that), but people should be allowed to petition governments for whatever they want.
I think a moral wrong is being committed by boycotting goods from people with no connection to the cartoon and no ability to legally stop it. But, even there, the speech needed to institute and maintain the boycott should be considered absolutely legal and a proper use of free speech.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the whole response by CAIR is vague, but probably good. Thank you for the link. It's sad that the AP writer couldn't take the time to report on it.
quote: In his letter to the Danish ambassador, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad offered his group’s assistance “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark.” He proposed a meeting “to discuss areas of mutual cooperation in helping to remedy the situation.”
What, if anything, do they want the Danish government to do with remedying the situation, exactly?
quote: Awad noted that CAIR representatives recently took part in a U.S.-sponsored conference in Belgium that brought together American, Belgian and European Muslim leaders in the wake of rioting by immigrant youth in France. He also cited recent meetings with the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, France and Spain dealing with other incidents relating to Europe’s Muslim community.
Good, good.
quote: “We all value freedom of expression and the right to critical thought,” said Awad. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions that will be perceived as intentionally insulting to others or that promote hatred.” He said proactive educational measures are the best response to such incidents.
I think that 'freedom of expression' must allow things that are intentionally insulting and promote hatred. For instance, isn't hatred of slavery good? Hatred of rape good? In short, I disagree with his implication that insulting speech is somehow bad speech.
I agree with him that rebuttal/proactive education is the best response to such incidents by private groups.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in that case, Dag, what part of 'dogma has no place in a secular society' scares the crap out of you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe it's the part about religious dogma having no place in a secular society.
You know, the part that insists religious people should just shut up and be ashamed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed they should. Or, tell me again, which part of Sharia would you like to see Denmark observe?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, still waiting for my education on Christianity as to which part of Christ's teachings specifically tells us to work towards a Christian government on Earth which punishes nonbelievers or those who criticize Christianity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM - I think there is a difference between government and society. Something people choose rather than something that is mandated. That being said, I think that, in a good society, it behooves those who belongs to majority religions to make an effort to be sensitive to the religions (or lack thereof) of others. This is especially true of Christianity where kindness is supposed to be a hallmark of our faith. This is not to say it isn't a hallmark of other faiths - just that I won't presume to speak for those.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not see how this relates to the discussion I and Dag were having. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see how what you've said relates to the discussion we were having, KoM.
The French paper stated that religious dogma has no place in a secular society. This was in response to backlash by Muslims against private actions by a Danish paper, not government actions.
It is possible to think that religious dogma should have as much place in society, not government, as any other basis of opinion and not think that any of part of Sharia should be observed by Denmark.
If you wish to discuss this, please connect your rhetorical questions to the actual issue. As it stands now, it sounds like you are deliberately distorting what I am saying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. I thought it was a government vs society thing. Religion having some place in society, but not in government.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry. I thought it was a government vs society thing. Religion having some place in society, but not in government.
It is a society v. religion thing, with me having expressed fear in the sentiment that religious dogma was to be excluded from society.
I'm still not sure what KoM's discussing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sharia is one particular piece of religious dogma, am I right? So it should have as much a place, by your statement, as any other basis of opinion.
Now then, how do you propose to do this without people observing Sharia? And you should note that I am still not talking about government enforcement, here, but purely voluntary submission.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sharia is one particular piece of religious dogma, am I right? So it should have as much a place, by your statement, as any other basis of opinion. Now then, how do you propose to do this without people observing Sharia? And you should note that I am still not talking about government enforcement, here, but purely voluntary submission.
Are you referring to some people (edit: who choose to do so) observing sharia in a manner consistent with the laws of the country? I have no problem with that.
If you are referring to more than that, then you missed the part where I said the place should be the same as other sources of opinion.
[ February 01, 2006, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, yes, 'consistent with the laws of the country'. The thing is, sharia claims pre-eminence over secular law. So it is not, in fact, possible to follow both sharia and whatever the local law is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The thing is, sharia claims pre-eminence over secular law. So it is not, in fact, possible to follow both sharia and whatever the local law is.
And it's not possible to follow lots of secular philosophies and whatever local law is.
Hence the "same as," which I've been desperately trying to get you to even acknowledge.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, but I do think this is a very weak definition of 'having a place in secular society'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You think that only because it's a religious form of dogma. You have no other basis for labeling it "weak".
As Dagonee has said, many secular philosophies come into conflict with local law. In America, for instance, I dare say you couldn't find even one tax payer who was philosophically happy with the way all tax dollars are spent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Fair enough, but I do think this is a very weak definition of 'having a place in secular society'.
I think it's the strongest and most important definition of having a place in secular society.
The French quote suggests that it is wrong to express a religious opinion in public. That's what I oppose.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: The newspaper's [France Soir] front-page headline declared: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God," accompanied by a new cartoon depicting religious figures from the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian faiths on a cloud. The Christian is shown saying, "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."
France Soir paired its story and caricatures with a column by French theologian Sohaib Bencheikh, who admonished: "One must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred." He added, "Unfortunately, the West has lost its sense of the sacred."
from my link, a Washington Post story--no signup.
"...the West has lost its sense of the sacred." He's got that right. But at least we think human rights (freedoms of speech and press) are more important than a cartoon that offends some. Or some of us do, anyway.
I'll take freedom over sacred taboos anyday.
quote: Germany's Die Welt daily newspaper published one of the drawings on its front page and said the "right to blasphemy" is one of the freedoms of democracy.
Papers in Italy and Spain also reprinted the cartoons, or some of them.
I wonder if Muslims will now try to boycott Europe in general? They'll miss more than Danish dairy products if they try.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And somehow, it's America that gets the reputation as bigoted towards Muslims.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
This situation has now blown into a crisis pitting the western civil rights value of freedom of expression against Islamic religious values. While I am all for being respectful and tolerant of other peoples religious beliefs, in this case it is just that, other peoples religous values. What about Christian, Jewish, or Hindi religious values? What about the religious values of the coutless other religions in the world whether worshiped by billions or just a few? Should we in western society give up our freedom of expression because someones value system is in conflict with it? What about when two or more different religious value systems clash, which should be prioritized in our treading lightly in order to not offend? What about values based on belief in lack of a god? What about value systems not based on religious values at all? My point is that there are many groups with many value systems some of which coexist nicely, and some which do not, and our freedom of expression allows us to express our values and criticize them, and discuss them, and share them for good or ill. Censoring someone for doing exactly that even if they did do it in a non-tolerant way cannot be allowed if we are to remain a society which respects all peoples rights to have their own beliefs and live their lives in accordance with them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)