posted
It seems to me that this whole fatwa against the cartoonists is just another classic ploy by the dictators and ruling clerics of the Muslim world to vent the anger of their subjects away from themselves.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it also happens to be a terribly insulting thing they've done. Freedom of the press is one thing, but at least show some respect for other people in the process.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they start showing respect for others, they can start complaining about being disrespected.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Muslim outrage over the insulting cartoons is a separate issue from terrroristic violence. People argue that "Muslims should do this..." or "Muslims should do that..." as if all Muslims were a unified lock-step group with homogeneous practices and beliefs.
Muslims have every right to be outraged at the insult leveled at them. And expressing that outrage is not the same as limiting freedom of the press. If my people were so insulted, or if your people were, you could be sure that many among us would feel compelled to object, and strenuously.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is not dissimilar to the growing pains the church had around the same time in its development.
I mean, you figure, Christianity had its beginnings around the turn of the millenium, and from around 1100-1300 AD they were going on crusades. Islam had its beginnings around 600 AD is sending their crusaders off in the form of terrorists by the 1900s.
So, rewind back to 1200 AD, and you've got the largely unwashed and uneducated crusaders (a small group, to be sure, with most of the more educated folk staying home and not getting involved in the bloodshed) killing heretics and any who don't worship as they do on the say so of the Pope and higher church officials, often destroying more culturally civilized and educated people in their quest to beat down those who believe differently than they do.
Today, we have largely unwashed and uneducated terrorists (a small group, to be sure, with most of the more educated folk staying home and not getting involved in the bloodshed) killing infidels and any who don't worship as they do on the say so of dictators and clerics, often destroying more culturally civilized and educated people in their quest to beat down those who believe differently than they do.
We just need the Muslim world to move out of this period and have a Renaissance or something.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" <- sign carried by one of the protesters.
So it's ok for them to chant "Death to America" so long as those of us in the west with an oppinion don't express it.
I'm sorry, these people need to grow up in a hurry. Murdering Jews and Americans is ok with the Europeans, but when they start marching against free speech they're going to lose some support.
posted
No, it isn't ok for them to do that. But at the same time, it isn't ok for us to assume that the actions of the minority are representative of the whole group.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it also happens to be a terribly insulting thing they've done. Freedom of the press is one thing, but at least show some respect for other people in the process.
I went through one month of this debate without actually having seen the cartoons and I, like everyone else, criticised the publishers for being insulting while defending their right to be so. Then I took the trouble to follow a link and have an actual look at the cartoons, and I must say, it has been much ado about nothing. Only a few of the cartoons are even marginally offensive and I've seen worse on almost any subject imaginable. And if some Muslims expect everyone to adhere to their prohibition of depicting Muhammed (and other religious figures) then they are better off disabused of this notion at once.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The Muslim outrage over the insulting cartoons is a separate issue from terrroristic violence. People argue that "Muslims should do this..." or "Muslims should do that..." as if all Muslims were a unified lock-step group with homogeneous practices and beliefs.
Muslims have every right to be outraged at the insult leveled at them. And expressing that outrage is not the same as limiting freedom of the press. If my people were so insulted, or if your people were, you could be sure that many among us would feel compelled to object, and strenuously.
And remember that big blow-up over the cartoon with Anne Frank and Hitler in bed together?
And... wait, remind me. How many people died in Jewish protests after Egypt ran a documentary about Jews killing children to use their blood for ritual purposes?
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: "Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism" <- sign carried by one of the protesters.
Given the blatantly selective use of the "freedom of speech" cry by Europe -- witness the recent jailing of a Holocaust denier in Austria, or the refusal of the original Danish paper to publish cartoons depicting Jesus some time ago -- I think the point of that particular sign is rather astute. Apparently, in Europe, it's only freedom of speech if you're attacking the least favoured minority immigrant population.
As to my actual opinion of the violence, the cartoons, and the knee-jerk reactions, I've made myself clear multiple times on this forum and others already. I don't really feel like going over it again.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Lisa, I've said it before and I guess I'll just have to say it again (and this holds true for everyone, not just you). I'm right. I'm always right. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is just demonstrating how wrong they are.
Now, you may disagree with this statement. But if you do, you'd be wrong. Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Given the blatantly selective use of the "freedom of speech" cry by Europe -- witness the recent jailing of a Holocaust denier in Austria, or the refusal of the original Danish paper to publish cartoons depicting Jesus some time ago
Your first example is spot on -- the illegality of Holocaust denial is indeed a betrayal of free speech. The second, however, indicates that you have a twisted understanding of what freedom is. A privately run newspaper choosing to refrain from publishing something on the basis of content IS a textbook example of freedom of speech.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A privately run newspaper choosing to refrain from publishing something on the basis of content IS a textbook example of freedom of speech.
It is. It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity. [/QB]
Not at all. Freedom of speech does not imply a requirement to offend all groups equally, but simply an opportunity to offend all groups equally. That's not hypocrisy, it's simply inequity, which is not something the principle of free speech does (or should) address.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you're saying, and I do agree in the general case. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think "freedom of speech" is a shield that an author or publisher should hide behind in order to defend content. Content should stand on its own merits.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is. It does, however, make them hypocrites for hiding behind freedom of speech in this instance, hence my comment about selectivity.
I agree with Senoj and Irregardless. I think part of speech being free is that people have the choice of whether or not to support a viewpoint.
However, going back to previous statements I've made about newspapers, I think the best journalistic ideal might be that newspapers should strive to be a public forum where all viewpoints are examined objectively.
So, even though I don't agree that not publishing every viewpoint is a violation of the principle of free speech, it is, I think, not in keeping with the ideal of an impartial newspaper.
On the other hand, I'm sure there were plenty of other places in Denmark who ran unflattering cartoons of Christian emblems every now and then. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there was a bit of a furor in Denmark over a big public wall painting of a naked Jesus with a visible erection of substantial size. It was eventually painted over. Added: I think the Danes have a peculiar sense of humour.
quote:So, even though I don't agree that not publishing every viewpoint is a violation of the principle of free speech, it is, I think, not in keeping with the ideal of an impartial newspaper.
This is more like what I should have said, yes. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying Cow: Actually the Crusades were pure politics and economics. You can make the argument that the Islam vs. West feud is too, but Christian tradition doesn't promise 72 virgins for those who die fighting the infidels. The Papal promise of immediate heaven for martyrs and the doctrine of indulgences were both syncretisms of the muslim doctrine.
Also compare the lives of Jesus and Mohommed. Jesus was single and a pacifist. Mohammed married a 8-13 year old cousin and lived much of his life as a desert bandit. Jesus' disciples were martyred. Mohammed's lived as sultans in the desert.
Not quite as similiar as it appears.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, the crusades were most definitely not pure politics and economics. Religious furvor drove massive slaughters of, among others, random Jewish communities along the way, just as a minor example.
Politics and economics were tightly entwined with the crusades, but they would not have happened without large numbers of people believing it was their Christian duty to kill the infidels and conquer Jerusalem.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
a quick reminder that the newspaper did print arguments from Muslims and Danes, pro and con, about whether or not the cartoons shouldn't have been run, and about being a Muslim in Denmark. I would also like to point out that the newspaper, as far as I know, hasn't made it a practice to insult Muslims and that, as far as I can tell, they genuinely wanted to make a statement that the Muslims could not expect to dictate what was said in their newspapers and in Danish society any more than any other group could. For what it's worth, I agree with Tristan's previous post, but would make it more general to include all religions and their sacred symbols and texts.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to characterize the Danish newspaper's motivation for printing the cartoons as a desire to insult Muslims.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I don't really want to rehash the whole thing in public. I largely agree with you, though not entirely, and I do agree with your 6:43 post. I haven't made that characterization on this thread, but I did so on the earlier one and later changed my mind largely as a result of your even-handed exploration of the issue.
If you have a burning desire to talk about it more with me in particular, feel free to shoot me an email.
Added: I know that first sentence sounds snippy, and I apologize. Think of it as being said in a fatigued voice, not an irritated one. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to apologize, I don't think you did anything wrong. I'm just tired. At least partly because I just got home from donating blood, I think.
Er, sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled thread and all that. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: No, it isn't ok for them to do that. But at the same time, it isn't ok for us to assume that the actions of the minority are representative of the whole group.
"But at the same time" is a phrased used by people who are afraid of judging something without a caveat.
"Sure, rape is wrong, but at the same time, wearing provocative clothing is just showing poor judgement."
"Sure, blowing up abortion clinics is a terrible thing, but at the same time, you can understand why someone might freak out when nothing less seems to get through to abortionists."
"Sure, Germany was absolutely wrong to start WWII, but at the same time, the Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany, and made no room for any German aspirations whatsoever."
In 1990, a 21 year old Israeli named Ami Popper went to a bus stop and asked the Arabs waiting there for their ID cards. After making sure they were Arabs, he opened fire and killed seven of them.
What he did was abominable. I don't give half a damn why he did it. I can talk all I want about what the Arabs have done to us, but none of that is a justification. Not even marginally. I don't know if that was his reason, either, and I don't care. He sits in jail and will do so until he dies.
I think it's despicable how so many people feel a need to qualify their condemnation of the brutal and homicidal reactions to a bunch of friggin' cartoons.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ryan, the crusades were most definitely not pure politics and economics. Religious furvor drove massive slaughters of, among others, random Jewish communities along the way, just as a minor example.
I think Ryan may have been talking about the leaders. And even so, I'm not so sure. But yeah, it makes it hard for me to watch Robin Hood movies when they make Bloody King Richard out to be such a saint after he was pillaging his way through Europe, killing Jews along the way for practice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to characterize the Danish newspaper's motivation for printing the cartoons as a desire to insult Muslims.
Since it's fairly clear that it was anything of the sort. Those cartoons were illustrations for an article on the way Muslims have frightened people into self-censorship. The Muslim reaction has made that point much more strongly than the article could ever have done.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Lisa. Yeah the peasants were duped. And as for the slaughter of Jews, definantly a result of European resentment over the financial place held in European society.
The point is though, it's not sound to hold the Crusades up as a failure of Christianity. It wasn't born out of Christian doctrine like Islamic Jihad.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect there were quite a few religious scholars of the time who would disagree vehemently. Furthermore, I can easily cast every historical and contemporary Islamic action in purely economic and political terms; that does not make them purely economic and political.
Your apologetics are badly flawed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, it seems your point is misaimed. That something included extreme religious motivation (as the Crusades did) does not make it the "fault" of that religion. I'm not coming anywhere near to saying that. However, saying there was no religious component to the Crusades, only political and economic, is laughable in the extreme.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you may not be accusing Christianity, it doesn't mean no one is.
I think that in the Crusades, Christianity was used as a rhetorical device alone. In other words there is nothing in Christian doctrine that would demand a war to reconquor Jerusalem. It was a tool. Not to mention the genesis of the whole thing was Pope Urban's sermon which he delivered in order to unify "Christendom" and consolidate his own political power.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Crusades were not one continuous event. Furthermore, there is strong evidence of religiously motivated hatred in the actions of many of the Crusaders, from the slaughter of jews to the incredible atrocities visited on those they thought were muslims (though many were christians).
Your appeal to the real economic and political concerns that were involved hardly obliviates the influence of Christianity. Tell Peter the Hermit that he did not lead his Crusade because of his Christianity.
Not to mention that your argument is transparently obvious in transference to Islam. After all, if I were to attempt to couch the Crusades in terms based in old testament slaughters you would protest that Christ's coming led to a new path, just as many followers of Islam today would tell you how Jihad, properly conceived, is not a call to war but to peaceful religious struggle.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, another good counterexample is the establishment of the kingdom of Jerusalem. It was clearly doomed in the long run, militarily speaking, and defended to enormous economic cost. Yet the inhabitants, former crusaders, held onto the land they considered holy with religious fervor.
No purely economic or political explanation is sufficient for the reality of its brief existence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some questions about the protests that I have:
1) Where did these people in Muslim countries find so many Danish flags so quickly?
2) Why are people dying over this issue?
3) If mobs can be mobilized so quickly in so many places to protest these cartoons, to destroy, threaten and possibly die, what does this say if there were a serious breach of Islamic law by an outside country?
4) If such furor can be generated so quickly and widely, how close is the pot to boiling over?
5) Are these radicals really in the minority in the Muslin world? Recent elections in Palestine and Iran seem to say that a violent, virulent segment of the Islamic faith is alive, well and growing.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Rich. I'd answer your questions, but there's an undercurrent in there I find a little ugly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: Thanks Lisa. Yeah the peasants were duped. And as for the slaughter of Jews, definantly a result of European resentment over the financial place held in European society.
posted
What undercurrent is that, Tom? Or is any suggestion that this sort of radicalism is the norm in the Islamic world "ugly" to you, however well based?
For my part, I find undercurrents to be ineffecient. The answer to Rich's question number 5 is that while the actual individuals who can be counted on to perpetrate acts of terror personally may be a minority in the Islamic world, support (passive and active) for such acts is far from a minority thing. And of those who do oppose such things, those who are willing to risk speaking out about it are a small minority.
It's only going to get worse. And apologists like Tom only contribute to it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can one find the situation anything but ugly?
People have died over cartoons. Cartoons. Protesters have beseiged a couple of embassies. A Pakistani group has put a price on the heads of the cartoonists and publishers, I believe the price was $25,000 of the group's money and another $1 million from an unnamed jeweler's group.
There is an undercurrent in all of this. An undercurrent that is sweeping up people and inciting them to violence over cartoons. Cartoons. These protests are much bigger and more violent than the ones we saw over Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. They are more violent and bigger than the protests over the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
Imams and governments were able to get Muslims in how many countries out and onto the streets over this issue? And how quickly did they do it?I understand that a depiction of Mohammed violates the laws of Islam and that this was offensive on a very, very deep level to Muslims the world around. But there is a segment of the world's Muslim population that wants more than a letter of apology from the publishers.
It's the same segment that cheered and celebrated when the World Trade Center towers collapsed. It is the same group that cheered when bombs went off in nightclubs in Bali. It's the segment that helped put together the railway and subway bombings in Madrid and London.
It isn't that large crowd you see at the protests that is the undercurrent, that's the visible current. The ugly undercurrent are those who mobilize these people, who stir them, who recruit from them, who hand out the plastique-laden vests and AK-47s. Those who seek out martyrs-to-be. The people who are oh so willing to convince someone else's child to commit acts of terror, to give up their life, to fill more graves in the name of what someone says is Allah.
Those who would never want peace. Those who look for tinder as small as a newspaper cartoon to start fires with.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't referring to the ugly undercurrent in Arab society, Rich, which is obvious to the casual observer.
I was referring to the ugly undercurrent in your own tone, which generated leading questions designed to disguise opinions you already held as possible conclusions.
What exactly do you think this line of questioning will accomplish? What new information do you think you'll get out of the thread by asking questions to which you already believe you know the answers?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, surely you understand the idea behind rhetorical questions? And I think you also hit the nail on the head there: possible conclusions. And honestly, I don't have answers to those questions, just a few ideas generated in the vacuum of one person's existance.
What do I think this will accomplish? It's basically just stepping into a dialog and offering some observations I've had recently. It's airing a few questions I've pondered. I hope to discuss, I hope to learn, I hope that someone will share wisdom gleaned from looking at the situation from a different direction.
I don't believe I have the answers, just some opinions. Opinions are all we really have until we have an answer, right?
<edit to remove snarkiness>
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had some of those same questions Rich. I understand where you are coming from.
I'll admit that I know few enough Muslims and little enough about the faith as a whole to have to watch myself that my own ignorance and prejudice don't over-color my developing opinions. However, it seems very apparent that Islam is besieged by some force that values violence over reason, and acts in its name with relative impunity.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the problem: your observations largely boil down to something like, "Gee, while not all Muslims are insane, hate-filled killers, sure looks like most of 'em are. Isn't that a problem?"
The thing is, you personally won't be able to change the Muslim world. But you can control whether or not you continue to treat Muslims as human beings deserving of life and respect. And I'm afraid your present line of thought tends strongly in the other direction.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a cancer at the heart of the Arab world that has hijacked a portion of the Islamic tradition to serve as its carrier. Unfortunately, I think many Americans lack a respect for the patient in this scenario, and have therefore come to the conclusion that it might be more convenient to amputate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weak metaphor, Tom. A cancer is a danger only to the patient. This "cancer" periodically reaches out and kills innocent bystanders. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, for the life of me, I can't see where you've gotten this from. I've read and reread what I've written and I just don't see that in the wording. I also know that it's nowhere in the heart behind the writing.
What gives with this?
quote: But you can control whether or not you continue to treat Muslims as human beings deserving of life and respect. And I'm afraid your present line of thought tends strongly in the other direction.
I'm afraid you've either grossly mistaken what you've read or you're working to put words in my mouth that I wouldn't put there on my own. Either way, shouldn't we get back to the topic of the thread? Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
FYI: The cartoons were printed in September; the protests started in late January or early February.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I was straining the metaphor a bit, because I actually consider the "patient" in this scenario to be humanity in general.
------
Rich, I apologize if I came out swinging. In the past, the same questions you asked here have served as smokescreens for semi-troglodytic "drive the Muslims out of Palestine and hammer them with an iron fist" sort of things, and I wanted to head that one off at the pass, if possible.
In particular, your references to "how close is the pot to boiling over" and "is this really a Muslim minority" reminded me of very similar comments made not too long ago that were used to justify some really astounding bigotry, and I'm sorry if I overreached in trying to prevent this from going there in the first place.
Basically, it IS a Muslim minority, but it's very close to boiling over -- and I believe that American foreign policy is determined, right now, to provoke that very reaction. I don't agree that protests against the cartoons (which were intentionally and knowingly offensive) were inherently unreasonable, but I DO agree that violent protests are unjustifiable in almost any event, and certainly in this one -- and, as you've pointed out, lacked perspective.
But the problem with perspective is that it requires a sound secular education, and that's precisely what's lacking here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
