I wonder how much of the protesting is over the 12 published cartoons, how much of it is over the 3 fake ones, and how much of it is just general anti-American/anti-Western protesting...
Looking over the cartoons that were published, I don't see anything worth rioting or killing anyone over, whether someone's offended by them or not...frankly, even the 3 fakes aren't worth all of the protest that's gone on. Worth getting pissed over? Yeah. But not riots and murder.
The Danish Cartoon Debacle is evidence of the irrationality of religion.
If religious beliefs affect society, others in that society have the right to criticize religious beliefs. Even if it means using lampoon, satire, humor, etc.
People will claim to have the right to speak against the politics of others, but then say "we should respect the beliefs of others." I say those beliefs should be as open to criticism and ridicule as anyone's political position, particularly when those beliefs affect the rest of a given society.
It was religion that brought down the WTC. Not Islam. Religion. It was religion that brought down the Murrah building in OKC. It was religion that was responsible for attrocities in several African nations. It was religion that was partially responsible for our response to 9/11.
Religion is fine if it works for you, but when it starts to affect the rest of society, it deserves criticism and ridicule just like any other position. If it can logically answer to those criticisms, fine. But when it responds with crusades, jihads, bombings (suicide or air campaigns), assassinations, fatwas (I'm including Pat Robinson's stupidity here), riots, etc. then religion just demonstrates further that it has no business trying to press its agenda on society.
Personally, I think we ought to organize a bunch of young people in the United States to burn the Jordanian/Iranian/Syrian/Saudi flags outside their respective embassies. Throw in some korans and bibles as well.
Personally, I think we ought to organize a bunch of young people in the United States to burn the Jordanian/Iranian/Syrian/Saudi flags outside their respective embassies. Throw in some korans and bibles as well.
Yeah, that'd be great - a bunch of anti-religion wackos out there making fools of themselves. I'll look for you on the 6:00 news.
And the idea that religion is okay until it starts effecting society is just plain stupid. Yeah, jihads and crusades and terrorism are when religion goes too far. Yeah, Pat Robertson is a moron. But in a lot of ways, the moral values of religion can help keep societies in order...and yeah, there are lots of examples where religions go over the line in enforcing morality...but there are just as many or more cases where religious morality saved & improved lives - those stories just don't make the news.
Frankly, I find your anti-religious bigotry offensive (but yeah, you still have the right to spout your nonsense)...maybe I'll go out and burn some copies of the Humanist Manifesto and Darwin's The Origin of Species while you're out there burning Korans & Bibles...and maybe I'll throw in some Harry Potter books, just for good measure. :P
But in a lot of ways, the moral values of religion can help keep societies in order...
Moral values like what? Stone rape victims to death? Eye for an eye? Burn scientists at the stake for saying that the earth is round?
Okay, I was kidding there. I know what you're referring to. Love thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, turn the other cheek, etc. But these are not religious values. They are human values. They are values that people have not for religious reasons but for reasons of respect for human life and dignity.
If you need the threat of eternal damnation for you to refrain from raping, murdering, stealing, etc., then you are not a good person. A good person respects others not because they don't want to go to hell, but because they do the right thing, no matter if they will be punished for doing wrong or not.
maybe I'll go out and burn some copies of the Humanist Manifesto and Darwin's The Origin of Species while you're out there burning Korans & Bibles...and maybe I'll throw in some Harry Potter books, just for good measure. :P
Its just paper.
Lets face it: religion is broke; it's a failed experiment. The majority of the world is religious (Americans mostly christian) and crime is out of control; the rate of adultry is insane; etc.
Its time the reasoned minority began speaking out against the unreasonable majority.
Lets face it: religion is broke; it's a failed experiment.I disagree. Some people use it to justify their own ends, but they are not the religion.
That shouldn't exist. They have nothing to be sorry for. I've never defended the insanity of christian radicals and I condemn them freely; they don't represent me in any way. Why should they say sorry for them? Their radicals are supposedly just as far from them as mine are from me. No one should apologize for extremists. They're responsible for their own actions.
Exactly. That was my biggest irritation after the London bombings - that Mosque leaders in Norway were considered obliged to apologize on behalf of the terrorists and declare themselves peaceful. But I liked the site as it reminds the morons that most Muslims actually are quite nice people.
There's something called restraint and civility in the world too. As far as I can tell, there's a lot more people disrespecting that rule than there were involved in creating the pics. People have died because of the lack of restraint these people are demonstrating. Is that acceptable?
Nope. Never said otherwise.
It's just paper.
Not nearly.
If you need the threat of eternal damnation for you to refrain from raping, murdering, stealing, etc., then you are not a good person. A good person respects others not because they don't want to go to hell, but because they do the right thing, no matter if they will be punished for doing wrong or not.
[Hugs TK]
Religion is fine if it works for you, but when it starts to affect the rest of society, it deserves criticism and ridicule just like any other position.
"Yesh". A Buddhist encouraging meditation is the same as an atheist doing it, freedom of speech-wise. I agree:).
I haven't read all the posts here but I'll try not to repeat some opinions.
First off all, I am a Moslem, and no we are not terrorists, there are almost 74 sects in Islam and some of these sects (and they are few) have some bad idea that was influenced by politics, before I began to discuss this matter first I'll tell you about some definitions that are misunderstood:
Jihad: is a popular metaphor now, and is has been used by the terrorist as a reason to unleash war, so what is Jihad? It is an order by god who told Mohammad to fight back his enemies to survive, is you know some info about Muhammad, you will know that in the first days of Islam, Moslems suffered a lot just like Christians in the roman empire and when the suffering gets more violence god ordered Muhammad to fight back, so Jihad is an order in a limit period of time not as prayer for example, however some scholars suggested that the term "Jihad" means to fight against your own desires to be pure, in the Koran god said:
"he who kills one life kill the world entire and he who saves one life save the world entire". So what I wanted to say is that we are peaceful, but there are some bad people in our communities just like every religion.
About drawing Muhammad, it is not mentioned in the Koran but Moslems said that one should not do this because of respecting his figure and that allowing people to draw him will open the gate to those who wanted to attack him, shia (a Moslem sect) draw his cousin (Ali ibn abi taleb) and his grandchildren but not Muhammad and that's a prove of my theory, and I believe that some of you have stated that there are some ancient drawings for him, however, it is not likely to draw him in Islam.
Now back to the topic, the two sides were wrong, the Danish journal for printing these images and the mob for burning the embassy, but you should know one thing, and that thing is that not all the communities have the same values, what might be considered important in your community might not be that important in others, not just that, they might consider it even offensive.
As I said before, I am Moslem and Syrian, and I know that not just Moslems walked in the protests, some of my Christian friends also marched with Moslems in Syria, and the main headline of the protest was "say no for offending sacred figures", not just Islamic ones also Christian and Jewish and every other religion, I did not attend this protest actually, but my friend said that it started peacefully but then some stupid mobs attacks the police and burned the embassy.
Anyway, click on this link (
http://syrian-tales.blogspot.com/)
Now back to the topic, the two sides were wrong, the Danish journal for printing these images and the mob for burning the embassy, but you should know one thing, and that thing is that not all the communities have the same values, what might be considered important in your community might not be that important in others, not just that, they might consider it even offensive.
I am assuming based on the rest of your reasonable post that you are not drawing moral equivalence between journalists posting a small political cartoon and the violence, destruction, death threats and death, right?
Mike
About drawing Muhammad, it is not mentioned in the Koran but Moslems said that one should not do this because of respecting his figure and that allowing people to draw him will open the gate to those who wanted to attack him, shia (a Moslem sect) draw his cousin (Ali ibn abi taleb) and his grandchildren but not Muhammad and that's a prove of my theory, and I believe that some of you have stated that there are some ancient drawings for him, however, it is not likely to draw him in Islam.
Muslims didn't draw him. Danes did. They did it in the tradition of their culture, which is to speak out and criticize other societal entities through illustration and even satire and parody. If Muslims don't like it, they simply need not look at the publications that ran the cartoons.
Now back to the topic, the two sides were wrong, the Danish journal for printing these images and the mob for burning the embassy,
I fail to see where it has been qualified that the Danes were wrong. They did nothing illegal. Indeed, the majority of the Moslems who reacted without reasoned thought did so without seeing the cartoons themselves! They merely heard about them and formed opinions without data.
There is a side that was wrong. It was the side of the argument that broke the laws of its governments.
Moreover, the expectation of the Moslem world (or, if you prefer, the protesting portion of the Moslem world) that images of their prophet isn't to be made or seen doesn't logically follow. Not when Muslem traditions of representation exist in earlier centuries (
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary-store/Components/104/10422_2.jpg) and back to the time Muhammad was alleged to have existed. And Not when there are many Islamic publications that have long since characterized Judaic and Christian religions in negative depictions (
http://www.adl.org/presrele/AsInt_13/3964_13.asp). There is no evidence that Muhammad (assuming he even existed) was opposed to images of the human form. It was, after all, Muhammad that was alleged to have instructed that the portraits of Jesus and Mary not be destroyed along with the idols at Mecca.
The Danish cartoonists were making a very valid point: the majority of the Western world views Islam as a violent religion. The reactions of the nutters in Islam who attacked people and buildings and rioted because of cartoons they never even saw serves to demonstrate that point.
If Muslims want to protest the actions of others, that's within their rights. But it is also within the rights of non-Muslims (and non-religious) to protest the sometimes violent and nearly always irrational religious nutters of the world.
There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend.
If Muslims don't like it, they simply need not look at the publications that ran the cartoons.
As I said before, you cannot assume that all the people in the world share the same values, portraying Jesus and even mocking about him is normal in your society, but not in ours, the Christians in the middle east also feel offended when they saw a picture mocking about Jesus, so it is an east value, and doesn’t have anything to do with Moslems, so you cant just say that they don’t have to look at these pics especially that a lot of European journals reprinted it and after the Danish prime minister refusal to meet the ambassadors of Islamic government, all of that made the people gone mad.
about this "political" cartoon you've posted, its obvious that the mocking here is about Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, they did not mock of Moses, they do not mock of Judasim, it was pure politics and you can find this pictures in Israel too, the deference here is that teh Danish has mocked of a whole religion, which is not good not just ethically, also it was foolishness to do so, and out of the subject, Arabs are semitics so you cant just accuse them of anti-simitism coz in this way you are accuse them of attacking themselves.
If Muslims want to protest the actions of others, that's within their rights. But it is also within the rights of non-Muslims (and non-religious) to protest the sometimes violent and nearly always irrational religious nutters of the world.
i am with you in this point, everyone has the right to protest, non-Moslems have the right to protest the terrorists but not against a whole religion coz doing so will be a foolish assuming that all the followers of this religion is bad and it's not true for there are bad guys and good guys in every house in the world.
i dont know if you opened the link above and read the article for you may find some answers there, however, at last i want to say that i believe that you are free (just like anyone in the world) but your freedom has limits and its limits ends when the others freedom begins.
I am assuming based on the rest of your reasonable post that you are not drawing moral equivalence between journalists posting a small political cartoon and the violence, destruction, death threats and death, right?
Mike
what i can say is that there are evil in both sides, some wanted to enflame the situation by reprinting the cartoons inorder to view moslems as terrorsts and on the other side there are some who took the advantage of this cartoons to prove thier theory which is based on violence and destruction, and unfortunatly they succeded and we are now in a big problem, thats why we need mutual understanding and we should not be arrogant about our point of views, we should hear the others.
So the Muslims want to kill the Danish cartoonists for their portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed, then they hold competitions for cartoons of the Jewish holocaust. How fair is that? They believe murder is justified for something they believe is offensive and then turn around and make fun of something that would be offensive to a lot of people. Are these really the sort of people we want to be paying any attention to?
So the Muslims want to kill the Danish cartoonists for their portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed, then they hold competitions for cartoons of the Jewish holocaust. How fair is that? They believe murder is justified for something they believe is offensive and then turn around and make fun of something that would be offensive to a lot of people. Are these really the sort of people we want to be paying any attention to?
you are doing the same now, ignoring eachothers is not the solution, we have to be wise, first of all not all muslems claimed that they want to kill the danish, second the competition you are talking about was a reaction for the ignorance they've endured by the danish press and government, they've justified thier offensive cartoons using the freedom of speach, so part of the muslems decided to use the same justification against them, i am not saying that i am with this compitition but thats how the things goes when we continue to ignore eachothers feelings and acting like fools.
ignoring eachothers is not the solution,
I agree, but political cartoons have a purpose - to incite thoughtful discussion. In this case, the cartoons came about because death threats had been made to people considering illustrating a book, and indeed a playright had been killed, Salmon Rusdie had to go into hiding. So the cartoons say 'the muslim world claims the peace of mohammed yet is the source of the vast majority or terrorist activity throughout the world' - discuss.
The discussion, rather than thoughtfully figuring out how they can change world opinions, the reactions have been along the lines of 'you are wrong, we are not violent, now shut up before we kill you, and we'll burn down your embassy as a warning'
You cannot openly negotiate with someone whose finger is on the trigger of a machine gun - they have to realize that the situation is inherently dangerous so long as they are pointing that gun at you. Once they put the gun down, discussion can ensue. Continuing to hold a gun to someone's head while saying 'you should choose nicer words' is not discussion.
Mike
I respect your opinion but now you are negotiating with me and we are not fighting, so the possibility of negotiation is available, what is not available now is open minded people to discuss, as I said before you must know that we don’t share the same values and we cant change that, but we can respect that deference, what did you said about Salmon Rusdie, he published a book that claimed things that Moslems believed to be untrue, I am not telling you that you have to accept their judgment, just try to understand it, Dan Brown almost did the same in the da vinci code, but this is acceptable in your societies, well when the book was published in our countries most of the people did not accept his ideas for it attacks the whole Christianity thing, and that upsets the Moslems and the Christians here.
In the protest Moslems failed to prove their true identity, that’s for sure, but you cant judge all of them because of the mob, the US government is threatening Syria almost everyday but we still defer between the government and the people and even when the people stand with their government we know that there are others who did not approve its action, what I meant to say is that there are always someone to negotiate with even if you did not see him.
As I said before, you cannot assume that all the people in the world share the same values,
I don't make that assumption at all. But I will gladly point out that the cartoons in question were published not in Muslim society, but in Western society. And that is the real problem that exists between the Muslim culture and Western culture: Muslims want the freedoms and opportunities that exist in the West and immigrate to nations like Denmark, France, etc.; but when they get there, they reject the cultural characteristics of those societies that make them free and opportunistic.
This, my friend, is what the authors of the cartoons were attmempting to illustrate along with the point that the West perceives Islam as a violent religion. The irony is, that the unreasoned responses of violence by the Islamic peoples of various nations proves that point.
...portraying Jesus and even mocking about him is normal in your society, but not in ours,
Again, no one was mocked "in your society." It was done in a Western society. If Muslims want to immigrate there, they must accept the culture they adopt and work to change it only if they are, in turn, accepted by that culture. The barbaric actions of Muslim extremists has worked to reinforce stereotypes and generalizations about Islam, which are more and more each day looking to be valid characteristics.
...about this "political" cartoon you've posted, its obvious that the mocking here is about Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, they did not mock of Moses, they do not mock of Judasim,
My point stands. The cartoon is "political." As are the Danish cartoons in question. That the political joke of the illustrations was some alleged cult prophet means little. They are political cartoons of satirical nature. Satire is a Western tradition that is older than Islam.
The Muslim response is not only wrong, its barbaric. Moreover, the Western world is now more sure than ever that Islam is, in general, a religious cult that advocates violence as a means to and end.
Religion -be it Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc- affects society. It is the duty of the freethinkers of a given society to speak out against religion to keep it in check. Throughout history and in modernity, whenever and whereever religion is allowed to dominate a culture, progress is impeded.
you are doing the same now, ignoring eachothers is not the solution, we have to be wise, first of all not all muslems claimed that they want to kill the danish, second the competition you are talking about was a reaction for the ignorance they've endured by the danish press and government, they've justified thier offensive cartoons using the freedom of speach, so part of the muslems decided to use the same justification against them, i am not saying that i am with this compitition but thats how the things goes when we continue to ignore eachothers feelings and acting like fools.
Of course it's not all Muslim people, the same as it is with how not all Muslims are terrorists, hate America, who basically hold the views that militant Islam do. And it's very sad how this vocal minority portray the whole of the Muslim world as such. However as it has been argued throughout the thread, these people have sent death threats, they actually killed someone over it I believe, they attack the Danish embassy. I'm not being racist when I say this, but they remind me of the sand people. Any attempt to negotiate peace has failed, and even if by some miricle that is possible they look for an excuse for violence. But on the other hand were there Jedi how would they be able to broker peace, or at least a resolution to this problem, and the problems in the Middle East as a whole? That may be going off the rails a little but whether or not you want to view things through a Star Wars lens, how might we be able to negotiate with those who by all accounts and purposes are not interested in negotiation?
ok, now the whole thread is against me :)
@Nancy Allen``: you said that you dont generalize then you do, what i meant to say is that i dont wanted to to negotiate with Osama Ben Laden and his likes, i said negotiate with someone who's like me maybe, i can assure you and i know that you know that there are alot of good muslems around the world and believe me they are ready to negotiate, try to look at the opposit side, muslems also say the same about you, they say that you dont respect them and you always misunderstand them, so the problem is mutual and we have to make it right together, again you are mistaken between the people who use thier religion to affect others to serve thier evil purpose (which was in all of the religions) and those who believe that thier religion is a thing between them and thier god only and others has nothing to do with it, some islamic figuers succeded in calming the things when they said no to these violent actions, i remember that "Hasan Nasr-allah" said that "one should not obey god from which he disobey him" refering to the fact that you must not said that you are muslem them cause damage to people.
@SkinWalker: i can see that you are anti-religion, but its your openion and you are free, in the other hand you must not forget that religions as a whole are a message of peace, it is the corrupted people who gave it this bad image, otherwise you wouldn't find two persons who belong to teh same religion but one of them is evil and the other is good, the religion is one but people defers.
you've said that the cartoons were published in a westren society, but you are ignoring an important attribute of our age, globalization, right now societies doesn't exist phsichally, there are no pure society, people are mixing and societies are getting more complicated with alot of religions and ethics within it...i am with you that those who immagrated have to cope with the other societies and some of them have done that for along time, but everything has limits and at the end they are humans and have feelings and they cant just stand and do nothing while others are humilating them.
i've said this thousands of time and i'll repeat myself, the mob proved to the west that they are evil, but again you have to know thier feelings before you judge them, there are sometimes when we lost our temper because of somthing silly and we might do somthing really bad, so what if someone aimed to the dearest thing you have???? yes that is how muslems think of thier prophet and whether you like it or not, its thier way, and if the danish paper did that to prove a theory then thier intention was evil because it caused evil and it was based on a bad point of view, you cannot deny that if they did not publish this cartoons protests wouldnt do what they've done.
bwt, your words is offensive, i hope that you could avoid that because we are here to talk not to accuse eachothers, you did not draw a thing and i did not protest and threatened you, other wise i'll burn your embassy :)
When I say they are not interested in negotiation, I refer to militant Islam. Al Qaeda and the terrorist cells who believe that negotiation would lead to supression and them falling under the heel of the evil empire. It is these people that are not only threaten the world through their terrorist acts, they also threaten the Muslim people they claim to be fighting for, that is when they claim to fight for Islam and not just those who are willing to take up arms against the defenceless (I was going to say innocent but I'm not sure if there is such a thing from their point of view). Is that generalising militant Islam and Middle Eastern terrorists? Probably, but so far I have not seen any attempt by them to broker peace or otherwise show that they are anything other than people dedicated to killing, whether it be through their drugs which is used for profit and to destroy it's enemies from within, inciting racial hatred through their acts or their direct actions such as when they hijacked those planes and flew them into the buildings just a couple of years ago.
And just going back to the original discussion, it is rather telling how all this time Islamic extremists have apparently been opposed to freedom of speech (this can be backed up by punishment to those who speak out against Islam and issues such as subjucation of women, fear of Piglet, ect) and then use it to justify their actions.
I would object to Skinwalker's use of "cult" to define a world religion of 1.3 billion people all over the world. He knows full well that the term "cult" can be defined (according to the dictionary) as any religious group or practice, but the PRIMARY definition in the dictionary and the way most people use it is:
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
So it's generally used as a perjorative term. Academics prefer the term "New Religious Movements" (NRM) or "sect" to reference non-majority or heterodox groups. Skin believes that all religions are false, so to him all religions are cults, by definition 1. I only call him on this now because he did it before. No fair sneaking that in again!
I'm sure he would object to me referring to say, freethinkers as "cultists" but that also fits one of the dictionary definitions. ;)
bwt, your words is offensive, i hope that you could avoid that because we are here to talk not to accuse eachothers, you did not draw a thing and i did not protest and threatened you, other wise i'll burn your embassy :)
I reviewed my post, and was unable to find a specific point that was directed to you personally. If you find criticisms of religion offensive, you may need to unplug your computers and televisions if you want to avoid it. I don't subscribe to the point of view that the beliefs of others deserve to be respected if their beliefs have a significant and potentially deleterious effect on society. Indeed, I find the superstitions of religion offensive as I do the opinions of those that would choose tyranny in lieu of freedom when it comes to freedom of speech. Yet I would never "accuse" you of offending me personally for holding those opinions as it is the opinions themselves that are offensive -your right to have them and share them, however disagreeable, I will defend to the end.
@Nancy Allen``: i've said before that i dont want to to negotiate with Al-Qaeda, actually they are killing our people here too and we are in a war with them, and sice you do think that none can negotiate with these people but there are others whom we can negotiate with, then we have an agreement here.
@SkinWalker: thank you for your good soul, your words were not directed to me and i know that, but again you are talking in general about islam and thats what i meant, you are saying that criticisms of religion is normal and everywhere, and i am with you, but here we are discussing this matter to find an agreement not to accuse religion of our falts, so its pointless, however, back to the topic now.
you've said that the cartoons were published in a westren society, but you are ignoring an important attribute of our age, globalization, right now societies doesn't exist phsichally, there are no pure society, people are mixing and societies are getting more complicated with alot of religions and ethics within it...i am with you that those who immagrated have to cope with the other societies and some of them have done that for along time, but everything has limits and at the end they are humans and have feelings and they cant just stand and do nothing while others are humilating them.
But conversely, in a global, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society its almost impossible to say anything meanigful without offending SOMEONE. Society would degenerate into a mass of inoffensive, dull mediocrity.
That doesn't mean you should go out of your way to offend people.. conversely people should try to be more open minded and thick skinned when it comes to perceived insults.
I don't read/watch the muslim press or al jazeria (?), and i don't attend mosques or muslim schools, but i'd be willing to bet that they have said offensive things about other countries, leaders, religions at one point or another.
I think this is a pretty even and interesting issue, with rights and wrongs on both sides. But i do feel that by continually allowing themselves to be provoked into disproportionate responses the muslim world is doing itself no favours.
The only people who gave a reasonably proportionate response were the editors of a jordainian newspaper... i think they are now in jail.
fun response:
http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-anti-semitic-cartoon-contest/)
More stupidity (
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0215/mideast.html)
"Two died in the northwestern city of Peshawar after police tried to quell around 50,000 demonstrators who torched a KFC outlet and trashed a Norwegian mobile phone company's offices.
Around 500 protesters set fire to 16 buses at a bus terminal owned by a South Korean company."
Islam is a generally violent religion. This much is clear.
I don't get the muslim press or al jazeria (?), and i don't attend mosques or muslim schools, but i'd be willing to be that they have said offensive things about other countries, leaders, religions at one point or another.
They do. "American blood must flow," extremist clerics scream. "American limbs must be cut off. Mothers must mourn their sons. Wives must become widows." SkinWalker is right when he says that Islam is a violent religion, but it is militant Islam that is the problem. Mordorate Muslims are not going to be the ones hijacking planes, the same as mordorate Christians are not going to be killing homosexuals, mordorate Jews are not going to wage war on Germany because of the holocaust. If you know anything about the Jedi then you would know that there is good and evil in all, including Islam. There are good Muslims, and quite obviously people such as Bin Laden are bad Muslims, twisting the words of the Koran to justify the murder of children in their terrorist acts.
More stupidity (
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0215/mideast.html)
"Two died in the northwestern city of Peshawar after police tried to quell around 50,000 demonstrators who torched a KFC outlet and trashed a Norwegian mobile phone company's offices.
Around 500 protesters set fire to 16 buses at a bus terminal owned by a South Korean company."
Islam is a generally violent religion. This much is clear.
This does sum up the problem with the islamic response.. its disproportionate and badly targeted. Its highly questionable whether the Dnish government has any control/responsibility over its press... but i'm pretty sure that the South Koreans don't have any say over what danish papers print.
The correct response might have been to boycott goods owned by that chain, and even to make nasty cartoons about the danish.
One has to wonder how much the LACK of a free press in many muslim countries allows demagogues and extremists to whip up these kinds of rages. I can't imagine all these people would still be rioting if they had seen the images.. i suspect that they have had the whole situation blown out f all proportion by people with their own agenda.
That said, mob rage does tend to be untargeted... after 9/11 a lot of non-muslim people got attacked (seeks, hindus, etc..).
Probably true. Mobs have little intelligence after all. Witness the LA riots after the Rodney King incident for example or the Watts riots before that. Do mostly black mobs attacking and looting businesses/homes owned by other minorities protest racism?
I would be willing to bet money that most of the people doing the violence in these actions haven't even seen the actual cartoons in question. I can see it being appropriated as another anti-Western rumble, with thrill seekers going along for the ride.
Plenty of Muslims who were offended by the cartoons have protested the actios of the extremists. Because in the end the verdict of observers (as so well demonstrated in this thread) is that "Islam is a religion of violence and intolerance," exactly the message sent by the cartoonists in the first place.
I think that this will be the last thing I post here, coz you don’t seem to get me and you keep going on circles around the same thing…
for those who said that Islam is a violent religion, I say to them you cant judge a religion until you read its book, because words are one but people defer and thus their understandings defer, in the Koran god says after mentioning Able and Kane story:
"He who kills one life kills the world entire and he who saves one life save the world entire"
So if someone kill people saying that his religion told him to do so, then its not the religion's fault, End of discussion.
Muslem religious leaders has claimed that this violence is not justified, and that’s its against islam, and I quote from a prvious post (which looks like none saw):
"i remember that "Hasan Nasr-allah" said that "one should not obey god from which he disobey him" refering to the fact that you must not said that you are muslem them cause damage to people."
One last thing remains, I don’t know why its difficult for you to understand (except Nancy Allen``) that there are bad and good people in Islam, just like every religion, muslem are divided into sects, and in the past times there were wars between them (just like every religion), so they are deferent, that’s why some called other religious groups "infidels", while in the Koran god said:
"Christians, Jews, Zoroasters and every other religion, he who was good hearted and hath faith in his god, he shall not fear, for god will grant him a place beside him"
i don’t know why to disagree, I've agreed with you that why the mob did is bad, and some of you agreed that what the Danish did is bad too, so I cant find any reason to disagreement.
i don’t know why to disagree, I've agreed with you that why the mob did is bad, and some of you agreed that what the Danish did is bad too, so I cant find any reason to disagreement.
I think the problem comes from what appears to be your treatment of them as equal wrongs. Again, the 'I don't like your tie, so you shoot me' analogy - not equal.
And, as a member of a university fraternity in the mid 80's when hazing and liability and so on were becoming big issues, I can certainly understand what you are saying about not wanting to be lumped together as one entity. However, what some fraternities have done over the years is to accentuate the positive and make themselves good members of the community. We had outreach programs 20 years ago, donating thousands yearly to charities local and national, helping out neighbors, offering other services, and engaging the community regarding our parties. Did we ever live down 'Animal House' (our nickname was 'the zoo')? No - but by actively working with our community, people did not have an immediately negative reaction and knew that not all fraternities or fraternity members were bad kids.
Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?
I guess I'm saying the the aggregate impression of a community is given by the aggregate of behaviors coming from that community. When you see a mixed set of bahaviors, you know there isn't universal agreement, and that there are different belief systems at work. When it is almost monilithically represented by a single behavior, then what do you assume? Either people agree explicitly or implicitly with the behavior, don't care enough to oppose it, or are scared to oppose it.
Mike
Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?
Mike
what about those who did not protest? those who did protest against the bombing in Jordan? those who protest against the bombings in spain and londodn in the arabic countries? those who protest against 9/11? those who are fighting terrorism everyday in jornals and blogs? those who paied thier lives because thier writings about al-quaida? it is not thier fault if you dont know about them, and it is not thier fault if most of your country's media are bush supporters and wanted to show you that we are primitive people who lives on oil and women and that your leader is the one who will free us and shift us into civilization.
I think that this will be the last thing I post here, coz you don’t seem to get me and you keep going on circles around the same thing…
That tends to happen here. Can't think of a single thread that has ever ended in total agreement. thats debates for you.
Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?
That would help. Though the media is always more likely to show negative events than positive. And extremists are always likely to make more noise than liberals. I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.
while in the Koran god said:
"Christians, Jews, Zoroasters and every other religion, he who was good hearted and hath faith in his god, he shall not fear, for god will grant him a place beside him"
Interesting. Though from what i understand there are different interpretations. As I understand it Islam used to be pretty moderate, but the House of Saud has been promoting a more extreme interpretation of islam that is a lot less tollerant of non-muslims (kuffir?).
They fund huge numbers of religious schools around the world, and as part of this funding they insist on sending their translations of the koran and one of their teachers to the schools.
If anything is responsible for the spread of hard-line islam in the world it is the saudi royal family.
So you might find that these days not alot of muslims would agree with your translation given above.
I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.
That is an *excellent* point - which I saw cropping up with his 'media are pro-Bush' statement, when in reality the media almost monolithically *hate* Bush (except for 'fair & balanced TV') but will tend to give any president the benefit of the doubt. Of course, they are all royally peeved when they get screwed over, like with the build-up to Iraq ... or the Cheney thing.
Mike
@toms: i am not talking about total agreement here, what i am saying is that i did say in almoast every post that the mobs are wrong, but i find in everypost someone said, hey you are wrong the mob are violent, what i meant to say, is that we do have agreement on this point so what is the benefit of keeping mention it.
i am with you of what've said about saud, the translation of Koran to other languages galong with thier own intrepretions, gives a wrong believes to those in foregin countries especially in pakestan and afghanestan.
Either people agree explicitly or implicitly with the behavior, don't care enough to oppose it, or are scared to oppose it.
And that's one of the big problems, how people fear reprisals for supporting or opposing a point of view. It may sound over the top that people have ended up dead for being on the side of one opinion or another, but the sad fact is people have been specifically targeted for opposing militant Islam, for supporting militant Islam. No wonder there is not many people speaking out. Our world is decidedly more reasonable than the one the people who instigate violence and hatred come from.
I think we can all generally agree on several things: 1) the mobs of Muslims that have resorted to violence are wrong; 2) All Muslims aren *not* violent; 3) the Koran (I have actually studied it in some detail) does not advocate violence; 4) individuals (clerics and the influential figures) are good at manipulating the beliefs of good Muslims into thinking violence is the right thing to do.
I think what we disagree on is the validity cartoon depictions of Muhammed or Islamic figures and to what degree should actions like this be tolerated. I'm in complete agreement with those Muslims who are upset with the depictions. Fine. They can protest, boycott, whatever. But the overwhelmingly prominent reaction from both religious and governmental sources from within the Islamic religion was one of violence - either in deed or word.
This, I assert, serves to effectively demonstrate the very point that the cartoons were making.
I also assert that those in Western society has the right and duty to speak out against religion using cartoons, essays, satire, parody, ridicule, whatever. This is called Free Speech and Freedom of the Press --moreover, it is a principle of Freedom of Religion, ironically.
Well I can see moderate muslims in the countries where the riots are taking place being afraid to speak out for fear of being targetted by violence themselves, but in other parts of the world they ought to speak out. The same issue was trotted out when 9/11 happened. Various talking heads asserted that no muslims denounced 9/11 because secretly they were all glad that American infidels died or something. From what I remember it was basically just rhetoric. There weren't any million man marches against it, but suffice to say they weren't silent either.
I guess that's the thing though, when you're considered a "strange" religion (Muslims are only 3% of the US population, last I checked, but 1% more than Jews, who are generally well respected in the country) people don't trust you and assume the worst about you. One bad apple spoils it all for your public and you have to work extra hard to live it down. It's not fair, but that's how fickle public perception is.
I agree the mobs around the world is shameful and an embarrassment to any Muslim who seeks peace. All the more reason to denounce them I guess...
Certainly in countries where militant Islam is the rule clerics and supporters of the Muslim faith would not want to speak out, and I urge them to get out of those places no matter how much they love it, if they can. But even in civillised societies reprisals can occur, from those who believe America and the west should be exterminated, by racist bigots who see all Muslims as terrorists. I know myself that I would not push for, say, aboriginals to either live like native aboriginal people or to be treated the same as everyone else, not to be given all the benefits they recieve because of the trauma over the stolen generation, white man discovering Australia, playing the race card as a get out of jail free card, or openly criticise the call to change the Australian flag to the Aboriginal one and the national anthem to a didgirido. That's because if I did that, all the half caste criminals, all the ones that attack white man would come after me. I know that is a rough comment to make about them, but that's how it stands. You cannot criticise them even if what you say is true.
It sounds like this is one area in religion where Skin has a leg up on me. I've studied Islam, but not the Qu'ran per se. I've probably read only a dozen or so passages from it (have my own translation, but haven't read the whole thing). Similarly with the Hadith, I've only read a few select passages and don't really have a working knowledge of the thing as a whole.
I got the impression that it was in some ways like interpreting the Bible, some isolated texts appear to advocate violence, while others appear to advocate peace. So those in favor of violent action selectively quote the more forceful passages, applying them to current events to suit their agenda and so forth. Of course Muslim apologists for the peace side will tell you Jihad is more about the personal struggle for holiness and a just society rather than armed conflict against "unbelievers". And to them, even holy struggle against unbelievers should be defensive in nature, similar to Christian Just War theological principles. Of course there is where you get all kinds of interpretations seeking to justify what's going on. Like calling suicide bombers "martyrs" rather than suicides, because martyrs go to heaven, while suicides go to hell, in Islamic thought. Muslims aren't supposed to fight other Muslims, so if you want to do that you label your opponents apostates, so if they're not really Muslims, it's okay to fight them. And so on...
You see, itґs allways the same fight between the most fanatical elements and the moderate ones, same in all the religions. The fanatics use to be leaded by priests that use sacred texts in their own benefice. Meanwhile the moderates suffer with the situation. The same applies to the "heretics".
I think that we can say that all this crisis has been heated up just to show the force of some fanatics, using the religion as they wish. And right now, with some deaths in demonstrations, and some boicot the whole crisis has gone away. At least now it doesnґt interest to feed more the anger.
Or that seems. Why has all this finished so suddenly?, is it really finished?
What do you mean, Nancy? This isnґt finished?
Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I donґt think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the peopleґs mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thбtґs freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.
P.S: Iґm not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.
What do you mean, Nancy? This isnґt finished?
Oh I don't think so, not by a long shot. (
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000783.html)
Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I donґt think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the peopleґs mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thбtґs freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.
P.S: Iґm not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.
No, the act of 'free provocation' is not something that should be encouraged. It could be argued that the Muslim extremists are doing just that with their competition for a holocaust cartoon. But as cliched as the saying is, two wrongs do not always make a right. In this instance the issue had died, but had been dragged up again for little other than to poke fun at it. On the other hand, if someone were to draw me as...I dunno, Aayla Secura, I'd laugh. There is a diffirence between feeling as though you are being persecuted and not being able to take a joke or take criticism, and the Danish cartoons on their own would fall into the latter catagory, but now that you mention it I find myself agreeing with you that this cartoon has pushed the issue into provocation.
Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I donґt think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the peopleґs mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thбtґs freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.
P.S: Iґm not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.
There are those that would disagree, and I'm one. If a religious cult (or religion) has an effect on society at large, then it is the duty of freethinkers to criticize that religion or cult. Particularly if the effect is deleterious. The Muslim cults in Europe (and I wish Shadow T was posting lately to offer an insight) have presented their European hosts with guests that are violent and beligerant. This is evident in the response of a Muslim cult that murdered Van Gogh about a frickin' movie! Europeans perceive the Muslim religion as oppressive, particularly to women, and there is a certain level of resentment by Europeans to have to accomadate their religious superstitions. The resentment has been met with violence and beligerance.
This type of behavior from a guest in your home would receive criticism and even eviction, if not phyiscal response! The people don't have a way to evict or respond phsyically in a legal manner, so they resort to criticism through ridicule -a time honored tradition among Europeans dating to before Islam. The ridicule included parody of their religion as violent and oppressive -they responded with VIOLENCE!
It would seem that the criticisms are valid.
Moreover, the Islamic immigrants are eager to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the freedoms in European nations, but they object to those freedoms when they interfere with their own superstitions.
Any religion that ALLOWS itself to be coopted by a violent minority to oppress or disrupt a society with violence or death deserves whatever criticism it gets. F*** em.
Without asking the question if all of the groups we're discussing are united (or are all the protesting Muslims part of a single denomination? Is this a pan-Islamic phenomena?)...
You're assuming that members of the 'Freethought' groups will respond to any effect religion has on society. I would hazard to suggest that they will only react if said effect is in disagreement with their own agenda. I'm sure Freethinkers would not begrudge people who donate to disaster relief charities based on religious convictions.
Oh wait, perhaps they would! I think I remember a conversation from awhile back that relief donations were just a front for covert missionizing efforts! But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.
Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.
That is to say "No wonder they are so violent, their religion is false."
I'm in agreement that the violent reaction certainly reflects badly on them and is inappropriate. I have no problem with responding to this. But it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed. The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. It would be considered outrageous if Christians argued that a Christian world-view be adopted as the only means of opposing Islamic miscreants in much the same way. Thus this sort of argumentation is a fine rhetorical strategy when preaching to one's choir, it doesn't work in a larger context of mixed beliefs (such as here).
If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).
If Freethought is arguing that "political corretness" that tends to shield Islam from criticism in the public sphere (I think of our president's continual use of "religion of peace" to refer to Islam, which one could argue is political pandering to a minority of Americans of course) should be eliminated, then I tend to agree. Just because you're a minority does not mean you should be above criticism. Of course it's not American Muslims (right?) that are rioting in response to the Muhammad cartoons.
While I do not personally feel in any way attracted to the Muslim faith (though I admire any religion's actions that promote helping the poor, etc), nor do I espouse the desire to wipe out religions I disagree with (though I certainly wouldn't encourage people to join certain ones), I can still denounce their actions as uncalled for, and damaging to the human community as well as to their own credibility. Use of violence against unpopular speech labels oneself as barbaric.
PS: The issue of "provocation" is a thorny one, and one I'm not prepared to debate here at least for awhile. The issue of hate speech laws, "don't yell 'movie' in a crowded firehouse", etc. is a whole big issue in its own right. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I had to get my thoughts out for now. I'll probably check back here and see what has developed in the meantime. Of course its sad when it takes a tragedy to spark discussion, but I enjoy the discourse all the same.
Skin Waker, I didnґt mean to defend the free provocation, itґs just that the people can easily be tricked and said wath to do and think, without asking the reason. That is what must be put into question, if we see a critic we should thinkwhy the critic is done, and then see witch our position on that subjet is. Try to justify our believings itґs a good thing, so we rose stronger in those believings.
You can call it faith if you want, but a well based faith wonґt fall because a cartoon or a sligth critic.
Once more, I didnґt mean to hurt you, Skin Walker.
lord ignarn , I felt no sense of beligerance or animosity from you because of your opinion, I hope I didn't convey that in my post. I was just in a heated discussion with some friends (heated but friendly) over the same topic and perhaps some of my thoughts bled over here.
But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.
Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.
it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed.
Freethinkers do, indeed, speak up about the deleterious effect of religions. But when I'm speaking of freethinkers, I'm using the small "f" not the big "F." I'm not talking about an organization that is aligned against religion (such organizations exist), but rather those that are opposed to the imposition and harm that some religions (mostly the Abrahamic, big-3) and exist in various positions in a given society, perhaps even religious themselves!
So I don't think these freethinkers (the individuals, not the few organizations) are suggesting that "religions are only capable of violence" nor are any that I've come across believe that "their [the religious] freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed."
I'm saying, that free thinking individuals (those not encumbered by the dogma and doctrine of religious superstition to the point that they cannot think for themselves) have a duty to speak out against any entity or institution that advocates violence or creates a deleterious situation for a their society. This is true whether we are talking about individual cults of Islam, Christianity, political parties, special interest groups, etc. This criticism should be open and allowed and should be such that it provokes thought (not violence).
Whether or not the cartoonists should have provoked in the manner they chose or not isn't debatable to me. They have the right. The onus of civility falls on the ridiculed to NOT PROVE THEM RIGHT.
The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. [...] If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).
Again, no real free thinker would set a goal for "wiping out religious beliefs." Mainly because it would be illogical to conclude that such a condition could be "wiped out" given that religion and belief are probably one of the very things that make us human. Indeed, I've often speculated that it is the condition of belief itself that helped give rise to technological development in Homo sapiens, though this would, perhaps, be suited for another thread. Free thought doesn't imply the denouncement of religion "whatever the occasion." If so, then you would see free thinkers speaking out against and making cartoons about the Navajo Way, Buddhists, or other benevolent or indigenous religions. We don't see this.
Well, the British National Party is apparently planning to reproduce the cartoons in its flyers.. and thats never a good sign. Because their intention is never satire or freedom of speech... but to forment divides in the most racially charged bits of the UK so that they can win seats in elections.
In an amazing change from their usual "bull in a china shop" approach the UK press has so far refrained from reprinting the cartoons... even the Daily "All problems are due to asylum seeking muslim terrorist rapists" Express!
I think they really need to calm down and all, so many groups are insulted by the press. I also don't think they are gaining themselves anything by roiting, in fact its only making things worse, at first I thought "stupid danes look what you did" because the cartoons were out of line. But after the Islamics started to flip out I really could care less.
I hope everyone chills out soon. This is causing more problems than it really should... :dozey: