Muslims

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

<Elvellon comes out of his Entish slumber>

Let me see. A small potatoes, non-muslin newspaper, in a small, non-muslin country, in a corner of an overwhelmingly non-muslin continent decides to print a cartoon of Mahomet with a bomb on a turban. How do the radicals react?
By pillaging and burning embassies, and likely threatening using bombs, no doubt.
Bravo. They validate the cartoon
Do they even understand the irony?

There were several other cartoons (one showing Muhammed raping a pig, IIRC) from other sources compiled by a few Danish muslims and brought to the countries in question as well. Not that it makes it much better.

[inked]

Two articles from Ruth Gledhill ... THE TIMES ...

more serious: RELIGIOUS HATRED AND MUHAMMED CARTOON
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gled...ious.html#more

and humor and Christians: MUSLIM CARTOON
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gled...muha.html#more

[Spock]

It's funny; cartoons making fun of Jesus or Jews or Buddha, are generally laughed at and tolerated. You don't see Buddhists, Jews or Christians running around burning cars, buildings, etc. because of one.

"Lawrence perhaps said it best"
.....a small people, greedy, barbarous and cruel.......

[Lief Erikson]

A quote from BBC News:

An Iranian paper is holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, to retaliate against the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad.
Hamshahri says it wants to test the boundaries of free speech, echoing the reasons European papers gave for publishing the caricatures.

There have been protests about the images across the Muslim world, where they are seen as insulting and racist.

One showed Muhammad, whose image is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber.

"Does the West's freedom of expression extend to... an event such as the Holocaust or is this freedom of expression only for the desecration of the sanctities of divine religions?" the best-selling paper said in its announcement.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A quote from BBC News:

An Iranian paper is holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, to retaliate against the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad.
Hamshahri says it wants to test the boundaries of free speech, echoing the reasons European papers gave for publishing the caricatures.

There have been protests about the images across the Muslim world, where they are seen as insulting and racist.

One showed Muhammad, whose image is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber.

"Does the West's freedom of expression extend to... an event such as the Holocaust or is this freedom of expression only for the desecration of the sanctities of divine religions?" the best-selling paper said in its announcement.

That's just sick.

The West's publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons was an Israeli conspiracy motivated by anger over Hamas's win in the Palestinian elections, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday.

From here.

[inked]

Some are beginning to understand the ramifications, even among the liberal environs of NYC!

"More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?"

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360

[Insidious Rex]

Take a breath people... Dont run to join the WE HATE YOU crowd on this.

Like Bop and others Ill reiterate what Ive already said elsewhere...

Religious fanatics suck. Thats all it comes down to. Most non-muslims think the cartoons were in bad taste and probably a bad idea (why publish something you know will result in the deaths of others just because you can?). Most Muslims werent burning consolates and trying to kidnap people. But thats what gets the press. The extremists. If there had been ONLY marches of protest against the cartoons and no fires and attacking buidings that would have been fine right? Well Id say 99% of those involved in these demonstrations did NOT burn buildings and such. Im also guessing that the Danes and the others placed something right in the laps of the terrorists and extremists that they could use to their advantage to divide our cultures even further. Not sure why you would want to do that really. Dumb choice. And now the extremists have the day... It only further reinforces to me the idea that ANY religious extremism is a bad thing.

A question: why did the Danish government refuse to meet with the original muslim group that wanted an apology about the first (September) posting of the cartoon? I mean why not just meet with them and explain hey we had nothing to do with it we don’t endorse it but we DO have free expression blah blah. Then the muslims could have at least said well at least they came back to us and we had a dialogue. Instead they outright refused to even talk with the muslim council. And then you had the reprinting of the cartoons which we can only consider to be a direct provocation and an ‘in your face’ gesture. And then we are shocked that muslims around the world flip out over this…

What I find ironic in all this is that so many western people complain that muslims refuse to "integrate" into western culture and yet we expect them to simply accept and deal with the concept of "free expression", a concept that is largely unknown in many Islamic nations. So isnt that some form of hypocrisy there?

Finally I ALSO want to say that I see this videos of muslims protesting and the burning of buildings and I do feel disgust and anger. I find myself saying “you stupid ****ing punks. Just relax. Why do you need to react so violently over nothing�. And this makes me realize just how dangerous an event like this is. It’s the perfect vehicle FOR the extremists on both sides to incite anger in everyone and cause division. And for this reason I think we need to make every attempt to be conscious of that and resist the first urges to look down on the other party for engaging in an activity that seems to go so against what EACH of us holds as moral or fundamental to OUR culture. Or else we continue this spiral down toward hatred, blaming the other person/culture and building up the bile for them with every new event.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

I also find it incredibly ironic how some random protestor was holding up a placard that said “Freedom of expression go to hell!� or something similar.

And I find it even more ironic how a western coutry like France can republish these cartoons in the name of "Freedom of Expression" and yet ban head scarves. Kind of dumb isnt it...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Religious fanatics suck.

Where's your tolerance? I thought you espoused tolerance!

Take a breath people... Dont run to join the WE HATE YOU crowd on this.

*reads where IRex says, "Religious fanatics suck" and wonders why he is telling others to not join the WE HATE YOU crowd when it seems like he's already in it *

Thats all it comes down to. Most non-muslims think the cartoons were in bad taste and probably a bad idea (why publish something you know will result in the deaths of others just because you can?).

so we should let radical Muslims dictate to us?

A question: why did the Danish government refuse to meet with the original muslim group that wanted an apology about the first (September) posting of the cartoon? I mean why not just meet with them and explain hey we had nothing to do with it we don’t endorse it but we DO have free expression blah blah.

I wonder if that would have done any good ... it sounds like a good idea ...

Finally I ALSO want to say that I see this videos of muslims protesting and the burning of buildings and I do feel disgust and anger. ... And for this reason I think we need to make every attempt to be conscious of that and resist the first urges to look down on the other party for engaging in an activity that seems to go so against what EACH of us holds as moral or fundamental to OUR culture.

So should you NOT "feel disgust and anger" over the burnings?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

so we should let radical Muslims dictate to us?

We should let common decency and respect dictate to us. Not people. Morality should dictate to us, or at least have an ear . If publishing those cartoons is trampling on the feelings of millions of people and republishing them is polarizing the West against the East, those are plainly immoral actions. It's blatantly disrespectful and ugly.

[Spock]

Gee, if we follow their example, we can start bombing mosques, burning homes and shooting anyone who looks like they might practice Islam........seems the rules only work ONE WAY for them.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*reads where IRex says, "Religious fanatics suck" and wonders why he is telling others to not join the WE HATE YOU crowd when it seems like he's already in it *

Hmm. I also say RELIGIOUS FANATICS SUCK!!! and itr does NOT mean hatred. I am not in a "we hate you" crowd. I am in no crowd at all, but I will say one thing, religious fanatics, extremists who are class-A haters in their own right, on a par with few other groups in human existence - they SUCK!!! I don't hate them; I just have disgust for them. They suck. They are constantly out to ruin the lives of others who are not of their particular mindset, and to judge them, and to hate upon them, and to damn them to hell and so forth and so on. That SUCKS.

[Lief Erikson]

I like what Martin Luther King Junior said about extremists. He said that he was initially disappointed at being called an extremist, but that gradually he began to take pride in the term.

"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?"

Being extreme or "fanatical" is fine, provided that one is extreme for what is right rather than for what is wrong. I agree with you that some religious fanatics are class-A haters, and that is a terribly negative form of fanaticism. I hope that I am a religious fanatic though, for to me Christianity is a source of great goodness and being fanatic about doing good (provided I'm not rude, arrogant, judgmental and nasty, though if I was, this would not be fanaticism about doing good but fanaticism about doing evil in the name of good, which is even worse) is positive. If I were only casually interested in my religion, I would only be casually interested in goodness, because for me the two go together. I really think people should be extreme for doing what is right. If a religion or its interpretation is bad, fanaticism for that religion is bad. If a religion or its interpretation leads to good things though, fanaticism for that religion is good.

I really like Martin Luther King Jr.'s claim that people should be extremists for love.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And I find it even more ironic how a western coutry like France can republish these cartoons in the name of "Freedom of Expression" and yet ban head scarves. Kind of dumb isnt it...

Very true. I'd suggest that most countries republishing these cartoons are acting hypocritically to some extent.

[crickhollow]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?"

that is a great point. Well said.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by crickhollow

that is a great point. Well said.

Indeed, Martin Luther King Jr. was an excellent writer. I love the wisdom and compassion with which he speaks. His "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" was really, really good.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BBC News

French President Jacques Chirac has condemned as "overt provocation" decisions to reprint cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

Mr Chirac said any subject matter that could hurt other people's convictions should be avoided.

For once, Chirac and I are in agreement.

[inked]

All hatred is religious in origin? Is that really being argued as a valid point here?

Recall the 20th century. The atheistic societies of communism routinely practiced hatred toward other groups - ethnic and religious or both, even merely political antagonists. And this gives the lie to the contention that hatred has religious origins, does it not?

[Lotesse]

Who said that all hatred is religious in origin?

RELIGIOUS FANATACISM and it's rabid, idealogical, dangerous, mean-spirited, hypocritical, intolerant, judgemental, hate-filled, elitist adherents SUCK. I think Martin Luther King Jr. would agree to this. Any fanaticism, religious or political, that espouses VIOLENT, HATE-FILLED INTOLERANCE AND BIGOTRY would be high on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s list of things that suck the big one.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Being extreme or "fanatical" is fine, provided that one is extreme for what is right rather than for what is wrong.

Now THAT is a chilling thing to hear. So who decides what is "right" to be extreme about? Oh, the extremist themselves? Oh, so it could be right to them - and they could make it have to be right for everyone! And then, if you happen to agree with their brand of "right," then it's a good thing?? Scared of YOU, Lief. True colours, my friend.