Muslims

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh yes of course...

Just as it shows the Islamic world that all Europeans are inconsiderate blasphemous idolaters looking to start another crusade...

My how easy it is to paint with a broad brush from a warped perspective isnt it. From EITHER side...

Well, NO, IR!

"Funny, But You Do Look Danish" (http://merecomments.typepad.com/)
The "Beirut Diarist" in The New Republic reports on being mistaken for a Dane in Beirut by a Muslim mob; the on-line table of contents reads "Did I accidentally lead a mob to the Danish embassy in Beirut?"

I wonder how one is mistaken for a Dane? Being blonde helps, but beyond that, what, he smells of butter and coffee? (And I swear I thought of that last line before I scrolled back up to see the by-line of the Diarist: Andrew Lee Butters.)

I thought his final lines clever but sadly true:

"I return home to work on an assignment I owe Men's Journal, a one-page guide to Lebanon for adventure travelers. What the hell am I going to write? Great food, stylish women, and rampaging mobs of young Muslim men burning cars: Yes, Beirut is once again the Paris of the Middle East!"


But it's no laughing matter. If the rioting and violence exhibited over the Danish cartoon and, earlier, the many days of rioting in France, don't make it a tad more difficult for people to talk about the peaceful nature of Islam, I suppose we can expect an even greater link to be made by certain writers between the dangers posed by fundamentalists of this stripe and the very scary Christian fundamentalists in our own country. The latter are surely just waiting to explode and torch the nearest Wal-Mart and any convenience store that sells copies of the New York Times.

***************

or this urbane response,

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.or...es/060207b.htm

Concluding paragraph:

“I used the word ‘civility’ earlier on and it is a good word to use in this place. Civic and civil life develops because cities develop, plural communities in which commercial, cultural and intellectual exchange creates mutual bonds and shared patterns of political life. Cities means citizens. Civility is the condition of patient co-operation between strangers. It is not the wholly-owned subsidiary of Western enlightenment – there is a huge literature on Muslim cities of the Indian sub-continent, or of our own Middle Ages – but a project we – all of us – need to work on together; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, secularists. The bully and the victim, the vicious circle of violence, scorn and resentment and revenge are the opposite of civic life. The citizen, giving and receiving respect, is what the life of this city and any city takes as its ideal. We can honour that and work for it to be the ideal for all of our societies.�

[Rían]

Judaism considers it blasphemous to make images of God, too, yet I don't see them torching the Vatican and Michangelo's works ...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Judaism considers it blasphemous to make images of God, too, yet I don't see them torching the Vatican and Michangelo's works ...

And, It's kindof a no-no to burn a picture of Jesus for christians, unless the picture is irreverent.

[Lotesse]

Does anyone else remember when Sinead O'Connor went on Johnny Carson (or David Letterman?) and ripped up a portrait of the Pope? Remember how "shocked and appalled" some Catholics were? You can annoy, shock and appal just about any group in the world you can think of, if you just learn to push the right little buttons.

[Rían]

The interesting thing to compare is what the different "shocked and appalled" groups do after they're shocked and appalled ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

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.

I do think everyone should do what they think is right, and try their best to do it. Don't you? Or do you think people should only care somewhat about what they think is right? For example, should I think, "Those blasted Nazis !" Or should I think, "Those Nazis were a bit harsh."? I very much think that people should be passionate about what is right or wrong.

You're right, we can't necessarily "know" what to be extreme about. All we have is to act according to our beliefs. You and I believe that racism is horrible. Others think it is completely right. You and I have to do what we think is right on this. If that leads us to defend someone who is being mistreated because of race, so be it. We may be being "extreme". We aren't being passive. We are being extreme for what we believe is right, and I think everyone should do that. Islamic terrorists included. They are doing what they think is right, and that is good. However, as we believe that they are wrong, we also have to do what we believe is right. We have two choices: 1) defeat them 2) change their mindset. The latter is obviously better, but sometimes it is necessary to do the former.

I believe Adolf Hitler was an extremist for hate. Mother Teresa was an extremist for love. Martin Luther King Jr. was an extremist for love. Being an extremist for love and for doing what's right is good. Being extremist for hate is evil. Being an extremist for love, I think, is good. Don't you approve of Mother Teresa?

[Grey_Wolf]

In extremis, do you all think that this crisis, since involves almost all muslim countries, can spark off the Third World War, since for example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

In extremis, do you all think that this crisis, since involves almost all muslim countries, can spark off the Third World War, since for example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons?

This crisis? IMO, definitely no. It will further polarize the East against the West, which is obviously bad and could lead to greater future tensions, but this by itself isn't big enough.

That would be so absurdly stupid if WW3 started over cartoons .

[Grey_Wolf]

To mention wars started for extremely stupid reasons, the First World War began because the opponents couldn't agree on the length and number of telegraph poles.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The interesting thing to compare is what the different "shocked and appalled" groups do after they're shocked and appalled ...

And how the countries and cultures the different "shocked and appalled" groups belong to are placed for example economically.

There were, by the way, a lot of pictures of the Prophet (who is said to have forgiven a poet who made fun of him) in the good ol' days. When the muslim world was the leading.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

To mention wars started for extremely stupid reasons, the First World War began because the opponents couldn't agree on the length and number of telegraph poles.

The First World War started because of a duke's assassination in Austria.

[Spock]

Indeed! It's frightening how much history is being mis-taught these days.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The First World War started because of a duke's assassination in Austria.

I read about the telegraph pole episode in an article. It was simmering and than exploded because of assassination.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

I read about the telegraph pole episode in an article. It was simmering and than exploded because of assassination.

Right, and it was Duke Ferdinand of Austria, and a neighbor of his was Anton Bruckner. (familiar to you Fat Middle?)

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Does anyone else remember when Sinead O'Connor went on Johnny Carson (or David Letterman?) and ripped up a portrait of the Pope? Remember how "shocked and appalled" some Catholics were? You can annoy, shock and appal just about any group in the world you can think of, if you just learn to push the right little buttons.

Of course you're right: new "minorities" spring up everyday so they can be offended by something, anything somebody does.
(i.e."are you descriminating against people who stuff cotton up their noses and then get drunk on champaigne! ")

Those Catholics had every right to be "shocked and appalled", it was a very irreverent thing to do-and Sinead O'Connor knew that, and probably that is why she did it. Rock stars always do stuff for shocks.

[Spock]

Yeppo! But you didn't see Catholics running around the streets of the world, burning and rioting either.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Judaism considers it blasphemous to make images of God, too, yet I don't see them torching the Vatican and Michangelo's works ...

If Michael Angelo had been a muslim and had painted god in a demeaning way as an insidious monkey like terrorist I guarantee you would have seen heads roll and blood in the streets and that ceiling would have been down in no time. Absolutely no doubt of that. Heresy was an offense punishable by the most brutal of deaths at that point.

[Rían]

but would that have happened if he had painted it in a Muslim country? My whole objection here is that Muslims are trying to control people's actions in OTHER countries (and non-Muslim countries, at that). Let them control things in their own countries- that's their choice.

[Insidious Rex]

So they should only have the right to complain about something that offends them if it happens in their country?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So they should only have the right to complain about something that offends them if it happens in their country?

It didn't happen in their country though! ( you guys are making me go in circles!)...well there are muslims all over.
In fact, the cartoons were drawn last year or even in 04!