satire, freedom, sacrilege, abuse

[hoplite14gr]

I watched closely and I have a few questions which I think is related to this:
Why Arab Cristians (yes, they do exist!) managed to get along with "Westerners" and the other Arabs seem to have difficulty?
Couldn´t find answer myself yet.
Yes I do agree that the timing of all this events holds even more questions but there is another question I want ot make:
If a western government intervenes by force to change lets say "non western" belifs in a "non western" country is wrong. Why it is OK to apologise for thinking differently in our countries to people outside our countries. Am I to think that if a "non western" adminstration would have enough firepower I would be in the trenches defending the "freedom of the press"?
So does it all come to "Might makes right"?

[Tarbicus]

I watched closely and I have a few questions which I think is related to this:
Why Arab Cristians (yes, they do exist!) managed to get along with "Westerners" and the other Arabs seem to have difficulty?

Could it be because the westerners are mainly Christian and don't have a problem with the Christian Arabs? I don't know, just a suggestion.

[Carlton Bach]

I watched closely and I have a few questions which I think is related to this:
Why Arab Cristians (yes, they do exist!) managed to get along with "Westerners" and the other Arabs seem to have difficulty?
Couldn´t find answer myself yet.

It was not always thus, you know. I think these days it is a matter of looking for protection. As political Islam increasingly becomes the dominant way of defining who is a 'proper Arab', Christians are finding it harder to fit in. Excluded from their home societies, they are forced to turn to Western Christians. That puts them in even greater danger as they become identified with the 'enemy', but it also offers them an attractive option to define themselves as 'different' and more Western. That's how it usually goes, at least.

[Marcus F.]

The Islamic press, which is almost always government-controlled, is filled with anti-semitic charicature on a level that would make Julius Streicher blush.

I'm sorry, but I find your words shocking because of their apparent ignorence of the Islamic press which exists in almost every European country where Islamic citizens live. Last time I checked, none of this Islamic press was government-controlled.

Nor is it filled with the content you say it is. In future please check the whole of the stories offered and not just the ones making headlines. By generalising and accusing all Islamic institutions of the mistakes of a few, you play directly into the hands of those behind all this nonsense.

It's very easy to inflame a situation, but it's very difficult to calm things down. I know what I see as my task.

John should have said "newspapers in countries dominated by the Muslim religion", but the rest was okay. Some examples from this site: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm show that they are realy close to the style of Julius Streicher's propaganda newspaper.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
I have an online contact who is Muslem and from what they were saying, it is offending the very roots of their belief, by ridiculing Mohammed.
I think they have a stronger sense of duty to protect his name and image, than maybe some faiths.
If these cartoons had been poking fun at Jesus or God by Muslems, there would have been an outcry and racial attacks, no doubt.
I try to see the points of view of both sides and although I absolutely condemn any terrorism, which goes against the word of Allah from what I know of Islam, I can see the point of view of the ordinary people.
(and my Muslem friend has just 'popped up' online - lol
regards
Arthes

[Theodosius the Great]

While some European newspapers are framing their provocation as a fight for free speech, I think the cartoons qualify as "hate speech" against religion in general.

I predict the escalating outcry will bring about the enactment of "anti-blasphemy laws" in Europe, which I whole-heartedly approve of

Freedom of speech has its limits.

[Caius Fabius]

I have several friends who follow Islam. I have lived in some Muslim lands. I try to keep an open mind.

We get really upset when Russia holds back gas products from Ukraine and Georgia to control their "freely elected" governments, and suggest that they are using economic blackmail, but when the USA and Western governments hold back money, from the freely elected government of Palestine. Let's not even talk about the Israeli government withholding the taxes collected for the palestinian government.

I remember a cartoon showing a bunch of starving big-eyed Palestinian children behind a concentration camp fence, guarded by a set of folks in "nazi" uniforms with 'Star of David' armbands. The majority of the western press refused to run that one, because it might be thought to be insulting!

How can we deal with these double standards? Is there a way to stop people from 'lumping everyone into groups' and judging the people who share similar characteristics by what the current 'member in the news' is doing. I find that most of my friends who are 'in submission' have no feeling of fellowship with the radicals who have perverted Islam and promote violence. While the Koran does have specific passages about 'jihad' it is commonly considered by the majority of people 'in submission to Allah's will' to mean a personal struggle against against the secular world, to become more in submission to Allah's will. I have read and discussed other ideas, and I doubt that most non-moslems understand the writings of the prophet about how Allah hates for lands that were once under Islam to try to withdraw from their submission.

I guess I should not get carried away defending Islam, since I do have disagreements with some of the teachings, (since I am a Christian) but I feel that so many of the people making anti-Islamic statements have never read even a translation of the Koran, and have not done much actual research in interaction with members of the islamic communities.

I see that the Western World is tainted by the viewpoints of the people who report the news, and news reports never seem to give a balanced story. Maybe we can do better.

[Tarbicus]

I predict the escalating outcry will bring about the enactment of "anti-blasphemy laws" in Europe, which I whole-heartedly approve of Very Happy

Freedom of speech has its limits.

While freedom of speech has its limits, which I agree with to a very small extent (believe it or not), those kinds of laws (anti racial-hatred laws) unfortunately have the potential to close everyone's mouth concerning any type of criticism whatsoever, against any kind of religion. Such a law was proposed here in England recently and was thankfully rejected. I think you may find they are a double-edged sword.

As for actual anti-blasphemy laws, when a priest, a preacher, a rabbi and an imam open their mouths at prayer they will all likely be criminals for blaspheming against one of the other faiths within 30 seconds. :roll: And that hasn't included Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus .....

And then we have the atheists, which has the potential to put a huge percentage of Europe in court hock:

I can't remember who used to use it as their signature, but I just see religion as a case of "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend." I'm a bit of a Richard Dawkins fan I'm afraid.

[Theodosius the Great]

those kinds of laws (anti racial-hatred laws) unfortunately have the potential to close everyone's mouth concerning any type of criticism whatsoever

The cartoons were not constructive criticism. They were designed to provoke. It has to do with context.

As for actual anti-blasphemy laws, when a priest, a preacher, a rabbi and an imam open their mouths at prayer they will all likely be criminals for blaspheming against one of the other faiths

Again, it has to do with the context. If the clergy do as you suggest they're likely to do inside a place of worship then that should be nobody's business. Places of worship and the home should be neutral ground, IMO.

And then we have the atheists, which has the potential to put a huge percentage of Europe in court

So minority rights go out the window ? Tough for them, I say. If someone can't suppress his bigotry, then maybe he should take one of those infamous "sensitivity courses" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tarbicus]

So minority rights go out the window ? Tough for them, I say.

Nice...

I guess if I were a religious man, and followed Christianity, I'd be tempted to follow the Gospel of St. Thomas - The afterlife doesn't exist, as Heaven and Hell are what you make of your time here on Earth.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Slate.com had an interesting article on the press reaction in the Arab world. It's rather more varied and nuanced than much of the reporting I've seen would have us believe.

The point has been made that some Islamic publications have a rather more cavalier attitude to offending others; especially in publishing anti-Semitic cartoons and articles; which is very true. Hadrian has brought this up already, though I was puzzled by a lot of the examples given in the link he provided. Most of them were anti-Israeli cartoons - to pretend they were therefore anti-Semitic per se is drawing a long bow.

The commentary in that link is also pretty strange. One of the examples it shows has an Israeli skewered with a sword with a swastika on it, in the act of skewering a Palestinian with a similar sword with a Star of David on it. The meaning of this is pretty clear - many Palestinians object to the idea that Jewish Israelis are somehow 'owed' a homeland because of the Holocaust, arguing that the Holocaust had nothing to do with them. This is obviously what the cartoon is referring to. But that site ignores this and gives a very different interpretation:

In this cartoon, from Al-Watan (Oman) (August 10, 2002), Jewish acts are equated with those of the Nazis. This Nazi-type anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew has a hooked nose, a hunched back, has no shoes, and is sweating.

He has a hunched back because he has a sword through him and he's doubling over in pain. And both characters are sweating because they have bloody great swords through them.

Another one shows Ariel Sharon looking on as an Israeli plane crashes into the word 'Peace', two letters of which are depicted as the Twin Towers of the WTC. The meaning of this is clear - Sharon is deliberately sabotaging the peace process. That site's interpretation?:

[i]Ariel Sharon is shown watching on the sidelines as an Israeli plane crashes into New York’s World Trade Center. The Arabic words alongside the Twin Towers are “The Peace.â€ÂÂ

[Goffredo]

Isn't ironic that the vast majority of islamics that are protesting haven't even seen the drawings? How could they have for their press could not print them. Tragic.

I am convinced terrorism is a profound sacrilege, certainly more than any vignette. And, when I am in an optimistic mood, I tend to think that probably most normal people including muslims think so too. Then there are the relativists and the intoxicated that are convinced otherwise.
I am not a relativist and to think a terrorist is some one else's freedom fighter is a very good example of relativism.

[Theodosius the Great]

Isn't ironic that the vast majority of islamics that are protesting haven't even seen the drawings?

It's difficult to taunt a billion people all at once, even in this age of mass media :wink:

I am not a relativist and to think a terrorist is some one else's freedom fighter is a very good example of relativism.

Good point. Real "freedom fighters" don't deliberately kill innocents. Once you do that, you've crossed a BIG line. Here goes a karma point for you, Goffredo.

[Tarbicus]

Real "freedom fighters" don't kill innocents. Once you do that, you've crossed a BIG line.

Does that include inflicting "collateral damage", or do you mean killing innocents intentionally?

"I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way. "
George W. Bush

[Theodosius the Great]

There's a time lag with our posts. You'll notice I added "deliberately".

Collateral damage is part of the nature of warfare - no exceptions. Sorry I don't have the quote of Donald Rumsfeld making the same point :wink:

BTW, I don't equate warfare with terrorism. It's intellectually dishonest to do so, IMO.

I think we're drifting OT now.