| Author | Message | ||
     anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2585 Registered: 6-2002 |
Smarty: I was responding to Joel who said the the Koran itself justifies all the violence. I know nothing about the Koran. I know that not all Muslims support the violence done in the name of their religion. Some Muslims argue that the violence and rioting and terrorism violate the Koran. My ignorance of the New Testament does not make me responsible for a thousand years of anti-Jewish violence by people claiming to be Christians. | ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2006 |
A good introduction is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades) by Robert Spencer. It is endorsed by Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq, who are both pretty well known for their books on Islam, dhimmitude, etc. One of the best book I've read on the subject. Cheers | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10541 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, there are a lot of Islamic clerics who oppose both suicide bombings and beheading of noncombantants. Many Sunni Mullahs have called for the release of the Christian Science Monitor reporter by way of example. Oh, and Anon, the Frugal Gormet was a Presbyterian minister. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8542 Registered: 4-1997  |
Good op-ed on the cartoons http://www.reason.com/links/links020306.shtml (also, wikipedia has Frugal Gourmet as Methodist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frugal_Gourmet) | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2586 Registered: 6-2002 |
This will now be major thread drift BUT: Can anyone explain to me the theological differences between Methodists and Presbyterans? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10543 Registered: 5-2001 |
Traditionally, Methodism has believed in the Arminian view of free will, via God's prevenient grace, as opposed to predestination. This distinguishes it, historically, from Calvinist traditions such as Presbyterianism. However, in strongly Calvinist areas such as Wales, Calvinistic Methodists remain, also called the Presbyterian Church of Wales. Also, more recent theological debates have often cut across denominational lines, so that theologically liberal Methodist and Reformed churches have more in common with each other than with more conservative members of their own denominations. Anon, got it?  On a practical level in the US there are very few differences although Presbyterian services are more "stuffy", at least that has been my experience. I think on social issues the Methodists are slightly more liberal I lifted the above from Wilkepedia, since Dave used that source to prove me wrong. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 649 Registered: 10-2005 |
Well, since I posted this topic I should weigh in on it in someway (in no particular order). 1. I guess all this chaotic and anarchistic "rage" in the Muslim community proves the point behind the newspapers publishing the Mohammed pictures. 2. Witnessing protest signs such as "Freedom Go to Hell" and "Europe should learn the lessons of 9/11" now make me glad the pictures were published, no matter how offensive they may be. 3. I believe in respecting other's religion but they need to return the respect. Sometimes I don't think the Muslim would return the courtesy to my Catholic upbringing. How about those Steelers! -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3024 Registered: 5-2001  |
 | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1871 Registered: 6-2003  |
In the end, we'll probably find out that that the "outrage" was incited for very practical ends: mullahs wanting attention from their followers, governments diverting attention from other failures and commercial rivals looking for a chance to discredit the competition (just what took the place of those Danish dairy products, anyway?). | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 652 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thes people have brought their "outrage" to cult-like status...completely bizarre.... Muslim cartoon fury claims lives The Danish embassy in Tehran was the scene of angry protests At least five people have been killed in Afghanistan as protests against European cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad swept across the country. Two people died when protesters turned on the US airbase at Bagram - although the US has had no involvement with the images, which originated in Denmark. Meanwhile in Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked police. Iran announced it was halting trade with Denmark, as protesters pelted the Danish embassy with petrol bombs. Police fired tear gas in a bid to keep back hundreds of angry demonstrators, some of whom attempted to scale the wall into the embassy compound. Earlier, the Austrian embassy in Tehran came under attack. The violence follows attacks on Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon over the weekend. The cartoons were first published in a Danish newspaper. Tensions continue to escalate around the world: Norway demands compensation from Syria after its embassy in Damascus was set on fire on Saturday Some 200 protesters took to the streets in the Afghan capital Kabul The Turkish and Spanish prime ministers make a joint plea for respect and calm in an article in the International Herald Tribune In Indonesia, protesters target the Danish and US consulates in Surabaya, the country's second largest city. Protests are also held in the capital, Jakarta Riot police in the Indian capital, Delhi, fire tear gas and water cannons to disperse hundreds of student protesters Shops and businesses across Indian-administered Kashmir close after a general strike is called in protest at the drawings In Thailand, protesters shout "God is great" and stamp on Denmark's flag outside the country's embassy in Bangkok, the Associated Press news agency reports There are protests again outside the European Union offices in Gaza, following demonstrations there last week. 'Test our feelings' Hundreds of people took part in the morning demonstration in Afghanistan's Laghman province, in a second day of protests in the city. Three people died when police fired on protesters after a police station came under attack, a government spokesman said. Demonstrators shouted "death to Denmark" and "death to France". They called for the expulsion of diplomats and soldiers, who were sent by both countries as part of international efforts in the US-led "war on terror". "They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said. In Bagram district, a peaceful protest in the morning turned violent when around 300 "bandits and gangsters" tried to enter the US base, local police chief Mawlana Sayed Khel told the BBC. A shoot-out with police left two protesters dead, and six police officers injured, he said. Elsewhere, hundreds protested in Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and the north-eastern province of Takhar. Some 200 demonstrators gathered outside the Danish embassy in the capital, Kabul. Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his condemnation of the cartoons and called on western nations to take "a strong measure" to ensure such cartoons do not appear again. "It's not good for anybody," he told CNN. 'Defending freedoms' In the autonomous Somali region of Puntland, demonstrators marched through the port city of Bosaso, shouting anti-Western slogans and converging on the UN and international aid agency buildings. A 14-year-old boy was reportedly trampled underfoot as police fired into the air to try and disperse an increasingly angry crowd. Peaceful protests were held in several other Somali towns. The cartoons first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and caused outrage among Muslims, who consider any images of Muhammad offensive. One of the cartoons shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Newspapers across Europe republished the pictures last week, saying they were defending freedom of expression. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1874 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's displacement. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 2995 Registered: 9-2001  |
Its psychotic on a mass scale. Of course, give people decent jobs, food, water, housing, and a reasonable belief that they will be treated more or less fairly and have a future, and they will not protest like this. Sick societies breed social psychosis. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10547 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guys, it is part of their religion and an important part. They take the graven images prohibition of the old testament really seriously, especially in connection with the Prophet. Islam is a fairly young religion. By their calendar it is around year 1450. By the Jewish calendar it is something like 6700 and I think we all know what year it is by the Gregorian calendar. In 1450AD Christians behaved more or less on the same basis. In 1450 on the Jewish calendar we don't know, because that was before recorded history. So in another 500 years or so...... | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2362 Registered: 3-2003 |
"It is endorsed by Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq..." Hey, Threeringale. I thought Bat Ye'Or was so obscure nobody around here knew about her. You must follow Daniel Pipes. My understanding is she has been writing under a pseudonym ("Daughter of the Nile," I think?) for years, to avoid assasination. | ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 25 Registered: 1-2006 |
J. Crohn, I thought everyone had heard of Bat Ye'Or. I did not know she was writing under a pseudonym, but it would not surprise me. I read Pipes sometimes, but I disagree with him about Islam being reformable. See here for instance: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20929 He neglects to mention that his vaunted reformer Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was publicly executed by the government of Sudan for apostasy. One big problem is that there is no critical edition of the Koran available. Details are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg Unfortunately, Luxenberg's book is not available in English. Cheers | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2363 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I read Pipes sometimes, but I disagree with him about Islam being reformable." If Christianity and Judaism were, why wouldn't Islam be? I mean, in a hundred or two hundred years. Pipes is pretty much in line with Bernard Lewis on this issue, I thought. (About ten years ago I interviewed with Pipes for a job editing his journal, "Middle East Quarterly," so I was sort of following his analysis for a while. And then someone I knew online did some research for him and kept citing his website. I haven't read him much lately, though; but I'm pretty sure I found out about Ye'or via Pipes.) I have Bat Ye'or's 'Islam and Dhimmitude,' by the way. I think she's a bit extreme, but where extremist Islam is concerned she is proving to be rather...well, correct. And she has this refreshing habit of not skipping over parts of history that are ordinarily neglected or whitewashed by Arabists and others in the west who labor under what she would regard as a 'dhimmi mentality.' Her analysis of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the Islamic empire, and the way it helped feed Christian antagonism toward Jews in the mideast and later on in Europe, is quite provocative. | ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2006 |
"I read Pipes sometimes, but I disagree with him about Islam being reformable." If Christianity and Judaism were, why wouldn't Islam be? I mean, in a hundred or two hundred years. Maybe it can reform itself in a couple of centuries. Obviously, we cannot know for sure. I am inclined to doubt for two main reasons. One, I agree with Pope Benedict in the frontpagemag.com article I mentioned, that divine revelation in Islam is qualitatively different from that of Judaism and Christianity, which acknowledges a human component that permits a degree of hermeneutical "wiggle-room" or adaptability unmatched in Islam. Pipes does not agree with this, however, so I guess I will have to keep thinking about it. Two, The concept of a distinction between church (or mosque and state) seems problematic for Islam. Yes, it has also been problematic for Christians, but the issue has at least been on the table for discussion. There is at least some basis for it in the Hebrew bible, e.g. the king could not usurp the functions of a priest and offer sacrifice, etc. The Christian bible draws a clear line between God and Caesar. There seems to be nothing similar in Islam. If there is no God, but Allah and his law is supreme, what need is there for pluralism, tolerance and multi-party democracy? Last, but not least is the person of Mohammed. If 10% of what I have read about him is even half true, Islam would have to repudiate most of the words and deeds of its' founder. A pretty tall order. I see 4 options for the West to deal with Islam: 1-Fight them to the death. 2-We all convert en masse. (Sorry, I like my beer to much for this one) 3-Isolation and quarantine as far as possible. Let's not conquer Mecca, but rather disengage from Mecca. Trade peacefully, seek alternative sources and supplies of energy and keep our guard up. 4-Integrate them more fully into the global economy and turn them all into cholesterol-laden, deracinated consumers of technology and entertainment. I would choose #3. I can't think of anything else at the moment and I need another beer, so I guess I'll stop here. Cheers | ||
| Analog01 Citizen Username: Analog01 Post Number: 158 Registered: 11-2004 |
IMO, Islam is at least 500 to 1000 years behind Judiasm and Christianity in terms of *maturity*. To that end I ask, did Christians or Jews riot, burn and pillage when Monty Python's Holy Grail was shown, or Mel Brooks' History of The World Part I, or the Life of Brian? I don't think so. Some folks might not have been happy, but there was no bloodshed. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3002 Registered: 9-2001 |
Yes, but "Christians" in America have bombed abortion clinics and killed gynecologists in the name of their religious beliefs. Whole cities have been almost shut down by anti-abortion protests, women and doctors harassed and threatened that they would burn in hell, with people screaming in their faces and barring their access to clinics. Jewish gunmen in Israel have shot up mosques and killed a Prime Minister in the name of their religious beliefs. Buddhists have rioted and killed Hindus in Sri Lanka over slight religious differences, and Hindus have massacred Muslims in hideous ways in India because they disagreed with building a temple in a supposedly sacred spot (and the Muslims have reciprocated just as savagely). I certainly abhor what is going on in the Muslim world, and as I said above, it is a thin excuse for much deeper problems in their own societies and speaks to a glaring lack of responsible leadership, both civil and religious. All religions still carry the danger of extremist reactions against "unbelievers"--it is up to their leaders to teach the message of tolerance and peaceful protest, which is sorely lacking in the Islamic world right now, but which also can be a problem in all other religions given the right conditions. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2987 Registered: 5-2001  |
fighting words Cartoon Debate The case for mocking religion. By Christopher Hitchens As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate. "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief." Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows. Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken. Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death. I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species. As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like. The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt. Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 951 Registered: 2-2002 |
I have to say that here is a headline, (from today) that I never expected to see; "Cartoon Rage". It's like, "Funny Rage", ("Not-so-Funny Rage"?) "Funny-to-you, not-so-funny to me rage". "Death to infidel funnies rage". Good grief Charlie Brown. Amazing. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10583 Registered: 5-2001 |
The Muslim world is retaliating with a contest for the best "the Holocaust never happened" cartoons. Free speech or hate speech? To be honest, most of the condemnations I have read of the Islamic reaction to the cartoons with heavy emphasis on Muslim outrages reminds me of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and are just about as ridiculous. Virtually all Muslims are offended by graven images of the Prophet. Only a small minority are running around chopping off heads and blowing themselves up. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2006 |
February 8, 2006 Cartoons, But Not the Funnies By Tony Blankley In Czechoslovakia, under communism, it was common to see signs that read "Workers of the world, unite" in the windows of fruit and vegetable stores. Vaclav Havel, in his book "Living In Truth," discerned the significance of those signs. As elaborated by Stanley Hauerwas, Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School, Mr. Havel believed the shopkeeper does not believe the sign. He puts it up because it was "delivered from the headquarters along with the onions." The grocer thinks nothing is at stake because he understands that no one really believes the slogan. The real message, according to Havel is "I'm behaving myself … I am obedient, and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." But Mr. Havel shrewdly points out that even a modest shopkeeper would be ashamed to put up a sign that literally read "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient." He is, after all, a human being with some sense of dignity. Havel concludes that the display of the sign "workers of the world, unite" allows the green grocer "to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power." (As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Christian theologian hanged by the Nazis for conspiring to try to kill Hitler observed: The failure of the people to speak small truths leads to the victory of the big lie.) I would argue that this Czechoslovakian parable of the self-deceiving green grocer goes a long way to explaining the decision of most American news outlets not to re-publish the Danish cartoons currently stirring up so much of Islam. As of yesterday afternoon, the following is, I believe, a complete list of major U.S. daily newspapers that have republished any of those cartoons: The Philadelphia Inquirer. There has been intense debate in the blogs and elsewhere on whether newspapers and television networks should republish or not. The quite plausible, expressed argument against re-publishing is that: 1) just because one has the right to speak doesn't mean one must, 2) restraint is often exercised, particularly when being respectful of other religions or cultures, 3) tensions are particularly high amongst Muslims now, 4) only a madman or, if there is a difference, those who want to instigate the "clash of civilizations" would pour gasoline on that already raging fire. That argument would be not only plausible, but persuasive, if the cause of the violent Muslim reaction to the cartoons was merely a transitory phenomenon -- a brief, spontaneous, bizarre overreaction. In the same way, if Hitler's demand for Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in October 1938 had in fact been his last territorial demand, then Britain's decision to appease that demand would have been sensible -- if selfish. But, of course, the appeasement did not buy peace, it only encouraged further Nazi aggression -- because Nazi demands were unlimited and non-negotiable. Similarly, the reaction to the Danish cartoons is merely the latest predictable, intolerant response of radical Islam to any opposition to their view of man and God. (In fact, I did predict a Muslim insurrection against blasphemous European art in the first chapter of my recent book, "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?"). Those who argue for republication of the Danish cartoons are not "instigating" a clash of civilization. Nor are they pouring gasoline on a fire. Rather, they are defending against the already declared and engaged radical Islamist clash against the Christian, Secular, Jewish, Hindu, Chinese world by expressing solidarity with the firemen. In this case, the firemen, perhaps surprisingly to some, is the European press. French socialist newspapers, The BBC, and other major secular European media stand shoulder to shoulder with a right-wing Danish newspaper against what they correctly see is an unyielding demand by radical Islam that Europe begin to start living under Sharia law. The American media is proud of its alleged tradition of speaking truth to power and reporting without fear or favor. Every year journalists give awards to one another under those banners. But in truth, it doesn't take much courage to criticize a president, corporation, Catholic priest or labor union boss in America. A president is powerless to adversely effect a reporter or news organization that criticizes him. But today, the Danish cartoonists are in hiding. Many who have spoken out against radical Islam -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- are dead or in hiding. Instant Muslim boycotts of Danish products already threaten Danish prosperity. Hirsi Ali, the black, Muslim, female co-producer of assassinated Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, talked about western journalists to Der Spiegel this week, while in hiding: "They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the post-war generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again ... "The [Islamists] call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech ... Islamists don't allow their critics the same rights … After the West prostrates itself, the [Islamists] will be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless." Like the Czechoslovakian green grocer, the mighty American media doesn't want to think itself spineless. So they close their eyes, rationalize their fear and call it the responsible thing to do. As Winston Churchill watched the British government sleepwalk to disaster in the 1930s he would sometimes recite: "Who is in charge of the clattering train? The axles creak and couplings strain, And the pace is hot, and the points are near, And sleep has deadened the driver's ear; And the signals flash through the night in vain, For Death is in charge of the clattering train." Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 177 Registered: 1-2005 |
Bob Only a small number are going postal but the reality is a broad segment of their society, if not a unanimous one, believes that violence against ideas is perfectly acceptable and even mandatory in some cases (like against apostates - must die under Koran, no ifs and or buts) | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10585 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eric, we are talking two different things. I am talking about respect for others religion, which to me is a no brainer. You seem to be talking about your view of Islam as an essentially violent and hostile religion, which it may be for some adherents. In its early years Islam was very tolerant of Christians and Jews and sparked a tremendous interlectual period. We still use the numbers that were developed then, which is a heck of an improvement over Roman numberals, except for the Super Bowl that is. Underlying violence is present in most religions. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2364 Registered: 3-2003 |
Joel, that Blankley piece is dead on. It's an excellent dissection of the snivelling that's coming out of high places. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2365 Registered: 3-2003 |
"There is at least some basis for it in the Hebrew bible, e.g. the king could not usurp the functions of a priest and offer sacrifice, etc." Not really. I mean, one can make a strained argument about Judaism having some vague precedent for church/state separation, but I think that's just special pleading. What the Torah provides for vis-a-vis kings and priests is essentially the reality in contemporary Iran. BTW, I don't know how well your plan for disengagement and peaceful trade with the Muslim world is likely to work out. First you'd have to expel all the North Africans from Denmark, France, and Germany. Then you'd have to build a very big wall. Or you could build the big wall right after formally ending EU accession talks with Turkey. And then... | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3028 Registered: 5-2001 |
I thought he (Blankley) was wonderfully concise with this: There has been intense debate in the blogs and elsewhere on whether newspapers and television networks should republish or not. The quite plausible, expressed argument against re-publishing is that: 1) just because one has the right to speak doesn't mean one must, 2) restraint is often exercised, particularly when being respectful of other religions or cultures, 3) tensions are particularly high amongst Muslims now, 4) only a madman or, if there is a difference, those who want to instigate the "clash of civilizations" would pour gasoline on that already raging fire. If there is anything good coming out of these mob actions against the cartoons, perhaps it is that they will widen the gap between Muslims who are peaceful and truly want to emulate Mohammed and those lunatics who seem to have no other purpose in life than to rampage against something. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 28 Registered: 1-2006 |
Still waiting for the peaceful ones to speak up. The loud and violent ones are not lunatics. The mobs are calling for our violent deaths. They are rampaging against me, and you. jd | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3029 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, Joel, my post was influenced by this letter to the editor of the Times that I read today: To the Editor: As a Muslim, from what I know about the life and character of the Prophet Muhammad, I am sure that he would not have been angered by the Danish cartoons, nor would he have asked his followers to go on a rampage in protest. He was kind, gentle, forgiving and generous to a fault. Unfortunately, some Muslims do not emulate any of those characteristics and yet profess abiding love and affection for him. By burning embassies and threatening to kill people, the demonstrators have done more damage to the name of the Prophet Muhammad than the Danish cartoons. Aziz Akhmad Philadelphia, Feb. 7, 2006 | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 29 Registered: 1-2006 |
History shows Mohammad was a murderous tyrant who conquered and slaughtered tens of thousands. The great Sunni/Shia schism is over who is his proper descendant, and millions have been killed over that alone. And we aren't even in that family feud. I am slowly reading The Legacy of Jihad, by Andrew Bostum, a compendium of mostly translations of histories. It is too grim to read quickly. But, country and tribe, by country and tribe, it tells the story of destruction, and extinction wrought by the religion of peace. jd | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 167 Registered: 5-2005  |
JIHAD HUMOR - MUSLIM JOKES by stand-up comic Goffaq Yussef. Good evening gentlemen, and get out, ladies. On my flight to New York there must have been a Jew in the bathroom the entire time. There was a sign on the door that said "occupied." What do you say to a Muslim woman with two black eyes? Nothing! You told her twice already! How many Palestinians does it take to change a light bulb? None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it! Did you hear about the Broadway play, The Palestinians ? It bombed! What do you call a first-time offender in Saudi Arabia? Lefty! Did you hear about the Muslim strip club? It features full facial nudity! Why do Palestinians find it convenient to live on the West Bank? Because just a stone's throw from Israel! Why are Palestinian boys luckier than American boys? Because every Palestinian boy will get to join a rock group! A small plane carrying Yassir Arafat and all his top lieutenants crashes and all aboard are killed. Who is saved? The Palestinian people! A Palestinian suspect was being grilled by Israeli police. "Honest, I'm not a suicide bomber," he said. "I didn't say I wanted to blow myself up so I could sleep with 72 virgins. All I said was I'm dying to get laid!" What does the sign say above the nursery in a Palestinian maternity ward? "Live ammunition." A Palestinian girl says to her mommy, "After Abdul blows up, can I have his room?" | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 178 Registered: 1-2005 |
Bob What do you mean by respect? Do I have to keep it to myself if I think a religion is delusional or repressive or hypocritical? Are religious beliefs entitled to more respect than deeply felt, but non-religious, beliefs? And if a religion is violent, why do I have to "respect" it? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2006 |
A good joke has a kernel of uncomfortable truth recognized by the audience. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 31 Registered: 1-2006 |
And, it may be too broad-brushed to cover all the typecast ones. But, a kernel there is. yodajd | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10591 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eric, I find parts of almost all religions, including my own, delusional or repressive or hypocritical. Still, if I want respect I feel I have to give respect. Same goes for non-religious (by which I think you mean atheism). There is a lot of bad in Islam. However, it is an open question as to how many Muslims follow the road to Jihad, suicide bombing, etc. I don't see any reason, free speech or not, to "dis" their prohibition on graven images. Also, I admit I like the literary device in the Koran of never describing Mohammed and that may effect my views. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 338 Registered: 8-2004 |
"I mean, one can make a strained argument about Judaism having some vague precedent for church/state separation, but I think that's just special pleading. What the Torah provides for vis-a-vis kings and priests is essentially the reality in contemporary Iran." Really? I know very little of Judaism or the Torah, but the Old Testament I read is pretty clear: the people of Israel asked for and got a king against God's advice and admonition, and were warned they would find a king oppressive. Saul, their first king, found himself at odds with Samuel almost immediately and lost his political legitimacy as a result. The kings that followed found themselves in similar arguments. I've often wondered how the "divine right of kings" lasted against the Books of Samuel and Kings. Israel's basic political values certainly extended from the tradition of Abraham and the Mosaic law; but the political institution of the monarchy did not. That seems like a good starting point for finding a line between church and state. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 339 Registered: 8-2004 |
Bob, from what I know the initial publication of the cartoons seems unnecessary and I certainly understand why Muslims might be upset. But when a few of them, and some in positions of authority, claim that these images justify murder, and when the vast majority of Muslims fail to turn on and condemn their own fanatics, then I wonder just how exactly we are supposed to send the message that the right of free speech is well-nigh absolute. I'm very much afraid that these fanatics would confuse our respect with fear and be emboldened rather than grateful. Unfortunately, this lot has a track record, and perhaps this is an opportunity to put a stop to it. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 333 Registered: 10-2005 |
Threeringale, I thoroughly enjoyed your 4 options listed above....well put. Bobk, I respect your steadfast commitment to respecting other peoples religion ways; tolerance is a founding principal to our society. HOWEVER (isn't there always a However on this board  ) won't you acknowledge that our willingness to respect other ways on religous grounds has it's limitations that we all practice? For example...we no longer accept Polygymy (sp?) or drug use, even though it can be claimed to be a religous practice. The Old Testament even dvocates Human sacrifice, but we dropped accepting that one hundreds of years ago. I don't accept the argument that we need to be respecting of every component of this perverted religion, particularly since so many aspects of it is so foul and inhumane. My greatest dissappointment has been the failure of the US Media and Government to support the peopole who are truly in need right now, which are the Danish journalists whose way of lives is under direct attack. The USA has always been that beacon of hope to people across the world in this type of situation, standing side-by-side with those in pursuit of Freedom....I can only imagine how uplifting it would feel to be a Danish journalist in hiding/under fire, distraught, afraid that everything is changed forever only to wake one morning to see these comics plastered across The NY Times in solidarity. And we've been painfully mute. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2005 |
George Bush's lowest point in office takes place today: "Bush admonished the press that its freedom comes with "the responsibility to be thoughtful about others." Bush commented alongside King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. "With all respect to press freedoms, obviously anything that vilifies the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, or attacks Muslim sensibilities, I believe, needs to be condemned," the king said. GW stood next to a KING, which is bad enough that we even acknowledge these birth-right appointed baboons, and went on to pretend like he could give two hoots about the Prophet Mohammed and those that would follow him blindly. What a joke. I despise politicians. The only positive that may arrise from that is it may cool down anger directed at US troops and thus save some lives. |
