Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

[Vladimir]

Blah Blah Blah

Enter the apologist (I've been wanting to use that word). The man who tries to tiptoe around the issue and intimately makes his convictions clear when it says: "it's not their fault". Just keep sending those checks to CAIR and keep the faith brother.

[Fragony]

A personal question, Fragony - as you mention from time to time that you sometimes participate in "public outrage" against immigrants - how often do you go on the street and join protests against right-wingers, e.g. those who hunt and beat up innocent immigrants? Have you ever been outraged about such incidents, or do you consider the beating of immigrants to be an "understandable reaction"?

Been in a fight from time to time with them but I never activily looked for them if that is what you mean, but I am not the kind of guy that turns the other cheek. Just a matter of time before things will get more sinister though, and I will be there when it does. About rightwingers attacking immigrants, I cannot think of such an incident in the past 10 years, I heard that it does happen from time to time in Germany though. When such a thing happens I wouldn't aprove it but I stopped caring really, so I pull the 'understandable reaction' card.

[Watchman]

Am I going to be offensive if I bluntly state Fragony does a really good job sounding like a full-blown racist ?

[Duke Malcolm]

I wouldn't say he seems like a racist, just someone against large scale immigration...

[drone]

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.

There was a time when Christians did believe in the Bible with all their hearts. During this time, we had wonderful things called crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, various holy wars, etc.

There were a few posts early in this thread about Islam growing up. It doesn't have to mean Muslims renouncing the tenets of their religion, it just means accepting that not everyone will or must believe as they do.

[Fragony]

I wouldn't say he seems like a racist, just someone against large scale immigration...

C'est ca. Psycholigists have always known that groups that differ heavily on something bring friction, only the politicians have a hard time catching up. Islam and democracy will never work, something people are slowly starting to realise, if not a bit late. As far as I am concerned (sorry muslim orgers) the Islam is nothing more then a violent sect that should have no place in the civilised world.

But@watchman, you can call me suzie if you like.

[Red Peasant]

Obviously they are much more than "satirical cartoons". Rather, they are a sick violation of something deeply sacred.

You're kidding right? You crack me up. I think most Europeans would definitely disagree.

Of course, I do respect your right to hold your opinions, but I don't respect them. Muslims will never respect our right to our opinions in our countries without issuing their fatwas and threatening violence. If they don't want to buy European cheese, then fair enough, but we don't have to deal with them either.
If you move to a Muslim country then you may find enough people who agree with you, you might feel better for it.

[Watchman]

*snip*

"I'm not racist, I have good reasons to dislike foreigners!"

Don't they all ?

Besides, I consider the way you persistently use the blatantly derogatory term "boomski's" (which is fairly obviously roughly equal to "nigger", "kaffir", "rag-head", "kook" and all the other classics) when referring to Muslims in general and Arabs in particular to be telling enough.

Which just goes to prove; boorishness is something nobody has any monopoly on.

That said, I agree with the point that the overall Muslim reaction is way over the top. Alas, since I also bother exterting the mental effort to try and understand *why* this is so (instead of settling for such vulgar, clearly intolerant and patently useless postulations as "Islam is nothing more then a violent sect that should have no place in the civilised world"), I can to an extent sympathize with them. To give you the short form, I think it's partly a way of venting more general uneasiness, anxiety and frustration over phenomenoms far beyond the control of the common man against a simple, easily identified, polarizing and remotely justified offense. 'Course, the same applies to the hardline anti-muslim reactions one can also witness in these very forums; I'm a big fan of considering all human beings equal in potential narrow-minded boorishness and misplaced outrage.

And partly it's opportunistic powers-that-be trying to shift the spotlight away from their own usually quite considerable shortcomings, and partly opportunistic extremists making use of the laden anxiety and a good window of opportunity to further their own causes. Which, again, applies equally here too.

[Devastatin Dave]

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.

Let the Lord, not the mob or man's sinful desire for violence judge the offenses my Brother in Christ. I choose to turn the other cheek when my faith is mocked although I may fight with words which really most of the time doesn't matter or work. What is happening here is not to be applauded and i do pray that you can see and understand why.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You're scary when you talk like that, Dave.

[Goofball]

I'm usually very quick to say that Islam is a good religion and that it's simply the acts of a few that are spoiling it for the rest. However, this one has really started to get to me. I have no problems with them being pissed and rioting over the cartoon. It's their right if they are offended and I can't criticize them for that. What this has had me asking though is, why aren't they this upset about the killings of innocents in the Mideast? Where are the riots for the beheadings? Where are the images of bin Laden being burned for his distortion of Islam? They seem to be picking their outrages in a rather questionable manner.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head TC.

I have also in the past been quick to point out to those who decry Islam as a religion of small-minded, violent, fanatics that they are making a broad generalization against the moderate majority based on the actions of the extremist minority.

This whole sad saga has made me doubt my previous position very seriously.

[Devastatin Dave]

You're scary when you talk like that, Dave.

How's that? Is it better to riot, burn, and kill when offended by someone?

[Watchman]

Elementary, dear Watson. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for the time being." People have a tendency to get quite... accommodating of atrocities that'd normally disgust them if they're committed in the process of pursuing a project - such as "opposing Them" - they can dig.

Put this way: how many "conservatives" would still argue for the use of interrogation-means-practically-amounting-to-torture in the War Against Terror, or alternatively deny anything of the sort ever happened ? Pretty much the exact same principle. And I'm sure our local Con friends here will have no trouble pointing out comparative Liberal cases.

It's all very "oh, the humanity!" really.

[Goofball]

Not a dig on Islam, but when Christians and Jews are potrayed in this sort of disgusting way, you don't see so much violence as you do when Muslims are disrespected by secular media and society. Can someone explain to me why the phenomenom of violence in the Islamic Faith seems more prevalent in these sort of issues?

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures.

Or (and I'm just throwing this out there; if you like it you can keep it, if you don't like it you can send it right back) it could be that Christians actually pay attention to the teachings of Jesus, who said a lot of things (IIRC) along the lines of "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek."

Now Nav, I understand that it is very presumptious for me (somebody whom Jesus would refer to as "a very naughty boy" at best) to question you (a self-proclaimed expert Christian moralist) on matters of Christian scripture and dogma, but I really have to ask:

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have been happy with his followers attacking people because a newspaper printed a picture of him wearing a funny hat?

[Tribesman]

Been in a fight from time to time with them but I never activily looked for them if that is what you mean
Is this the same person who wrote a few weeks ago that he was having a little get together to go and teach those nasty immigrants a lesson ?

hmmmmm...... whats that river in Egypt called ? de Nile

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

How's that? Is it better to riot, burn, and kill when offended by someone?

pfffffffffffft, yeah DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Watchman]

Ole Jesus would have a heart attack if He saw just what has been done in His name over the millenia anyway.

Islam has far fever pacifistic pretensions (likely due to the historical contexts of its birth; Roman overlordship and a failed major uprising a few decades ago don't exactly encourage a terribly fierce attitude, unlike the decidedly more warlike and overlord-less seminomadic Arab culture of the comparable period), and thus a whole lot less schizophrenia over the use of violence. The Prophet, praise be and all, would nonetheless no doubt gape in abject disbelief at some of the stuff his followers have been up to.

[Devastatin Dave]

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have been happy with his followers attacking people because a newspaper printed a picture of him wearing a funny hat?

He would not. In fact, the Lord would forgive them if they asked for forgiveness. At no time would I think Jesus would promote any violence for the mochery of Himself. Nav might have a different interpretation than I do. The Lord did get angry about money lenders in the Temple and turned over their tables but He never called for violence against those that hated Him. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's if you will. Stuff like the abortion clinic bombings, Crusades, and other such events, I'm sure, the Lord would not have approved of.

[Kommodus]

Not that anyone would read a reply this late in the discussion, but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding exactly what the Muslims are protesting against. Am I to understand that the Danish cartoon pictured the prophet Muhammed with the top part of his turban shaped like a bomb with a fuse attached? Thus, it's suggesting that Islam is a religion of violence. And what has the response been so far?

"No, it's the religion of peace, d***it! Kill all the infidels who suggest otherwise! Burn their flags and merchandise, burn everything!"



I can't imagine a better example of making your opponent's point for him.

A friend and I were talking about this yesterday, and he asked me: "What's more important, religious sensitivity or freedom of speach?" My answer was instinctive: freedom of speech. Why? Because the truth is more important that any individual's personal feelings and preferences.

[Watchman]

The trouble is, True Believers always think *they* know the Truth... And not just any old truth, but The Truth. You know, the fundamental one.

Which naturally tends to make them rather unsympathetic to alternative explanations.

[Viking]

Not that anyone would read a reply this late in the discussion, but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding exactly what the Muslims are protesting against. Am I to understand that the Danish cartoon pictured the prophet Muhammed with the top part of his turban shaped like a bomb with a fuse attached? Thus, it's suggesting that Islam is a religion of violence. And what has the response been so far?

"No, it's the religion of peace, d***it! Kill all the infidels who suggest otherwise! Burn their flags and merchandise, burn everything!"



I can't imagine a better example of making your opponent's point for him.

A friend and I were talking about this yesterday, and he asked me: "What's more important, religious sensitivity or freedom of speach?" My answer was instinctive: freedom of speech. Why? Because the truth is more important that any individual's personal feelings and preferences.

I think the biggest issue is, that not under any circumstances is Muhammad supposed to made images of. I think most of the protestors don`t know anything else than that cartoons of him has been printed.

[TinCow]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this isn't about the cartoons anymore. This seems to be evolving into a general Anti-West 'movement'. The longer this goes on, the less sympathy I have for them. It's rare that incidents cause me to change my mind about my most basic beliefs, but my belief in the general goodness of the greater Muslim population is being severely shaken. In situations like this, if you do not decry the violence that is being done, you are condoning it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

[Kommodus]

The trouble is, True Believers always think *they* know the Truth... And not just any old truth, but The Truth. You know, the fundamental one.

Which naturally tends to make them rather unsympathetic to alternative explanations.

Well, there's one more link required to connect fundamentalism to violence. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that your beliefs are correct - everyone has to hold to this idea somewhat; otherwise we would never act on anything.

To go from strong convictions to violence, you also have to believe that it's your responsibility to force everyone to think as you do (not just convince them of what you consider true). You need a willful blindness to the viewpoints of other people; you can't think about their well-being at all.

Basically, in order to commit violence in the name of "the truth," you have to pick a narrow few "truths" to focus on and ignore all the rest.

[Watchman]

They're using the occasion to air their assorted grudges, anxieties and - yes - prejudices. Quite typical but hardly commendable mob behaviour.

Figuratively speaking, the issue with the cartoons made the crack that broke down the dam and now the whole torrent's bursting forth.

[Watchman]

Methinks the leap from plain fundamentalism to the violent kind happens almost exclusively only if there's enough other issues to prompt it. Sort of how like witch hunts only ever happened when communities felt sufficiently insecure and anxious, or how massive race riots tend to be detonated by some as-such unremarkable and depressively common incident of authority racism.

Bottle that sort of stuff long enough, and it will burst out violently over some as-such minor triggers.

[Kommodus]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this isn't about the cartoons anymore. This seems to be evolving into a general Anti-West 'movement'. The longer this goes on, the less sympathy I have for them. It's rare that incidents cause me to change my mind about my most basic beliefs, but my belief in the general goodness of the greater Muslim population is being severely shaken. In situations like this, if you do not decry the violence that is being done, you are condoning it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

You know, over the past few days I've begun to feel the same way. I don't want to believe that Islam is a religion of violence, and many events over the past years failed to make me think so. For example:

1. Pre-9/11 acts of terrorism didn't do it. In truth I didn't hear about them often, and didn't pay much attention when I did. Terrorism was just something that popped up on the news now and then, and it was done by many different groups.

2. 9/11 didn't do it. Crowds of Muslims celebrated in the Middle East came close, though.

3. Suicide bombings, car bombings, and other violent acts post-9/11, which have received more media coverage, didn't do it. These and all of the previously mentioned incidents could be dismissed as a relatively small number of extremists committing acts of insanity.

But lately, we have:

1. The election of an radical with intolerant and violent tendencies in Iran.

2. The election of a terrorist group to lead the Palestinians.

3. Large-scale, violent (even deadly) protests across the Muslim world over a cartoon.

These are actions of the mainstream, not a few fringe groups. It can no longer be denied - something is seriously wrong with Islam as it is currently practiced. The question is, what can be done to fix it?

[Watchman]

It can no longer be denied - something is seriously wrong with Islam as it is currently practiced.

You're confusing religion and society now, although I'll give you te two can be hard to keep apart when discussing Muslim countries. Muslims aren't rioting (or whatever) because of Islam; they're rioting (or whatever) over a whole host of issues, for which Islam provides a socially acceptable and fairly safe front.

Remember, for most Muslim countries not only did the Middle Ages in practice only end around late 1800s and early 1900s, virtually the entire postcolonial period has been spent under the 'benign' rule of dictatorships and other such nasties. But as even the worst tyrants tended to balk at the idea of crushing Islamist movements with the same brutal efficiency they used on other naysayers (rarely due to personal convictions, but simply because that'd most likely have pissed off most of their populace but good and no canny tyrant wants *that*); this left more-or-less radical Islamist movements as the main outlet of protest against almost anything, and this state of affairs persists to this day. Which is obviously a bit problematic given that such movements have been taking increasingly radical turns as of late.

Although they tended to be outlawed, back in the day Communist and/or Socialist movements (as about the only organized resistance around) tended to meet similar social demands in much of Asia and Latin America. This can be witnessed even today in the curious Maoist rebels of, whatwasit, Nepal ?

[rory_20_uk]

Islam itself has nothing that would make it unable to exist with Democracy, any more than christianity in (for example) 15th Century Spain did. But one more time: Christianity changed. It adapted. scriptures were re-examined.

The Islamic leaders should go back to basics and build a more tolerant code of practice for the 21st Century. It's been several centuries since the last one, it could do with an update. Of course I imagine they like things the way that they are: if Muslims feel "got at" by all these pictures etc etc, they are more likely to remain a power. To be all nice to people never gets the leaders ahead.

[Watchman]

Mind you, what "scriptures were re-examined" led to in practice was a century of wholesale slaughter and atrocities between Catholics and Protestants, and it took the apocalyptic ruin of the Thirty Years' War before folks decided enough was enough.

So it'd probably be safer to leave the Scriptures themselves alone and instead concentrate on people's attitudes to them.

What made Europe follow the path that skyrocketed it far ahead of everyone else, and the Muslim world to enter a long period of ossification around the same time, is something historians still break lances over. However, the earlier history of the Islamic world proves concretely enough the faith is not by itself in no ways hostile to learning, enlightement and general progress.

[Papewaio]

C'est ca. Psycholigists have always known that groups that differ heavily on something bring friction, only the politicians have a hard time catching up.

Man + Woman are very different... so not all friction is bad.