Muhammed drawings and free speech

[Racoon]

I can understand where Muslims could be upset, even very upset. :singer:

 

The drawings are yet another slight and mockery of their strong religious convictions!

But the protesting muslims are not acting very maturely.

Why does everybody seem to be so thin skinned and so damn politically correct???

 

If their faith is true, then I would suspect that killing people over someone's drawings seems a bit contradictory and extreme. ( to them it might seem normal to kill everyone involved )

Yet Muslims are as guilty and hypocritical as we Westerners. They tell us that not all muslims are terrorists and fanatics, But then they act against all Danish and Norwegians for an act by a few people. :cup:

 

Have they not been guilty of any off-color commentary, ever?? probably.

People can make mountains out of molehills.

If some Muslims drew Jesus funny, it would irk the 'hell' out of quite a few people over here too, but we are accustomed to free speech and print.

 

Everyone needs to take a chill pill, and take their fingers off the button, or trigger.

[Tormod]

on the other hand, if comparitive judgements are made concerning how bad the actions of the conflicting sides are with respect to the two principles, then you are involved in the fight yourself and claiming superiority, regardless of which side you prefer. The responsibility for continuing hostilities devolves to you.

 

I still fail to see your point. I am not claiming superiority. Your argument is aking to saying that simply by making an argument, YOU claim to be more superior than ME because YOUR argument must be BETTER than mine.

 

You are taking an issue with me for raising my voice against the obscene reaction the militant mob is showing. Luckily I am free to do so. If you think I feel superior because of it, then that is frankly not my problem.

 

EDIT: Forgot to add - I am not accepting that I am responsible for the hostilities. Can you please show how you can possibly reach that conclusion?

[Tormod]

it is not the westerners that are beheading, bombing and slaughtering the innocent by design. it is not the westerners blowing up nightclubs and knocking down tall buildings full of innocent people. it is not the westerners

gassing and murdering thousands of people because of their ethnicity.

''The responsibility for continuing hostilities devolves to you.'' what kind of thought process would lead to this statement? do you need the scimitar at your neck to understand the problem?

 

Be careful before digging into the "them" and "us" thinking. Western civilization have no better track record than anyone else when it comes to gassing and killing.

 

It is not the 1 billion Muslims that is behaving like deranged lunatics - we're talking tens of thousands of people, a small fraction of the Muslims.

[CraigD]

the apologists and pacifists on this site don't seem to have a clue about the murderous intent and the barbaric nature of a great many Muslims (if not the majority), even though this nature is demonstrated quite unequivocably every day

This claim is contradicted by credible survey data. A 2001-2002 Gallup poll of 9,924 residents of Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia found that 15% considered the 9/11/2001 attacks on the International Trade Center and the Pentagon morally justified, while 67% did not (+1%). (source: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0202/gallup.muslim.opinion/content1.html) If approval of this act of terrorism is a requirement for having murderous intent, then no more than 34% of this population can have murderous intent. Since many people who approve of a given act typically have no intention of committing such act themselves, the actual fraction of Muslims with murderous intent is likely to be many times lower than 15%.

 

My personal experience corroborates this data. Of the 5 non-Israeli Middle East nationals I know, all are Muslim, but none approve of the 9/11/01 attacks. I would describe none of these people as murderous or barbaric.

 

I believe that nearly all people of all nations have no innate desire to kill other people of any nation. The same, unfortunately, can not be said of these people’s religious and secular leaders. Therefore, I conclude that the way to reduce such violence is for people to not unquestioningly accept and follow their leaders, but to condemn and remove them from positions of leadership. Accepting he premise that only violence can combat violence secures the position and authority of leaders that advocate it.

[TheBigDog]

I think that with the issue of terrorism people fall into a few distinct buckets...

 

• Terrorists - These are people who perform brutal acts of violence against innocent people. These acts are designed to control the actions of populations of people by holding them in fear.
   
  
• Direct Supporters - These are people who may not commit acts of terror, but they surround, protect and support them. They legitimize the terrorists and provide safe haven for them to plan their evil and provide funds to terrorist organizations.
   
  
• Indirect Supporters - These people support the cause of terrorists, but separate themselves from direct involvement with terrorists. They fund terrorist organizations, and engage in public support of terrorists. These people provide safe haven in that they accept the presence of terrorists in their midst without hesitation.
   
  
• Sympathizers - These people sympathize with the terrorists as being victims or freedom fighters. They will argue the case of the terrorists and tend to displace blame for terrorism upon the governments of the victims. They are different from supporters in that they will not mix with terrorists, and are probably not a safe haven.
   
  
• Fence Sitters - These people do not support terrorism but they use moral relativity to stop short of condemning terrorists. And when they do condemn an act of terror it is always with a caveat of some kind. That everyones beliefs are equally valid, and we need to be careful not to instigate terrorists. And ultimately believe that victims of terror are somehow responsible because they are associated with people who are intolerant of terrorists. And that it is the intolerance of cultures that support terrorism that causes terrorism.
   
  
• Sane People - These people see terrorism for the evil that it is, and know that it is not justified under any circumstance. This is not to say that they do not see differently from one another on underlying issues, but that they reject reject terror as ever being a solution.
  

 

Remember, I am making these buckets around the topic of TERRORISM, not the underlying issues. I am in the "Sane People" bucket, where I do not see that an act of terror against innocent people is justified under any circumstance.

 

I hope that most of the world, including the vast majority of the Islamic community are also in the "Sane People" bucket. What is disappointing is how the voices in the other buckets are so prevalent. In the extreme cases that displays a lack of ethics or morality, and if the milder cases, an unwarranted faith that evil will change its stripes if given more love.

 

This cartoon issue is a clear demonstration of how the world is divided on the issue of terrorism. Not the issue of the west's understanding of and respect for Islam, but the issue of leaping to terrorism as a solution to an issue. And while leaders in the Islamic community may be offering alternative measures, I still do not see the violence being condemned by those leaders in a vociferous and public manner. In such a manner that would shame those who are members of the mobs in the street and clearly separate the intentions of those leaders from the actions of the mobs. And public officials should be arresting people who participate in mob violence and distancing their governments from appearing to tolerate, or even endorse such actions.

 

Posting this may be a complete act of futility. But being silent against voices that side with evil is unthinkable.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

I think that with the issue of terrorism people fall into a few distinct buckets...

I think you omitted a small but very important bucket from your scheme:

• Planners – These people coordinate the support and planning of terrorist actions. They are highly charismatic and/or intelligent, and have a realistic, well informed, and frequently well educated, understanding of human nature and world politics. They seek to shape local and world culture through their actions, believe that the ends justifies the means.
  

This bucket contains both well-known people such as Osama bin Laden, lesser known people, and people who’s identities are known only to very well-informed members of the intelligence community, or not at all.

 

I believe it’s important for as many people as possible to consider what local and world culture the planners of terrorism seek. It’s important to consider that the planners may seek different results, and that the actually results may not be what the planners seek. It’s important to consider that the agendas underlying and the effect of terrorism may not be accurately described purely in terms of good and evil.

[TheBigDog]

I think you omitted a small but very important bucket from your scheme:

• Planners – These people coordinate the support and planning of terrorist actions. They are highly charismatic and/or intelligent, and have a realistic, well informed, and frequently well educated, understanding of human nature and world politics. They seek to shape local and world culture through their actions, believe that the ends justifies the means.
  

Your are correct Craig. I had them lumped with the terrorists, but they are the masterminds if you will that keep the blood off their own hands and manipulate others into performing the acts.

 

I take a harder stand than you on the good vs evil. I feel that when people resort to terrorism they delegitimize their role in their cause, and eliminate themselves from participating in the solution. That is why I harp about wanting a non-terrorist leader to stand up and represent, and denounce terrists and terrorism in no uncertain terms, so that we can in good faith begin to help solve root issues without waiting to be punished for our efforts at peace.

 

Bill

[sanctus]

And while leaders in the Islamic community may be offering alternative measures, I still do not see the violence being condemned by those leaders in a vociferous and public manner. In such a manner that would shame those who are members of the mobs in the street and clearly separate the intentions of those leaders from the actions of the mobs. And public officials should be arresting people who participate in mob violence and distancing their governments from appearing to tolerate, or even endorse such actions.

 

 

If religius leaders (and also non-religious ones) do not condemn this violence more publicily it might also only be for staying alive....

[sanctus]

I have my theory as well on two points that were brought up.

 

1. this violence hasn't come up for these cartoons, it's just the ending point. Have you ever asked yourself why all the violence is in some countries and in others not? I think it's a matter of well-being/poverty. The people in the violent mobs are not the rich of the country, but the poor ones with no hope (that's what i guess at least, if not it doesn't have a logical evolution for me). They probably see the westerners as the ones to blame for their poverty (with what I agree but that's another thread....) and in their povery the only thing which they have is religion! And now, the westerners want to take away that from them as well. It's a generalization of the westerners they make, but by how much are they wrong? Ask yourself what do you actually do for the poor in this world? So, in conclusion if it is the poor people being violent on the streets I understand (understanding does not imply agreeing!!) them very well why they react to such a thing as a couple of cartoons in such a violent way.

 

2.If this escalation of violence continues, it wouldn't surprise me at all, that it would start in France as well. For those who do not know in the last half year in the poor sub-urbs all through France there were some kind of mobs:more than 30 thousand cars burnt in that period on week-end it got around 800 per night... Comparing to point 1, the people would be in a similar case and therefore there wouldn't be surprise.

[sanctus]

Defense of Islam?

would those who defend Islam answer some questions?

1. why do Muslims prevent the education of women?

2. why do ''honor killings'' still take place for adulterous women?

3. why do the ''good'' Muslims not rise against the terrorists?

if there are a billion Muslims and only a million are bad, where are the voices of the 999,000,000?

4. why do the ''good'' Muslims not turn in the terrorists living in their midst so their coutry can be at peace with a representative goverment?

5. which of the Islamic countries advocate peace with Israel, or the US?

6. do Muslims want to live in a progressive modern society or society of their choosing would they rather be killing infidels?

7. what are all the ''good'' Muslims doing to help bring reace to the Middle East?

 

This questions are non-sense. First of all you talk about the extreme countries (their interpretation of the Q'aran-hope it's spelled right- is not the one of the muslims you might find in the western world).Secondly it seems to me that you think that we are so much superior because we have got education of women and so on. You know, one could ask easily such questions about our main religion: why doesn't the curch allow preservatives (and therefore helps spreading HIV), why doesn't church allow marriage of priests (and then the risk of pedophiles among the curch would be smaller?) and so on.

[ughaibu]

Tormod: In the situation that there is no conflict or aggression between these groups, neither side will in any way be behaving provocatively or aggressively. Such a situation can not be brought about by provocative or aggresive behaviour, unless it involves the extinction of one or both groups. Judging the behaviour of either side to be less reprehensible than that of the other, implies condoning, relatively, that behaviour. Allowing such behaviour will result in a reaction, followed by a counter-reaction and the whole meaningless destructive nonsense will persist. Allying yourself with the behaviour of either side involves you in the process, by condoning the behaviour of your chosen side you take responsibility for their action and the other side's reaction.

Aren't you saying that publishing cartoons is somehow superior behaviour to bombing embassies? If not, consider the use of "superiority" in my second post to be retracted. In the earlier post I was refering to the general condemnation of a violent minority by people whose own cultures have violent minorities.

[lindagarrette]

I have my theory as well on two points that were brought up.

 

1. this violence hasn't come up for these cartoons, it's just the ending point. Have you ever asked yourself why all the violence is in some countries and in others not? I think it's a matter of well-being/poverty.

Violence can result from poverty but not necessarily. The poor are so desparate sometimes that's the only way to get what they need to survive. The wealthy can obtain what they need easily so they use violent means when they are utterly corrupted by power and greed.

 

Crimes are motivated by desparation or greed. The extremely powerful are the greatest criminals yet we admire them for their cunning, for their ability to take all the world's wealth and keep it to themselves.

 

Since we have abandoned and isolated the extreme poor to sub-Saharan Africa where we only hear about them from humanitarian organizations, most of us have no concept what it is like to see children starve to death every day and we can't even stand to think about it.

 

Most of those people are so poor and desparate they don't even have violence as an option. They just suffer and die.

[Tormod]

Aren't you saying that publishing cartoons is somehow superior behaviour to bombing embassies? If not, consider the use of "superiority" in my second post to be retracted.

 

No, I was implying that bombing embassies because of cartoons is an incomprehensible reaction to me.

 

I agree with Sanctus that the reaction to the cartoons must be just the last drop that made something go off (I have already suggested as much).

 

In the earlier post I was refering to the general condemnation of a violent minority by people whose own cultures have violent minorities.

 

I disagree again. I am not the sum of my nation's culture, nor am I responsible for the acts of people in my country (apart from my own children, whose actions I am legally responsible for).

 

There are violent minorities in every country. That does not mean I support them, neither here nor there.

 

On a larger scale, your argument would imply that since Norway has an army, I cannot fight against war. Being a pacifist, however, I have denied doing army service and am not supporting any act of war.

[ughaibu]

Tormod: Okay, that all sounds sensible to me.

[Qfwfq]

While we theorize and chatter, the situation is getting worse, the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burnt and I thing this is only the beginning. In 2000 we saw Sharon sending armoured vehicles against the demonstrators, at first they took up slings and stones against the armoured vehicles but Sharon ordered fire. Arafat started brandishing his machine gun and and so did many Palestinians. I thought: this is going to be serious trouble again. Look what happened.

 

The iconoclastic ban is to the purpose of preventing idolatry. What is a much greater wrong is the depiction of the Prophet being a terrorist, this is false. The whole trouble is Islamophobia.

 

Yes. I hope they use that law rather than take up arms. That's why we have laws, no?

Is there such a law in Denmark?

 

Anyway, no Italian paper has published those cartoons so far, Padania is a nation supposedly comprising a few Northern regions of Italy. Despite living in one of these, I don't wear a green shirt.

 

Italian politicians including right wing conservative gov't ministers such as Fini and Berlusconi have heavily criticized the paper "La Padania" and strongly stated that it should not have done so. The U. S. Department of State has also issued formal declarations against such offending of faith.

[Tormod]

Is there such a law in Denmark?

 

To quote CNN, who quotes the Danish Foreign Minister:

 

"The Danish government urges all leaders, political and religious, in the countries concerned to call on their populations to remain calm and refrain from violence," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said in Copenhagen.

 

"We all have a responsibility to avoid that the situation escalates any further and to contain the violent protests and to return to dialogue."

 

Despite his government's repeated efforts in the past, Moeller seemed to struggle to get across the message to Muslims that his government, like most Western nations, does not control what is published.

 

"We do not print the papers -- the government does not print the papers," he said. "There's freedom of expression."

 

He repeatedly explained that Denmark has a law against blasphemy, and it is up to the courts -- not the Danish government -- to decide whether a newspaper is guilty of blasphemy.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html

[Tormod]

The iconoclastic ban is to the purpose of preventing idolatry. What is a much greater wrong is the depiction of the Prophet being a terrorist, this is false. The whole trouble is Islamophobia.

 

So if I draw a cartoon showing a Christian prophet carrying an aborted fetus, I am guilty of Christianophobia?

 

Come on.