alright folks. get a grip. when people burn embassies for their "cause"

[PretzelWarrior]

re: "how dare you insult our prophet"....then they have lost moral legitimacy.

I'm really surprised at the way some of you are mollycoddling the extremist Muslims who say any kind of silly representation of Mohammed is tantamount to anti Semitic cartoons or blackface, etc.

THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

THis would be more analagous to Fuckhead Bill O'Reilly's vapors over the "war on CHristmas" and you guys were foursquare behind pointing out his insanity.

I will be quite amazed if I see a solid backing of the Muslim extremist violent reaction to these cartoons. IT is unconscionable.

While fighting for freedom here....we can't give a pass to the religious intolerance over there and the brute violence they engage in to restrict other people's behavior.

It's not consistent. It's not right.

[varkam]

1. Lumping.

I think a lot of people who are reacting acrimoniously to the "mollycoddlers" are lumping all Muslims into one category - extremists. Yes, Muslim extremists are torching embassies. No, I don't condone their actions, but I also don't think they are representative of every Muslim. And what's more, while some cartoon of Mohammed might seem silly to us, it's forbidden in Islam to depict him in any fashion - so while the whole Muslim world is upset, it's only a small percentage that are engaging in violent action (at least I think).

[PretzelWarrior]

2. well, there are fine upstanding Muslims, CHristians, Jews, athiests

and then there are extremists. Same goes for politics. POlitical pragmatists and centrists and the outer fringes of any group.

It would be bad enough if the outrage of a few was over reported by our media and the understanding from the vast majority of Muslims is underreported which is likely to happen because of our sensationalist B.S. news media.

BUt it would be even worse if this reaction by extremist Muslims was defended by Democratic activists and others in this country who will do anything to prevent any of BUsh's talking points from seeming to have credibility.

From the time in the 80's when I saw extremist action on the news from the middle east, I knew there was a problem that would either be dealt with or that would boil over....we cannot deny the extreme fundamentalists are there.

TErms like CHristian Taliban only resonate and have meaning BECAUSE of who the Taliban was and is. Same goes for others who would declare holy war because they were quick to take offense over some writings or drawings.

All I can say is these are interesting developments that will try us all.

[varkam]

7. But the Taliban used to be our friends...

I agree on the point about the media. Television is a distortion of reality, and through no lens is it more distorted than 24 hour news cycles. There are reasonable, rational Muslims who also contemn the torching of embassies.

Also I think it's important to point out that we (I use that term loosely) are not immune to the same sorts of atrocities. It's not necessarily the Muslims or the Christians who are at fault - it is the fundamentalist extremists. Like you said, they come in different shapes, sizes and flavors.

[varkam]

8. double-post - sorry

[sleipnir]

4. They key is the Muslim Governments support the violent action.

Have we seen mass arrests in Syria? Hummm...?? NO.

Why not? Because the government supports such violent, terroristic actions. The government of Syria is also to blame, as much as the "radical" Muslims. The puppets that support this sort of action are a huge problem and must be dealt with in severe measures. Until we see riot police arresting those, and if needed firing upon those who will burn a foreign embassy, there is no freedom.

Drawing a picture of any figure is the right of anyone, and if Muslims have a problem with that, then they need to grow up out of Stone Age.

[varkam]

11. Just cause we haven't seen it...

doesn't mean it's not happening.

[Joe Fields]

185. Then Muslim leaders need to make a conscious public effort

to denounce the violence of the extremists for All the world to see. After all, it WOULD be in their best interests, if they are concerned at all about the message the thugs are sending.

[Erika]

38. Can you imagine them cartooning Christ?

And how the radical righties would deal with that?

The Muslims have not done that.

[fishwax]

55. how would they react?

I'm no fan of the radical righties ... truth be told, I enjoy watching them get worked up over everything from "piss christ" to "last temptation of christ" to "priest" to "book of daniel" ... but they haven't reacted with violence along the lines of surrounding an embassy with armed warriors.

Thankfully, unlike in much of what is often referred to as "the muslim world," a devotion to secular government has prevented our fundamentalist institutions from merging completely with our government ... i have no doubt that, were there a "christian" government in the same sense that, say, iran has a moslem government, reaction to such insults of christ would be similarly extreme.

[OnionPatch]

79. Good point and

another reason to fight like hell to keep the US gov. secular.

[fishwax]

115. amen to that!

:thumbsup:

[Yupster]

134. I think there were pickets

at some movies showing the Last Temptation of Christ, and when Larry Flynt published a cartoon of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother, Falwell took Flynt to court.

Even on crap like PissChrist, the yelling is usually about government funding for the art, not the right of the art to exist itself.

Sorry, but I just can't see a comparison between the way fundy Christians and Muslims react to stuff like cartoons.

At some point, the "they're all the same" argument just looks ridiculous. There are very real differences in degrees.

[fishwax]

158. absolutely

I agree that there are definitely real differences in degrees. Personally, I think that if there were fundy "christian" governments in the same way there are fundy muslim governments, the responses might be similar--after all, we are only a few centuries removed from a time when disagreeing with the state's official church could get you executed. But thankfully we've left that arrangement behind, and our fundies just don't have the social power to whip the masses into that violent of a frenzy. They are annoying, to be sure, but they simply aren't dangerous at the same level.

[PBass]

174. How about bombing abortion clinics?

Shooting abortion doctors?

Is that a radical enough "expression of faith" for ya?

[QC]

57. Plenty of people have portrayed Christ irreverently

and yet I can't recall fundies rioting and setting fires over it.

In fact, someone posted a quite disrespectful cartoon of Jesus from an Iranian newspaper in this forum just yesterday and nobody has yet burned down anything in response to it.

[TankLV]

124. Exactly.

[MADem]

82. Why would they, though? They recognize Christ as a prophet

That small but important fact is lost when the fundies attack the Muslims. But "Isa" (Jesus) has an honored place in that society, many Muslims have that name. They just don't view him as the ULTIMATE prophet, but they acknowledge his work.

[Igel]

108. They emphatically do not recognize

Christ. Keep your terms straight, and your attributes.

You preach Jesus in some Muslim countries as the NT portrays him and you get arrested for blasphemy. Crucified? Son of God? Resurrected? No. None of the above.

You preach Isa as Muslims portray in in 700s Byzantium, you get arrested for heresy. Isa's work was preparing the way for Muhammed, and preaching Islam.

[Zynx]

159. They recognize him as a major prophet, not the son of God.

He is still most certainly a revered figure in Islam.

[BushOut06]

183. They most certainly do - Christ is one of their most revered figures

They hold Jesus in very high esteem in Islam. Not as high as Mohammed, but he considered a very important prophet - one of the 'elevated' prophets or whatever their term is.

[MADem]

189. You're dead wrong, they do recongize him , he's even in the Quran

You seem to be confusing the whackjobs who preach hate with the actual tenets of the religion. Sorta like saying that Jerry Falwell is the definer of all things Christian, when in actual fact he knows jackshit about Christianity, seeing as the pig hasn't practiced it in years, if ever.

While Muslims do not recognize the Trinity concept, or original sin, Isa is one of their homeboys, and people who follow him are "People of the Book."

A link for your edification: http://islamicwell.com/christinislam.htm

Now, you can go on and on about the devil being in the details, and frankly, I don't give two figs about that. But your assertion that Islam does not acknowledge Isa is patently false.

[donco6]

144. It's happened before.

And I didn't see any embassies burning.

How can you defend this? Can't you see where it leads? How much of our freedom of expression do we have to sacrifice to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities? Almost our entire CULTURE is an offense to Islam. This cartoon thing is just an inconsequential blip. What happens when American TV offends them? Newspaper ads? Magazines? They could pick ANYTHING to be offended about. Are we going to stop all expression because we're afraid of some fundamentalist whackos?

Not me.

[Boojatta]

100. Do you really think the government of Syria cares one way or the other?

Is it possible that the government of Syria is happy to have rage directed at some entity other than the government of Syria?

Now, if the government of Syria were to support the rule of law by taking action to defend the targets of the attacks, then might there be a risk that some people would want to lump the government of Syria in with the other targets?

[smirkymonkey]

102. Thank you! This would not be happening if it were not supported

by the greater Islamic community at large - especially Islamic governments.

Religion of peace, my ass.

[springhill]

171. God..........

how self-righteous some of you are. As if we here in old civilized United States don't have our own uncivilized history. I wonder how other country's view our torching of cars and looting after a super bowl or NBA championship? Now that's something that is truly hard to comprehend.

And further, how in the hell do we even know how many, or who is behind the outrage? Why would the United States not be hoping for this very outcome? It sure doesn't hurt they drumbeat for another war, now does it? Get everyone so angry at the muslims that people won't care whether we attack or not.

I just don't trust this, and I also think that there are many people on this board who are buying into the myth that somehow we Westerners are so much better people than those muslims. Really sickening.

Oh, and by the way, I am in no way condoning violence of any nature. What I am upset about is this notion that we are somehow morally superior. Rubbish!

[digno dave]

61. i don' think he's lumping, just acknowledging an extreme

[digno dave]

62. How many of you would entrust your wife with one of these fellows for 1 yr

that's what i thought. She would be humiliated beyond repair.

[neweurope]

72. ????

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[dissident2006]

163. I agree. n/t

[Tom Joad]

3. Who is they, and who is us?

Let's get a bit more real here. Diane Feinstein, who for some folks here is just fine, is calling for putting behind bars people who burn the flag. That is real violence for an expression of poltical speech. Not as bad as burning embassies or threats? Remember, DiFi, and many others, are also supporting the continued occupation in Iraq, and supporting the demolition of homes and crops in Palestine, funded by the USA. If you want to talk about "unconscionable" acts, start here. You know, splinter in your own eye....
Oh yeah, and this is how DiFi lives
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/01/29/BAGS6GV7KH1.DTL&o=0

My point is that if this very comfy person can be fanatical about protecting the flag, shouldnt we be a little more cautious about judging others? Who are suffering great oppression and violence?

[QC]

5. DiFi and the arsonists/rioters are both assholes.

That's simple enough. Sorry, but you are not going to find many Feinstein apologists here (though you will find many apologists for some religious fanatics here.)

[Tom Joad]

18. No one is apologizing for arsonists, or DiFi

But that is not the whole point. Its just I would like to think that people take a view that is not the simple "they are going crazy, the West has been so helpful, and now they are burning the embassies". Gotta look at the whole picture. It doesn't make the arson right.
Is this the same response you had when the cops that beat Rodney King were let off? Some people then thought "After all we have done for blacks"... they said it with a straight face, even.
So it would be very helpful to look at context, history and current events.
Otherwise its just simplistic and reactionary.

By the way, anyone who comes November advocates voting for the Green candidate instead of DiFi, will probably be kicked off the board.

[Catrina]

99. I haven't seen a single person condone or apologize for arsonists

here ~

I have seen people declare that because of those arsonists we should nuke the entire Muslim world and 'anyone who looks like them'.

I just read an article on DU about a hate radio listener who murdered his sister and her husband because of their liberal views.

Several months ago I read of another individual who shot and killed his friend because he didn't like Bush and his war.

Would the DUer who demanded that we nuke them all, be in favor of doing the same thing to all those who listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Racism is ugly and that's what people here are objecting to.

Which is worse, btw, bombing whole cities and killing tens of thousands of innocent people because of a lie, with a good number of those doing the killing, or the torturing like Gen. Miller, ordering his troops to 'treat them (Iraqis) like dogs' and others, encouraging the killing of 'ragheads', or the torching of embassies?

[Hatalles]

170. You are right.

Keep an eye out for all the strawmen popping up on DU.

[Erika]

12. A flag is different from a Holy Prophet

I've seen that argument here frequently. A flag is simply a sign of nationalism. A Holy Prophet ties into the spiritual being. Very different.

[Tom Joad]

26. Exactly. If so many in this country can be so upset at the burning

of the flag then we should have some compassion for those who are upset at something that goes much deeper.

The reason DiFi supports this is because it is a very popular cause.

[fishwax]

32. neither are above criticism, though

and we should accept neither the rw zealots who say "no one can attack the flag" nor the rw zealots who say "No one can say a bad word about our prophet."

[QC]

41. So the next time someone insults the Flying Spaghetti Monster on DU,

those who have been touched by his noodly appendage should set fire to DU headquarters?

[PretzelWarrior]

63. lol. from the ridiculous to the sublime

we need more humor.

can they teach sense of humor over at the Madrasahs and at the Bible thumper schools?

[Yupster]

136. Cool I've never gotten to be part

of a real live angry mob burning stuff before.

[Yupster]

135. I believe if Muslims respect their holy prophet

then they should show him great respect.

Certainly they aren't trying to demand that us non-believers take part in their beliefs though are they?

That would certainly be an outrageous demand.

[PretzelWarrior]

13. but that's PRECISELY THE POINT> my post wasn't to Senator

Diane Feinstein. My post was to those ostensibly opposed to even the "liberal" Democrats who would attempt laws curbing our freedom of speech.

I'm saying....your arguments about why flag burning should be legal and your protests against government oppression of dissidents or Christian zealots foisting their views on us ring VERY HOLLOW if you're willing to give a pass to other religious zealots just because they tend to stand in opposition to BUsh.

I know it gets weird here....but it is possible to fight the cause of those suffering injustice such as Palestinians or the Egyptians under puppet states and still fight the cause of freedoms in our western tradition.

In my book, you, I, Muslims in this country, and regular run of the mill Muslims everywhere should be protesting against these violent expressions stemming merely from cartoons expressing VERY REAL political statements about religious tension in the Muslim world.

In effect, the Muslim extremists are merely proving the point of the cartoons. Brilliant going fellas!

[Erika]

19. Are you Bush obsessed?

Why was his name even mentioned?

[PretzelWarrior]

30. why was BUsh mentioned? lol. puhhleeaze

the funniest thing I've seen on the DU discussion board in quite some time is a DU poster calling another DU poster "BUSH obsessed".

GEt it through your head. MOST of us are Bush obsessed in that we have almost come to see dealing with Bush as our chief aim....forgetting there's a whole world of complex problems out there which will need problem solvers long after Bush is back on the bottle as a retired prez.

I was almost sort of trying to provide some rational excuse for why some here would seem to defend the outpouring of violence by many Muslims (yes, still very much the minority but...MANY) regarding political expression about what Islam is doing and means today via cartoons.

One can quibble with whether or not they were tasteful or not...but I don't care if they showed Muhammed doggy-styling MOther Theresa, it doesn't give people the right to go off the deep end and burn down buildings and riot.

Even at that...to see fellow DU'ers seemingly excusing or defending such reaction? Simply amazing and counter to all I thought people on here believed.

[QC]

54. Are you Mohammed-obsessed?

Why do you keep running frantically from thread to thread declaring him to be a "Holy Prophet" whom no one, not even non-Muslims, must ever treat with less than absolute reverence?

[Igel]

110. Again, there is a crucial difference

between calling for an amendment--which is also a call for discussion--and burning down embassies and threatening beheadings. Or even taking the occasional hostage.

One is words.

The other is deeds.

To confuse them shows such a serious and thorough-going epistemological confusion that any logic or reasoning is precluded.

When the flag-burning amendment becomes a fait accompli, and in response to a flag burning a crowd spontaneously forms and burns down the home of the flag-burner's relatives, then we can venture a reasonable comparison.

[Hardrada]

142. That Di Fi house looks like an old elementary school

here in Iowa!! One of the ones we are abandoning and replacing with newer buildings! Sorry, that pic just struck me as funny. Nice lawn though.

[Erika]

6. My Xtian mother taught never to denigrate other religions

Their religion is part of their soul. The Danes insulted a Holy Prophet of Islam. Calling it a cartoon only makes it worse.

When has a Muslim ever cartooned Christ? Their are lines you do not cross. The Danes crossed the line.

[eggman67]

10. There are lines you do not cross?

Who draws these "lines"?

[Erika]

16. Respect of other religions

Jews do not believe Christ is the son of God, but they don't make cartoons. Islam doesn't believe Christ is the son of God, but they don't make cartoons.

That is the line I'm talking about. It is called respect of others religions.

The Danes were totally out of line.

[eggman67]

21. Muslims don't make offensive cartoons!? LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x322801

Secondly I didn't as what line I asked who draws the line? You? Are you the arbiter of what may and may not be said?

[cali]

77. The most vile editorial

cartooning comes out of Muslim countries, and it's endorsed, quite often, by their governments. But you, my friend, are missing the point. I don't believe Jyllands-Posten should have published the cartoons. It was irresponsible. There should be no law abridging their right to do so, but self-restraint is part of liberty. They're a right wing paper and they were trying to tweak muslims in Denmark. Stupid choice. The cartoonists, on the other hand, have every right to produce anything that they wish to. And must I remind you that "offending Christians" through art happens everyday?

[Igel]

112. No, the Muslim fundamentalists in Denmark were

completely "in line", and the moderate Muslims in Denmark dared not show themselves to be possessed of a spine. Declaring the Danes out of line presupposes knowledge of the context and avowed reasons for the cartoonists to produce the cartoons.

The cartoons were an act of protest to perceived--and, now, plausibly proven--fears against producing respectful representations of Muhammed. They went moderately over the line to show that the extremist Muslims were forbidden to impose a line ex parte on people outside their sects. A little utterance of "They want to oppress their own--well, I'm not going to interfere; but they damn well aren't going to oppress me, and get me to voluntarily give up a little of *my* freedom for a small measure of temporary security."

There's a context here, as far as the Danes involved were concerned. It's not Iraq. It's not the Crusades. It's not Palestine. It's Denmark, and the distortions that radical Muslims were perceived to be causing to now-traditional, deep-rooted and deeply held, Danish cultural values.

BTW, eventually some Danish illustrator with some daring actually stepped forward to illustrate the book. But by then, the call for a statement of protest was made.

[genie_weenie]

121. You're Right!

And for this disrespectful line crossing whatever happens to them, as per the Koran (the most perfect holy word of God) it is *their* fault...

[TankLV]

126. But Islam's followers - the vast majority it seems from the astounding

SILENCE of those NOT extreme - have called, are calling for "death" and ARE rioting, etc.

That is something you don't see even our righties and mullah Robertsons/Fartwells doing so.

That is the main point.

Our idiots might SAY stupid/heinious things, but THEIR idiots DO heinious things.

[donco6]

140. What do you mean, "The Danes"?

It was a newspaper, not the government. Please don't confuse the two.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

78. Civil Societies.

n/t

[Yupster]

137. Angry mobs

and the lines move from year to year also.

[PretzelWarrior]

17. so the fuck what? tell them how you feel and be on with it

you don't start a diplomatic crisis over it.

I think this is tantamount to the husband and wife getting into a heated argument about why he left the bread on the counter or why she bought that stupid new rug. It often is about something much deeper than the issue at hand.

We are seeing this cartoon serve as the proxy for all other east/west national tensions and Conservative Muslim vs. Progressive Muslim fights.

[Erika]

24. Yes, a crisis is started

You don't belittle a Holy Prophet of another religion. It's that simple. Religion runs far deeper than nationalism.

[PretzelWarrior]

36. maybe from your personal point of view. but many are Nation obsessed

and believe love of their nation is their religion.

So you would give a pass to U.S. people who are religiously nationalistic when they go out and shoot or beat up Muslims after 9/11?

just wondering.

[smirkymonkey]

106. Fuck religion and their "holy prophets."

"Religion runs far deeper than nationalism."

That's your opinion, not a fact. I am so sick of religious people insisting that we must all think the way they do and putting forth thier riduculous myths as "the way things are." It's all a lie, started by men, to control all humankind.

[TankLV]

127. I'll belittle any religion I want. It's called "freedom".

Especially when those religions are vile and wish me dead for being a gay man.

But you knew that.

[Yupster]

139. You maybe

I'll kindly reserve my right to belittle anyone I please without an angry mob going after me.

[greyl]

167. The crisis began 10,000 years ago. nt

[greyl]

23. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, too. nt

[Erika]

25. and they would never cartoon Christ.

The Danes were 100% out of line.

[greyl]

34. Yes they would, as well as blow up Buddha statues. nt

[Hardrada]

146. Good point! As a sometime student of Buddhism I found

that hard to understand and forgive. I also saw that as an unfortunate precedent for the US disrespect for history in Baghdad (the wrecking of that museum through failure to protect it.)

[greyl]

166. it saddened and infuriated me too.

At the time, I didn't realize that there have been wars fought by Buddhists in the name of Buddhism, so I was a bit partial to Buddhism as contrasted with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Now, a few years later, I can see the similarities between the 5 major salvationist religions much clearer.

[Hardrada]

168. I like most aspects of Buddhism however

and nowadays many branches are highly progressive and eco-conscious.

[greyl]

169. I agree with you. However,

Buddhism is a salvationist religion which dictates that humans need to be saved/enlightened and that this world isn't as important as the afterlife or Nirvana.
All life is suffering?
That's not what I see. :)

[Hardrada]

176. I'm not sure that all branches really stress the afterlife

which I don't believe in but I do like the idea of enlightenment and learning compassion. And it is essentially so excellently anti-consumerist (hence essentially anticapitalist).

[greyl]

177. the central appeal is release from this world, right? nt

[Hardrada]

188. I read it differently.

But, of course, I am still studying this.

[QC]

58. "they would never cartoon Christ"

How much are you willing to bet?

[fujiyama]

31. Theh "Danes"

did not do anything. That remark is as idiotic as some you are constantly criticizing. This was done by a few artists, no the government of Denmark or the entire population, just as these riots are not by all Muslims, but a few. Don't stereotype Danes for this as being bigotted.

Your sttance on this is ridiculous. You are constantly apologizing for this nonsense. Sorry, but their spiritual being is worthy of ridicule, as is Tom Cruise's or anyone else. If I can make fun of Scientologists, you damn well better believe I'll make fun of Jesus or Muhammad. It is a true sign of immaturity to get this riled up over a cartoon. This violence is not excusable.

Do you get this offended when the Simpsons makes fun of Ganesh or Christians? And please, don't ask the same question about Muslims mocking Christ. If you think the Muslim world is very tolerant then you are very naive.

[Don Claybrook]

101. attaching my name to your post

I agree completely with your point of view. Anyone who starts a riot because they don't like a cartoon about their god is a religious extremist. And just because they hate Bush too doesn't mean they're right on this one. Bush is not elevated one millimeter by this either. He's still wrong about all the same crap he's always been wrong about, and now he has a little more company in the world, that's all.

[jfalchion]

70. wrong

"The Danes insulted a Holy Prophet of Islam."

No. A newspaper "insulted a Holy Prophet of Islam" The Danish people and gov't just didn't "pre-approve" a publication in a newspaper. Do you want Rove to edit every paper in this country? I don't think so.

The Ummah reaction is not compatible with a free society.

Please reconsider your opinion.

:kick:

[smirkymonkey]

104. Have you ever checked out cartoons and articles in the Muslim

media? Obviously you haven't. The lines are being crossed constantly.

[TankLV]

125. Don't you DARE tell me which lines to cross!

I finally saw the cartoon - it was FUNNY!

If you don't like it, don't look at it.

I will continue to do so.

I could care less of what YOU believe, but don't you DARE tell others how to behave or believe because of some FABRICATED "sensibilities".

Don't even go there!

[wickerwoman]

9. I think a stronger analogy would be

if someone published a cartoon in a major U.S. daily showing Jesus gunning down an abortion doctor.

Sure the fundies would go apeshit and probably send death threats to the newspaper and the cartoonist. It's not unheard of. I wouldn't be surprised if they could bring enough pressure to bear to get the eidtor fired (or at least have to make a public apology.)

But would it be fair to say something like "What's wrong with Christians? Why are they so violent? Don't they have anything better to do? They're all brainwashed."

First of all, the cartoon is offensive because it paints all Christians/Muslims as being violent psychopaths. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be printed, just that it is obviously unfair and bigoted.

Then, to say all Christians/Muslims are violent, et al. because of the tiny minority of idiots who are sending in death threats, etc. just compounds the insult.

I'm not saying that you are arguing this- just that it's something I've seen repeated on DU. What I haven't seen is anyone arguing that the burning of the embassy is justified. Saying you see the reason why something was done isn't the same as condoning it and isn't what I would call "mollycoddling". Violence is never justified, but if we don't look honestly at the reasons behind it we'll never be able to stop it.

[Tom Joad]

35. But DiFi (and the many who support the making the Flag sacred) are

going "ape-shit" and threatning violence (imprisonment... which is a nice legal kind of violence).

[wickerwoman]

51. Sorry,

but what does that have to do with anything I wrote?

[PretzelWarrior]

66. yep. you are right. and sometimes we look honestly and say

these guys are off their beam. They have no business issuing death threats on cartoonists because they disagree with what they printed. They have no business burning buildings and engaging in violent rioting....destroying property of foreign governments in reaction to a religious/political difference of opinion.

THe Danish press and Danish government along with most western media groups, journalist associations, and governments are going to stare down oppression of any kind and tell them to "GFY" if you think you're gonna tell us to print or not print something on the basis of your religion.

If they want to destroy property, injure and possibly kill others over it...it's their heads. THey will lose what tender hold they have on the middling majority of Muslims and wider world. THey will lose this in the long run.

[Igel]

113. Hi, homeless.

They weren't caricatures of all Muslims, however; just Muhammed.

The problem on the ground is one of "you slight my idol, you slight me". When people derive all of their self-respect from allegiance to an abstraction instead of from their own actions and values, you have a problem. But when honor is a life and death issue ... well, you're set up for disaster. And when such offenses are seen as being communal in nature ... a disaster is inevitable.

Not all Muslims fall into any one of these traps, and it's not just Muslims that can fall into these traps. But enough Muslims fall into all three to create a problem.

[tenshi816]

148. Actually, the kind of "Christians"

who read the Left Behind books would probably love to see a cartoon depicting Jesus gunning down an abortion doctor! It would fit right in with their desire to see a macho, hateful Jesus smiting sinners right and left, instead of that wimpy Prince of Peace the New Testament talks about.

But I get your point.

[breakfastofchampions]

175. There are whackos in every group of people

But if the "Jesus killing doctor" cartoon was published there would be no building burnt down. There would be no mass protest. Major governments wouldn't take a stand. It would be a considerably smaller and less violent issue.

[iconoclastNYC]

14. If we had cartoonists showing Jesus doing something

Horrible you don't think some of these people in the south would go burn some shit up?

Whatever dude. Islamists don't have a monopoly on religiously fueled rampage.

[eggman67]

27. What got burned in reaction to "Piss Christ"?

Or "Book of Daniel", or "Dogma" or "South Park"

I must've missed those riots...

[Erika]

33. Christ was not ridiculed, n/t

[eggman67]

45. WHAT!?!

You're either an idiot or being willfully obtuse.

[iconoclastNYC]

46. He wasn't ridiculed.

If there was a work that showed Jesus having gay sex i bet you there'd be violence.

[PretzelWarrior]

47. how many buildings burned when "Last Temtation of CHrist"

was released? Just wondering.

[iconoclastNYC]

50. He wasn't having gay sex in that.

He was having straight sex. You act like people in this country dont' do stupid shit because of religion. You are wrong. Abortion clinic bombings? Ever hear of that?

[PretzelWarrior]

56. again. stay focused. I'm not talking about "people". I mean DU

I've been here since 2002. I know the ebb and flow of conversations/topics/beliefs.

We in the vast majority would denounce abortion bombers, school book bans, abstinence programs substituting for genuine sex education....we speak out strongly against government or religious attempts in this country to choke free speech or expression.

We spend our lives supposedly BELIEVING this is the better way and I guess it really got under my skin to see people essentially patronizing Muslims by holding them to a lesser standard than us.

It is ludicrous. THe Judeo-CHristian-Muslim tradition is one of laws and morals...right and wrong.

The extremist Pharisees and "Focus on the Family" bunch and Fundamentalist Imams and Mullahs all share the same modus operandi in that they try very hard to burden everyone down with laws, restrictions, bans, heresies, punishments, etc. We should fight that and in my mind that means not mollycoddling the rather hardline stance a disturbing number of Muslims are taking over a FUCKING CARTOON that expressed an opinion. NO one was harmed in the making of the commercials.

Now, if those same people had generated this level of violence and uprising over actual violence done to them at U.S. military's hands....well, maybe that would seem to make sense. It would have proportionality to it. But burning embassies? rioting? Who knows what next...over political cartoons? No. I will denounce that with my very last breath as anathema to what it means to be civilized humans.

[eggman67]

59. Couldn't agree more PretzelWarrior

check your PMs.

[kittynboi]

88. Jesus and Pals

You don't think South Parks "Jesus and Pals" is ridicule?

[Bushy Being Born]

119. Funny you should mention that.

Jesus has been shown as a homosexual having gay sex. Ecce Homo was a photographic exhibition that depicted Jesus in different poses alone and with other men as a homosexual, a transvestite, and an AIDS-victim. It toured through Scandinavia in the late 90's, culminating in its display in the Uppsala Cathedral in Sweden in 1998, a move actually sanctioned by the rather loopy Swedish archbishop. Was there violence? None whatsoever. There was heated debate, and many inside as well as outside the clergy thought it blasphemous. Of course people were offended, but the only result to come from it was Pope John Paul II canceling an upcoming scheduled audience of the archbishop to the Vatican.

So much for that. And if said exhibition was to take place in the States, I doubt the response would be much different. Falwell wouldn't kill anybody, he would sue like he's done earlier, and utter obscenities on FOX until his face turned red, but that's it. Trying to fit abortion clinic bombings into the context is ridiculous; those perpetrators are so small in number that they all but disappear compared to the vast muslim outrage. Frankly, I am beginning to seriously question the motives of you who would relativize muslim actions of the past week. What exactly is it that makes you so reluctant to call a spade a spade?

[Yupster]

143. There was some painting that went through Europe a few

years ago of a naked Jesus on the cross with a 12 inch plus penis.

That was supposed to be a protest against anti-gay feeling in the Catholic Church or something.

Anyway, nothing was burnt.

[TankLV]

129. Both I conclude.

[NoPasaran]

95. You've obviously never watched South Park

You should watch a few episodes... and keep your molotov cocktails handy.

[TankLV]

128. Must have missed it. Can you cite examples?

We do have cartoonists showing Jesus doing something horrible EVERY FUCKING DAY - more than can be counted.

Many examples have been cited here.

But NOT ONCE has ANYBODY gone on a rampage as seem to happen LIKE CLOCKWORK with muslims, NOT ONCE.

If this is what these particular idiotic religious extremists believe is their right, then they can go fuck themselves with pigs.

[PretzelWarrior]

181. let's get a Jesus/Mohommed "Brokeback Mountain photoshop

done. that will be sure to inflame 50 to 60 percent of world population.

[laruemtt]

15. i think dave123willliams in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2439892

made a good point that the burning of the embassies is not in reaction only to the cartoon but to the gutting of their entire way of life by the West - think iraq and the upcoming iran war.

[PretzelWarrior]

20. yes. I made that point in another reply

this cartoon thing is merely a proxy everyone is glomming onto but it typefies many many conflicts going on up to and including US hegemony in the region.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

157. Yes, it's a "blue shoes" argument

Once when I was a college student, my mother and I argued for hours about whether I should buy some blue shoes to go with a certain outfit.

Of course, that vehement, screaming, door-slamming argument wasn't really about blue shoes. It was about whether my mother had the right to micromanage my life.

I don't always agree with Thomas Friedman, but I think he has analyzed one of the roots of Islamic militancy. Muslims believe that their religion is the final and most perfect revelation of God's teachings. Yet the fact that the West has prospered while their countries have remained less developed, coupled with colonialism and interference by Western countries, has made some Muslims feel insecure. One response to insecurity is defensiveness and belligerence.

So no, the riots aren't REALLY about the cartoons, but demagogues find it easy to rile up people who are already insecure with growing Western cultural influence or who are living in Western countries and having trouble adjusting or being discriminated against.

[JohnnyRingo]

22. No religion can tell me they have "a law" that prohibits me from....

...anything.

[Erika]

28. You forget you live in America that builds on laws all the time

telling you what you can do?

[laruemtt]

37. they can and will tell you that -

we know that from the fundies over here. and where the rad muslims are concerned, you can push it or you can try to understand where they might be coming from in their reaction to what on the surface appears to just be to the cartoon. if we had shown a tiny bit of concern for their point of view, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. preparing for the flames................


immediately edited to add: No, i do NOT believe 9/11 was a rational response to anything and in no way can be rationalized or condoned, but it would not hurt us to see the other's point of view.

[Erika]

42. Materialism is not a Muslim value

or a Christian value. Yet we have Saudi Kings honored at W's Chapal ranch. Maybe it's an oil thing. Big oil king meeting big oil corporatist.

[laruemtt]

43. while at the same time telling us

WE are addicted to oil :crazy:

[CJCRANE]

71. 9/11 is a good example

to bring up.

Al-Qaeda had clear goals related to American policy that they wanted to highlight (troops out of Saudi Arabia etc).

And 9/11 was a reaction to that, but they could never have done it without inside help. The neocons wanted 9/11 to happen.

Same with these cartoons. There is a clear muslim grievance but it's also possible that agents provocateur and psyops are involved to maximise the muslims anger and create political gain for the RW.

(So as long as there is a radical RW in Europe and America, that WANTS to stir up a "clash of civilizations" to promote "generational war", it's unlikely that things will cool down anytime soon).

[radio4progressives]

29. how dare you lecture us on this crap. we've got some extremism right here

to deal with, so how about cracking down the religious freaks here in this country, eh? after we finish with that, then maybe we have a right to condemn other actions elsewhere, but until get our own house in order with our freaking phrarasee/christo extremist fascism here, we don't have a right to speak out condemn extremism anywhere else.

speaking of brute violence, we don't have the moral authority to speak out against anyone else until oust this brutal regime in the white house.

[Tom Joad]

39. Right. As bad as burning a building is, how about burning a whole city

like the US and Europe did in Fallujah? That's fanaticism. Kerry supported the attack on Fallujah.

[PretzelWarrior]

40. WHAT? DOn't you get it? I'm not saying go out and lecture them

did my post say....we should all write letters to Syrian people to stop their unGodly burning of embassies? No I didn't.

My point was....IF we truly believe in freedom and liberty for ourselves in this country and are fighting the BUsh evil with all our might to see these Christo fascists in our country don't get their way....it is like letting the wind out of the sails if a movement is afoot on this board or in progressive and slightly radical quarters to somehow say "it's understandable they are upset" and "of COURSE they will burn embassies and boycott Denmark, etc. etc.

It's hypocritical. I thought many of us detested hypocrisy.

[Erika]

49. You miss the point - Islam's Holy Prophet was ridiculed

This crossed the lines of decency. Our right wingers here whine about anything. The Reagan movie, the book of Daniel, Broke Back Mountain. They are the continual whiners and perpetual victims.

Yet they are bitching about the thin skin of the Islam people in the cartooning of their Holy Prophet.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. You have GOT to be kidding?!

The lines of decency were crossed and this excuses burning buildings?

Our right-wingers do whine about anything and everything, but I don't see them calling for beheadings, "9-11"s, and razing buildings to the ground!

As for their bitching about the thin-skin of the Muslims, that is what is called hypocrisy. They are famous for it!

Crossing the lines of decency doesn't excuse violence, also a crossing a line of decency.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

75. How about those who call for...

the nuking of Iran because their newly elected leader SAID things not to their liking??

[Behind the Aegis]

173. Not a good anology...at all.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

76. dupe

dupe

[TankLV]

130. Right - whining and complaining is the same as RIOTING and calling for

DEATH.

You studied the repuke book of ridiculuous comparisons well, we see.

The more you write, the more ridiculous you look.

[Yupster]

145. I'd feel a lot better if the angry mobs would learn

to whine like Pat Robertson.

Maybe Jerry Falwel can teach them how to take the artists to court.

[radio4progressives]

52. My apologies, I shouldn't be up this late, i mis read your op.. my bad

:silly:

g'night , i have no business being on line with my eyes going cross eyed...

[fujiyama]

44. Logical fallacy. Tu Quo.

If we don't properly condemn this kind of action, we are not consistant as liberals. This reacttion should be chilling to journalists and editorialists world wide, not to mention anyone that values free speech.

The fundamentalists in this country should be and ARE condemned by liberals all the ttime. Consistancy is important.

Fundamentalism and extremism are worldwide threaats. We absolutely need to clean our own houuse, and there is little we can or should do abroad regarding this. But we shhould not excuse or keep quiet about this behavior.

[QC]

65. Why must you insist on dragging *logic* into everything?

Harrumph!

[Syrinx]

48. religious fanatics can kiss my Technicolor ass

And I don't care if they are "Islamo-Fascists," Christo-Fascists, or Buddha-Fascists.

If there is a God, they all will get their asses kicked in the end.

Meanwhile on planet Earth, we are all in a world of hurt, and it doesn't look like things will get better anytime soon. Sigh.

[Erika]

53. Yep, there is no world leader out there to calm the waters

I did hear that W's next promo is showing him walking on water. Affects by Falwell/Robertson/et al. The RNC is promoting it wildly.

[Skittles]

64. we point out O'Reilly's insanities

but we don't f***ing burn things down

[WHAT]

67. The Face of God...

there was a thing on pbs that showed a mathematical model that evolved micro/macro without replication into infinity. I forget the name of it but it was attributed to some english gentleman. Such a presentation startled me because it was reminiscent of the basic insight into factorials that laid the foundation for calculus because it gave a formula for understanding patterns as you approach the infinite...zoom-in and zoom-out. This simple relationship was first discerned by a Persian child ...maybe 6 years old, I think about 300 bc. These small, astounding facts stick in my mind more tenaciously than anything a teacher might want to instill in me. Yet. I may be wrong about the details, but the main thrust of my astonishment, I think, is within range. Because, to my astonishment, I think the english gentleman might have fronted-off a simple, profound relationship perceived by a 6 year old child 300 years before Christ. Maybe some things are wrong but I do think there is something fishy in the whole emphasis of discovery promulgated on this show.

I also tend to think it took the middle ages to catch-up with Islamic ideas that were smothered by the Roman civilization that made a point of erasing any such wisdom. So, after watching some of this show (pbs), I thought maybe they took some of the factorial ideas and plugged them into a computer program that assigned colour values to increasing and decreasing limits. I also thought of the idea of the face of god and the idea that it could not be depicted because it could not be pinned-down...and how apprehending such a mathematical model might lead one to speculate specifically on the Islamic sensibility in this respect and how that simple math construct might allow conclusions on an unknowable god.

Now, if this pompous insight is just a case of some poor schmuck being a day late and an idea short of recognition, but, if it is a deliberate form of usurpation based on the lack of a wherewithal to think independently, then, it is a serious human folly reflecting the concerns of a culture preoccupied with getting-it-all rather than just getting-it.

I think deliberate cruelty might be more egregious than ignorance.

Signing-off as a Pagan Buddhist Existentialist but respectful of anyone who might come nearer the comprehension of god than I ever will...

[PretzelWarrior]

68. interesting post. not sure if I get all of your meaning...

but I will say there is at least one common thread in that religious passions or blind idealistic hewing to a political road or another or even the merciless love and lust all short circuit the human brain and we find it difficult to move forward in civilization when discovery, better methods, new inventions, etc are stifled by these heretofor mentioned destructive tendencies of humans.

[eallen]

80. Rome fell before Islam was invented.

A Persian child in the third century BCE most likely was Zoroastrian. That religion went into steep decline a millenium later when the Arabs, united in a new religion called Islam, conquered the Sassanids.

The western Roman empire was a full century collapsed before Mohammed started prophesying. Of course, Byzantium held on until the 15th c. CE, when it was conquered by the Ottomans.

[JCMach1]

69. There is a difference between free speech and PROVOCATION

If you understand Islam, you realize that the cartoons DO rise to that level.

While free speech allows for provocation in language, there is a moral imperative not to employ it.


Sure I can call somone the worst names, but probably I won't. Sure I could scream about race and religion using the worse terms. More than likely I won't.

However, there are peaceful ways of dealing with such provocation and many formulas to follow (Gandhi, MLK).

Sometimes, even that doesn't work....

Rulers like Bashar Assad and others milk an issue for political gain...

And yes (gulp) REALLY angry people sometimes do bad things, but don't forget the media manipulates and distorts the face of anger.

SO, they are not JUST cartoons. They imply a religious and moral slur against all Muslim people. Does that give anyone the right to attack and burn?

No, it only takes a COALITION OF THE WILLING acting to burn it down. Muslims have learned well from the Bush Doctrine.

[Karenina]

73. There's also a difference between provocation

and incitement to riot. I consider those grotesque, racist images the latter.

[JCMach1]

74. Exactly

[radwriter0555]

81. Those "cartoons" were HATE SPEECH... and as such should be spat upon and

called to task and NOT excused.

The same exact thing was done to the jews under hitler and the entire world cast them out.

The same thing is happening now to the muslims and it makes me puke.

They have a right to be angry for the atrocities that have been committed against them in recent history.

[MADem]

83. I haven't seen them, just one pic of the head of the prophet

with the bomb sticking out--it looked like a Persian drawing, actually.

Has anyone seen the actual cartoons, and what they said? All I've seen is "reports" that were "about" them, but not the actual drawings.

[msongs]

85. ha ha don't let facts get in the way :-) all this poo about things most

people here have probably never even seen.

the millions of people murdered in the name of allah/mohammed/jesus/christ etc would not likely find these cartoons too offensive.

seems to me people with secure beliefs would chastise and move on. To do otherwise shows fundamental
insecurity. Or sorry lives with nothing better to do to relieve the tedium. gosh aren't these protestors
gonna watch the Stupor Bowl advertising extravaganza today?

nor would I if they were against things I believed, because they are just cartoons by people who are
either ignorant and/or have an agenda to push.

doesn't look to me like this anti-cartoon violence is a response of the people, more likely
an orchestrated response instigated by others with their own agenda, others who take advantage
of a situation like the bush gang takes advantage of 9/11.

and why do those "protestors" cover their faces? are they not proud of their own protest?
and why to the media show pics of people with covered faces in the first place.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[smirkymonkey]

114. What you stated below is what I believe about all fundamentalists:

"..seems to me people with secure beliefs would chastise and move on. To do otherwise shows fundamental insecurity."

They do not have any genuine faith and their religion is no longer working for them. It's all show -they cling to the structure of religion because they don't know how else to survive in a world that is leaving them behind. They are filled with fear and anxiety and the way they react is to try to control the situation through coercion and violence. It doesn't matter what religion it is - this is a hallmark of fundamentalism everywhere.

The day when there is no more religion can't come soon enough for me. It will probably never happen in my lifetime, but I at least hope that I will be able to continue to live freely in the world without religious nut-cases determining what I can and cannot do, think and speak.

[distantearlywarning]

86. Somebody posted some of them at DU yesterday.

Obviously, I'm not a Muslim, so I can't speak to how offensive they would be to a true believer. But I will say from my very Caucasian, Western viewpoint, that I found them a little boring (to be honest). Some of them I didn't even get. Others seemed to criticize things that I personally think some Muslims need to be criticized about (specifically their treatment of their women and how that deviates from the prophet's original teachings). Others seemed more "mean", but also didn't seem to me to be that much different from many of the political cartoons in the US which make fun of our leaders and other people, basically poking them where it hurts (so to speak), but in a way that I didn't find to be that humorous or even very interesting in terms of sharp political commentary.

Having personally seen some Arabic cartoons in the last year which dealt in a very harsh, racist, and inappropriate way with the subject of Israelis and other groups, I don't think they have much room to complain about these cartoons. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. Or maybe, if you're going to dish it out, you should learn to take it.

[kittynboi]

89. "THe prophet"?

Am I the only one chilled by apparent non muslims calling Mohammed "the prophet"?

[MADem]

92. I lived over there for years, they called him The Prophet

It's no different from saying "Jesus" OR "Christ" OR "Jesus Christ" to refer to that dude in Christianity.

And why are you chilled? You know my faith, or lack thereof? You seem to be the one making assumptions, frankly.

Rather pedestrian and unthinking approach on YOUR part, IMO.

[kittynboi]

150. Ratzinger.

I call Ratzinger by his rela name. Ratzinger. Not Benedict, although I find that fitting for him as well. I refuse to call anyone by a title if I find the title meaningless to me.

[TankLV]

131. You are not alone.

We have noticed this also.

Don't like it or approve or support it one bit.

All these "prophets" can go to their respective hells and leave us alone to enjoy our lives in peace.

Problem is, these asswipe religious extremists can't and won't do that.

[radwriter0555]

160. Why is it chilling?

Are ya afraid everyone is going to convert to islam now?

[kittynboi]

90. They don't have the right.....

....to burn buildings.

[radwriter0555]

162. No one else has the right to murder, torture, rape, invade, demonize,

destroy and desecrate anything either. But the muslims have been putting up with that for decades from modern man. I hope you're equally as disrurbed by that, more so than one building.

It's just a building.

Hate speech taints their entire culture with lies, which is far, far worse than one building set afire.

[kittynboi]

91. Jews?

You mean like all the crap about Jews that Muslims routinely put out?

[NoPasaran]

96. If the worst thing that happened to the Jews under Hitler

If the worst thing that happened to the Jews under Hitler had been a few offensive cartoons I don't think History would have made such a fuss about it.

It's the action of fanatics blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians that can NOT be excused. And that's true whether they're doing it in the name of Palestine, or Allah, or Jiffy Lube.

The thought that we have to be careful with what we write or print lest we offend these primitive barbarians makes ME puke.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. "these primitive barbarians"

because presumably they are "fanatics blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians". I'm just curious, is it civilized then when we blow up innocent civilians without blowing ourselves up? Is that the defining difference between primitive barbarism and civilization?

[Warren Stupidity]

98. Uh no.

You might dislike the cartoons in question, and the intent might have been motivated by hate, but 'HATE SPEECH' is not some new unprotected form of speech, it has been around forever and like the rest of human discourse, in an enlightened society it is as protected as any other form. It is HATE ACTIONS, that is to say actual violence against persons and property, that is not to be permitted.

I fail to see the difference between those who would ban caricatures of religious figures and those who would ban symbolic destruction of patriotic symbols. People have the natural right to speak as they see fit. Granting the state the power to suppress speech that you don't like is just enabling tyranny.

[Igel]

117. So the Danes should have given up a bit of their freedom

in return for temporary security?

That's what you're saying. I'll assume you're ignorant of the Danish--not the American, Iraqi, or Indonesian--context.

Mustn't have a respectful representation of Muhammed for non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country. Must self-censor to respect the wishes of a minority of immigrants, fear be praised. Tolerance is yielding to intolerance. The maximally free society has the maximum imposition of dogmas by the most extreme minority? Puh-lease. Let's move your argument back 45 years or so.

Jim Crow laws? Mustn't create a provocation like not sitting in your proper place on a bus. Might create violence and give offense. Some people in some religious sects believed that blacks were created inferior. Can't disrespect deeply held beliefs by some extremists. That would constitute hate speech. Mustn't do that. Oh, no.

Rosa Parks, get where you belong!

Do you really mean to say that, or is this little reductio ad absurdum insufficient?

[distantearlywarning]

84. I agree.

And I'm a little shocked by some of the responses to this thread.

If these were crazy Christian fundies doing these things, the response here would be overwhelmingly negative. But somehow it's ok in this case because they're a different culture? What a load of BS. Seriously. It shocks me that some people on this site support this kind of violent action. What happened to non-violent, peaceful action and the right to free speech? (And yes, folks, sometimes free speech consists of things that other people don't want to hear or find offensive or provoking - that's why it's supposedly protected by law in the US.)

This kind of extremism is not ok no matter what race, religion or whatever people are. And it's not justified by claims of "oppression" or anything else (remember - Western fundies believe they are oppressed too!).

I think we look like a bunch of illogical hypocrites when we state that it's ok for these people to riot and burn things because they are offended by cartoons. We would never tolerate or support this behavior from the Christian Right, and we shouldn't tolerate it from the Muslim Right either.


Edited to spell more better...

[TankLV]

132. Ditto.

Couldn't agree more.

[kittynboi]

87. Thank you.

I'm glad to see some people not being total idiots. Reading some of these responses have caused me, for the first time in my life, to take seriously some of the right wing talk of appeasers and apologists for muslim violence.

I propose we leave the appeasers to their own devices and get together all REAL liberals and democrats who support free speech and break off to form our own political coalition

[rman]

93. Good. Now we can take the moral high ground.

do i need a sarcasm tag?

There is no "solid backing" of islam extremists on DU.

I think we should try to avoid escalation of *'s WW3 at any cost. Certainly a few burned embassies are not worth it. We have to break the cycle of provocations.

[Strong Atheist]

94. Agreed. nt.

[Toucano]

103. "Moral legitimacy"??? Who the fuck cares?

Moral legitimacy is meaningless.

[PretzelWarrior]

154. for whom?

for youm?

I believe we should have some type of universal moral compass...

and the idea that we should willingly abett their unreasonable religious violence in the face of free expression of an opinion even one that could be perceived as insulting is just crazy talk here on DU.

[rucky]

105. They were responding to YEARS of Western Provocation

it's usually the symbolic stuff that brings people to the boiling point.

no, I'm not condoning it - just trying to explain the behavior. let me repeat that I'm not condoning it, because I usually get angry responses when I try to use my Sociology studies from college to offer an explanation for seemingly irrational behavior.

[abex]

116. yes, the toons were one insult too many again

[TankLV]

133. Yes - burn all the infidels!

[abex]

141. under normal circumstances, when did we have those last?, i'd condemn

those acts as well. But I don't condone them either. Just understand them. And it's possible that a group posing as fundies did it instead.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. It's About Respect For Others.

And your opening statement about how those that *gasp* disagree with you are "mollycoddling" extremists (sounds similar to the aiding the terrorist freeper meme) shows fairly bluntly that respect is a concept you could use more experience with.

[PretzelWarrior]

155. no. someone disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it.

I could just as easily charge you with Newspeak in twisting my words around.

What I said was that some of the posts here on DU were surprising because they seemed inconsistent and hypocritical when laid next to all the previously held positions when the issue concerned totalitarian oppression of ideas on one side and free expression on the other.

The only thing different I see in this case, is there is enough triangulation going on in people's minds that somehow they feel it okay to support this kind of overreaction and violence regarding CARTOON DRAWINGS pubished in WESTERN newspapers since those who are acting violently are also at the brunt end of BUsh aggression and hegomony.

I"m saying we shouldn't give these people a pass. We're all humans no matter what our belief. We should hold consistent views about peaceful protest and not "mollycoddle" these violent agitators. Otherwise, you'd better be up here admitting Sinclair Broadcasting has all the right to shut down TV programming its mgmt and viewers find "offensive".

[The Whiskey Priest]

109. Fanatics are fanatics

and they must be condemned....no matter where they reside or what faith they profess.

[berni_mccoy]

111. Yeah, just like the Planned Parenthood Clinic Bombers...

Those people have lost ALL CREDIBILITY :sarcasm:

[kittynboi]

118. What??

I seriosly hope you are not saying that the anti abortion zealots are justified as well???

[berni_mccoy]

120. Don't be ridiculous!

I'm saying that the Christian Extremists did not lose credibility when they attacked these clinics. In fact, they only gained power since then and it looks like they are on the path to getting their way.

[PretzelWarrior]

156. they have lost all credibility. I believe Rudolph was convicted

in a southern state under the Bush admin for his crimes. HOw in any way can you say abortion bombers are seen as acceptable by the main in this country?

[dogday]

122. The moment a protest turns physical is when it loses it's

message. If you want to get the message out, do what they were doing and protest the paper and the supporters of the paper. When it turns physical, the message gets lost and will never be found. It will be overshadowed by the violence....

[Hardrada]

147. Stamp Act Riots, Boston Tea party, Oakland antiwar protests??

[TankLV]

123. You'll get NO argument from me. I couldn't agree more.

These asswipes are asswipes, no matter what "religion" they profess.

Just as bad as "our" fundies.

[Harper_is_Bush]

138. I find your claims troubling.

How are you able to say those images are not akin to "anti Semitic cartoons or blackface, etc"?

How can you make that claim?

Are you a Muslim living in the Mid-East?

And how the H are you able to call any Muslim who would make that analogy an "extremist"?

I haven't seen any "mollycoddling" of "extremist Muslims" who use violence here. I have seen plenty of people making the correct point that these images are offensive to Muslims in ways that we perhaps don't fully appreciate.

Are we able to make the distinction between agreeing that these cartoons ARE offensive and provocative and agreeing that the violence is wrong?
Or must we downplay the significance of the cartoons - as you are - in order to be against the violence?

[PretzelWarrior]

151. that was the weakest point of my post.but I stand by it.

If they had tons of cartoons out depicting gross stereotypes of Muslim people....if they were dehumanizing them...etc. that would be tantamount to political hate speech.

But there are plenty of cartoons in this country and elsewhere depicting Jesus or presidents or moses or any number of prophets, leaders, etc to make a point.

face it. some of these Muslims are gonna have to DEAL with the larger world that doesn't believe as they do. If they don't like it....THEY will have to adapt--not the rest of free society.

[Harper_is_Bush]

164. So, you are able to judge the level of offensivness

of these pictures to Muslims?

And you are further able to judge that offensive pictures of "Jesus or presidents or moses" are on the same level.

I agree that Muslims will have to deal with the larger world, and many are doing so through peaceful demonstrations.

You are aware that there are more peaceful demonstrations ocurring than violent ones I hope. And it's not unreasonable to suspect that the violence that has ocurred was begun by a few instigaters, is it?

It is not neccessary for society or Muslims to adapt in this situation. The violence must stop and those responsible held accountable. If organized media chooses to offend Muslims in this way again, I suspect there will be more protests. Freedom of speech is secure, as is freedom to protest.

I can't help feeling like the underlying message of you and others goes beyond a simple one of "violence and death threats are unacceptable" to one of "the level of offense is out of proportion".

If the violence was gone, the death threats gone, and all you were left with was thousands of Muslims in the streets and calls for boycotts and perhaps even officials being recalled, what then would your opinion be? That Muslims need to adapt still?

[johannes1984]

149. they were really funny ,those cartoons

and they are nice compared to some of the more stinging stuff around .Also in Belgium 4000 and then some, muslims protested .They were furious ....well not really ....but they had an angry letter .And they were eloquent when talking to the people who were interested .....nice even ....with humor one would suggest .The thing is way out of proportion , but that said it will be a kick for the right wing all over europe .The right parties in western europe are making their victory party shopping lists public as we speak .

On the up side , it'll unite europe .And in Belgium we got to see up close that muslims are exactly like us , or any other arab for that matter , moderate ....they do have a lot of courage or persistence in going trough the damp grey winter sunday weather to protest .

On the down side , the normally uncarring liberal majority of europe just got less comfortable with the idea of everybody should be able to do as he pleases .And the atheists , which in Belgium make up a large majority ...just got a little less tolerant and trusting of religion .


I feel sorry for the editors of the danish newspaper , they're not accostumed to this kinda stress .Here's hoping they have a calm week next week .....same for the foreign ministry

[Orangeone]

152. Nobody

was worried about free speech whe David Irving went to jail for being a Holocaust denier.

[PretzelWarrior]

153. am I even talking free speech? No I am not

what I'm discussing is a single set of events around cartoons sending Muslims into emotional frenzy and causing destruction of embassies...and some people's seeming support of their stance.

I find it odd that you try to draw parallels between opinion cartoons and a guy who would deny the Holocaust of the 30's and 40's took place. THe former is commenting on modern issues of fights within Islam and how an industrialized West clashing with very traditional Muslim groups has led to the turmoil and trouble we see. The latter is outright lies easily disproven and although I find it ridiculous they would throw a guy in jail for stating stark raving mad opinions about the Holocaust, I am not going to burn down buildings over it or sympathize with those who do.

[zonmoy]

161. Are you a christian

if you are how would you like to see a picture of jesus fucking a man or a monkey. Even though I consider all gods and prophets evil by definition I think it is more evil to mock them.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PretzelWarrior]

172. Do you think BUsh is evil? Is it okay to mock him?

Discrete mathematics and force of logic would tell me that if you think Gods and prophets are evil and you also think BUsh is evil then you would say it is either NOT okay to mock Bush just as it is not okay to mock these prophets or it IS okay to mock Bush, prophets, Hitler, and anyone else you might describe as evil.

So which is it?

[PBass]

178. You're equating Bush with Mohammed?

Are you insane?

I think if the public in any country wants to evict a foreign embassy, they do have that right.

I don't think either side (the yellow journals that printed the cartoons) or the violent reactions can be defended, however lets not forget that the muck rakers did deliberately provoke this controversey. I refuse to turn this into an "Islam versus the West" issue, these slimey newspapers do not represent me or anyone I know.

Newspapers have a responsibilty to act with integrity.

[breakfastofchampions]

179. The Muslim Newspapers

Major Muslim newspapers are full of cartoons that are very offensive. Yet there has been no outcry over them. Do you not find it hypocritical that Muslims are angry when they are offended but allow offenses to others?

[PretzelWarrior]

180. no. I merely asked questions that he didn't answer

just trying to put to the test his tautology that mocking someone evil (which is how you described prophets) is somehow also inherently evil.

[distantearlywarning]

184. I am a Christian.

If a Muslim newspaper published a picture of Jesus fucking a monkey, I would probably be offended and irritated.

And then I would get over it and move on with my life. God is bigger than offensive cartoonists, and He doesn't need me to riot, kill, or commit arson to defend his honor. Neither do I believe it is my job to make Muslims into Christians, or even to demand that they respect Christianity. I can feel good about myself and my religion EVEN THOUGH there are unbelievers in the world. (Shocking but true! :eyes: ) Only the insecure and the faithless need to commit violence to prove how loyal they are to their God.

[PATRICK]

182. Three things

Let's start with the tepid one. Really going to get thrilled about free speech as a value by defending the antics of cartoonists insulting religion? Like the Bill of Rights is best exemplified by what Larry Flint has to offer? This "no big deal" argument cuts a lot of ways, but if it is a big deal with some violent groups, expect some violent groups to do their big deal thing. And as for most people who will quietly approve or disapprove of one or the other side, will they get drawn into the brawl? People like O'Reilly hope so. That when they earn their bucks and get off.

Which brings me to the Big Two for me. As with any of these suddenly coincidental "causes celebres" in a teapot I have to wonder if this is just part of Bushco propaganda war preliminaries. Building a divisive hate campaign is fascism at its best and there have been some questioning as to where some of the antagonism is coming from, the particular newspapers, the "free speech, Islam stinks" groups, the lack of any concern by the mainstream press to stop the people from escalating the brawl. A website dissing W was yanked before the sun set in one of those free speech, idealistic, brave countries. Said countries too who have troops occupying an Islamic country for profit or something(against the popular will of those nations). Said countries who are more poorly led, even rightist now, than when they slipped and slided around the Iraq invasion- against the rising tide of the populations demanding PEACE. So if it is part of the same old propaganda, screw it. If the Danes want to lose the ME cheese market for an insult cartoon, let them be the quixotic heroes, like Larry Flint champions the American ideal in our country, only not as honest or classy.

Number three, just maybe the Islamic countries are not enamored of free speech preached at them by Euro-trash culture and powers that supported all those conveniently stable dictatorships and cheap oil There was a time when the image of Christ was almost as cultural a taboo with more inane practices such as bestowing some Hollywood charisma on actors chosen to portray him. That hypocritical nonsense lasted until...no, it's STILL going on. Iconoclasm, always rife in all religions of the ME, is not as distasteful(to me) as sanctified commercialism. I have seen few posters try to get some cultural feel for what this issue means to islam and in different parts of Islam. Even those hapless spokesperson trying to explain, even apologetically, the underlying respect for the image of the Prophet, get sidetracked from the fact that ALL Islam is being slammed as terrorist, and hostile to the core. And like Dems and other ordinary folk, getting sidetracked means NEVER being able to communicate your feelings or point out the actual evil. No truth allowed. Points awarded to the widest smarmy sneers from the greatest position of personal safety.

Whatever happened to the PC debate- before the right wing co-opted it? Or is that an intramural family event about the limitations of free speech for free world insiders only? How about not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? The ME seems to qualify as a theater of war and imminent war, whose purpose this baiting serves now that the war on terror has reached its sour stage where we are may not distinguish good Muslims anymore than hard right Israelis distinguish good Palestinians. The framing of a phony war has been happening by stages. Our very rights and ideals have been used to destroy the same as we turn on each other- Islam vs. West, the decent people of the world lining up- or in front of and in between- our respective thugs and manipulators. Others are quickly drumming up other papers to take up the cause to fan the flames of a hate campaign disguised as a values crusade against Islam.

If is not a put up sneaky pete, snicker snicker, Rumsfeld Pentagon ploy, it qualifies as one by dark serendipity. The faddish inconsequence of it all is putrid and typifies our sordid, captive times.

What would you expect of a propaganda campaign leading up to the Iran War, or am I being too soft on free speech just because hate cartoons are leading the charge?

[PretzelWarrior]

187. interesting post. those cartoons were not "hate speech" by any stretch

get over it. The main reason people are deciding to go attack people and buildings is the cartoonists DARED to represent Mohommed.

You'll have to point to some compelling evidence of conspiracy before you get me to listen to the idea that Rove/Rumfeld/Cheney etc. all decided we need some "fake" controversy to whip up Western hatred of Islamic intolerance.

Based on the years of intolerance they've expressed to their own women, scholars, western writers, etc....it is not hard to imagine these hard liners came up with this all on their own and it just fits in conveniently with agenda of some who would demonize an entire religion because of a few nutjobs.

Again. Islamic nutjobs are going to be forced to learn tolerance. As are the fucking nutjobs in our Christian sects in this country. The will of the major population of any religion or those without religion is that we don't need to be manipulated by religion or nationalism. We need to recognize we're all in this together and dutifully punish those who break laws in an attempt to fight that reality.

[PretzelWarrior]

186. wow. this topic is now not hot anymore?

I was surprised. Seems this only garnered weekend attention and now people are off on "congressional hearing" posts, etc.