Heartland

Sexual molestation is a major crime. As is blowing oneself up to kill innocent people.

I probably wouldn't care a great deal even if I was religious, but then that's just speculation on my behalf.
Religion's all a load of s**t anyway. I don't need a book and a load of fundie madmen in the USA to tell me what's right and wrong.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote: The only point is, that these kind of cartoons have ALWAYS been around. It is a way for people to deal with certain news issues. Sometimes people wil react sometimes people feel offended and will ask for an open letter or something, but I have NEVER heard that 17 Arab/Middle East countries demand that the Danish right of free speech will be restrained big time...
It would be ridiculous and laughable, were it not for the gruesome newsflashes about burning Danish flags.
And Fallujah asking people to burn Danish products today.
And a religious leader calling out the Fatwa over 530 Danish soldiers in Iraq.
And the bomb threat on Jylands-Posten in Denmark.
And so further and so on.


Freedom of speech and freedom of press is a fundamental right. It's not because that right is almost non-existant in the Middle East that we have to bow for these extremists. Otherwise we can as well abandon our much-fought-for women's rights and re-instate 'the death penalty by throwing huge rocks towards the (hopefully) guilty accused's head'.

Think about it. Next up, The Cure will have a Fatwa upon them for a certain song about Killing an Arab.

There's nothing wrong with understanding each other, tolerating foreign people and their beliefs and working towards a better world.
But it has to come from both sides, please...

IZ.

So very well said.

Oh IZ, do you want to be my new Führer?

Nein Mein Kieksken.

I can't seem to grow a mustache.

And my mother always told me men without a mustache BUT with a beard should never be trusted.

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Nein Mein Kieksken.

I can't seem to grow a mustache.

And my mother always told me men without a mustache BUT with a beard should never be trusted.

IZ.

what is a Kieksken??

I'm sorry that you are face-hair-wise challenged, but chin up IZ.

re topic: as sad as it sounds but I'm not so sure if the general liberalism and laissez-faire attitude of the western world (with the exception of the USA obviously) is an adequate answer to the challenge that is the wide-spread and ever increasing fundamentalism of the Islamic world.

canon docre wrote:re topic: as sad as it sounds but I'm not so sure if the general liberalism and laissez-faire attitude of the western world (with the exception of the USA obviously) is an adequate answer to the challenge that is the wide-spread and ever increasing fundamentalism of the Islamic world.

We're not laissez-faire-ing. We're putting them in jail if they do offensive things, we're banning them from our countries, we're haunting them.

Still, I think without a dialogue you won't be able to reach a thing. It's not only our good, but theirs as well. A dialogue needs two parties. But then do they know...

This last sentence makes me think far too much about Rabbit-proof fence

Obviousman wrote:We're not laissez-faire-ing. We're putting them in jail if they do offensive things, we're banning them from our countries, we're haunting them.

I don't know about your country but in Germany these things you mention are not really happening for various reasons. Too long trials, too many law-loopholes, to much fear of doing the wrong thing. The extremists underground organisations have too complicated structures for criminal prosecution and on and on and on.

Wannabe suicide bombers can operate practically undisturbed here.

Obviousman wrote:

canon docre wrote:re topic: as sad as it sounds but I'm not so sure if the general liberalism and laissez-faire attitude of the western world (with the exception of the USA obviously) is an adequate answer to the challenge that is the wide-spread and ever increasing fundamentalism of the Islamic world.

We're not laissez-faire-ing. We're putting them in jail if they do offensive things, we're banning them from our countries, we're haunting them.

But some of those extremists are born and bred in our countries.Can't exactly ban them!Who was truly surprised when it was discovered that the London bombers were actually British?

DeWinter wrote:But some of those extremists are born and bred in our countries.Can't exactly ban them!Who was truly surprised when it was discovered that the London bombers were actually British?

I have to admit that. But I think they only become extremists when they do not find any other ways out of whatever they think/fear to be in. Then someone comes up with all sorts of simple solutions that seem to make sense to them, that make them feel like they matter for whatever reason.

Of course these 'solutions' are far from realistic, and tell them just the exact same as far right does to the white people that get caught in their networks.

However, solutions for their kind of extremism are coming up. Whereas nowadays all Imams are taught in (very conservative) Arabic countries, the first Imam-schools are being set up in Europe. Thus, we/they'll get Imams adapted to our modern society and probably more up to reason within standards acceptable back here.

@Jess: But didn't Germany have the first big trial against extremists, not too long after 9/11

Obviousman wrote: @Jess: But didn't Germany have the first big trial against extremists, not too long after 9/11

I guess you are referring to the two "Hamburg trials". The first against Motassadeq endet in a 7-year sentence although he was accused of over 3,000 counts of accessory to murder. (see also here.)
The second trial against Mzoudi endet in acquittal. (see here for a short résumeé.)
In both cases the USA played a infamous role, because they refused to let Ramzi Binalshibh testimony in front of the German court.

But what I was referring to in my initial statement was not so much the inner-country policies, but the mostly indifferent attitude of the western countries when confronted with such issues as this "cartoon-dispute".
The islamic world is currently trying to erode our Freedom of Expression and we dont do much more then shrug. "Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks." (quote taken from an article I agree fundamentally with.)

Just one question - Does anyone think there would have been this degree of a reaction from Muslim communities and countries 5 or 10 years ago, prior to the so-called "War On Terror"?

boudicca wrote:Just one question - Does anyone think there would have been this degree of a reaction from Muslim communities and countries 5 or 10 years ago, prior to the so-called "War On Terror"?

Possibly. The whole Salman Rushdie thing was way before the War On Terror. I see the current situation as very similar.

With religion there is no such thing as compromise. It's always "we're right. you're wrong. So join us or your f**ked."

Rational people being liberal and giving equal rights to all religions isn't going to work. These people are delusional, and religion is really only good for four things: being used as a weapon; being used to control a society; to make money; and giving people with fear of death a false hope.

But we have better ways of doing the first three things, and the people with fear of death just have to get a grip.

I've gotten really tired of this religious s**t, especially after just having a day of it rammed down my throat by a preacher who answers every question with something along the lines of "because God says so in the bible."

//over and out//

Wahoo! Let's do the War On Terror [and f**k up the world].

canon docre wrote:

Obviousman wrote: @Jess: But didn't Germany have the first big trial against extremists, not too long after 9/11

I guess you are referring to the two "Hamburg trials". The first against Motassadeq endet in a 7-year sentence although he was accused of over 3,000 counts of accessory to murder. (see also here.)
The second trial against Mzoudi endet in acquittal. (see here for a short résumeé.)
In both cases the USA played a infamous role, because they refused to let Ramzi Binalshibh testimony in front of the German court.

That's what I was referring to indeed, thanks for the facts and figures

But what I was referring to in my initial statement was not so much the inner-country policies, but the mostly indifferent attitude of the western countries when confronted with such issues as this "cartoon-dispute".
The islamic world is currently trying to erode our Freedom of Expression and we dont do much more then shrug. "Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks." (quote taken from an article I agree fundamentally with.)

I agree we must most definately defend this. It's one of the best things brought onto men in the last couple of hundred years.
However, why is it the ones striving for freedom of expression the hardest today are often the very same ones that want to forbid eg. posters with one bare breast on, or any humour referring to christ. I don't know if I said it before, but I just don't get that.

Also, though your article is quite right, I think it puts it too shiny for us. We didn't only bring them railways, culture etc., we also forced the colonised ones to take our culture, there was no way out for them. Which isn't a healthy thing either. And lets not forget all the violence used in those days.

Another thing we should not forget is while we were in the Middle Ages, burning up anything which wasn't Christian like tons of ancient greek scriptures, the Muslims were translating these books, learning from it, etc. They might just be in their Middle Ages now (which also makes sense year-wise), and therefore we should indeed at least keep to valuable things like science, arts, freedom of speech. I guess this would bring them back to Renaissance sooner as we did, especially with all our modern means of communication.

RE Salman Rushdie: There's some nitwit out there saying if only we had actually effectively executed the Fatwa on him, then now they would've thought twice before doing such a thing.

My post might not make too much sense, but I'm going slightly nuts tonight I'm affraid (on an unrelated matter)

boudicca wrote:Just one question - Does anyone think there would have been this degree of a reaction from Muslim communities and countries 5 or 10 years ago, prior to the so-called "War On Terror"?

The "War On Terror" is just last in a long line of things, which led to a latent inferiority complex within collective Islamic mind. Ever since Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798, there have been a multitude of military defeats of various islamic countries. Think about the end of the Osmanian Empire at the end of WW1, or all the military conflicts with Israel starting 1948 which Israel invariably won. The imposition of the State of Israel itself was surely one of the worst indignities of the Arabian world.
Along goes all the socio-cultural changes within the western world, the industrialisation, technical and scientific improvements, the raise of strategic-military powers of the West etcetc. While the Islam is stuck in its religious Middle-Age dogmas because the religious leaders have to extract all answers to this modern world out of a dogmatic strict Koran.

The only thing the Islamic world feels superior is in the moral sense. Because the West is in its heart decadent and weak, the Islam will one day overcome surpression and regain their powers. So they think.

@Obviousman. I think your post made a lot of sense.

edit: re. Islam Renaissance mentioned by Obviousman. Honestly I don't see that happen at the moment. The fundamentalistic forces are far stronger than the few liberal voices. On the contrary, it goes backwards, unfortunately.

I agree with canon docre that it seems Western governments are turning a blind eye to some pretty nasty developments.Did anyone else see the London protests,and the placards threatening further bombings?
It seems very hard when no arrests are made in a situation like that to justify the prosecution of Nick Griffin of the loathsome BNP.What makes Griffin's remarks race-hate,yet those young men's threats acceptable?
Either prosecute both or neither.

nick the stripper wrote:With religion there is no such thing as compromise. It's always "we're right. you're wrong. So join us or your f**ked."

Rational people being liberal and giving equal rights to all religions isn't going to work. These people are delusional, and religion is really only good for four things: being used as a weapon; being used to control a society; to make money; and giving people with fear of death a false hope.

But we have better ways of doing the first three things, and the people with fear of death just have to get a grip.

I've gotten really tired of this religious s**t, especially after just having a day of it rammed down my throat by a preacher who answers every question with something along the lines of "because God says so in the bible."

//over and out//

I just want to take back the majority of everything I said there.

When I wrote it I was pissed off and now, after reading it over again, a lot of the things I say in it are rather embarrassing statements, if you can call them statements.

nick the stripper wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:With religion there is no such thing as compromise. It's always "we're right. you're wrong. So join us or your f**ked."

Rational people being liberal and giving equal rights to all religions isn't going to work. These people are delusional, and religion is really only good for four things: being used as a weapon; being used to control a society; to make money; and giving people with fear of death a false hope.

But we have better ways of doing the first three things, and the people with fear of death just have to get a grip.

I've gotten really tired of this religious s**t, especially after just having a day of it rammed down my throat by a preacher who answers every question with something along the lines of "because God says so in the bible."

//over and out//

I just want to take back the majority of everything I said there.

When I wrote it I was pissed off and now, after reading it over again, a lot of the things I say in it are rather embarrassing statements, if you can call them statements.

It's OK, Jesus loves you.

Wonder how the reactions would have been had there been a caricature jew instead of an arab on a corresponding picture?
We don't have to wonder, it would never had happened. I'm not defending the arab reaction to this, just mentioning that whether you will be a called a racist or not depends on whom you're joking with.

euphoria wrote:Wonder how the reactions would have been had there been a caricature jew instead of an arab on a corresponding picture?
We don't have to wonder, it would never had happened. I'm not defending the arab reaction to this, just mentioning that whether you will be a called a racist or not depends on whom you're joking with.

Funny you should mention this. I can't find a picture of it, but it's in today's Independent On Sunday

canon docre wrote:edit: re. Islam Renaissance mentioned by Obviousman. Honestly I don't see that happen at the moment. The fundamentalistic forces are far stronger than the few liberal voices. On the contrary, it goes backwards, unfortunately.

But don't you think the gathering of critical voices on forums and blogs all over the world might spread 'the word' a bit? It might just bring them out a bit louder as when these mediums wouldn't have existed.

euphoria wrote:Wonder how the reactions would have been had there been a caricature jew instead of an arab on a corresponding picture?
We don't have to wonder, it would never had happened. I'm not defending the arab reaction to this, just mentioning that whether you will be a called a racist or not depends on whom you're joking with.

Very right. Jews have gotten themselves a very nice excuse in WWII

Of course, terrible things have been done to them, but the Shoah (as they like to call it these days) has been abused for many reasons probably even more.

I was rather shocked earlier this week when there was some item on the news about another settlement getting cleared. An Israeli politician literally said They're treating us as if we were Arabs Speaking about not being any better

What they really should do, 'freedom of speech'-wise, is publish a big series in which each and every religion's Big Chief gets mocked with. But then on a serious level, not as ridiculously lame as these cartoons were.

To have freedom of speech you need at least some common sense...

Oh, and I was quite shocked to find out on the telly this morning you Brits nearly weren't allowed to laugh about religion anymore. They lacked only one vote to pass that law this week, or did they misinform me

Sometimes it seems people are SCARED to formulate their fear for these extremists, because they know they are going to be called names like racist and xenophobic.

I remember when the Flemish Bloc here in Belgium had a big jump forwards (1992-ish). I was discussing politics with a good friend of mine at the pub. And everyone was wondering how this right extremists could've made such a huge jump forward. When I told them it was because a lot of people find themselves in what they say (because they say exactly what people want to hear), they looked shocked. Biggest mistake was when I said that I, myself, found some points of their programme not even THAT bad, but needed a little bit of tweaking and taking off the edges. I lost some friends that night because I 'suggested' that a couple of the FB's programme points could work when given due consideration and thinking-about.

This little anecdote is just to make a point: nowadays, in a much bigger picture, our major leaders are afraid to reprimand foreign countries in general, and muslim countries in particular. They fear that they will be reprimanded themselves, not only by these muslim-coutries, but also by their 'Western colleagues', for being Islamophobic and intolerant towards another belief...

In the meantime, an embassy was pelted with eggs a week or so ago, but today I read a consulate went up in flames. Bit scarier than the eggs, no?

I know it is a very tender point, what with all the talk about 'tolerance' and 'fellow human beings', but as I told before, respect comes from both sides. And in my opinion, burning down an embassy over some sarcastic pictures is less respectful than mocking some religious image. But maybe that is because I'm such an ignorant and arrogant Western infidel

End of rant.

IZ.

if the mountain won't come to mohammed, then perhaps his followers can make one out of a molehill...

smiscandlon wrote:Possibly. The whole Salman Rushdie thing was way before the War On Terror. I see the current situation as very similar.

Can I pretend that's what I meant with the "I'm sure I've seen this before" image? Thanks.

Obviousman wrote:Another thing we should not forget is while we were in the Middle Ages, burning up anything which wasn't Christian like tons of ancient greek scriptures, the Muslims were translating these books, learning from it, etc. They might just be in their Middle Ages now (which also makes sense year-wise), and therefore we should indeed at least keep to valuable things like science, arts, freedom of speech. I guess this would bring them back to Renaissance sooner as we did, especially with all our modern means of communication.

I was under the impression that the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire (AKA the Byzantine Empire) which only fell in 1453 (see here) -- to Muslim invaders incidentally -- was where most of the knowledge and culture of Classical Rome was preserved during Europe's Dark Ages... at least until the (Christian) Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, burning many libraries and looting many treasures.

History lessons aside, if a faith can be seriously threatened by a few cartoons, then it can't be very strong...

In regard to Muslim anti-Jewish propaganda: clicky and clicky (Argumentum ad wikipedion? )

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:if the mountain won't come to mohammed, then perhaps his followers can make one out of a molehill...

Somehow I think that burning a building is a slightly worse crime than drawing a picture that happens to express a valid, if narrow minded, induction. If someone published a picture of Jesus wearing a cross of St George and holding a sword, no one would take offence, because the crusades happened, in the name of God. People have blown themselves up in the name of Allah. It happened, deal with it. If you take offence, express it in a civil manner, but did anyone really think that torching an embassy was going to reverse the stereotype? If anything it screams "You were justified, gj"