Beware! Offensive Content!

[mugabe]

Thats the same false argument a lot of the agitators use. The magazine in question is not state-owned. The state of Denmark (however xenophobic it might be) has nothing to do with publishing these cartoons. Therefore the danish governement justifiably refused to apologise.

Of course this is very hard to understand by people who dont know what an independent press or freedom of speech is. But you?

I wasn't calling for an official apology, I was just speculating about why the reactions on the cartoons were fiercer than had, for instance, a Swiss newspaper published them. As for the Danish government, however, if they've issued some statement quoting Voltaire lately, I've missed it. Der Stürmer wasn't state-owned either, btw.

Just because you're protected by law to publish whatever you want to doesn't mean you should. Also, remember that sometimes, in conflicts, both sides are wrong.

[markfiend]

I'm sick of this idea that we must "respect" people's religious beliefs. Why?

Because "we" must respect other people, period. As do they, of course.

But a belief is not a person. Must I "respect the beliefs" of someone who (as LazCorp rightly points out) believes that I am destined to an eternity of hellfire, and furthermore believes that I deserve such torture for rejecting the Prophet?

Many people I respect quite deeply may hold beliefs I find to be risible. Perhaps it is rude to be overt in telling someone that I disagree profoundly with their beliefs, but I feel we have a duty to speak up against beliefs that can, and do, cause profound harm. To do otherwise is to allow the biggest bully in the playground to have their way.

[mugabe]

Many people I respect quite deeply may hold beliefs I find to be risible. Perhaps it is rude to be overt in telling someone that I disagree profoundly with their beliefs, but I feel we have a duty to speak up against beliefs that can, and do, cause profound harm. To do otherwise is to allow the biggest bully in the playground to have their way.

Speaking up and showing respect aren't mutually exclusive. Ridicule and/or provocation isn't the best way of starting a discussion, though, as it's tantamount to nazis and anti-fascists screaming "Nazi swine!"/"Commie scum!" at each other in-between thrashings. Sure, they're speaking up against beliefs they don't sympathise with, but it hardly leads to anything constructive, as in the case with the Danish "caricatures".

[markfiend]

I do see your point, but I disagree.

Ridicule, or satire, can be a very effective tool. It's not just a case of trading insults.

[Izzy HaveMercy]

Then I'm fully with you on what you wrote above - this conflict was most of all fuelled by disliked governments in the arab world who at last found a chance to blame someone else for what they have failed in (which is everything). I'm even prepared to go further than them "allowing" the embassy attacks - it wouldn't surprise me the least if they brought people in by bus from the poorest areas of the country...i.e. the people who suffer most from their own government. Very cynical but also very logical.

This reminds me of the Paris Riots a while ago (no, not the band ).

I am quite sure Euphoria hits the nail on the head here. In France, all the riots were pretty well organised, and some redicalists even provided fuel, molotovs and masks for the attackers.

And I bet my ass that there are muslim extremists at the back of EVERY line of protesters, giving the people false arguments and demagogic speeches, AND in one go provide the eggs to bomb embassies as well as guns to kill all infidels

The first scientist developing a bomb that strikes all religious extremists, and only them, is eligible for the Nobel prize, IMO

As an aside note, as MF and Laz say, I am very tolerant about all kinds of religions, but don't try to impose your religion upon me, because I will smile and say 'no thanks'. I fyou then try to force your religion upon me, I stop smiling.

I know some Jehovah Witnesses here in the neighbourhood. They are very nice people, and they try to discuss their religion/belief with me sometimes. I like those healthy discussions, but one or two of these people are on non-speaking terms with me now coz I was such an 'ignorant being' in not seeing the world 'their way'. They laughed in my face and shook their head. And I smiled and went away. In a non-violent way

IZ.

IZ.

[canon docre]

Many people I respect quite deeply may hold beliefs I find to be risible. Perhaps it is rude to be overt in telling someone that I disagree profoundly with their beliefs, but I feel we have a duty to speak up against beliefs that can, and do, cause profound harm. To do otherwise is to allow the biggest bully in the playground to have their way.

Speaking up and showing respect aren't mutually exclusive. Ridicule and/or provocation isn't the best way of starting a discussion, though, as it's tantamount to nazis and anti-fascists screaming "Nazi swine!"/"Commie scum!" at each other in-between thrashings. Sure, they're speaking up against beliefs they don't sympathise with, but it hardly leads to anything constructive, as in the case with the Danish "caricatures".

I agree totally that the best thing to do at the moment is de-escalation. We (the West) have to avoid anything that would put more fuel in the fire. If we like it or not. (I personally don't like it.)

And i think that it makes absolutely no difference for the mob, if it was a danish or another western newspaper publishing the cartoons. As I pointed out further above, the anger is more generally directed towards the west.

I personally can't respect anyone who disrespects me solely because of my gender.

[markfiend]

We (the West) have to avoid anything that would put more fuel in the fire.

Let them win? Just because they're the biggest bullies and have the loudest voices?

Fcuk that. I don't want to be living under Sharia law.

[Izzy HaveMercy]

Sadly enough, some wise men predicted in the past that the third World War would be fought for religious reasons instead of social and economical ones...

Maybe it is better to apologize and shut up about it, however much you feel you are right about the issue.

And NOT like some french newspapers publishing another bunch of new and fresh provocative cartoons, or the Guardian putting oil on fire by stating that a cartoon about Jesus was once rejected by Jylland Posten because they feared a storm of protest.

Very sad, but sometimes you have to retreat to fight another day. And we can better find a consensus between 'us' and 'them' through constructive dialogue instead of provocative rantings. I don't like it as much as you do, MarkFiend, but better think twice about it instead of blowing up the whole planet

IZ.

[canon docre]

We (the West) have to avoid anything that would put more fuel in the fire.

Let them win? Just because they're the biggest bullies and have the loudest voices?

Fcuk that. I don't want to be living under Sharia law.

ask me.

[markfiend]

Fcuk that. I don't want to be living under Sharia law.

ask me.

I'm asking...

I don't like it as much as you do, MarkFiend, but better think twice about it instead of blowing up the whole planet

IZ.

Aye, true enough.

It still sticks in my throat though

[canon docre]

Fcuk that. I don't want to be living under Sharia law.

ask me.

I'm asking...

wearing a Burka doesnt really match with my sense of style.

...there are some other points which makes it uncomfortable for a woman to live under the sharia, like..... ah, too many to mention here. I think you get my point.

[markfiend]

*Hits self over head for being slow*

[mik]

Sadly enough, some wise men predicted in the past that the third World War would be fought for religious reasons instead of social and economical ones...

Not being dismissive but that one hardly took a wise man to figure that one out...

(All together...) There are undiscovered tribes in the depths of the rainforest who have had no contact with the outside world who could have come up with that nugget

[Izzy HaveMercy]

And who was the wisecrack saying 'the next world war will be fought with horses, sticks and stones' again?

IZ.

[mugabe]

Ridicule, or satire, can be a very effective tool. It's not just a case of trading insults.

It's effective in one direction. Heckling those in charge can work wonders, while ridicule and satire von Oben is merely insulting.

Let them win? Just because they're the biggest bullies and have the loudest voices?

Fcuk that. I don't want to be living under Sharia law.

Let them win what? The pissing contest? The only thing between the current state of things and Sharia is our right to publish racial slurs? The "we won't back down" attitude is what makes wars happen. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and take a step back. In relationships and foreign affairs alike.

[dead stars]

Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and take a step back. In relationships and foreign affairs alike.

In foreign affairs you don't have to go to bed with them.

Thing is, we can stop droping oil in the fire, but will they?...

Another thing for you to consider. I'm bewildered how mr. Bush is silent. One would expect, from previous reactions, to be declarations of war left and right.
Just pointing a fact, don't flame me.

[canon docre]

Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and take a step back. In relationships and foreign affairs alike.

In foreign affairs you don't have to go to bed with them.

Thing is, we can stop droping oil in the fire, but will they?...

Another thing for you to consider. I'm bewildered how mr. Bush is silent. One would expect, from previous reactions, to be declarations of war left and right.
Just pointing a fact, don't flame me.

Nah, I could guess Bush and his clique are quite happy that it's Europe this time and not them.

[Obviousman]

Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and take a step back. In relationships and foreign affairs alike.

In foreign affairs you don't have to go to bed with them.

Thing is, we can stop droping oil in the fire, but will they?...

Another thing for you to consider. I'm bewildered how mr. Bush is silent. One would expect, from previous reactions, to be declarations of war left and right.
Just pointing a fact, don't flame me.

Nah, I could guess Bush and his clique are quite happy that it's Europe this time and not them.

Plus, he's quite religious too, and likes to criticise others as well for their way of dealing with religion and thus it's hard to oppose to this for him. Not that such a thing would matter in his case

[markfiend]

Let them win what? The pissing contest? The only thing between the current state of things and Sharia is our right to publish racial slurs? The "we won't back down" attitude is what makes wars happen. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride and take a step back. In relationships and foreign affairs alike.

But IMO it's a slippery slope. If we back down to their religious taboos about pictorial depiction of The Prophet now, then it will be harder to argue against the next concession they want, and the next, and the next. I don't see any Islamist extremists swallowing their pride and taking a step back.

To derail slightly, no-one seems to have picked up that the protests are not about the cartoons that were actually published...

article can be found here:

...The first event was a tour of the Middle East last December undertaken by a group of Danish imams to publicise the cartoons. With them, however, they reportedly took, not only the offending cartoons originally published but several other far more offensive ones that, apparently, they had themselves been responsible for producing. In other words, the outrage over the cartoons has been deliberately engineered by a fabrication of the grounds for it...

This situation has been engineered by imams lying to their followers, in an attempt to whip up anti-Western (in this case anti-Danish) feeling. Why should we curtail our freedoms on the basis of a lie?

And further food for thought:

I thought about the muslim reaction in comparison to other religions. What if you really believed in the divine here on earth, and someone took that divinity, and killed it - not just drew it. That would be terrible! Even worse, what if they had killed it in a rather disrespectful, rather routine way, then then sold it as cheap food! And not even stopped there with their barbarity, but wore parts of it around, and when old, just tossed them in the trash heap! That's how we treat cows, and many Hindus consider them sacred. Yet, no massive bombings of McDonalds, nor torchings of the American embassy in India.
[...]
I think the Muslims have to learn to live in a pluralistic society

[Obviousman]

To derail slightly, no-one seems to have picked up that the protests are not about the cartoons that were actually published...

article can be found here:

...The first event was a tour of the Middle East last December undertaken by a group of Danish imams to publicise the cartoons. With them, however, they reportedly took, not only the offending cartoons originally published but several other far more offensive ones that, apparently, they had themselves been responsible for producing. In other words, the outrage over the cartoons has been deliberately engineered by a fabrication of the grounds for it...

This situation has been engineered by imams lying to their followers, in an attempt to whip up anti-Western (in this case anti-Danish) feeling. Why should we curtail our freedoms on the basis of a lie?

That's just sick

[mugabe]

Another thing for you to consider. I'm bewildered how mr. Bush is silent. One would expect, from previous reactions, to be declarations of war left and right.

[Obviousman]

There apparently has been an interview with the imam who came up with all this on Belgian television. He reckons we need to thank him for what he has done

clicky (the beginning seconds are in Dutch, saying they're in the part of Denmark where most muslims live, the interview is in English)

[mugabe]

But IMO it's a slippery slope. If we back down to their religious taboos about pictorial depiction of The Prophet now, then it will be harder to argue against the next concession they want, and the next, and the next.

Oh, yes. If we can't depict of the prophet, what's next? Will they try and stop us from calling them "ragheads" or "camelfuckers"? Should we let blacks dictate whether they can be referred to as "niggers" or not, or let homosexual people veto the publishing of gay-bashing articles? I don't see the problem, really, neither do I see freedom of speech at stake.

I don't see any Islamist extremists swallowing their pride and taking a step back.

Extremists are extreme by definition, and you shouldn't use extremist measures yourself to fight them. If you do, you end up being the state of Israel, or "pre-emptively" invading Arab countries, and, in the course of action, creating more extremists. Democracy should be defended using democratic methods. One of the foundations of democracy is respect for other people, btw, even if they constitute a minority.

Frankly, I'm more scared of the U.S. religious lunatic fringe, since they have infinitely more power to wield. They have the U.K. all bent over, for instance, yet backing down to America doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

[markfiend]

I don't see the problem, really, neither do I see freedom of speech at stake.

Well I do. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree?

Frankly, I'm more scared of the U.S. religious lunatic fringe, since they have infinitely more power to wield. They have the U.K. all bent over, for instance, yet backing down to America doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

I agree with you on that front.

Call them a "lunatic fringe" if you like, but the religious right are in control of the US, treading all over Church-State separation and freedom of speech, both supposedly guaranteed by the US constitution.

Funny really, back in the 50's Robert A Heinlein wrote a short story about the USA electing itself a Christian Theocracy.

Like I said earlier in this thread...

Two different fundamentalisms are squaring up to each other; both think "We're right and you're wrong" and those of us who think that both sides are wrong are in for a hard time.

[eotunun]

But IMO it's a slippery slope. If we back down to their religious taboos about pictorial depiction of The Prophet now, then it will be harder to argue against the next concession they want, and the next, and the next.

Oh, yes. If we can't depict of the prophet, what's next? Will they try and stop us from calling them "ragheads" or "camelfuckers"? Should we let blacks dictate whether they can be referred to as "niggers" or not, or let homosexual people veto the publishing of gay-bashing articles? I don't see the problem, really, neither do I see freedom of speech at stake.

Well, if the radicals get more power, you may see where the rights that gays and lesbians struggled decades for will go. Down the drain, probably. And you don`t even need muslims, just give the catholic church a go.

Did the taliban ask for the religious feelings of others when they blew up the Buddha statues in 1996? And will they tolerate you for tolerating heretics? Did the ones who faked cartoons think about the fact that they offended their very own commandments by this?
So will they reward your tolerance toward them?
Ossama was quoted saying something like "We want our oil for us!"
And that is, as I suppose, worth a thought: If the oil wells run dry, how will the Arabians be able to keep up their standards of living? Could it be that there are some pers(ia)ons in the background with enough influence and money to raise such turmoils as to bring the oil price higher as long as this source of money works? Or maybe they are just jealous on the money and power the western governments make on energy related taxes? In the end, it is energy they dug out of arabian deserts, one might say..

Then I'm fully with you on what you wrote above - this conflict was most of all fuelled by disliked governments in the arab world who at last found a chance to blame someone else for what they have failed in (which is everything). I'm even prepared to go further than them "allowing" the embassy attacks - it wouldn't surprise me the least if they brought people in by bus from the poorest areas of the country...i.e. the people who suffer most from their own government. Very cynical but also very logical.

Aye. We know that scheme from several examples of the last century, along with them the Reich #3.
(And: It was Einstein who said "I don`t know what weapons the third world war will be fought with, but I am sure that the fourth world war will be fought with clubs and spears!")