Cartoons and common sense

I have seen moderate Muslims being interviewed, but, moderate as they are, they're unable to stop the fanatics. The only thing they talk about is that their version of Islam is the true version. And so do the fanatics. In the mean time, the violence goes on, indiscriminately.

Dark skinned, foreign accent? Of course not, what do you take me for? It's only the last thing you mention, the violence, or dare I say the unreasonable violence, that scares me. Perhaps you're right that mobs of all denominations are equally scary when violent, but Muslim violence has been in the news a lot. In fact, it's dominating the news. And I'm not watching Fox News c.s., but mainly news sources that can be labelled 'progressive'. Besides, it doesn't matter what captions they put under the footage, the images speak for themselves. The difference is that we don't see Americans nuking France, or an American army invading Europe. But we do see Islamic fanatics slaughter people in the street, or blowing themselves up in crowds. They not only say violent things, the act them out too.

You don't say. They demand respect where they have clearly demonstrated to have none whatsoever for innocent people in airplaines, skyscrapers, buses and trains. They demand apologies for mockery when the West has yet to hear apologies from them for real killings. A clearer case of hypocrisy is hard to find. I personally find it ridiculous that one should apologize for others, but if that's what they demand, then I think the ball is emphatically in their court.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

According to their belief system, yes. And accordng to your belief system they are being as unreasonable as yours is to them. Your belief system incorperates ideas of freedom of expression etc. Theirs apparently doesn't. One of you is right or both of you are wrong. But I can't see any objective basis for you claiming the higher ground as it were. I actually agree more with you than them - but that is simply because my belief system is more aligned with yours than theirs.This message has been edited by iano, 06-Feb-2006 01:15 PM

However, the muslims did see an American army invading one of their lands, and that may well be part of what raised passions.

Can they claim that you are being unreasonable because you publish cartoons blaspheming their prophet knowing that aspects of their belief compel them to oppose people who do such things. Would you blame a lion for mauling you if you hopped into its pen?

So what if they do. That doesn't in any way affect the reasonableness of their action w.r.t. their belief. And your opposition to them is reasonable to you w.r.t. your belief. If their belief system says pick a fight and they pick a fight then super-reasonable they are beingTalk of reasonableness is probably unreasonable here. Both sides are being reasonable - but only with respect to their respective beliefs.

quote:

---

How many Christians have flown airplanes into tall buildings, or blown themselves up in busy commuter trains? How many Jews?

---

Very few. Christians and Jews blow up buildings and commuter trains remotely, firing missiles from afar.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

While I am all for freedom of expression, surely one could be open to the view that the publishers of these cartoons behaved a "little" irresponsibly.Look at the world this past half decade, at the very least. The islamic world is at boiling point. The fundamentalists are looking for any reason to "spread the true faith", and these newspapers decide to insult, not only the fundamentalists, but the moderates as well. Of course things were gonna boil over into violence, or at the very least it could have been anticipated.What upsets me though, and this can be said for any group, is that many have no problem causing grievious insult to another group, but will cry Blue Murder! when its done to them. And the Muslim peoples are just as guilty of this.All in all, I think that people really overreacted to this incident, but surely, this overreaction had to have been expected.

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

I see your point, Ian, but I think that opposition can take many forms. I think they would have earned much more respect by staging peaceful protests. Calling for indiscriminate murder is unreasonable by any human standard.Take anyone on the planet, put a gun to their head, tell them they did something to offend you, and would they mind being shot for it. I guarantee you that no one is going to agree because of the unreasonableness of the situation. But if it's unreasonable for anyone to accept it, then it's equally unreasonable for anyone to suggest it.When push comes to shove, the maxim "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is universal.

OK, point taken. However, although I am loath to defend any violent action from anyone, I think it needs to be said that, nowadays, Christian and Jewish violence is hardly ever religiously inspired and seldom indiscriminate.I might be wrong of course.

It does seem odd to defend the violent actions of a mob as reasonable in any context.I wouldn't argue that Islam, per se, is responsible for unreasonable violence in the sense that its doctrines and tenets inevitably lead to violence, any more than I would argue that about violent Christians, Jews, or Buddhists (yes, there have been quite violent Buddhists, e.g., the monasteries in China that warred with the imperial throne for power centuries ago).It needs to be pointed out that most Muslim clerics denounce the violence and point out that it violates the doctrines of Islam: the mobs are not acting reasonably within their own religion's tenets of morality and ethics.There are many complicating factors here: racism in the West, the colonial baggage that the West carries (both in terms of its own attitudes and the vast reservoir of anger and resentment colonialism created), the history of post-colonial Middle Eastern interventions by the West, etc.I recall leaving Asia to visit family in the U.S. during the Iranian "hostage crisis." I nearly came to blows several times as a consequence of pointing out that it was absurd to condemn the Iranians for not observing international diplomatic norms without also condemning the U.S. CIA, which had engineered a coup d'etat against the elected Iranian president and installed the dictatorial shah in his place.The coup was wrong, the hostage taking was wrong: one had to understand both to understand either, but both were still wrong.I embrace cultural and moral relativism. But the borders of relativity can be drawn at violent harm to another for reasons other than self-defense.I don't condemn Christianity or Judaism for violent Christian or Jewish mobs; I don't condemn Islam for violent Muslim mobs--though I note the frequency with which organized religion seems to encourage the eruption of violence in general.But I do condemn violent mobs; I know of no culture that finds them reasonable within its own belief system.To me, the most relevant aspect of this current fiasco is the influence of politicized fundamentalists; national and regional religious and cultural sensitivities are being deliberately inflamed by clerics who have mixed religion and politics. We have similar problems in the West though so far they are differently manifested.If Muslim culture claims a taboo against certain expressions, then it is valid for them to enforce that taboo within Muslim culture; Western democracies claim near absolute freedom of expression and that is valid within Western cultures.Can one claim reasonableness for mob violence self-justified by cultural difference, esp. cultural difference expressed in another nation? I don't see how.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-06-2006 09:51 AM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Perhaps this is because Christianity is in decline.Even in the U.S.A., which is said to be highly Christian, I would estimate that the majority of the population are atheists. They may claim to be Christian, but they pay only lip service. They live their lives without God (i.e. atheistically).Last night was the Superbowl, the football championship game. Now that is something that many Americans take religiously.

Staging peaceful protests are actions carried out by people who share elements of your belief profile. You are simply calling for all to share your belief profile. But for people to do that they at least mustn't consider your belief profile to be profane, decadent and evil.People have called and indeed carried out murder according to their standards since Cain & Able. There is no such thing as a universally accepted human standard - it varies wildly. Neither could such murder be considered indiscriminate if the belief system executing it calls for the killing and destruction of all supporters of the belief system that considers publishing such material acceptable. That they don't kill everyone at once might have more to do with them being unable to than anything else. Perhaps they pick what their belief tells them is the very worst to attack first - according to their beliefs. Which no one in the world adheres to. We all do things to others that we wouldn't like being done to ourselves. Not that it matters much. There is no reason why any belief system should accept this subjective maxim if it runs contrary to the tenets of the belief system. A belief system is able to be anything it likes and to include as it sees fit, any subjective maxim for the dealing with those outside/inside its belief.On cannot refer to the subjective tenets of ones own belief system as a compelling reason why someone elses belief system is misguided or flawed.This message has been edited by iano, 06-Feb-2006 04:59 PM

There is only one context to oppose the actions of these people and that is from the perspective of your belief system. Such a belief system will be comprised of 'doctrina' such as freedom of speech, democracy, preciousness of human life, the right to bear arms and the right to arm bears... and so forth. That these are considered ultimate goals worth striving for is simply a matter of opinion amongst some people. That they may even be held by the majority of people affects not one whit, the fact they are matters of opinion. There is no objective reason why these could be considered more reasonable than any other doctrina. With no objective, universal mooring to anchor these beliefs, you are as adrift on the seas and anyone else. And as you push against anothers beliefs, equal and opposite force means you can shift them no more than you yourself are shifted. No concrete mooring means no firm fixing from which to draw another closer to objective reasonableness. Thin air does not provide sufficient fixing.All that remains to do is engage in an amoral process of survival of the fittest. Which, I gather, is how you consider things to work anyway. The mob are presumably acting according to their beliefs. There is no one who can demonstrate objective understanding of Islam anymore than they can demonstrate objective understanding of Christianity - for want of the aforementioned inarguable moorings. Some muslims beliefs are based on a peaceful interpretation of Islam, others on a more aggressive interpretation interpretation. One is a valid as the rest I am encouraged that you embrace moral relativism. It is as consistant with your world view as Robins Nihilism is with his, IMO. On what basis to you deploy anchor on moral relativism however. Why does the line in the sand have to be where you draw it. Cannot everyone decide that for themselves? The culture that finds them reasonable can consist of one person, or a mob of people. Everyone is free to chose their own belief system. If that is indeed but some mild adherance to an established faith in order that it be used as an excuse for expression of hatred then fine - each has a right to their own take on things. They may find themselves biting off more than they could chew but that is a different issue and has nothing to do with the validity or reasonableness of their view.When we appeal to a persons sense of reason we automatically, if unconsiously, appeal to an objective standard which we consider them to be aware of as we are. But with no concrete moral moorings such appeal to reason proves elusive. Convention is the best we can do. But convention is a moveable feast. As a US gallon and a European gallon indicate. If a culture decides that it wants to enforce its views on the whole world and if its belief system is that it has divine instruction to do so, then it is reasonable, w.r.t. their belief system to attempt to do so. You may believe otherwise and you may well defend against such attempts. But unreasonable their actions are not. I think you would find they would not think it unreasonable for you to defend yourself either. Its not about reasonable - its about who is in a position to enforce their reason (by peaceful or other means) on another.This message has been edited by iano, 06-Feb-2006 05:13 PM