Cartoons and common sense

My morality isn't relevant. According to the morality of the mob in question, as well as prominent figures in other religions (most notably the Pope), offending someone's religious sensibilities is an insufferable moral infraction.Which is a position that other people would be inclined to take more respectfully if arab Muslim culture didn't disparage the Jews at every avaliable opportunity. I'm simply pointing out the highly ironic and humerous hypocrisy of the Muslims in question and their defenders. Well, now, clearly these Muslims wish to live in a society where they are free to offend Jews or any other religion to any extent; that they cannot stand it when the same treatment is applied to them demonstrates the objective bankrupcy of their views. Their own morality (if that's what you want to call it) is self-contradictory, therefore ill-formed, and therefore invalid, objectively.

I see. So you are against cultural diversity and would like to see all people forced into one mindset, so that people only get offended by what offends you?Hey, I agree that to my mindset they are thinking in ways that I do not, and do not have an interest in thinking. But I actually enjoy diversity and that means learning to give and take on differences. Fanatics will exist on all sides and the main idea is to not feed the extremists by alienating the moderates.In the East it is offensive to walk into houses with shoes on. Should I then tromp around their house with my shoes on and when they react negatively tell them how silly they are, because we can do that in the West? Progress for you, but necessarily for them. I would agree that Taliban style gov'ts should be fought as much as possible but not all theocracies are like that. Lets look at Iran. How were the people doing under our dictator? Much progress under that? How about after the people held a revolution and installed their theocracy? I think its safe to say that they really are progressing. They have a culture and it is moving along.Oh its not what I want, but neither is everything I find in western nations either. That there may be more extremists/fanatics in poor or oppressed regions is not a surprise to me. Given the widespread nature of Islam, particularly in areas recently run over by western nations, it does not surprise me that many poor and oppressed people are Islamic. I have to admit I was surprised that extremists would care this much about cartoons in Denmark, but yes if upset it is understandable that extremists would do something like torch an embassy. My guess is that extremists are using this as a pretext to rile up moderates and gain power.One might note the very small numbers actually involved in these demonstrations, and fewer still taking parts in the "riots" given the rather large populations of muslims in those areas. Perhaps some perspective is in order.I've been to larger protests against Bush, and seen larger ones against WTO. What do people at WTO protests do? That's peaceful? You know some women actually do choose to wear the bhurka and some believe it should be worn. And how are those that don't want to and must, any different from western women that would rather not wear clothes over any other part of their body and must?These are merely cultural differences. Look at how upset you seem to be about how others choose to live. When you ask why they should be upset about how we choose to live (free expression, including insulting and libelous satire), why should you be upset about how they choose to live (stricter dress codes and speech rights)?Maybe a problem with the west is that while making pretenses toward civilization and equality of ideas, we in fact spend most of our time poking our noses into other people's cultures and then insulting or try to change them.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-07-2006 12:37 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

You are correct that those who would support such cartoons regarding jews or others, and then get angry about cartoons against themselves would be hypocritical. Wolf Blitzer made this same point to the Saudi ambassador on Late Edition (with even worse cartoons I might add).However, what makes you believe that all of the demonstrators or all of the rioters do support such cartoons against anyone else? Because they do not riot against those other images? That doesn't seem to make much sense.My guess is a portion of them are hypocrites, but then obviously so are those who are now criticizing the muslims for getting upset and not any other group when they got upset. In a way that is just human, but it is the disappointing side of humanity. In reality muslims are doing what other groups have done. As a group they are no different, yet they are getting singled out... why? Because their faces are on the TV as it is a hot item?How many times do people in the arab world protest, and even have violent protests on other issues, and it is NOT covered like this? Hmmmmmm... especially when it is for real issues affecting their daily life? Hmmmmmm.The media helped blow this out of proportion which allowed extremists to further blow it out of proportion. Its a vicious circle. Look at the small numbers at the demonstrations, and the smaller numbers involved in any of the riots, compared to the populations. This is really not that big and you have plenty of people saying while insulting it is a non issue, or an issue that does not deserve violence.I have seen basic signs that say (boycott Danish goods) which seems to me a very western and free society reaction to this insult (no different than what happens in the US), to signs that suggest people should be killed (which can also be seen in the west... look at what Robertson and his followers say). Thus these relatively small crowds run the gamut.I think it is unfair to make statements about muslims and the bankruptcy of muslim views. If you mean extremist views, that would make more sense, but then that goes for everyone and is pretty much par for the course.Then again what did you do to stop the US invasion of Iraq? How about the continued occupation of Palestine, or the existence of Israel as a theocratic based nation?Couldn't someone point to the fact that you should be against such things, and the fact that you didn't actively fight it against it, suggest your morality seems self-contradictory and therefore invalid, objectively?On Blitzer's show, the muslim ambassador, when confronted with images like the one you presented said that they were offensive and should not have been printed. My guess is that kind of commentary by muslims just doesn't get the same kind of airplay as angry brown people maybe about to get violent. What do you think?On a side note, I do agree that I want satire to be free and alive and am willing to fight for that kind of freedom. Thus I do not think a nation I am a part of should be caving in to demands to censor the press. HOWEVER, since when did we have a free press? There are satirical or other images you could not print, or even post, without getting arrested or fined into the ground. That is especially true in public media (as opposed to forums).In the Netherlands a brilliant satirical poster of the current PM has been banned from public display, because (it has been ruled by the courts) public offials cannot be made fun of in certain satirical ways. The posters (that were put up all over the place) were removed and further display punishable. I'm sorry but this guy isn't even a popular religious leader, and yet satire against HIM is banned in this nation, if you do so in a certain manner he does not like.So I guess western views are objectively bankrupt as well. Either that or it is all down to an individual basis and we need to identify particular people (or gov't bodies) who are being hypocrites, rather than generalize.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'll assume that you're not referring to me, because my disdain for Christian outrage is pretty well-known. And, indeed, I can't figure out who you're referring to, since any time Christians mobilize against something that offends their sensibilities, most people here are disdainful of their efforts, especially when it results in censorship that the rest of us have to live with. (I was kind of looking forward to watching "Book of Daniel." Thanks a lot, Christians.)But I haven't seen Christians burning cars and embassies and holding signs promising indiscriminate murder and bloodshed. Not that Christians don't threaten murder and bloodshed, they're just usually more targeted about it, and they don't take to the streets about it, they just say it to each other. Yes. And a whole lot of people, who were of a mind to be used, are being used. Did you know that, in order to drum up this level of response, the Muslim agitators had to add three additional fake cartoons to the originals? Most of these people are upset at "idolatry" that their own people are responsible for. The anti-Semetic content of their signs and demonstrations. For instance: I don't live in Israel. When we fail to put them into action, or allow them to become diluted, I'd say that becomes the case.

This is an interesting point holmes. And I often struggled with it myself. Because I too like cultural diversity, different ideas, etc.But I can't say that every culture deserves equal respect, or should be tolarated and preserved. Imagine we had Cannibals from New Guinea living in New York. Do we need to respect their cultural identety by allowing them to kill and eat people?What about the Aztecs? Heck, what about theocratic minded Christians who want to go back to the OT as a law book?I don't think those mentalities are to be tolerated or respected. When I look at the Mideast, and I think of the way they treat women, the way the punish crime, the way they indoctrinate their young, I don't think "What a beautiful culture.", I think they need to get their head out their butt and join the modern world.So no. I don't respect any of them or their ideologies because what they want, is far from pluralism, they want to stifle individuality and imped human progress and wellbeing. And in this case, I am not talking about the moderates, I am talking about the majority over there. Like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even Palestine, (and now increasingly Iraq).And this has nothing to do with me, it has to do with all of us. If humans want a brighter future we have to let go of fanaticism, ignorance, and superstition. I think we can all agree to that. Again, I am no fan of US foreign policy, but I am no fan of Iran either. I don't need to respect them, their govt., or their culture. Because it is backward, and counterproductive to human progress. It promotes hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and superstition.I would never uphold their rights to behave that way in the name of pluralism. I don't think this is a tit for tat kind of situation. I also don't think it is merely extremists. It's all pervasive over there. And it's not necessarily their fault. Their very govt. promotes the kind of hatred and intolerance that is expressed in moments like this.I also don't condone violence at WTO protests either. I agree that we shouldn't be poking our noses into other peoples cultures. But again, I don't have to respect a stupid culture when I see one. I will gladly call a spade a spade.I don't have to say the Aztec culture was just as good as ours and that human sacrifice was just a nice form of cultural pride. It was barbaric, ignorant, and stupid.Just like the burkah and all it symbolizes.This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-07-2006 10:18 AM

The Times & The Sunday TimesHow mature And a perfect example of how this hatred is institutional. After all, newspapers in iran are state run.This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-07-2006 10:23 AM

What I don't get is, these weren't Jewish cartoonists.Like, that's the reflexive response of Islamacism? Blame the Jews?

Page not found – The SunAh, the wonders of a pluralistic society with many beutiful and vibrant cultures living together in peace. What a beutiful culture: This one is especialy charming (NOTE: the hat): Freedom of speach allows them to do this, and I actually support it. It let's them make total asses out of themeselves. Finaly: Again, I will call a spade a spade, these people are stupid, ignorant, zelots and idiots. They need a brain transplant in the worst way. And nothing anyone says will ever make me respect them.

If there are a group of people out there in the world whose aim it is to cause a clash of civilisations as a step towards some even more nefarious goal then their plan is working swimmingly well. Inciting each side to hatred of the other can only be a precursor to something else. Hatred without action achieves little.I wonder would that 'something else' set it goals a little higher than 9/11Ever feel like you were dancing to someone elses tune?

Maybe. I see your point, but at the same time I cannot help feeling people are a bit to ready to 'embrace' and 'look past the extreamists' etc.I don't advocate violence, I advocate education. These people, these extreamists, need to learn about the history of their religion, society, and the development of the western world.Their view on things is so hopelessly warped that there is no real grounds to rationalize at this point. I also don't see why we should be expected to respect their views on any level.As I posted to holms, why would we respect a people with beliefs so reprehensible and ideas so backward? Would we respect the aztecs and their practices?I just think we need to be more realistic on the issue. It's not extremists. It's a pervaisve ideology in their culture, rooted in their history, and their religion.

Mr. Holmes,
You have a better understanding of Muslims and more tolerant position than most people in the west. I read your post without frustration and emotion of anger.The educated Muslim, of which there are many in the USA and Europe, struggles over negatives of western freedom interfering with submitting self to Islam. The struggle at the root is the personal commitment priority of Islam over man's law in a land where man's law rules over religious law.I do not support the Iranian and Taliban type of government. Clerics are human and can be tempted by too much power.America has this concept of balance of government power in its branches. Islamic countries need similar concept. However, unlike in America where religion is not part of law, Islamic countries need a branch that represents Islamic law. Without Islamic participation in government, the country would spiral to immorality like happening in the west. I understand that many in west do not agree that immorality is occurring, but that is a Muslim view.I and many peace-minding Muslims do not support violence as protest. But the west must understand that provoking Muslims peels the onion to stronger levels of reaction. The simmering pot is beginning to boil. Peace-loving Muslims, if pushed to the limit, will react with violence or join terrorist organizations. Today, cartoons provoke some to violence and others to simmer, getting closer to boil point.

quote:

---

I don't advocate violence, I advocate education.

---

A noble goal indeed. But is there anything that is "educational" in your posts?

---

"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

quote:

---

However, unlike in America where religion is not part of law, Islamic countries need a branch that represents Islamic law.

---

Is this anything like the way South Africa "needed" apartheid to preserve its way of life?

Yes. That people don't need to feel they need to respect any culture, or idea, that comes along in the name of pluralism.That islamists, and moslems in general, need to actually learn real history outside of the koran. That irrational beliefs and superstitions need to be abandoned if we ever want peace.Maybe I should open a thread about that.

You are improperly comparing a religion to South Africa's power policy based on race. Those are two different concepts of purpose entirely.If you favor elections in Islamic countries, then let the people decide on whether an Islamic branch is part of it and part of constitution.