British imam warns against overreaction
Although I’m as disappointed as you are in the State Department’s milquetoast reaction to this (especially when the chief country in the crosshairs is Denmark, which has been a stalwart supporter of the two wars the U.S. has fought since 9/11), the U.S. government probably has an interest in maintaining this monumentally stupid mass two-year-old temper tantrum as a “Muslims vs. Europe” narrative. Really can’t say that I blame us too much for wanting someone else to be the Muslims’ punching bag for a change. “You guys deal with it for a change,” seems to be our position.
And although it sucks that we hung the Danes out to dry, it probably serves the government’s ends to attempt to convince ordinary Europeans that our struggle with Muslim extremism is theirs, as well. That goal is accomplished more easily if Europeans see that the bullseye is just as much on their backs and their culture as it is on ours, which is why I don’t think we came to the defense of those nations that printed the cartoons.
No, the government just took the easy way out by “enabling” the nutcases. But hey, enabling cultural dysfunction through “nuance” in an attempt to divert the ire of extremists has been a typical Western European response to Islamic extremism and/or authoritarianism in the past, so what comes around, goes around, I guess.
No, my main anger is reserved for three groups:
a) the Islamic assholes burnings the embassies and attempting to impose their fucked-up value system on us via intimidation. Bitter, small-minded, stupid, intolerant, assbag losers.
b) the shitheads in charge of some of these countries - I’m mainly looking at you, Mr. Assad - who are thanking Allah that they get yet another chance to redirect their peoples’ anger at someone else, thereby diverting the people’s attention from their own incompetency/authoritarianism, and finally…
c) to the chickenshit American media outlets who say they aren’t running the cartoons “out of respect for Islam.” :rolleyes: Fucking pussies. I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just said “We ain’t running them because we’re worried some Muslim nutbar will park a truck filled with ammonium nitrate in front of our office.” At least that’s honest. It’s just the mainstream media’s latest betrayal of a public it supposedly serves because of a lack of balls, and further proof of its growing irrelevancy.
The Danish paper did not print those cartoons to intentionally poke a stick in the eye of Muslims. They did it to test the press’ - and by extension the nation’s - ability to practice freedom of expression in a climate of intimidation. I’d say the paper proved its point.
Now I’m off to buy some Danish butter cookies.
HeelB4Zod, I think America has enough on it’s plate as it is.
Besides: It is our own fault.
We’ve been pampering Islam for so long, we forgot how to bite back.
Instead of that, we run.
Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the “sensitivity” of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the “sensitivity” of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the “sensitivity” of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ‘‘Shouf Shouf Habibi!’’ on the grounds that “I don’t want a knife in my chest” – which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ‘‘right to dissent’’ all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they’re just being "sensitive,’’ too.
And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the “sensitivity” of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the “sensitivity” of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a “diverse” “tolerant” society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
Opposed to Jack Straw:
“The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, ‘Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case’,” he declared.
“Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamisation of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologise.”
http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/
Not in general. Although I do have an increasingly small tolerance for some of the idiotic religion bashing which occurs on this board.
I believe that’s an outright lie. I think mythology is a major part of religion:
Some cites: “I have no problem with people thinking that my religion is mythology, but I do object to “fairytale” (as well as “folk story” and “fable”, to round out Eve’s words)”, “That reason divorced from myth and ritual can be inadequate for dealing with that kind of pain and confusion?”.
The latter cite is from a religion-related pit argument with FinnAgain, perhaps he’s bitter about that, or something.
I have no problem comparing myth and religion–I think mythology is an important part of religion; sometimes mythology is the best way to communicate the truth.
Well that is good news I suppose, but this quote derived from your third link still bothers me
It is fine and dandy to oppose violence, but these “innocent” Muslims were protesting to a government for allowing free speech. That does not bode well for the future of Europe.
You cannot control the public face of Islam. It’s, at best, a loose confederation of mosques, not some monolithic organization like the Roman Catholic Church. As for the politicians in Muslim countries… they have their own reasons to want the massesd to be anti-western, and those reasons have little if anything to do with religion and a lot to do with power.
I doubt it. It’s possible to be deeply offended by someone’s treatment of your religion and to not go on a rampage. How many riots have there been in the US, where Muslims are much more integrated into the overall society than in Europe? What was the “public face” of Islam before this incident? You’re jsut focusing on one news story and letting that define something over space and time.
Condemn the fanatics, not Islam as a whole. There is no “pope” who can come out and make some proclamation. And my guess is that these rioters did not just spontaneously organize-- it’s got to be individual imams who whipped up their congregations into a frenzy.
I find it interesting that some non-Islamic “moderates” say that the cartoons shouldn’t have been drawn/published/reproduced out of respect for the religion of Islam.
Apparently respect runs in only one direction. What about Islam’s respect of others’ rights to draw or view as they wish?
The Christian religion seems to have given up on its attempt to control the thoughts of others as they did in medieval times, and some religions never had that desire in the first place – live and let live is built in. But Islam stands out as one that must control everyone. Make 'em Muslims or kill 'em.
Well, Christianity has a 500 year head start. 
The Enlightenment was not embraced by the Arab/Muslim world. At least not yet. Let’s hope their time will come soon.
Not that the pope could come out and make a proclamation for all Christians, of course.
Just roughly half of them. 
Oh come on. That’s not specifically a Muslim trait. People of all faiths and persuasions demonstrate peacefully about shit that offends them all the time. Last temptation of Christ, Life of Brian, Romans in Britain, and hundreds of other examples. It’s freedom of expression, same as the cartoons - I can print 'em, you can protest 'em.
The peaceful protestors are not to fear for “the future of Europe”. It’s the violent bastards burning stuff down and issuing death threats we need to worry about.
Is it even half? Still, most Christian denominations have some sort of hierarchy, even if it’s a council of some sort. If the Methodists or the Episcopalians, or whatever want to endorse or condemn something, there is some group that can speak for that denomination. Is there anything like that for Islam? I supsect there must be some recognized leaders, but is there any governing body that can issue rules that are binding on congregations?
And people of other faiths have protested violently as well, I’ll grant you that. What I’m claiming is that protesting to governments via their embassies to abrogate free speech of entities within their countries is a specific Muslim trait within western democracies. If you want to support a position otherwise please provide a cite. I can’t find anything to support you.
On the contrary, it is the peaceful protesters who ultimately can affect my freedoms and way of life. Violence only hardens opposition to their goals.
Well, that makes you both a fool and a liar, doesn’t it?
I already cited your post where you went berserk because people were comparing your beliefs to other mythical beliefs. And your lies are also rather stupid, as I can cite the post that ‘made you’ go berserk. Ddo you see the words “fable” or “fairy tale” even once? Nope, because they weren’t used and you can’t fall back on your obfuscatory lie about how it’s just certain words that set you off.
You simply flipped out because I was comparing modern supernatural beliefs to past supernatural beliefs. And if you don’t think that people used Thor, Pixies, or Elves to explain natural phenomena and that those are ‘just’ ‘fairy tales’ then you’re even more of an ignorant religious bigot than I’d thought. Especially since, as pointed out, some neo-pagans currently worship entities like Thor.
Further, your distinction between “myths” and “fair tales” is just another form of two faced offense mongering on your part, I’m afraid. The examples given in the thread I linked to, including pixies and the Green Man were certainly used to explain things, and only later became “fairy tales”. The point, which you have done your best to miss in your religious fervor and anger, is that virtually every culture has created myths to explain life which, later on, are considered only stories for children. The distinction between a myth and a fairy tale is bogus, and your flipping out because people were comparing the concept of God to pixies (without ever using the words “fairy tale” or “myth”) just goes to show that you’re probably the last person who can participate in a debate about comparative religion.
And no, I was not ‘bitter’ about it. It just sticks out in my mind as the single most egregious example of a Doper acting like a berserk petulant toddler and refusing to debate, anything, while just sligning insults. And when asked why your beliefs would be any more valid than any religious beliefs of the past, you just continued with the insults. You are an irrational intellectual thug who will now claim that you can take your religion being criticized, as long as they use the right semantic mincing and this bullshit distinction between myths and fables. And as such, it’s rather ironic to see you posting in a thread about religious people going nuts because of how someone depicted their sacred cow.
But please, oh berserk loonie, please tell us all about how Muslims should or shouldn’t go berserk when someone criticizes their icons… I need more irony in my diet. Oh, oh! Maybe you can lecture us on how religious tollerance and intellectual honesty are virtues and any belief can be questioned and the Muslim rioters shouldn’t have gotten so extreme? :rolleyes:
Can you clarify what you’re talking about? Is it Muslims in non-western countries protesting at western embassies? AFAIK, Muslims are not protesting at western embassies in western countries. In the first case, those non-Western countires simply don’t have a tradition of free speech, and that has nothing to do with their being Muslim and everything to do with their not being full democracies in the Western sense.
Doh! I’d missed that post of yours, sorry.
And on reviewing that thread, and your most recent post in this thread, I’m pretty sure I reached the correct conclusion then when I decided that discussing religion with you was pointless and ended the discussion.
If you consider that (and this) to be throwing a hissy fit and walking away, then “meh.” There are some whose opinions I just don’t care about.
The protest in London was directed at the Danish embassy by British Muslims. My concern is for western democracies.
Strictly guessing here, but how many of these rioters have even seen the cartoon in question? 20%?
That was the one you had responded to.
And quoted in your response.
“missed it” indeed.
Exactly my point. You are just a thug who can’t stand having his religious views compared to religious views of the past, and who speaks out of both sides of his mouth demanding “respect” for his religion while calling past, and present, religions “fairy tales” and saying that if anybody were to do the same for your beliefs it’d just be over the line.
You are the last person who should be in a debate about religious sensibilities and appropriate responses to criticism of sacred cows.
Yes, I’d consider shitting in a thread and likening people to serial killers because they pointed out that supernatural beliefs have no proof behind them, and then refusing to even answer why one belief should, a priori, be viewed as any more accurate than another you ran away… so yes, I’d describe that as 'throwing a hissy fit and then walking out."
Ahhhh, the eternal retreat of the coward. Aren’t you supposed to start whining soon about how you’re entitled to your own opinion or something? The fact of the matter is that you are a religious thug who can’t stand the fact that no supernatural belief has any more proof than any other and that the beliefs of the past are now seen as only fit for fanciful stories to tell children.
Why you think you’re fit to talk about how Muslims are reacting when their sacred cows are challenged when your response is to go ballistic when someone merely points out that supernatural beliefs don’t have any more of a sound epistemological claim than any other supernal beliefs… well, I can’t quite puzzle that one out.
But please, flip out yet again some time soon. That’ll sure demonstrate your commitment to honest discussion about epistemology and religious study.
Doesn’t matter. The rioters reactions to the cartoon are so stupid that it wouldn’t be any more stupid if they were reacting sight unseen.