# "Islam" vs free speech



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...LAC/20060201/PROPHET01/TPInternational/Europe

gotta go to my workout now. but i'll be back in an hour or so to talk about this.

yes, i'm an atheist. i'm totally in agreement with this quote: "I do not think they are asking for respect in this case," said Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the paper, in an interview with a French television station on Monday. "They want me to follow one of their taboos in the public domain. And I think there's a very fundamental principle in secular society that you cannot insist on everybody paying special attention to your religious feelings."

you have balls, mr rose. taboo is exactly the right word.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "They want me to follow one of their taboos in the public domain. And I think there's a very fundamental principle in secular society that you cannot insist on everybody paying special attention to your religious feelings."


I'm not sure who "they" are but any fanatic who ACTS in response to percieved insult with violence deserves the full weight of the law coming down. If it's supported or encouraged by organizations then again let the laws against inciting to violence be fully invoked.

Secular democracies have the legal and legislative tools to deal with fanatics religious or not and destructive organizations religious or not ( organized crime, biker gangs, hate groups etc).

Individuals or institutions........those that wish to partake of a peaceable society need to learn their are responsibilities involved in that participation and with rights come responsibilities.

Sovereignity is challenged here as much a ruler in the middle ages had to deal with Rome.

If groups want freedom of religion then give it to others including freedom FROM religion.

If you've been liabled then there is recourse. 
If the newspaper is inciting hatred towards Muslims then the response is to take to the courts.
Respect is earned and I'm glad someone has drawn a line in the sand here.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Seems to me some of these folks have problems with some of the things we in the "West" take for granted, such as freedom of speech and expression, separation of church and state, etc.

However, if they want to take up residence in a "Western" country, they should be prepared to adopt these "Western" values. The actions in Europe (e.g., riots in France, violence in Holland, as well as the problems in Denmark described in the article) are completely unacceptable, and should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'm not sure who "they" are ...


He was refering to protesters in his homeland.

France and German newspapers get bold: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/02/02/252.html

I would never have expected this. I fully expected westerners to be cowed. I'm glad they weren't.

However, I don't expect any Canadian newspapers to join in solidarity with Europe.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Seems to me some of these folks have problems with some of the things we in the "West" take for granted, such as freedom of speech and expression, separation of church and state, etc.


Ok. Just don't forget, we have many homegrown religious nuts of our own, and they are no less dangerous.

Religious fanaticism is the danger, not just Islamic fanaticism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Doesn't need to be religious. Fascism does just fine as a stand alone.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

True, that.

Fanatics for Free Speech are always desirable, though.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Ok. Just don't forget, we have many homegrown religious nuts of our own, and they are no less dangerous.


Fair enough, but it seems to me that the fanatics described in the article weren't homegrown!


lpkmckenna said:


> Religious fanaticism is the danger, not just Islamic fanaticism.


Or just fanaticism of any kind, religious or otherwise. While I didn't refer to Islamic fanaticism by name, it does seem there are plenty of recent examples of this particular type of fanatisism, and it is also the subject of the article you posted.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

> Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari demanded that Denmark put the newspaper and its editors on trial "for offending the beliefs of Muslims." He warned that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, considered the spiritual leader of the world's Shia Muslims, was very displeased.


Noooo! Say it isn't so!  

In all seriousness, hey, too bad. Editorial cartoons are supposed to be satirical and are not intended to make people feel fuzzy 'n' warm, nor to prop up whatever beliefs they already entertain. Making anonymous death threats against those who say things you don't like is the ultimate refuge of the coward.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

My god's better than your god, my god's better 'cause......Idiots. tptptptp 

Drawing cartoons is out, and grounds for death but strapping bombs on kids and sending them to blow up people is cool? Someone needs a serious kick in the head...


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

It's not a case of my god vs. your god because it's the same one!  It's more a conflict between Western society respecting others' points of view (ex: I don't care who you beleive or don't believe in because it's your faith not mine) vs. (radical/hardline) Islam doing something about it (which is completely the opposite of the Western view).

I'm all for free speech and freedom to worship whomever you choose (or not) and seperation of state and religion (in a multi-ethnic country like ours i.e. western countries) but when you delibrately insult a group of people, you have to be prepared for the consequences. Like when that whole fiasco with the Dixie Chicks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> but when you delibrately insult a group of people, you have to be prepared for the consequences.


Sticks and stones et al........seems some haven't figured out the last part of the rhyme.....names OR cartoons. 

IN my mind the sign of a strong confident culture is one that celebrates its own quirks and foibles.

••••

Too much of Bin Laden's "clash of civilizations" in this spat and that it involves nation states as well augurs ill 
There is a limit to tolerating intolerance.....the pluralistics society's dilemma...where does that limit lie?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Canadian newspapers cowed: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060202.wgravenimage0202/BNStory/National/
*An editorial written by The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee argued that free-speech concerns had to take priority over fears of giving offence.

“For dialogue and debate to flourish, citizens must be allowed the maximum freedom to say what is on their minds, even if it is provocative, insulting, inflammatory, or, yes, blasphemous,” the editorial stated.

Still, the Globe decided against running the cartoons

“We have legitimate concerns that we not unnecessarily offend any group or community,” said Patrick Martin, comment editor at the Globe.

“We don't see the necessity of doing this in this case.”*

-and-

*Haroon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus, said invoking free speech was a “disingenuous” attempt to disguise outright Muslim-baiting and anti-Islamic sentiments.

There is a “sacred secular principle” of promoting respect among various faiths,” Mr. Siddiqui wrote Thursday.

“Thinking people and responsible public institutions should err on the side of advancing mutual understanding, not fanning more conflicts.”*

-and-

*Raheel Raza, the Toronto author of a new book called Their Jihad Is Not My Jihad, said the cartoons, one of which shows Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse, served no political or social purpose.

“All that it's doing is inciting hatred,” said Ms. Raza.*

Ok, time for me to jump in with both feet...

I think religion causes great evil. It is not the only cause, but it has been a sustantial cause. Tyranny, censorship, repression of science and learning, racism and sexism - all of these things dominate in religious societies.

As the west becomes less religious, we have become more liberal, more peaceful, more pluralistic. Those regions of the world that are still deeply religious are usually hotbeds of political strife.

The Marxist world was (and is) a large problem, too. But Marxism is not a secular belief system. Marxism was a religion masquerading as a political movement. Watch "The Killing Fields" again. These people aren't social revolutionaries; they're like indoctrinated monks.

It is only in a liberal/secular/pluralistic society that people of differing beliefs can co-exist peacefully.

Religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan are a threat from without, for the same reason that religious fanatics in Canada threaten our own liberties, with talk of banning homosexuality or "putting Christ back in the schools" or advocating psuedo-scientific "intelligent design."

If they keep it to themselves, they aren't going to be a nuissance. The Amish are no threat to Canadians. But fanatics, by definition, can't keep it to themselves. They see their religion as the solution to societies ills.

Many Muslims see Islam as a political and a religious movement. They must: Mohammed was not just a prophet. He was a political ruler and a warrior. Young men in middle eastern nations look at the strife around them and say "what would Mohammed do?"

We know what Mohammed wouldn't do: advocate a liberal democracy based on secularism and pluralism. His historical record speaks for itself.

The bare truth: there will be strife between the west and the Islamic world, because it is strife between the secular and the theocratic. The strife will end when the whole world finally learns the lessons of the Age of Enlightenment.

"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." - Voltaire

Someday, the Islamic world will have its own Voltaire, and he will say something similar, and they will finally believe it.

Or at least this: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I think religion causes great evil.


i think that extremism causes great evil
organized religon is linked to extremism to varying degrees
budhists seem to be able to fulfill their religous obligatins without imposing on others

any doctrine that tells its followers they are better than others
incites extremism

compromise, logic and respect should be the pillars of human interaction, not beliefs in one deity or another


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

There are some religious beliefs that don't lend themselves very well to extremism. Buddhism, the Amish.

But Buddhists are very capable of fanatical extremism. They just prefer to set themselves on fire rather than kill others. Still not a very logical response to something.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

setting onself on fire is an ultimate personal choice and doesn't injure others
and isn't personal choice part of what a real democracy is all about?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

i thought it was the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Religion that leads to unthinking extremism is bad. On the other hand, just because you have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean you should. And that applies to cartoons as well text. Extreme atheism can be almost as bad as extreme theism.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> compromise, logic and respect should be the pillars of human interaction


Such things are not necessarily incompatible with religion. It simply requires religious people to try harder than they have historically.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

Really, this is all just free speech clashing with ethics. I'll take the drawing of the bomb over Muhammed's head as an example: it was deliberate. It wasn't reporting news. How would you react if you saw a cartoon of your own mother with a bomb over her head?

I think that is what the Danish newspaper originally had intended. To see how much of a rise they could get out of muslims because they know the other religions wouldn't react so heatedly. I haven't watched South Park in years but have they ever made fun of Islam?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

sketch, I agree that this was probably the intended result, to a certain degree. I would like to see the cartoons, but based on what I have heard reported about them, they really added very little as political commentary, and seemed to be deliberately intended to inflame. Again, it is the paper's right to do so, but that doesn't make it a wise or helpful decision.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Munira Mirza is a commentator on multicultural issues and Islamophobia
> 
> British newspapers should publish the images. Muslims should be able to see them and judge them for themselves, that's why we have freedom of speech.
> 
> ...


:clap:

Excellent summary of various views inclusing the authoring journal here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4676632.stm

The commentary above was one of them.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"Islamophobia"

I hate it when the term phobia is tossed around like that. A phobia is a psychological disorder.

"Homophobes" or "Islamophobes" or "bibliophobia" do not have an anxiety disorder: they have a political belief. It may be rational, irrational, or whatever. But important terms shouldn't be diluted like this.

The difference between a fear and a phobia is enormous. Maybe "homophobes" have fear of homosexuals, but that fear isn't a phobia.

I am an atheist. Does that make me a "theophobe?"

Actually, that makes no sense at all. "Fear thy God" is a common theme in the bible. Maybe it's the religious people who are actually "theophobes."


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*What all the fuss is about*

Here's are some images of what this debate is about:

Is this free speech okay to be seen and discussed, or should it edited, hidden, or censored?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

lpk - I tend to agree tho they all could be lumped as neurotic symptoms under xenophobia with less or more severe symptoms.



> A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.


Lot of that goin' around lately 

•••

Hard to tell out of context the point of the cartoons .....must be a "cultural thing"


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

Here's a twist:
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20060203/D8FHL1Q81.html

and also back on topic: http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02032006.html (I think this is up only for Feb 3).


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Just remember. Christians where like this once too. They've somewhat calmed down.

These people need to step back and think: What makes our religion look worse? A couple of cartoons, or us threatening to kill people?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

So, my main reaction is that those are stupid cartoons.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> So, my main reaction is that those are stupid cartoons.


I think numbers 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12 are hilarious!

Number 7 (the cartoonist fearfully drawing Mohammed) is really good. The idea that an artist should be in fear because he is drawing a picture of a *mere human being* speaks volumes about this issue.

How is drawing a picture of a *man* blasphemous?

Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, too. Why aren't they picketing the Vatican? Why is drawing Mohammed blasphemy but drawing Jesus isn't?

Of course, these are questions of logic, which has nothing to do whatsoever with religion. :-(


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> lpk - I tend to agree tho they all could be lumped as neurotic symptoms under xenophobia with less or more severe symptoms.
> 
> Lot of that goin' around lately


You make it sound like that's something new. Find me a period in recent history not so "xenophobic."

And the correct word isn't "xenophobic," it's "bigotry." And a bigot's problems are not so much psychological, but ethical.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Just remember. Christians where like this once too. They've somewhat calmed down.


Really? Unflattering depictions of Jesus are meet with hostility, too. Remember _The Last Temptation of Christ_?

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Temptation_of_Christ

The "calming down" is the fact that the west is far less religious than it used to be. Which was my point a few posts ago. It's not that the west has become more "reasonable as Christians" but because they're less Christian than they used to be.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

This news story made my skin crawl: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/03/cartoon-controversy060203.html?ref=rss

*"The only way this will be resolved is if those who are responsible are turned over so they can be punished by Islamic law, so that they can be executed," Abu Ibraheem, a 26-year-old protester in the British march, told the Associated Press. "There are no apologies ... Those responsible would have to be killed."*

A 26 yr old zealot, advocating political execution. :-(

Watch the QuickTime report from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/murray_cartoon060203.mov


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Quite sad.

"Syria and Saudi Arabia have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark over the controversy,"

Also sad. Not just a handful of idiotic mobs overreacting.

Bad taste is apparently, to some, worthy of execution and/or diplomatic action between nations.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Bill Clinton has jumped into the fray, further proving that he's an idiot: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/pl_afp/denmarkislamqatar_060130151546

*"So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.*

These cartoons are not remotely comparable to anti-semitism. The only reason some Muslims are offended is because they _*define*_ depictions of Mohammed as offensive, not because depictions of Mohammed *are* offensive. 

*"In Europe, most of the struggles we've had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism," he said.*

Really? While anti-semitism remains a problem, describing it as "most of the struggles" is nonsense. Bill, have you heard of communism? How about a little place called Bosnia? Or Northern Ireland? Or maybe Romania? We know you never heard of Al-Quaeda, since you did little or nothing about it as president.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

found a great link of historical depictions of Mohammed, many by Muslims: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

And here is the most notorious depiction of Mohammed, on the walls of the Supreme Court of the US:








He's the one holding the scimitar. 

EDIT: in case anyone is confused about the , I just had no idea about these images before today. More proof against the fundamentalists who claim the US was founded as a "Christian nation."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> You make it sound like that's something new. Find me a period in recent history not so "xenophobic."


There's just more of us now.......and I wouldn't include just recent history......ever see our near cousins the chimps deal with the "other guys"......makes us look downright civilized



> And the correct word isn't "xenophobic," it's "bigotry."


Well there's that too and you'll get no argument from me on that aspect ...and bigot is good "short" word for the same ****e.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Bill Clinton has jumped into the fray, further proving that he's an idiot: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/pl_afp/denmarkislamqatar_060130151546
> 
> *"So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.*
> 
> ...


I actually agree with what Clinton had to say. Just because you are not in tune with Islamic sensitivities and are viewing from a Judaeo-Christian perspective does not mean the insult that Islamic people feel is not real.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS you MAY be mis-interpreting - I THINK ilp is saying this is satire not prejudice such as anti-semitism and that Clinton is ignoring other violent religious clashes that are ongoing or recent.

•••

The story about the other 3 cartoons inserted by radical elements into the controversy is very disturbing.
I can't get a handle on the truth of that.

It certainly does play into radical Islam elements but perhaps it was a clash that is inevitable.
The ending of religious courts sanctioned by Ontario judiciary was a small element of this ongoing issue between secular and religious domains.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> I actually agree with what Clinton had to say. Just because you are not in tune with Islamic sensitivities and are viewing from a Judaeo-Christian perspective does not mean the insult that Islamic people feel is not real.


I am an atheist. Don't accuse me of J-C perspectives.

I am sure the orthodox Muslims feel offense, but not all Muslims do. Your post implies they are all offended. They aren't. We are only hearing the hysterical, hyper-sensitive orthodox side. Just like all religions, there is a continuum of attitudes. These protests are *not* "the Islamic people," but only the irrational hysteria of ultraconservatives. 

Some Muslims feel offended, but only because they define depictions of Mohammed as offensive.

When the fundamentalists protested and picketed outside of movie theatres showing _The Last Temptation of Christ_, did you say "we should be more in tune with fundamentalist sensitivities, and step outdide of our secular perspectives" ???


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> These protests are *not* "the Islamic people," but only the irrational hysteria of ultraconservatives.


I think it's much worse than that. It's probable, to me, that the ultraconservative mobs are being whipped up by ultraconservative puppeteers playing a much more cynical secular game of powergrab.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I am an atheist. Don't accuse me of J-C perspectives.


Probably refering to a pervading perspective in our nation that, while diversifying over time, was until very recently a clearly J-C culture.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Watch the QuickTime report from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/murray_cartoon060203.mov


So now I'm quoting myself. 

Look at the attached picture. It's a screencap from the CBC news blurb above. It's hard to see, but I just saw on the TV, and what it says is:

"LIBERALISM GO TO HELL" :-( 

That's from the protest in London.

Make no mistake. These protesters are not typical of Muslims in London or anywhere in the west. These are ultra-orthodox factions of the wider Muslim community. They are not typical of most Muslims living there or here.

Now imagine you were a young Muslim in a conservative family, recent immigrants to a western nation. You don't want to attend the protest, but you go anyway. Why, you ask? Why risk being ostracized by your own mosque, by your own family? Many of those protesters are there only because of intense community pressure.

And remember how dictatorships work as well: those mass protests in nations like Iran are organized by the government. They are not spontaneous, and they are not "grassroots" events. Most of those attending were ordered to be there, with powerful political pressure from ultraconservative clerics and government lackeys.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

sketch said:


> I think that is what the Danish newspaper originally had intended. To see how much of a rise they could get out of muslims because they know the other religions wouldn't react so heatedly.


You are mistaken.

*The entire controversy started when Danish author Kåre Bluitgen complained that he could not find an artist brave enought to illustrate his upcoming book about Mohammed. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten issued a call for submissions from any artists willing to take up the challenge. In the ensuing brouhaha, the original book was almost forgotten; it has now been released, and does feature page after page of Mohammed depictions.*

link: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/. (Scroll about 9/10th to the bottom.)



sketch said:


> I haven't watched South Park in years but have they ever made fun of Islam? [/SIZE]


As a matter of fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends. I guess it's up to you to decide whether depicting Mohammed as a superhero is blasphemy.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I am an atheist. Don't accuse me of J-C perspectives.


The western culture is still predominantly J-C in it's influences. Witness just about all of our literature. You may not believe in the religious parts of it, but it is still the dominant underlying shape to the culture.



lpkmckenna said:


> I am sure the orthodox Muslims feel offense, but not all Muslims do. Your post implies they are all offended. They aren't. We are only hearing the hysterical, hyper-sensitive orthodox side. Just like all religions, there is a continuum of attitudes. These protests are *not* "the Islamic people," but only the irrational hysteria of ultraconservatives.
> 
> Some Muslims feel offended, but only because they define depictions of Mohammed as offensive.


Actually, even the moderate Muslims I've heard are offended. They just don't consider it necessary to kill to make that point. While I still say that I personally consider all but one of the cartoons to be mostly just dumb, I can see their point. There is a nasty sentiment behind the cartoons, and that, at least, is something that might cause offense.



lpkmckenna said:


> When the fundamentalists protested and picketed outside of movie theatres showing _The Last Temptation of Christ_, did you say "we should be more in tune with fundamentalist sensitivities, and step outdide of our secular perspectives" ???


All the fundies I know liked the movie. The only Christians I know who didn't were my colleagues and I, and we are the left of the left.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> The western culture is still predominantly J-C in it's influences. Witness just about all of our literature. You may not believe in the religious parts of it, but it is still the dominant underlying shape to the culture.


No, J-C influences are not the "predominant." The chief cultural influences in the west have always been ancient Greek and Roman. They underlies all our politics, philosophies, and literary traditions. And more than any culture before them, they were highly secular, with religion being mostly limited to civic rituals or theatrical events. The only time you find ancient Greeks whipped into religious zealotry is during Bacchanalia feasts of drink and sex. (Those guys really knew how revere god!)

Greeks and Romans believed in the gods the way we "believe" in alien visitiors, horoscopes, or ghostly hauntings. The belief was common everywhere, but not very heartfelt or sincere. Literal belief in a book or a prophet was completely foreign thinking to them.

The moral authorities of the age looked upon the gods as philosophical abstractions, to be debated and studied, not followed or worshipped.

Far from religion being predominant in our culture, it's dying off. We "believe" in God like we "believe" in marriage: personal happiness trumps old-fashion duties and obligations. 

Many say they want to "go back to church" as such, but they say it like "they wanna exercise more" or "eat better." In other words: an endless chorus of half-hearted new year's resolutions. That's the status of religion in the west.



RevMatt said:


> Actually, even the moderate Muslims I've heard are offended. They just don't consider it necessary to kill to make that point. While I still say that I personally consider all but one of the cartoons to be mostly just dumb, I can see their point. There is a nasty sentiment behind the cartoons, and that, at least, is something that might cause offense.


But the moderate Muslims aren't burning flags and embassies, or calling for beheadings and jihad. And I see no nasty sentiment in any but the bomb/turban picture. The rest are highly intelligent commentaries on Islamic beliefs (like the reward of virgins to martyrs).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> No, J-C influences are not the "predominant." The chief cultural influences in the west have always been ancient Greek and Roman.


That's more of an argument about what influenced J-C. It is quite clear that, until recently, this society was strongly J-C, and much of that influence remains. Philosophical and pragmatic roots from Greece and Rome all fed through Christianity and are a part of it. Ignoring our society's J-C roots is like ignoring its multicultural future. The occasional strife we face now is a direct result of a J-C based society changing.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The news reporting on this event is getting under my skin: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/04/cartoon-controversy060204.html?ref=rss

*Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Qur'an, forbids any depictions of Islam's holiest figure to prevent idolatry.*

But is this really why the protests are happening? Depictions of Mohammed can be found in all sorts of public places. Even on the walls of the American Supreme Court! 

Dante's Inferno says Mohammed is in hell, and artistic depictions of his suffering there usually show his entails hanging out of his body.

Inferno XXVIII, 19-42. 

The poets are in the ninth 
chasm of the eighth circle, that of the Sowers of 
Discord, whose punishment is to be mutilated. 
Mahomet shows his entrails to Dante and Virgil 
while on the left stands his son Ali, his head cleft 
from chin to forelock.

Salvador Dali's representation:









If the west is cowed by these protests, expect more and more demands for censorship. Can you not see protests in the universities of Canada, with ultraconservative Muslim students demanding the removal of blasphemous literature and art like Dante and Dali?

And, it is entirely possible that none of these 12 images are the cause of these protests: http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.html.

Listen to this zealot: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/bbc_mia.mov. He claims that even respectful depictions of Mohammed from medieval Persia are blasphemy. 

My take: orthodox Muslim clerics are pushing for greater censorship of what they deem "blasphemy." Inside and outside the Muslim world, the pictures from the Dutch press will be used to justify increased censorship. These protests are not just targeting those 12 pictures. The greater goal is censorship of any depictions whatsoever, anywhere.

In other words: a cynical political game played by orthodox clerics to push their views on more moderate Muslims in their own homelands.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

For perspective, when was the last time you heard a Catholic shout "Death to Tom Hanks" over the Da Vinci code?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> That's more of an argument about what influenced J-C. It is quite clear that, until recently, this society was strongly J-C, and much of that influence remains. Philosophical and pragmatic roots from Greece and Rome all fed through Christianity and are a part of it. Ignoring our society's J-C roots is like ignoring its multicultural future. The occasional strife we face now is a direct result of a J-C based society changing.


No, you are wrong. You have it completely backwards.

We have always have a strong Greco-Roman influence, while the Christian influence comes and goes.

The notion that western culture is based on "Judeo-Christianity" is a deliberate falsehood advocated by those fundamentalists demanding greater political influence in the US, with the co-myth that the nation is Judeo-Christian is origin. Unfortunately, many non-fundamentalists have been suckered by it.

from Wikipedia: *The term was invented in the United States of America in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that, by embracing Judaism, avoided the appearance of anti-Semitism. The first-known uses of the terms "Judæo-Christian" and "Judaeo-Christianity", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, are 1899 and 1910 respectively. The original uses of the term have faded, and it now usually refers to a general Western religious background. The term is commonly used by historians and academics as a shorthand for the predominant religious influences upon Western culture.*

The founding fathers of the US were highly secular men. For instance (all from wikipedia)

Jefferson:
*Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." (Letter to Joseph Priestley, April 9, 1803.)
Like most deists, Jefferson did not believe in miracles. He labored on an edited version of the Gospels, removing references to the miracles of Jesus and material he considered preternatural, leaving only Jesus's moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.*

Franklin:
*As a teenager, however, he became disillusioned with organized religion, after ". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."*

Paine:
*With regard to his religious views, in The Age of Reason (begun in France in 1793), Paine stated:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:
How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.*

And now back to our regularly scheduled debate on the protests...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> For perspective, when was the last time you heard a Catholic shout "Death to Tom Hanks" over the Da Vinci code?


You don't, because Catholics have mellowed to the point of not even believing their own religion.

*For perspective*, how many Catholics believe in papal infallibility, or the Vatican stance on birth control?

Now I gotta quote myself again: *As the west becomes less religious, we have become more liberal, more peaceful, more pluralistic. Those regions of the world that are still deeply religious are usually hotbeds of political strife.*

Western Christians have become peaceful because they are no longer deeply religious.

Here is the spectrum of religious belief, as I see it:

At the one end, orthodox tend to believe:
- in the literal truth of their religious texts;
- in the existence of miracles
- in divinely appointed leaders (prophets, messiahs, divine right of kings)
- in the politicalization of their religious views (ie theocracy);
- in the use of force, even violence, to attain religious ends (crusades, jihads)
- in censorship of opposing views
- in religious family bonds, condemning inter-faith marriage, and ostracizing family members who leave the faith (see Fidler on the Roof)
- in a coming apocalypse, where infidels and non-believers are punished

At the other end, liberals/moderates tend to believe the oppposite. And are much easier to get along with as a result. 

If Christians and Jews seem less inclined to violent protests like this one, it is because orthodox views in the west have been laughed out of existence by the advance of science, the love of freedom, and the satire of Voltaire, Paine, or even Nietzsche.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think those protesters in London who held signs threatening violence and death to others should be arrested from making those threats. Threats of violence and murder are not protected speech.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think those protesters in London who held signs threatening violence and death to others should be arrested from making those threats. Threats of violence and murder are not protected speech.


I might agree in principle, but that would create long-remembered grudges in the Muslim community. It would also create the impression that we don't censor criticism of Islam, but we censor criticism coming from Islam. I don't want to sound like a spin-doctor, but that would be really bad optics, politically.

We are better off to ignore the signs, really. It's like offering exile rather than trial to a tyrant. Yes, he gets away from being punished, but society can start to rebuild without him all the sooner. 

You can't win every battle. Would you rather this gets played thru the courts for the next 10 years, or gets forgotten in the next 6 months?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think those protesters in London who held signs threatening violence and death to others should be arrested from making those threats. Threats of violence and murder are not protected speech.


Tell that to the USA and Israel who do threaten people....


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I often do that.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Tell that to the USA and Israel who do threaten people....


:yawn:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "Stop murdering our women and children. We gave the same message before 9/11.* We are now saying to insult our Prophet means death. We are being attacked and an attack against our Prophet will mean death."*
> 
> *Abu Jihad, 43, who was born in Pakistan, added that the cartoonist and the editors of the papers should be killed.*
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060204.PROPHET04/TPStory/

Why is this person not charged under the inciting to violence laws in Britain????


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> :yawn:


Yes lpkmckenna, glad to see you approve of double standards....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes lpkmckenna, glad to see you approve of double standards....


It's that crystal clear to you? Are you actually equating the two, or just pointing out something, without inferring degree of severity?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes lpkmckenna, glad to see you approve of double standards....


It is you you consistently maintain a blinkered double standard in this regard.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060204.PROPHET04/TPStory/
> 
> Why is this person not charged under the inciting to violence laws in Britain????


There have been thousands of Muslim protesters on the streets of Europe. Many have been carrying signs and shouting slogans of murder. If the European nations begin arresting these individuals, there will be literally tens of thousands of charges laid.

As a result, the memories of these protests will become a painful scar on the communities of those arrested and charged.

Remember how long the grudges lingered from the October Crisis in Quebec? Almost 500 were arrested, but the over-reaction of the government fed the furore of separatists for another 20 years. Now imagine that happening again, in several nations at once, with *thousands* of charges laid, with a far more reactionary group of zealots. :yikes: 

Remember again: of the 497 persons charged in the October Crisis, ony 62 were charged. I don't know how many of those 62 got off on absence of evidence or other legal technicalities. Do you want similar ratios played out again, multiplied by 100?

Reactionary movements are inspired by martyrs. Don't manufacture more martyrs than we need. It will only serve the interests of the zealots.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I was just watching the 11 o'clock news. More Muslims rioting in the streets. More Muslim leaders calling for peace and an end to violence.

If anybody thinks violent protest is acceptable, you need your head examined. If this happened in the streets of Toronto, I would have no problem with every single violent protester being arrested and locked up for life. Freedom of religion to a point. Fanatics - take your hatred, ignorance, and intolerance somewhere else.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Tell that to the USA and Israel who do threaten people....





lpkmckenna said:


> :yawn:





ArtistSeries said:


> Yes lpkmckenna, glad to see you approve of double standards....


But I am fully :yawn: of your pendantic criticism of the US and Isreal.

The US and Isreali gov'ts don't just threaten, they actually *kill* people. They try to focus their violence on the murderous zealots, but civilians are killed in the crossfire. Sometimes those deaths are due to recklessness, sometimes due to arrogance, and sometimes they are mere mistakes. Canada, too, has lost from such errors.

But no matter what, the long-term goals of the US and Isreal are: liberal democracy and personal freedom. The mistakes made can be forgiven, because the goals are just and the mistakes are mistakes. All men and all nations make mistakes, just as all men and all nations must forgive mistakes, to reach peace.

Unlike these protesters, who are burning embassies, and throwing rocks, and demanding the heads of artists and newspaper men. Their goals are _*not*_ liberalism. Their goal is theocracy, censorship, and the rule of brute force over anyone who dares to think diferently from a man who's been dead 1500 yrs.

Come out of the dark ages.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> If anybody thinks violent protest is acceptable, you need your head examined. If this happened in the streets of Toronto, I would have no problem with every single violent protester being arrested and locked up for life. Freedom of religion to a point. Fanatics - take your hatred, ignorance, and intolerance somewhere else.


No, no, a thousand times, _NO!_

Freedom of religion is an absolute. There is no "point" where freedom of religion must stop. There is only the point where violence begins. The limit is on violence, not religion.

You are giving the zealots what they want. They say they are only demanding a little restriction of free speech, and then you demand a little restriction of religion. That's the false alternate they want!

And we don't want them to take their "hatred, ignorance, and intolerance somewhere else." It must stop completely. It's unacceptable everywhere.

As for "locking up for life," the punishment must always fit the crime. We don't even lock actual murderers up for life anymore. Locking up violent protesters "for life" is an over-reaction only a tyrant would be proud of.

guytoronto, you too need your head examined. Do you really think simple-minded comments like this are helpful?

The ultraconservative Muslims believe all westerners think as you do. That we'll throw the book at some Muslim protesters, but let rapists and murderers off the hook. Good job playing into their irrationality.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Those cartoons are a form of hate speech depicting stereotypes that are offensive to many Muslims . You rally under the banner of Free Speech, liberal democracy and personal freedom but there is a smugness about it. Your message seems to be that it's okay to be feeding Islamophobia. 

Liberal democracy is an ideology that supposed limitations on religious influences - I don't think that a state such as Israel falls under your definition.

nxnw, show me where I find the threats from Muslim protesters acceptable - or are you wrongfully inferring again?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Those cartoons are a form of hate speech depicting stereotypes that are offensive to many Muslims . You rally under the banner of Free Speech, liberal democracy and personal freedom but there is a smugness about it. Your message seems to be that it's okay to be feeding Islamophobia.


Those 12 pictures are not hate speech. The picture of Mohammed with the bomb/turban is offensive, the rest are not. The attached one in particular is hilarious, given the ridiculous protests over a bunch of cartoons.

Offensive is not hate speech, however. Fundamentalists regard the crucifix as blasphemy, while Catholics regard it as holy. But in no way could fundamentalists demand the censorship of the crucifix on the grounds that it "offends them." That's their problem. And so it is with Muslims. No one's religious views are entitled to special protection under the law.

And I've said before, there is no such thing as "Islamophobia." But there is a legitimate fear of theocratic tyranny. That's what this is all about.

You're right about one thing. I am smug. Smug in the knowledge that liberalism is the movement that began changing the world for the better 300 years ago, will remain vibrant 300 years and more into the future. Regardless of a bunch of reactionary zealots carrying signs preaching "DEATH TO LIBERALISM."



ArtistSeries said:


> Liberal democracy is an ideology that supposed limitations on religious influences - I don't think that a state such as Israel falls under your definition.


Uh, your sentence structure is really garbled here. What are you saying?

Only the delusional mindset of a reactionary zealot could conclude that this is hate speech or blasphemy:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dante's Inferno XXVIII, 19-42. 

The poets are in the ninth 
chasm of the eighth circle, that of the Sowers of 
Discord, whose punishment is to be mutilated. 
Mahomet shows his entrails to Dante and Virgil 
while on the left stands his son Ali, his head cleft 
from chin to forelock.

Salvador Dali's representation:









Tell me, ArtistSeries: is this hate speech? Should it be banned, too? Do you have any other artwork you think needs to be banned?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Those cartoons are a form of hate speech depicting stereotypes that are offensive to many Muslims . You rally under the banner of Free Speech, liberal democracy and personal freedom but there is a smugness about it. Your message seems to be that it's okay to be feeding Islamophobia.


Earth to AS...a multitude of Islamic newspapers have been regularly publishing hateful and totally off the wall cartoons depicting Jews and Christians for a dog's age. This stuff has been going on for decades...and no one on this side ever blinks an eye. Because freedom of expression is what we are all about. We don't riot and burn their embassies. We don't commit hateful violence as a result of a published cartoon.

Heck, we don't even get terribly upset when we hear Islamic leaders publicly advocating "DEATH to all Infidels!" But we WOULD get rather cheesed if we heard any of our leaders saying "Death to all Muslims!". Wouldn't we. 

There is a storm a'brewin here. The liberal and largely democratic modern western societies, and the largely poor and repressive fundamentalist middle eastern societies. Two solitudes that now seem to be on a serious collision course. The flashpoint might well be somewhere in Europe...which is now home to a rather large and rapidly growing islamic population. Birthrates amongst European natives are falling fast and some of these countries will be more Islamic than western in a few decades.

Two disparate groups that occupy the same real estate. One is trying to be tolerant and politically correct towards the latter. The other seems to be totally committed to the destruction of the former. Using whatever means they can.

Including the liberal laws of those modern western societies. They use the freedom of speech that they do NOT enjoy in their ancestral lands to loudly demand the end of freedom of speech in their adopted countries. 

I think we are headed for some serious turbulence here. Fasten your seatbelts.

And prepare to toss away some of the things you so fervently believe in....:yikes:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> There is a storm a'brewin here. The liberal and largely democratic modern western societies, and the largely poor and repressive fundamentalist middle eastern societies.


You're misusing the term "fundamentalist." Properly, only a Christian can be a fundamentalist, since it refers to the "14 Fundamentals" that are the basis for evangelical Christianity. The most correct term would be "orthodox." 

But not all Muslims in the middle east or in western nations are orthodox.



MacNutt said:


> Two solitudes that now seem to be on a serious collision course. The flashpoint might well be somewhere in Europe...which is now home to a rather large and rapidly growing islamic population. Birthrates amongst European natives are falling fast and some of these countries will be more Islamic than western in a few decades.


I doubt it. And there isn't "two solitudes." Muslims and non-Muslims are not so different: there are liberal, moderate, and orthodox wings, both politically and religiously, in both groups. Your "two solitutudes" are really an intricate mosiac.



MacNutt said:


> Two disparate groups that occupy the same real estate. One is trying to be tolerant and politically correct towards the latter. The other seems to be totally committed to the destruction of the former. Using whatever means they can.


You are way outta line. The overwhelming majority of Muslims living in liberal democracies are here for the same reason many Christians and Jews came to North America: the desire for religious freedom. They are leaving their repressive homelands to get away from the zealots, not to establish zealotry in the west. Stop branding the Muslim community as a whole according to the actions of a tiny radical minority.



MacNutt said:


> Including the liberal laws of those modern western societies. They use the freedom of speech that they do NOT enjoy in their ancestral lands to loudly demand the end of freedom of speech in their adopted countries.


A lot of "they" in your specious argument. That's a key to the fallacy involved. See above.



MacNutt said:


> I think we are headed for some serious turbulence here. Fasten your seatbelts.
> 
> And prepare to toss away some of the things you so fervently believe in....:yikes:


And what are you planning to toss away? Certainly not your desire to overgeneralize and defame.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've changed my avatar, to suit the mood of the world at the moment.

My mood: *defiance*.

I will not live in fear of a tiny faction of intolerant zealots.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> I will not live in fear of a tiny faction of intolerant zealots.


Whoooeee! With you all the way there. That must have been some workout you had Mr. Mckenna.

As for cartoonists …

Oh, the irony … me achin' sides …

Joke: What goes 'in-out-in-out' every time the doorbell rings?
Answer: Flemming Rose's a**ehole.

Sniff … sniff … is that burning I can smell? Great! Now where's my can of petrol?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I really think this is way overblown. I have been offended before by the actions of extremists, but I didn't burn down any buildings. Such a fuss over a couple of cartoons is truly scary.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Freedom of religion is an absolute.


Freedom of religion is NOT an absolute. Personal beliefs, they're yours. When you start imposing ANY religious beliefs on those around you, problems start to pop up. Would you deprive a child of a necessary blood transfusion if the parents where JW?



> There is no "point" where freedom of religion must stop. There is only the point where violence begins. The limit is on violence, not religion.


Religion and violence are often a combo package. How many wars have been started over religious differences? How many religions preach violence somewhere in their doctrine? It's not as simple as saying the violence has to stop. The religion has to change. A lot of Muslim leaders realize this, and are trying to change it for the better. Too bad a lot of Muslim followers still have their heads back in the dark ages.



> You are giving the zealots what they want. They say they are only demanding a little restriction of free speech, and then you demand a little restriction of religion. That's the false alternate they want!


If their personal religious beliefs include acceptable violence, then absolutely they have to change. If the free speech includes hate propaganda, then absolutely it has to change. In this situation, the cartoons depicted a religion with strong ties to religious violence. Too bad a few bad Muslims proved them right.



> And we don't want them to take their "hatred, ignorance, and intolerance somewhere else." It must stop completely. It's unacceptable everywhere.


It's not for us to say how other cultures should behave. When we do, it is us imposing our beliefs on others. If they want to practice hate, ignorance, and violence within their own borders, they are welcome to it. Just don't bring it into my yard.



> As for "locking up for life," the punishment must always fit the crime. We don't even lock actual murderers up for life anymore. Locking up violent protesters "for life" is an over-reaction only a tyrant would be proud of.


More people need to be locked up for life. Murderers, rapists, people preaching violence. A nice concentration camp in Northern Canada would be a nice place to start.



> guytoronto, you too need your head examined. Do you really think simple-minded comments like this are helpful?


Simple minded? I don't want these type of people in my world. Religious fanatics are the scourge of society.



> The ultraconservative Muslims believe all westerners think as you do. That we'll throw the book at some Muslim protesters, but let rapists and murderers off the hook. Good job playing into their irrationality.


I think the whole justice system needs an overhaul. They are just as unwelcome here as are the murderers and the rapists.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Those 12 pictures are not hate speech. The picture of Mohammed with the bomb/turban is offensive, the rest are not. The attached one in particular is hilarious, given the ridiculous protests over a bunch of cartoons.


Then you are showing a lack of understanding about Islam.


> Images of the Prophet Mohamed have long been discouraged in Islam. The West has little understanding of why this should be so - nor of the intensity of the feelings aroused by non-believers' attitudes to the founder of Islam.
> 
> To historians, Mohamed was a prophet and religious reformer who united the scattered Arabian tribes in the 7th century, founding what went on to become one of the world's five great religions. To Muslims, he was the last in a line of figures which included Abraham, Moses and Jesus, but which found its supreme fulfilment in Mohamed.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article342866.ece


> In Washington, the U.S. State Department stepped into the fray yesterday, backing Muslims against the European newspapers.
> "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
> The U.S. stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons, however.
> Ruth Mas, a lecturer in Islamic studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, said the blasphemy in this case stems not simply from the act of depicting Muhammad, but from the "awful" depictions of Muhammad in the cartoons.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...365&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
Arab/Islamic newspapers are also guilty of some rather offensive and untrue depiction of Jews. 




lpkmckenna said:


> No one's religious views are entitled to special protection under the law.


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that there is freedom of conscience and religion.



lpkmckenna said:


> And I've said before, there is no such thing as "Islamophobia." But there is a legitimate fear of theocratic tyranny. That's what this is all about........
> 
> Uh, your sentence structure is really garbled here. What are you saying?


You stated that the long-term goals of the US and Isreal are: liberal democracy and personal freedom. A Liberal democracy by definition is one where the power of religion plays a limited role in the government. Israel is not a secular state, it is a Jewish state. 
The US uses God and religion as justification of it's actions. The pledge of allegiance (1954) states "One nation under God". "In God we trust" is the US motto. The fight against communism was one against atheism (those Godless Commies). Reagan and Bush Jr liberally use God when it suits them. 




lpkmckenna said:


> Only the delusional mindset of a reactionary zealot could conclude that this is hate speech or blasphemy:


Seems that most of the Muslim world falls under that then......


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Then you are showing a lack of understanding about Islam.


Sounds like a Sunni lecturing a Shi'ite, or vice-versa. The truth is: I don't require an understanding of Islam, anyway.

I understand Islam very well on this issue. Muslms are very divided about the issue of idolatry and blasphemy. Some believe any depiction of Mohammed is blasphemy, some think only criticism of Mohammed is blasphemy (and much disagree regarding what is criticism and what isn't). Some go so far as to object to any depiction of any human being, saying it leads to idolatry!

Regardless, I'm not a Muslim, so Muslim doctrine on the issue doesn't affect me.



ArtistSeries said:


> Images of the Prophet Mohamed have long been discouraged in Islam. The West has little understanding of why this should be so - nor of the intensity of the feelings aroused by non-believers' attitudes to the founder of Islam.


That's for the micro-history lesson, but I already knew all that. The intensity of their feelings is not my problem.



ArtistSeries said:


> In Washington, the U.S. State Department stepped into the fray yesterday, backing Muslims against the European newspapers.


No they didn't. "Backing Muslims" in this context would mean claiming the violence and death threats were justified. They merely observed that the Muslims were offended. That says nothing.

Seems you agree with the US when it's convenient to you. Just remember, this is a spokeperson for the conservative Bush administration, who have designs on a greater role for religion in US policy.

*The U.S. stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons, however.* Since the issue is freedom of the press, sounds like the US have taken that side, however reluctantly.



ArtistSeries said:


> A Liberal democracy by definition is one where the power of religion plays a limited role in the government. Israel is not a secular state, it is a Jewish state.


Wrong. Isreal is one of the most secular nations on earth. More secular than even Canada.



ArtistSeries said:


> Reagan and Bush Jr liberally use God when it suits them.


That's true.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Freedom of religion is NOT an absolute. Personal beliefs, they're yours. When you start imposing ANY religious beliefs on those around you, problems start to pop up.


You can't impose beliefs without violence, or the threat of violence. My point clearly stands.



guytoronto said:


> Would you deprive a child of a necessary blood transfusion if the parents where JW?


Yes.



guytoronto said:


> Religion and violence are often a combo package. How many wars have been started over religious differences? How many religions preach violence somewhere in their doctrine? It's not as simple as saying the violence has to stop. The religion has to change.


The content of the doctrine isn't the issue, legally. Only the acts of violence are the issue.



guytoronto said:


> It's not for us to say how other cultures should behave.


But you have the right to demand that other religions change?  



guytoronto said:


> A nice concentration camp in Northern Canada would be a nice place to start.


 



guytoronto said:


> Simple minded? I don't want these type of people in my world. Religious fanatics are the scourge of society.


It's not your world.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> No one's religious views are entitled to special protection under the law.





ArtistSeries said:


> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that there is freedom of conscience and religion.


Yes, that proves my point, not yours.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> The truth is: I don't require an understanding of Islam, anyway.
> Regardless, I'm not a Muslim, so Muslim doctrine on the issue doesn't affect me.
> 
> The intensity of their feelings is not my problem.


That's fine - you don't seem to have one anyway. 





lpkmckenna said:


> *The U.S. stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons, however.* Since the issue is freedom of the press, sounds like the US have taken that side, however reluctantly.


Freedom of the press is an issue - but how far should it go? 
I don't advocate any censorship - they did have a right to publish those cartoons but it showed a tremendous lack of respect and was racist.



lpkmckenna said:


> Wrong. Isreal is one of the most secular nations on earth. More secular than even Canada.


When you have automatic Law of Return to any Jew to Israel (aliyah) - where they can become an Israeli citizen but if you are a Gentiles you have to go through a naturalization process - this is hardly secular.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Yes, that proves my point, not yours.


Or you could look at it the other way where *all* religious views are protected.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> The content of the doctrine isn't the issue, legally. Only the acts of violence are the issue.


You can't have one without the other. You can't stop the violence without changing the doctrine. Until it is changed, the extremists will always have something to base their fanatical views on. Remove that, and they will have nothing.

It is up to the governments and religious leaders in the predominantly Muslim nations to change the the belief systems, ONLY if they are interested in stopping the violence. All the pleading of religious leaders has done nothing to stop the violence. It seems to happen every day. Their governments need to take a stronger stand.

Fortunately, Western society separates church and state, leading to less problems (yes, we still have problems, but not to the extent of the Middle East, or even the UK. Protestants and Catholics are almost as bad.)

If our oil supply didn't come from the Middle East, there would not be any of these issues. Instead, we have to tolerate their s**t so the crude can keep pumping.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The turmoil, riots, boycotts, demonstrations, and international hand-wringing is <i>not</i> about some cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. Those cartoons were published <i>five months</i> ago.

What we see today is all about a political agenda, and it doesn't take much ciphering to figure out it's a radical Muslim agenda that existed before, and will exist after (if this ever blows over).

It's the same agenda that had destructive riots in France a month ago, and trust me, there will be other "issues" to exploit in the future. See it for what it is.

Ordinary Muslims in Canada and most other places are not part of this anymore than they were all hopping on airplanes to go burn Renaults last month.

However, ordinary Muslims in Canada and everywhere else are very much offended by depictions of Mohammed; it's not like a nerve wasn't struck. They just deal with it more appropriately; they get offended and they probably hold a grudge against the Danish newspaper who would publish what they consider to be blasphemy.

It's important to make the distinction; abortion may be offensive to Catholics but only a very few resort to bombing clinics. Others deal with it appropriately, without inappropriate violence but certainly with appropriate disdain and the voicing of their opinion when the subject comes up.

Printing of the cartoons was rude and offensive to many. It's quite simply in poor taste, and to talk about free speech is just a dodge to avoid making a well deserved apology. Had the Danish paper done so, and done so in a timely manner, this would have fizzled out like yesterday's rain.

Even the Americans, despite the many mistakes they are guilty of, were smart enough to back off, apologize, and be appropriately contrite when accused of abusing the Quran in Guantanamo Bay. 2 days of demonstrations, a seemingly sincere apology, and away it goes. It's certainly just as blasphemous as depicting Mohammed. You can't rile people up about nothing, but you can anger them by treating their very real concerns and objections as irrelevant.

Free speech is an issue, and certainly it would be different if someone tried to throw the Danish publisher or cartoonists in jail, but no such thing has happened; he is a free man, their right to free speech remains undiluted.

Although I believe the decision to publish the cartoons in other papers is a slightly different issue, as it was newsworthy (they were reporting on a story: the backlash against the Danish paper and Danish products in Muslim countries) I don't think those publishers exercised good judgement; the Wall Street Journal seems to be able to report the news with words, not pictures, and they could have done the same, knowing full well they risked offending more people.

As for the Danish publisher and cartoonists, free speech is not an issue whatsoever. They were and still are free to be rude and offensive, and they are also free to stir up ****, which is what they've done. I only wish there was some <i>point</i> to it; it appears to be all over the right to make a cheap joke, which is irresponsible indeed.

Muslims and those who live in Muslim nations are not going to ignore it, and it's naive to think they would and ethnocentric to suggest they should. It wouldn't be the first time someone deliberately used a newspaper to start a fight. It certainly works, provided you're smart enough to do it deliberately, not on a lark or worse, without thinking at all.

There remains the open question whether this was a deliberate attempt to promote ridicule or sectarian prejudice. Refusing to quickly apologize to offended readers back in September doesn't help. Certainly resorting to the bigot's standard defense of "free speech" and a "free press" is suspect, at a minimum. It's the defense used when there are no other reasonable ones to proffer.

Just because you <i>can</i> doesn't mean you <i>should</i>. This is not the National Lampoon, and the people of Denmark are paying a high price for what can at best be described as stupidity, rudeness, and stubborn refusal to apologize for poor taste, plain and simple.

That a radical, political element has taken the story and ran with it should be no surprise; they will use any tool they can find, let alone those handed on a silver platter, just as thousands before them have; whether they had the moral courage of Ghandi; the sociopathic greed of Robert Mugabe or the political ambition of Steven Harper.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> When you have automatic Law of Return to any Jew to Israel (aliyah) - where they can become an Israeli citizen but if you are a Gentiles you have to go through a naturalization process - this is hardly secular.


The law of return was dictated by the spectacle of great countries like Canada refusing to accept Jewish refugees during the Holocaust, so that shiploads of Jews were returned to the Nazis to be murdered. The unshakeable principle behind the law of return is that Jews will always have a place to go where the door won't be slammed in our faces. In more recent history, Israel's doors were open to Jewish refugees from Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Ethiopia and the Soviet Union. 

This does not render Israel less secular. Perhaps you would care to tell us which other country in the middle east is more open, more democratic or more secular than Israel.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gord - the smoking gun over radical manipulation for me is the very persistent reports that 3 more far more offensive cartoons were circulated and that THOSE cartoons originated with radical Muslim elements.

I'd still like confirmation on that as much flows from that. Anyone???


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Doc, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is fuel being poured on the fire (if you were a militant radical, what would you do?). There are those who feel the end justifies the means, whatever the issue at hand, and they are no less likely to be found in the hills of Pakistan or the slums of Cairo as they are behind the Kremlin walls, tucked within the enclaves of the old Reichstag, or within the Toronto City Hall, for that matter.

It's too bad we let it get this far, when the right approach could have nipped it in the bud. 

There are those who could care less about apologies, but they are not the majority in many of the places that are seeing public reaction. You can't burn down embassies when the police recognize no-one but wanted criminals in the crowd, even in Syria. There is no lack of jail space in Damascus, last time I checked.

But, what are they to do when ordinary Muslims are the majority of the crowd? You can't arrest the nation's dentists, policemen, and schoolchildren. Even though they are being prodded, when you mock those who rightly object, you push people into the arms of those who would exploit the opportunity to foster their own aims.

They were stupid to let it get this far. Reasonable people recognize a mistake and accept an apology. But, babble on about the "right" to a "free press", and insist that amounts to a right to insult their religion, and they get riled up, and probably rightly so.

Who needs fuel? It's a perpetual motion machine. You can't get ordinary people out on burning rampages when you are sincere and recognize their objections, which are certainly valid. Instead, we're insisting they accept a Western Value that conflicts with their fundamental beliefs, and prove we mean business by mocking them in cartoons. Yeah, that'll work.

It doesn't take much imagination to pen a few cartoons right now that will get people riled up right here at home, and that's certainly a point some people are trying to make. Probably the only interesting aspect is how many targets you can choose from who are guaranteed to result in a swift and perhaps violent response. Demonstrations? Child's play.

Oh, but I have my right to free speech. In Canada, we have to avoid denying the Holocaust, keep it on the good side of hate mail, and away you go. It's hardly a problem and leaves plenty of opportunity to insure I will be met with a torch-bearing mob, if I were so inclined.

With rights come responsibility. The first spark barely lit back in Copenhagen, but we needn't have worried; a bunch of European newspapers, and probably more and more outlets every day (I saw brief images of the offensive cartoons on TV this morning), insure there will be plenty of matches applied to the tinder to replace those that fail to ignite.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps tho it's like a preventive burn on a prairie. Certainly flushes out the wildlife 

This conflict has been coming ( a number of Muslim commentators have said the same - there IS a growing and simmering values conflict ).
It's not just Muslims either it's bubbling up in the US as well......and in my mind has little to do with free speech or freedom of religion.

My view......it is secular power versus religious power ........no less than it was sovereign king versus papal power a couple centuries back.

From classroom to newsroom there is a fundamental conflict and the two are NOT easy bedfellows when one flavour or doctrine DECLARES itself the ONLY ontological view and the secular INSISTS on the equivalency of ALL ontological views.

What possible real reconciliation of those diametrically opposed views can there possibly BE??!!....... one is fundamentally an insult to the other...... in equal measure.

You can dress it all up in nice diplomatic language etc but boiled down that's the conflict and it CAN'T go away as long as there are radicals willing to insist on ONE view as sacred ...all others blasphemous.
Plurality is automatically made the enemy.

If they ( pick one of any "one road to salvation etc " types) would just please condemn our pluralistic society to whatever form of perdition they choose and then leave us alone...I'd be quite fine with that and if it gave them satisfaction to do so..........well and good. Smug I can tolerate 

Call us foolish children and leave our secular, pluralistic society, government and Charter to the 7 levels.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Freedom of speech and expression and thought should also allow for hate speech. What it should not allow is violence or threats of violence.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Freedom of speech and expression and thought should also allow for hate speech. What it should not allow is violence or threats of violence.


Canada went through this question a while ago, and Britain just did. I'd be interested in a legal analysis of our 'hate speech' laws versus Britain's.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Freedom of speech and expression and thought should also allow for hate speech. What it should not allow is violence or threats of violence.


No it should not. As a society, we need to protect the innocent and ignorant. By allowing other to spread hateful lies, thereby influencing those who don't know any better, we are partially to blame for the spread of hate in our society.

Censorship is not always a bad thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

At this point.......how can anyone argue....that the cartoonists were not absolutely spot on.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> No it should not. As a society, we need to protect the innocent and ignorant. By allowing other to spread hateful lies, thereby influencing those who don't know any better, we are partially to blame for the spread of hate in our society.
> 
> Censorship is not always a bad thing.


Oh god, I can't believe you just said this: "Protect the innocent and the ignorant."

And the things we will censor? The things only the ignorant (ie intolerant zealots) find offensive. Far from protecting the ignorant, it makes the opinions of the ignorant into the law over the intelligent.

Censorship is the _least_ effective method of fighting hateful lies. The most effective is to allow liars their own soapboxes, so they can be debated and shamed in open forum. Otherwise, the hate will be spread only in secret, in cloistered communities and families, where the lies are spread to the ears of the innocent, unchallenged.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: When open debate is permitted, it works to the benefit of the rational side. When open debate is denied, it works to the benefit of the irrational side.

My quote of the day: "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

A few more:

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

"...if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

Of course, we already know that orthodox zealots believe in their own infallibility. :-( 

Note that Orwell, Chomsky, and Mill are all considered "left-wing" thinkers, prefering a "social democracy" rather than a liberal democracy. I remind you of this: the enemies of liberal democracy are also the enemies of democratic socialism, since in principle both ideals respect personal freedom.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

gordguide said:


> They were stupid to let it get this far. Reasonable people recognize a mistake and accept an apology. But, babble on about the "right" to a "free press", and insist that amounts to a right to insult their religion, and they get riled up, and probably rightly so.


Heaven forbid we should defend our rights when they are attacked. It only makes those who wish to muzzle us mad!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> You can't have one without the other. You can't stop the violence without changing the doctrine. Until it is changed, the extremists will always have something to base their fanatical views on. Remove that, and they will have nothing.


And how do you suggest that be accomplished?



guytoronto said:


> It is up to the governments and religious leaders in the predominantly Muslim nations to change the the belief systems, ONLY if they are interested in stopping the violence. All the pleading of religious leaders has done nothing to stop the violence. It seems to happen every day. Their governments need to take a stronger stand.


So we sit on our hands in the west, waiting for the despotic rulers of Saudia Arabia, Syria, and Iran to "modernize" orthodox Islam?

The only things to be done: assert and maintain the western belief in basic liberal values, and not capitulate to the howling masses.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Or you could look at it the other way where *all* religious views are protected.


And how would that be accomplished? How could the law "protect" the contradictary views that Jesus was only a man, or was a prophet, or was the messiah and Son of God - all at the same time?  

Believing Jesus was God is inherently blasphemy to Jews. Believing Jesus was only a man is blasphemy to Christians. Now how do we proceed legally with that? 

And if all religious views are "protected" what happens to science that contradicts holy texts (or even just the current interpretation of holy texts)? Do we ban evolution because creationism is protected. Do we ban atheism because belief in God is "protected" ???  

ArtistSeries, I think you don't believe the things you are saying here, and are just playing "devil's advocate" to get everyone's goat. Suggesting that "Freedom of Religion" means "protection of all religious opinions" is just too absurd. The world is loaded with men of unthoughtful opinions, but no one's that thoughtless deliberately.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't advocate any censorship - they did have a right to publish those cartoons but it showed a tremendous lack of respect and was racist.


Now that's just stupid. Even if I were to harshly criticize Mohammed's words as lies and his actions as evil - that still wouldn't be racism. Neither criticism of Mohammed personally nor of his message is racism. Only criticism of a race _(not a particular man)_ is racism. To suggest otherwise of beyond illogical.

What next? Any criticism of Plato is anti-Greek? Any criticism of Napoleon is anti-French? Would criticism of Karl Marx be anti-German or anti-Jewish, 'cause I'm really confused? The mind just boggles at the absurdity.

If I criticise John Smith, is that racist against all Americans, or just those in Utah?  How about criticism of L. Ron Hubbard? :lmao: 

I think you're pulling my leg, AS. There's no way you've thought this thru and actually believe it.



ArtistSeries said:


> When you have automatic Law of Return to any Jew to Israel (aliyah) - where they can become an Israeli citizen but if you are a Gentiles you have to go through a naturalization process - this is hardly secular.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> When you have automatic Law of Return to any Jew to Israel (aliyah) - where they can become an Israeli citizen but if you are a Gentiles you have to go through a naturalization process - this is hardly secular.


And I suppose the fact that Catholics have their own school system in Ontario is hardly secular, either. But they do.

Special consideration for certain religious groups is not very fair, but as long as religious beliefs are not imposed by force (as censorship is) it's not worthy of much debate. There are bigger injustices to fight, really.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> but as long as religious beliefs are not imposed by force


ah but the argument then is put forth that YOU, as a secular pluralist, are depriving ______________ of their RIGHT to be the ONLY chosen people. 

Dastardly villian thou art. 'Twas written after all..............

You are IMPOSING commonality on the CHOSEN FEW.........oh unbeliever.
Now THAT..... is truly insulting.....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

:lmao: It's 2 a.m. Go to bed, MacDoc.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> :lmao: It's 2 a.m. Go to bed, MacDoc.


you sure you weren't in the artillery?
prolonged ringing in the ears makes for difficult thinking as per some of your posts


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It's 2 a.m. Go to bed, MacDoc


 .....slinks off to bed muttering orotund archaic phrases from misspent fundamentalist youth......


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Here's my two cents. I don't think publishing the cartoons was right, but I can't see how they could be banned.

Offensive speech is not necessarily hate speech. I can understand why a sincere, religious Muslim would be offended by the images, and would object and protest. That being said, I can't imagine that these images could be construed as hate speech or could possibly be banned. It seems to me that, by this standard, a shocking range of discourse would fall within such a ban.

Then there is the not funny irony of some Muslim clerics and leaders, _freely_ and openly calling for death to Danes and advocating violence against Europeans (even in Gaza, that oasis of democracy). That is real hate speech. And what of the regular depiction of Jews in the state media of various Muslim dominated countries? Hate speech. And how about burning the Danish flag, with its prominent cross? It speaks volumes about their respect and sensitivity to other religions. 

Even locally, what is characterized as reasonable protest — boycotting Danish products — is reasonable only relative to the violence and hatred spewed elsewhere. These drawings were published by a newspaper. They were not the policy of the Danish government, or an expression of Danes everywhere, nor were they the views of the manufacturers of Jarlsberg cheese. Boycotts are unreasonable and unfair.

I believe that the newspapers who have republished these images (or most of these newspapers) are not doing it offend Muslims at large, but to give a poke in the eye to those who would use their religion to stir up hate against others. They are telling the real hate-mongers to go to hell. 

The consequence of all of this is that moderate, intelligent voices might have explained to the Danish paper, and the world at large, why they found publication of these images hurtful and offensive. If they tried, their message was drowned out by their less temperate brothers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Here's my two cents. I don't think publishing the cartoons was right, but I can't see how they could be banned.
> 
> Offensive speech is not necessarily hate speech. I can understand why a sincere, religious Muslim would be offended by the images, and would object and protest. That being said, I can't imagine that these images could be construed as hate speech or could possibly be banned. It seems to me that, by this standard, a shocking range of discourse would fall within such a ban.
> 
> ...


:clap: 

Well put and worth repeating.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If they tried, their message was *drowned out by their less temperate brothers.*


In other words the cartoonist point was well illustrated........in real life.. not pen and ink.

now what ????


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> So we sit on our hands in the west, waiting for the despotic rulers of Saudia Arabia, Syria, and Iran to "modernize" orthodox Islam?


Yup. Pretty much. As long as they have the oil, we have to take their s**t. Once they run out of oil (if they ever do), they are screwed. Heck, as soon as somebody develops an alternative to oil, they are screwed. Until then, we have to tolerate them.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Yup. Pretty much. As long as they have the oil, we have to take their s**t. Once they run out of oil (if they ever do), they are screwed. Heck, as soon as somebody develops an alternative to oil, they are screwed. Until then, we have to tolerate them.


A lot of "they" and "them."

Who's "they?" The "Muslim world?" Because Muslims as a whole are not the issue. Only reactionary zealots are a problem.

You seems to be afflicted with an "inverted social justice" model of conflict. Instead of strife being caused by poverty and ignorance, you think it's caused by wealth and tolerance.

And what would you propose once we no longer have to "tolerate" them? Do you have specific policies of intolerance you would like to impose? A few concentration camps here and some censorship there, perhaps?

And I'm sure when "they" run outta oil, "we" too may be screwed...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

*...iy seems that masses of mainstream Muslims*



lpkmckenna said:


> A lot of "they" and "them."
> 
> Who's "they?" The "Muslim world?" Because Muslims as a whole are not the issue. Only reactionary zealots are a problem.
> 
> ...


Canada has sh*tloads of oil in the tarsands. And we are both close by the USA and are totally undefended (thanks to the Liberals)

Question here:

If it really WERE "all about OIL" as so many on the left have said...

Then why is Canada still independant?

Why haven't the Americans overerrun us so far???:yikes:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Then why is Canada still independant?
> 
> Why haven't the Americans overerrun us so far???:yikes:


They're still deciding between Venezuela and us. Ven. also has a nice large bitumen resource, better climate and is smaller. Canada would be a royal pain in the a$$ to take and hold. 

[Edit: cen$ored by Beej Inc.]


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> A lot of "they" and "them."
> 
> Who's "they?" The "Muslim world?" Because Muslims as a whole are not the issue. Only reactionary zealots are a problem.


"They" are the s**t disturbers. The ones running around burning embassies. The ones in government not doing anything but standing back, watching their citizens riot, and throwing their hands in the air saying "What did you expect? You printed cartoons!". The ones that teach their followers that the Muslim faith is about peace, except of course if someone makes fun of you, then it's okay to riot, pilage, burn, and murder.



> You seems to be afflicted with an "inverted social justice" model of conflict. Instead of strife being caused by poverty and ignorance, you think it's caused by wealth and tolerance.


Their wealth has allowed them to live as they have. They have no reason to better themselves as a nation. They have no reason to get beyond their religious beliefs and actually invest in their own future. They have their oil money. They have no fear of trade sactions. They have what we want. Just like China has what the US wants. Cheap goods, which is why the US puts up with their crap. Again, if China didn't have cheap labour (like that is going away any time soon), they would have a motivation to clean up their human rights abuses - just so they can play ball with the rest of the civilized world. Same goes for the Middle East. They have the oil, so they can play by whatever rules they want. 



> And what would you propose once we no longer have to "tolerate" them? Do you have specific policies of intolerance you would like to impose?


Trade sactions. Nations need trade to survive, otherwise they never grow. This would lead to a terrible collapse of their economy. It would probably mees up the nation for years (and lead to more fanatics hating the West), but eventually they would come around. It's not an overnight process. We're talking maybe 100 years.



> A few concentration camps here and some censorship there, perhaps?


For people living inside our borders? We do need a better prison system. We do need tougher penalties. And again, censorship is not always a bad thing. It has it's places. This is why we don't have porn on daytime TV and public executions in Dundas Square.



> And I'm sure when "they" run outta oil, "we" too may be screwed...


Then we'd be aon a more level playing field. And who do you think is going to discover a viable alternative to oil first? My bet is on somebody in a "Western society" country.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Apt*



lpkmckenna said:


> A lot of "they" and "them."
> Who's "they?" The "Muslim world?" Because Muslims as a whole are not the issue. Only reactionary zealots are a problem.


Well, I think it's apt to say they when referring to middle eastern nations. It's not just zealots or fundamentalist of Islam. When the law of the very state(s) is drawn directly from the dominant religion, then yes the problem is more than zealots. If the lawmakers and police can arrest people for blashemy and such and punish them according to their holy scriptures, then it is not just the extremists who are at fault.

I don't mind muslims living by their own religious based laws in their own countries. That's their right. In democracies like Canada and Great Brittain, if you have march in a protest carrying placards that says "Death to Denmark" or shout "Slay All Danes", then you've crossed the line and have broken the law. You are not allowed to threaten people with violence and murder in our societies... regardless of what religion you are free to worship.

The agreement is this, when we go to other nations we will abide by their laws. When others come to our nation, they will abide by our laws. That is respect. Muslims have the right to attempt to change our laws as any other group of citizens, but it's unlikely that would happen.

I am of the mind that truth is best served through open debate and not censorship.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Canada has sh*tloads of oil in the tarsands. And we are both close by the USA and are totally undefended (thanks to the Liberals)
> 
> Question here:
> 
> ...


have you turned on your tv in the past 20 years?
u.s. programming is everywhere and i bet most canadians know what "taking the 5th" means
and have you looked at whose dollars are being invested in Alberta?

i still submit that we should sell Alberta to the U.S. for one trillion dollars while the u.s. greenback is still worth something

most Albertans would be happy being Americans
those that were not could move elsewhere in Canada
pay per use healthcare
big oil
just like texas
Harpo gets appointed senator to new u.s. state
Canadians get nice big cheque
healt care crisis solved for a few years, but of course gov't pigs at the trough would eat that up pretty quick - civil servants would all demand payh increases - paper shufflng is oh so tiring..


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> But...oddly...it seems that masses of mainstream muslims want to join in this "fight" these days.


No they don't. The number of attendees at protests in the west are small in comparison to the number of Muslims living here. There were only 500 protesters in London last Friday, even though 7.2% of the 8 million Londoners are Muslim. That's hardly representative of mainstream Muslims. There were only 200 protesters in Halifax.

The protests in backwater nations like Iran and Syria are phoney. Just like rallys and "protests" in soviet nations were staged. The overwhelming number of attendees are there because of intimidation by powerful religious leaders and the even threats of government reprisal.

Notice where the embassy bombings took place? 

link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/08/cartoons-violence.html?ref=rss
_*Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the most religiously influential countries in the Arab world, have experienced little of the violent public outrage.

Syria and Iran, some analysts have suggested, have used the issue to stir anti-Western sentiment for political means. Some have also suggested the Taliban and al-Qaeda are using the furor to create more resistance to U.S-backed governments there.*_

People, these protesters are not representative of Muslims as a whole, but only a tiny, but noisy, faction. Please don't tar all Muslims with the same brush.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> have you turned on your tv in the past 20 years?
> u.s. programming is everywhere and i bet most canadians know what "taking the 5th" means


Hardly demonstrating US domination of Canada. Especially when those shows and movies feature so many Canadian actors, screenwriters, and other talent, and are shot in Canadian locations.

Canadians know what taking the 5th means hardly proves your point. :lmao: 



MACSPECTRUM said:


> most Albertans would be happy being Americans


Because in the mind of MACSPECTRUM, desiring small government = wanting to be American.

Some day you'll grow up and realize not everyone in Canada is a socialist. In fact, very few are. That's why the NDP have never and will never govern Canada.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/08/20060208-cartoons.html?ref=rss

*The Danish Islamic scholar who brought cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad to the attention of Muslim leaders around the world says he was only trying to boost his campaign to get an apology from the Danish newspaper that first published them.*

more...

*In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Akkari said he did not mean for his mission to lead to such violence. He said while he is still angered that the media would print images offensive to Islam, he would like to find a way to end the current crisis.

During his visits with Muslim leaders, Akkari also showed images that had not been published in any newspaper, but were part of hate mail sent to his colleagues.

Those drawings show the Prophet as "a pig, a dog, a woman and a child-sodomizing madman," says the Globe.

He said the images were not meant to be mistaken for cartoons published in newspapers, but protesters have cited the drawings during their rallies.

When asked by CBC News why he included these images when they had nothing to do with the published newspaper cartoons, Akkari defended his actions.

"It was taken out of context and somebody is trying ... to give us the guilt for what is happening."*


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Canada has sh*tloads of oil in the tarsands. And we are both close by the USA and are totally undefended (thanks to the Liberals)
> 
> Question here:
> 
> ...


Why would they have to? Does Same Sex Marriage and Socialized Health Care interfere with the flow of oil?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

P.E.I. student paper publishes cartoons of Prophet: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/08/cartoons-smu-prof.html?ref=rss

_*Ray Keating, editor of The Cadre, says the student newspaper didn't print the cartoons to cause an uproar or get publicity.

Keating says he sympathizes with how offensive the images are to Muslims. However, he adds, the newspaper's staff felt they had to take a stand in favour of freedom of speech.*_
:clap: :clap: :clap: 

_*The head of the P.E.I. Muslim Association, Mian Ali, says he's not particularly upset and would not have asked to have the paper removed from campus.

"To me it's just a cartoon. People are free to express their opinions. I can't control what people print, but freedom comes with a responsibility. If people want to abuse that responsibility and freedom it's up to them," says Ali.*_
:clap: :clap: :clap: 

*Meanwhile, a professor at St. Mary's University in Halifax vows to continue his case for freedom of expression after being told to take copies of the caricatures down from his office door. He'll put them up in his classroom instead.

Peter March, a logic professor with a penchant for religious debate, says he put the cartoons on his door to make a statement about academic freedom and promote debate on campus.

"I feel threatened by the crowds around the world shaking fists, shaking sticks, burning things down," he says. "I wish to make my stand, that here in Canada that won't wash."*
:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good for the paper. It is time Muslims learned tolerance. Burning and fist shaking solve nothing. They remind me of rabid animals.

One of my best friends is Muslim and he and his family can't understand the reaction.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good for the paper. It is time Muslims learned tolerance. Burning and fist shaking solve nothing. They remind me of rabid animals.
> 
> One of my best friends is Muslim and he and his family can't understand the reaction.


Hey Sinc... I am pretty appalled at what is happening overseas in regards to this, but I think that comments like "They remind me of rabid animals" has something to do with the problem. I'd be curious what your bestest of Muslim buddies would think of your comment?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

His first name is Habib and it was he who made the "rabid animals" comment to me. I just borrowed it. I would never have thought of that on my own.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fiore nailed it:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/toon.html


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fiore nailed it:
> 
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/toon.html


Nice one!  



> link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...e.html?ref=rss
> Some [analysts] have also suggested the Taliban and al-Qaeda are using the furor to create more resistance to U.S-backed governments there.


Ya think?  

The issue seems to be that _any_ depiction of Mohammed is blasphemous. That, however, is not my belief and I don't see any need to be bound by it, any more than I'm bound by the laws of any other faith system. 

Having said that, I can also hardly deny that the cartoon with the bomb in the turban was offensive (and likely the one with the horns on the turban as well). The rest, though, were mostly amusing -- particularly the guy drawing Mohammed with the light covered and shades down.

Also, weren't these drawings had been solicited for somebody's book? (Book was also published a few months ago, if I remember correctly.) If so, that puts paid to the argument that they were published _just_ to push people's buttons.

And finally, I note Iran is now proposing to hold a Holocaust cartoon competition. Anybody know how they justify this, as the cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper, not an Israeli one...? Or is that a stupid question?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Love those googleAds


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fiore nailed it:
> 
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/toon.html


 :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> His first name is Habib and it was he who made the "rabid animals" comment to me. I just borrowed it. I would never have thought of that on my own.


that would then justify your use of the 'n' word if you heard African-Canadians/Americans use it

Just because someone uses that type of language doesn't justify your repetition of it
If you use that language be prepared to stand your ground and not use the "I heard someone else use it" defence

slippery slope indeed


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Fiore nailed it:
> 
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/toon.html


Fiore is, as always, brilliant


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that would then justify your use of the 'n' word if you heard African-Canadians/Americans use it
> 
> Just because someone uses that type of language doesn't justify your repetition of it
> If you use that language be prepared to stand your ground and not use the "I heard someone else use it" defence


It's a lot easier to justify transference that way....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that would then justify your use of the 'n' word if you heard African-Canadians/Americans use it
> 
> Just because someone uses that type of language doesn't justify your repetition of it
> If you use that language be prepared to stand your ground and not use the "I heard someone else use it" defence
> ...


When a Muslim uses the expression to describe fellow middle eastern radical Muslims and it fits, it makes it a valid description. He described his trip to Mecca this year as "scary" and claims the radicals are going too far in their approach and he fears for his life while among them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> When a Muslim uses the expression to describe fellow middle eastern radical Muslims and it fits, it makes it a valid description. He described his trip to Mecca this year as "scary" and claims the radicals are going too far in their approach and he fears for his life while among them.



And in the popular culture one hears the 'n' word in videos, music and movies.

Just that make it ok to describe people of African origin that way?

It just promotes hatred and racism.

Cosby speaks
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200407/SPE20040702a.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> And in the popular culture one hears the 'n' word in videos, music and movies.
> 
> Just that make it ok to describe people of African origin that way?
> 
> It just promotes hatred and racism.


Here it is defined:

rab·id - Pronunciation Key (rbd) adj.

1. Of or affected by rabies.
2. Raging; uncontrollable: rabid thirst.
3. Extremely zealous or enthusiastic; fanatical: a rabid
football fan.

I see no hatred in the term at all. It simply describes their actions, and quite well I might add.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Here it is defined:
> 
> rab·id - Pronunciation Key (rbd) adj.
> 
> ...


So by that argument it is pretty easy to use language like "Rabid Homophobic Conservative Albertans" to describe certain people from the west?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When was the last time you saw one of these species you describe rioting and burning and killing over a cartoon?

I guess if you figure it fits, go ahead and use it, although seems a bit much in comparison.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> When was the last time you saw one of these species you describe rioting and burning and killing over a cartoon?
> 
> I guess if you figure it fits, go ahead and use it, although seems a bit much in comparison.


Crime rates by province 2003








http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm

meanwhile in Canada as whole


> Crime rate dropping in Canada, study finds
> Last Updated Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:18:57 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/21/crimestats050721.html


those damn Liberals.....
[shakes fist]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Extremists of one kind or another kill more than that nearly every day around the world, so what's your point?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Extremists of one kind or another kill more than that nearly every day around the world, so what's your point?


The point is maybe you should tone down the rhetoric (regardless of who said it to you) before you start tossing out "rabid animals" monikers.

Don't you think there is enough disrespect happening in regards to this issue? How does labeling other people as "rabid animals" help the situation?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rabid extremists better? It is merely a descriptive term that describes the actions I view on TV news. How would you describe their actions. Peaceful? Orderly? Natural? Nice? Upset? Fist raising crowds? Arsonists? Acceptable? Normal?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

so,

everybody is cooling down, the violence is wearing off........

wrong WRONG

we are talking about Rick James , Man!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html


Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Tehran

February 07, 2006

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.


Mr Mortazavi said tomorrow's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Last week, the Iranian foreign ministry also invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Teheran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Mr Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid".

Mr Blair also said Mr Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml

The Daily Show skit, "Mohammad Mo' Problems" is great.

"And you thought the guy who built a moat around the Danish embassy was just being paranoid."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for that Beej. Pretty much tells it like it really is.


----------



## GREENAPPLE (Nov 30, 2005)

*islam out*

i know islam very well because i was born muslim when i was 15 years old i,m jump to christian religion you know why because i,m find christian religion more friendly not like a racist islam i know now lots of muslim hate me here but this is true lol everything haram in islam ( sex,drink,swimming with short short,looking women,tattoo,long hair,any piercing etc WTF lol ) so second thing muslim man,s think women like a animal women can,t talk when man talking always man right women wrong if some thing happined you see why i,m changed my religion i want peacefull life so 1 more thing for this forum opener man you see you dont have a religion you dont believe god you know what you have a big problem other side ;-)) anyway my point islam religion ****


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

GREENAPPLE said:


> i know islam very well because i was born muslim when i was 15 years old i,m jump to christian religion you know why because i,m find christian religion more friendly not like a racist islam i know now lots of muslim hate me here but this is true lol everything haram in islam ( sex,drink,swimming with short short,looking women,tattoo,long hair,any piercing etc WTF lol ) so second thing muslim man,s think women like a animal women can,t talk when man talking always man right women wrong if some thing happined you see why i,m changed my religion i want peacefull life so 1 more thing for this forum opener man you see you dont have a religion you dont believe god you know what you have a big problem other side ;-)) anyway my point islam religion ****


That was a very insightful post, greenapple. :yawn: 

btw, the *period* can be found to the right of the comma, and the *apostrophe* can be found to the left of the return key.

Say, your real name wouldn't be *sock puppet*, by any chance?

straw man sock puppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

I don't believe a word you say.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Prof. Peter March from St Mary's in Halifax is my new hero: http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Media/2006/02/09/1434432-cp.html

*"You can't do philosophy directly and honestly without causing inflammation," he said as the protest march was getting started. "It's one of the side effects, rather like surgery."*

Socrates couldn't have said it any better. (Not in english, anyways. )


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"Leading Human Rights Lawyer" advocates Canadian press publish cartoons: http://www.cbc.ca/montreal/story/qc-greycartoons-060208.html

*Grey argued that by not printing the cartoons, the media jeopardizes Canada's culture of freedom of expression and fails to properly inform its citizens about what has become a global issue.*

And he's right. I could never have formed an opinion without having seen these cartoons myself. I would never have accepted second-hand accounts saying "these cartoons are blasphemy/hate speech/racism."

But I doubt it will happen. The press in Canada have been cowed.


----------



## GREENAPPLE (Nov 30, 2005)

hey remember that i believe god and religion to i see here who need doctor lol wtf do you think for god do you think any one crazy because all believe god only you dont believe but you think you are superman right ? remember that you need read more books man believe me go read and learn some more education about god i believe god and i,m orthodox christian ok ? you ****ing sick lol


----------



## GREENAPPLE (Nov 30, 2005)

i believe you satanist to dont kill cats anymore ;-)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You gotta read this column. It has so many "chickens coming home to roast" I couldn't count them all!

http://www.newstatesman.com/200602130006

Ziauddin Sardar says this:
*In Britain many curbs on free speech are already embodied in law: defamation, race hatred and the whole panoply of public order legislation. We know from experience that freedom of speech is not an absolute; it is etiquette. It is an essential ethos for the health of society and the liberty of the individual conscience, but an ethos that is best exercised with responsibility, balance and due regard for the existence of others.*

I read this and knew he was setting up the other shoe to drop. But I wasn't expecting a jackboot...

*It is time Muslims were brought within legal boundaries. If the law can be used to defend the sacred notion of the Holocaust, then it can be used to protect the sacred territory of one of the great religions of the world. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (which, by the way, I opposed in its earlier incarnations) has to be resurrected on more sensible lines. The monotonous liberals have a stark choice: stick dogmatically to an absurdly abstract Eurocentric principle or see another holocaust in Europe.*

Speaking as a "monotonous liberal" I can say: I was always against all censorship, even when it appeared so timidly, such as ending Holocaust denial. Because I knew today's common sense would get twisted into tomorrow's absurdity.

Ok, does anyone doubt that should Muslims succeed in defending the image of Mohammed in law, the next step will be defending the image of Jesus in law? Why not? It is the next logical step, and it is exactly what many homegrown nutbar zealots want.

Goodbye free speech. Hello dark ages, my old friend.

*The reasons why Muslims are outraged with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have little to do with freedom of expression. They have everything to do with Islamophobia and ugly demonisation of Muslims. What the cartoons portray should be of concern not just to Muslims but to all of us. Depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist makes that abomination integral to Islam. It suggests that Islam is intrinsically violent and irredeemable. It posits all Muslims as potential terrorists. In other words, it fuels the hatred against Muslims and constructs them as evil Others.*
Gee, that's funny, that's not how I see these cartoons at all. Firstly, not all of these cartoons have the same message. It looks like you are reading into these cartoons what you want to read into them.

I don't see Islam as "intrinsically violent and irredeemable" because I see all religion as "intrinsically violent and irredeemable." That's partly why I became an atheist. Mr Sardar, you don't want to "protect" Islam, you want to ban atheism. Sorry, but I won't allow that to happen.

The old saw that "criticism of Islam = racism" won't fly here, either.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

GREENAPPLE said:


> i believe you satanist to dont kill cats anymore ;-)


Actually, "we" still kill cats occasionally, but "we" have adopted a "policy of inclusion" with an emphasis on "diversity of fur colors." Apparently, the Persian longhair cats felt they were being unfairly targeted. Who knew?


----------



## GREENAPPLE (Nov 30, 2005)

i know you kill cat,s lol because you say you dont believe god and religion so its mean you are satanist because you listen heawy metal music and stupid rock music try to believe god i respect any one but not you lol because you dont believe god,you have no religion i told you i,m not muslim i was born but when i was 15 years old i,m changed my mom christian because she is greek oh man you have serious problem you need doctor ;-)) thats to bad dont use drug to much your head coming kuku


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Secret Agent Kaya has spoken.


----------



## GREENAPPLE (Nov 30, 2005)

no man i,m trying to ;-) you see that guy say god not real he dont believe god,religion etc.. i,m coming crazy with this people how you say god not real


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> *The reasons why Muslims are outraged with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have little to do with freedom of expression. They have everything to do with Islamophobia and ugly demonisation of Muslims. What the cartoons portray should be of concern not just to Muslims but to all of us. Depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist makes that abomination integral to Islam. It suggests that Islam is intrinsically violent and irredeemable. It posits all Muslims as potential terrorists. In other words, it fuels the hatred against Muslims and constructs them as evil Others.*
> Gee, that's funny, that's not how I see these cartoons at all. Firstly, not all of these cartoons have the same message. It looks like you are reading into these cartoons what you want to read into them.
> 
> I don't see Islam as "intrinsically violent and irredeemable" because I see all religion as "intrinsically violent and irredeemable." That's partly why I became an atheist. Mr Sardar, you don't want to "protect" Islam, you want to ban atheism. Sorry, but I won't allow that to happen.
> ...



Guilty!!!! That's exactly what I take from this cartoons, especially with the aftermath.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The Doug said:


> Secret Agent Kaya has spoken.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/10/kistan-violence060210.html?ref=rss

Further proof that there is no "Islam" but several "Islams" which don't agree, but insist on disagreeing violently instead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sounds like Oklahoma....two sects across the street - one with music one without  

Tad more violent this...no less foolish power tripping.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

So the protesting has finally made it to Toronto. Around 1500 came out to protest. Thanks to strong leadership in the Toronto Muslim community, the protest was peaceful. (I suppose the horse-mounted riot cops intimidated the few would-be troublemakers, also.)

In Montreal: *While the protest was calm, leaders of many local Muslim groups had urged their members not to participate because they feared it would turn violent. Instead, they opened mosques to the public.

They have also called on the federal government to pass a law recognizing acts of racism against Islam as a hate crime.* http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/02/12/1438265-sun.html

Acts of racism against Islam? Will our cowardly leaders in Canada actually consider such a law?

_*In Calgary, the Jewish Free Press, an independent newspaper, reprinted three of the 12 cartoons alongside paintings of Muhammad found in books and museums in its Thursday edition. The paper also printed some anti-Semitic cartoons supposedly produced by Muslims.

Richard Bronstein, the newspaper's publisher, said he was trying to let readers inform themselves and wasn't trying to insult the Islamic community.

Ezra Levant, publisher of the conservative Western Standard magazine, said he will print the cartoons on Monday. He described the cartoons as "innocuous."*_ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...uslim_rallies_060211/20060211?hub=CTVNewsAt11

At least not everyone in the Canadian press is a coward.

CBC: *In Toronto, Mashhood Ahmed said, "It's our values, it's our traditions. We want to let people know what our values are so they can understand why we are protesting."* http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/11/cartoon-demos060211.html?ref=rss

What about Canadian "traditions" of a free press and freedom of religion and free speech? Actually, "traditions" is the wrong word - these are undeniable convictions and political values. Thousands of Canadians died to secure these rights. They are the birthright of every Canadian. They won't be sacrificed because some are offended by cartoons.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The Toronto Star has published a piece by someone named Mohamed Elmasry _("chair and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, the nation's largest non-profit Islamic association" and "also a engineering professor at the University of Waterloo")_. link: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...917&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845

*We asked them to take this opportunity to explain the meaning of Islam. They can do this by inviting non-Muslims into Muslim households, by having open houses in mosques for people to explore and understand Islam and through outreach campaigns. Many Canadians don't know much about Islam. Many of them have never met a Muslim in their lives. We're a tiny minority. There are less than 3 per cent of Muslims in the population, so if every Muslim tried to reach out to 10 or 20 people, it will have an impact.*

But it will not achieve any political goal, such as censorship of "offensive" images of Mohammed.

This is his startling claim of why Muslims in Canada have responded peacefully to the cartoons:

*That's because they are amongst the most highly educated Muslim minorities in the world. It's because Canadian immigration policy only accepts people with certain qualifications and university degrees. So, a majority of Muslim households encourage their children to attend colleges and universities. As a result of that, the standard of education remains high.*

Hear that? It's not because Muslims in Canada are politically tolerant, but because they are smarter than Muslims in Europe or the middle east.  

*Islam forbids two- or three-dimensional images of any prophet, including Muhammad, Moses, Jesus and Abraham. All the prophets are considered messengers of God.*

But is this forbidden to non-Muslims? And where were protests over depictions of Jesus and Moses in Hollywood movies? In art galleries? In Catholic churches?

_*We have to convey that any negative stereotypes have a negative impact on our community. The level of hate against the community increases. There will be discrimination on the job, verbal and psychological abuses, and our youth will lose their self-identity. No journalist who strives for excellence will propagate negative stereotypes.*_

Yes, these cartoons will cause discrimination, abuse, and youth will lose their self-identity. Is this guy serious?  

*To the Danish publisher, I would say that he should circulate a memo among his staff that it was a mistake and misjudgment to publish it in the first place. Many innocent people paid the price with their lives or their livelihood.*

None of which is the publisher's fault.

*I'd like to remind him that some Danish businesses are losing millions of dollars every day due to boycotts of their products.*

None of which is the publisher's fault.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Hear that? It's not because Muslims in Canada are politically tolerant, but because they are smarter than Muslims in Europe or the middle east.


please explain Don Cherry


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> please explain Don Cherry


Read the TorStar link provided. I can't believe that guy credits Canada's immigration laws for the peaceful protests. :yikes:

(And I don't follow hockey, so I have no idea what you're talking about.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is a terrific 3 page story in the Globe Today - anyone who cannot read it I'll be happy to email it.



> *A tale of two Muslim Danes*
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...0/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=1

Excellent writing and illustrative. Worth the time to read.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> This is a terrific 3 page story in the Globe Today - anyone who cannot read it I'll be happy to email it.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...0/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=1
> 
> Excellent writing and illustrative. Worth the time to read.


An excellent piece. Thanks, MacDoc.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Another excellent article on the history of Mohammed and of Islam: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060211.wcartoon0211/BNStory

*The misperception of Islam as humourless and dour, not to mention intolerant and violent, has much to do with Wahhabite sectarians, who share in Saudi Arabia's oil wealth and whose version of Islam, based on the teachings of 18th-century fundamentalist preacher Wahhab, who viewed himself as Mohammed's second coming, is regarded by many to be heretical.

The flood of petro-dollars permitted Wahhabi clerics to gain a stranglehold on Islam worldwide, through a vast network of free schools and new mosques, a story well told in Stephen Schwartz's book, The Two Faces of Islam.

That Saudi Arabia, arguably the most repressive society left on Earth, remains a close U.S. ally is a phenomenon that history will judge harshly — and Islam most harshly of all, for it has taken the brunt of the fallout.*

I had forgotten about Wahhab in relation to this issue. Hmmm....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

_The publisher of an Alberta-based political magazine is defending his decision to publish controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, saying Western media have been cowed into fear._

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html?ref=rss

_Most media in Canada and the United States have refused to publish the cartoons. But Levant dismissed the notion that the decision is based on respect for Islam, saying the real reason is "out of fear."

He said news organizations are more than willing to publish items that Christians find offensive because Christians only react by writing a letter to the editor.

"They don't bomb embassies and behead journalists," Levant said.

"Don't tell me the CBC respects religion. It's afraid of one religion."_

:clap: 
but

_Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature._

This is the guy who says Muslims in Canada aren't rioting because they're better educated, and they're better educated because Canada's immigration laws require them to be. :yawn:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Unfortunately, Muslims in Montreal have new reasons to be fearful: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/13/muslim-montreal060213.html?ref=rss
:-(


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=709c837b-75ff-40e2-bda4-c00642db9bea

_Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said the cartoons have caused Muslims in Calgary, and worldwide, unnecessary stress and heartache.

"We see these cartoons as racist. We see these cartoons as hurtful, and we see these cartoons as against our religion. There has been damages towards the Muslim community for their losing their peace of mind, and creating stress on people's heart."_

They are not racist. As for they other complaints (hurtful, against our religion, creating stress on people's hearts :lmao - just suck it up. These things aren't against the law.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

from CTV.ca:

_Although Islam forbids depictions of its prophet, "I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law," Levant, whose conservative magazine is published 24 times a year, told CTV Newsnet.

"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution, and there are two key parts to the Canadian constitution I'm relying on: one is freedom of expression and the other is cultural diversity (enshrined in) the Constitution."_

and

_But Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, warned on Sunday that his organization will seek to have charges laid against Levant's publication under Canada's hate laws._

but

_And Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, called Levant's decision to publish "totally unnecessary and provocative."

Fatah said he believes newspapers have a democratic right to publish the cartoons, but said doing so would only add to the pain felt by Muslims around the world._

I'd love to see Syed Soharwardy, Tarek Fatah, Mohamed Elmasry, and Ziauddin Sardar debate this issue together on tv. Is it a matter for civil courts, a hate crime, or a democratic right?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The Joy of Tech has a clever comic on this issue:








Go see them at: http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/index.html


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Announcing the Muslim Free Press: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/19/muhammad-cartoons060219.html?ref=rss

And there have been more protests:

*In downtown Vancouver on Saturday, speakers denounced the drawings, saying freedom of the press does not include the right to insult religious sentiments.*

Voltaire is crying in heaven right now. If freedom doesn't include the freedom to insult religious sentiments, then it's quite meaningless.

In reality, though, it's these protests that are meaningless. The only people who care (other than orthodox Muslims) are Christian fundamentalist, who have a long list of their own sentiments they want "protected."

[And I hate the use of "Front" in political names. It seems many quasi-fascist movements describe themselves as a front: Heritage Front, the National Front (in France, Belgium, UK, etc). I know that not the only usage, but every time I hear "Front" that's what I think of.]


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

If religious movements didn't kill people in God's name, there would be less reason to criticize religions.

Freedom of speech means that people are allowed to say things you are uncomfortable with. It also means that you are allowed to say things that others are not comfortable with.

One thing that freedom of speech and freedom of religion have in common, is that those freedoms end abrubtly when they threaten harm.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> One thing that freedom of speech and freedom of religion have in common, is that those freedoms end abrubtly when they threaten harm.


Never quite thought of it that way. Thanks!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> One thing that freedom of speech and freedom of religion have in common, is that those freedoms end abrubtly when they threaten harm


aka* MY rights end at YOUR nose.* 

aka "sticks and stones...".......the kids have it in one......bigotry IS a learned response after all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

lpk - you might be familiar with this article from Discover Magazine. Lends an overview ......accurate and chilling.

*Are the Desert People Winning?*
07/19/2005

exerpt


> Textor's work highlights other differences between desert and rain forest societies. Purchasing or indenturing wives is far less prevalent among rain forest peoples. And in rain forest cultures, related women tend to form the core of a community for a lifetime, rather than being shipped off to serve the expediency of marriage making. In desert cultures, women typically have the difficult tasks of building shelters and wandering in search of water and firewood, while the men contemplate the majesty of their herds and envision their next raid. Among rain forest cultures, it's the men who are more likely to do the heavy lifting. Rain forest cultures also are less likely to harbor beliefs about the inferiority of women; you won't be likely to find rain forest men giving thanks in prayer that they were not created female, as is the case in at least one notable desert-derived religion. Finally, desert cultures tend to teach their children to be modest about nudity at an earlier age than in rain forest cultures and have more severe strictures against premarital sex.
> 
> Which kind of culture would you prefer to get traded to? When it comes to the theistic part, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. As for the other correlates, desert cultures, with their militarism, stratification, mistreatment of women, uptightness about child rearing and sexuality, seem unappealing. And yet ours happens to be a planet dominated by the cultural descendants of the desert dwellers. At various points, the desert dwellers have poured out of the Middle East, defining large parts of Eurasia. Such cultures, in turn, have passed the last 500 years subjugating the native populations of the Americas, Africa, and Australia. As a result, ours is a Judeo-Christian/Muslim world, not a Mbuti-Carib/Trobriand one.
> 
> So now we have Christians and Jews and Muslims in the wheat fields of Kansas, and in the cantons of the Alps, and in the rain forests of Malaysia. The desert mind-set, and the cultural baggage it carries, has proven extraordinarily resilient in its export and diffusion throughout the planet. Granted, few of those folks still live like nomadic pastoralists, guiding their flocks of sheep with staffs. But centuries, even millennia after the emergence of these cultures, they bear the marks of their desert pasts. Our vanquished enemies in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and our well-entrenched Saudi friends created societies of breathtaking repressiveness. In Jerusalem in recent years, Jewish Orthodox zealots have battled police, trying to close down roads on Saturday, trying to impose their restrictive version of belief. And for an American educator with, say, a quaint fondness for evolution, the power of the Christian right in many parts of this country to dictate what facts and truths may be uttered in a classroom is appalling. Only one way to think, to do, to be. Crusades and jihads, fatwas and inquisitions, hellfire and damnation.


Complete article here
http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=797

A variation on Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel thesis... cultures and religions ARE products of the environment humans develop in...

.......time to run to the rain forest.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've heard the "desert people" theory before. I don't ascribe to it. It's not a matter of "this type" of religion or "that type." The issue is freedom vs religion.

(Nietzche had a similar theory: that some cultures/religions glorified "slave morality" and others "master morality." I don't agree with him, either.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ahh you're hopeless.
What do you think "repression" is? It's restrictions of freedom, restriction of choice.

There is no inherent conflict between freedom and religion when the tenents of the particular religious belief incorporate choice.
How do you think cultures and religions arise. In a vacuum??
They are molded and underlain by the physical circumstances of existence in an environment, some of which are harsh - others generous - in providing the means for continued existence.
A combination of our primate social needs and survival requirements lead to culture, just as it does with our primate cousins.
You think religions are entirely artifical constructs outside the influences of the environment in which they arise???
Memes are influenced by environment in which they arise and spread or die just as physical adaption.

Nietzche hardly had the field experience or the anthrologicial underpinnings. He was looking for a "natural order" justification for superior races. He wasn't considering the physical environment influences that both Diamond and the Desert author above take into account as influencing the nature of the religion or culture.

Nietzche, Rhodes-era Brits and Winnie have more in common - all claiming "natural" justification for bigotry and racism. They have a motive in mind for their meme.

You may quite rightly dispute the anthrological conclusions but don't make naive comparisons with unrelated disciplines in discussing why the conclusions may be faulty.

We're not covering existentialist freedom of the self in this discussion but sociological and political freedoms versus attempted or demanded repression.

There IS an inherent clash in some proselytising heirarchal religions with the inclusive nature of secular governments. That is the cartoon conflict and the same thing the Romans stumbled over declaring Christianity the "state" religion and losing the tolerance that had built the empire in the first place.
Another round of human foolishness "clear and present"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Ahh you're hopeless.


You forgot the 



MacDoc said:


> There is no inherent conflict between freedom and religion when the tenents of the particular religious belief incorporate choice.


Really? The Amish don't think too highly of personal choice, but because they are insular they don't affect those around them. On the other hand, liberal democracy arose in the Christian world, which is peculiar given how little Christianity thinks of choice.

In reality, modern religions are a cultural hand-me-down of tribal obedience. "Choice" has little to do with any religion. It is entirely an artifact of liberal societies.



MacDoc said:


> You think religions are entirely artifical constructs outside the influences of the environment in which they arise???


You are overstating this. While the environment plays an influence on culture, we don't yet know how much or to what extent. Theories of social evolution are too new and too imprecise to be useful. What environmental factors led to the rise of philosophy in ancient Greece? What environment factors led to human sacrifice among the Aztecs? No one knows these things. This "discipline" is still mostly speculation.



MacDoc said:


> Nietzche hardly had the field experience or the anthrologicial underpinnings. He was looking for a "natural order" justification for superior races. [...] Nietzche, Rhodes-era Brits and Winnie have more in common - all claiming "natural" justification for bigotry and racism. They have a motive in mind for their meme.


Nietzche was *not* a racist, so that couldn't be his motive.



MacDoc said:


> You may quite rightly dispute the anthrological conclusions but don't make naive comparisons with unrelated disciplines in discussing why the conclusions may be faulty.


Actually, it is the anthropolgists who are invading the territory of philosophers. Ethical theory is an aspect of philosophy. There have been many attempts to usurp ethical theory by overzealous Darwinists, and they have failed every time.



MacDoc said:


> That is the cartoon conflict and the same thing the Romans stumbled over declaring Christianity the "state" religion and losing the tolerance that had built the empire in the first place.


Was feeding Christians to the lions a form of "tolerance?" :lmao:

The "desert people" theory has doesn't give sufficient explanation for a great deal of occurances. Take ritual human sacrifice: some rain forest cultures do it, some do not. Some desert cultures did it, some did not.

The "desert people" theory also over-exaggerates the differences in traditional cultures. Fear of change, ancestor-worship, animism, superstition are charateristics of all traditional societies, no matter what continent or climate they live in. The rain-forest dwelling Mayans and the desert-dwelling Egyptians both built pyramids, kept slaves, worshipped their kings as gods, and so on.

This theory is based on the small observation that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all emerged from a "desert climate." However, that region also gave rise to an enormous number of other religious traditions too, which do not share "desert people" beliefs. The ancient Assyians and Sumerians practiced "holy prostitution." And the Bible describes the "idol-worshiper" religions as performing human sacrifices - just like many "rain forest" religions!

I'm sorry, but this theory falls woefully short of science. There could be much to the idea of "environment influencing culture," but the desert/jungle distinction has too many holes to be taken seriously.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

That author has a sort of feminist slant, and from what I know about forest cultures in the americas an unfounded 'forest culture' slant too. The article is as good as an editorial, lacking examples or comparisons (or any names of cultures)... she/he just makes broad brush strokes about desert people and men as a matter of fact, and that's it. I wonder if he/she considers any eastern societies desert or forest cultures?

Many ancient forest cultures have wiped themselves out by overexploiting the environment and have wared, opressed and massacred eachother. Maybe that author would blame men though for doing the easy jobs


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good points and perspective SD. Glad to have your view on things again.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Sun Dog said:


> That author has a sort of feminist slant, and from what I know about forest cultures in the americas an unfounded 'forest culture' slant too. The article is as good as an editorial, lacking examples or comparisons (or any names of cultures)... she/he just makes broad brush strokes about desert people and men as a matter of fact, and that's it. I wonder if he/she considers any eastern societies desert or forest cultures?
> 
> Many ancient forest cultures have wiped themselves out by overexploiting the environment and have wared, opressed and massacred eachother. Maybe that author would blame men though for doing the easy jobs


Ya know, after criticizing the author about "lacking examples or comparisons," you then go on to make the exact same error: "many ancient forest cultures" having "overexploited," "massacred," and so on. Do *you* have any worthwhile examples of such events?

It's a "people in glass houses..." sort of thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> There is no inherent conflict between freedom and religion *when the tenents of the particular religious belief incorporate choice.*
> 
> 
> ...


What don't you understand about tenents - 

I said there is no *INHERENT* conflict. What the founders or believers or dogma creators CHOOSE to do can clearly be restrictive.

Of course it's tribal........most of human interaction is tribal oriented.....we're primates.....been to a Leaf game lately. 
It's a key to religions success.....alphas stand in the pulpit and thunder.....and if they are certain Mormon sects amongst others.......get ALL the girls. 
Note the Quaker's attempt to eliminate that hierarchy and alpha ranking.
Note many corporations attempt to emulate.....sing the company song each day.












> Japanese revive company songs
> 
> By Jonathan Head
> BBC correspondent in Tokyo
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3725775.stm

godhead memes aren't the only ones around after all.  Pomp circumstance and ritual all serve similar "bonding" purposes.....Hoo-yah and cute white gloves in the Marines, secret handshakes, Grand Master robes and rituals, iron rings.....the list goes on and one.....all saying.....MY TRIBE.

Anarchists seem to have the most difficulty with the concept.....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ...the same thing the Romans stumbled over declaring Christianity the "state" religion and losing the tolerance that had built the empire in the first place.


You must be referring to some other Romans I was not previously familiar with. Aside from the absurdity of the tolerance comment, the Empire was seething with corruption and decay hundreds of years before Constantine. 

As for state religion, ever hear of Jupiter, Neptune, Juno?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thought the Dutch have a good approach here



> *Dutch jail 'terror group' Muslims*
> 
> Mohammed Bouyeri is already serving the maximum prison term
> A court has convicted nine Muslims of belonging to a terrorist group and planning to attack Dutch politicians.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4793546.stm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ahem back on topic.



> Landmark Net hate ruling
> White supremacists were spreading hate via Internet, rights tribunal finds
> Mar. 10, 2006. 04:38 PM
> COLIN PERKEL
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...549&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Yikes - I'm applauding and decrying it at the same time 
Glad to see some consequences, concerned over free speech.

Coming right on the heels of the Dutch ruling - how does this put the cartoons in context???

...and it's the webhosting aspect that is of concern. Ugh- tangled web indeed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yikes - I'm applauding and decrying it at the same time
> Glad to see some consequences, concerned over free speech.
> 
> Coming right on the heels of the Dutch ruling - how does this put the cartoons in context???
> ...


It's time people learned that the laws apply to their internet postings as well as pamphlets, public speeches etc... Libel laws in particular should be considered.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: 



> March 11, 2006
> The Saturday Profile
> *For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats*
> 
> ...


......somebody gets it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/i...&en=4fdceb6c0558787e&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.


any religion that defends and/or promotes violence has no place in today's world - period
perhaps she can be an example for extremist Muslims and all other people that commit violence in the name of God

secular education is a very good place to start turning the tide
I like France's recent decision to not allow any external signs of religion being worn by a person

i bet some will call it "social engineering," but the alternative is scarier


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

another post.....finally sigh. pullllease.

••••

That woman's brave stance deserves undivided discussion and calling the violent protests *barbarism* is a resounding insight.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> another post.....finally sigh. pullllease.
> 
> ••••
> 
> That woman's brave stance deserves undivided discussion and calling the violent protests *barbarism* is a resounding insight.


BTW, I agree with this. Her bravery and insights are profound and fascinating. I watched the original al jezeera video and it's amazing. 
:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's good that she's challenging people. When 'outsiders' say stuff like that they get labelled for not understanding, presuming Western superiority etc. This could be a blip or, hopefully, the start of some real long-term introspection.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "Some of us will not stand idly and meekly by while a principle fundamental to any free society is violently and senselessly threatened,” event co-organizer Daniel Dale told the cheering crowd of between 100 and 150 people on Saturday.
> 
> “We will not stand idly and meekly by while a democracy and ally is violently and senselessly attacked.”
> 
> ...


as good a summation as I've seen. :clap:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060311.wprophet03111/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

video of Dr. Wafa Sultan defending her views....

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

she's very bright and forceful

"I am a secular human being"

should be the clarion call for the 21st century to drag humankind, kicking and screaming perhaps, out of it's infancy into adolesence


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think adolesence would be uniting with our differences and setting aside nations...we may never mature while so many swing to varying extremes of intolerance. Adulthood would, of course, be realizing we aren't alone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I think adolesence would be uniting with our differences and setting aside nations


I'd say we WERE in adolescence when the neighborhood gang is the rule rather than the exception.

I'm not certain setting aside "states" is any form of panacea but having some EFFECTIVE world organizations would be a big step to "maturity".
Setting aside unreasonable nationalism - jingoism - certainly is laudable but I like the "social experiments' that groups as diverse as the Amish and say the Danish represent in how to live peaceably and sustainably.

I feel we are well served by diversity to maintain a 'human toolbox" of approachs to human problems.
ie the Dutch experience in dealing with the North Sea impacts their culture and technology and leads to things like better levees for New Orleans and raw herring feasts.  I percieve (and other historians have ) that relatively unified cultures are more peaceable and effective in the long term. Canada is an exception so far but has dealt with by promoting mini-pockets - cultural havens - and actively supporting that concept. 
Cultural nation states with some varying laws and customs under an umbrella law like our Charter, WTO rules etc that allows for diversity but sets some common practices and more important protections in place would be my goal for the planet. Not a one world uniform civilization without nations.

But of course my ideal world would contain -200- 300 million humans at max too. 

I like her term "barbarism" as it takes away the religious aspect and nails a concept that can be applied across the board to destructive human social interactions.

In some strange way I was glad to see this issue surface as it did - it IS a deep distinction between inclusive, open secular societies and theistic ( Iran ) or ideological ( North Korea ), repressive "not us" oriented societies.

Very glad to see the erstwhile Vikings wielding the pen this time.......they WERE the barbarians in the past. Of all the nations/cultures to engender such a storm I'd never have thought Denmark would be it.

I'll be looking for THEIR cheese and products to offset boycotts eleswhere. Only fitting in my mind.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

From my perspective, once there are some basic Charter-type rules and a common social safety net, nations aren't needed. Local/regional cultures will develop and interact with others as needed and handle most of their own governance (under the umbrella laws). 

More of a city-states and rural-region setup; plenty of cultural uniqueness and pride, no national BS and no rules to protect 'us' from 'them'. For now, with some of the truly messed up nations out there, our identity will be closely tied in with our nation, and we have much to be proud about.  

Of course, that's the stuff of sci-fi. For a first step, the world could try out 'no genocide' for a few decades and see how we like it. Baby steps.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think Europe is on the right track but I fear what population and have/have not pressures will bring.......let alone something like a pandemic.

India is interesting for me in that the provinces have a very wide range of political styles of governing including some outright communism on one end of the spectrum yet there is a functioning central government.

No easy task with the mulitude of languages, religions, caste systems and a huge range of economic disparaties from feudal serfdom to hi-tech first world enclaves.
that there are so FEW flareups is remarkable.


----------

