|
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
An unexpected reaction: |
Not really. Several clergymen in Denmark have spoken out in support of muslims sensibilities over freedom of press. Hell, they even organized to do their Christmas eve sermons on this very topic.
When reading blogs and comments from the Middle East, it is quite clear to me that a lot of these people cannot grasp the concept of atheism, and that's really unfortunate as they are not battling Christians but secularists.
Similarly, seeing the US siding with extremists over democratic principles was not really surprising. Highly hypocritical, considering the targeted surveillance of muslims and events at Guantanamo Bay, but not surprising.
Unfortunately, the view that this is a war between Christianity and Islam (orchestrated by the Jews) is a common misconception today:
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Also just like a naked pic of Jesus masturbating will be offending to you |
I don't know who the "you" are referring to, but as Dane and thread starter, let me simply say "no".
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Its a war now, up untill now it was only between US and Muslims, now its between Muslims and whole world. |
I agree that this might turn into a war, but as I've tried to outline above, it won't be between Muslims and the rest of the world. It will be between atheists and religious fundamentalists.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, the cross of the Danish flag. Christianity has nothing to do with it. |
Actually, the cross in the Danish flag is the Christian one. However, I doubt that the people who made the effigy would have had the mental capacity for looking it up.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And many educated and informed Mulims would argue is "unislamic." And you're right, it certainly isn't helping anyone, especially them and all the other muslims who would be generalized into the same category because someone saw this picture that only reinforced their perception. What you won't see in the media is Muslims publicy demonstrating and condeming this sort of behaviour or discussing the inappropriateness of such behaviour in a more private setting. My point simply is that, although these lunatics do exist, that pretty much the only image you see on TV or in the News, which certainly doesn't reflect the views of all Muslims (not that I'm saying you're making this claim). |
I can only speak for Danish news-coverage, but moderate muslims get quite a lot of air time.
However, that being said, right now the sale Danish products in countries such as Saudi-arabia is nill. Absolutely nothing. That more than suggests to me that it it not a minority of these people that are stupid sheeps. It's the majority. By far.
That you and muslims I meet in the west are far more enlightened doesn't change the fact that Middle Eastern muslims have proved themselves to be stupid and racists. If I were in your position I would distance myself from these people in spite of your shared religous base, and because of all the differences. Just as I try to distance myself from all the extreme right nutbags that have jumped to the defense of free speech for the wrong reasons.
Finally, the Guardian-piece:
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
Others might shrug.They're only a cartoons. What's the fuss? Cartoons, however, can be a powerful means of catalysing and disseminating ideas, be they pertinently satirical or hideously warped. Cartoons were, for example, used extensively by the Nazis in their anti-semitic propaganda campaigns, depicting Jews as hook-nosed, usurious grotesques molesting pure German women. It would be excessive to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between those Nazi cartoons and the those that appeared in the Danish newspaper. The fact remains, however, that as an editorial act, rather than one of censorship, these items should never have been published. They are deeply crass.
|
The analogy between Nazi cartoons and the cartoons of Jyllands-posten, is not only "excessive" - it's flat out ridiculous. As far as I can see, there's one out of the twelve cartoons (the turban bomb one), which can be described as racists - the rest are far from "crass". Even the one that might be "crass", is still based on actual facts: Terrorists *do* use Islam as a weapon for recruitment, and they do tend to use bombs.
Furthermore, and what is of uttermost importance, Jews back in Nazi Germany, weren't hurting anyone. Radical Islamics, on the other hand, have issued death threats and killed those who do not live according to their teachings. Let's not forget why these cartoons were brought in the first place: It was provoked by the fact that nobody dared illustrate a childrens book, because of threats from radicals.
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
It suggests that Islam, as represented by the figure of Muhammad (blasphemy, of course, to represent him at all but that's by the by), is the font of all terrorism - the sort of syllogistic nonsense that leads some to conclude that, because some muggers are black men, all black men are muggers. There would be no general inclination to defend any cartoon which suggested that black men were thus predisposed - it would properly be condemned as racism. |
I've seen plenty of cartoons and movies where criminals are black. Actually, most movies I see portray terrorists as Arabs too.
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
Here, however, is the awkward point, one on which the government's ill-fated bill teetered. To have a go at someone on the grounds of their race is to have a go at them as people - to do so on the grounds of their religion is merely an attack upon their ideas, rather than their person. |
The problem with this passage is that it misrepresents the setting. Noone is having a go at someone because of his or her religion. The go is at the religion in itself. If it was the first case, it would be classified as racism, and there would be laws to protect the individual.
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
Technically, this is a valid distinction. However, in this instance, it has allowed our Danish cartoonists to get away with the crudest and most incendiary of generalisations. |
I wonder how this editor would describe the cartoons of Jews that are so widespread on web pages of Islamic extremists?
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
In 1997, when I was director of the Runnymede Trust, I helped launch the Commission on Islamophobia, a newly coined phrase to describe a phenomenon that had grown in tandem with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. We found that "Islamophobia" wasn't just confined to BNP thugs hurling pigs' heads through the windows of Pakistani households, or the vile poison spouted by BNP chairman Nick Griffin. It manifested itself in middle class circles too, around dining tables, on Radio 4, much of it in (understandably) indignant response to the Salman Rushdie fatwa. Under the pretext of taking a rearguard action against religious dogma, it became permissible to unveil a cultural contempt for peoples who tended to be brown-skinned and poorly off. I sense a similar undercurrent today, in the cathartic excitement with which some have rallied to the Free Speech banner, a sense of fear and loathing of the troublesome, brown hordes we see jumping up and down brandishing guns on our TV screens. |
This is absolutely beautiful: The editor is up in defense because of "the crudest and most incendiary of generalisations", and then proceeds and accuses everyone in favour of freedom of speech on this issue as racists. The irony is so obvious, I cannot even begin to comprehend that no one at the Guardian spotted it before sending it to press.
| quote: | Originally posted by The Guardian UK
There's more to it than that, however. Muslim grievances are not merely spiritual but, more pressingly, material. The rage expressed by demonstrators in Gaza against Scandinavian aid workers was, at a deeper level, the rage of the disenfranchised, the displaced. In the UK and across Europe, Muslims are socially and economically disadvantaged, among those at the bottom of the pile. Cultural gestures such as the Danish cartoons may please well-to-do secular liberals in helping push back the envelope of free speech and cock a snook at religious dogma. To Muslims, however, they merely add to a sense of disaffection, of themselves as a pariah people. Another insult to add to their social injury. |
So, because some muslims are poor and frustrated, we should all allow ourselves to be threatened into living by their religious beliefs? Are you fvcking kidding me? What kind of an argument is this?
|
