Many said they simply could not understand the motive unless it was hatred for Islam.
But the overwhelming mood was not so much anger but weary resignation; a sense that they have been through this crisis once before and nothing has been learnt.
Some Danish Muslims said they felt the problem was not the Danish people who were, if not well informed about Islam, at least generally liberal.
Instead, they pointed the finger of blame at the Danish media, saying it had stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations.
Why, they sound like civic-minded reasonable people who just want to get along and would appreciate not being slagged off all the time. Go figure.
Still, I think some applause for Jyllands-Posten, true heroes of the Enlightenment and brave warriors for selective speech, is in order.
15 comments:
The cartoons were not racist, they did not promote hatred - rather they broke a religious law.
Tolerance requires that you do not have the right to impose your religious laws on people who are not members of your religion.
So rather than "pity" papers who stood up for the right to freedom of speech, a western invention sure, but one worth preserving, we should celebrate that the threat to that freedom is gone. We should all celebrate that European Muslims are finally coming to understand that freedom of speech is a right in the west that they can not deny.
In the west you have individual rights, not "community" rights - that's just another way of trying to claim authority that democracy won't allow. There was no reason to "mend community relations" there was a reason for Muslims to grow up and learn about civil rights, like freedom of speech.
The cartoons were not racist, they did not promote hatred - rather they broke a religious law
the cartoons were not merely representations of the Prophet, they were insulting caricatures intended to insult. bomb in turban, etc - analogous to piss christ.
when the danes strike all restrictions against speech from their laws, then they will be champions of free speech indeed. but they have not; free rght to insult applies only to islam, other religions' sacred icons are protected.
incidentally NS as you know I permit you to come here and insult me as you please, but i will delete any comment of yours that insults the Prophet, as you did on the other thread. I welcome your critiques but not your insults. Make your point in less provocative terms, please.
Tolerance requires that you do not have the right to impose your religious laws on people who are not members of your religion.
yes, I quite agree, but that isnt "tolerance", its simply freedom.
i will delete any comment of yours that insults the Prophet
Of course, I expect that. Insults to the prophet can not be tolerated in Islam, precisely for the reason that you deleted.
But where religion can not be insulted there can be no intellect, there can be no science, there can be no progress.
You can not have an education that teaches young people to think critically if you can not insult religion.
The right to put religion in it's place is a fundamental right because it has always been sorely needed.
Religion is obsolete thought, obsolete philosophy, obsolete science.
We need to hold on to it because we are all children at times, and we all face death alone. But sometimes we are adults as well.
One more point. Religion is a system that intends to control people for the gain of it's leaders. It has been deliberately designed to deprive men of their reason so that they can turn them into tools of powerful con men.
Religion is important an example of brainwashing. And it is a great education for people learn to see that side of religion as well.
If one can learn to avoid being manipulated by the religious leaders of the past, then one can learn to maintain one's freedom in the present.
Quote: "the cartoons were not merely representations of the Prophet, they were insulting caricatures intended to insult. bomb in turban, etc - analogous to piss christ."
True though I would suggest that as the Piss Christ (I vaguely remember that as a piece of art right?) wasn't (I assume) a call to violence, and is also not expressly forbidden by Christianity, it's not something that should be illegal.
I'm in most respects completely in favour of, nigh-unfettered free speech, but I consider a picture of M, as explicitly proscribed by Islam, as wrong as gratuitously printing a picture of someone random's dead mother engaged in a sex act with a donkey. Yes, I guess maybe it shouldn't be completely prohibited. I'm not in favour of the law prohibiting me as a non-Muslim drawing a picture, or printing off a copy of the aforementioned donkey-pic, but I'd have to be a complete shit to be out there spreading either around, just to cause offense.
And if the point isn't to cause offense, then make the point some other way. Why be a dick about it, once you know people don't like it?
If your mother was in that hypothetical donkey-picture, would you want me to print it, to prove that the donkey wasn't sent to France as it should have been? Or would you rather I did it some other way?
Quote "when the danes strike all restrictions against speech from their laws, then they will be champions of free speech indeed. but they have not; free rght to insult applies only to islam, other religions' sacred icons are protected"
I can't speak for the danes, but this doesn't ring true. While I'm aware of restrictions on hate speech, incitement to violence, slander, and holocaust denial (though we don't have that here in the UK) I have never heard of any protection allowed to the icons of other religions that are not allowed to the icons of Islam. Correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't know anything specific about ol' Dane-land.
Quote NIGHTSTUDIES: "But where religion can not be insulted there can be no intellect, there can be no science, there can be no progress. "
Hyperbole alert! This would only be true with a religion that considered all questions or discussion relating to itself an insult.
Not drawing pictures of M and not calling Islam a c*nt isn't going to stop any progress. It might make you a nicer person though.
Quote NIGHTSTUDIES: "In the west you have individual rights, not "community" rights - that's just another way of trying to claim authority that democracy won't allow. There was no reason to "mend community relations" there was a reason for Muslims to grow up and learn about civil rights, like freedom of speech."
Schmuck alert! Democracy allows whatever authority it chooses to vote in. For example in the UK slander laws are stupidly restrictive to a silly degree, however Democracy organised this and is quite happy with it. Just as it would be if a democratic country democratically stuck in some "community rights".
In fact, just like when the UK, a non-haver of Universal Human Rights, accorded to the European Treaty of Human Rights (or whatever), and changed.
Quote NIGHTSTUDIES: "Religion is obsolete thought, obsolete philosophy, obsolete science"
If you believe this, then you clearly are not well versed in philosophy (maybe to the extent Richard Dawkins is?) and neither do you understand the philosophy of science (and thus science itself) as you clearly don't have a clue about the applicability of science to that area of human thought, nor the agnostic conclusions correct science achieves.
Quote NIGHTSTUDIES: "One more point. Religion is a system that intends to control people for the gain of it's leaders. It has been deliberately designed to deprive men of their reason so that they can turn them into tools of powerful con men.
Religion is important an example of brainwashing. And it is a great education for people learn to see that side of religion as well.
If one can learn to avoid being manipulated by the religious leaders of the past, then one can learn to maintain one's freedom in the present."
Really?
Systems can't intend things.
It hasn't been deliberately designed for anything like what you say.
Do you know any of the history of science, or philosophy?
Because if you do, you've clearly forgotten that once the Muslim nations out scienced everyone around them, and that modern Western science grew entirely from the religious branch of thought that considered the World to be a logical creation of God that followed rules that could be discovered and understood.
If you knew what brainwashing actually entails, you wouldn't bastardise its use like that, (search about the methods Scientology is alleged to use, and the methods of other proper cults)
It must be an amazing education for you to learn what the word really means.
I could just as easily used "creation science" as the example.
In every field where mankind has progressed and found reasonable answers, or scientific truth, we did it by first side-stepping religion, and then when we gained a little freedom, bulldozing it out of the way.
Religion is about as much help in understanding the world or making useful plans as Alzheimer's is.
And some religion is even poisonous to families, human relationships, freedom, economics, peace and international relations.
Go rationality!
So what you're really admitting is that you don't know anything about the history of science. But you have heard of a religious guy who knows even less about science than you do.
Well done.
The fact that some religious people know nothing about science, and clothe their ignorance in religious claims, means nothing, to wider religion as a whole.
If you really can rebut my claims in the previous post, please do, I'm all about learning new things. If not, then please continue ignoring my post, and instead posting random things about 'bad' religious people. I can do it too:
Stalin "As an atheist I'm totally evil and thick and this quote very much proves that religion and science coexist very easily. Ra"
As with Monty Python's argument sketch, you're not doing it right. As Michael Palin's character said, "an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." That's not what you're doing Oper, that's obviously not what you're attempting and so I can tell you're just wasting my time.
If you don't have an answer to anything I wrote, just stop replying, it'd be less embarrassing for everyone than watching you trying to be condescending.
And you're right that I haven't made an 'argument'. That's because I'm not trying to 'establish a proposition'. All I've done so far is comment on your hyperbole, point out a few things about the history of science that are relevent and contradictory to your claims about religion 'killing all thought and progress' or whatever, challenge your misuse (and possible misunderstanding) of the word 'brainwashing' and challenge some of your unsupported statements about religion.
If you had some sort of valid reasoning for your opinions you could have posted it, or challenged any of my claims that you thought to be wrong. Instead you choose to quote some random people and make snide remarks.
Oper, half of your arguments rest on being (or pretending to be) too stupid to understand what I actually meant.
Hint, that's not an effective rhetorical technique, and a sure sign of someone who couldn't possibly argue in good faith - as I said, a waste of time.
Yes, that makes sense, if I misunderstand your points that you elucidated in ten or twenty lines of uninflected text, I'm either stupid, or dishonest.
That's the most likely explanation.
In fact I'm highly skeptical. Do you really think I have misconstrued you? If you do, I'm sorry, it wasn't deliberate, please point out where I'm wrong, and I'll address your real arguments. (I am entirely serious)
It however seems far more likely that you are in fact being disingenuous. Are you denying your use of hyperbole? Did you not suggest that 'community rights' are incompatible with democracy? Did you not make wild assertions about the 'intentions' of religion, and religious leaders?
Once again, I'll point out that I've made no arguments, just made some observations. Ones that seem to stick in your craw, even though you seem unable to even address any of them, preferring to sit around criticising my 'rhetorical style' and suggesting 'bad faith arguing' on my part.
I'd suggest that the one exhibiting the characteristics of bad faith arguing would be the one prevaricating around, not addressing a single sentence actually written by the other poster. Yes, that's you. Not me, who at least gave a post quoting you, and directly addressing what you said.
Like I said man, this is all in plain text for everyone to read, if you can't address any of my comments effectively (as it seems is true) you'll come off better if you drop the posturing and just stop posting. There's only so long you can accuse the other party of 'bad faith' and 'weak rhetoric' before it becomes embarrasingly apparent that you are unwilling to address perfectly reasonable comments, and just prefer to sneer.
I think thats enough. Kindly stop. Both of you.
"when the danes strike all restrictions against speech from their laws, then they will be champions of free speech indeed. but they have not; free rght to insult applies only to islam, other religions' sacred icons are protected."
Greetings from Denmark. I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here. What restrictions are you referring to ?
"their provcation of reprinting the offensive Muhammad SAW cartoons was not exactly the rabid violent mob they seemed to be hoping for:"
Only one cartoon this time, the infamous bomb-in-turban one. A harsh satirical comment to violence in the name of religion. "hatred for Islam" ? not in my language (and the original article was written in Danish, not Arabic)
From where I am, the reprinting of "that" cartoon, is simply news. Police foiled a plot to kill one of the 12 cartoonists, and posted the name and picture of the cartoonist and the cartoon he'd originally drawn.
Post a Comment